[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1518, H.R. 1776, AND H.R. 2114
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 17, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-923 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 17, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 2114.......................... 33
Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delagate to Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Duncan, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee......................................... 34
Green, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas................................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 1776.......................... 8
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Simmons, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 1518.......................... 4
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 2114.......................... 15
Statement of Witnesses:
Cook, Adena, Public Lands Director, BlueRibbon Coalition,
Idaho Falls, Idaho......................................... 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 2114.......................... 40
Fox, Stephen, Architect, Houston, Texas...................... 85
Prepared statement on H.R. 1776.......................... 86
Fulton, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC..... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 2114.......................... 21
Hauber, Hon. Dolores, Mayor, Town of Groton, Groton,
Connecticut................................................ 66
Prepared statement on H.R. 1518.......................... 67
Noel, Michael Earl, Chairman, Kane County Resource
Development Committee, Kane County, Utah................... 48
Prepared statement on H.R. 2114.......................... 50
Olson, Anne, President, Buffalo Bayou Partnership, Houston,
Texas...................................................... 70
Prepared statement on H.R. 1776.......................... 71
Robbins, John, Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 1518.......................... 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 1776.......................... 25
Roosevelt, Theodore IV, New York, New York................... 56
Prepared statement on H.R. 2114.......................... 58
Streeter, James L., Co-Chairman, Avery Point Lighthouse
Society, Groton, Connecticut............................... 67
Prepared statement on H.R. 1518.......................... 69
H.R. 1518, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO INCLUDE ON THE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES THE AVERY POINT LIGHTHOUSE IN
GROTON, CONNECTICUT, AND PROVIDE $200,000 FOR THE RESTORATION OF THAT
LIGHTHOUSE; H.R. 1776, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
STUDY THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THE BUFFALO BAYOU
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN WEST HOUSTON, TEXAS; AND H.R. 2114, TO AMEND
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF
CERTAIN NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
THE PROCLAMATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.
----------
Tuesday, July 17, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Committee will come to order. This morning the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
will hear testimony on three bills, H.R. 1518, H.R. 1776 and
H.R. 2114.
The first bill, H.R. 1518, was introduced by Congressman
Rob Simmons of Connecticut. This legislation would require the
Secretary of the Interior to include on the National Register
of Historic Places the Avery Point Lighthouse in Groton,
Connecticut, and provide $200,000 for the restoration of the
lighthouse.
H.R. 1776 was introduced by Congressman Gene Green of
Texas. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the
Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in west Houston, Texas.
The last bill, H.R. 2114, would amend the Antiquities Act
of 1906 by ensuring that the act is used only for those
purposes originally attended. For example, H.R. 2114 would
strengthen the act by ensuring that State and local officials
are consulted and provided a role in the designation process.
In addition, H.R. 2114 would require congressional approval
within 2 years of any new National Monument that is more than
50,000 acres, the equivalent of 78 square miles, or enlarges an
existing National Monument by more than 50,000 acres.
At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Simmons and Congressman Green be permitted to sit
on the dais following their statements. Without objection, so
ordered. Just a reminder to our witnesses, due to the very busy
Committee schedule this afternoon, I would like to remind the
witnesses to keep their testimony to 5 minutes if possible, and
we will put you on the clock and you will see the little lights
going on and off.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today to testify on these bills, and now I would turn to Mrs.
Christensen for any comments she might make.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to
welcome our colleagues back again to our Subcommittee, and as
you said this morning, we are going to receive testimony on
three bills.
The first, which is H.R. 1518, would require the Secretary
of the Interior to include the Avery Point Lighthouse in
Groton, Connecticut on the National Register of Historic
Places. In addition, the bill would earmark $200,000 from
amounts appropriated to carry out the National Historic
Preservation Act, to be provided to the University of
Connecticut Fund for Restoration of the Lighthouse.
Although the proposal I am sure has quite a bit of merit,
and I was looking over the article that was shared with us
before we got started, the approach is cause for concern.
Normally, historic properties undergo a rigorous process,
including local nomination and State approval, before being
added to the Register. Similarly, Federal historic preservation
funding is normally awarded to the States in the form of block
grants, with the allocation of those funds within a State left
up to the State historic preservation officer.
To completely remove all State and local input from both
the listing and funding processes as H.R. 1518 would propose to
do, it is troubling, particularly since it is our understanding
there has not yet to date been an attempt to have the Avery
Point Lighthouse listed on the National Register through the
normal process, but we look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today regarding any circumstances that might make
such an unprecedented step necessary in this case.
The next bill, H.R. 1776, would authorize the study of an
area in Houston, Texas known as the Buffalo Bayou to determine
whether the area deserves designation as a National Heritage
Area. We understand that the administration may have technical
suggestions for improvements of the bill and we look forward to
learning more about those suggestions and about this
interesting area.
Our final bill, H.R. 2114, by Mr. Simpson deals with a
subject that is very familiar to the Subcommittee. The bill as
introduced combines the legislation from controversial language
of the 105th Congress, H.R. 1127, with language in the 106th
Congress, H.R. 1487, that was amended and approved by the
Resources Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. Mr.
Chairman, I am concerned that combining the Antiquities Act
language from the 105th and the 106th Congress is a step
backwards that will make it harder rather than easier to
address the question of National Monument designations by a
President.
I strongly support the public participation and comment
provisions of the bill. These are the bipartisan provisions
developed by the Committee last Congress. However, combining
these provisions with the language from the 105th Congress
limiting the size and duration of monuments designated by the
President will only serve to reignite a controversy that many
of us thought was settled by the bipartisan language that was
developed in the last Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses on the Antiquities Act and the other matters before
the Subcommittee today and appreciate their taking time to
testify before this Subcommittee.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Simpson, comment?
Mr. Simpson. No.
Mr. Hefley. Our first panel is composed of the Honorable
Gene Green, 29th District of Texas, and the Honorable Rob
Simmons, the Second District of Connecticut. We will start with
Mr. Simmons.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB SIMMONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Simmons. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, good morning, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Simpson. I am going to be testifying this
morning on the Avery Point Lighthouse Act and the Avery Point
Lighthouse. So to honor the event I have worn my nice bright
red lighthouse tie, and I hope you all can see it up there, but
it is a beacon of brightness in this dark city this wonderful
Tuesday morning.
Let me speak briefly about the Avery Point Lighthouse
Restoration Act of 2001 and let me also introduce to the
Committee my mayor of Groton, Connecticut, Dee Hauber, who will
be paneled a little later in the morning, and Jim Streeter, who
has been involved in the local project to restore this
lighthouse.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is located on the grounds of the
University of Connecticut in Groton, Connecticut, in my
district on Long Island Sound, and for those of you who have
seen the postcard it is a very dramatic location. This
lighthouse is special for several reasons. First of all, it was
constructed as a memorial to all lighthouse keepers, to all
lighthouse keepers across this great Nation. It was constructed
as a memorial to them. It was also the last lighthouse that was
constructed in the State of Connecticut, being completed in
1943 during World War II as part of a project to establish a
Coast Guard facility on that site and to provide appropriate
lighting.
And we are accompanied here today by Commander Glenn
Zilmasia of the U.S. Coast Guard. If you could stand up, Glen.
If there are any issues relative to the Coast Guard's
involvement with this lighthouse, I am sure he will be happy to
answer your questions.
A couple of years ago the lighthouse was in serious
conditions, seriously deteriorated for a number of reasons, and
there was even a concern that it might be demolished, but the
Avery Point Lighthouse Society was established in February of
last year. One of the cofounders was Jim Streeter, who is here
with us today, and funds have been raised to begin the effort
to restore, maintain and relight the lighthouse. This citizens
initiative has already raised over $35,000, and I believe that
we have with us here today a citizens petition with over 10,000
signatures to indicate the very broad-based local public
support for this project.
Secondly, some of my former colleagues in the Connecticut
General Assembly who represent the district have introduced
legislation to the Connecticut General Assembly to secure
$150,000 in bonding dollars for this project, and so we have
substantial State level support. The University of Connecticut,
which holds the deed to the property, has entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the Avery Point Lighthouse
Society to cooperate and work with them on the restoration and
maintenance of this facility.
What we are asking for here today are two things: One, that
the lighthouse be placed on the National Register of Historic
Places and, to respond to the comments of the ranking member,
yes, we will work closely with organizations in Connecticut. We
are already in touch with them so that we can do this as a two-
track process. We are not trying to bypass anybody in this. We
have just been at it for a little over a year, and so we are
working on a two-track process for that. And secondly, to
secure just a few Federal dollars to assist us in this
initiative.
We feel that this lighthouse is special. It is special in
its construction. It is special in its dedication to lighthouse
keepers across the country, and it is special to us because it
is the last lighthouse built in this State. We also think it is
special and deserves some Federal support because we have local
citizen support. We have municipal support. We have support of
the State of Connecticut and University of Connecticut, and so
finally we want to complete the process with just a little bit
of Federal support.
And I thank the Chair and the members, and I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Simmons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Connecticut on H.R. 1518
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
I am pleased to be here this afternoon to testify in support of
H.R. 1518, the ``Avery Point Lighthouse Restoration Act of 2001,''
legislation that represents a vital step toward restoring one of the
nation's last remaining historical lighthouses. And I am grateful that
you have allowed my two of my constituents, Mayor Dee Hauber and Jim
Streeter to join me in participating in this congressional hearing.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is located on the University of
Connecticut's Avery Point Campus in my district of Groton, Connecticut.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is located on the University of
Connecticut's Avery Point Campus in Groton, Connecticut. In 1942, the
United States Coast Guard bought the Avery Point property for a
training facility. Subsequently, in 1943, the Avery Point Lighthouse
was built as a memorial to lighthouse keepers. It was the last
lighthouse built in the state of Connecticut and I am proud to say that
my father worked as an architect for the very firm that built the
lighthouse.
Sadly, the years have not been kind to the Avery Point Lighthouse.
Exposure to weather, coupled with lack of maintenance, has resulted in
significant damage and deterioration to this treasure. The light was
extinguished in 1967.
But as we have seen time and time again in this great nation,
citizens have banded together to save and restore the Avery Point
Lighthouse. The Avery Point Lighthouse Society was established in
February of 2000 to lead the effort to restore, relight and maintain
the lighthouse. Led by co-founder Jim Streeter, the Avery Point
Lighthouse Society has raised nearly $35,000 in private donations,
including the cost of an engineering study being done by the
engineering firm of Gibble, Norden and Champion of Old Saybrook,
Connecticut. We also anticipate receiving state funding for this
project.
However, this strong local effort is not enough. Although the
Lighthouse Society has made great strides toward providing the
necessary funds for restoration, additional monies are needed to see
the project through. That's why I introduced the Avery Point Lighthouse
Act, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use
$200,000 for the restoration of the lighthouse. My bill also would
direct the Secretary to place the Avery Point Lighthouse on the
National Register of Historic Places, making it eligible for
preservation funds and affording it certain protections under that
program.
I believe the Avery Point Lighthouse deserves special congressional
recognition for two reasons. First, it is the last lighthouse erected
in the State of Connecticut. This structure remains an important
historical part of our state and the nation and should not be lost.
Second, it is a strong symbolic representation of the U.S. Coast
Guard's lighthouse keeping duties. As you may know, the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy is located in the Groton-New London area, as is the U.S.
Coast Guard Museum. It is in the nation's best interest to preserve
this important symbol of one of the Coast Guard's essential tasks--
protecting our country's coastlines.
Mr. Chairman, this public/private partnership effort will ensure
that the Avery Point Lighthouse continues to serve as a memorial to
lighthouse keepers and an educational tool for many future generations.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. I am happy to answer
any questions that you have and look forward to working with you and
your Committee on this legislation as we move forward.
______
[An article attached to Mr. Simmons' statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.001
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Green.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and like my colleague,
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for holding the hearing
today on H.R. 1776, the Buffalo Bayou Heritage Area Study Act.
The State of Texas is not typical of most large western and
southwestern States in that we do not have large tracts of
public lands owned by the Federal Government. The vast majority
of our State is privately owned or State owned. This means that
we do not have the large tracts of either BLM, Forest Service
or National Park Service property for our residents to visit.
What we do have though in a number of urban areas is
pockets of green space that our residents can use for
recreation and relaxation. One of these green space pockets is
located in eastside Houston along Buffalo Bayou. It has been
one of the highest priorities since I arrived in Congress to
help develop east end Houston as a magnet for not only business
but also recreation.
This legislation is the first step on what I would hope to
lead to Buffalo Bayou's designation as a National Heritage Area
and I have invited witnesses from Houston who actually go into
the history of Buffalo Bayou. Having lived and worked along
Buffalo Bayou all my life, I can tell you but not near as well
as Anne Olson and Steve Fox, who will both give you much better
background on it.
Just a brief description of the significance of the
waterways use, the original founders of Houston, the Allen
brothers, came up Buffalo Bayou in the mid-1830's and stopped
at what today is called Allen's Landing in downtown Houston.
The City of Houston now is the energy capital of the world and
a major center for shipping in not only the Gulf of Mexico but
also it started with facilitating these docks on Buffalo Bayou
in downtown Houston. Now our ship channel is moved to the east,
not included in this request for this heritage area, but it is
the beginning of the Houston area.
And I am only scratching the surface of the historical and
cultural nature, and my witnesses again will go into more depth
and more detail on Buffalo Bayou and how it is a perfect
candidate for a National Heritage Area designation and why it
has such strong local support. The redevelopment project has
significant local support from both our mayor of Houston and
our county judge of our Harris County, our county executive. In
addition, the City of Houston recently approved $350,000
expenditures for the Buffalo Bayou Partnership to begin
formulating the master plan development for Buffalo Bayou.
These financial commitments not only by the City of Houston but
our County of Harris is what I believe is the important
critical element needed to gain National Heritage designation.
We have that local support.
In that light, I want to compliment the organization, the
Buffalo Bayou Partnership. This local group brings these vast
resources to Houston and Harris County for the purpose of
building something to benefit all our local residents. The
Buffalo Bayou Partnership is a group of dedicated, hardworking
people and Anne Olson is here to talk about that today. It is a
great conduit for the development of this National Heritage
Area.
Our local organization and broad public support for this
designation is exactly what the program was designed to
complement. Our local folks feel that the designation itself
will be a magnet for both public and private investment, and
while envisioned when this legislation was first proposed,
Buffalo Bayou would create a mechanism that would create new
development opportunities and highlight our historical nature
in Houston and cultural significance in our area.
Again, it is part of Buffalo Bayou that is historic, not
only from 1835 but even up through the Civil War, and again,
Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I could talk about it, but
I will leave that up to the experts, and I will be glad to try
and answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gene Green, A Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas on H.R 1776
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking you and the Ranking
Member for holding this important legislative hearing on H.R. 1776, the
Buffalo Bayou Heritage Area Study Act.
The State of Texas is not typical of many large western or
southwestern states in that we do not have large tracts of public lands
owned by the federal government. The vast majority of our state is
privately owned. This means that we do not have the vast tracts of BLM,
Forest Service, or National Park Service property for our residents to
visit. What we do have, especially in our major urban centers, are
pockets of public green space that our residents can use for recreation
and relaxation.
One of these green space pockets is located on the East side of
Houston, Texas along the Buffalo Bayou. It has been one of my highest
priorities since I arrived in Congress to help develop this open space
into a real recreation magnet for folks in East Houston. This
legislation is the first step in what I hope will lead to Buffalo
Bayou's designation as a National Heritage Area. I have invited several
witnesses from Houston who will testify in greater detail the cultural
and historical significance of the area being studied for the
designation, but I can tell you that this ten mile stretch of green
space and waterway has a lot of potential.
Just to give you a brief historical snapshot of the significance of
this waterway to Houston. The original founders of Houston, the Allen
Brothers, came up Buffalo Bayou and stopped at what is today Allen's
Landing in downtown landing. The City of Houston was established as a
major center of international shipping in the Gulf of Mexico, and to
facilitate commerce the city was oriented toward Buffalo Bayou's docks.
Again, I am only scratching the surface on the cultural and historical
significance of this waterway. My witnesses will provide you with a
much more in depth description of what makes Buffalo Bayou a perfect
candidate for a National Heritage Area designation and why it has such
strong local support.
This redevelopment project has significant local support from both
the Mayor of Houston and the County Judge. In addition, the Houston
City Council recently approved a $350,000 expenditure for the Buffalo
Bayou Partnership to begin formulating their master development plan
for Buffalo Bayou. This financial commitment highlights what I believe
is the most critical component needed to gain a National Heritage
Designation--solid local support. In that light, I want to compliment
the organization that is charged with spearheading this development
effort, the Buffalo Bayou Partnership. This local group has been able
to bring the vast resources of the Houston and Harris County
communities together for the purpose of building something for the
benefit of all the local residents.
The Buffalo Bayou Partnership consists of a small group of
dedicated, hardworking people who I believe will be the perfect conduit
to help develop our National Heritage Area proposal. Our local
organization and broad public support for this designation is exactly
what this program was designed to compliment. Our local folks feel that
the designation itself will be a magnet for both public and private
investment. What I envisioned when this legislation was first proposed
for Buffalo Bayou was to create a mechanism that would create new
development opportunities and highlight the historical and cultural
significance of this important area.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I again what to thank you and the
Ranking Member for including my legislation in today's hearing and I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
______
[A map of Buffalo Bayou and three letters submitted for the
record by Mr. Green follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.002
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Simpson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I have
an opening statement that I would like included in the record,
and then I am just going to briefly discuss what this bill is
about and why it is here, and then I want to thank all those
individuals that came to testify both for and against this
legislation, H.R. 2114, the National Antiquities Fairness Act.
I honestly believe that the biggest threat to the
Antiquities Act today is its abuse or misinterpretation as the
law is currently applied. In 1906, the antiquities law when it
was written was the environmental law of the time. It was
literally the environmental law of the time. It allowed for a
President to declare a National Monument unilaterally, by
himself, without congressional or public input, with only three
or four different requirements, one of them being that it be of
historic, scientific or geological significance, that the area
be under some imminent threat, not some potential threat in the
future but that it be under some actual imminent threat and
that the smallest amount of land possible be used to protect
that site.
In the original debate when this was brought to the floor
in 1906, Mr. Stephens of Texas was questioning Mr. Lacey of
Iowa, the sponsor of the legislation. Mr. Stephens said, ``Will
this take''--and I quote--``Will this take this land off the
market or can they still be settled on as part of the public
domain?''
Mr. Lacey: ``it will take those portions of the reservation
out of the market. It is meant to cover the cave dwellers and
cliff dwellers.''
Mr. Stephens of Texas: ``how much land will be taken off
the market in the western States by the passage of this bill?''
Mr. Lacey: ``not very much. The bill provides that it shall
be the smallest area necessary for the care and maintenance of
the objects to be preserved.''
Mr. Stephens of Texas: ``would it be anything like the
forest reserve bill by which 70 or 80 million acres of land of
the United States have been tied up?''
Mr. Lacey: ``certainly not. The object is entirely
different. It is to preserve these old objects of special
interests in the Southwest whilst the other reserves, the
forest and the water courses....''
Certainly when you look back at the debate, the intent of
the original Antiquities Act is not the way it is being used
today, and in fact today there is some 80 million acres that
are in National Monument status. Since that time we have passed
and Congress has passed many other environmental laws that were
not in place at the time, the Wilderness Act, the Wild and
Scenic Act, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act. You can go on
and on. There is lots of legislation that we have passed that
were not there in 1906.
This is the only one that I am aware of which gives an
individual the power to act without any public or congressional
input. I would suggest that if we were here proposing
legislation to take away the requirement that there be public
input in the National Environmental Policy Act or anything like
that, that those people opposed to this legislation would be
rightfully outraged that we wanted to take away the public's
right to comment or to have input into the designation and use
of public lands.
What this bill does is very simple. It says that a
President can declare a National Monument up to 50,000 acres,
he has to notify the congressional delegation and the governor
60 days before that declaration is made so that they can have
public input, they can hold hearings, they can participate in
the process. If the designation is over 50,000 acres, the
President can still make that declaration. It doesn't take away
his right to do it, but it says Congress has to affirm that
designation within 2 years or it reverts to its original land
designation. It does not take away the President's right to do
anything he can currently do now.
What this does, I think, is restore some balance into an
unbalanced law by putting Congress and the public in part of
the mix. Now, some people say this bill is an anti-
environmental law. I can guarantee you it is not. As I said, it
just restores, I think, some balance between a unilateral
declaration by an individual and Congress doing what it is
constitutionally required, and that is make land use
designations within the United States and to have some public
input. As I said, the President can still make the designations
to protect those lands. Those that are under imminent threat,
immediate threat, he can still protect those lands.
Some will say this bill is an anti-American bill. I can
guarantee you that it is not anti-American. What is anti-
American is the current law because what we have is a system of
government of a balance of power and checks and balances, and
under the Antiquities Act as it currently is there is no checks
and balance. Now some can say Congress can act and undo what
the President does but the reality is that is not how it works.
If we are placed in the position of having to do undo what a
President does, essentially you would have to have a two-thirds
vote to override a presidential veto if we were going to pass a
bill to undo a National Monument status bill. And that is not
the way our Constitution was established, and consequently I
think this is a necessary bill.
It is not an attempt to undermine the Antiquities Act. It
is an attempt, I believe, to strengthen the Antiquities Act,
and I appreciate the ranking member's comment about the
controversy that this brings up, but it is a controversy that
needs to be engaged. I think the 1906 Antiquities Act needs to
be viewed in the context of the laws that currently exist, not
the way it was written in 1906 but with all the environmental
laws and protections that we currently have on the books, and
simply have Congress and the public get back into the debate of
how we manage public lands.
I appreciate the Chairman's time constraints.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mike Simpson, A Representative in Congress
from The State of Idaho
Thank you for scheduling this important hearing on H.R. 2114, the
National Monument Fairness Act. Additionally, I want to thank the panel
members who have made the long journey to Washington, D.C., to testify
on behalf of H.R. 2114.
