[Senate Hearing 111-645]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-645
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 349 S. 2976 S. 1596 S. 3159 S. 1651 S. 3168 S. 1750 S. 3303 S. 1801 H.R. 685 S. 1802 H.R. 3388 S. 2953 H.R. 4395
__________
MAY 19, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-612 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., U.S. Senator From Colorado.............. 26
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 4
Burris, Hon. Roland W., U.S. Senator From Illinois............... 5
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator From Delaware............... 9
Clay, Hon. William Lacy, U.S. Representative From Missouri....... 8
Holtrop, Joel, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......... 28
Moomaw, Robert, County Commissioner, Archuleta County, CO........ 35
Platts, Mark N., President, Susquehanna Heritage Corporation,
Wrightsville, PA............................................... 41
Slavin, Timothy, Director, Division of Historical and Cultural
Affairs, State of Delaware..................................... 38
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
Whitesell, Stephen E., Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 12
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 53
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 87
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. I call the subcommittee to order, and I'll
turn on the mike so you can even better hear me. We have a host
of bills this afternoon. We have a number of Senators scheduled
to testify about their particular bills, but what I'd like to
do is make my opening statement. We'll then start with the
administration witnesses. As Senators are able to arrive, we'll
fit them in, if that works for everybody here.
So this afternoon the Subcommittee on National Parks has a
lengthy list of bills to consider, reflecting a variety of
conservation proposals on the National Park Service, Forest
Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands throughout the
country. The bills on today's agenda include:
S. 349, which would establish the Susequehanna Gateway
National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania;
S. 1596, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire the Gold Hill Ranch in California;
S. 1651, to modify a land grant patent in Michigan issued
by the Secretary of Interior;
S. 1750, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct
a special resource study of the George C. Marshall Home in
Leesburg, Virginia;
S. 1801, to establish the First State National Historical
Park in Delaware, and I'd add I'm a co-sponsor of that
particular legislative vehicle;
S. 1802 and H.R. 685, to require a study of the feasibility
of establishing a United States Civil Rights Trail System;
S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, to modify the boundary of Petersburg
National Battlefield in Virginia;
S. 2976, to designate as wilderness certain land within the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan;
S. 3159 and H.R. 4395, to revise the boundaries of the
Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg
Train Station;
S. 3168, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire certain land in Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort
Necessity National Battlefield; and
Last but not least, S. 3303, a bill Senator Bennet of
Colorado and I introduced, to establish the Chimney Rock
National Monument in Colorado. The Chimney Rock bill will help
protect a very unique Chacoan archaeological site in our home
State. The Chimney Rock site includes 2 spectacular rock
spires, as well as the remains of a great house and other
buildings built by the ancestors of the Pueblo Indians over a
thousand years ago.
One of the many interesting facts about Chimney Rock is
that every 18 years the moon is in a position that it appears
to rise between the spires when viewed from the great house.
Much remains unknown about the Chacoan people and the site
itself, but clearly it was a site of astronomical and religious
significance, and it's certainly a very important
archaeological site.
I wanted to note that I hope Senator Bennet will be able to
be here. He'll speak in greater detail on his bill when he
does. But I am very pleased to join him as a co-sponsor of the
bill and I look forward to working with him to see that it's
enacted into law.
Let me now move to recognize the ranking member, my friend
and a great North Carolinian, Senator Richard Burr.
[The prepared statements of Senators Boxer and Levin
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California,
on S. 1596
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to discuss S.
1596, the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act.
I am pleased to have worked with Representative Tom McClintock on
this bill, which would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to
acquire the Gold Hill Ranch in western El Dorado County--the location
of the first Japanese settlement in the United States.
In 1869, 22 Japanese expatriates fled the turmoil of Japan's Meiji
restoration and made their way across the Pacific Ocean to California.
There, they purchased land in the heart of gold rush country, and began
producing traditional Japanese crops such as mulberry trees for silk,
bamboo roots, tea seeds, grape seedlings, and short-grain rice.
The Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony, as it was called, played an
important role in bridging Japanese and American cultures. The
colonists and surrounding community learned about each others' customs
and agricultural techniques, and stories of the colony were reported in
newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times.
Unfortunately, drought and financial problems forced the colonists to
disperse and settle throughout California beginning in 1871, and the
272-acre property was purchased by the neighboring Veerkamp family.
Despite the colony's short history, its contributions to American
history have endured. The significance of this site for Japanese
Americans has been compared to that of Plymouth Rock for European
Americans. The successful migration and assimilation of these first
Wakamatsu colonists established California as the gateway for waves of
Japanese immigrants entering our nation in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. The new agricultural products they introduced contributed to
California's eventual preeminence as an agricultural and economic
leader.
Many of the original structures on the site remain intact,
including a farmhouse, the grave of a young girl named Okei, artifacts,
and agricultural plantings. Japanese-Americans and other visitors come
to see the site and place offerings on Okei's grave. Governor Reagan
recognized the property as a state historic site in 1969, and the site
was recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the
national level of significance.
Mr. Chairman, I have received numerous letters of support for this
legislation and would like to ask that they be entered into the record.
These supporters include the Japanese American Citizens League, the
National Japanese American Historical Society, People-to-People
International, the Consulate General of Japan, the American River
Conservancy, the California Rice Commission, the El Dorado County Board
of Supervisors, the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, and many
local elected officials, businesses, and constituents.
The remarkable history of the Wakamatsu colonists, and their
lasting impact on the State of California and our nation of immigrants,
is a story that must carry on for future generations. I look forward to
working with my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation so that we
can preserve this site for future visitors.
______
Prepared Statements of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator From Michigan
s. 1651
Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for holding this
hearing regarding the land patent modification bill for the Great Lakes
Shipwreck Historical Society, a not-for-profit organization. A land
patent involving about eight acres of land was originally issued in
1998 to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society for the
interpretation and preservation of maritime history at the United
States Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan. At that location, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum was
established, where about 60,000 people visit each year. The museum
tells the story of the sailors who braved the treacherous waters of
Lake Superior and those in the U.S. Life Saving Service, the
predecessor to the U.S. Coast Guard, who risked their own lives to save
others.
The current land patent allows for development consistent with the
Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan of 1992 or for a gift shop. Pursuant
to a court-ordered settlement agreement, a new plan, the Human Use/
Natural Resource Management Plan for Whitefish Point of December 2002,
was prepared for the land. The 2002 plan was developed by consensus of
the parties to the litigation: the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical
Society, Michigan Audubon Society, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. While the 2002 plan should guide development at the site, the
land patent still references the 1992 plan. The bill under
consideration by this committee would modify the land patent such that
development of new facilities and the expansion of existing facilities
and infrastructure would be consistent with the 2002 plan instead of
the obsolete 1992 plan.
In addition to the historic assets of Whitefish Point, the area is
also an important birding area and a stopover for migratory birds. The
2002 plan includes restrictions during bird migration as well as other
restrictions on humans to protect sensitive shoreline habitats,
including for the endangered piping plover. Recommended management
practices are also included in the 2002 plan to protect environmentally
sensitive habitat. The 2002 plan also specifies that implementation of
the plan would be led by a ``Joint Committee,'' comprised of
representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Great
Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, and the Michigan Audubon Society.
By having all of these entities involved with the plan implementation,
protection of natural resources and management of human uses can be
better ensured.
I urge you to favorably report this bill so that hopefully the full
Senate could promptly consider it and Michigan's rich maritime history
at Whitefish Point can be preserved and interpreted for the public.
s. 2976
Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for holding this
hearing on the Sleeping Bear Dunes Conservation and Recreation Act,
which would designate 32,557 acres as wilderness, permanently
protecting this land from harmful development and other impacts. I also
want to thank Senator Stabenow for co-sponsoring this bill and for
supporting this bill as a member of this subcommittee.
This legislation reflects years of public outreach and input, and I
am pleased there is broad public support for this bill, including by a
local organization, Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore (CAL), that
had initially organized to oppose a wilderness designation. Today CAL
is submitting testimony in enthusiastic support of this bill.
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is located in the Northwest
corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula on Lake Michigan, and encompasses
over 70,000 acres. The Lakeshore, as reflected by its name, features
ancient sand dunes that are the products of wind, wave, and ice action
over thousands of years, and are truly one of nature's great
masterworks. Nature lovers and photographers, serious hikers and
children eager to roll down the sandy dunes, all enjoy this natural
wonder. The Lakeshore also protects and interprets an extraordinary
history of Native Americans, early pioneers, farmsteads, and maritime
activities.
