<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:77681.wais]
H.R. 1712 and H.R. 2937
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
February 14, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-86
__________
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
77-681 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.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
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, 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
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 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 February 14, 2002................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 1712.......................... 8
Letters and background paper submitted for the record.... 10
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 2937.......................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 1712 and H.R. 2937............ 2
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator, State of Nevada.............. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 2937.......................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Culp, Carson ``Pete'', Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty
and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 2937.......................... 23
Lee, Hon. John J., Nevada State Assemblyman, 3rd District,
State of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada......................... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 2937.......................... 21
Reynolds, John J., Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service, San Francisco, California........... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 1712.......................... 25
Additional materials supplied:
O'Donnell, Brian, Associate Director, Wilderness Support
Center, The Wilderness Society, Statement submitted for the
record on H.R. 2937........................................ 29
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1712, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE NATIONAL PARK
OF AMERICAN SAMOA TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE ISLANDS OF OFU AND
OLOSEGA WITHIN THE PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2937, TO
PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND IN CLARK COUNTY,
NEVADA, FOR USE AS A SHOOTING RANGE.
----------
Thursday, February 14, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:12 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee will come
to order. And this afternoon the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will hear testimony and two
bills, H.R. 1712 and H.R. 2937.
The first bill, H.R. 1712, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague Eni Faleomavaega--see, I got the last name right--
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make minor
boundary adjustments to the National Park of American Samoa to
include additional areas of land and coral reef on the islands
of Ofu and Olosega.
Currently--how was that?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Excellent.
Mr. Radanovich. Currently the National Park of American
Samoa includes the only paleotropical rain forest in the United
States. It is my understanding that there is broad support
among the local villages for boundary expansion.
Our other bill, H.R. 2937, introduced by another
Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Jim Gibbons, would provide
for the conveyance of approximately 2,880 acres of public land
to Clark County, Nevada, for use as a regional public shooting
range. For the past 20 years, the number of public and private
shooting ranges throughout the Las Vegas valley have been
closed due to unprecedented residential growth. It is my
understanding that the administration supports this
legislation.
Once again, I appreciate the witnesses being here to
testify today. And now I turn my time over to our ranking
member. Before I say that, I have got a sick wife and child
that I need to take to the doctor, probably about 2:30. So Mr.
Gibbons has agreed to take the meeting on from there. So I will
be ducking out after a little bit.
But, Donna, I turn it over to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee
will come to order. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on two bills, H.R.
1712 and H.R. 2937.
The first bill, H.R. 1712, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague, Eni Faleomavaega, would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to make minor boundary adjustments to the National Park of
American Samoa to include additional areas of land and coral reef on
the islands of O-FOO and O-LOW-SEGA (Ofu and Olosega). Currently, the
National Park of American Samoa includes the only paleotropical
rainforest in the United States. It is my understanding there is broad
support among the local villages for the boundary expansion.
Our other bill, H.R. 2937, introduced by another Subcommittee
colleague, Congressman James Gibbons, would provide for the conveyance
of approximately 2,880 acres of public land to Clark County, Nevada,
for use as a regional public shooting range. For the past twenty years,
a number of public and private shooting ranges throughout Las Vegas
valley have been closed due to the unprecedented residential growth. It
is my understanding the Administration supports the legislation.
Once again, I appreciate the witnesses being here to testify today
and I now turn the time over to the ranking member, Mrs. Christensen
for an opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, we
are going to receive testimony on two unrelated bills today. I
would like to welcome Senator Reid and, of course, our
Subcommittee colleague here who is the sponsor of the first
measure, H.R. 1712, which would provide for the addition of
certain lands and waters to the National Park of American
Samoa.
As my colleague from American Samoa can attest, this is a
unique national park that helps protect an important tropical
ecosystem. It is my understanding that the lands and the waters
added to be park would preserve significant natural and culture
resources, as well as enhance the protection of existing park
resources.
The second measure before the Subcommittee today, H.R.
2937, sponsored by another of our colleagues on the
Subcommittee, Mr. Gibbons, would convey about 4.5 square miles
of Federal land in Clark County, Nevada, to the county
government. The acreage in question is currently managed by the
Bureau of Land Management as part of the Quail Springs
Wilderness Study Area, and the legislation releases the land
from the WSA status.
Apparently, the purpose of the legislation is to provide a
centralized firearms training facility and shooting range in
the Las Vegas valley, the benefits of which are obvious.
However, this transaction raises several concerns, not the
least of which is the overall size of the transfer and the lack
of consideration paid for the land. In addition, disposal of a
part of a wilderness study area is always a cause for some
concern.
Finally, the legislation provides that should any of the
parcels conveyed by the bill cease to be used as a shooting
range, they will revert to Federal ownership; it is unclear
what the BLM might do with the land that has been used in such
a manner, though.
We would thank all the witnesses for their effort and time
and look forward to learning about these issues this afternoon.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
I want to welcome Mr. Faleomavaega, who is welcome to join
us on the dais. Of course, you are on the Committee.
And also, Senator Reid, welcome to the Committee.
And right now, I turn my time over to Mr. Gibbons to
explain his bill. And then we will go to the--
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES A. GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much. And I ask unanimous
consent that a written copy of my testimony be entered into the
record. I will try to summarize what I want to say here very
quickly so I can turn the mike over to Senator Reid, who would
also like to make comments. I know his time schedule is very,
very critical in all of this today.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to have us provide
this legislation before the Committee today.
H.R. 2937 is a conveyance of certain public lands in Clark
County for a shooting range, as you have been told. Companion
legislation by Senator Reid and Senator Ensign in the Senate
have introduced a similar bill, S. 1451. We hope that both
bodies can approve our legislation expeditiously.
For 15 years Nevada has had the fastest growing population
of any State in the Union, and for 20 years Clark County has
been the fastest county with the majority of that growth taking
place in the Second Congressional District.
Accommodating our growth and meeting its challenges is
something that I often discuss in this Committee. Many of us
know that with this growth come increasing population demands.
With 87 percent of Nevada being owned by the Federal
Government, and that percentage is growing, the conflict
between needs of recreation and demands of growth make it very
difficult for Nevadans to find opportunities to recreate.
This piece of legislation before us today will accommodate
another long-term recreational favorite in Nevada, which is
target shooting. It is 2,800 acres in the North Las Vegas area
to be used as a permanent shooting range. Half of the 2,800
acres, or 1,400 acres, will serve simply as a buffer zone for
public safety. And that is the reason why the acreage is as
large as it is.
This facility will not only provide the public with a safe
place to shoot, it will serve as a training facility for our
law enforcement personnel in southern Nevada, a very important
issue following September the 11th as well. Two thousand eight
hundred acres are currently designated as wilderness study area
by the BLM, and the release language includes that it declares
that the land conveyed has been adequately studied for
wilderness designation under the Land Policy Act and has been
found suitable for conveyance over to the county.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a simple land
conveyance and makes good sense. If the county fails to use the
land for the designated purpose it will revert back to it.
There will be remedial, I am sure, actions to clean up any
activities that remain if the county decides not to use the
land; but it will revert back to the government.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time and want to
thank you. And I also want to make one important statement,
that I fully support my good friend from American Samoa and his
bill as well.