H.R. 2114 eliminates the single greatest threat to the Antiquities
Act- its abuse by a sitting President. One need only look at former
President Clinton's declaration of the 1.7 million acre Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1906, and the ensuing
controversy to see what happens when you bypass the public and state
and local officials. He undertook this action without the consent or
input of the Governor or Congressional Delegation of the State of Utah.
Further, he announced the designation in a grand press conference not
in Utah, but in Arizona.
Former President Clinton's action on the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument designation, and other such designations, represents
the greatest threat to the Antiquities Act. As any reasonable person
knows, the abuse of any law erodes public support for the law and
undermines the credibility of future designations. Former President
Clinton's abuse of the Antiquities Act now threatens any future use of
the Act, and thus the Act's worthy goal, as envisioned during the 1906
debate, of protecting truly threatened federal lands of historical,
prehistorical or scientific interest.
As written, the Antiquities Act gives the President the unilateral
authority to carve national monuments out of existing federal lands
without any public input. The National Monument Fairness Act of 2001
amends the Antiquities Act of 1906 to require the President to seek
input from state and local officials prior to a monument declaration
and would require congressional approval of any monument designation or
expansion that is more than 50,000 acres. This legislation is a direct
response to the concerns of many people, including myself, who believe
the recent rash of presidential declarations have misused or abused the
Antiquities Act and been contrary to the original intent of Congress.
Specifically, H.R. 2114 requires the President to solicit public
participation and comment, and to consult with the affected Governor(s)
and congressional delegation(s) at least 60 days prior to any national
monument designation. Additionally, it states that a proclamation of
the President, which creates a national monument that is more than
50,000 acres, or enlarges an existing national monument by more than
50,000 acres, may not be issued until 30 days after the proposed
proclamation has been transmitted to the Governor of the state(s), and
that Congress must approve of such a monument designation within 2
years.
The common sense changes to the Antiquities Act that I am proposing
will serve to reign in the unrestrained use of the Act and restore the
original intent of Congress. Thereby, strengthening the Act.
The original intent of Congress was to allow the President to
protect ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and
other objects of historic or scientific interest.'' In addition, as
stated by the Act, reserved lands were to be ``confined to the smallest
area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to
be protected.'' Finally, the objects to be protected must face
immediate threats or endangerment.
Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act is not being used as it was
intended. It is now being used to lock up large tracts of land without
any public comment, input from state and local elected officials, or
congressional review. Former President Clinton used the Antiquities Act
twenty-two times to designate nearly 5.8 million acres of federal land
as national monuments, without any public input or consultation with
state and local officials.
In reading the Congressional Record from the 1906 debate on
consideration of the Antiquities Act, it is clear that western Members
were concerned about possible ``land grabs,'' and that the original
intent of the Act was preserve old objects of historic value.
One member, Mr. Stephens of Texas, only agreed to consideration of
the bill after being assured by the bill's proponent, Mr. Lacey of
Iowa, that its intent was not to tie up large tracks of land. The
following is taken from the debate transcript between Mr. Stephens and
Mr. Lacey.
Mr. LACEY. There has been an effort made to have national parks in
some of these regions, but this will merely make small reservations
where the objects are of sufficient interest to preserve them.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Will that take this land off of market, or
can they still be settled on as part of the public domain?
Mr. LACEY. It will take that portion of the reservation out of the
market. It is meant to cover the cave dwellers and cliff dwellers.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. How much land will be taken off the market
in the Western States by the passage of this bill?
Mr. LACEY. Not very much. The bill provides that it shall be the
smallest area necessary for the care and maintenance of the objects to
be preserved.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Would it be anything like the forest-reserve
bill [precursor to the National Forest System], by which seventy or
eighty million acres of land in the United States have been tied up?
Mr. LACEY. Certainly not. The object is entirely different. It is
to preserve these old objects of special interest in the Southwest,
whilst the other reserves the forests and the water courses.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. I hope the gentleman will succeed in passing
that bill [a separate bill], and this bill will not result in locking
up other lands. I have no objection to its consideration.
This bill preserves the President's ability to protect those
special historical areas that are less than 50,000 acres and deserving
of monument designation, while providing Congress with the power to
conduct appropriate oversight over declarations involving greater
expanses of land. Not only is this in line with the original intent of
Congress, but is also in line with the U.S. Constitution. Article IV,
Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: ``Congress shall have Power
to'make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States.
When one looks at the actual words of the Act and the original
debate surrounding the Act, it is evident that the original intent of
Congress was to protect special areas of limited size. This coupled
with the constitutional role of Congress respecting federal lands; it
is incumbent upon Congress to reign in the abuse of the Antiquities
Act.
This common sense legislation restores Congress's constitutional
oversight role regarding land use and management policies resulting
from national monument status. Moreover, it holds the President
accountable to Congress and the American people.
This legislation is not about preventing national monuments, but
creating a process by which national monument decisions can be arrived
at openly, with public participation and state and local government
consultation. From the time of enactment of the Antiquities Act,
Presidents have used the Act over 120 times, totaling over 70 million
acres, without any formal public input. However, since 1943, only two
Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to designate a national
monument in excess of 50,000 acres--President Carter and President
Clinton.
National monument declarations are major decisions with far
reaching effects that should be made in the open, not in secret. Secret
decision-making is not conducive to sound decision-making. Decisions,
even those well intentioned, made without adequate input are often
rejected because the public does not feel they have been a part of the
process. I see no harm in allowing the public and state and local
officials an opportunity to examine proposed monuments and provide
input on possible local impacts. Bringing the public and Congress to
the table strengthens, not weakens, the Antiquities Act and ensures all
parties have a voice in the debate.
Once again, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for
holding this hearing. I am hopeful that the information presented here
will allow us to move forward with this common sense legislation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. Just two or three
questions here. First of all, Mr. Green, who did you pay and
how much did you pay to get that number on your bill? I mean, I
want to hear drums and fifes and see flags waving.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred 1836 but I
didn't want to wait a hundred numbers or 75 numbers to get
there.
Mr. Hefley. You did very well.
Mr. Green. It was the luck of the draw.
Mr. Hefley. This is a National Historic Area we are talking
about. So I want you and your witnesses to tell us, tell this
Committee, what is there about Buffalo Bayou? Now, I understand
that it could be an economic development thing for Houston, I
understand that it could be a recreational thing for people in
the Houston area, but what is there about Buffalo Bayou that
makes these Committee members want to go to Houston to see that
National Heritage Area, Buffalo Bayou?
Mr. Green. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will let the experts talk
about it, but I can tell you the benefit to the Nation. The
Houston area again is the energy capital of the world. It
developed along Buffalo Bayou from 1836 to today and even
increasing. In Houston, typically we are thinking so much about
the future instead of the past. This would give us an
opportunity to say, well, let's look at our heritage and what
caused this to become the fourth largest city in the country,
to cause the United States Congress in 1917 to provide for the
deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel that is our
first largest port of foreign tonnage. And it will recognize
that heritage.
Literally from along Buffalo Bayou there is the Battle of
San Jacinto in 1836 that really opened the way for Texas
independence, an independent country, but the area we are
talking about was the development of the City of Houston, and
again that is of national significance because of the energy
industry but also the fourth largest city in the Nation, and
being in the State of Texas there is not a lot of Federal lands
available. In fact, in the Park Service testimony you will see
the National Park work and contacts in the Houston area are not
extensive. This would give us a chance to show the culture and
the history of Houston and how it benefits the Nation.
Mr. Hefley. Is there anything to see there of an historic
nature now in Houston or is it all gone because Houston has
been a fast developing, dynamic city?
Mr. Green. What we are seeing is by looking back, and again
Stephen Fox and Anne Olson will say better, but I know in my
own district that this includes--we have a park area that has
been there for many years and we are continuing to rediscover
the roots of Houston along Buffalo Bayou. Harrisburg, for
example, that is in my district, was the first city along
Buffalo Bayou. It was incorporated in the City of Houston many
years ago, but that is the historic nature of it, and that is
what we are seeing rediscovered in that Houston area, east end
of Houston now, but the heritage that we have in that area.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Mr. Simmons, I love lighthouses and
I think we ought--.
Mr. Simmons. We can share my tie.
Mr. Hefley. And I love your tie. I am a big fan of
restoring lighthouses. I hate to see one torn down but why not
go through the normal process for registry on the National
Register? Why come to Congress? Ordinarily this isn't the
process that we use for this.
Mr. Simmons. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is a good process. We
have been in touch with the State Historic Society. We have
been in touch with the folks in the State of Connecticut who
would normally assist in this process. Of course our concern is
timeliness. This is a structure that came very close 2 years
ago to being demolished, and if you look at the postcard that
we have, which is very scenic and very beautiful, but if you
look around the bottom of it you will see some red or orange
plastic which is marking this off as a dangerous site, a site
to keep away from. So we have come to the brink, if you will,
with this. It nearly came down a couple of years ago. Citizen
response, the response of the community, the response of the
municipality and the State have been aggressive and active to
put this on the front burner, and I guess in a way by
establishing a faster track through legislation, we are
responding to that concern that we have come very close to
losing this, but if this is an issue for the Committee. I am
sure that we would be able to provide additional testimony and
input from the requisite State authorities to bring you up to
date on what they are doing also to meet the requirements of
national historic status.
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. I don't have any questions at this point,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Committee members, anybody with questions for
this panel? If not, we thank you, and again we welcome you to
sit in, if you would like, with us during the deliberations.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Panel number two, Mr. Tom Fulton, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, the
Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.; Mr. John Robbins,
Assistant Director of Cultural Resources, Stewardship and
Partnership, the National Park Service. Would you join us? Mr.
Fulton.
STATEMENT OF TOM FULTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND
AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Fulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mrs.
Christensen and other members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 2114, the
National Monument Fairness Act of 2001.
H.R. 2114 is consistent with and would reinforce actions
already taken by this administration. As the Federal agency
tasked by law with developing sound management plans for new
national monuments, the Department of Interior is committed to
bringing common sense and balance to the decision process by
listening to the people most affected by these decisions. We
have already undertaken that effort, and we believe that the
result will be land use plans that reflect the special status
of the lands that we have set aside while ensuring that those
most directly affected are not disenfranchised by the process.
Since enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, 121
national monuments have been created by presidential
proclamation, many of which, such as the Grand Canyon, Carlsbad
Caverns, the Statue of Liberty, have attained national
recognition. Others such as Walnut Canyon in Arizona and
Capulin Volcano in New Mexico are less well-known. Twenty-seven
States have national monuments and the land area of these 121
monuments designated over time represent a special use category
of approximately 100,000 square miles, equal to the combined
land area of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
Congress has in the past acted to convert a number of
national monuments into national parks, and in addition
Congress has designated national monuments themselves. Congress
has also acted to abolish some national monuments such as that
of Wheeler, Colorado, abolished in 1950.
In the early years of the Antiquities Act, the War
Department was given management authority over monuments.
However, in 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt consolidated
management of all monuments created to that date within the
National Park Service. Currently the only monument not managed
by one of the land management agencies is the President Lincoln
and Soldiers Home National Monument created July 7th, 2000.
This 2.3-acre monument is managed by the Armed Forces
Retirement Home through the U.S. Soldiers and Airmen's Home.
The overwhelming majority of national monuments created by
presidential proclamation are managed by the National Park
Service, beginning with President Theodore Roosevelt's
proclamation of Devil's Tower National Monument in 1906. Most
Presidents throughout the 20th century have used the
Antiquities Act to establish what are now many of the National
Park System's most famous sites.
Not all of the proclaimed national monuments have retained
their National Monument designation. Some have been
incorporated into larger national park units. Others have been
redesignated as national parks or other types of units within
the park system. Additionally, not all national park system
units carry the name National Monument that were established by
presidential proclamation. Congress has enacted legislation to
establish national monuments 38 times. Like the national
monuments designated by Presidents, some of these monuments
have been redesignated through acts of Congress as other types
of units.
The National Park Service administers national monuments in
the same manner as other units of the National Park System.
They are subject to the provisions of the proclamations that
establish the individual monuments along with subsequent
legislation addressing them and laws and regulations that
govern national park units generally. The primary law on which
the Park Management Service policies are based is the act of
August 25, 1916, known as the Organic Act, as amended.
The Bureau of Land Management currently manages 14
presidentially proclaimed monuments and one congressionally
designated national monument, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains National Monument. These monuments range in size from
a 4,148-acre Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument in New
Mexico to the 1.8 million-acre Grand Staircase Escalante
National Monument in Utah. Relatively new to the administration
of monuments, the BLM manages the monuments subject to the
provisions of each individual proclamation and the guiding
principles of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act,
known as FLPMA.
Management of each monument is unique. However, they all
share some common characteristics. The proclamation under the
land laws, each limits vehicular traffic, and individual
proclamations address issues specific to each monument.
On March 28, 2001, Interior Secretary Gail Norton sent some
200 letters to local elected officials of all political
affiliations seeking their ideas on proper and appropriate land
use. The letter was sent to affected State governors, Members
of Congress, State House and Senate leaders, county
commissioners and tribal chairs. The Department is currently
receiving replies, not only from those who received the letter,
but from others who have chosen to offer their views as well.
We believe there are strong public policy reasons to support
H.R. 2114 because of population growth in the West and the
impact of such declarations on individuals who live in the
West.
In conclusion, the goal of enabling local communities and
citizens to have the opportunity to be heard prior to the
creation of a monument larger than 50,000 acres is valid and
one that the administration supports.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express the
administration's views, and I will attempt to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulton follows:]
Statement of Tom Fulton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R. 2114
Our duty is to use the land well and, sometimes, not to use it
at all. This is our responsibility as citizens, but more than
that, it is our calling as stewards of the Earth. Good
stewardship of the environment is not just a personal
responsibility; it is a public value. Americans are united in
the belief that we must preserve our natural heritage and
safeguard the land around us. This belief is affirmed in our
laws.
President George W. Bush
May 30, 2001
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
testimony regarding
H.R. 2114, the National Monument Fairness Act of 2001. H.R. 2114 is
consistent with and would reinforce actions already taken by this
Administration. As the Federal agency tasked by law with developing
sound management plans for new national monuments, the Department is
committed to bringing common sense and balance to the decision process
by listening to the people most affected by these decisions. We have
already undertaken that effort and we believe that the result will be
land use plans that reflect the special status of the lands that we
have set aside while ensuring that those most directly affected are not
disenfranchised by the process.
Background
Since enactment of the Antiquities Act (16 USC 431-433), in 1906,
121 national monuments have been created by Presidential proclamation,
many of which, such as the Grand Canyon, Carslbad Caverns, and the
Statue of Liberty, have attained national recognition over the years.
Others, such as Walnut Canyon in Arizona or Capulin Volcano in New
Mexico, are less well known. Twenty-seven states currently have
national monuments. The land area of these 121 monuments represents a
special use of approximately 100,000 square miles of land, equal to the
land area of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Congress has in the past acted to convert a number of national
monuments into national parks. For example, Grand Teton National Park
began life as Jackson Hole National Monument. Congress has also created
national monuments independently of the President. In 2000, Congress
designated the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
In addition, Congress has acted to abolish some national monuments such
as Wheeler, Colorado, which was abolished in 1950.
In the early years of the Antiquities Act, the War Department was
given management authority over several monuments. However, in 1933,
President Franklin Roosevelt consolidated management of all monuments
created to that date within the National Park Service. Currently, the
only monument not managed by one of the land managing agencies, such as
the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, United States
Forest Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the President
Lincoln and Soldier's Home National Monument created on
July 7, 2000. This 2.3 acre monument is managed by the Armed Forces
Retirement Home through the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmens' Home with
guidance provided by the National Park Service.
The following is a brief summary of some of the monuments
administered by the agencies within the Department of the Interior and
the authorities used to manage them.
National Park Service
The overwhelming majority of national monuments created by
Presidential proclamation are managed by the National Park Service.
Beginning with President Theodore Roosevelt's proclamation of Devil's
Tower National Monument in 1906, most of the presidents throughout the
20th Century used the Antiquities Act authority to establish what are
now many of the National Park System's most famous sites.
Not all of the proclaimed national monuments have retained their
``national monument'' designation. Some have been incorporated into
larger national park units, and others have been redesignated as
national parks or other types of units within the National Park System.
Petrified Forest National Monument in Arizona, for example, was
redesignated by an Act of Congress as Petrified Forest National Park.
Chaco Culture National Monument in New Mexico is now Chaco Canyon
National Historical Park. Santa Rosa Island National Monument in
Florida is now part of Gulf Islands National Seashore.
Additionally, not all National Park System units that carry the
name ``national monument'' were established by presidential
proclamation. Congress has enacted legislation to establish national
monuments 38 times. Like the national monuments designated by
presidents, some of these monuments have been redesignated through acts
of Congress as other types of units. For example, Harpers Ferry
National Monument in West Virginia is now Harpers Ferry National
Historical Park. Biscayne National Monument in Florida is now Biscayne
National Park.
The National Park Service administers national monuments in the
same manner as other units of the National Park System. They are
subject to the provisions of the proclamations that established the
individual monuments, along with any subsequent legislation addressing
them, and to the laws and regulations that govern national park units
generally. The primary law on which National Park Service management
policies are based is the Act of August 25, 1916, known as the
``Organic Act,'' as amended. This law, which continues to serve as the
basic mission statement of the National Park Service, requires the
agency ``to conserve the scenery, and the natural and historic objects
and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same...as
will leave them unimpaired for future generations.''
Consistent with that principle, management plans for national
monuments established by Presidential proclamation that are under the
National Park Service's jurisdiction are developed in the same manner
as other units of the National Park System. General management plans
for park units are guided by the National Parks and Recreation Act of
1978. This Act directs the National Park Service to prepare and revise
in a timely manner general management plans for the preservation and
use of each unit of the National Park System and to include (1)
measures for preservation of the area's resources, (2) indications of
the type and general intensity of development, including visitor
circulation and transportation patterns along with locations, timing,
and anticipated costs, (3) identification of visitor carrying
capacities, and (4) indications of potential modifications to the
external boundaries of the unit. The general management planning
process includes substantial public involvement.
Fish and Wildlife Service
In 1978, President Carter designated the 8.6 million acre Yukon
Flats and the1.2 million acre Becharof National Monuments. These two
areas remained national monuments until the passage of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 which, among other
things, repealed these monument designations and established them as
National Wildlife Refuges. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service manages the majority of the Hanford Reach National Monument in
Washington state, created in June of last year, in accordance with
Presidential Proclamation 7319, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act and through permits and memoranda of understanding
between it and the Department of Energy.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 14 Presidentially-
proclaimed monuments and 1 Congressionally-designated national
monument, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
These monuments range in size from the 4,148 acre Kasha-Katuwe Tent
Rocks National Monument in New Mexico to the 1.8 million acre Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.
Relatively new to the administration of monuments, the BLM manages
the monuments subject to the provisions of each individual proclamation
and the guiding principles of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA). Management of each monument is unique. However, they all
share some common characteristics. First, each of the proclamations
withdraws the land within the monuments, subject to valid existing
rights, from mining, mineral leasing and entry under the land laws.
Second, each limits vehicular travel to roads and trails designated for
such use. Third, each places a priority on managing objects of historic
or scientific interest within the monument for future generations. In
addition, individual proclamations address issues specific to each
monument.
The BLM has completed a management plan for only one of its 14
monuments, the Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument created in
1996. That management plan was completed in February 2000. A
comprehensive public planning process is required for each of BLM's 13
other Presidentially designated monuments. These plans will include in
depth NEPA analysis, including extensive collaborative public
participation. Open houses and other opportunities for public input and
involvement are already underway. Among the issues on which BLM will
seek guidance and advice from the public are: public access and
transportation, recreational opportunities, protection of cultural and
natural resources, environmental education, noxious weed eradication,
grazing, commercial uses and fire management.
Recent Monument Designations
On March 28, 2001, Interior Secretary Gale Norton sent some 200
letters to local elected officials of all political affiliations
seeking their ideas on proper and appropriate land use plans for the
national monuments that had been created in 2000 and 2001. The letter
was sent to affected states' Governors, Members of Congress, State
House and Senate leaders, County Commissioners, and Tribal Chairs, in
an effort to foster a cooperative partnership to ensure that these
monuments are administered in a manner that considers local needs and
concerns as well as national interests. The Department is currently
receiving replies not only from those who received the letter, but also
from others who have chosen to offer their views as well. Gaining
public input, especially from those most directly affected by the
creation of these new monuments, is a high priority of this
Administration.
We believe that there are strong public policy reasons to support
this bill. Population, particularly in the American West, has changed
significantly in the last several years. Areas that for many decades
had not seen rapid population growth have experienced extraordinary
growth. In the early years following enactment of the Antiquities Act,
the impacts resulting from large national monument designations on
private landowners and local communities were not always as direct or
significant as they are today. It is a high priority for the
Administration to gather input from States and local communities as
part of a collaborative decision-making process on issues that affect
Federal lands. To that end, the objectives and requirements of H.R.
2114 are both timely and appropriate.
In conclusion, the goal of enabling local communities and citizens
to have an opportunity to be heard prior to the creation of a monument
larger than 50,000 acres is valid and one that the Administration
supports. As such, the requirements of H.R. 2114 help to ensure that
better, more informed decisions are reached where these monuments are
concerned. As President Bush stated during a recent speech given at
Sequoia National Park, ``...a healthy environment is a national concern
and requires an active National Government. At the same time, States
and localities have their own responsibilities for the environment.
They have their own authority, too.'' He went on to state, ``Washington
has sometimes relied too much on threat and mandate from afar, when it
should be encouraging innovation and high standards from the people
closest to the land.''
Thank you again for the opportunity to express the Administration's
views on this legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions of
the Committee.
______
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Robbins.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBBINS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Robbins. Morning, Mr. Chairman. I am addressing both
H.R. 1518 and H.R. 1776.