This wilderness designation would allow the area's immense
recreational opportunities and historic preservation efforts to
continue to thrive, while providing important protections for natural
areas. This wilderness designation would also revise the requirement
included in a 1982 law (P.L. 97-361) that directed the National Park
Service to manage areas included in a 1981 ``Wilderness
Recommendation'' as wilderness, even though no official Wilderness
designation had been made by Congress. The 1981 recommendation included
county roads and other areas the local community did not believe should
be managed as wilderness, and in fact, could endanger the preservation
and interpretation of many historic assets in the Lakeshore. Our
legislation excludes these features from the wilderness designation for
Sleeping Bear Dunes to ensure that access, recreation, and historic
preservation are provided at the Lakeshore, which reflects community
input. The 1982 law specified that its directive apply ``until Congress
determines otherwise.'' This bill provides the Congressional input the
1982 law envisioned.
The wilderness designation before you reflects a lengthy public
process, and better identifies areas that should be managed as
wilderness, which are undeveloped and possess significant and valuable
natural characteristics. Developed county roads and state highways,
boat launches and many historical structures have all been excluded
from the wilderness designation to ensure that access and recreational
opportunities are maintained, and preservation and interpretation of
historical resources are ensured. Hunting and fishing, trail use, and
camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore would continue.
Importantly, motor boats would still be allowed offshore of the dunes,
and allowed to beach in areas adjacent to the wilderness area.
This Lakeshore epitomizes the rich natural and cultural history of
Michigan. I ask the Committee to approve this legislation to protect
these resources for current and future generations, and to enable
thousands more to enjoy the scenic beauty and appreciate the
generations of farmers, trappers, hunters, and mariners who came
before.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we
convene this hearing today before the National Parks
Subcommittee hearing under unusual and unfortunate
circumstances, with 11 Senate Democrat bills and zero
Republican bills being considered. I understand that this
hearing was scheduled despite the continued objections of the
Republican staff, who lodged this objection as a result of no
GOP bills being included in the hearing consideration today.
Additionally, a separate hearing that was requested by the
Republican staff on the remaining Republican bills was also
refused. So unfortunately, we're left with no Republican bills
in the hearing today and no separate hearing for bills which
were left out.
I might say, in my time as ranking member of the
subcommittee never has a hearing been scheduled despite the
objections of one side or the other, and I hope this
regrettable incident does not set a precedent for the actions
of this subcommittee or the committee as a whole. I certainly
have great affection for my colleague and the chairman,
Chairman Udall, and believe that we can work together.
It's difficult for me at this time to imagine that it bodes
well for these particular bills in front of us today making it
through the committee process on any type of expedited basis.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you on
the multitude of important issues that come before this
Subcommittee on National Parks and I truly believe and hope
that we can continue to work toward scheduling a separate
hearing on the remaining Republican bills and move forward in a
bipartisan way.
I thank the chair.
Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member. If I might, I'd
like to share a response to Senator Burr's comments. There were
hearing requests from the Republican side for 3 bills. One is a
House-passed bill involving a park in Washington State. Both of
our colleagues from Washington told us that they weren't ready
for a hearing on the bill at this time. The other 2 bills would
have provided for essentially limited repeal of the Antiquities
Act in the States of Nevada and Utah. Chairman Bingaman--the
full committee did not view Antiquities Act bills, which have
national policy implications that would be and are extremely
controversial, to be in the same category as the type of
locally focused bills that are on today's agenda. He did tell
me and I will underline to the ranking member that he's happy
to talk more about these bills with the sponsors if they
desire. I know I'll continue to work with the ranking member to
meet his concerns in the future.
I know we both are proud to serve on this subcommittee and
know how important it is to our public lands and to our
economies and all of our country.
I would note before I call the administration witness, I
think Congressman Clay is here. I appreciate you coming over. I
don't know if you wanted to say anything, if you had a
statement, Lacey. We'd be honored if you'd join us there at the
dais.
Senator Burris has arrived. Senator Burris, if you'd like
to join one of my former House colleagues, Congressman Clay,
who is a good friend. If you want to catch your breath for a
minute, we're happy to have you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROLAND W. BURRIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. We're happy to have you here. We look
forward to your testimony.
Senator Burris. We were in--as you know, I found out from
the chairman that there was a meeting, so I had to run from the
caucus to come over here.
Senator Udall. You have my proxy in the caucus when you go
back, but not Senator Burr's.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Burr, the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss my legislation, the
United States Civil Rights Trail Special Resource Study Act.
This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
identify the places, resources, and historic themes associated
with the struggle to secure equal rights for all African
Americans and consider their addition into the National Trails
System.
The study will focus on the years of 1954 through 1968.
Now, this is a time to identify and protect the memory of the
people and places that chronicle the civil rights movement's
watershed role in American history. Establishing this trail
system will link sites with common signage, maps, and
educational material to improve public awareness and amplify
the study of their importance in history.
Action on this bill this year will begin the process of
deciding how we set apart the places where men and women fought
and some gave their lives to provide future generations of
African Americans and all Americans more freedom to achieve the
American dream.
This, Mr. Chairman, is our chance to remember and honor
that sacrifice given so freely. I need to repeat that: This is
an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, a chance to remember and to honor
that sacrifice given so freely. This legislation joins its
bipartisan companion measure, House Bill 685, sponsored by the
distinguished Representative Clay from Missouri and
Representative Wamp, which passed unanimously in the House of
Representatives in September 2009. I want to especially thank
our distinguished colleague, Representative Clay, for his
vision and dedication to this legislation.
Also the National Trust for Historic Preservation
considered this bill, and I quote, ``of great importance'' in
its legislative priorities for this year. The Trust Editor,
Richard Moe, whom you know very well, has written a letter in
support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
this letter will be included in the record.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During the 1950s and 1960s, this country saw the
development of a powerful nonviolent movement for civil rights
under the rule of law, creating one of the most significant
social and cultural changes in our Nation's history. Because
hundreds of thousands of ordinary people with extraordinary
vision participated in the civil rights movement, we've
witnessed a revolution of values and ideas that changed this
Nation forever.
We must make certain that the next generation and the
current generation learn and do not forget the story of the
civil rights movement and the ideas that it strove to achieve.
It is important that we highlight a period of common purpose
that brought us together despite our differences in age, race,
and positions in life, and that many here today are too young
to remember.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman Udall and Ranking Member
Burr, for your commitment to our National Park System and
second for moving this legislation as quickly as possible. I
know that, working together, we can add to the witness of the
history for all Americans to see and understand the remarkable
accomplishments of those whose struggle for equal rights still
rings true today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roland W. Burris, U.S. Senator From
Illinois, on S. 1802
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss my
legislation, The United States Civil Rights Trail Special Resource
Study Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
identify the places, resources, and historic themes associated with the
struggle to secure equal rights for African-Americans, and consider
their addition into the National Trails System. The Study will focus on
the years 1954 through 1968.
Now is the time to identify and protect the memory of the people
and places that chronicle the Civil Rights Movement's watershed role in
the American story. Establishing this trail system will link sites with
common signage, maps, and educational materials to improve public
awareness and amplify the study of their importance in history.
Action on the bill this year will begin the process of deciding how
we set apart the places where men and women fought, and some gave their
lives, to provide future generations of African-Americans, and all
Americans, more freedom to achieve the American dream. This is our
chance to remember and honor that sacrifice given so freely.
This legislation joins its bipartisan companion measure, H.R. 685,
sponsored by Representatives Clay and Wamp, which passed unanimously in
the House of Representatives in September 2009, and I want to
especially thank my distinguished colleague Representative William
Lacey Clay for his vision and dedication to this legislation. Also, The
National Trust for Historic Preservation considers this bill ``of great
importance'' and a legislative priority for this year. The Trust's
director, Richard Moe, whom you know well, has written a letter in
support of my bill. Mr. Chairman, I would request their letter be
included in the record.
During the 1950's and 1960's this country saw the development of a
powerful nonviolent movement for civil rights, under the rule of law,
creating one of the most significant social and cultural changes in our
nation's history. Because of the hundreds and thousands of ordinary
people with extraordinary vision who participated in the Civil Rights
Movement, we witnessed a revolution of values and ideas that changed
this nation forever. We must make certain that the next generation, and
the current generation, learn and do not forget the story of the Civil
Rights Movement and the ideals that it strove to achieve. It is
important that we highlight a period of common purpose, that brought us
together despite our differences in age, race, and position in life,
and that many here today are too young to remember.
I want to thank Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for their
commitment to our National Parks system, and secondly for moving this
legislation as quickly as possible. I know that, working together, we
can add to the witness of history for all Americans to see and
understand the remarkable accomplishments of those whose struggle for
equal rights still rings true today.
attachment.--summary
(1) The Secretary of the Interior will identify the resources and
historic themes associated with the movement to secure racial equality
in the United States which challenged the practice of racial
segregation, focusing on the period from 1954 through 1968.
(2) The Study will look at the feasibility of protecting
historically significant landscapes, districts, sites, and structures,
and evaluate a range of alternatives for protecting and interpreting
sites associated with the struggle for civil rights in the United
States, including alternatives for potential addition of some or all of
the sites to the National Trails System.