So with that said, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, on H.R. 2937
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for providing the opportunity to have this
legislation heard before our committee today. H.R. 2937 is a bill to
provide for the conveyance of certain public lands in Clark County,
Nevada, for use as a public shooting range. The original author of this
legislation is my Senate colleague--who joins us today--Senator Harry
Reid of Nevada. As demonstrated by Senator Reid's presence, this
legislation enjoys strong bipartisan and bicameral support from our
Nevada delegation.
For fifteen consecutive years, Nevada has had the fastest growing
population of any other state. For twenty years, Clark County, Nevada,
has been the fastest growing county, with the majority of that growth
taking place in the Second District of Nevada. Accommodating our growth
and meeting its challenges is something I often discuss before this
very committee.
Mr. Chairman, we take great pride in the outdoor recreational
opportunities Nevada has to offer. As many of you know, Nevada is
currently 87 percent public lands--which means that most of the
recreation takes place on our public lands. I must say, it was quite
discouraging for me to read recent press accounts taken from a speech
delivered by our BLM Director in Nevada--where he stated that the 87
percent figure I just noted is actually increasing!
Regardless, protecting multiple-use of our lands in Nevada is
important to our citizens. Whether it is hiking at Red Rock Canyon,
boating at Lake Mead or Kayaking the Colorado River--we provide a
wealth of out-door activities. The legislation before us today helps
accommodate another long-time, recreational favorite in Nevada---
target shooting.
H.R. 2937 will designate approximately 2,800 acres of public land
in North Las Vegas to be used as a permanent shooting range. About half
of the 2,800 acres will actually contain the shooting range, with the
other 1,400 acres serving as a required buffer zone to ensure public
safety. This new shooting facility will not only provide the public
with a safe place to shoot, it will serve as a training facility for
our law enforcement personnel in southern Nevada. As Senator Reid can
attest to, significant work has gone into this legislation--including
reversion language should Clark County cease to use the land as
prescribed in this bill.
Further, because the 2,800 acres is currently designated Wilderness
Study Area by the BLM, release language is included that declares the
land conveyed has been adequately studied for wilderness designation
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Once the land
is conveyed to Clark County, it will no longer be subject to FLPMA
requirements. Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a simple land
conveyance and it makes good sense. H.R. 2937 is supported by Nevada's
congressional delegation, our law enforcement personnel, Clark County
and the public at-large.
Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity and I hope we can
move this bill in the very near future. I will be happy to answer any
questions you or this committee may have ``
Thank you.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons.
While we are on the same bill, Senator Reid, welcome to the
Committee. And please feel free to talk about this legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRY REID, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. I appreciate the courtesy of my friend,
allowing me to go forward. Really, he showed me this Park
Service visual aid of American Samoa. It reminds me of Nevada.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I do hope your daughter
and wife are well. There is a real plague going around in the
form of a flu and very bad bronchitis and sinusitis and those
kinds of things. Lucky you have a doctor on the Subcommittee
here to take care of things.
I am happy to be here, especially being able to see--we
lived in the same town a good part of our lives, but we never
had the opportunity to visit with each other very much, Jim
Gibbons and I. I am very happy to be here with Jim, who does
such a great job for the State. I am sure all of you know this,
but if you don't, let me remind you his wife also does a great
job for the State. She is a member of the Nevada State
legislature.
Mr. Gibbons. I thank you for reminding me, Senator, that my
life is run by Alfred Hitchcock.
Senator Reid. She has a great--I guess the Gibbonses have a
great political history. When he was called into active duty
because of the Gulf War, he had to give up his position in the
Nevada State legislature, and his wife was chosen to replace
him; and she did such a great job. And thereafter Jim was
relocated. We like them both a lot.
Mr. Chairman, also today we have another fine specimen from
Nevada, Assemblyman John Lee, who is going to testify about
this legislation. We are grateful that you have allowed him the
opportunity to testify.
Let me just say this: I ask unanimous consent that my
statement be made part of the record. I want to condense it. I
know how busy everyone is.
Clark County is growing very, very rapidly. And for those
of us who used to go out shooting, you can't do that any more
because you wind up shooting someone. Las Vegas is the fastest
growing area in the entire country, and contrary to a popular
belief, Las Vegas is one of the most densely populated areas.
There is not a lot of wide, open spaces in Las Vegas, and that
is because 87 percent of the land in the State of Nevada is
owned by the Federal Government. We are land starved.
As a result of this, the dozens--and I should say hundreds
and hundreds of people who used to have little places they
would go shoot, they can't do that anymore. So now what is
happening, there are makeshift shooting ranges scattered in and
around Las Vegas, and they are dangerous, to say the least. And
it creates a real law enforcement problem.
This legislation that has been introduced by Congressman
Gibbons paves the way for a world-class shooting range, sports
park, firearms training facility. The reason we need a lot of
land--remember, we don't have much. The reason we need a lot of
land, I say to Mrs. Christensen, is the fact that this is going
to be an area where people can be shooting. We want a lot of
space.
We have a lot of space in southern Nevada, but it is all
owned by the Federal Government. And while 3,000 acres sounds
like a lot of land, Nevada has about 75 million acres, and it
is just a tiny speck of land. Remember, 87 percent of the 75
million is owned by the Federal Government.
We believe that we need safe places to shoot. Even law
enforcement is having difficulty finding places for their
police officers to qualify and to maintain their ability to be
police officers.
This facility will benefit the public by establishing this
facility in Las Vegas valley. It will enhance public safety,
provide economic incentives to Las Vegas valley in the form of
jobs and, of course, support services. That is why this has a
literal--or I shouldn't say literal, the support of wide-
ranging organizations and people--Clark County Board of County
Commissioners; Clark County Parks and Recreation; Clark County
Parks and Recreation Advisory Boards; city of Henderson, now
the second largest city in Nevada; Nevada State Majority
Leader, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; National
Bench West Shooters Association; International Bench West
Shooters; Las Vegas Convention Visitors Bureau; USA Shooting,
which is the national governing body for the Olympic shooting
sports; Las Vegas Trap Shooting Park.
This is my favorite, the International Handgun Metallic
Silhouette Association; the Single Action Shooting Society--I
could go on and on. There are numerous organizations who spend
their spare time shooting and they simply haven't had the
opportunity to do that.
We have numerous letters of support. One I received was
from a Boy Scout. He writes, quote, ``My troop and I are
looking forward to using the new shooting range. The range
would provide our troop and other Boy Scouts with a safe area
in which to earn our Scouting shooting merit badges. Thank you
for sponsoring this bill and good luck in getting it passed.''
So I say to the members of this Subcommittee, with your
help today, I hope we can get the shooting range established,
help this Boy Scout, his troop, and many others.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:
Statement of The Honorable Harry Reid, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Nevada
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
tell you about a bill that's important to the people of Nevada and to
me. This bill would transfer about 2,900 acres of public land to Clark
County for use as a firearms training facility and recreational
shooting range.
As you may be aware, Clark County has grown rapidly over the last
few decades: in just the last 12 years, for example, the county's
population has almost doubled, from 770,000 to over 1.4 million. As
more and more people have moved into the Las Vegas Valley, land that
was once considered the ``back of beyond'' is now practically in
people's backyards. This population growth, in turn, has stressed the
land by increasing the demand for traditional public-land uses like
hunting, fishing, and recreational target shooting.