On H.R. 1518 we agree that efforts to recognize, protect
and preserve Avery Point Lighthouse and other lighthouses are
very worthwhile. Recognition and protection and eligibility for
most preservation funding begin with listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service, in
partnership with State historic preservation officers, is
responsible for developing and maintaining the National
Register according to a process established in 1966 by the
National Historic Preservation Act. The National Park Service
would be pleased to work the Connecticut State historic
preservation officer and the owners of Avery Point Lighthouse
toward listing the property on the National Register of
Historic Places.
The Department has concerns about earmarking limited
National Park Service funds for specific nonpark purposes.
Although this bill includes a small amount for rehabilitating
Avery Point Lighthouse, such special support could divert funds
from important initiatives to address maintenance backlogs in
national parks. As an appropriate source of funding, Avery
Point Lighthouse might be a candidate for a grant under the
Save America's Treasures program, which assists in preserving
significant endangered properties and collections throughout
the United States.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes $30
million for the Save America's Treasures program with both
House and Senate support. The National Park Service administers
the Save America's Treasures program and would be pleased to
provide the sponsors of the lighthouse project with information
on how to apply for Save America's Treasures grants.
On H.R. 1776, again, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department's views on H.R. 1776, which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou
National Heritage Area in Houston, Texas. The legislation also
authorizes $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 to fund the study.
Communities such as those surrounding Buffalo Bayou value
their heritage and open space and are looking for ways to
maintain and enhance their community resources. A heritage area
study could consider the best methods for protecting and using
the natural, cultural, and recreational resources of Buffalo
Bayou while preserving the character of an area that is so
central to the history of Houston.
The Department supports this legislation, if amended to
make the bill similar to previous national heritage area study
bills. The Department, however, does not request funding for
the study in this or the next fiscal year in order to focus
available resources on completing previously authorized
studies. Currently, 41 authorized studies are pending and we
expect to complete only a few of those this year.
We also caution that our support of this legislation
authorizing the study does not necessarily mean that the
Department will support designation of Buffalo Bayou as a
national heritage area. The administration is determined to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in national parks.
The cost of new parks or other commitments such as grants for
new heritage areas could divert funds from taking care of
current responsibilities.
H.R. 1776 and ongoing community involvement demonstrate
commitment to protecting and preserving Buffalo Bayou. We would
be happy to work with the Subcommittee and with the bill's
sponsor, Representative Green, to amend the legislation so that
H.R. 1776 is similar to other bills that have authorized
studies of potential heritage areas. Proposed amendments to
H.R. 1776 are attached to the end of the testimony submitted.
I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or
other Committee members might have on these matters.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Robbins follow:]
Statement of John Robbins, Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships, U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R.
1518
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. 1518, to require the Secretary of the Interior to include on the
National Register of Historic Places the Avery Point Lighthouse in
Groton, Connecticut, and provide $200,000 for the restoration of that
lighthouse.
The Department appreciates the efforts to protect this historic
lighthouse. This site could be an excellent candidate for funding
through the Save America's Treasures program, for which the President's
fiscal year 2002 Budget proposed $30 million and the House and Senate
have both supported. We would be happy to provide the local sponsors
with more information on how to apply for these grants to protect the
historic buildings, sites, artifacts, and collections that represent
significant achievements in American culture.
The Department, however, has concerns with the concept of
earmarking limited National Park Service funds for specific non-park
facilities. Although the amount in this bill is small, it nevertheless
diverts funds away from the President's initiatives to take care of
current responsibilities by addressing deferred maintenance backlogs.
The Department supports the principle that States--not the Federal
Government--are best suited to determine the highest priorities for
using grant funding, including Historic Preservation Fund funds, which
would be allocated in this bill for a specific project. We are
concerned that legislative earmarks could effectively take funding away
from grants to States and Indian tribes nationwide and dictate how
those funds should be spent.
We support efforts to preserve significant historic lighthouses,
which are important national historic treasures worthy of our care and
attention. We note that this Committee took the lead in passing
legislation to facilitate the transfer of historic lighthouses to non-
government organizations willing to help preserve them. We stand ready
to help the owners of this lighthouse to recognize this historic
structure by nominating it for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. Long-standing procedures, however, require that the
owners work through the State's Historic Preservation Officer, and we
understand that such coordination on an application has not been
completed. If needed, we can help the owners, working with the
Connecticut State Historic Preservation Officer, on the documentation
necessary to evaluate the property's eligibility for listing.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
______
Statement of John Robbins, Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior on H.R. 1776
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H. R. 1776. This bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in
west Houston, Texas.
The Department supports this legislation, if amended to make the
bill similar to previous national heritage area study bills.
Nevertheless, we will not request funding for the study in this or the
next fiscal year so as to focus available time and resources on
completing previously authorized studies. As of now, there are 41
authorized studies that are pending, and we only expect to complete a
few of those this year. We caution that our support of this legislation
authorizing a study does not necessarily mean that the Department will
support designation of this National Heritage Area. The Administration
is determined to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in national
parks, but the costs of new parks or other commitments, such as grants
for new National Heritage Areas, could divert funds from taking care of
current responsibilities. Furthermore, in order to better plan for the
future of our National Parks, we believe that any such studies should
carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs
that would result from each alternative considered.
H.R. 1776 outlines the characteristics and qualities of the Buffalo
Bayou area in Houston, Texas including the history and role of the
Bayou in the creation and development of the city. The bill authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a suitability and feasibility
study to determine if the area known as Buffalo Bayou in Houston, Texas
could be designated as a national heritage area. The legislation
authorizes $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund the study, with a
report due to Congress describing the results of the study.
The National Park Service has not had extensive involvement in the
Houston area. However, the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
Program (RTCA) has worked with the Buffalo Bayou Partnership and other
local groups to establish a 5 mile rail-trail that runs parallel to the
Bayou. Through that work, and from brief reviews of planning documents
and activities surrounding the Bayou, it is clear that this area of
Houston was central to the creation of the city. The Bayou has now
become a focal point for downtown Houston, encouraging its residents to
enjoy, use, and appreciate their great resources today as the city
continues to renew and define itself.
It is also evident that the groups and communities in the area
value their heritage and open space and are looking for ways to
maintain and enhance these qualities. A study that looks at the
natural, cultural, and recreational significance and values of the area
could make recommendations on the best method to protect and use these
resources while retaining the character of this part of Houston.
As we have testified previously before this subcommittee, there are
several steps we believe should be taken prior to Congress designating
a national heritage area to help ensure that the heritage area is
successful. Those steps are:
1. Lcompletion of a suitability/feasibility study;
2. Lpublic involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
3. Ldemonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation; and
4. Lcommitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which
may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit
organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.
H.R. 1776 and previous work in the community demonstrates the
commitment to the idea of pursuing a study to look at further
protection and preservation options. It is also apparent that there is
widespread support for the Buffalo Bayou that will ensure public
involvement. A critical element of the study will be to evaluate the
integrity of the resources and the nationally distinctive character of
the region before recommending national heritage area designation.
We would be happy to work with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsor, Representative Green, to amend the legislation so that it is
similar to other bills that have authorized studies of national
heritage areas. We have attached proposed amendments at the end of this
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Proposed Amendments
H. R. 1776, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou National
Heritage Area in west Houston, Texas.
On page 3, line 20 insert ``the City of Houston, and other
appropriate organizations'' after ``the State of Texas,''.
On page 3, line 19 insert ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary shall,''
and then insert a new paragraph (2) on page 3, line 23 as follows:
``(2) The study shall include analysis and documentation that
the Study Area:
(A) Lhas an assemblage of natural, historic, and cultural
resources that together represent distinctive aspects of
American heritage worthy of recognition, conservation,
interpretation, and continuing use, and are best managed
through partnerships among public and private entities and by
combining diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and
active communities;
(B) Lreflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife that
are a valuable part of the national story;
(C) Lprovides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural,
historic, cultural, and/or scenic features;
(D) Lprovides outstanding recreational and educational
opportunities;
(E) Lcontains resources important to the identified theme or
themes of the Study Area that retain a degree of integrity
capable of supporting interpretation;
(F) Lincludes residents, business interests, non-profit
organizations, and local and state governments who are involved
in the planning, have developed a conceptual financial plan
that outlines the roles for all participants including the
federal government, and have demonstrated support for the
concept of a national heritage area;
(G) Lhas a potential management entity to work in partnership
with residents, business interests, non-profit organizations,
and local and state governments to develop a national heritage
area consistent with continued local and state economic
activity; and
(H) Lhas a conceptual boundary map that is supported by the
public.
On page 3, line 23 through page 4, line 2 strike Section 2(c) and
replace with the following:
``(c) BOUNDARIES OF THE STUDY AREA. The Study Area shall be
comprised of sites in Houston, Texas, in an area roughly
bounded by Shepherd Drive and extending to the Turning Basin,
commonly referred to as the Buffalo Bayou.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. Let me ask a mechanical
question first of all. The rules require that the
administration testimony be submitted to us 2 days in advance.
We got it last night about 7 o'clock, I think. What is the
mechanical problem? This doesn't give us a chance to really go
over your testimony and be prepared to ask intelligent
questions and so forth. What is the mechanical problem
connected with that and can that be corrected?
Mr. Fulton. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the delay in
getting the reply. As you may know, the Secretary has been,
quote, home alone at the Department of Interior. That today
will be somewhat rectified by the swearing in of an additional
six individuals. It literally has been a case of there has been
not enough individuals at the Department, but that is a matter
that is rectifying itself and I would certainly hope that in
the future we could be more timely with our submissions.
Mr. Hefley. Well, if you can, that will be very, very
helpful to us.
Mr. Fulton, you mentioned in your testimony that the Bureau
of Land Management has only completed one of 14 management
plans toward 14 monuments. How much time and money has the
Bureau spent just on the management plan for the Grand
Staircase Escalante National Monument and what do you see as
the overall cost in staff time to complete the balance? Do you
not agree that the monument designations by President Clinton
which were accompanied by no budget or management plans just
added to the already difficult fiscal and management problems
faced by our Federal land managers?
You know Clinton went on an orgy of naming monuments before
he got out of office. I don't think there is any question about
that. He was desperately searching, I guess, for a legacy and
he thought this would be his legacy, and some of it is probably
good and some of it is very questionable. So would you respond
to that question, please?
Mr. Fulton. Yes, sir. It is very clear that the Bureau of
Land Management and the other land management agencies face a
very, very complex and difficult mission as they administer
public lands. These are public lands that are in everyone's
backyard and everyone feels personally attached to at least
their piece of public land. It is analogous, I guess, to the 14
monuments that were designated in the years 2000, 2001 as sort
of like the pig and the python there. They are going through
the land management process and it will cost millions of
dollars, I don't know the exact number, and it will involve
substantial numbers of people.
The Grand Staircase Escalante management plan, I am not
certain of the dollar amount that was expended there, and we
can get that information for the Committee, but it was a 3-year
planning process that involved certainly at least more than a
million dollars. I am not sure what the exact amount was.
Mr. Hefley. Well, I remember when Senator bill Armstrong
was doing the Colorado Wilderness Act, trying to put that
together, and you know, we had Senators from Colorado come and
go working on that over the years. We had Senator Hart, we had
Senator Wirth, and senator Armstrong finally got something
done, but he knew where every mine, every claim, every road,
every communication tower, he knew exactly where all of that
was, and they planned the wilderness area with that in mind.
You can't do that when a President just arbitrarily designates
something because he thinks it is a good idea, and in this
particular case it was very interesting that he didn't even
think it was attractive enough to go there to do his
announcement. He did the announcement in Arizona where he had a
better background.
By and large, shouldn't there be careful planning in
advance before these things are done, and, as was indicated by
Mr. Simpson, wasn't the purpose of the law to take care of
things that, by gosh, there is going to be a Wal-Mart there if
we don't do something immediately, let's do it now, not to do
things that there is no imminent danger? And I have asked too
many questions and I apologize.
Mr. Fulton. That is all right. I will sort through them and
see which ones I can answer. I think the Secretary shares your
concern, which is why early on once she was sworn in she
reached out by mailing out over 200 letters to every local
county commissioner, tribal chair, State House and Senate,
bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, governors, Members of
Congress, senators of those States impacted and affected by the
designation of these monuments in 2000 and 2001 because that is
in fact what she wants to know through local consultation and
communication, what is it that the impact of these monuments
implies for these local areas. She also has not had the
opportunity to visit all 20 of them but she very much wants to
hear from local impacted individuals to see what it means in
their lives.
The Grand Staircase, for instance, in the southern counties
of Utah represents, well, the public land base represents
nearly 90 percent of the total for those counties. So anything
that the Federal Government does in those areas, those rural
areas, can have a tremendous impact on the local population and
is something she wants to be very much aware of as she moves
forward in the very difficult task of administering these
monuments.
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I will
direct my first question to Mr. Robbins. How long is the
process on average for a property to be placed on the National
Register?
Mr. Robbins. Something between a year and 2 years. Each
State has a National Register Review Board, which is a citizens
advisory Committee, and so the process includes the
investigation of the proposal, the preparation of the
nomination, and then the nomination must go before each State's
citizens advisory committee, the National Register Review
Board, and those meetings are scheduled, depending on the
State, either twice, three or four times a year, and then the
nomination if it has the concurrence of the review board is
then forwarded to the National Park Service for listing.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. And you are not really
opposing the inclusion of the lighthouse, you think it is a
good property, you just agree with us on the process; is that
correct?
Mr. Robbins. In fact, we don't know that much about the
lighthouse because the information hasn't been transferred to
the National Park Service through the process.
Mrs. Christensen. And you also indicated that there were
other sources of funding that you would be happy to assist?
Mr. Robbins. The two chief sources of funding for historic
properties that are listed on the National Register are the
Historic Preservation Fund, the portion of which is distributed
to the States, and then the Save America's Treasures program,
which is also funded through the Historic Preservation Fund,
which has both a competitive and has an earmarked portion.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Fulton, in your testimony
you said that there was strong public policy reasons for the
administration to support 2114. Could you elaborate on those
reasons for us?
Mr. Fulton. Yes, ma'am. It is the local consultation, the
need to visit with and fully understand the local concerns as
these processes move forward, visiting with people at the front
end of these monument designations in an effort to fully
understand the impact that the Federal Government can have when
it makes a specific land use designation.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, we appreciate the consultation part
of the bill and we did receive a letter from the Secretary. It
is with our governor and I think we have responded to it. I am
clear on the administration's support of the consultation and
advocacy for the consultation part of the bill, but I am not
clear whether the administration is in support of some of the
other areas, the limitation placed on the monuments and the
need for congressional approval of those monuments after 2
years. Does the administration also support that part of the
bill?
Mr. Fulton. It is my understanding that it does, yes. My
testimony was cleared through the Office of Management and
Budget representing the White House. It is my understanding
that that testimony was approved by them. The size of these
monuments can very dramatically impact the land use for local
communities, and some of the monuments created are nearly 2
million acres in size, and the grand total for this special use
category of land use within the Federal Government is, as I
said, almost 100,000 square miles, representing the total land
area of many States. This is a significant constriction on the
multiple use that these lands were open for prior to their
designation as a monument.
Mrs. Christensen. I would think that you know that issue
could have been settled during the consultation process, but
for Congress to be able to by not approving and in essence
overturn a presidential declaration, that limits the authority
of the President and significantly changes the intent of the
Antiquities Act. The administration supports that?
Mr. Fulton. It is my understanding through the clearance of
the testimony that it does. The Antiquities Act, as pointed out
by Mr. Simpson, was meant to protect some of the cultural and
archaeological resources and, to the smallest extent
practicable, some of these monument designations in the
millions of acres, they are extraordinarily large, and whether
they are needed to protect those archaeological or antiquities
resources is just an issue still open for debate.
Mrs. Christensen. The bill also, just one short question,
also says that any management plan shall comply with NEPA. Are
monuments currently not required to comply with NEPA?
Mr. Fulton. No, it is my understanding that well, under--
no, I believe that they do, that all the environmental laws
that are relative and applicable would in fact be applied in
monuments that are already extant and newly created monuments
as well. Adequate environmental laws are already on the books.
Mrs. Christensen. Apply. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. My understanding is that with the NEPA you do
not have to go through the public comment period and everything
else that is required by the NEPA process when you declare a
National Monument and that is the intent of this, that you have
to go through the public process, the same public process as
all other environmental laws that are required.
The concern of overturning a presidential declaration and
authority of the President, this is authority given to the
President by Congress. It is not authority in the Constitution.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to make land use
designations, and we have delegated some of that authority to
the President to do that. Certainly we can overturn by law a
presidential declaration of a monument or change it, as has
happened.
The concern is, and I will use this example just because it
is one of the more recent ones, but with the Grand Staircase
Escalante that was declared in 1995 or 1996, whenever it was,
if the President declared that a National Monument and Congress
wanted to overturn that, it would have to essentially have two-
thirds vote in the House and Senate to override a presidential
veto because the President would probably veto a bill
overturning a National Monument that he created, and to me,
that is just bassackwards from the way that things should act.
Congress should be the ones to make these types of things maybe
upon recommendation from the President, that is fine, but
Congress ought to be involved particularly in these huge
designations.
And if you look back in the history, since 1906, at the
designations, most of them were 160 acres, 1,100 acres, 1,600
acres. Occasionally--the Grand Canyon was 808,000 acres. I
believe Congress would have probably acted to protect that, as
we have. Since the Wilderness Act was enacted we have put over
128 million acres in national wilderness. So Congress has not
been irresponsible in this area. 639 acres in Mount Olympus,
but most of them were 2,000, 10,000, 20,000. And then in the
later years as we get into the National Monument Act, if you
look at as an example in the Carter years, 1.1 million, 350,000
acres, 1.2, 2.6, 3.8, 8.2, 10.9, 10.6 millions of acres and
these monuments have become not what they were originally
intended to protect these archaeologically significant areas
and so forth, but they have become ways of taking huge tracts
of land and making land use designations without any public
input or the requirement for any public input, and that is my
concern with this legislation and whether the law is actually
being followed as it was intended. And I will use this example.
Craters of the Moon expansion in Idaho took 52,000 acres
and expanded it by an additional 660,000 acres. I wasn't
opposed to it, and in fact I talked to the Secretary a couple
of times about it and offered to run legislation to create it.
It had been talked about several times in Idaho and so forth.
But if you look at the standard by which you can declare a
National Monument, that it has to be unique and geological and
of some significance, that area qualifies. Has to be under some
imminent threat. I repeatedly wrote to the Secretary and said
what is the imminent threat of this area, and there is none.
There is totally no imminent threat to this. You can't walk
across this area. I mean it is nothing but lava rock. And he
eventually told me that it was to protect from future mining
claims. There are no mining claims out there. No one is going
to want to mine out there, and the Antiquities Act is not to
protect something from something that might happen in the
future. It is for an imminent threat that currently exists.
And so that is why this legislation is here. It is not to
undermine the Antiquities Act. You know, I want to preserve
these areas as much as anybody does, but I do believe the
public has a right to have some participation and Congress has
a right to have some participation in this designation. And
this is not an anti-Clinton or an anti-anything else bill. It
is one that says Congress ought to be responsible and take back
some of its authority, but I appreciate the--I know that is not
in the form of a question. I appreciate your testimony on the
legislation, and I look forward to working with the
administration on this and I appreciate the attitude of the
administration.
I know that they are not out to overturn national monuments
willy-nilly or anything else, but they are asking for input
from the public as to the effects of these national monuments
and if changes need to be made or whatever so that they can
look at it in a rational manner rather than just declare
national monuments. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I actually
have only one comment to make and then perhaps one short
question for Mr. Robbins, but with regard to public lands, Mr.
Fulton, being in your backyard, Reno recently I read was
designated as the highest density city per square mile of
population of any city in the United States, registered number
one, which points to me that in Nevada public land is not only
in your backyard, it is your front yard and it is your side
yard. The State of Nevada, something less than 90 percent of it
is owned by the public and that is a large area of Nevada. In
some counties we have 98 percent of the land in those counties
owned by the public and it is indeed frustrating, difficult and
many times impossible for local governments to use the property
tax base to fund needed resources and operations within those
counties.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, that point being made, let me ask Mr.
Robbins with regard to the lighthouse in Connecticut, I presume
that lighthouse in Connecticut is publicly owned at this point
in time, the university or--is there--and this would be my
question, is there historic precedent for funding restoration
of such lighthouses publicly owned in the past through the Park
Service?
Mr. Robbins. Yes, there is.
Mr. Gibbons. So this is not something we are going to
create out of whole cloth as a unique change or circumstance
under which the government hasn't done this before.
Mr. Robbins. I think the difference would be that previous
funding, because Congress had begun the maritime initiative,
which the National Park Service administers--the difference is
that the emphasis through the maritime initiative is on
already-listed National Register properties.
Mr. Gibbons. Is there an effort, then, to transfer title to
the National Park Service once these funds and restoration have
been completed?
Mr. Robbins. Through the maritime initiatives?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes.
Mr. Robbins. No. In fact, the effort is in the other
direction. It is to find public or nonprofit owners other than
the National Park Service for maritime resources including
lighthouses.
Mr. Gibbons. That is the only question I have, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Cannon.
STATEMNENT OF THE HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
panel for coming today, and especially I would like to thank
you, Mr. Fulton, for the attitude of this administration which
is pleasant. I'd like to recall, to everyone's memory, the
abuses of the Antiquities Act were truly monumental in their
excess. The previous administration, as this Committee has
pointed out in the past in a report, actually lied to the
delegation from Utah about the imminent designation. And the
public input was limited to a phone call of about one-half hour
duration with the Governor of Utah, which was initiated by the
President at 2 or 3 in the morning.
Fortunately, the Governor had some handwritten notes at his
bedside and was able to convey a number of points which were
hastily included in the designation, but overwritten,
undermined, and ignored in the planning process. So we
appreciate your being here. Let me just say I recently had a
couple of town hall meetings in the two areas. In fact, you
pointed out, Mr. Fulton, these areas are nearly 90 percent
public lands, these two countries that are affected. They are
actually 93% public lands. And so, if the Federal Government
sneezes, people die of pneumonia. And this is now years and
years after the designation, after the plan has finally been
finished. It was surprising to me to see the intensity of
emotion and the pain that is still being felt in that area by
those people on many levels on the level of just the
invasiveness of some of the recent decisions of managers in the
area, but also based upon the way the plan went forward. I
think that what President Clinton did was deeply destructive of
the faith and trust of the American people and has required
that we in Congress act to put some constraints.