(3) The Secretary will make a review of existing studies and
reports, such as the Civil Rights Framework Study, to complement and
not duplicate other studies of the historical importance of the civil
rights movements that may be underway or undertaken.
(4) The Secretary will establish connections with agencies,
organizations, and partnerships already engaged in the preservation and
interpretation of various trails and sites dealing with the civil
rights movement.
(5) The Study will identifying alternatives for preservation and
interpretation of the sites by the National Park Service, other
Federal, State, or local governmental entities, or private and
nonprofit organizations, resulting in the potential inclusion of some
or all of the sites in a National Civil Rights Trail.
(6) The Secretary will identify cost estimates for any acquisition,
development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance associated with
the alternatives developed under the special resource study.
(7) National historic trails can only be authorized by Congress and
are assigned to either the secretary of the interior or the secretary
of agriculture with most of the same administrative authorities as for
national scenic trails. To qualify as a national historic trail, a
route must have been established by historic use. It must be nationally
significant as a result of that use, i.e., it must have had a far-
reaching effect on broad patterns of American culture. It must also
have significant potential for public recreational use or historic
interest based on historic interpretation and appreciation.
(8) The Secretary shall conduct the study required under subsection
(a) in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-
5(c)) and section 5(b) of the National Trails System Act (16U.S.C.
1244(b)), as appropriate.
Senator Udall. Congressman Clay, if you'd like to make a
statement that would be greatly appreciated. I want to
apologize that we don't have a placard for you, but it's been
said that when you're known far and wide you don't need a
placard. I know you are known far and wide in your home
district. Congressman Burr and I both served in the House.
We're proud of that service, as did Senator Carper, who just
joined us. We're always happy to have a member of the House
come visit us.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM LACY CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and it's so good to
see you, as well as my former colleague from North Carolina,
Senator Burr. I also want to thank my distinguished Senator
from Illinois for sponsoring the companion legislation.
Also, I heard Senator Burr's comments in the beginning and
I wanted to publicly thank my colleague Zach Wamp from
Tennessee, who we all know, for sponsoring this bill with me.
He thought it was important enough to be a main sponsor of the
legislation, and I truly appreciate it.
Throughout history many individuals have played a
courageous role in strengthening racial equality in our Nation.
It is important to honor these individuals and historic events
by preserving their stories for future generations. H.R. 685 as
well as S. 1802, the U.S. Civil Rights Trail System Act of
2009, would recognize those individuals who fought for the
creed, in the American Constitution every man is created equal.
This bill would authorize a study by the Secretary of the
Interior to determine the feasibility of establishing a
National Trail System marking the geographic locations in the
U.S. of historically significant events related to struggles
for civil rights. The struggle for freedom and equality is one
of the truly magnificent and heroic episodes in American and
world history, from the institution of slavery that dominated
the country's early years until a deadly Civil War that opened
the door for the possibility of a new racial relationship
between black and white people.
In 1954 when the Supreme Court in the Brown v. Board of
Education decision eliminated the constitutional justification
for segregation, the battle was not won. Several more decades
of struggle were required to achieve even minimal integration.
Over the past 20 years, notable progress has been made in some
areas of American race relations, which offers hope that the
worst is behind us and that better days lie ahead. For example,
today the President of the United States is an African
American, and African Americans can be found not merely working
at the highest levels of government, business, entertainment,
and the professions, but excelling in those positions. At the
same time, devastating setbacks have occurred in other areas,
revealing that much remains to be done to make this country
truly a land of liberty and justice for all people.
The generation now coming of age has only scant knowledge
of the history of the civil rights struggle. Young Americans
find it difficult to believe that racial segregation was once
considered normal and necessary in some parts of the United
States. Ignorance of past racial tragedy, sadly, retards
continued progress in race relations.
These bills would educate current and future generations of
the struggles for racial equality in America. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses on this bill and getting the
best suggestions to improve upon the legislation. So, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
committee.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Congressman Clay.
Senator Burris, did you have any additional comments?
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to
comment on one point that Representative Clay made mention of.
That is that America has done something that I dreamed I would
never see, and I'm 72 years old. On my next birthday I will be
73. But for America to elect an African American President of
these United States, it means that we have come a mighty long
way. I am proud for my home State on top of that. It even makes
me extra proud. But it brings tears to my eyes when I even talk
about this.
So I just want all Americans to know that there's a
milestone, that little black kids now can say that: I can grow
up to be President of the United States. That means so much to
all of us. Recording this history, Mr. Chairman, is something
for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren to be able to see.
Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burris. No one can
improve on your words. What's so wonderful is that those tears
are tears of joy. Thank you.
I know Senator Carper has joined us. Senator, if you wanted
to take a seat at the table, we're eager to hear about your
legislative initiative, which I know is near and dear to your
heart, and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of it.
Senator Carper is also a former member of the House, former
Governor of Delaware, and now one of the real movers and
shakers in the U.S. Senate. Senator, thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thank you to you. To Senator
Burris, thanks very much. Thanks for holding the hearing today
on a number of proposals, including S. 1801, the First State
National Historical Park Act. I want to thank you especially,
Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to co-sponsor the
legislation and for allowing me to appear before your
subcommittee here today with both of you.
As you know, if this legislation is adopted--my hope is
that it will--it would establish for the first time a national
park in the State of Delaware. We're the only State in the
Union, as you know, which is home to neither a national park or
even a unit of a national park.
Some of you may recall a series on public television last
year which drew a lot of viewers. The name of the series was
``America's Best Idea: The National Parks.'' It was a
documentary series of films that were told to a national
television audience by a documentary film maker, quite a famous
one, a fellow named Ken Burns, who coincidentally grew up in
Delaware as a kid.
Along with Ken Burns and many of the millions of people who
viewed that documentary, I share the belief that our national
parks are indeed one of America's very best ideas. National
parks are invaluable resources for understanding our State's
historical and our cultural heritage, as well as our natural
environment.
Every year millions of Americans plan their vacations
around our Nation's National Park System. This may cause you to
remember some adventures of your own with your own family, but
I have a very fond memory of my family several summers ago when
our boys were in high school, planning a trip to Denali
National Park. I know our chairman is a mountain climber.
Senator, I'm not. I don't know, maybe some of you are as well.
But Denali, big mountain, big park up in Alaska.
Our 2 sons will never forget, more recently, their cross-
country road trip from Boston to San Francisco last summer,
where they stopped along the way at places like Mount Rushmore
and Yellowstone and Yosemite in an adventure neither they nor
their parents will soon forget.
In planning our family's summer vacation several years ago
up to Alaska, we actually logged onto the National Park Service
web site and we searched State by State for ideas, starting
with I think Alabama all the way through I think Wyoming. We
came to our own State as we went along, Delaware. We came up
empty-handed because there really wasn't anything to offer in
terms of a national park or a unit of the National Park System.
You think about it, Delaware was the first State to
ratify--we're all proud of our States, and justifiably so. But
our State was the first State to ratify the Constitution. For 1
whole week, Delaware was the entire United States of America.
Then they kind of opened up and let Pennsylvania in and some
others. I think it turned out pretty well, but we're the first
State in the Union. We're the first State in which the Swedes
and Finns came ashore in what is now known as Wilmington,
Delaware, established the colony of New Sweden. We're the State
where the Dutch came in, oh, gosh, over 400 years ago and built
an ill-fated settlement down in the southern part of our State
on the ocean, a place called Lewes. Yet Delaware remains the
only State to have no national park.
For almost a decade, hundreds of Delawareans have joined me
in working to change that. One of those people is Tim Slavin,
who's going to be testifying here I think in a little bit. I
thank him for his presence today and for his great advocacy and
terrific work on this project with us.
But after 4 years of research and planning that involved
Delaware State officials, community leaders, and citizen
activists, we unveiled a proposal for a Delaware National Park
6 years ago in 2004. In 2006, thanks in part to the work of the
citizens committee, Congress authorized the National Park
Service to study, to study, 4 years ago, the need for a park in
our State. The National Park Service used our 2004 proposal as
a starting point for their study.
Then last year, in January of last year, 2009, the National
Park Service finalized its study and agreed that, at long last,
a park should be created in Delaware. In its study, the
National Park Service recommended a national park that
celebrated Delaware's early Dutch, early Swedish and English
settlements and the events leading up to our State's role in
founding our Nation.
All that, Mr. Chairman and Senator Burr, that brings us to
today's hearing and to the First State National Park Historic
Act, which I'm pleased to report has been co-sponsored by each
member of our State's tiny Congressional delegation.
I'm also pleased to report that the First State National
Historical Park Act uses a majority of suggestions from the
2009 national park study to authorize a national park to be
created within Delaware. So all that work that went in in terms
of the study and the work by our citizens, we just really built
on each of those in creating this legislation.