There are dozens--maybe hundreds--of makeshift shooting ranges
scattered in and around the Las Vegas Valley. Shooting posed little
risk when the ranges were located far from town, but as the Valley's
population has continued to surge, activity in these places now
endangers nearby homes and increasingly busy roads.
My bill paves the way for a world-class shooting range, sports
park, and firearms training facility by conveying 2,880 acres of public
land to Clark County. This facility will provide the public with
opportunities for education and recreation and provide a location for
competitive events and firearms training. Development has also
encroached upon facilities operated by the Metropolitan Police
Department and North Las Vegas Police Department. The proposed new
facility could also accommodate law enforcement training for firearms
qualification and certification.
Given the growing demand for safe places to shoot, it's important
that the area be large enough to provide for public safety, not to
mention the safety of the shooters themselves. I feel that this parcel
is sufficient to make sure that shooting can take place without
endangering the surrounding communities or the participants. The most
important way to ensure a high degree of safety is to provide a
significant buffer on all sides of the range.
I strongly believe that a facility of this kind will provide
significant public benefit. By establishing a world-class shooting
range in the Las Vegas Valley, this bill will enhance public safety and
provide economic incentives to the Las Vegas Valley in the form of jobs
and support services. For these and other reasons, the following
organizations and entities support my bill:
<bullet> LClark County Board of Commissioners
<bullet> LClark County Parks and Recreation Department
<bullet> LClark County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
<bullet> LCity of Henderson City Council
<bullet> LNevada State Senate Majority Leader
<bullet> LLas Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
<bullet> LThe National Bench Rest Shooters Association
<bullet> LInternational Benchrest Shooters
<bullet> LLas Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
<bullet> LUSA Shooting: National Governing Body for the Olympic
Shooting Sports
<bullet> LLas Vegas Trap Shooting Park
<bullet> LThe International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association
<bullet> LSingle Action Shooting Society
As the above list shows, I've received many letters of support. One
that I received from a Boy Scout is particularly compelling. He writes,
``My troop and I are looking forward to using the new shooting range.
The range would provide our Troop and other Boy Scouts of America
Troops with a safe area in which to earn our Shooting Merit Badges.
Thank you for sponsoring this bill and good luck getting it passed.''
With your help today, I hope that we can get this shooting range
established to help this Boy Scout and the many other people in Las
Vegas Valley who will benefit from it.
Once again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of
this Committee for holding a hearing on this important bill.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank very much, Senator.
Eni was planning, or thinking, that in my job as Chairman
of this Committee, I needed to travel out to American Samoa to
see this proposal here; but since I can just go to Nevada, I
think I will probably--
Senator Reid. What I would suggest is that when we, you and
I, travel to American Samoa, we will stop in Las Vegas on the
way.
Mr. Radanovich. Eni, welcome. Please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And certainly I
would like to--it is such an honor for our Subcommittee to have
the presence of our distinguished majority whip, Senator Reid,
here with us testifying in our Subcommittee. I also would like
to offer my cosponsorship and support of my good friend's bill
that is now being considered by our Subcommittee this
afternoon, Congressman Gibbons.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, also, unanimous consent
to have my statement be made part of the record.
In essence, this is a culmination of some 4 years of study
and preparation in the expanse of our humble and little
national park there in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. Chairman, the very unique feature of our national park
system in American Samoa is that it is the only tropical rain
forest that we have in the United States. There are also some
3- to 4,000 years of history and culture that go with this
proposed expansion effort of the park. A lot of historical
sites have not even been surveyed, and hopefully, this will be
part of this proposal for expansion of the national park in
American Samoa.
I am also delighted to hear--and, hopefully, this will be a
confirmed--I am told that our able and very good National Park
Service is supportive of this proposal. That certainly makes my
work a lot easier, even though I still have to depend a lot,
tremendously, on you, Mr. Chairman, and our ranking member and
members of our distinguished Subcommittee for your support and
assistance in getting this legislation through.
With that, in essence, I would welcome any questions that
members of our Subcommittee might have on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Delegate in
Congress from American Samoa, on H.R. 1712
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hansen and Mr. Rahall, our
full committee leaders, and Chairman Radanovich and Ms. Christensen
with the Parks Subcommittee for their support in bringing this bill
before the Committee today. H.R. 1712 will make adjustments to the
boundary of the National Park of American Samoa.
The U.S. territory of American Samoa is located approximately 2,400
miles southwest of Hawaii, and the National Park of American Samoa is
located on three separate islands: Tutuila, Ofu and Ta'u. The Islands
of Ofu and Olosega, portions of which would be added to the park under
this legislation, are small islands which lie adjacent to each other,
and are connected by a short bridge.
In 1998, I received requests from village chiefs from the Villages
of Sili and Olosega, on the Island of Olosega, to include portions of
their village lands within the National Park. The chiefs noted the
important role the Park plays in preserving the natural and cultural
resources of the territory, and indicated that the village councils
believe there are significant cultural resources on village lands which
warrant consideration for addition to the park.
I asked the National Park Service to conduct a study to determine
if there were in fact resources on the island which warranted inclusion
in the park. The Park Service completed reconnaissance surveys of the
Island of Olosega and of a portion of the Island of Ofu, and reported
on both. The Service concluded in part:
``The archaeological significance of [Olosega Island] cannot be
understated. Sites on the ridgeline and terraces may offer an important
opportunity for the study and interpretation of ancient Samoa. The
number and density of star mounds (31), the great number of modified
terraces (46) and home sites (14), the subsistence system, and the
artifacts available are all important findings. This is particularly
significant in that they were recorded in only 3 days of visual surveys
on only a portion of the island.''
The National Park of American Samoa is continuing to develop.
Established in 1988 by Public Law 100-571, the Park took several years
to become operational. Today, however, tourists are visiting and school
teachers are using the Park as an educational resource to help the
students learn more about Samoan history and culture, the environment,
and ecological conservation. The Park is preserving the area within its
boundaries, but as the population grows--there was a 22% increase from
1990 to 2000--considerable pressure is being placed on those
undeveloped areas.
The additions proposed by this legislation will preserve important
sections of the remaining natural and cultural resources. Due to the
historical significance and expedient nature of this matter, I ask my
colleagues to support this legislation.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Faleomavaega's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 77681.007
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, sir.
The only question I might have on the islands, is there--
can you gauge the support for the expansion of the Park
Service? Is it overwhelming? Is it 50-50?
Mr. Faleomavaega. The island, as you see on this chart, Mr.
Chairman, is about 60 miles from the main island. We don't have
towns and cities as you would in Las Vegas or Los Angeles; we
have villages. And in essence what we have in terms of the
support that has been brought forth, at least to my attention,
some 4 years ago, are the chiefs of the villages, the two basic
villages that are here are very supportive of the national
park. I believe you have them there, the letters that have been
signed by the traditional leaders, as well as the members of
the villages.
If I would also like to add that I would really welcome
you, Mr. Chairman and Donna and members of our Subcommittee. We
would love to have you come and visit our little national park.
We have--hopefully, if the bird-watchers of America will ever
catch the word, we have a flying fox, or a bat that flies
during the day. You know, you see most pictures of bats in
caves and they only come out at night. We have a bat that flies
during the day. I thought maybe this is something that bird-
watchers of America would come and love to see. It is there on
our little island.