I think this bill is infinitely reasonable but would not
even be before the American people except for the abuses that
the Antiquities Act was used to foist off on the American
people. So we are anxious to work with you. We are thrilled. I
would say the people in Utah have been waiting for the
confirmation process, the political people from the Department
of Interior were thrilled to see that happen. I have the
greatest expectations that this administration will not respond
with excess to the excesses of the prior administration, but
with thought, with a process that is inclusive and helpful and
that we will get on with solving some of the problems that have
been created by the prior administration, which have been
extreme in the lives of the few people that live at least in
those two countries which wholly encompass the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, which are both in my district. So
we are pleased to have you here and look forward to working
with you and the administration over time on these issues.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah on H.R. 2114
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
As many of you know, the people in my district were the first to
suffer under former President Clinton's abuse of the Antiquities Act.
The problems that this bill seeks to solve were epitomized by the
flawed process used to designate the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.
Recently, I held two meetings in my district to gain a better
understanding of the issues that still remain. Several hundred people
attended and provided poignant testimony of the disruption the Monument
has caused in their lives. If the National Monument Fairness Act had
been in place, these people would have been able to provide their input
prior to the designation, eliminating many of the problems and ensuring
that the Monument protected existing uses.
In the absence of checks and balances in the process, Utah's
Governor Leavitt was awakened by a phone call late the night before
Clinton designated the Monument. The Governors of our states must know
of the President's intentions in time to provide their important and
detailed feedback.
The Antiquities Act can serve an important purpose in protecting
lands from imminent danger. However, the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument comprises almost 2 million acres. Clearly, a change
in the management of such a large amount of land should be addressed by
Congress, the body charged with determining public lands policy, and
not take place by executive fiat.
I firmly believe that we must amend the Antiquities Act to ensure
that an orderly process is followed when designating a National
Monument, one that provides for local input before irrevocable
decisions are made. More importantly, the people in my district would
be relieved to know that the abuse of the Antiquities Act that they
suffered will not be imposed on others.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses and
especially welcome Mike Noel, Chairman of the Kane County Resources
Development Committee in Kanab, UT. He has provided invaluable
information to my office throughout this process and I expect that he
will also provide invaluable information to the committee.
______
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Duncan.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
questions, but I would like to make a couple of comments, and
first of all, I would like to voice very strong support for Dr.
Simpson's bill. I think that many of our environmental policies
and actions in recent years have been dictated or controlled by
extremists, and this bill is a very reasonable attempt to put a
little tiny bit of balance and moderation back into our
environmental policies. And I think anyone who opposes this
would be opposing any type of minimal public input into this
process, and really would be coming out in favor of secrecy or
doing things in a dictatorial fashion that I think is very
unAmerican.
I remember well some of the hearings on the Grand
Staircase-Escalante Monument in which it was brought out after
the fact that one of the law professors, I believe from
Colorado who was involved in the process many months in
advance, had put out a memo to the White House stating that he
couldn't overemphasize the need for secrecy in the process,
because if there was public notice, that there would be such a
huge outcry against this. And that is really sad to think that
we have got to the point where we are doing things in secrecy
so that the people have no knowledge or input or no voice in
their own government.
And then I remember the Governor of Utah being here to
testify and saying that he first read about the possibility of
this just a few days in advance in The Washington Post, and
then he got this after-midnight call that Mr. Cannon just
referred to. We always hear about Theodore Roosevelt in here. I
think Theodore Roosevelt would be shocked to know how much land
is in the public domain today. Over 30 percent of the land in
this country is owned by the Federal Government, and another 20
percent is owned by the State and local governments and quasi-
governmental agencies. And his first designation under this
Antiquities Act was a little over 1100 acres. In the first 10 I
see 857 acres, 533 acres, 360 acres, 487 acres. And you go on
down and you see from 1939 to 1978 a 40-year period there.
There were three designations: 1481 acres, 880 acres, 311
acres, for 40 years, none between 1980 and 1989.
And then you get into this period here where you start
getting into all these million-acre designations. And unless
you just want the Federal Government to take over all the land
in this country and you just want to--I believe there are some
people who want to do away with private property. Yet if we
don't realize--if we don't wake up and realize that private
property is one of the foundations and cornerstones of not only
our freedom, but of our prosperity, we are going to be in bad
trouble in this country.
I will say on the other things, unfortunately, we have got
many, many, many local governments now because we have
designated all the big things as national parks or national
forests or whatever, we are having many people come to us now
for what should be items that are being done by local, city or
county governments or State governments, almost all of which
are in better financial shape than the Federal Government,
which is still almost $6 trillion in debt. So I do wonder about
that, Mr. Chairman. I heard some comments that you made in that
regard. But that is--I do want to say that I am strongly in
support Dr. Simpson's bill, and I hope that we can move that
very quickly through this Subcommittee and Committee. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Duncan, thank you. Mr. Robbins--I am sorry.
Mr. Simmons, before I ask another question.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Subcommittee
for the courtesy of allowing me to sit here. I truly appreciate
it. Let me just very briefly thank Mr. Robbins for his
statement that he feels the Avery Point Lighthouse Project is
worthwhile, and that he looks forward to working with us on
that. He made some very helpful suggestions which we will
follow up on.
With the permission of the Chair, we would like to submit
some additional information that we don't have with us here
today that relates to the efforts to get the State of
Connecticut to assist us for placing this on the national
historic list. And if that is agreeable to the Chair, we will
submit that by letter within the next week or 10 days. We have
that ongoing, but we don't have that in our presentation.
And let me finally just comment on his remarks or his
testimony regarding earmarking. He did indicate that earmarking
is not preferred by the agency, and I appreciate that. He, of
course, referred to it as a small amount which it is, but let
me just simply comment that this lighthouse was constructed by
the Federal Government in 1943 through the Coast Guard. It was
designated at the time as a memorial to all lighthouse keepers,
all members of the Coast Guard and other citizens who, in some
cases, placed their lives on the line to preserve and protect
not only those involved in the maritime trades, but any others
who needed this assistance as they made their way at sea. When
the Coast Guard turned the property over to the State of
Connecticut in 1967, I grant you, we failed in our fiduciary
responsibility to maintain the property. We failed. And we came
very close to losing the property a couple years ago when it
was considered a hazard and designated for demolition. But we
have realized our mistake. We have thousands of local citizens
who have contributed money. We have had money come in from two
municipalities, the city of Groton and the town of Groton, and
we have had money designated by the State of Connecticut.
So all we are asking is a small amount earmarked by the
Federal Government to partner with us and to reflect that
original fiduciary interest that the Federal Government had in
this property when they built it. And with that, I thank the
Chairman again and yield back my time.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. One last question for me, Mr.
Robbins. You indicated that there are 41 authorized studies
that are pending, and that I only expect a few of those studies
to be completed this year. I would like for to you elaborate a
little bit more about what ``a few'' means, and if you are only
going to do a handful a year, then we are talking maybe 7 or
maybe 8 years to finish these studies. And maybe give us an
idea of how soon you anticipate getting the 41 authorized
studies completed.
Mr. Robbins. Sir, I would have to look into the status of
each of the authorized studies and get back to you with
additional information on that, which I will do.
Mr. Hefley. If you would do that, that would be helpful.
Further comments or questions? If not, thank the witnesses. And
appreciate you being here.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.021
Next panel, panel 3, will be composed of Ms. Adena Cook,
Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Idaho Falls,
Idaho; Mr. Mike Noel, Chairman, Kane County Resources
Development Committee, Kanab, Utah; Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, IV,
from New York. Of course he would be from New York.
Mr. Hefley. We will start with Ms. Cook.
STATEMENT OF ADENA COOK, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR, BLUE RIBBON
COALITION
Ms. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Blue Ribbon
Coalition supports H.R. 2114 which amends the 1906 Antiquities
Act. H.R. 2114 sets up a legal process to establish large scale
national monuments. I would like to give you examples of why
that process is necessary. President Clinton first used the
1906 Antiquities Act to designate Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument in Utah in 1996. That monument encompassing
1.7 million acres was declared without prior notice to Utah's
Governor, congressional delegation or residents local to the
area.
And it is possible that the controversy over the secrecy
surrounding this monument influenced Secretary of Interior
Bruce Babbitt to get subsequent announcements an aura of
process by means of informal visits to the area.
The circumstances surrounding the designation of the
Craters of the Moon National Monument Expansion is an example.
On April 18th, 2000, Babbitt met with the local residents in
the area, visited on the ground with local grazers, and also
the public in Arco, Idaho. His visit was generally unannounced.
He traveled again to Idaho on June 23rd and met with a few more
citizens in Rupert. That time our executive director, Clark
Collins, discussed our concerns about roads, trails and access
directly with the Secretary. Collins was promised that his
suggestions would be considered. Babbitt asked him for some
language. But nothing further was heard and our suggestions
were ignored. Similarly, the hunting access issue was ignored
in the proclamation, even though Babbitt had been aware of the
problems.
Now Congressman Mike Simpson has had to introduce
legislation to correct this deficiency. It will take an act of
Congress to correct what could have been a simple matter had an
official process been in place.
The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is another example.
It is located on Oregon's southern border with California and
encompasses around 85,000 acres with about 53,000 BLM monument
property and 32,000 private property. The BLM was aware of what
this area's special values and features was and in the middle
of a planning process when Babbitt showed up in October 1999
with a monument in mind.
Now you have this map before you. But how would you like to
be a monument manager trying to manage these little isolated
parcels surrounded by private property and conversely, be a
private property owner surrounded by monument. The intermingle
ownership will consume Federal and public attention for some
time to come. And the EIS process that the BLM had in place
already could have sorted this out. Now the use of the
Antiquities Act in this way has been challenged in court. A
lawsuit is still pending on the Grand Staircase-Escalante in
Utah.
In the Mountain States Legal Foundation of Blue Ribbon
Coalition has sued over the establishment of six other national
monuments. These lawsuits are still pending. In almost all
these monuments, there has been insufficient inventories of
roads, trails and recreation access. Monument status means that
recreation opportunities will be lost without ever evaluating
their significance.
Last year, Congressman James Hansen introduced H.R. 1487,
which is similar to H.R. 2114, but reasonable discussion over
this legislation was poisoned by speculation over designation
of the ad hoc process, the secrecy and the polarization. The
events surrounding the creation of large scale national
monuments since 1996 have revealed the problems that can be
created when unilateral declarations are made without a formal
process. H.R. 2114 remedies this and sets a process in place.
Now, past events have demonstrated that an ad hoc arbitrary
process is already in place. It will take place as it has in
the past with headline grabbing, speculation, polarization.
H.R. 2114 offers a far better option. It assures the
Antiquities Act can be used to set aside special places, but a
process will be followed that will direct discussion in a
productive way.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cook follows:]
Statement of Adena Cook, Public Lands Director, BlueRibbon Coalition on
H.R. 2114
BACKGROUND
President Clinton first used the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate
the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah in 1996. That
monument, encompassing 1.7 million acres, was declared without prior
notice to Utah's governor, congressional delegation or residents local
to the area. The press who were invited to the proclamation ceremonies
knew about the forthcoming announcement before Utah's elected officials
The announcement was followed by a firestorm of controversy. The
internal dealings within the administration that led to the selection
of the area and its designation were subsequently investigated and
reported by Congress. Congressional investigation revealed internal
discussions creating a paper trail to give a semblance of internal
process. Apparently, the administration was attempting to bolster the
credibility of the proclamation. These machinations within the
administration have been well documented by an investigative report
authored by this very committee in 1997, ``Behind Closed Doors: The
Abuse of Trust And Discretion In The Establishment Of The Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument.'' - Majority Staff Report,
Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands, Committee on Resources.
The procedural deficiencies of the Antiquities Act were highlighted
by this first and largest national monument declared by President
Clinton. It was to be followed by 17 more for a grand total of 18
national monuments and 5.6 million acres in the next four years.
It is possible that the controversy over the secrecy surrounding
the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument influenced Secretary of
Interior Babbitt to give subsequent announcements an aura of process by
means of informal visits to prospective candidates. Absent statutorial
requirements, these ``fact-finding'' visits were ad-hoc and minimally
announced. They were surrounded by headline-grabbing speculation that
polarized both sides of the issue. Absent an orderly process, both
opponents and proponents took their case to the press.
CRATERS OF THE MOON
A series of events preceding the Craters of the Moon National
Monument Expansion in Idaho exemplifies this ad hoc fact finding. On
April 18,2000 Secretary Babbitt made a generally unannounced visit to
the Craters of the Moon National Monument area, with a presumed intent
to expand the boundaries of the monument. He met on the ground with
grazing permittees, and with a hastily assembled group (whoever could
get there with just a few hours notice) at the high school in Arco,
Idaho. There was no official record made of the proceedings.
On June 17, 2000, in Twin Falls, Idaho, the Senate Subcommittee on
Forests and Public Land Management, chaired by Senator Larry Craig,
held an oversight hearing on the proposed expansion of the Craters of
the Moon National Monument. This oversight hearing created an official
record of the proposal, the only existing public record. It was at this
hearing that issues relevant to the expansion were identified. Among
them were hunting and trail and road access.
On June 23, Secretary Babbitt returned to Idaho. A public meeting
was convened in Rupert, Idaho. With a couple of days advance notice, a
few more people were able to attend, including Blue Ribbon Executive
Director Clark Collins.
Collins took the opportunity to discuss our concerns about roads,
trails, and access directly with Secretary Babbitt. During that
conversation, Babbitt promised Collins that he would present language
to address recreation access concerns in his monument expansion
proposal to President Clinton. Collins said that he would provide
Babbitt with language suggestions.
On June 27, Collins wrote to Secretary Babbitt providing the
following suggested language for the proclamation addressing roads,
trails, and access:
Vehicle travel is limited to existing roads and trails. No
special access restrictions will be imposed by this designation
pending completion of the following planning process. Local BLM
officials will, in cooperation with local motorized
recreationists, begin an inventory of roads and trails within
the expanded monument. Within three years, the agency will
designate, for motorized use, a system of these inventoried
roads and trails that perpetuates the area's essential
recreational experience. The process will be subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act. Off road and trail travel
will be prohibited except during hunting season for game
retrieval. (See Exhibit 1)
Collins received no response to this letter in spite of efforts to
contact Secretary Babbitt. The subsequent monument expansion
proclamation made no reference to this suggestion.
Similarly, the hunting access issue was ignored in the
proclamation. Typically, hunting is not allowed in properties managed
by the National Park Service. However, it can be accommodated if given
special exception (a hunting season is allowed by statute in Grand
Teton National Park).
Discussions surrounding the Craters of the Moon National Monument
expansion indicated that the management would be split between the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS),
with NPS managing the lava flows and BLM managing the rest. However,
congressional testimony and comment letters from Idaho Department of
Fish and Game revealed that there were little pockets of habitat within
the lavas where deer summered. In order to manage the population and
continue successful hunts, hunting should be accommodated in these
areas under NPS jurisdiction.
The subsequent proclamation did not address this issue, therefore
hunting is still prohibited within NPS administered areas of the
monument expansion. In order to correct this deficiency, Congressman
Mike Simpson has deemed it necessary to introduce separate legislation
allowing hunting in the NPS portion. It will take an Act of Congress to
correct what could have been a simple matter had an official process
been in place.
Without addressing these two (and perhaps more) critical elements,
Craters of the Moon National Monument expansion of 661,000 acres was
declared by President Clinton on November 9, 2000. Total monument
acreage is now 715,440.
CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT
The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was declared by President
Clinton on June 9, 2000. It is located in Jackson County, Oregon on
Oregon's southern border with California. It consists of 52,987 acres
of federal land administered by the BLM. There are 32,222 acres of non-
federal land, mostly private property, interspersed among the Monument
boundaries.
A BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that would
have culminated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and decision
was well underway when Secretary Babbitt first visited the area on
October 28, 1999. The EIS was considering how to manage the Cascade
Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area and protect its special features
while allowing a variety of uses to continue.
The Ashland (OR) Daily Tidings, on October 28, reported on the
visit:
Babbitt, who frequently lines up behind environmentalists on
such controversial issues as dam removal, acknowledged that he
is not always welcome in the West.
``Some people say, `When Bruce Babbitt is in the neighborhood,
people better guard their lives, their children, their public
land and their future,''' Babbit told a gathered crowd of about
20 citizens, government employees, BLM staff and media. ``But I
don't have any proposal (for the ecological emphasis area), I
just have a lot of questions. I'm on a trip here to have a look
at a lot of issues.''
Citizens on the tour took the opportunity to try to influence
Babbitt to support their respective sides...
Jackson County Commissioner Sue Kupillas said instituting
further federal restrictions on public land is not the way to
go. She said Oregonians have a reputation of coming up with
creative solutions, and should be given the freedom to manage
public lands for ecological, social and economic values.
These kinds of visits exemplify what passed for a public process as
national monuments were designated by President Clinton. The formal
NEPA process underway for the Cascade Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area
was trumped by the monument designation.
Management problems remain as a result. Foremost is the
intermingling of private and monument property. Within the monument
area, there are 85,173 acres of land across all ownerships, 52,947 are
monument property. Some monument parcels are small plots intermingled
with private lands; some parcels of private land are intermingled with
monument (see Exhibit 2). Private property owners have been assured
that monument management policies will not affect them, but that would
seem difficult when one views a map.
Federal acquisition of some of this private property is a
possibility. Some of this acquisition has already taken place. In 1995,
the BLM purchased the Box O Ranch, consisting of 1200 acres. Scoping
information published by the agency on the Cascade/Siksiyou Special
Emphasis Area EIS stated:
BLM has used the purchase of the privately owned ranch in 1995
as an opportunitry to reestablish stream-side vegetation and
improve habitat for native rainbow (redband) trout and the
dwarf Klamath small-scale sucker. The creek portion of the
ranch will be included in the Jenny Creek ACEC.
When Secretary Babbitt visited the area on October 28, 1999, Dave
Willis, chair of the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council handed Babbitt
the deed to 75 acres of formerly private land inside the area. This
donation augmented the amount of BLM-owned land in the area.
The mingling of public and private ownership in the Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument will consume federal and the public's
attention and resources for some time to come. The abandoned EIS
process could have sorted this out through an appropriate range of
alternatives. Now, those options are limited.
Access and recreation management problems will continue to consume
resources in this monument. A popular jeep road, the Schoheim Jeep
Road, was mandated closed to vehicles, even bicycles, as a result of
the monument declaration (See Exhibit 3). This jeep road, originally
built in 1964 as a necessary fire access road, had been a subject of
controversy. The BLM's EIS process was taking all relevant information
on this popular road into consideration when the monument declaration
established the closure.
USE OF ANTIQUITIES ACT CHALLENGED IN COURT
Many have questioned the use of the Antiquities Act to designate
large scale national monuments of thousands of acres. Section 2 of the
Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 431, authorizes the President to establish
as national monuments ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that
are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of
the United States....''
A reasonable interpretation of this statute is that it is intended
for discrete features, not whole landscapes.
Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Utah Association of
Counties filed suit over the establishment of the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument. That suit is currently working its way
through the court system. Most recently, groups filed to intervene,
that intervention was denied at the District Court level. The District
Court's decision was appealed by the potential intervenors, and the
decision on that appeal is pending.
On August 29, 2000, Mountain States Legal Foundation and the
BlueRibbon Coalition filed suit over the establishment of the Cascade
Siskiyou, Hanford Reach, Canyon of the Ancients, Grand Canyon-
Parashant, Ironwood, and Sonoran Desert National Monuments. The
BlueRibbon Coalition, concerned about the application of the
Antiquities Act, is also concerned about loss of access and recreation
opportunities. This lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., is also
proceeding through the court system.
In almost all of the national monuments designated since 1996,
there have been insufficient inventories of roads, trails, and
recreation access. Monument status generally means that these
recreation opportunities will be lost without ever evaluating their
significance.
LACK OF PROCESS FUELS CONTROVERSY
As Secretary Babbitt continued to use informal visits to
investigate potential monuments, controversy increased. He refused to
provide Congress with a list of federal, state, and private lands being
considered for national monument designation. On October 19, 1999, a
press release from Congressman John Shadegg's office stated:
Secretary Babbitt's refusal came after Congressman John Shadegg
(R-AZ) asked if the Secretary would be willing to provide a
list of all national monument proposals currently being
discussed within the Administration.
Babbitt's unwillingness to supply the list is of significant
concern to Shadegg and the entire Congress. In 1996, when the
president designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument in Utah, the Clinton Administration did so without
consulting the Utah congressional delegation, the U.S. Congress
or most importantly the people of Utah. The president even
denied his intention to declare the area as a national monument
in a conversation the night before with the Governor of Utah.
``It is precisely this type of arrogant refusal to communicate
which makes amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 essential to
keeping presidential powers in check. The American people and
their congressional representatives should not be left out of
land-use decisions which have significant local impact,'' said
Shadegg.
Congressman James Hansen introduced H.R. 1487, quite similar to
H.R. 2114, in the last Congress. Like H.R. 2114, it would have amended
the Antiquities Act to require large scale monuments be subject to a
process before they could be declared. However, the atmosphere for
reasonable discussion of process was poisoned by speculation over
designations, the ad-hoc process, the secrecy, and the polarization.
Frequent headlines in the press took precedence over rational
consideration of H.R. 1487.
CONCLUSION
The events surrounding the creation of large-scale national
monuments since 1996 have revealed the problems that can be created
when the unilateral declarations are made without process. Management
problems created by these hasty decisions will consume resources for
years to come. Congressional action will be required to resolve some of
these problems, as is exemplified by Congressman Simpson's bill to
allow hunting in the Craters of the Moon expansion.