If approved, our State's national park will be comprised of
sites associated with early settlement and with the people and
events leading up to Delaware's role as the first State to
ratify the U.S. Constitution on December 7, 1787, a day that we
treasure, called ``Delaware Day'' in our State. The park will
tell the story of the birth of our Nation in a unique way, a
way not found in any other national park.
The park's central headquarters will be located along the
Delaware River in the beautiful historic town of Newcastle,
just a stone's throw from a statue of William Penn, who deeded
that land to the inhabitants of the town of Newcastle in 1701.
Once a national park unit is established in Delaware, families
from throughout America and really all over the world will have
the opportunity to learn from our National Park Service web
site of the rich historical heritage of our State. Who knows,
they just might decide to pack up and come and pay us a visit,
much like my own family did when we spent close to 2 weeks
visiting Denali and other parts of Alaska.
In closing, I would note that the word ``Denali''
translates loosely to mean ``the great one.'' For those who've
seen that mountain, we know what it means. But that enormous
park is several times the size of my State. In fact, it's
several times the size of a number of States. While visitors to
Delaware are not likely to remember us in future years as ``the
great one,'' they may well end up returning to their own homes
with lasting memories, I hope fond memories, of the Small
Wonder along the eastern seaboard of our Nation that helped to
launch the most enduring experiment in democracy that our world
has ever known, the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity and your
support.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Carper. That was
illuminating and enjoyable to hear.
Senator Burr, do you have any questions or comments?
Senator Burr. I might add one comment to what Senator
Carper said. As his sons made their trek to that final park to
visit, if you added together the annual visitor numbers for all
the parks they visited, it would not equal the annual
visitation of the Great Smokies National Park. So I hope
they'll come to North Carolina.
Senator Udall. As you can tell, Senator Burr has the spirit
and the fortitude of a mountain climber, and he's also very
proud of his home State of North Carolina.
Senator Carper. I can tell, and justifiably so. So does my
wife. She's from there, too.
Senator Udall. As is mine. It's old home week.
I like the contrast, the Great One and the Small Wonder.
They're both important to what we have now seen and lived,
which is America's best idea, and that's our National Park
System.
I look forward to working with you, Senator, as we move
this through the process. Thanks for coming over.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Burr, thank you as well.
Senator Udall. The administration witnesses, if you'd be
willing to join us here at the table. I know we still have a
couple of additional, actually 3, Senators who thought they
might like to make an appearance. If one of them is able to
troop over from the Capitol, we'll, with your understanding,
quickly insert them in the queue here.
We've been joined by 2 men who are not strangers to this
subcommittee. Steve Whitesell is here. He's the Associate
Director of Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, at the
National Park Service; and then Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief,
National Forest System.
Mr. Whitesell, if you want to start with your testimony.
You are familiar with the general rules of the committee. If
you can keep your testimony to 5 minutes, we'd appreciate it.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. WHITESELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Whitesell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before this subcommittee to present the Department of
the Interior's views on ten of the bills on today's agenda,
eight related to the National Park Service and 2 related to the
Bureau of Land Management. Tim Spisak, Deputy Assistant
Director for Minerals and Realty Management for the Bureau of
Land Management, is accompanying me today and will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have regarding S. 1596 and S.
1651, the 2 BLM bills on the agenda.
I would like to submit our full statements on each of these
subjects for the record and summarize the Department's
positions on these bills.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 349 would establish the Susquehanna
Gateway National Heritage Area in an 1869 square mile area of
Pennsylvania's Lancaster and York Counties. In 2008 the
National Park Service found that the area meets our interim
criteria for potential designation as a national heritage area.
The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating
the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area, but asks that
the committee defer action on the bill until legislation is
enacted that establishes criteria to evaluate potential
qualified national heritage areas and a process for the
designation and administration of these areas.
Mr. Whitesell. On S. 1596, the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu
Preservation Act, would authorize the Secretary, acting through
the BLM, to acquire the 272-acre site of the 1869 Wakamatsu Tea
and Silk Farm Colony. The Wakamatsu Colony is believed to have
been the first Japanese-American colony in North America. The
Department supports the goals of this bill and would like to
work with its sponsors and the committee to clarify provisions
of the legislation.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 1651, a bill to modify the patent of the
Whitefish Point Lighthouse Station, would direct the Secretary,
acting through the BLM, to modify the subject patent to require
compliance with a new management plan. The Department supports
this legislation.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 1750 would authorize a special resource
study for General George C. Marshall's home, Dodona Manor. One
of the options the study would consider is making the site an
affiliated area of the National Park System. The bill would
also consider other alternatives for preservation and
protection of the home. The Department supports the enactment
of S. 1750 with a minor amendment.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 1801 would establish the First State
National Historical Park in the State of Delaware. The National
Park Service's 2008 special resource study of the coastal area
of Delaware identified a number of resources of national
significance that were determined suitable and feasible to
administer as a unit of the National Park System. These include
historic resources that were instrumental in early Swedish,
Dutch, and English settlement in the United States and other
resources associated with Delaware's role as the Nation's first
State.
The Department strongly supports the establishment of a
unit of the National Park System in Delaware as proposed by S.
1801, but is concerned about the addition of certain resources
in the bill that were not found to meet Congressionally
established criteria for unit designation and the terms of the
park-specific grant authorization. We would like to work with
the committee on amendments to the bill.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 1802 and its companion, H.R. 685, would
authorize the Secretary to conduct a special resource study in
order to evaluate a range of alternatives for protecting and
interpreting sites associated with the movement to secure
racial equality for African Americans in the United States in
the 1950s and 1960s, including alternatives for potential
addition to the National Trail System. In 2009 the National
Park Service completed a Congressionally authorized study of
civil rights sites that identified both broad themes and sites
within the civil rights story, but did not assess the
feasibility or suitability of inclusion of particular sites in
the National Trail System or the National Park System.
The bills would allow the National Park Service to assess
sites specifically for such designation, building upon existing
studies and reports. The Department supports this legislation.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 2953 and its companion, H.R. 3388, would
modify the boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield. The
bills would expand the current authorized boundaries by an
additional 7,238 acres to protect more core battlefield land,
an expansion that is consistent with the park's 2002 general
management plan. The bills also would authorize a transfer of
administrative jurisdiction between the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of the Army of a 1.7 acre parcel of
land to accommodate a security perimeter fence at Fort Lee
Military Reservation.
The Department supports this legislation.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 2976 would designate 32,557 acres, or 46
percent, of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in
Michigan's Lower Peninsula as federally protected wilderness.
The Department strongly supports the legislation, but
recommends that the area be designated as the ``Sleeping Bear
Wilderness'' to be consistent with the names of the majority of
wilderness areas in units of National Park System.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 3159 and its companion, H.R. 4395, would
add the historic Lincoln Train Station in the Borough of
Gettysburg and 45 acres at the base of Big Roundtop to
Gettysburg National Military Park. The Lincoln Train Station,
where President Abraham Lincoln disembarked to give the
Gettysburg Address, would serve as a downtown visitor's center
and information and orientation center. The Big Roundtop tract
at the southern end of the battlefield includes historical
resources from the battle and critical wetlands and wildlife
habitat related to Plum Run. The Department supports enactment
of this legislation with the minor amendment that was made to
H.R. 4395 by the House.
Mr. Whitesell. S. 3168 would authorize the acquisition of
approximately 157 acres in Farmington, Pennsylvania, for
addition to Fort Necessity National Battlefield, the site of
the first battle of the French and Indian War in July 1754. The
parcels contain both historical and landscape resources
relating to the purpose of the park and would include
approximately 500 feet of the historic Braddock Road Trace. The
Department supports this legislation with amendments that would
provide a more precise identification of the land that would be
authorized for acquisition and would make some minor technical
changes.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, albeit a bit
longer than I know was required. But we would be pleased to
answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Whitesell follow:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park
Planning, Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior
s. 349
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 349, a bill to establish the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania.
The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area, but recommends deferring
action on S. 349 until program legislation is enacted that establishes
criteria to evaluate potentially qualified national heritage areas and
a process for the designation and administration of these areas. The
Administration anticipates submitting such a legislative proposal to
you in the near future, and we recommend that Congress enact national
heritage area program legislation in this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. Program legislation was
introduced in the 109th and 110th Congresses, and we look forward to
continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue.
Flowing for 441 miles, the Susquehanna River is the longest river
on the East Coast and the largest contributor of fresh water to
Chesapeake Bay. The portions of the river flowing through Lancaster and
York Counties in Pennsylvania exhibit exceptional natural and
recreational value and traverse landscapes of historical importance to
our nation.
The region of the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage
Area was first inhabited by Native Americans who left evidence of their
occupation in a myriad of archeological sites, as well as rock art at
several petroglyph sites. When Captain John Smith journeyed up the
Susquehanna River in the summer of 1608, he sent emissaries to the
Susquehannock town located on the east side of the river near present
day Washington Boro in Lancaster County. Tribal leaders there entered a
trade alliance, opening to the English a trade network extending
hundreds of miles.