I don't know how I could explain it further, Mr. Chairman.
I realize we are isolated being out in the middle of the
Pacific. Our isolation also could be a blessing in a way, Mr.
Chairman, where we don't have too many tourists coming to
visit. But more than anything the essence of this bill is
preserving the archaeological historical sites that are found
in these ancient places. They have just now discovered many
artifacts and ancient ruins in the villages that were there
hundreds of years ago. This is one reason why we are putting
this bill forward--to preserve a lot of these historical sites.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, looking at the pictures of the
island, I wouldn't be going out there to see bats. The beaches
and the mountains look just incredible, just gorgeous.
Donna, did you have any questions?
Mrs. Christensen. I would want to just follow up on the
same questions you asked at first, because as we are doing some
expansion to our parks, through monuments, we have a lot of
concerns in our fishing community with that, an area that is
usually fished.
Would your fishermen be in that area and will they now be
restricted from fishing? Has there been any concern raised
about that?
Mr. Faleomavaega. There has been no concern on any of the
fishing activities, mainly because our fishing activity within
the surroundings is really for subsistence. It is not for
commercial purposes, even though, ironically, I do have the
largest tuna canning facility in the world. But they don't fish
around these areas; they fish in the central and eastern
waters, deep water fishing.
Mrs. Christensen. In the Virgin Islands, it doesn't make
any difference whether it was commercial or recreational,
subsistence, any fishing, we still had a large outcry from our
fishing community. But that is not the case with this one?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, because I think your tourism industry
is probably a hundred times bigger than ours. That is the
advantage when you have visitors; this is where a lot of the
recreational fishing comes into play. We don't have that as
much, not at all.
Mrs. Christensen. I am interested not in the tourists, but
how about from the native Samoan community?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Like I said, the natives fish a lot, but
it is not for trying to make a $150 million industry out of it.
It is basically for subsistence living.
Mrs. Christensen. They have no problem with the expansion
of the park?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, not at all.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding.] Thank you. I want to tell you
that I have been to Pago Pago and American Samoa. If this were
in Nevada, the whole thing would be a park; it is that
beautiful. You live in a very pretty part of the world. I fully
understand your enthusiasm for the project that you have
brought before us.
I have no questions, I just want to thank you for telling
us a little more about it and having the opportunity to work
with you on this bill. And we certainly think that it is a very
worthwhile project to do.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Even though this is an unrelated issue, I
am dead serious about the situation about the Yucca Mountain. I
would more than happy to sign any petition, any resolution,
anything.
Mr. Gibbons. Believe me, as we go down the road, there will
be plenty for you to do on that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I say this with sensitivity, Jim, because
you know my region has experienced more the situation of our
government detonating 66 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands,
not too far from where we are and where we exploded the Bravo
shot.
I don't know--many American don't realize it; this is where
we exploded the hydrogen bomb that was 1,000 times more lethal
than the bombs we dropped in Nagasaki and literally blew an
island out of existence.
And then many Americans don't know that the French
Government also exploded over 200 nuclear bombs in the South
Pacific. So the sensitivity about nuclear waste and nuclear
anything comes very, very high, in my opinion, in terms of the
experiences that we have had to go through. With respect to
some 3 million people living in the State of Nevada, why should
you have to be the recipient of nuclear waste of our other
fellow--sister states.
It seems to me the common logic would say, why not
establish regional centers that if you want to use nuclear
energy as part of your resource, then you should take care of
it. But why should Nevada be the dumping ground?
One issue that I am really curious about is how the
administration as well as the Congress are going to grapple
with whose towns are going to be the sacrificial lambs when
these things are going to be transported? What cities? What
rural areas are going to be the ones that are going to be the
sacrificial lambs if anything goes wrong with the
transportation of this contaminated nuclear waste?
It is something that I am very curious about how the Energy
Department is going to come up with a solution to that.
But anyway, I know this is unrelated, but I want to let you
know that I offer to assist the Nevada delegation in fighting
this. I think it is a most unfair policy to heap upon one State
to benefit of the rest. It is not right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Sometimes science overtakes
politics and politics overtake science. This is one of those
cases. But I appreciate your eloquence and your insight into
the issue, and your friendship on that as well.
I would like to call up our next panel, which is going to
be composed of Mr. John Reynolds, regional director of the
Pacific West Region, National Park Service; Mr. Carson Pete
Culp, who is the Assistant Director of Minerals, Realty, and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, and the great
Honorable John Lee, Assemblyman from the State of Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. John, welcome. John is one of the more
articulate public servants that we have from the Las Vegas
area, District 3 in the State of Nevada. He very ably
represents his area, and he will be able to talk to us about
this legislation as well.
In fact, what I will do, John, just because of your
position in the legislature, I will turn to you and let you
make your opening remarks first. I want to welcome you to the
Committee. If you will try to summarize your remarks within a
5-minute timeframe, we will answer questions and go to the
other gentlemen as well.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN J. LEE, ASSEMBLYMAN, NEVADA STATE
LEGISLATURE
Mr. Lee. Thank you. My talk starts out ``Chairman
Radanovich,'' but I am much more excited to call it ``Vice
Chairman Gibbons'' today. It is nice to see another Nevadan
serving so well here.
Vice Chairman Gibbons and members of the Committee, I am
John J. Lee. I represent Clark County, Assembly District 3,
which is the metropolitan area of Las Vegas. I am appearing
today on behalf of the State legislature to speak in favor of
H.R. 3937. During its last session, the Nevada legislature
unanimously approved Assembly Joint Resolution 6 that called
upon Congress to support the release of property in Clark
County, controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, for the
development of a regional shooting park.
In Nevada, as in many other parts of the Western United
States, firearms enthusiasts use public lands as places to
practice their hobby. Shooters go out in the desert with a few
paper targets or a stack of tin cans to sight in their rifles
or hone their shooting skills.
In recent years, the BLM or local governments have
restricted shooting in many areas, forcing hobbyists to travel
to more remote locations. Unfortunately, some ignore these
restrictions and continue to shoot near settled areas.
As you may know, Las Vegas is the fastest growing
metropolitan area in the Nation. Las Vegas is located on open
desert, surrounded by Federal lands. Unlike most other cities,
it does not have a surrounding buffer of farms or other private
property. Instead, outlying housing developments are
immediately adjacent to public lands where sports shooters have
practiced for years and which they feel entitled to continue to
use. This situation poses a serious hazard to the public.
Two years ago a stray bullet killed a Las Vegas police
officer. In November 1999, an errant round struck a vehicle in
the local campground, and an accidental shooting killed a local
man. Residents of the outlying subdivisions are beginning to
voice complaints about near misses and the dangers
indiscriminate shooting poses to their lives and property.
The need for a shooting park is evident. The citizens of
southern Nevada own an estimated 400,000 registered handguns
and an untold number of hunting rifles and shotguns. About
13,000 citizens hold concealed weapons permits. These persons
must periodically demonstrate their firearms proficiency. In
addition, there are 3,000 police officers, several thousand
private security guards and a large number of law enforcement
personnel employed by the Nevada Highway Patrol, the FBI, the
Secret Service and other State or Federal agencies that need a
safe, accessible area in which to train.