These problems could have been avoided or more easily resolved if a
process had been in place. H.R. 2114 amends the Antiquities Act to
establish such a process . Among other features, it requires
Congressional approval for new national monuments and additions over
50,000 acres within 2 years of a declaration. It requires that the
creation of a monument and monument addition over 50,000 acres be first
submitted to a state's governor and congressional delegation for
comment, and receive comment from the public. It requires that the
President consider existing plans and management programs.
These procedures strengthen the Antiquities Act. They direct the
discussion over a potential large monument to an established process
where reasonable dialogue can take place.
Past events have demonstrated that discussion will take place. We
have a choice. Will it take place, as in the past, amid headline-
grabbing, speculation, and polarization? H.R. 2114 offers a far better
option. It assures that the Antiquities Act can be used to set aside
special places, even on a large scale, but that a legal process will be
followed that will direct discussion in a productive way.
______
[Attachments to Ms. Cook's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.019
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Noel.
STATEMENT OF MIKE NOEL, CHAIRMAN, KANE COUNTY RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Noel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here. I sit before you today as the Chairman of the Kane County
Resource Development Committee. I am currently employed as the
executive director of the Kane County Water Conservancy
District. I am also a retired BLM land manager having served
twenty years in the Kane County area and with my son-in-law I
ranch and farm and run a herd of commercial cows somewhat like
Mr. Roosevelt here. However, unlike Mr. Roosevelt, if I went
back to Kane County and said I was testifying in support of
Friends of the Earth, the ranchers in the area would rope me
and drag me through the sage brush. In case you didn't know,
Friends of the Earth is a radical environmental organization
that put out a pamphlet asking their members to oil slick the
cowman's water tanks, to cut our fences, to protest our use of
the public lands, and to generally wreak havoc on our
livelihoods.
I support H.R. 2114. With twenty years of federal land
management experience, I am here to tell you that we need some
balance in the Antiquities Act process. In September 1996
President Clinton designated almost 3000 square miles of land
in Kane and Garfield counties as needing special protection
under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In Kane County 96% of the
land is already federally owned and managed, leaving only 4% in
private ownership. Trying to live and earn a living on 4% of
the land in your county is impossible without the cooperation
of the federal land managers. When this land is taken out of
multiple use and put in special monument or other designations,
the private land owner becomes an in holder who must rely on
the federal government to maintain his access his water rights,
his grazing rights, etc. to survive. I am in fact one of those
disenfranchised people the congressman from Connecticut spoke
about, in fact almost everyone but the federal land managers
living in Kane County are disenfranchised. There are hundreds
of private property water rights located inside the Grand
Staircase. There are vast mineral resources such as coal and
oil and gas in the monument. There are timber and cattle
grazing resources. It is in fact impossible to live in a county
where 96% of the land is controlled by the Federal Government
without having some kind of balance in the management of that
land. Monument designations take away that balance.
When the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of
1976 was passed after much debate and compromise in the
congress of the United States, everyone realized that the
public lands were different than the parks and national
monuments. Everyone realized that the public lands were to be
managed under the philosophy of multiple use and sustained
yield. There are a myriad of federal environmental protection
laws that have been passed since the Antiquities Act of 1906.
These laws such as FLPMA were passed to protect the public
lands from abuse but to allow for the multiple use of the
public lands by the general public and more particularly by the
citizens in the states were the lands occur. The environmental
organizations would have the public believe that without
monument designations, their public lands will be bull-dozed,
drilled, and timbered without any protections what so ever.
Since 1906 the National Environmental Policy Act, FLPMA,
the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, the 3809 mining
regulations, the Visual Resource Management regulations, the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Threatened and Endangered
Species Act, the Riparian and Wetlands Acts, and numerous other
laws and regulations both on a federal and state level have
been put into place to ``protect'' the public lands. Kane
County and other rural counties in the west are inundated by
hundreds of federal laws and regulations as well as
governmental policies designed to protect the public lands.
My county is about the size as the state of Connecticut.
Can the congressman from Connecticut imagine trying to operate
his state on 4% of your lands and accomplish any of your
economic development goals? We are having a difficult time
making a living there. We need to use the public lands for
cattle grazing, timber harvesting and mineral extraction in
order to survive. We can't import gravel from hundreds of miles
away without a huge costs to our citizens. We need access to
our private lands and our water rights.
I noticed while preparing for this testimony and reviewing
the literature pertinent to the Antiquities Act that many of
our past Presidents, subsequent to the designations of
monuments, went back and made changes. Mr. Franklin D.
Roosevelt made two changes to the Grand Canyon and also to the
New Mexico Capulin National Monument. Calvin Coolidge, and
Warren G. Harding and even John F. Kennedy made significant
changes in national monument boundaries during their
administrations. The use of the Antiquities Act needs to occur
in a well thought out process that doesn't allow presidents to
abuse their authority like Mr. Clinton did. There needs to be
meaningful input from state government and from the local
public who have to live in the area and who know the resources
better than the land managers who for the most part have a
limited tenure on the lands.
Prior to my taking an early retirement from the Bureau of
Land Management, I was the project manager for the Warm Springs
Environmental Impact Statement. The BLM was evaluating the
Environmental Impacts of approving an access road to a proposed
average size coal mine on the Kaiparowits Plateau which is now
within the boundaries of the Grand Staircase Escalante National
Monument. We had completed a 6-year EIS process and were ready
to release the draft EIS to the public when the monument was
announced by President Clinton. What did the EIS say about the
impacts to the public lands which would result from the
development of the coal mine and the access roads (the BLM
preferred alternative)? The DEIS stated that there would be
mainly negligible to minor and some moderate impacts to the
area of the proposed mine and road. This included impacts of
minor in the short term and negligible in the long term to
paleontological resources which were one of the primary
resources the president identified in his proclamation that
needed protection. Yet the President and Mr. Babbitt who had
full access to this DEIS information, chose to deceive the
public by declaring that the coal mine would destroy the area
knowing full well that a review of the DEIS record would prove
this to be false.
I can tell you from a Bureau of Land Management agency
perspective that the President's statements were totally false.
There were four government agencies participating in the EIS
process. The BLM and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement were the lead agencies, the National Park Service
and the Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining were cooperating
agencies. In addition a private consulting firm ENSR out of
Boulder, Colorado was the federally contracted consultants for
the project. There were over 100 individual reviewers and
contributors to the DEIS who evaluated the proposed action for
up to four years. The total new surface impacts as a result of
the mine were anticipated to be less than 200 acres. This mine
would have produced millions of tons of coal for our future.
What did the creation of the monument do? It locked up about a
half million acres of land that is a known recoverable coal
resource area. A coal field that contains billions of tons of
high BTU low sulfur low moisture coal that could be used to
meet our immediate and future energy requirements with very
minimal impacts to the environment.
Locking up these resources is just not acceptable at a time
when we are dependent on foreign oil supplies for power
generation. These are just some of the negative impacts that
result from a President who has been given unilateral authority
to designate massive tracts of public land as monuments without
any congressional approval or review, without any local input
and without any state government input. H. R. 2114 limits the
Presidents authority to designate up to 50,000 acres or about
78 square miles of land for protection. This would be totally
adequate to protect any objects of antiquity that needed
protection.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify. This concludes
my oral testimony but I would like to submit to the committee a
report prepared by the Kane County Resource Development
Committee entitled ``Living with the Grand Staircase Escalante
National Monument, A Report on the Creation, and Implementation
of the GSENM Management Plan and the Deleterious Effects of the
Monument on the People of Kane and Garfield Counties and the
Citizens of the United States of America''.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noel follows:]
Statement of Michael E. Noel, Chairman, Kane County Resource
Development Committee, Kane County, Utah on H.R. 2114
It is an honor and a privilege to be asked to testify before the
United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands regarding the ``The National Monument
Fairness Act of 2001'' (H. R. 2144). I am here today representing the
Kane County, Utah Resources Development Committee (KCRDC). The KCRDC
was established by the Kane County Board of Commissioners (KCBC) by
Ordinance No. 1998-2 on June 22, 1998. The committee acts as an
advisory committee to the KCBC for the purpose of assisting the board
in promoting the development of the countys mineral, water, manpower,
industrial, historical, cultural, timber, and other resources on all
lands including federal land and state land within Kane County. The
KCRDC was established pursuant to State Law as prescribed in the Utah
State Code Sections 17-5-265, 267, 269, 270 and 271. The committee is
specifically empowered to assist the commission in the proper
development and utilization of the vast resources of the county which
occur on private, state controlled, and federally controlled lands. The
historical planning process for administration of these lands is
directed by federal and state agencies with the legal requirement that
the federal agencies will coordinate all land use plans with state and
county land use plans. Kane County has a detailed and inclusive General
Plan which identifies among other things the need for economic
development of the federal and state lands, access across the federal
and state lands, and the historical sustained multiple use of these
lands for the economic, recreational, transportation, public purpose,
cultural customs, and historical needs of the citizens of Kane County.
The federal government under the direction of the United States
Congress has a long history of cooperation with the local counties
wherein they control the management on large tracts of public lands.
The public use and proper economic development of the federal lands in
Kane County under a multiple use and sustained yield approach is
essential to the economic stability of the county. With the creation of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) in September of
1996, over 51% of the land in Kane County and almost 20% of the land in
adjacent Garfield County was placed in special management categories
that severely limit economic development in the counties. As result of
this action the citizens of Kane and Garfield county have suffered
economically. The size of the monument designation is staggering when
compared to other national parks in the lower 48. It is 52 times larger
than Bryce Canyon National Park, and 13 times larger than Zion National
Park. It is one third larger than the entire Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area including Lake Powell which contains over 2000 miles of
shoreline. It is in fact 500 square miles larger than the entire state
of Delaware. For the president to act unilaterally to set aside this
vast area of public land without so much as a notification of the
Governor of the State, the Congressional Delegation, county government
or the local citizens can only be viewed as an irresponsible act taken
for political purposes to evade the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to overcome Congressional
involvement.
The KCRDC and the Citizens of Kane County have been closely
following the progress of the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Resources and the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands, who early on recognized the illegal
nature of the creation of the GSENM. We have appreciated the work that
the committee has done to try and rectify this misuse of power and to
put into place a process that will insure that this type of unilateral
decision by the executive branch of government will not occur in the
future. In the interim, the KCRDC is hopeful that the United States
Congress can find ways to mitigate the damage done to the local
economies of Kane and Garfield Counties as a result of these massive
restrictive land designations. H. R. 2114 is a step in the right
direction to modify and update the 95 year old Antiquities Act to meet
the needs of the American public in 2001.
Over the past six months, the KCRDC worked diligently to prepare a
report entitled ``Living With the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, AA Report on the Creation, Management, Implementation, and
Deleterious Effects of the Monument on the People of Kane and Garfield
Counties and the Citizens of the United States of America''. The report
was written to provide information that can be used in determining what
immediate actions can be taken to relieve the burden of the monument
creation on the citizens of Kane and Garfield Counties. In addition,
the KCRDC feels that the report will provide meaningful information to
the Subcommittee and to the United States House of Representatives to
enable them to see the effects of special management designations on
large tracts of public lands in rural America without local and State
input and without the ratification of the U. S. Congress who has the
ultimate responsibility for the management and disposition of all the
public lands. The following is a brief summary of the subject 95 page
report:
Kane County and Garfield Counties have suffered at the hands of the
biocentric radical environmental movement in the past through the loss
of the many major economic resource based employers beginning in 1991
with the initial downsizing of Kaibab Industries Lumber Mill. The final
closing of the Kaibab Lumber Mill operation in 1996 resulted in the
total loss of 273 jobs and a forecast out-migration of 470 persons from
Kane County. Additional jobs were lost in Garfield County. The average
of the jobs lost had a median income of more than double the median
income of the remaining workforce. When the new Grand Staircase/
Escalante National Monument was designated by Executive Order by
President Clinton, the federal government gave the impression that the
new Monument would be a major contributor to Kane County's economy even
though traditionally such monument designations follow their mandate of
restrictive preservation of the resources with little significant
contributions to the economic base of the surrounding communities.
Sadly, after five years of living with the monument, the economic
conditions in Kane and Garfield are worse than ever. Promises of
increased tourism and additional business opportunities have not
materialized. In addition, the increased federal presence and the
restrictive Monument Plan have created a divisive community.
Transportation: Over the past five years, the Clinton, Gore,
Babbitt Administration, acting in advocacy for an extreme environmental
philosophy, ignored existing law and congressional mandate by using
unilateral administrative fiat to usurp valid existing rights (RS 2477
rights-of-way) in an effort to effect complete control and authority
over transportation and access within the Monument. The Monument Plan
fails to recognize both the rights and importance of a viable
transportation system to Kane County and its residents who rely on
natural resource utilization on public lands for economic stability.
Livestock Grazing: The GSENM Plan is a carefully crafted document
that was produced with a total disregard for the Kane County General
Land Use Plan and existing federal and state law. The plan has the
potential to eliminate sustained yield and multiple-use of the public
lands within the Monument specifically centering on cattle grazing. The
Monument Plan states that the evaluation of grazing will be consistent
with all applicable legal authorities, including the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), the
Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA)...etc. (Page 41, GSENM Plan).
The plan and the ``Professionals'' that wrote the plan ignored federal
and state law and put in place a document that can be utilized to
remove cattle from the public lands within the monument. The plan
changes the existing rules and regulations that were in place to manage
livestock on the public lands and supplants them with the BLM produced
``Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing
Management.'' The GSENM Management Plan is contradictory to the Kane
County General Plan in several areas regarding livestock management and
use of the public lands.
Kane County is an area larger in land mass that the state of
Connecticut, however, unlike Connecticut, 90% of the land is controlled
by the federal government. Only 4.4% of the entire land mass in Kane
County is in private hands. Residents must utilize the natural
resources and public lands to sustain their families. The battle over
public land use and access has been ongoing for decades. Severe
livestock grazing reductions, restrictive regulations, and access to
the land are at the forefront of the current battle. Since September
2000, there have been two notices of allotment closures posted at the
Kane County Courthouse. Although, BLM states that it will furnish a
copy of the regulations and a detailed map of the closed areas,
citizens have been denied the document by the BLM. These closures are
unreasonable, impractical and not science-based closures. This action
by monument management was arbitrary and capricious and fails to meet
federal requirements regarding consultation, negotiations, and
reasonable multiple use and range improvement mandates. It also
violates the pledge in the Presidential Proclamation establishing the
monument subject to valid existing rights which include but are not
limited to livestock grazing preference rights on federal lands.
As Paul Jenkins (retired BLM range manager) representing the Kane
County Cattlemen's Association stated at a Congressional hearing in
1979, ``What is this desperate need, and what is so great about an
unused and wasted resource--what is this grave fondness for non-
productivity? If locking up our resources is the answer to this
nation's problems, then the federal government should take immediate
steps to acquire 65% of the lands in all the 50 states. If the
government can best manage forest and range land, they can surely do a
better job than the Iowa corn grower or the Georgia peanut farmer.
Further, think of the improvement and disbursement of the aesthetic
venture if every state would contribute 6 or 7 million acres to
wilderness.''
Water Resources: Perhaps the greatest threat to the use and
enjoyment of private land in Kane County is the effects of the GSENM on
private water rights. Although water rights are adjudicated by the
State of Utah and are the private property rights of the citizens of
Kane County, the Grand Staircase Monument Plan greatly impacts private
water rights on private property within the boundaries of the monument
and on private property situated adjacent to the monument. There are
approximately 1400 points of diversion for water rights within the
monument. About half are in the name of the Bureau of Land Management
and the other half are recorded in the name of the private or state
water right owner. Those diversions which are in the name of the BLM
are in fact rights connected to cattle grazing permittees and would not
have been adjudicated in the name of the federal government without the
private cattle permittee=s showing of beneficial use. The other 700 or
so water rights are connected to private land parcels within the
Monument boundaries. In addition those parcels of private land lying
adjacent to the monument, in many cases, derive their water from the
watershed areas inside the monument. It is estimated that an additional
700 to 1000 private water rights were impacted by the monument
designation. This would mean that more that 2000 private water rights
in Kane County alone were negatively impacted by the creation of the
GSENM and the implementation of the monument plan. Although there was a
vigorous appeal of the language in the Monument Plan regarding water
resources, the monument planners totally ignored public input, the Kane
County Water Conservancy District input, and the Utah State Engineer=s
input to the Monument Plan regarding the use and development of private
water rights in the monument.
The information regarding water rights as recorded in the Monument
Plan conflicts with Utah state law. The plan states that: ``In general,
diversions of water out of the Monument will not be permitted.'' The
plan does allow for some exceptions for ``community culinary water if
the applicant can demonstrate that the diversion of water will not
damage water resources within the Monument or conflict with the
objectives of the plan...'' The ability for a public utility to meet
the criteria for moving private water rights off the monument is
severely limited by the plan. This would be the case even if the
applicant has the legal l water rights to a particular surface flow or
underground aquifer flow. The federal government could protest the
action and go to court to stop water development. This is simply a
takings of private water rights without compensation. There were no
federal reserve water rights created as a result of the presidential
proclamation, but that did not stop the federal planners from
restricting the use and development of private water rights in the
Monument Plan. Wild and Scenic Rivers recommendations were also
included in the plan with over 252 miles recommended. If these
designations are approved this could add additional restrictive
management to another 80,060 acres which will further impact private
and federal grazing water rights as well as access, recreational use,
and cattle grazing. It is apparent, that the Monument Plan is the
document that will be used to stop the private use of valid existing
private water rights and to impede any type of water right development
in Kane County.
Minerals: A Utah State Geological Society report describe perhaps
the most controversial debates regarding the creation of the Monument.
These are the unresolved issues with the vast mineral values and
mineral potential within the boundaries of the Monument. In January of
1997 M. Lee Allison, Utah State Geologist for the Utah Geological
Society produced Circular 93, ``A Preliminary Assessment of Energy and
Mineral Resources with the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.'' Although the BLM Division of Minerals were aware of the
extensive mineral reserves in the monument, it is unfortunate that this
report could not have been made public prior to the designation. The
lock up of literally billions of tons of energy minerals and strategic
minerals at a time when the United States is facing an energy crisis is
malfeasance. The report states in the summary section that ``the value
of known and potential and energy mineral resources in the GSENM at
1997 prices is between $223 billion and $330 billion dollars'' (this
value would now be higher due to domestic energy shortages). This
figure does not include any additional value for tar sands, carbon
dioxide reserves, or any other mineral deposits such as titanium,
uranium, or copper. The report goes on to state that the 1.9 million
monument acres in Kane and Garfield counties includes some of the most
energy-rich lands in the lower 48 states. The Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands at one time held over 200,000 acres of
mineral rights in the monument. After the Monument designation,
President Clinton directed the Secretary of Interior to trade these
lands for other federal lands or resources in Utah that are of
comparable value. The State has since traded these lands for money and
mineral rights in other locations. Circular 93 was created for the
purpose of assessing and evaluating the mineral resources in the
monument, to qualitatively describe the resource potential for each
known commodity, and to propose plans to better assess the potential
values in order to help assure that Utah's school children receive fair
and just compensation.
The Monument Plan specifically withdrew all of the Federal lands
and interests in lands within the Monument from entry, location,
selection, sale leasing, or other disposition under the public land
laws, including the mineral leasing and mining laws. Thus no new
Federal mineral leases or prospecting permits may be issued, nor may
new mining claims be located within the Monument. Authorization for
activities on existing mineral leases and mining claims, according to
the Proclamation will be governed by Valid Existing Rights. Within the
monument there are currently 68 Federal mining claims covering
approximately 2,700 acres, 85 Federal oil and gas leases encompassing
more than 136,000 acres, and 18 Federal coal leases on about 52,800
acres (GSENM Plan page 51). It is interesting to note that these
191,000 acres of land is only 1% of the entire 1.9 million acre
Monument. The obvious question is why did the Clinton-Gore-Babbitt
administration act to lock up 1.9 million acres of federal land under
the Antiquities Act that was supposedly threatened by development when
only 1% of the land was under mineral lease?
Recreation and Tourism: Gary Nicholes a professional recreation
specialist has worked as a consultant for the BLM the National Park
Service, the United States Forest Service and the State of Utah over a
period of 25 years. He calls the creation of the Monument a
``Politically Motivated Action'' and describes how the proposed
resource plan or management policy for the new recreation resource was
initiated by special interests or political appointees to meet specific
opportunistic purposes. As a result, Nicholes concludes that the
Monument plan doesn't meet the broader concern of local economies or
preferred recreation user groups. ``While the GSENM has some unique
dispersed characteristics located within its boundaries its special
environment is common in its entirety for such a large national
monument designation. The present GSENM's Administrative Plan doesn't
replace the economic value or quality of life it extracts from local
communities by severely restricting regional travel and recreation
experiences within its boundaries.
Creation of the Monument-Legal Analysis: This section of the report
is a legal analysis of the creation of the Monument. It outlines the
process by which the Clinton Babbitt administration illegally made the
designation and the reasons why it is contrary to law. In order to be
both legal and legitimately accepted, President Clinton's Proclamation
designating the GSENM must have met the following criteria as
identified in the 1906 Antiquities Act: (1). The use of the Antiquities
Act must originate with the President. (2). The Antiquities Act can
only protect objects of historic and scientific interest. (3). The
objects of historic and scientific interest must be endangered. (4).
Land reserved under the Antiquities Act ``in all cases shall be
confined to the smallest area'' necessary to manage the protected
objects.
President Clinton did not initiate the GSENM inquiry, however, a
fake paper trail was established to make it appear that he did. The
Department of Interior initiated the process in order to exclude
Congress and the American public from participating in this decision as
required by the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) and other laws. The GSENM Proclamation eliminates
almost two million acres of land from multiple use and sustained yield
and was driven by an extreme environmental philosophy related to
expanding wilderness status and for political reasons rather than
protecting endangered objects. The Babbitt administration clearly knew
that no objects of historic or scientific interest were endangered.