In 1668, William Penn set the tone for religious tolerance in
Pennsylvania and brought colonists who settled the great fertile valley
of the Susquehanna Gateway region, beginning its long history as an
abundant agricultural center. Serving as an important transportation
corridor, the river provided opportunities for commerce and invention.
It was here that John Elgar constructed the first iron steamboat in
America. The birthplace of Robert Fulton, the original inventor of
steam powered boats, is a National Historic Landmark in Lancaster
County. Here, too, Phineas Davis designed and built the first practical
coal burning steam locomotive, thereby revolutionizing railroad
transportation.
The region is the home ground of the ``Plain People''--the Amish
and Mennonites. Their religious values, simple way of life, and well-
tended farms speak to the deepest feelings that Americans have about
ourselves and our national experience.
In this region, visitors also find evidence of our Revolutionary
War past. Lancaster and York Counties served as venues for the
Continental Congress when it left Philadelphia upon the British
occupation of that city. In the courthouse in York, the Congress
approved the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the
nation's ``first constitution,'' and sent it forth to the states for
ratification. In the summer of 1781, Continental Army General James
Wood established Camp Security, housing more than a thousand British
soldiers from General John Burgoyne's army, which had surrendered at
Saratoga.
The region also has an abundance of natural resources including
migratory bird nesting sites, remnants of old growth forests, and areas
of both ecological diversity and scenic quality. Ferncliff, known for
its wildflowers, and the Susquehanna Gorge are both designated National
Natural Landmarks. Recreational resources abound in the region,
including the Kelly's Run and Susquehanna River Water Trails, both
National Recreation Trails.
S. 349 designates the Lancaster-York Heritage Region, a non-profit
organization, as the proposed management entity for the Susquehanna
Gateway National Heritage Area. The area, designated as a state
heritage area in 2001, recently changed its name from the Lancaster-
York Heritage Region to the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, to
reflect the area's expanded focus, which includes the cultural and
economic value of the Susquehanna River. The management entity, now
known as Susquehanna Heritage Corporation, has demonstrated success in
coordinating among diverse partners in Lancaster and York counties.
Over the past nine years, Susquehanna Heritage Corporation has been
effective in facilitating preservation, interpretative, and educational
projects and in leveraging community participation and funding. The
heritage area has strong support from the public and from a myriad of
state, local, federal, and non-governmental partners throughout the
area. In 2008, this entity prepared a national heritage area
feasibility study that was reviewed by the National Park Service and
found to meet the interim criteria for potential designation.
The bill, as introduced, contains provisions that have become
standard for designating national heritage areas. However, if the
Committee decides to act on this bill, we would request the opportunity
to work with the Committee to amend the language in Section 5(a),
designating the management entity, due to the management entity
changing its name and to discuss some other provisions where
clarifications or technical corrections may be needed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the Committee.
s. 1596
Thank you for the invitation to present testimony on S. 1596, the
Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act, which would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Gold Hill Ranch from willing
sellers using non-federal contributions and appropriated funds to
preserve it as a site of historical and cultural value. Preservation of
cultural and historical resources is a priority for the Department of
the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We support the
goals but note that BLM can make this acquisition under its existing
authorities, and we would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee to clarify S. 1596.
Background
The Wakamatsu Colony is an early settlement site of great cultural
significance to the Japanese-American community. It is the oldest known
cultural site in North America associated with Japanese immigration.
The colony was founded in 1869 by 20 immigrants from Aizu-Wakamatsu,
Japan. These colonists fled Japan during the political upheaval that
accompanied the Meiji Restoration. The colonists purchased land at Gold
Hill in western El Dorado County, California, and established a tea and
silk plantation. The colony operated for two years, after which the
land--known as the Gold Hill Ranch--was acquired by its current owners,
the Veerkamp family. The Veerkamps now desire to sell the property;
however, they recognize its historic and cultural significance and hope
to sell it to a governmental entity.
The 272-acre site includes a home from the 1860s that was occupied
by the colonists, the mulberry trees they planted, and the grave of
Okei Ito. Her grave is thought to be the oldest Japanese immigrant
grave in North America. Adjacent to the site is the Gold Trail
Elementary School, which since 1980 has maintained a sister-school
relationship with Higashiyama Elementary School in Aizu Wakamatsu. The
school property hosts a monument dedicated by then-Governor Ronald
Reagan that established the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony as
California Registered Historical Landmark Number 815.
Several Japanese-American civic and cultural groups and others have
written to the BLM to express their support for preservation and
restoration of the Wakamatsu Colony site. The Gold Hill region is an
historic California gold rush landscape that is urbanizing rapidly, so
preservation would prevent the loss of an important pioneering site.
Members of that community, including the Japanese American Citizens
League, Representative Doris Matsui and California State Assemblyman
Alan Nakanishi, are working with the American River Conservancy (a
local land trust) to raise the funds needed to purchase the site. Their
goal is to establish an endowment that would fund future restoration,
interpretive operations, and maintenance of the site. Citing the BLM's
highly successful management of other nearby acquired lands, local
Japanese-American community organizations and the American River
Conservancy are advocating that the BLM take title to the property.
Acquisition of the Gold Hill Ranch would be consistent with the
goals of the BLM's Sierra Resource Management Plan. The BLM's nearby
Mother Lode Field Office already manages several acquired properties
for their historical and conservation values, including the historic
Chung Wah Chinese cemetery about 15 miles to the west of the Ranch,
which was donated to BLM by the Chinese-American community in 2007, and
the Pine Hill Preserve, a rare plant preserve totaling 4,000 acres
across dozens of parcels about 5 miles southwest of the Ranch.
S. 1596
S. 1596 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the BLM, to acquire the Gold Hill Ranch from willing sellers
using non-federal contributions and appropriated funds to preserve it
as a site of historical and cultural value. The BLM supports the goals
of the bill, and acknowledges the efforts to date by the private sector
to raise funds for the acquisition. BLM notes that it can make the
acquisition under its existing authorities, subject to budget
priorities and the availability of appropriations. However, this
project did not rank high enough in the BLM's annual national ranking
process for inclusion in the land acquisition priority lists for the
2010 and 2011 budgets. The legislation is also unclear as to the
purposes for which the use of appropriated funds is authorized, and the
BLM would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee to clarify
this provision.
The bill does not waive a fair market value determination.
Therefore an appraisal by the Department of the Interior's Office of
Valuation Services would be required before acquisition. Based on the
experience of the BLM and American River Conservancy with land values
in this area, the $3,290,000 limit identified in S. 1596 for the cost
of acquisition appears to be reasonable. We would note, however, that
it is BLM policy to engage in fair market valuations for its
acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges.
We appreciate provisions in section 4(d) that give the Secretary
discretion regarding development of a visitor center and direct that
private funds or State grants be used to the maximum extent practicable
to leverage the cost of constructing the visitor center and conducting
restoration activities. This provides an excellent opportunity for
expression of community support for preservation and restoration of
this site.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of
the goals of S. 1596, and we look forward to working with the sponsor
and the Committee to clarify the legislation.
s. 1651
Thank you for the invitation to present testimony on S. 1651,
legislation to modify a land patent pertaining to the Whitefish Point
Light Station (Michigan). Although the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) role under the legislation is ministerial, preservation of
historic lighthouses such as the Whitefish Point Light Station is a
priority for the Department of the Interior. The BLM supports S. 1651.
Background
In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the United States built a
series of lighthouses in and around Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake
Superior to aid in navigation of the Great Lakes. The role played by
these lighthouses in the westward expansion and economic growth of the
United States is part of our national heritage, with ships and
shipwrecks recalled in story and song. The Great Lakes lighthouses--
including the Whitefish Point Light Station at issue in S. 1651--are
listed on the National Register of Historic Properties.
The U.S. Coast Guard retains responsibility for aid to navigation
in the Great Lakes, as it (or its predecessor, the Revenue Marine) has
since 1790. In the mid-1990s, concerns reached the Congress that the
Coast Guard, in carrying out its mission in the Great Lakes, was unable
to assure preservation of the historic lighthouses. Interest in
preserving the Whitefish Point Light Station led the Congress, in 1996,
to convey land adjacent to the Light Station to two non-profit
organizations dedicated to conservation and historic preservation--an
8.27 acre parcel to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society
(Historical Society) and a 2.69 acre parcel to the Michigan Audubon
Society (Audubon Society) of Chippewa County--and a 33 acre parcel to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Public Law 104-208, Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1997, Section 5505.)
This law contains limitations on development at the historic
lighthouse, and explicitly requires compliance with the ``Whitefish
Point Comprehensive Plan of October 1992.'' The patents BLM issued
under this authority (including the most recent, number 61-2000-0007,
issued March 10, 2000, to the Historical Society) contain this
reference.