The proposed park would accommodate shooters of all kinds.
This facility would address recreational needs, gun safety
training classes, courses required for hunting licenses, and
local and national competitive events. It would include
facilities for archery, pistol practice, rifle shooting and
shotguns. It would incorporate a variety of safety features,
including buffer areas, backdrops and safety berms. It would
include access roads, parking areas, rest rooms and other
facilities to make the area safe, comfortable and convenient.
The proposed shooting park which has been described to you
today would have several benefits. First, it would reduce the
amount of indiscriminate shooting that occurs on the fringes of
our city. This shooting poses a serious hazard. Shooters must
share public lands with hikers, bicyclists, motorcyclists, off-
road vehicle enthusiasts, horseback riders and campers. In
recent years, this competition among these various users of
public lands has become more intense. In some cases, the BLM
has closed part of the public lands to shooters, leaving them
with few areas in which they can pursue their sport.
In addition, because the BLM does not have the staff to
supervise these activities, the danger of indiscriminate
shooting has increased, even in areas where shooting has been
banned.
Second, the unsupervised shooting on public lands poses
environmental problems. In many areas, shooters leave behind
garbage and debris, harm wildlife, cut dusty trails and roads
or vandalize natural wilderness areas. Providing a suitable
location for shooting can reduce these problems.
Third, the shooting park would replace facilities in the
Las Vegas area that must be closed in the near future because
of encroaching development. These include a police firearms
training facility operated by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department and an archery range that must be relocated to make
way for the development of a wetlands park. In addition,
several private shooting clubs have been recently forced to
close by nearby residential or commercial developments.
Fourth, the regional shooting range would provide a venue
for regional and national shooting competitions, adding an
important attraction to our area's tourist-based economy which
has been severely affected by the recent fall in tourist
travel. This project has the enthusiastic support of the
legislature and the people of Nevada. It has been endorsed by
our law enforcement agencies, sports shooting clubs, the Sierra
Club, and other environmental groups. In the entire time I have
worked on this issue, I have yet to encounter anyone who is
opposed to this project.
In conclusion, speaking on behalf of the Nevada
legislature, and my own constituents in southern Nevada, I urge
the Subcommittee to approve this measure that you have before
you today.
Thank you, Congressman Gibbons, for your full support and
concern.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John J. Lee, Nevada State Assemblyman, on
H.R. 2937
Chairman Radanovich and members of the committee, I am Nevada State
Assemblyman John J. Lee. I represent Clark County Assembly District No.
3, which is in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. I am appearing today on
behalf of the Nevada State Legislature to speak in speak in favor of
H.R. 2937.
During its last session, the Nevada Legislature unanimously
approved Assembly Joint Resolution No. 6 that calls upon Congress to
support the release of property in Clark County controlled by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of a regional
shooting park.
In Nevada, as in many other parts of the western United States,
firearms enthusiasts use public lands as a place to practice their
hobby. Shooters go out into the desert with a few paper targets or a
stack of tin cans to site in their rifles or hone their shooting
skills. In recent years, the BLM or local governments have restricted
shooting in many areas, forcing hobbyists to travel to more remote
locations. Unfortunately, some ignore these restrictions and continue
to shoot near settled areas.
As you may know, Las Vegas is the fastest growing metropolitan area
in the nation. Las Vegas is located in an open desert surround by
Federal lands. Unlike most other cities, it does not have a surrounding
buffer of farms and other private property. Instead, outlying housing
developments are immediately adjacent to public lands where sports
shooters have practiced for years and which they feel entitled to
continue to use.
This situation poses a serious hazard to the public. Two years ago,
a stray bullet killed a Las Vegas police officer. In November 1999, an
errant round struck a vehicle in a local campground, and an accidental
shooting recently killed a local man. Residents of outlying
subdivisions are beginning to voice complaints about near misses and
the dangers indiscriminate shooting poses to their lives and property.
The need for a shooting park is evident. The citizens of southern
Nevada own an estimated 400,000 registered handguns and an untold
number of hunting rifles and shot guns. About 13,000 citizens hold
concealed weapons permits. These persons must periodically demonstrate
their firearms proficiency. In addition, there are 3,000 police
officers, several thousand private security guards, and a large number
of other law enforcement personnel employed by the Nevada Highway
Patrol, the FBI, the Secret Service and other state or Federal agencies
that need a safe, accessible area in which to train.
The proposed park would accommodate shooters of all kinds. This
facility would address recreational needs, gun safety training classes,
courses required for hunting licenses, and local and national
competitive events. It would include facilities for archery, pistol
practice, rifle shooting, and shotguns. It would incorporate a variety
of safety features, including buffer areas, backdrops, and safety
berms. It would include access roads, parking areas, restrooms, and
other facilities to make the area safe, comfortable, and convenient.
The proposed shooting park, which has been described to you today,
would have several benefits. First, it would reduce the amount of
indiscriminate shooting that occurs on the fringes of our city. This
shooting poses a serious hazard. Shooters must share public lands with
hikers, bicyclists, motorcyclists, off-road vehicle enthusiasts,
horseback riders, and campers. In recent years, this competition among
these various users of public lands has become more intense. In some
cases, the BLM has closed parts of the public lands to shooters,
leaving them with few areas in which they can pursue their sport. In
addition, because the BLM does not have the staff to supervise these
activities, the danger of indiscriminate shooting has increased even in
areas where shooting has been banned.
Second, unsupervised shooting on public lands poses environmental
problems. In many areas, shooters leave behind garbage and debris, harm
wildlife, cut dusty trails and roads, or vandalize natural wilderness
areas. Providing a suitable location for shooting can reduce these
problems.
Third, the shooting park would replace facilities in the Las Vegas
area that must be closed in the near future because of encroaching
development. These include a police firearms training facility operated
by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and an archery range
that must be relocated to make way for the development of a wetlands
park. In addition, several private shooting clubs have recently been
forced to close by nearby residential or commercial developments.
Fourth, the regional shooting range would provide a venue for
regional and national shooting competitions, adding an important
attraction to our area's tourist-based economy, which has been severely
effected by the recent fall in tourist travel.
This project has the enthusiastic support of the Legislature and
the people of Nevada. It has been endorsed by our law enforcement
agencies, sports shooting clubs, the Sierra Club, and other
environmental groups. In the entire time I have worked on this issue, I
have yet to encounter anyone who is opposed to this project.
In conclusion, speaking on behalf of the Nevada Legislature and my
own constituents in southern Nevada, I urge this subcommittee to
approve the measure that you have before you today.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Culp, the Assistant Director for Resource
Protection, Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Culp.
STATEMENT OF CARSON PETE CULP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS,
REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Culp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I appear before you today to give you the
administration's views on H.R. 2937, which is--as you have
indicated, is a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain
public lands in Clark County for use as a shooting range. A
hearing on H.R. 2937's companion bill in the Senate, S. 1451,
took place on November 27th, of last year. Our position on H.R.
2937 remains unchanged; the Bureau of Land Management supports
the bill with suggested changes.
The bill would provide special disposal authority, as has
been noted, for 2,800 acres in Clark County to the county for a
centralized shooting facility. It is worth noting that this
kind of transfer could occur under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act which authorizes us to transfer lands for
recreation purposes up to a total of 6,400 acres; but because
this land will be used both for recreation and for other
activities, as Mr. Lee and others have noted--for example, by
local law enforcement for training purposes--it falls under the
640-acre limitation in the R&PP acts. So the reason for the
legislation is essentially a technical one to deal with that
acreage limitation which we believe would apply.