The nearly two million acres within the GSENM and the lack of
endangered objects of historic and scientific interest combine to
violate the smallest area test. The GSENM Monument is equal in size to
a one and one-half mile wide parcel of land stretching from San
Francisco to New York City and far exceeds the intent and authority
delegated to the President under the Antiquities Act. The legality of
the Monument designation aside, the Monument boundary and the GSENM
Management Plan also exceed authority provided in either the
Antiquities Act Proclamation or FLPMA, the BLM's organic act. The
entire Management Plan, including the Monument boundary, requires
extensive revision in order to meet lawful compliance with the
Antiquities Act, FLPMA, NEPA, APA, Taylor Grazing Act, the Public Range
Lands Improvement Act and others. The public, the economic needs of
local communities, private property interests and valid existing rights
need to be considered in planning revisions, in a meaningful way, as
that has not happened regarding the Monument planning process to date.
The use of the Antiquities Act in evading public participation and
Congressional involvement creates concern beyond a legal argument. It
raises questions regarding the nobility of the entire designation
process.
The Monument Plan Locks the American People out of their Land:
Although Bill Clinton promised on September 19th, 2001 that valid
existing rights would be protected and that the creation of the
Monument would somehow preserve the land for the American people and
provide a place where they could enjoy solitude and the peace of
nature, this was in fact a lie. The reality at that time was that the
subject 1.9 million acre land area was already accessible and available
for use by the American public and the reality today is that the
creation of Monument and the resulting Monument plan greatly restricts
the access and multiple use of these public lands for recreation and
solitude. With the GSENM Plan in place only about 6% of the entire
Monument (Frontcountry Zone and Passage Zone) will be readily
accessible by the vast majority of American taxpayers. The GSENM Plan
totally restricts vehicle or any kind of mechanical access to over 65%
of the Monument. Because of the rugged and remote character of the
Monument, only the most hardy and probably because of the limitations
most Americans have on their time due to the need to make a living and
support their families, only the most affluent in the society will ever
be able to visit this area. In other words how many Americans have the
financial capability to back pack into a remote area for two to three
weeks at a time, and that is assuming that you can even get the BLM to
issue you a camping permit. Prior to the creation of the Monument
camping, hunting, backpacking, four-wheeling, wood cutting was readily
available on these lands with little or no restrictions.
Conclusions: One of the major objectives of the KCRDC report was to
motivate those in ``political power'' positions on the federal, state
and local levels to seriously consider and actively seek solutions to
the regional problems generated by the monument's designation. Local
residents and local elected officials feel that the problems created by
the monument designation are not fully understood by those who reside
outside of the affected region. BLM monument planners touted the
benefits of the plan to the tourist economy. The monument was supposed
increase recreational and tourist activity in the county which would
compensate for the loss of resource based employment. However, it is
readily apparent from a review of the monument plan that little
opportunity will be offered to local economies to seek a mix of travel
and recreation resources within the monument. When attractions and
activities are restricted in the monument plan as they are, this action
severely limits investment capital and planning flexibility to
establish a variety of successful business opportunities for those
living in local communities.
The only Kane County residents that seem to be benefitting
economically from the monument are the highly paid GS-12's, 13's, 14's
and GS 15 GSENM employees and the management team which were hand
picked by the Babbitt administration to move into the area. Very few
positions went to the local populace. The American taxpayer is getting
fleeced twice on this illegal action. First he was told that the lands
were set aside for present and future generations to use and enjoy
which after reading the KRDC report one will discover was a deception
to garner support from the American public. The land if kept in
monument status, will only be available for federal bureaucrats,
researchers, and a few elite individuals who are able to spend weeks
hiking and traveling on foot with the proper permits. Second the
taxpayer gets to foot the bill for the 1000% increase in budget to
``manage'' the lands with 5 times the number of highly paid federal
employees (from 20 to over 109 not including summer hires which brings
to total to close to 120). At a time when the average Kane County
family is bringing home less than $28,000 in annual wages the
designation and over staffing of the monument by the federal government
has created a new privileged class of citizen in the county i.e. the
federal bureaucrat.
H.R. 2114 is just the type of legislation that is needed to prevent
the kind of problems that have resulted from the creation of the GSENM.
If the legislation is passed, the President would still be free to
designate 50,000 acres of public land as a National Monument without
congressional approval. This is more than 78 square miles of land and
would be more than adequate to protect historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest. Having worked in federal land management for over 21 years I
can testify that the federal and state laws and regulations that have
been passed and implemented since 1906 are entirely adequate to protect
the values identified in the Antiquities Act. We have come a long way
in environmental protection since 1906 and we also have improved
technology that allows us to develop resources and still protect the
environment.
It is ludicrous to lock up our natural resources and energy
supplies and then send our sons and daughters to Kuwait to protect the
energy resources of a foreign country. My own son came in harms way as
he served as an officer in the Desert Storm conflict. I don't want to
see him or my grandsons obligated to fight for foreign oil or strategic
minerals when they are readily available in this country. Wouldn't it
be better to develop our own natural resources in an environmentally
responsible manner rather shift our energy burden to other countries?
Rural America is where the products are produced and where the energy
supplies are located. Behind every light switch is a coal miner, in
every loaf of bread and in every hamburger is the hard work of a rural
farmer or rancher. We should continue to look at ways to become energy
self-sufficient. Let's approach life with the attitude that there are
an abundance resources and opportunities. To lock down and lock out the
public from the public lands to supposedly ``protect it'' from
ourselves is contrary to the wise and conservative use of our available
resources. The vast majority of these resources are renewable. The coal
energy of the Kaiparowits and other areas is our stepping stone to the
future of a yet to be discovered renewable energy supply. We can buy
hundreds of years of research time with clean coal energy while the
best minds work to develop alternative sources of renewable energy or
we can lock ourselves and our children out of these resources and
continue to depend on an ever decreasing supply of foreign oil.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important
legislation.
______
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Roosevelt.
STATEMENT OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT, IV, BUSINESSMAN AND
CONSERVATIONIST FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing me to testify. I
am delighted to be here today in my capacity as a member of the
Governing Council of the Wilderness Society and other
environmental organizations. I dare say it will not come as a
surprise to you when you know that I am going to strenuously
oppose 2114 on behalf of these organizations. It won't come as
a surprise to me if I am subjected to a fair amount of sharp
questioning on your part. I do hope that you won't consider me
to be dictatorial or unAmerican in the views that I have.
The timing I think is particularly good for this, from my
perspective. I just returned from a trip to Montana, where I
spent 10 days on my ranch. Like most ranchers I spent most of
my time worrying about fences, rain, grass and cattle. But I
also gave a lot of thought to western land issues, especially
in the wake of the Time Magazine article, ``War on the West.''
this, as you probably know, is the third time in less than 5
years I have testified before this Committee and Committees in
the Senate on the Antiquities Act. But I do hope that 1 day
Congress will recognize that the Act itself is a monument to
our national conscience.
I believe that H.R. 2114 seeks to emasculate the
Antiquities Act by limiting the size of national monuments that
can be designated by the President to 50,000 acres or less.
If T. R. were president today, he would be unable to
designate Grand Canyon National Monument. In his time, that
action was exceedingly controversial as were some of the recent
proclamations that we have heard about today. Rather than
reading from my written transcript, I would like to share with
you some of my thoughts about the conflict in the west over
public lands, and I am going to depart a little bit from my
written testimony, which you can read.
It is my belief that the conflict over the western public
lands which fuels this attack on that has served our country
well. The Antiquities Act has, in fact, become a focal point
for old controversy. Should Federal lands be managed for
national values or local interests? Is there a strategy for
management that can accommodate both? There are some in the
west who claim we have moved away from a multiple use strategy
to a ``no use strategy.'' I disagree, and I will try to explain
why.
We are also failing to realize the full range of what
multiple use encompasses. National Forests, for example,
protect clean water. In California, 50 percent of the drinking
water originates on National Forests. In T. R.'s time, we did
not have the science which we do today to help us understand
what is involved in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Today's
science clearly tells us that keeping larger tracts of land
intact is the best way in maintaining the health and resilience
of ecosystems as a whole.
Most Americans view our public lands as bastions in our
conservation efforts. In reality, lands protected in
conservation areas, which I will characterize as wilderness
areas, wildlife refugees, national parks and private nature
reserves, are far from excessive. They account for about 5
percent of the U.S. land area excluding Alaska.
Open space initiatives throughout the country are on the
rise and embraced enthusiastically by the American people. The
phenomenon which I am sure that all of you are familiar with,
and this probably comes from the fact that in the L.A. Times
poll, they discovered that a large majority of Americans
expressed a sense of ownership of Federal lands. A walloping 61
percent felt that the Federal Government should consider the
views of all Americans when setting environmental policy on
those lands.
Now, I recognize that the issue is somewhat more
complicated, and I have learned a great deal on that score from
my service on the board of the University of Wyoming's
Institute for the Environment of National Resources. A close
friend of mine, Dan Kemis, who also serves on that board and
was the former mayor of Missoula, Montana. Dan has written an
extraordinarily interesting essay entitled ``Rethinking Public
Land Governance for the New Century,'' which will be published
this fall. He points out rightfully, in my opinion, the
resentment toward and resistance to the national presence has
had a long history in the west. He cites in his essay the
insensitivity of the national government toward issues that
fuel Western anger. He points to the extraordinary success of
some of the local collaborative conservation efforts, the Nalpi
Borderlands Group may be the most famous of these. The
Antiquities Act, however, is the wrong target for addressing
the west's anger. Dan Kemis frames the problem, in my opinion,
very aptly in his essay, and I would like to read a some what
long quote from it.
It is impossible to imagine environmentalists or other
progressives trusting westerners to run the west unless they
could be shown how western control of the land is not just a
cover for corporate greed. This is from the former mayor of
Missoula. Democrats, in other words, will not and should not
abandon their undemocratic attitude toward the west until
conservatives agree to abandon their own anti-conservative
approaches to western issues.
A few responsible western Republicans are beginning to
recognize that the pursuit of quick profit at the expense of
sustainable ecosystems and sustainable communities does not
conserve anything. I believe that if we took conservation
issues as much to heart as the American people do, we could
find solutions to land management in the west and elsewhere who
would work effectively on local, regional and continental
scales.
The Antiquities Act, however, does not deserve to be the
battleground of what Time Magazine calls the ``War Over the
West.'' neither should conservation. We should both--we should
be on the same side here, which is the side of the American
people. And in the end, I truly believe no one will lose
including local communities or future generations.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roosevelt follows:]
Statement of Theodore Roosevelt IV, on behalf of American Lands,
American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice Legal Defense
Fund, Friends of the Earth, Grand Canyon Trust, League of Conservation
Voters, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, National Hispanic
Environmental Council, National Parks Conservation Association,
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Preservation Action, Republicans for Environmental Protection,
Scenic America, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Association, The
Ocean Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, U.S. PIRG
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Ted Roosevelt
IV, a businessman, conservationist, and a rancher. I am also Republican
and a great grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, who signed the
Antiquities Act of 1906 into law and proclaimed the first national
monuments under it. I am honored to be here today in my capacity as a
member of. the Governing Council of The Wilderness Society and to
represent the twenty organizations listed above. We are strenuously
opposed to enactment of H.R. 2114, the ``National Monument Fairness Act
of 2001.''
This is the third time that I have testified before House and
Senate Committees in defense of the Antiquities Act. It is my hope
that, eventually, these challenges to the Act will be simply a matter
for the history books and that Congress will come to recognize that the
Act itself is a monument to our national conscience.
Our national identity is not solely defined by the success of our
economic enterprise, and the American people repeatedly and
resoundingly confirm to their representatives in Congress that the
health, integrity, and beauty of our landscape is an absolute value of
national importance to them. As one serviceman of my acquaintance put
it: ``I may not have the privilege of living in God's country, but I
had the privilege of fighting for it. That is the landscape upon which
I fixed my heart and hopes.'' And it is that signature landscape, so
beloved by the American people, that the Antiquities Act has helped us
to preserve, including: the Grand Canyon, Arizona's Petrified Forest,
Mount Olympus in Washington, Zion National Park in Utah, Yukon Flats in
Alaska, Death Valley in California--to name just a few of the national
monuments that exceeded 50,000 acres.
H.R. 2114 seeks to limit the size of national monuments that can be
designated without congressional approval to 50,000 acres or less; it
seeks, therefore, to preclude future presidents from acting as Theodore
Roosevelt once did when he designated 808,120 acres in northern Arizona
as the Grand Canyon National Monument. On that occasion, he said of the
Canyon, ``Leave it as it is. You cannot improve upon it; not a bit.
What you can do is to keep it for your children, your children's
children, and for all who come after you.'' These are sentiments to
which the vast majority of Americans ascribe. In fact, we overlook at
our peril the essentially grassroots nature of American conservation.
The Antiquities Act itself was a response in the late 19th century to a
national, popular outcry against the vandalism and looting occurring on
national landmarks. And throughout the service of 13 presidents of both
political parties, the Antiquities Act has been an invaluable tool in
preserving what the American people clearly saw as requiring swift and
special protection.
The Antiquities Act is not unlike other powers that Congress has
given to the president to forestall swiftly a threat that Congress
cannot address in a timely or decisive fashion. The Act represents a
true balance of powers between the President and the Congress. It
confers only the power to reserve public lands from specific uses that
threaten these lands' special qualities. Congress retains all other
powers over any presidentially proclaimed national monument. Congress
may set the terms and conditions of a monument's management, as this
Committee has recently seen fit to do in H.R. 601, which clarified the
status and management prescriptions of the Craters of the Moon National
Monument in Idaho, as expanded by President Clinton. Congress may
determine its funding, as it has done with the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, despite continuing local controversy.
Congress may alter the boundaries of national monuments, again as it
did in 1998 with the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. It
may even decide to abolish a national monument, an action some Members
of this Committee may be contemplating with respect to one or more of
our newest national monuments, but an action which, I venture to say,
will find little support with the American people.
President Clinton's proclamation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument in Utah, and the subsequent national monument
proclamations that followed, kindled the fierce reaction among those
who have sponsored legislation to change radically this time-tested
law. Based on this action, sponsors of H.R. 2114 apparently believe
that presidents have abused the Act and that it needs major surgery.
But a close examination of each of President Clinton's proclamations
reveals the careful rationale used to protect our nation's newest crown
jewels. For example:
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon:
With towering fir forests, sunlit oak groves, wildflower-strewn
meadows, and steep canyons, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is
an ecological wonder, with biological diversity unmatched in the
Cascade Range. This rich enclave of natural resources is at a
biological crossroads--the interface of the Cascade, Klamath, and
Siskiyou ecoregions, in an area of unique geology biology, climate, and
topography.... The monument is home to a spectacular variety of rare
and beautiful species of plants and animals, whose survival in this
region depends upon its continued ecological integrity....
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, Arizona:
The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument is a vast,
biologically diverse, impressive landscape encompassing an array of
scientific and historic objects. This remote area of open, undeveloped
spaces and engaging scenery is located on the edge of one of the most
beautiful places on earth, the Grand Canyon. Despite the hardships
created by rugged isolation and the lack of natural waters, the
monument has a long and rich human history spanning more than 11,000
years, and an equally rich geologic history spanning almost 2 billion
years. Full of natural splendor and solitude, this area remains remote
and unspoiled, qualities that are essential to the protection of the
scientific and historic resources it contains.
Ironwood Forest National Monument, Arizona:
The monument contains objects of scientific interest throughout its
desert environment. Stands of ironwood, palo verde, and saguaro blanket
the monument floor beneath the rugged mountain ranges, including the
Silver Bell Mountains. Ragged Top Mountain is a biological and
geological crown jewel amid the depositional plains in the monument.
The monument presents a quintessential view of the Sonoran Desert with
ancient legume and cactus forests. The geologic and topographic
variability of the monument contributes to the area's high biological
diversity. In addition to the biological and geological resources, the
area holds abundant rock art sites and other archeological objects of
scientific interest. Humans have inhabited the area for more than 5,000
years. More than 200 sites from the prehistoric Hohokam period (600
A.D. to 1450 A.D.) have been recorded in the area.
Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, Montana:
The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument contains a
spectacular array of biological, geological, and historical objects of
interest. The area has remained largely unchanged in the nearly 200
years since Meriwether Lewis and William Clark traveled through it on
their epic journey. ..
Some claim that more recent federal laws, particularly the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) render the Antiquities Act obsolete. This is not
true. NEPA is an analytical tool that establishes a public involvement
process and has no special authority to protect unique federal lands.
FLPMA does not assure long term protection under its emergency powers
and has no authority for National Park Service management of those
national monuments designated for Park Service stewardship. The
Antiquities Act remains an important tool for protection of federal
lands held in trust for all Americans, not just the residents in a
particular state.
In conclusion, the Antiquities Act is a distinctly American law,
designed by your far-sighted predecessors to assure that we do not
damage those natural, archeological, and cultural treasures unique to
our American landscape. Since its passage in 1906, it has served our
nation well, ensuring that presidents have the ability to protect
fragile and special places from ill-conceived commercial exploitation
with the speed not found in the ordinary legislative process.
Presidents have used the Act sparingly and appropriately to respond to
public concerns about the preservation of places that are keystones to
our national memory and that help define us as a people and a nation.
We respectfully urge your opposition to H.R. 2114.
______
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome our panelists and particularly welcome you, Mr.
Roosevelt. I guess I would have one question. In the previous
Congress, on a bipartisan agreement had been reached between
our current--the Chairman of the Resources Committee, now Mr.
Hansen, and Mr. Vento, and that amendment provided for public
participation and comment as well as consultation on the
proposed monument designation for consideration by the
President of any information made available in the development
of existing plans and programs for the management of the lands
and it made it clear that NEPA applied to any management plan
developed subsequent to the declaration. Would this not
accomplish all that we are trying to--that we want to
accomplish with regard to the designation of monuments?
Mr. Roosevelt. Mrs. Christensen, I think you raise a very
good question. On balance, I think I and most of the
environmental movement would endorse increased coordination,
increased collaboration. Our biggest concern is the provision
of 50,000 acres. And I think if you can see within reason
increased cooperation between the local regions and they have
to have an input, but I don't think we want to see where they
have a majority. But reasonable coordination, reasonable input,
absolutely.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Would anyone else--.
Mr. Noel. I would like to comment on that. Yes NEPA is very
important in considering whether to establish a National
Monument. NEPA will allow for the review of social economic
impacts to local communities. In fact, as was noted here, after
the uproar caused by the creation of the GSENM, Secretary
Babbitt had Interior put together a report on other potential
monument designations. The administration asked for public
comments and held public meetings before proceeding with the
creation of any of the subsequent monuments. So I believe that
requiring NEPA analysis is not a problem and should in fact be
a part of the process. Why would an environmentally friendly
administration not want to complete a NEPA analysis? I would
also like to comment on a point that Mr. Roosevelt made
regarding water conservation being important and on watersheds.
We know that it is very important and that the public lands are
the watershed areas for our communities. A great deal of our
water in Kane County is collected in the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument and stored in the Navajo Sandstone
Aquifer. With only 4% of the land in Kane County in private
ownership we are totally dependent on a protected watershed on
public lands. Unfortunately, the GSENM plan does not allow for
the transfer of private water rights off the monument even
though state law allows us that right. There were no Federal
Reserved Water Rights designated in the proclamation, yet
private citizens can't even take their privately held water
rights off the monument.
It is interesting as some here have talked about the polls
that show that the American Public wants more land set aside
for recreation and public use. The environmental organizations
use the poles to push for monument designations, and wilderness
designations. What they don't tell the public however is that
these lands are already open to public use and enjoyment and
the various designations do nothing more than to lock out the
majority of American Citizens. This is the great myth
perpetrated by the greens, that we are saving the land for your
children, when in fact your children will never get to see the
vast majority of the public lands in the monuments because of
the closing of access, the extensive permitting process and the
management closure of the vast majority of the designated land.
Under the previous management of these lands under FLPMA, the
public could use the public lands for recreation and tourism
and the local resident populations could use the public lands
on a multiple use sustained yield basis. Now, under the GSENM
Plan if you have more than 12 members in your family that want
to camp or have a family reunion, you can't. The plan allows
for only 12 heartbeats. You could have 10 family members and 2
dogs and that is it. You can't bring your family to see the
public lands because access is now severely limited. The
monument plan proposes closing over 1000 miles of existing
county roads.
FLPMA was passed to allow access and use of the public
lands by the American people in a myriad of ways. Access to
these lands was provided not just by backpacking and hiking but
also by mechanical means. Specific areas that need further
protection from off road vehicles or human impacts can be
protected by creating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC's). Rivers can be protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. You don't need to lock up almost 1.9 million acres to
protect a few antiquities. You can keep the public lands open
to the public and protect the environment. The BLM has been
doing both for over 25 years. That is what FLPMA was all about,
protecting the land while using the mostly renewable resources.
1906 was a long time ago. There were no other environmental
laws on the books to protect the antiquities on public lands.
We have come a long way in the last 95 years in managing and
protecting the public lands. This is not antiquities protection
issue, this is a wilderness issue. It was a back door method
that the Babbitt administration used to create wilderness in
Southern Utah, something that they couldn't accomplish legally
in congress.
Ms. Cook. I would like to comment on 50,000 acre provision,
and then after I am done, ask Congressman Simpson to comment on
Congress's role. But I would like to again to refer to the
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Now the national monument
portion of this is only 53,000 acres. But had a process been in
place prior to the designation of the monument parcels, the
public and private ownership controversies would have been
minimized, whereas now the management options are constrained,
the land managers of the monument are constrained by the
proclamation, and controversy will be assured for years to
come. And it is my understanding that over 50,000 acres,
Congress has to agree. If Congress can't agree, within 2 years,
then the President's proclamation stands. Is that correct, or
am I incorrect about that?
Mr. Simmons. That is correct. Under this legislation, the
President has 2 years or the Congress has 2 years in which to
ratify that decision. The President could still make that
designation. There is nothing that prevents the President of
making a designation of 10 million acres if he so chooses.
Ms. Cook. If Congress can't act then the designation
stands?
Mr. Simmons. No. Congress has to act to affirm that
decision.