In 1999, the Audubon Society brought suit against the Historical
Society and the FWS over plans to develop a museum at the site. The
parties reached a settlement agreement under which the three groups
developed the ``Human Use/Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point,
December 2002,'' to supersede the Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan of
1992.
S. 1651
S. 1651 directs the Secretary of the Interior to modify patent
number 61-2000-0007 by striking reference to the Whitefish Point
Comprehensive Plan of October 1992 and inserting the ``Human Use/
Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point, dated December 2002.'' S.
1651 affirms the applicability of the National Historic Preservation
Act to the Whitefish Point Light Station. The BLM supports this
legislation.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of S.
1651.
s. 1750
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1750, a bill to
authorize a special resource study to determine the suitability and
feasibility of designating the General of the Army George Catlett
Marshall National Historic Site at Dodona Manor in Leesburg, Virginia
and for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1750. However, we recommend
that the title of the bill be amended to refer to the ``General George
C. Marshall House (Dodona Manor)'' rather than the ``General of the
Army George Catlett Marshal National Historic Site,'' as the former is
consistent with the landmark's current listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. We also believe that priority should be given to
the 45 previously authorized studies for potential units of the
National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and
potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and
Scenic River System that have not yet been transmitted to the Congress.
S. 1750 authorizes a special resource study for General George C.
Marshall's home, Dodona Manor. One of the options that the study would
consider is making the site an affiliated area of the National Park
System. The study would also consider other alternatives for
preservation and protection of the home and interpretation of the life
and accomplishments of George C. Marshall. The home was designated a
National Historic Landmark in 1996. We estimate the cost of this study
to range from $200,000 to $300,000, based on similar types of studies
conducted in recent years.
Born in 1880 in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, George Marshall attended
the Virginia Military Institute to prepare for a military career. He
rose steadily through the ranks, serving with distinction in various
posts in the United States, the Philippines, and China, and in Europe
during World War I. In World War II, General Marshall led the Allied
forces to victory in the Atlantic Theatre. Following the war, as
Secretary of State, Marshall designed a humanitarian program for
rebuilding war-ravaged Europe. For his ambitious European Recovery
Plan, more broadly known as the Marshall Plan, Marshall was awarded the
1953 Nobel Peace Prize.
General Marshall enjoyed living at Dodona Manor for 18 years from
1941 until his death in 1959. At the time of the Civil War, the house
was called Oak Hill. Marshall, who likened the sound of the white oak
leaves rustling in the wind to the ancient Greek oracle of Zeus
speaking through the oak forest of Dodona Grove in Epirus, renamed the
house ``Dodona Manor.'' While living there, he rose from being an Army
officer respected for his military contributions to one of the most
important and respected world figures of the 20th Century. Winston
Churchill, recalling the years of World War II, said that the only
individual on whom all the leaders conferred unqualified praise and
admiration was General Marshall.
Many military post houses across the United States were occupied by
General Marshall and his first and second wives, but never for long.
Dodona Manor was his residence for the last 18 years of his life,
coinciding with his years of national and international achievement.
General Marshall brought his best possessions to Dodona Manor--oriental
rugs purchased during duty in China, and books in large number, which
he owned and read. He indulged his favorite pastime of tilling the
earth and planting gardens. From there he commuted to Washington during
his military service and later as Secretary of State and Secretary of
Defense. Dodona Manor has survived almost entirely as he left it and no
other site provides the opportunity for reflection on the years when
Marshall rose to become one of the great figures of the 20th Century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you or other Committee members may
have regarding this bill.
s. 1801
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S.1801, a bill to establish the
First State National Historical Park in the State of Delaware.
The Department strongly supports the establishment of a unit of the
national park system in Delaware as proposed by S. 1801, but is
concerned about the addition of certain resources in the bill that were
found not to meet congressionally established criteria for unit
designation, and the terms of the park-specific grant authorization.
In 2008, pursuant to Public Law 109-338, the National Park Service
completed a Special Resource Study of the coastal area of Delaware and
identified a number of resources of national significance that were
determined suitable and feasible to administer as a unit of the
national park system. These included historic resources that were
instrumental in early Swedish, Dutch, and English settlement in the
United States, and others associated with Delaware's role as the
nation's first state.
In 1638, Peter Minuet led Swedish colonists to present day
Wilmington, Delaware, and established New Sweden at a point known as
``the rocks'' on the Christina River. The settlers constructed Fort
Christina at this location and this site is now a National Historic
Landmark. In 1698, Swedish settlers established Holy Trinity (``Old
Swedes'') Church near the fort, the oldest church building standing as
originally built in the United States and also a National Historic
Landmark.
In 1651, Peter Stuyvesant led Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam and
constructed Fort Casimir at a place he named ``New Amstel,'' in present
day New Castle, Delaware. Conflicts between the Swedish and Dutch
colonists resulted in changing occupations of the fort with the Dutch
regaining control in 1655. Also in 1665, the English arrived at New
Amstel and seized control of the settlement, renaming it ``New
Castle.'' William Penn landed in New Castle in 1682 and took possession
of the city. In 1704, Penn established Delaware's Assembly and New
Castle remained the colonial capital of Delaware until 1776. The New
Castle Historic District, which contains multiple resources from the
time of earliest settlement through the Federal era, is a National
Historic Landmark.
Delaware's important role as the nation's first state is also
exhibited in resources of national significance. Delaware's
representatives to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional
Convention played important parts in the adoption of the Declaration of
Independence and crafting of the United States Constitution. On June
15, 1776, the Delaware Assembly, meeting in New Castle, voted to sever
its ties with the English Crown three weeks prior to the Declaration
signed in Philadelphia on July 4th. National Historic Landmarks
associated with these early revolutionary leaders include the homes of
John Dickinson (the ``Penman of the Revolution''), Gunning Bedford,
Jr., and George Read. The Dover Green witnessed Delaware's vote to
become the first state to ratify the nation's new Constitution.
S. 1801 would establish the First State National Historical Park to
include the resources cited above that the Special Resource Study found
meet the criteria for congressional designation of a unit of the
national park system. The staff of the new park would be authorized to
interpret related resources outside of the boundary, within the state
of Delaware. The Special Resource Study estimated annual operating
costs for the park at $450,000 to $550,000, which would fund 5-7 FTEs,
and costs associated with a general management plan at $600,000. The
bill provides for $3 million in one-time matching grants for
rehabilitation of existing structures to serve as administrative and
visitor services facilities for the park and $2.5 million in one-time
matching grants for historic preservation, interpretive devices, and
the design, construction, installation, and maintenance of exhibits.
The latter may include matching grants for research and exhibits at the
Zwaanendael Museum in Lewes, and the State Archives in Dover, Delaware.
All funding would be subject to NPS priorities and the availability of
appropriations. A study of additional resources related to the purpose
of the park is also authorized to assess their potential eligibility
for National Historic Landmark designation and options for maintaining
the historic integrity of such resources.
S.1801 also proposes to include within the park boundary the
historic district in Lewes, Delaware. This district is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance
and the National Register nomination for the district indicates that
today its significance is based primarily on its fine examples of
Victorian architecture. The Department questions adding this historic
district to the park boundary as identified in the Special Resource
Study since it is not a National Historic Landmark, does not meet the
required national significance criterion for unit designation, and is
not consistent with the park's purpose as outlined in Section 4(b) of
S. 1801.
However, we note that Section 4(g) of S. 1801 permits
interpretation of resources related to the purposes of the park located
outside of its boundary. We would suggest that any extant resources in
Lewes, within or outside of the historic district, relating to early
Dutch, Swedish and English settlement, or Delaware's role as the first
state, would be eligible for interpretation without including this
district in the park boundary. Such resources would also be candidates
for further analysis as to their National Historic Landmark potential
under the bill's study provisions in Section 5.
We also note that Section 6 would authorize one-time matching
grants to State and local governments, private property owners and
nonprofit organizations to pay for the historic preservation of non-
Federal resources within the park boundaries. While some parks now
provide limited financial assistance through cooperative agreements,
the limited matching grant authorization proposed in Section 6 could
raise expectations that the National Park Service would be asked to
provide annual financial assistance for the operation and maintenance
of these non-Federal sites within the park boundary.
We would like work with the Committee to further clarify that the
grants under Section 6 are one-time grants and not reoccurring grants.
We would also like to work with the committee on a technical amendment
regarding the appropriate wording for the New Castle Historic District
in Section 2(a)(2)(B)(ii) and inclusion of a map reference in Section
3.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may
have.
s. 1802 and h.r. 685
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1802 and H.R. 685, legislation to require a
study of the feasibility of establishing the United States Civil Rights
Trail System.
The Department supports S. 1802 as introduced, and H.R. 685 as
passed by the House, which are substantially identical. However, we
feel that priority should be given to the 45 previously authorized
studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new
National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails
System and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been
transmitted to Congress.