In terms of suggestions for technical changes to the bill,
I will just mention two very briefly. One is, enactment of the
bill will result in certain administrative costs for BLM,
particularly the cost of a new survey to make certain that we
have correctly delineated the property boundaries. So one of
the suggested amendments that we have would be to include
language in the bill that would provide for compensation from
Clark County for the administrative costs of the transfer.
And then, Mr. Gibbons, you mentioned the reverter. We would
recommend a provision that, should it ever be necessary to
exercise the reverter--and we hope that wouldn't be the case--
the county would be responsible for cleaning up any lead or
other hazardous materials that might exist as the result of the
activity.
That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Culp.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Culp follows:]
Statement of Carson Pete Culp, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 2937
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appear
before you today to give the Administration's views regarding H.R.
2937, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public lands in
Clark County, Nevada for use as a shooting range. A hearing on H.R.
2937's companion bill, S. 1451, took place on November 27, 2001. Our
position on H.R. 2937 remains unchanged. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) supports the bill with suggested changes.
H.R. 2937 provides the Secretary of the Interior with special
disposal authority to convey 2,880 acres of BLM administered lands in
Clark County, Nevada, to the County for the establishment of a
centralized shooting facility in the Las Vegas valley.
In the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), Congress
recognized the benefit of conveying BLM-managed public lands to local
governments without compensation for recreation purposes. The R&PP Act
limits conveyances for public purposes other than recreation to 640
acres. Because this land will be used as a target range both for
recreational purposes and for training of local law enforcement
officers, the 640 acre limitation appears to apply and this legislation
is needed.
We would like to suggest a few changes to this legislation to
improve the administration of this bill if enacted and would be pleased
to work with the committee to address these concerns.
The conveyance of these lands by the BLM will result in certain
administrative costs. For example, a resurvey will likely be required
since the area would have common property boundaries with other land
owners that could create use conflicts without a specific defined
property boundary. For this reason we suggest that the bill be amended
to include language providing compensation by Clark County to the BLM
for survey costs and other administrative costs related to the
preparation of patents and transfer of title.
Additionally, the United States must avoid the potential for
hazardous waste liability from any property reverted to the United
States under Section 1 (e) (2) of the bill. We suggest an amendment
that Clark County be required to clean up any hazardous waste
contamination prior to reversion to the United States.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Gibbons. We will turn now for the testimony from Mr.
John Reynolds, Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National
Park Service.
Mr. Reynolds, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST
REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be
here with you all today. I thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of Interior's views on H.R. 1712 to
authorize adjustments to the boundary of the National Park of
American Samoa, Ofu and Olosega. I am only going to present a
portion of the testimony--the rest is provided for the record,
with your permission--and will do so now.
Mr. Gibbons. Without objection.
Mr. Reynolds. The Department does not oppose H.R. 1712. We
do, however, suggest some amendments as outlined in my
testimony. The legislation will provide authority for the
Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary of the
National Park of American Samoa to include up to approximately
1,000 acres of land on the island of Olosega, and up to
approximately 450 acres on the island of Ofu, and approximately
1,500 acres of ocean waters, offshore to both islands.
The lands on the island of Olosega and the adjacent
offshore waters will add important cultural, biological and
marine resources to the national park. The lands of the islands
of Ofu will ensure the long-term protection of important and
fragile coral reef resources presently within the national
park, but obviously downstream from the hillside.
The law that established the national park does not provide
authority for the National Park Service to acquire parklands,
but instead requires that lands must be leased from the
Governor of American Samoa. Lands within the authorized
boundary expansion would be added to the park incrementally,
based on future discussions with village landowners and
modification of the existing leases.
The park's enabling legislation places the responsibility
for determining the value of the leases with the High Court of
American Samoa. As a point of reference, the park currently
leases approximately 8,000 acres for $419,000 annually.
The offshore waters would be leased at no cost from the
Government of American Samoa. No development is contemplated
within the boundary adjustment areas, so no line item
construction or significant development costs are anticipated
in connection with the bill.
In March 1998, the Olosega village council noted in a
letter to Congressman Faleomavaega that the national park has
contributed much to the preservation of Samoan culture, the
rain forest and the coral reef. In addition, the council noted
that the park has also been a positive factor to the economic
well-being of the territory through tourism and lease payments
to the villages. The village council of Olosega expressed its
wish for a part of this valuable conservation effort of the
national park, and I quote, ``We are pleased that this has been
a grass-roots effort by the community.'' the letter was signed
by the entire village council.
Also significant was the inclusion of the coral reefs
around portions of Olosega within the park, which would further
the Governor's directive to local agencies to protect 20
percent of the territory's coral reefs. At present, about 6
percent of the territory's reefs are protected.
We recommend an amendment to the bill to eliminate the word
``minor'' when referring to the boundary adjustments, ``the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act provides the Secretary of
the Interior with the authority to make minor boundary
adjustments and defines the conditions that are considered to
be minor.'' Because the boundary adjustments addressed by this
bill would not meet those criteria, we suggest that the term be
deleted from the bill in order to avoid confusion.
We also recommend an amendment to include a map reference
in the bill in order to clarify the lands to be included.
I would like to note that, having been over to both of
these islands and spent some time both on the island and in the
water, this is one of the most marvelous parks in the system. I
say that after just having spent 10 days on vacation in the
Virgin Islands park. It is pretty nice to be able to say that
both of these, both of these resources, are part of America's
most wonderful heritage.
The park in American Samoa, the upper land habitat in this
park, is absolutely unique in the world. It is a most amazing
place. The bird life is marvelous, it is unique, and it is
unspoiled. And I can assure you, if you don't have a lot of
interest in bats and you see one of these bats that the
Congressman referred to, you will never think of bats in the
same way again. They are absolutely out of the experience of
any of us who have never seen them before.
The star mounds, the archaeological resources that are
referred to, are some of the most exciting and inspirational
archaeological resources that you can ever stand in front of in
an entire lifetime. The culture and all of these resources are
part of the native culture of the American Samoan, of the
native Samoan. It is this tie between the culture and this
particular nature of the national park that is not repeated
anywhere else in the national park system that is so important
for this addition.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I would be more
than happy to answer any questions that haven't been addressed.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Statement of John J. Reynolds, Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1712,
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1712, a bill to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to make minor adjustments to the boundary
of the National Park of American Samoa, to include certain lands of the
islands of Ofu and Olosega within the park, and for other purposes.
The Department does not oppose H.R. 1712. We do, however, suggest
amendments as outlined in this testimony. This legislation will provide
authority for the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary of
the National Park of American Samoa to include up to approximately
1,000 acres of land on the island of Olosega, up to approximately 450
acres on the island of Ofu, and approximately 1,500 acres of ocean
waters offshore of Olosega and Ofu. The lands on the island of Olosega
and the adjacent offshore waters will add important cultural,
biological and marine resources to the national park. The lands on the
island of Ofu will ensure the long-term protection of important and
fragile coral reef resources presently within the national park.