Ms. Cook. I appreciate you clarifying that. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. I thank you for your answers. Having had
monument designations recently declared in my district and have
been in the middle of a fire storm over them, I, you know,
fully support the propose--the consultation with the community
to mitigate any adverse impact, but even, despite my recent
experience, I cannot support the rest of the provisions of this
bill.
Mr. Hefley. Does anyone have any question? We have a whole
other panel we need to be through here by noon. Does anyone
have burning questions of this panel?
Mr. Simpson. I have a couple.
Mr. Hefley. If you keep them short. We will do that.
Because we have got people that have come from out of town we
do want to hear them, but Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Roosevelt, your comment that it prevents
the President from making a designation it doesn't do that. The
President can make any size designation he wants to. It is just
if it is over 50,000 acres, Congress has to be involved in the
process. The value of the Antiquities Act, given all the
environmental laws we have today, is for a president to get out
and prevent some damage that could be done immediately by some
threat, I mean, that really is the only value of the
Antiquities Act versus the other laws we have on the books.
Isn't that true?
Mr. Roosevelt. Well, you asked two questions, if I may,
Congressman. The first is by not acting, the President's
declaration is overturned. And Congress, as you know, some
times get an awful lot of business on its plate and it won't
get to the things it might want to get to and the designation
will expire. And given the success of this Act, and going back
and seeing how many monuments have been put into place, I think
that this piece of legislation is unwise. I think the
legislation has stood very well, has been extraordinarily
effective.
Mr. Simpson. Let me respond to that if I could. I
continually hear the environmental community say jeez, Congress
won't act and they will just let it expire, the monuments will
go away. Congress, since 1964, since the Wilderness Act has
been put into place, has been created more wilderness acres
than the monuments since 1906. Congress has been responsive in
this area of trying protect our public lands. We haven't just
ignored them. And to subject that jeez, Congress just won't act
I think is irresponsible. Go ahead.
Mr. Roosevelt. Perhaps reasonable people may disagree, but
I refer, for example, Congressman Farr of California, when he
wanted to get a designation off North Monterey for wilderness,
he couldn't get it done. There may be a whole bunch of reasons
why, but eventually Secretary Babbitt had that designated as a
national monument. That is an example of where there seems to
be some inertia. I think if you look back and see the success
of these monuments, there are relatively few that people look
back and say--in fact, none that I an think of--that say, gee,
I wish we hadn't done that. And indeed there say mechanism that
you can undo it if it is really that egregious.
In terms of the imminent threat, I think that is a good
point. But I think that the chief executive has one piece of
legislation which has been extraordinarily effective, and by
and large, I think has been used very well. I think the
comments that have been made about the lack of consultation
from time to time, those are valid. But we shouldn't allow
ourselves, with all due respect, to get unduly exercised about
that, because I think that problem will be fixed. And indeed,
there is some legislation which has been passed which makes
that process, I think, a little bit better, maybe not good
enough to your satisfaction, but we don't want to emasculate a
piece of legislation which has been very, very good. That is my
opinion.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate your comments. I want you to know
we are not trying to emasculate it. I am actually trying to
make it work. I will tell you that in Idaho, when they did the
660,000 acres of the national monument, the expansion of the
Craters of the Moon, people were upset. And then they came in
later and wanted to do the Hunt Camp, which was the perfect use
of the Antiquities Act, the perfect use of it. But the threat
of saying oh, here's another national monument, the public
reaction was boy, there they go again. And that is abuse of
that Act, is what is going to destroy this Act.
And until you guys get your heads screwed on about what is
going on out there with this national monument designation and
the fact that even the President, even the President ought to
follow the law. And when the law says it ought to be under some
imminent threat, then it ought to be under some imminent
threat. Not saying well, gee, some time in the future somebody
might do something else. They had plenty of time to say let's
run a bill through Congress to protect this unique area called
the Great Rift. But no, they wanted to do that. They wanted to
make a political statement out of it. It is not the anger in
the west, it is the abuse by single individuals.
And I cannot believe that the environmental community
supports putting so much power into one individual's hands and
saying boy, you control everything. But it seems like whenever
we want to get something out to local communities and have
their involvement and their input in the decision-making, now
that is taken to the Federal Government. Because we don't want
to have to deal with all the local communities, and let's just
take to the Federal Government and deal with Congress.
If you take it away from Congress and put it in the
President's hand, then we only have to with have one guy. It is
like we don't want the public involved in it. I don't think the
environmental community actually trusts the public. I say that
when we get on the side of the American people, then we will
have some good environmental laws. I trust the American people.
I trust them to have input and make decisions that are good.
And no, not just local people, but people across the country.
But I don't think your organizations actually trust the
American people. That is what really bothers me about this.
Reasonable people can disagree.
I look forward to working with you on this. Because I tell
you what, it might surprise you, I don't disagree with a lot of
the things that you do. I live in the west because I love it.
And I wonder why I am here about 90 percent of the time.
Mr. Roosevelt. I share your views on that 100 percent. When
I got that plane to come back to New York City, I wondered why
in the devil I was doing that. I do think the organizations
that I work with, whether it be the League of Conservation
Voters, whether it be Wilderness, whether it be the Institute
for the Environmental and Natural Resources out in Wyoming, we
do trust people. I believe the IENR has been particularly
farsighted in recognizing the need to get greater
collaboration. There has to be a sense of respect, and we to
get the people in the west to feel their part of that process.
I don't think the solution is to amend the Antiquities Act. I
guess that is where you and I may differ.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
intensity of my colleague on this issue. I also very much
appreciate your statements of concern, and I think you said we
can be on the same side of issues. If the side that we are on
is improving the land and maintaining some access so people can
enjoy the beauty, and at the same time, protect the delicate
areas, I think you will find we have a great deal of overlap.
Are you familiar with the Deseret Ranch in Utah and their
theory of wholistic resource management there.
Mr. Roosevelt. Not intimately, but I am aware of them.
Mr. Cannon. The theory is that if you graze intensively,
the cattle break up the ground, they leave biotic material in
their wake and having chewed the grass, it is more robust when
it comes back. We have been talking with some groups about
doing a similar experiment on the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. Is that something your group would support
or the groups that you are affiliated with would support?
Mr. Roosevelt. That is a very good question, and to be
honest, I can't answer that question because I have never
raised that question. I am familiar with that technique. The
theory that frankly it was the buffalo or the bison that really
did that first.
Mr. Cannon. We killed all the bison, now we have this
ground blowing away.
Mr. Roosevelt. There are some questions that people have as
the bison come in and they really chew up the ground and they
go away and they historically wouldn't come back to that same
place for a couple of years. And then they come back and chew
it up, and hoof action, defecating, et cetera, was very good
for the native grasses that were there. There are a lot of
questions. I am probably too long-winded to your question.
There are a lot of questions, will cattle do it in the same
way? Do we know enough about how you move the cattle around?
And do we have the right grasses in place because we have so
many exotics and so many imported grasses, and will they
respond in the same way?
Speaking for myself, because I don't want to put words in
the mouth of my colleagues, that is the kind of experiment I
think we should carry out and see if it works. Do it on a very
small scale so we can see if it works or not.
Mr. Cannon. Speaking of scale I think we are looking at
100,000 acres, is that what you would call--.
Mr. Roosevelt. I personally would be comfortable with that.
I would like to see if it works or not. We need to find better
ways of restoring that range grass. When you talk to some of
the people that know a lot about grass, there is an expert I
consult a lot, a guy called Brian Sindular. He is helping in
our ranch, bringing in new species and new grasses and how are
we going to run the cattle on it. There is a lot that we don't
know. If we start from the position we don't know a lot, let's
try and see what happens and be very careful and recognize we
don't know.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I appreciate that approach. You have
raised some of the serious questions that we have there. I
would note that there are large areas, but the rainfall in the
Deseret Ranch area, which is an incredibly lush productive
ranch, one of the few ranches in the world that is actually
making serious money on the cattle they raise there, the
rainfall in that area is similar to the rainfall in much of the
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. I hope we can work
together on the future. I apologize. We got a little rushed by
the Chairman.
I want to thank you, Ms. Cook, for coming and Mr. Noel,
because we have had a great relationship in the past. I can't
help asking Mr. Noel and Ms. Cook, you have 5,000 people, Mr.
Noel, in Kane County. And when you sit here, you are speaking
for 5,000 people. And Mr. Roosevelt is speaking for millions of
people or a multiple of people from New York. Why should we
give your views as much credence and weight as Mr. Roosevelt's?
Mr. Noel. Well, as we look at the last election we can
readily see that President Bush was very, very popular in rural
America. He won the vote in about 2700 or 2800 counties. The
urban areas of the country on the other hand voted for Mr.
Gore. I believe that is because rural America was taken for
granted. Even though the food and fiber of this country is
produced in rural America in mainly those 2800 counties, the
Clinton/Gore Administration didn't think they were very
important.
I think we have some strategic minerals and strategic
resources out there in rural America that we need to recognize.
We have about 6000 people in Kane County. I trust the people of
Kane County to protect not only the private lands but the
public lands as well. That is why these lands are in such great
condition that you can designate them as a National Monument,
the locals have done a great job in using yet protecting these
lands. Our philosophy in Kane County is use it up, wear it out,
make it do or do without. We are not excessive in our needs and
uses of the land. We want to make sure we take care of the
land. We have done a good job of that. I think it is important
that we take care of the land. Our water, our resources are all
there, we depend on the public lands for our livelihood. I
don't understand how people think the citizens of Kane County
are trying to destroy the area such the Federal Government
needs to step in and make massive withdrawals of land from
multiple use for Antiquities that quite frankly just ain't
there. The laws that were in place for the public lands in our
county were such that the land could be used but not abused.
The great myth that the environmental organizations feed to the
American public is we are protecting and preserving these lands
for your children. In reality they are closing access and the
public's use of these lands for their own selfish interests.
They shut out the public. They lock out the public from their
lands.
Mr. Cannon. My time is about expired. Can I just add one
thing, that is, the law protects 5,000 the way it protects 5
million. If you don't support the rule of law for 5,000, you
won't support it for anyone. Thank you.
Ms. Cook. I just have something very, very quick. This has
been characterized as east versus west. Well, there is a lot of
access in the east that is threatened as well, beaches and
woods and so on. And it is not so much east versus west as
where you live and what happens in your own neighborhood and
that goes for everywhere.
Mr. Hefley. I thank the panel. The next panel is composed
of the Honorable Dee Hauber, Mayor, Town of Groton,
Connecticut; Mr. James L. Streeter, Avery Point Lighthouse,
Groton, Connecticut; Ms. Anne Olson, executive Director,
Buffalo Bayou Partnership, Houston, Texas, and Mr. Stephen Fox,
Architect, in Houston Texas.
Mr. Hefley. I will remind you to try and keep your
testimony to 5 minutes. And we will start over here on the left
with the Honorable Dee Hauber.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEE HAUBER, MAYOR, TOWN OF GROTON,
CONNECTICUT
Ms. Hauber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee for
hearing us today. Let me begin by taking just a few moments to
describe Groton. Groton is a beautiful historic shoreline town
situated between the Mystic River and Thames River on Long
Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. We have 40 miles of
coast line and we are midway between New York and Boston. We
are a major economic and employment center. Our growth reflects
change in being the most defense dependent town in the country,
to diversity. We are now in pharmaceuticals and tourism. We are
home to Pfizer, Electric Boat and the Subase, which employs
approximately 22,000 people. The Subase has been there since
the 1890's and Electric Boat has been building submarines since
the 1900's, early 1900's.
Our history is steeped in maritime tradition. Groton is the
site of the only revolutionary war battle in Connecticut. Fort
Griswold which was attacked by the British forces which were
led by Benedict Arnold after they burned the city of New
London. Groton is known as the submarine capital of the world.
We are very proud of that. We are associated with the design
and manufacturing of the modern submarine.
Groton, New London Subase is the home port of the fast
attack submarine fleet in the Atlantic. We are also the
location of the historic ship USS Nautilus, the first nuclear
powered submarine. We are very proud of our history. Just south
of the Subase and Electric Boat is the University of
Connecticut at Avery Point where the lighthouse is located. The
State of Connecticut, as part of the UCONN 2000 program, has
pledged millions of dollars to make this campus a world class
institution for marine sciences. A new marine science
laboratory will open for students this fall.
Project Oceanology, a cooperative of several local
districts, opened a new building this past spring. Sharing the
UCONN campus are two United States Coast Guard commands, the
Research and Development Center and the International Ice
Patrol. The Coast Guard has been a tenant of the campus since
World War II. It was during the war that the lighthouse was
constructed. Mr. Streeter will speak of that.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is important to our maritime
history, and is truly a significant symbol of our community.
Restoration of the Lighthouse has been a major community
effort. I am bringing you a copy of the petitions that are with
approximately 10,000 signatures. There is no local opposition
to this. We respectfully request your favorable consideration
of this proposal to fund the restoration of the historic
treasure. I tried to keep it short to conserve some time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hauber follows:]
Statement of Dolores E. Hauber, Mayor, Groton, Connecticut on H.R. 1518
Good morning.
Chairman Hefley and members of the subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Dee Hauber and I
currently serve as Mayor for the Town of Groton. I have served on the
Town Council since 1989 and this is my third term as Mayor.
Let me begin by taking a few moments to describe my Town. Groton is
a beautiful, historic shoreline town situated between the Mystic River
and the Thames River on Long Island Sound in Southeastern Connecticut.
This provides 40 miles of coastline for our 40,000 residents. We are
midway between New York and Boston.
Groton is a major economic and employment center. Our economic
growth reflects a change from being the most defense dependent Town in
the entire country, to diversifying our local economy with growth in
the tourism and pharmaceutical sectors. We are home to Pfizer, Electric
Boat and the US Subase which combine to employ 22,000. The Subase has
been here since the 1890's and Electric Boat has been building
submarines since the early 1900's.
Our history is steeped in maritime tradition. Groton is the site of
the only Revolutionary War battle site in Connecticut, Fort Griswold,
which was attacked by British forces led by Benedict Arnold after they
burned the City of New London.
Groton is known as the Submarine Capital of the World for its
association with the design and manufacturing of modern submarines. The
Groton/New London Subase is homeport to the fast attack submarine fleet
in the Atlantic. We are also home to the historic ship, USS Nautilus,
the first nuclear powered submarine, the Submarine Force Museum and
Library that was recently expanded to include a major Cold War exhibit,
and the Submarine Wall of Honor. As you can tell, we are most proud of
our history.
Just south of the Subase and Electric Boat is the University of
Connecticut Avery Point Campus at which this lighthouse is located. The
State of Connecticut, as part of the UCONN 2000 program, has pledged
millions of dollars to make this campus a world class institution for
marine sciences. A new marine sciences laboratory will open for
students this fall. Project Oceanology, a cooperative of several local
school districts, opened its new building this past spring.
Sharing the UCONN Campus are two United States Coast Guard
Commands: the Research and Development Center and the International Ice
Patrol. The Coast Guard has been a tenant on the Campus since WWII. It
was during the war that this lighthouse was constructed. Mr. Streeter
will follow with more details on that history, so I will not at this
time.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is important to our maritime history and
is truly significant as a symbol of our community. Restoration of the
lighthouse has been a major community effort. Here is a copy of
approximately 10,000 signatures gathered in support of the lighthouse
restoration. There is no local opposition to the project.
We respectfully request your favorable consideration of this
proposal to fund the restoration of this historic treasure. Thank you.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. I will point out that your remarks
will be put in the record in their entirety.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Streeter.
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. STREETER, AVERY POINT LIGHTHOUSE, GROTON,
CONNECTICUT
Mr. Streeter. My name is James Streeter. I am the co-
founder and co-Chairman of the Avery Point Lighthouse Society,
known as APLS, a group of local volunteer citizens who are
dedicated to saving, restoring, and relighting Connecticut's
Avery Point Lighthouse. You have all been provided a packet,
giving a brief history. The Avery Point Lighthouse is located
on the University of Connecticut's property in Groton,
Connecticut. The State of Connecticut purchased that property
in 1938. In 1942, the State of Connecticut quitclaim deeded the
property to the United States Government. The site became the
home of the United States Coast Guard Training Station from
1942 through 1967. The university now has reoccupied the
facilities.
It is interesting to note that the deed transferring the
property to the United States Government stipulated that the
government would erect and maintain on or over the lands,
buildings, lights or other apparatus to be used as aids to
navigation.
In March 1943, the Coast Guard did finish construction of
the Avery Point Lighthouse. Although it was considered ready
for service at the time, World War II ``hostilities concerns''
were taking place which precluded it from being lit until May
1944. The light remained an aid to navigation until it was
extinguished in September 1967 when the Coast Guard moved their
facilities to New York.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is indeed the last lighthouse
built in the State of Connecticut. And it is the only
lighthouse in the Nation built as a memorial to honor the men
and women who served as lighthouse keepers. Unfortunately, over
the past 20 years, maintenance and upkeep of the facility has
been sorely lacking and largely discontinued. The structure now
has become seriously deteriorated.
In July of last year, our organization became actively
involved in the effort to restore the lighthouse. We are
working very closely with representatives of the University of
Connecticut at Avery Point as well as staff members from the
American Lighthouse Foundation of Wells, Maine, an
internationally-recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to
preserving lighthouse history and heritage.
Over the past year, our organization has accomplished many
goals. We have obtained in excess of 9,000 signatures on
petitions requesting State of Connecticut and Federal
Government funding. We have received donations of $3,000 each
from local governments, specifically the City of Groton and the
Town of Groton. We have raised in excess of $35,000 through
various fund-raising activities, membership drives and sales of
lighthouse merchandise. Recently, we received a matching bond
grant from the State of Connecticut for the amount of $150,000.
Costs for the stabilization, restoration and relighting of
the structure are estimated to exceed $350,000. Our
organization is committed to its goals, and we will continue
fund-raising activities until the restoration project is
complete and the lighthouse becomes part of the overall public
access program to the historical and educational resources of
Long Island Sound, which borders the States of Connecticut, New
York and Rhode Island. We request your consideration and
support of H.R. 1518.
Thank you for your attention and I stand ready to answer
any questions.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Streeter follows:]
Statement of James L. Streeter, Co-Chairman, Avery Point Lighthouse
Society, Groton, Connecticut
Representative Hefley and distinguished members of the Committee.
My name is James L. Streeter and I am a co-founder and co-chairman
of the Avery Point Lighthouse Society, known as APLS, a group of local
volunteer citizens who are dedicated to saving, restoring and
relighting Connecticut's Avery Point Lighthouse.
I would like to thank this Committee for providing the opportunity
to publicly present some facts concerning this lighthouse. I would also
like to thank Representative Rob Simmons for sponsoring this bill and
for his continued support and commitment to this extremely important
project.
You have each been provided with a packet giving a brief history of
the lighthouse and outlining some of the efforts being made to restore
this significantly historic and educational structure.
The Avery Point Lighthouse is located on the University of
Connecticut's Avery Point campus in Groton, Connecticut. The 72-acre
campus, once the estate of wealthy industrialist Morton B. Plant, was
purchased by the State of Connecticut in 1938. The State of Connecticut
Quit Claim deeded the property to the United States Government in 1942.
The site became the home of the United States Coast Guard Training
Station from 1942 through 1967. The University of Connecticut has
occupied the site since 1967.
It is interesting to note, the deed for the transfer of the
property to the United States Government, stipulated that the
[government] ``erect and maintain on or over the land--beacon lights or
other buildings and apparatus to be used in aid of navigation''.
Thus in March of 1943 the United States Coast Guard fulfilled the
requirement of the Quit Claim Deed and construction of the Avery Point
Lighthouse was completed. Although it was considered ``ready for
service'' at that time, World War II ``hostilities concerns'' precluded
the light from being lit until May of 1944. The light remained an aid
to navigation until it was extinguished in September 1967, when the
Coast Guard moved their training facilities to New York.
The Avery Point Lighthouse was the last lighthouse built in the
State of Connecticut and [reportedly] is the only lighthouse in the
nation built as a memorial to honor the men and women who served as
lighthouse keepers.
Unfortunately over the past twenty years or so, maintenance and
upkeep of the lighthouse has been sorely lacking and largely
discontinued. The structure now has some serious deterioration
problems.
In July of last year, APLS became actively involved in the effort
to restore the lighthouse. The group is working closely with
representatives of the University of Connecticut at Avery Point as well
as staff members of the American Lighthouse Foundation of Wells, Maine,
an internationally recognized non-profit organization dedicated to
preserving lighthouse history and heritage.
Over the past year our organization has been successful in raising
public awareness, support and monies for the restoration effort.
Some of the accomplishments by APLS, since last July include:
LObtaining in excess of 9,000 signatures on petitions
requesting State of Connecticut and Federal governmental funding for
the restoration.
LReceiving donations of $3,000 each from the Governments
of the Town and City of Groton.
LRaising in excess of $25,000 through various fundraising
activities, membership drives and sales of lighthouse merchandise.
LReceiving a matching bond grant from the State of
Connecticut for the amount of $150,000.
LAcquiring the (Pro Bono) services of a reputable
engineering group to conduct a structural study of the lighthouse.
Costs for the stabilization, restoration and relighting of the
structure is estimated to exceed $300,000. Our organization is
committed to its goals and will continue its fundraising activities
until the restoration project is complete and the lighthouse becomes
part of the overall public access program to the historical and
educational resources of Long Island Sound which boarders the States of
Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island.
The Avery Point Lighthouse Society requests your consideration and
support of H.R. 1518.
Thank you for your attention and I stand ready to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Hefley. Ms. Olson.
STATEMENT OF ANNE OLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUFFALO BAYOU
PARNERSHIP, HOUSTON, TEXAS
Mr. Olson. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And I would
also like to thank Congressman Gene Green for introducing this
legislation for his strong support of Buffalo Bayou
redevelopment efforts. My testimony provides an overview of the
proposed Buffalo Bayou National Heritage area and its national
significance as a natural cultural recreational and a historic
resource. I also plan to discuss the organizational structure
of the Buffalo Bayou partnership, its funding sources
partnerships and its capacity to administer the National
Heritage Area.