S. 1802 and H.R. 685 authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study in order to evaluate a range of
alternatives for protecting and interpreting the sites associated with
the movement to secure racial equality for African-Americans in the
United States in the 1950s and 1960s, including alternatives for
potential additions to the National Trails System. We estimate that the
cost of this study will range from $500,000 to $750,000, given the
large number of sites across multiple states which must be included in
the study.
The struggle for civil rights has been a hallmark in the
development of the United States from its earliest fight for
independence from Great Britain during the 1770s and 1780s through the
passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing all
Americans the right to vote and prohibiting discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The movement leading up
to the passage of the Act was filled with violent confrontations that
challenged the very foundation of our country, yet it also represented
the highest aspirations of its citizens.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the most comprehensive civil
rights legislation in the history of the United States and its
provisions serve as major themes of the civil rights story both before
and after the Act's passage. The Department recognizes that events,
places, and individuals important in the civil rights story should be
celebrated and commemorated in a way that helps the public understand
and appreciate the significance of the era. Many civil rights-related
sites have been identified and are currently recognized within the
National Park System, the National Trails System, and as National
Historic Landmarks, such as those commemorating the life of Martin
Luther King, Jr. and well-known events such as the desegregation of
Little Rock Central High School and the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery Voting
Rights March.
In 1999, Congress authorized the Secretary to conduct a theme study
related to civil rights sites on a multi-state level. The National Park
Service, in partnership with the Organization of American Historians,
prepared the civil rights framework study to assist the National Park
Service in identifying and prioritizing those areas of history
significant in illustrating the civil rights story. The study, Civil
Rights In America: A Framework for Identifying Significant Sites, was
transmitted to Congress on June 2, 2009.
The study identified broad themes within the civil rights story, as
well as the events, persons, and places that represent those themes,
and assessed the degree to which related sites are represented and
recognized. These themes include equal education, public accommodation,
voting, housing, equal employment, criminal injustice, immigrant
rights, and American Indian civil rights. The study did not assess the
feasibility or suitability of inclusion of particular sites into the
National Trails System, the National Park System, or as National
Historic Landmarks. S. 1802 and H.R. 685 would allow the National Park
Service to assess sites specifically associated with the struggle for
African-American racial equality from 1954-1968, which touches on most,
but not all, of these broad themes.
The study also recommended that the National Park Service complete
four National Historic Landmark theme studies to recognize, promote,
and protect civil rights-related sites and their relationship to the
civil rights story's chronology, historic themes, and how various
minorities are represented. National Historic Landmark theme studies
are an effective way of assessing whether or not places are nationally
significant in American history. They provide a historic context within
which to evaluate properties, and identify places that should be
studied for national designation.
S. 1802 and H.R. 685 both provide for the proposed study to build
upon this and other existing studies and reports. If enacted, this
legislation can serve as a keystone piece in the ongoing work of
understanding the issues, preserving the place, and telling the stories
of the struggle to ensure civil rights for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
s. 2953 and h.r. 3388
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, bills that would modify the boundary of
Petersburg National Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Department supports S. 2953 and H.R. 3388. The Department
previously testified in support of H.R. 3388, on November 5, 2009,
before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands.
S. 2953 and H.R. 3388 are identical bills that would authorize two
modifications to the boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. First, the bills would expand the currently
authorized boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield by an additional
7,238 acres. The boundary expansion proposal results from an analysis
of ``core battlefields'' and a subsequent boundary adjustment study
conducted as part of Petersburg National Battlefield's General
Management Plan completed in 2005. Second, the bill authorizes a
transfer of administrative jurisdiction between the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of the Army for a 1.7 acre parcel of land to
accommodate a security perimeter fence at Fort Lee Military
Reservation.
The City of Petersburg lies in the corridor of intensive growth
from Washington, D.C., to south of Richmond, Virginia. The region
surrounding Petersburg National Battlefield has been and is currently
experiencing significant development pressures impacting areas
immediately adjacent to the park and unprotected battlefield sites.
This development not only threatens park resources and public
enjoyment, but also the core portions of the battlefields. The park
commemorates the Petersburg Campaign, the longest sustained combative
military front on American soil, in both time and distance. When
Congress created the park in 1926, only a fraction of the battlefield
acreage associated with the 26 major battles of the Petersburg Campaign
was included in the original boundary. These additional battlefields
proposed to be added to the park will allow the public to better
understand the size, complexity, and duration of the 9\1/2\ month
Petersburg Campaign and siege while offering protection to existing
park resources.
In January 2002, in response to significant development pressures
in the region surrounding the park and as part of its General
Management Plan process, Petersburg National Battlefield undertook a
detailed assessment of battlefields in the Petersburg Campaign cited in
the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) report of 1993 entitled
``Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields.'' The CWSAC report
identified 100,000 acres of the Petersburg battlefields as ``core
battlefields'' encompassing all of the critical phases defined for a
battle. Of the 100,000 acres cited, 23,000 acres were determined to
retain historic integrity.
During its more detailed analyses of the 23,000 acres, the park
concentrated on those portions of the battlefields that were south of
the Appomattox River and directly associated with the siege or defense
of Petersburg, and that were identified as Class A (decisive) and Class
B (major) by the CWSAC. Additionally, the park used historical maps and
documentation to further refine the acreage to that constituting the
portion of the battlefield on which both armies were engaged directly
and that had a bearing on the outcome for each battle. Park staff
further analyzed the integrity of these areas and their potential for
public access and interpretation. The analyses disclosed that 7,238
acres met the criteria for integrity and interpretability.
The estimated time period for acquisition of the 7,238 acres of
these nationally significant lands is 15-20 years. Virtually all of the
land subject to the boundary adjustment represents a mixture of private
and non-profit organization-owned parcels. Agricultural and
conservation easements will be the preferred method of acquisition for
most parcels, particularly for those owned by non-profit organizations.
Easements enable protection of these battlefields from inappropriate
development while retaining private ownership and compatible use of the
land. Where easements are not possible, and there is interest by the
landowners, a range of acquisition methods, such as donation, and fee
simple acquisition from willing sellers based on available funding,
will be utilized for battlefield preservation.
If all the lands were acquired by the National Park Service through
fee simple means, the total estimated cost would be $29.7 million.
However, if the boundary expansion is enacted, the park will be
pursuing partnership efforts through easements and donations that will
likely significantly lower acquisition costs. The estimated costs for
capital expenses (trails, wayside exhibits, rehabilitation of existing
visitor contact station, etc.) and expansion-related costs (surveys,
hazardous materials studies, etc.) are an additional $1.74 million.
Development of visitor services and interpretation at these new
battlefield locations would be minimal and include small parking areas,
wayside exhibits, and trail and other enhancements to the sites. The
annual increase in operations and management is estimated to be
approximately $484,000. All numbers are in 2008 dollars. All funds are
subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations.
Public response to the General Management Plan and the proposed
boundary expansion have been uniformly favorable among local
governments, organizations, and individuals. The Dinwiddie County Board
of Supervisors adopted a resolution supporting future legislation to
expand the boundary of the park as outlined in the General Management
Plan. Many civic organizations in the Petersburg region have also
indicated support for the proposal.
The second main provision of the bill would authorize a transfer of
administrative jurisdiction between the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Interior for a 1.7 acre parcel of land. Following
September 11, 2001, the Army was required to erect a perimeter fence
around Fort Lee Military Reservation, located adjacent to Petersburg
National Battlefield. The fence intruded slightly into the boundary of
the park. The land exchange would transfer to the Army the 1.7 acre of
land where the perimeter fence is located, in return for a 1.7 acre of
the military reservation to be added to the park. The Secretary of the
Army is supportive of this provision. There is no cost associated with
this authorization.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have regarding the proposed boundary expansions.
s. 2976
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 2976, a bill to designate the Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore Wilderness at Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore in the State of Michigan.
The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 2976. However, we
recommend that the wilderness be designated as the ``Sleeping Bear
Wilderness,'' rather than ``Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
Wilderness,'' as the former is consistent with the style of the
majority of wilderness areas in units of the national park system. This
legislation would designate 32,557 acres, or 46 percent, of Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan's Lower Peninsula as
federally protected wilderness. It defines the boundary of the
wilderness area as the line of demarcation--the general line formed by
the lakeward extent of the first contiguous vegetation that is upland
from the high water mark of Lake Michigan. Management of the wilderness
area would be in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.).
P.L. 91-479 established Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on
October 21, 1970, in order ``. . .that certain outstanding natural
features including forests, beaches, dune formations, and ancient
(glacial) phenomena. . .be preserved in their natural setting and
protected from developments and uses which would destroy the scenic
beauty and natural character of the area. . .for the benefit,
inspiration, education, recreation, and enjoyment of the public.'' This
bill clearly supports the intent of that law.