Proposed additions on Ofu contain excellent wildlife and coral reef
habitats. Currently, only a strip of sand beach and the associated
coral reef are within the national park boundary on Ofu. This coastal
area contains a world-class coral reef area of remarkably high
diversity and beauty. The proposed addition would protect the upland
watershed so that the coral reef would not be impaired by non-park
developments. Coastal areas on the north side of Ofu are proposed
because of the exceptionally healthy and diverse coral communities
found there, and because the north shores of Ofu and Olosega are
connected and constitute a single coral reef ecosystem.
The archeological resources found on Olosega between the 300 and
800-foot elevations are not only important, but are unique in American
Samoa. Unique to Olosega are the number of star mounds and what appears
to be a remnant agro-forestry system. Archeological reconnaissance
surveys carried out on Olosega in July 1999 by the National Park
Service and the University of North Dakota's Department of Anthropology
identified 31 star mounds, 46 modified terraces, 14 house platforms, an
elevated grave site believed to be associated with the Tui Olosega
(King of Olosega), and numerous stone tools. Star mounds are massive
rock platforms with radiating arms built by the ancient Samomans for
cultural and sporting events. Up until 1999, star mounds were known to
exist only on Upolo (in Samoa) and Tutuila islands. Archeologists
believe the agro-forestry system found on Olosega, with further study,
could prove to be an agricultural system that existed in relative
equilibrium with the native forest system. Most of the sites and
artifacts found on Olosega were well preserved.
Also in 1999, a survey of Olosega's biotic resources by the park's
wildlife biologist found that the unoccupied portions of the island
provide excellent habitat for native wildlife. Large tracts of land on
Olosega remain relatively wild and the island is free of many of the
introduced species that compete with the native wildlife within the
park on Tutuila. In addition, Olosega includes the presence of the
rarer bird species that occur in American Samoa. Fiji shrikebill,
uncommon on the other islands, were consistently seen on Olosega during
the 1999 survey. The Friendly ground dove and the Blue-crowned lory are
also present. The Friendly ground dove is a candidate for listing as an
endangered species. Biologists believe the shrikebill found on Olosega
may be a separate subspecies found only on the Manu'a Islands.
Although Olosega shares the same fauna found on the other islands
of American Samoa, the species composition of the forest trees is
somewhat unique. The 1999 survey found a high concentration of Samoan
medicinal plants. Many of these medicinal plants are disappearing from
the native forests of Samoa. The survey also found that the area
between the 200 and 800-foot elevation represented a traditional mixed
agro-forestry system developed over decades of manipulation and
cultural use. The system appeared to be relatively stable and may have
reached a sustainable equilibrium.
Small populations of two species of flying foxes are believed to
exist on Olosega. Protection of these fruit-eating bats is included in
the park's enabling legislation. In addition, there are indications
that a few individuals of the nearly extirpated sheath-tailed bat are
present on Olosega. This small insectivorous bat is a candidate for
listing as an endangered species and is not currently found within the
existing boundary of the park.
The coastal and marine areas of Olosega contain rich coral and fish
communities and would complement the Ofu reef currently included within
the park boundary. Surveys have found that Olosega's offshore waters
are among the richest and most densely populated with fish species in
the entire Samoan archipelago. Both the endangered Hawksbill and the
threatened Green sea turtles are present in Olosega's offshore waters.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service believe that the Hawksbill turtle is a species rapidly
approaching extinction, making its protection in Olosega's reefs and
offshore waters of vital importance.
The law that established the National Park of American Samoa does
not provide the authority for the National Park Service to acquire park
lands, but instead requires that lands must be leased from the Governor
of American Samoa. Lands within the authorized boundary expansion would
be added to the park incrementally, based on future discussions with
village landowners and modification of the existing lease. The park's
enabling legislation places the responsibility for determining the
rental value of lands to be leased for the national park with the High
Court of American Samoa. As a point of reference, the park currently
leases approximately 8,000 acres for $419,000 annually. The offshore
waters would be leased from the Government of American Samoa at no
cost. No development is contemplated within the boundary adjustment
areas, so no line-item construction or significant development costs
are anticipated in connection with H.R. 1712.
In March 1998, the Olosenga Village Council noted in a letter to
American Samoa's Congressional representative, Congressman Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega, that the national park has contributed much to the
preservation of Samoan culture, the rainforest and the coral reef. In
addition, the council noted that the park has also been a positive
factor to the economic well-being of the territory through tourism and
lease payments to the villages in the park. The village council of
Olosega expressed its support for expansion of the park boundaries, and
we are pleased that this has been a grassroots effort supported by the
community.
Also significant would be inclusion of the coral reefs around
portions of Olosega within the national park, which would further the
Governor's directive to local agencies to protect 20 percent of the
territory's coral reefs. At present, only about six percent of the
territory's reefs are in protected areas.
We recommend an amendment to the bill to eliminate the word
``minor'' when referring to the boundary adjustment. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act (LWCF), as amended, provides the Secretary of the
Interior with the authority to make minor boundary adjustments, and
defines the conditions that are considered to be minor. Because the
boundary adjustment addressed by H.R. 1712 would not meet those
criteria, we suggest that the term be deleted from the bill in order to
avoid confusion between its use in H.R. 1712 and the definition
provided in the LWCF.
We also recommend an amendment to include a map reference in the
bill in order to clarify the lands to be included in the boundary
adjustment. Both of the suggested amendments are attached to this
testimony.
This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions that you or members of the subcommittee may have.
Proposed amendments to H.R. 1712
In the title of the bill and on page 2, line 5 strike ``minor''.
On page 2, line 7, after Olosega insert ``as depicted on the map
entitled ``National Park of American Samoa, Proposed Boundary
Adjustment'', numbered 82,035 and dated Feb 2002''.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I welcome the panelists today.
I wanted to ask a question to Mr. Culp on H.R. 2937. In
your written testimony and what you gave to us today, you noted
that the legislation was required because the authority to
transfer land for nonrecreational purposes under R&PP is
limited at 640 acres. But seeing that it leaves out another
important reason why legislation might be needed, that
doesn't--not only--R&PP does not cover this transaction not
only because of size, as I understand it, but more importantly,
because it only covers land identified for disposal, which does
not cover wilderness study areas. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Culp. That is correct, yes. And, actually there is
another reason.
Our land use planning requirements would--without this
legislation, would require a plan amendment to identify the
lands for disposal. So the legislation takes care of both the
wilderness study area release requirement and the land use
planning requirement.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. In my opening remarks, I asked--I
questioned the size of it. And I completely understand the need
for safety, but it still seems a bit large. Are there
associations that set standards for the size of buffer areas,
recommend standard sizes for buffer areas? And anyone that
might be able to answer this, either you or the state
assemblyman, I am trying to figure out whether this 1,400 acres
is a standard buffer area. It still seems a bit large.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me say that the National Association of
Shooting Ranges establishes the boundaries in areas. It is
based upon the projected trajectory of a bullet's travel, and
all of that is taken into consideration. They set the standards
for areas like this.
Mrs. Christensen. Would fees be set for the use of the
range? Will there be any fees for the use of those?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes. I believe there would be a fee set for
the utilization of the range by any person or a group.
Mrs. Christensen. One other question: Did the BLM ever
approach Clark County about paying fair market value for the
land?