Chances are when you think of Houston, you probably think
of a modern downtown skyline, congested freeways and even a
cowboy or two. But there really is another Houston, one with a
remarkable history and a nationally significant history. Along
Buffalo bayou are numerous historic sites, early ethnic
neighborhoods, and some of the city's oldest parks. By creating
the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area, these sites will be
linked like a string of pearls.
In 1836, the Allen brothers founded Houston at the foot of
Main Street along Buffalo Bayou. Allen's Landing, as it is
known today, became Houston's first port. Nearby is the Main
Street Market Square Historic District, a 48-block area with
more than 50 structures on the National Register of Historic
Places. These and other nearby National Register buildings and
structures all tell the story of Houston's industrial past.
While significant preservation has occurred, a national
heritage area designation would strengthen local preservation
efforts and allow us to place more than 100 additional
structures and sites on the National Register. Funds also would
be made available for the restoration of many structures into
interpretative visitors centers. Buffalo Bayou was once called
the highway of the Republic. The battle of San Jacinto fought
along the banks of Buffalo Bayou gained Texas' independence
from Mexico and allowed colonization of the entire State.
Moreover, it accelerated expansion of the western United
States. Today the San Jacinto State Historical Park and
National Historic Landmark has more visitors than any other
historical park in Texas. Perhaps nothing illustrates Houston's
entrepreneurial spirit more than its ship channel, a man-made
waterway that connects Houston's port to the Gulf of Mexico 50
miles away. The port is located 6 miles east of downtown on
Buffalo Bayou. It is number one in the U.S. in foreign shipping
and number 2 in tonnage. It is surrounded by the largest
concentration of oil refining and petrochemical plants in the
Nation. The National Heritage Area also will celebrate
Houston's diversity. Historic Mexican and Afro American
neighborhoods still can be found today along Buffalo Bayou. For
a multi-cultural city whose ethnic population now exceeds its
Anglo population highlighting the lives of these early ethnic
groups will be an important and vital role of the proposed
National Heritage Area. Buffalo Bayou, first and foremost, is
Houston's greatest natural resource. Several bayou segments
have been designated part of the world famous Great Coastal
Texas Birding Trail. More than 15 miles of hike and bike trails
line Buffalo Bayou's banks, and more than 20 additional miles
are funded and planned. The waterway is home to 10 city and
county parks. A National Heritage Area designation also builds
on the progress that our organization and others have already
made. Our organization was created in 1986 by the mayor of
Houston and Harris County judge to act as a overseer authority
over Buffalo Bayou. We are a coalition of civic, environmental,
governmental and business representatives.
Over the past 6 years alone we have raised more than $25
million in private and public funds for Buffalo Bayou's
redevelopment. And specific accomplishments are listed in my
written testimony. We know that partnerships are the key to the
success of the national heritage area program. We have the
experience and the capacity to work cooperatively with a broad
range of stakeholders along the Buffalo Bayou corridor. We have
already partnered with the National Park Service. We worked
with the National Park Service's River Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program for more than 3 years to develop Houston's
first hike and bike rail to trail hike and bike--rail to trail,
it is a hike and bike trail that was converted from abandoned
railroad.
Ms. Olson. We also developed the Buffalo Bayou interpretive
master plan. We know firsthand the value of the technical
assistance provided by this Federal agency and know how to
utilize its resources for the utmost effectiveness.
We are partnering currently with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and Texas General Land Office on land
acquisition along Buffalo Bayou. We are working with the Texas
Department of Transportation on hike and bike trails funded
with over $10 million in Federal transportation funds. We also
have recently initiated a $1 million master plan study that is
being coordinated by an internationally recognized team of
consultants.
The Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area also can provide
enhanced green space as Houston rebuilds after the devastation
of recent Tropical Storm Allison. This storm caused more than
$5 billion worth of damage to our city. Federal funds can help
us restore parkland and develop a green infrastructure that
will allow for flooding while providing open space and
recreational opportunities.
Funding is desperately needed to remedy the significant
erosion that has taken place among Buffalo Bayou's banks.
Mr. Hefley. I am sorry, I am going to have to cut you off.
I hate to stop your testimony, very good testimony, but in
order to get through it, I would be a lot more sympathetic with
your project if you hadn't let the San Jacinto Inn close, if
you are familiar with that. Best place I ever ate. Did they
tear that building down?
Mr. Fox. I am afraid so.
Mr. Hefley. They did? Well, there goes your project.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Olson follows:]
Statement of Anne Olson, President, Buffalo Bayou Partnership, Houston,
Texas on H.R. 1776
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I sincerely thank you
for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands in support of House Bill 1776 to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in
Houston, Texas.
My name is Anne Olson and I am President of the Buffalo Bayou
Partnership. The group oversees beautification and redevelopment
efforts along Buffalo Bayou, Houston's historic waterway. I have been
president of this non-profit organization for the past six years.
My testimony will provide you with an overview of the proposed
Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area and its national significance as a
natural, cultural, recreational and historic resource. A statement of
historical significance will be provided by Mr. Steven Fox, lecturer in
the history of architecture at Rice University and the University of
Houston, who joins me here today.
My testimony includes information about the organizational
structure of the Buffalo Bayou Partnership, its funding sources, it
numerous partnerships, and its capacity to administer the proposed
National Heritage Area.
As you know, partnerships are key to the success of the National
Heritage Area Program. I am here to tell you about the significant
public-private efforts that are the foundation of our Buffalo Bayou
redevelopment program. These partnerships will be strong support for
the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area. New partnerships will be
formed, as well.
Chances are when you think of Houston, America's fourth largest
city, you think of a modern downtown skyline, congested freeways and a
cowboy or two. But there is another Houston--one with a remarkable and
nationally significant history. From prairie to port to modern urban
center, Buffalo Bayou links Houston's past and its present. It connects
our city's diverse population to its heritage. The events that have
played out along its banks from prehistoric times to today represent a
legacy that begs to be told.
Along the banks of Buffalo Bayou there are a multitude of historic
sites, early ethic neighborhoods, and some of the city's oldest parks.
By creating the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area, sites of
historic, cultural, recreational and archaeological interest will be
linked like a string of pearls. Moreover the Buffalo Bayou National
Heritage Area will create an amenity that is vital to our city's ``new
economy,'' one that places a strong emphasis on natural, recreational
and lifestyle opportunities.
Let me take you on a tour of Buffalo Bayou. It runs through the
heart of downtown Houston. Here, we find Allen's Landing at the foot of
Main Street. It was here in 1836 that Houston's founders, the Allen
brothers stepped ashore and founded Houston. Allen's Landing became
Houston's first port and a thriving commercial hub. Nearby, is Main
Street/Market Square Historic District, a 48-block area with more than
50 structures on the National Register of Historic Places. Other nearby
buildings and structures on the National Register--Willow Street Pump
Station, Waterworks Plant and Main Street Viaduct--all tell a story of
Houston's industrial past. While significant preservation has occurred
along Buffalo Bayou, a National Heritage Area designation would
strengthen local historic preservation efforts to recommend more
structures to the National Register. According to the Greater Houston
Preservation Alliance, more than 100 additional structures and sites
would be eligible for listing on the Register. Through the National
Heritage Area program, funds also would be available for the
restoration and adaptive reuse of many structures into interpretive and
visitor centers. These facilities will educate Houstonians and visitors
about the city's industrial past.
Buffalo Bayou was called the ``Highway of the Republic'' during
Texas' struggle for independence. The Battle of San Jacinto, fought at
the confluence of Buffalo Bayou and the San Jacinto River, gained
Texas' independence from Mexico and allowed colonization of the entire
state. Moreover, it accelerated expansion of the western United States.
Today, the San Jacinto State Historical Park, a National Historic
Landmark, has more visitors than any other historical park in Texas.
Perhaps nothing shows Houston's entrepreneurial spirit and sheer
bravado more than the man-made Houston Ship Channel, 50 miles inland
from Galveston Bay. As humorist Will Rogers said in 1930, ``Houston
dared to dig a ditch and bring the world to its door.'' Located six
miles east of downtown Houston on Buffalo Bayou, this port--today the
nation's 1 port in foreign shipping and 2 in tonnage--is home to the
country's largest concentration of oil refining and petrochemical
production. In addition to shaping Houston's economy and securing the
city's stature as one of the world's foremost international trading and
energy centers, the Port opened up the state of Texas and much of the
Gulf Coast to the world.
Although the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area would highlight
important military leaders, oil wildcatters, and industrial titans, it
would also provide the city with an invaluable opportunity to highlight
the lives of early Mexican Americans and Afro-Americans who lived along
the bayou, and worked in the early rail yards and at the Port of
Houston. Historic ethnic neighborhoods can still be found today along
Buffalo Bayou--the Fourth and Sixth Wards, two National Register
districts with strong collections of 19th century shotgun houses and
Victorian cottages, for example. For a multi-cultural city whose ethnic
population now exceeds its Anglo population, highlighting the lives of
these ethnic groups will be an important and vital role of the proposed
National Heritage Area.
While the historic and cultural resources of Buffalo Bayou are
significant, Buffalo Bayou is first and foremost Houston's greatest
natural resource. It is a mainstay of our region's little known
ecological abundance. Eight distinct ecological zones surround the
Houston area. Several segments of Buffalo Bayou have been designated
part of the world-famous Great Coastal Texas Birding Trail. The
waterway is home to the Katy Prairie, one of the region's most
significant habitats for migratory waterfowl, shore birds, songbirds
and hawks. More than 15 miles of hike and bike trails line Buffalo
Bayou's banks and more than 20 additional miles are funded and planned.
Houston's first public parks sprouted up along the banks of Buffalo
Bayou in the late 19th century and today, the waterway is home to 10
City and County parks including Allen's Landing, Houston's birthplace
and Sam Houston Park, the city's first public park that opened in 1899.
Today, a 19th century collection of early Houston homes is displayed in
this 20-acre downtown park.
The same resourcefulness and entrepreneurial spirit that created
the Houston Ship Channel are alive along Buffalo Bayou's banks today. A
National Heritage Area designation will strengthen and build upon the
progress that already is underway, progress the Buffalo Bayou
Partnership fosters and supports in tandem with other Houston groups
dedicated to preserving this waterway.
The Buffalo Bayou Partnership was created in 1986 by the Mayor of
Houston and Harris County Judge to act as an overseer authority for
development along Buffalo Bayou. The 501 (c) (3) non-profit
organization is a coalition of civic, environmental, governmental and
business representatives. Our directors, who range from corporate and
foundation heads to neighborhood residents, are approved by the Mayor
and County Judge. We also have a strong ex-officio board, comprised of
representatives from all levels of City and County government. Over the
past five years, more than $25 million in private and public funds have
been raised or leveraged for Buffalo Bayou's redevelopment.
Specific accomplishments include:
LOpening of a 10-acre $22 million waterfront park in the
heart of downtown.
LDevelopment of a master plan to unify more than $25
million of existing and funded redevelopment projects at Allen's
Landing Park, Houston's birthplace along Buffalo Bayou.
LAwarding of approximately $10 million in federal
Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and Transportation
Enhancement funding for hike and bike trail development.
LConstruction of Houston's first rail-to-trail project--a
$1.6 million effort, funded through the ISTEA program.
LCoordination of a $1 million master plan that is being
led by an internationally recognized team of consultants. This planning
study, which is now underway, has been funded jointly by the City of
Houston, Harris County Flood Control District and Buffalo Bayou
Partnership.
LRaising nearly $4 million for land acquisition along
Buffalo Bayou. Currently, 18 acres of property have been purchased or
are under contract.
LDeveloping a $100,000 interpretive master plan that calls
for signage to be placed at more than 30 destinations along the Buffalo
Bayou waterway. The Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area would greatly
assist us in implementing and promoting the interpretive system.
This progress has been achieved through a range of public-private
initiatives and joint projects with a variety of non-profit and
philanthropic institutions. Unlike many National Heritage Areas that
create new management entities once designation is granted, we have an
existing organization with a solid track record of achievement already
in place.
Partnerships are key to the success of National Heritage Areas. We
have the experience and the capacity to work cooperatively with a broad
range of constituencies and stakeholders along the Buffalo Bayou
corridor.
LWe have partnered with the National Park Service's
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for more than three
years. Development of Houston's first rail-to-trail and creation of the
Buffalo Bayou interpretive master plan are two projects that resulted
from this partnership with the National Park Service. We know first
hand the value of the technical assistance provided by this federal
agency and know how to utilize its resources for the utmost
effectiveness.
LWe are partnering with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation on land acquisition along Buffalo Bayou. Another public land
acquisition partner is the The Texas General Land Office.
LA partnership with the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
has provided the City of Houston and Buffalo Bayou Partnership with a
$500,000 grant for the redevelopment of Allen's Landing. These funds
were leveraged with City of Houston and Harris County Flood Control
District funds.
LThe Texas Department of Transportation has been a
valuable partner in our efforts to landscape freeway areas surrounding
Buffalo Bayou.
LHighlighting the bayou's historic resources has been
accomplished through a partnership with the Greater Houston
Preservation Alliance. Together, the two organizations have sponsored
an annual tour of historic bayou industrial buildings.
LIn recent months, we have joined forces with 40 other
civic groups and the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston's major
business advocacy organization, to ``change the face of Houston.'' This
major quality of life initiative is focused on the enhancement of the
city's parks and bayous, and removal of visual blight. This unique
coalition of business and environmental groups has come together
because all entities realize that quality of life is key to the
economic health of the Houston region. Never before, has the business
community of Houston been so involved in quality of life issues. A
Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area would play a significant role in
The Quality of Life Coalition's agenda and would profit from the
leadership and backing of Houston's strong business community
Many of our partners have provided letters in support of this
testimony.
Another important opportunity that presents itself at this
particular moment in time is the ability of the Buffalo Bayou National
Heritage Area to provide enhanced green space as the City rebuilds
after the devastation of recent Tropical Storm Allison. It caused more
than $5 billion in damage. to our city. We realize that federal funds
cannot be used for land acquisition, but they can help us restore park
land and develop a green infrastructure that will allow for flooding
while providing open space and recreational opportunities. Funding is
desperately needed to remedy the significant erosion that has taken
place along Buffalo Bayou's banks as a result of the Allison Storm.
We urge you to support House Bill 1776 to allow the National Park
Service to study the feasibility and suitability of the Buffalo Bayou
National Heritage Area. This prestigious designation would provide us
with the mechanism to preserve a nationally significant landscape, to
create a new economic development and tourism tool for our city, to
develop new partnerships, and to restore Buffalo Bayou to its rightful
place in the hearts and minds of Houstonians, Texans, and all
Americans.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for allowing
me to come before you today in support of the Buffalo Bayou National
Heritage Area. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you and
your colleagues may have.
______
[Letters attached to Ms. Olson's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3923.013
Mr. Hefley. Stephen Fox.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN FOX, ARCHITECT, HOUSTON, TEXAS
Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me to testify. I am Stephen Fox, architectural
historian.
Buffalo Bayou merits study to determine the suitability of
designating it a National Heritage Area. Buffalo Bayou derives
national historical significance from its role as a
transportation artery. In the 1820's, when U.S. immigration to
Texas began, it was recognized as providing the most reliable
route for navigation into what was considered the interior of
Texas.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of
maritime history for the transformation of its lower 16 miles
between 1902 and 1914 into the Houston Ship Channel, which
permits ocean-going ships to travel 50 miles inland from the
Gulf of Mexico. The Houston Ship Channel is nationally
significant in the area of industry, as the site of the largest
concentration of petroleum refining and petro-chemical
production facilities in the United States. The ship channel
portion of Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area
of invention as the place where artificial rubber was first
produced from butadiene during World War II.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of
military history because it is where the battle of San Jacinto
was fought on April 21st, 1836. The battle of San Jacinto in
which the Army of the Anglo-Texan General, Sam Houston,
surprised and defeated the superior force of General Antonio
Lopez de Santa Ana resulted in the independence of Texas from
Mexico. Independence precipitated a sequence of historical
events leading to the annexation of Texas by the United States
in 1845, the U.S.-Mexican War and the expansion of the United
States into the northern half of Mexico in 1848.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of
exploration-settlement because its importance as an artery of
transportation and commerce led to the founding of the town of
Houston in 1836, 4 months after the battle of San Jacinto.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of
community planning and development because it is what led the
brothers A.C. and J.K. Allen to found the city of Houston at
what they declared to be the head of navigation on the bayou.
The bayou is significant for the cultural landscapes it
traverses between South Shepherd Drive and the Turning Basin of
the Ship Channel. These include the neighborhood of River Oaks,
a nationally significant example of the early 20th century
planned garden suburb, and Buffalo Bayou Park, a linear park
and parkway planned in the 1920's to connect River Oaks to the
Civic Center in downtown Houston.
Buffalo Bayou Park is bordered by landscapes and working
class neighborhoods that preserve older settings: Glenwood
Cemetery of 1871, the oldest professionally-designed landscape
in Houston; the Sixth Ward Historic District, Houston's oldest
intact neighborhood; the San Felipe Courts Historic District, a
New Deal-era planned public housing community; and the
Freedmen's Town Historic District in Fourth Ward, Houston's
oldest African American neighborhood.
In downtown Houston, Buffalo Bayou traverses the Main
Street-Market Square Historic District, encompassing much of
the original town site, and warehouse districts that contain
some of the oldest railroad alignments in Texas. Downstream
from downtown Houston, Buffalo Bayou flows between the Second
and Fifth Wards, which preserve sites relating to the cotton
trade, wholesale trade and oil tool manufacturing. Second Ward
and Magnolia Park, just upstream from the Turning Basin, were
neighborhoods in which Mexican immigrants first settled in
Houston in the 1910's.
Buffalo Bayou demonstrates its historic centrality to the
independence of Texas, the founding and development of Houston
and its port, and Houston's commercial, industrial and
demographic evolution. I commend Buffalo Bayou to you as worthy
of study for designation as a National Heritage Area. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]
Statement of Stephen Fox, Lecturer, Rice University, Houston, Texas on
H.R. 1776
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: thank you for inviting me
to testify. I am Stephen Fox, an architectural historian, and a
lecturer at the University of Houston and Rice University.
Buffalo Bayou merits study to determine the suitability of
designating it a National Heritage Area.
Buffalo Bayou derives national historical significance from its
role as a transportation artery. In the 1820s, when U.S. immigration to
Texas began, it was recognized as providing the most reliable route for
navigation into what was considered the ``interior'' of Texas. Buffalo
Bayou is nationally significant in the area of Maritime History for the
transformation of its lower sixteen miles between 1902 and 1914 into
the Houston Ship Channel, which permits ocean-going ships to travel
fifty miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The Houston Ship Channel is
nationally significant in the area of Industry as the site of the
largest concentration of petroleum refining and petrochemical
production facilities in the United States. The Ship Channel portion of
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of Invention as the
place where artificial rubber was first produced from butadiene during
World War II.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of Military
History because it is where the Battle of San Jacinto was fought on
April 21, 1836. The Battle of San Jacinto, in which the army of the
Anglo-Texan general Sam Houston, surprised and defeated the superior
force of General Antonio L"pez de Santa Ana, resulted in the
independence of Texas from Mexico. Independence precipitated a sequence
of historical events leading to the annexation of Texas by the United
States in 1845, the U.S.-Mexican War, and the expansion of the United
States into the northern half of Mexico in 1848.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of Exploration/
Settlement because its importance as an artery of transportation and
commerce led to the founding of the town of Houston in 1836, four
months after the Battle of San Jacinto. It is significant in the area
of Politics/Government because the Texas Legislature designated Houston
provisional capital of the Republic in 1836.
Buffalo Bayou is nationally significant in the area of Community
Planning and Development because it is what led the brothers A. C. and
J. K. Allen to found the city of Houston at what they declared to be
the head of navigation on the bayou. The bayou is significant for the
cultural landscapes it traverses between South Shepherd Drive and the
Turning Basin of the Ship Channel. These include the neighborhood of
River Oaks, a nationally significant example of the early twentieth-
century planned garden suburb; and Buffalo Bayou Park, a linear park
and parkway planned in the 1920s to connect River Oaks to the Civic
Center in downtown Houston. Buffalo Bayou Park is bordered by
landscapes and working class neighborhoods that preserve older
settings: Glenwood Cemetery of 1871, the oldest professionally-designed
landscape in Houston; the Sixth Ward Historic District, Houston's
oldest intact neighborhood; the San Felipe Courts Historic District, a
New Deal-era planned public housing community; and the Freedmen's Town
Historic District in Fourth Ward, Houston's oldest African-American
neighborhood.
In downtown Houston, Buffalo Bayou traverses the Main Street-Market
Square Historic District, encompassing much of the original townsite;
and warehouse districts that contain some of the oldest railroad
alignments in Texas. Downstream from downtown Houston, Buffalo Bayou
flows between the Second and Fifth Wards, which preserve sites relating
to the cotton trade, wholesale trade, and oil tool manufacturing.
Second Ward and Magnolia Park, just upstream from the Turning Basin,
were neighborhoods in which Mexican immigrants first settled in Houston
in the 1910s and 1920s.
Buffalo Bayou demonstrates its historic centrality to the
independence of Texas, the founding and development of Houston and its
port, and Houston's commercial, industrial, and demographic evolution.
I commend Buffalo Bayou to you as worthy of study for designation as a
National Heritage Area.
______
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
questions. I look forward to working with the mayor and the
community groups and my colleague on finding a way to address
the issue with the lighthouse in Groton, because I do believe
that it has significance and should be a national historic
site.
Sorry I didn't get to Houston with my colleagues a few
weeks ago, or I might have had some prior information about the
bayou, but I appreciate the testimony and I look forward to
working with you on this piece of legislation and seeing the
outcome of this study.
Mr. Hefley. I want to thank the Committee and apologize
that we have to rush. Those beepers that you hear going off, we
respond like Pavlov's dog, we start salivating and have to go
vote somewhere, and rather than keep you, we probably will
adjourn the Committee meeting, but we do appreciate the good
testimony and we are happy to work with you and see what can be
worked out on this. So thank you very much, and the Committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-