Mr. Culp. I don't believe that we did. As I indicated, this
is very close to a Recreation and Public Purposes Act
transaction. And that law provides that we can do these
transfers without compensation; or certain kinds of transfers,
there is a very minimum compensation of, like, $1.50 an acre.
Mrs. Christensen. I don't have any further questions.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
ask Mr. Culp a couple of questions.
Is this land situated somewhere with the mountain as a
background, or is this flat desert out? Most target areas
usually would have kind of like a high wall, like a mountain
that you can shoot into. Is this the case? Can you give me an
idea what the land situation looks like?
Mr. Culp. Actually, I have been close to there, but I
haven't been there personally. It is immediately south of the
Desert National Wildlife Refuge.
My guess is that Mr. Lee could maybe help.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just got a copy of the map. I have
been, what do you call it, given a tremendous orientation on
where I am at.
Mr. Lee. Yes, sir. It is on the skirt on the northern part
of the mountain. It aims to the north where the sun will never
be in the shooters' eyes. In that area are the headwaters to
Lake Mead. So we have--some of that acreage is just total wash
area, too, yes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What are we looking at in anticipation of
community use for purposes of a target range? How many people
may be using this facility once it is open?
Mr. Lee. We believe there will be about 144,000 shooter
days, shooter-person days a year.
We also, if you know anything about Las Vegas--
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know a little bit about it. I have
heard of Henderson.
Mr. Lee. We are excited about the world-class things we do
there. We are going to build a world-class shooting arena so
that people who come visit can also participate. We are
expecting about a $4-a-day shooting day fee for someone to be
able to use the facility, the residents of Clark County.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would think that with all the tourists,
it would also be they would like to do recreational shooting as
well.
Mr. Lee. There are many organizations, the cowboy shooters
and national organizations, that would love to come out. We
have the hotel rooms, the facilities close by. We are within 30
minutes of the downtown metropolitan Las Vegas area. So we have
a beautiful location for it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You still have a lot of cowboys in
Nevada?
Mr. Lee. I would tell you that Mr. Gibbons probably wears
cowboy boots. There are quite a few people that have that
heritage. Very safe, friendly people, though.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. So they are real good country
folk.
Where is this--I am here again pleading ignorance. Where is
the Yucca Mountain from Las Vegas?
Mr. Lee. We are probably in the northerly direction.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So Yucca is only about 90 miles north of
Las Vegas. I don't why I keep referring to Yucca Mountain; I
must have some obsession with it. I don't know what it is.
The conveyance, Mr. Culp, the administration does not
object to this proposal?
Mr. Culp. We do not. We support the proposal.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Reynolds, I would like to have you
come and testify on any park bill that I propose from now on.
Thank you so much for your testimony.
We have approximately, about, almost 60 species of birds
that are not found anywhere in the United States that are in
our little island, if you will.
And it might also be noted of some historical import, this
little group of islands, one of the islands, this is where
Margaret Mead came and conducted her so-called scientific study
about the sex habits of Samoans, which I deeply resent; nor do
I actually accept her scientific findings about the social
behavior of Samoans in that regard.
But I do really appreciate, Mr. Reynolds, your presence and
your testimony. And I sincerely appreciate also the
recommendations that you have offered in this legislation, so
we can make improvements on it.
I invite everybody in this room to come to my little
islands, pay your own way, but you are more than welcome to
come and visit my little islands, and we will be happy to take
you fishing. I don't know if we can do any squirrel hunting.
Do you do that in Nevada still, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gibbons. If we had any squirrels, we would.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I don't have any more questions. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the panel.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. I would also invite to you Las
Vegas. We will strap you on a couple of six-shooters and take
you out to the shooting range.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for your time,
your patience and your contribution to the process here today.
It is a pleasure to have your testimony before us.
With that, if there are no further questions, we will
excuse the panel. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by Brian O'Donnell,
Associate Director, Wilderness Support Center, The Wilderness
Society, on H.R. 2937 follows:]
Statement of Brian O'Donnell, Associate Director, Wilderness Support
Center, The Wilderness Society, on behalf of the Nevada Wilderness
Coalition
On behalf of the Nevada Wilderness Coalition, thank you for the
opportunity to present written testimony on H.R. 2937, legislation to
provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County,
Nevada, for use as a shooting range.
First, the Nevada Wilderness Coalition would like to acknowledge
the need for a new shooting range in Clark County. Our members spend a
great deal of time hiking, camping and enjoying the public lands in
Southern Nevada. All to often, when hiking or recreating on our public
lands, we have encountered large amounts of trash left behind after
being used as makeshift targets. These makeshift targets range from
appliances, to furniture, to metal sheets that are shot up and left
behind, scarring the beauty of the Mojave Desert region of Nevada. The
Nevada Wilderness Coalition believes that a new shooting range in Clark
County will help deal with this problem.
However, the proposed location for the shooting range under H.R.
2937 causes concern. H.R. 2937 would convey public lands under the
jurisdiction of the BLM and managed as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
for the shooting range. Specifically, a portion of the Quail Springs
Wilderness Study Area would be released from its Study Area status and
no longer subject to interim protection.
Currently, there is only one area designated as Wilderness in all
of Clark County, the Mt. Charleston Wilderness. The Mt. Charleston
Wilderness is a high elevation, forested, area. The Mojave Desert
Region of Nevada is home to an incredibly diverse array of wildlife,
and spectacular landscapes. Unfortunately, this landscape is currently
not included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Some of
the best wilderness quality lands in the Mojave Desert region of Nevada
are currently being managed as Wilderness Study Areas. It is
unfortunate that H.R. 2937 looks to one of these few areas in Clark
County with interim protection for the location of a shooting range.
Clark County is the fastest growing county in the country. The
cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas have grown at an incredible
rate during the past dozen years. With this growth comes increased
pressures on the public lands in Southern Nevada. Urban sprawl, habitat
fragmentation, and unbridled off-highway vehicle use all undermine the
integrity of the valuable public asset that is the wild character of
our public lands. These wild lands urgently need Wilderness designation
if they are to be passed down to future generations. H.R. 2937 only
exacerbates the pressures on our remaining wild places in Southern
Nevada.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition has presented a Citizens''
Wilderness Proposal for Nevada's Mojave Desert Region to members of the
Nevada Congressional Delegation and federal land management agencies.
This proposal outlines a balanced plan to protect the wilderness
character of some of our public lands in southern Nevada. This
Wilderness Proposal should be debated and enacted by Congress.
H.R. 2937 should be considered in the context of the broader
pressures on the public lands in Clark County. Currently, H.R. 2937
offers no mitigation, or Wilderness designation, and only further
threatens the wilderness character of the public lands in southern
Nevada.
Fortunately, Senators Ensign and Reid are currently involved in a
process to address public lands in Clark County in a more holistic way.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition has participated in Senator Ensign and
Reid's public lands process for Clark County and is hopeful that it
will lead to significant new Wilderness protections in Clark County.
H.R.2937 should be considered in context of this more holistic review
of the public lands management needs in Clark County.
We look forward to working with Rep. Gibbons on the more holistic
approach to balancing development on our public lands with much needed
Wilderness protections. We ask that the subcommittee not approve H.R.
2937 without assurances that it will address the larger Wilderness
protection needs for the public lands in Clark County in the near term.
______
-