The park extends nearly 30 miles along the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan, the most visited of our Great Lakes, and the only one
entirely within the United States. It also includes two large Lake
Michigan islands with an additional 35 miles of shoreline. The National
Lakeshore protects and preserves superlative scenic and recreational
resources including towering perched sand dunes that rise as high as
450 feet above Lake Michigan; miles of beautiful sugar sand beaches;
sparkling inland lakes and clear streams; important wetlands; and an
upland beech-maple Northern Hardwood Forest. This landscape is home to
black bear, deer, bobcat, trumpeter swans, raptors, and many species of
songbirds. Federally threatened and endangered species include the
Piping Plover, Pitcher's Thistle, and Michigan Monkeyflower as well as
several state-listed species. The high, perched dunes afford
spectacular views across Lake Michigan and over other glacially formed
landscapes. The contrast between the open, sunny environment of the
dunes and the adjacent lush beech-maple forests is striking.
The park includes many historic features as well. Long before the
area became a National Lakeshore, Native Americans, lumbermen, merchant
sailors, and farmers visited or settled here. Today, a lighthouse and
three U.S. Life-Saving Service Stations, coastal villages, and
picturesque farmsteads reflect the National Lakeshore's rich maritime,
agricultural, and recreational history and are open for public
enjoyment. The region surrounding the National Lakeshore is a popular
vacation and summer home destination. In recent times, the area has
undergone considerable growth as homes and support services are built
for expanding full-time and summer populations.
The park receives nearly 1.2 million visitors each year who enjoy
the beaches, hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, bird
watching, paddling the lakes and streams, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, ferry trips to the islands, touring historic areas, the
spectacular views from the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive, and the rite
of passage of the famous Dune Climb. The park maintains over 100 miles
of backcountry trails, two campgrounds accessible by vehicles, six
backcountry campgrounds, and dispersed camping on North Manitou Island.
The National Park Service estimates that the presence of the National
Lakeshore brings nearly $30 million of economic benefit to the local
community each year.* Native American use of the area extends some
3,000 years into the past and is represented today primarily by the
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Nothing in S. 2976
would modify, alter, or affect any treaty rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stynes, Daniel J. ``National Park Visitor Spending and Payroll
Impacts: 2008.'' National Park Service, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The park encompasses a total of 71,291 acres; about 58,571 acres of
land and 12,720 acres of water. Over 30,000 acres of the proposed
32,557-acre wilderness area have been managed as wilderness since 1981,
when a wilderness proposal produced under the park's first
comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) was published. Since that
time, the five areas of the park proposed as wilderness have provided
outstanding recreational opportunities for hikers, backpackers,
anglers, paddlers, and hunters with hunting being allowed in accordance
with State regulations. A network of hiking trails and numerous camping
opportunities will continue to be maintained in this portion of the
park, even with the wilderness designation. The additional acres in the
current proposal arise from the inclusion of the Sleeping Bear Plateau,
an area unsuitable for anything but foot travel that continues to offer
outstanding opportunities for solitude. Since formal wilderness
designation would not change the way in which visitor use is currently
managed in the area proposed as wilderness, there is no reason to
believe it would have any detrimental impact on visitation or the local
economy, and formal designation may actually have a beneficial impact.
The proposed wilderness area does not include any existing county
roads or areas managed primarily for historic resources. This is to
ensure the continued availability of the county roads for visitors
accessing remote trailheads, beaches, and the backcountry, and to
promote visitor access to historic areas. Although the National
Lakeshore boundary extends one-quarter mile out into Lake Michigan,
none of the waters of Lake Michigan are proposed as wilderness. S. 2976
would authorize the use of boat motors on the surface water of Lake
Michigan adjacent to the wilderness and beaching of those boats below
the line of demarcation, subject to applicable laws. This is to ensure
continued access by boaters to the shoreline beach adjacent to the
wilderness area. These have been areas of significant public concern.
Designation of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Wilderness
Area will not limit public access or change the way the area is
currently being managed for public use and enjoyment. Permanent
wilderness designation in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore will
ensure protection of significant ecological resources and wilderness
values along with solitude, quiet, and unconfined recreation for this
and future generations in the areas proposed as wilderness within the
National Lakeshore.
Between 2006 and 2009, the NPS developed an updated GMP for the
park. Because of public concern over the 1981 wilderness proposal, and
its inclusion of county roads and historic sites, a formal Wilderness
Study was conducted as part of this comprehensive planning effort.
Approximately 36,000 acres within the Lakeshore were identified as
being potentially eligible for wilderness designation in five areas of
the park. After extensive public involvement, review, and comment,
including overwhelming public support for wilderness designation, the
preferred alternative in the final GMP/Wilderness Study was approved by
the Midwest Regional Director on January 6, 2009. The area of proposed
wilderness was mapped at 32,557 acres, with a portion in all five
eligible areas, and is the same as the proposed wilderness designation
in S. 2976. The final GMP/Wilderness Study does not propose wilderness
in several eligible areas, including those areas fragmented by the road
corridors near the Otter Creek area of the Lakeshore; the land within
the Port Oneida Rural Historic District; the lands in the historic
``Cottage Row'' on North Manitou Island; the area in the South Manitou
Island historic farm loop; an area near the historic Bufka Farm
identified for a bicycle trail; and the congested area at the top of
the Dune Climb.
Passage of S. 2976 would support the overarching vision in the new
GMP for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, which is to value the
lakeshore primarily for preservation of its natural resources, and for
the opportunities it provides for visitor enjoyment of natural,
cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. The
bill has very strong, broad-based public support. The overwhelming
majority of local officials, the conservation community, and the
Michigan delegation are united in their support for this bill as a
winning resolution to an issue that has been debated since the park's
establishment in 1970. Parties that had been bitterly polarized over
earlier proposals have reached consensus that this bill strikes an
appropriate balance between preserving access and guaranteeing
outstanding primitive recreational opportunities.
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.
s. 3159 and h.r. 4395
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 3159 and H.R. 4395, bills that would add the historic Lincoln Train
Station in the Borough of Gettysburg and 45 acres at the base of Big
Round Top to Gettysburg National Military Park in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation. The
Department previously testified in support of H.R. 4395 on January 21,
2010, before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands.
Gettysburg National Military Park protects major portions of the
site of the largest battle waged during this nation's Civil War. Fought
in the first three days of July 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg resulted
in a victory for Union forces and successfully ended the second
invasion of the North by Confederate forces commanded by General Robert
E. Lee. Historians have referred to the battle as a major turning point
in the war--the ``High Water Mark of the Confederacy''. It was also the
Civil War's bloodiest single battle, resulting in over 51,000 soldiers
killed, wounded, captured or missing.
The Soldiers' National Cemetery within the park was dedicated on
November 19, 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln delivered his
immortal Gettysburg Address. The cemetery contains more than 7,000
interments including over 3,500 from the Civil War. The park currently
includes nearly 6,000 acres, with 26 miles of park roads and over 1,400
monuments, markers, and memorials.
Gettysburg's Lincoln Train Station was built in 1858 and is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The station served as a
hospital during the Battle of Gettysburg, and the wounded and the dead
were transported from Gettysburg through this station in the aftermath
of battle. President Abraham Lincoln arrived at this station when he
visited to give the Gettysburg Address.
Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 General Management Plan
called for expanding cooperative relationships and partnerships with
the Borough of Gettysburg and other sites ``to ensure that resources
closely linked to the park, the battle, and the non-combatant civilian
involvement in the battle and its aftermath are appropriately protected
and used.'' In particular, the plan stated that the National Park
Service would initiate ``cooperation agreements with willing owners,
and seek the assistance of the Borough of Gettysburg and other
appropriate entities to preserve, operate and manage the Wills House
and Lincoln Train Station.''
The Borough of Gettysburg Interpretive Plan called for the Lincoln
Train Station to be used as a downtown information and orientation
center for visitors--where all park visitors would arrive after coming
downtown--to receive information and orientation to downtown historic
attractions, including the David Wills House. This is the house where
Lincoln stayed the night before delivering the Gettysburg Address. The
Interpretive Plan also called for rehabilitation of the Wills House,
which was added to the park's boundary through Public Law 106-290 in
October 2000, and is now a historic house museum in the borough and an
official site within Gettysburg National Military Park. Through a
Memorandum of Understanding, the David Wills House is operated by Main
Street Gettysburg at no cost to the National Park Service.
The Lincoln Train Station is next to the downtown terminus of
Freedom Transit, Gettysburg's shuttle system, which started operations
in July 2009 with a grant from the Federal Transit Administration in
the Department of Transportation.
In 2006, the Borough of Gettysburg completed rehabilitation of the
Lincoln Train Station with funds from a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
grant. Due to a lack of funds, however, the borough has been unable to
operate a visitor information and orientation center there. Through
formal vote of the Borough Council, the Borough of Gettysburg has asked
the National Park Service to take over the ownership and operations of
the train station. The anticipated acquisition cost for the completely
rehabilitated train station is approximately $772,000, subject to an
appraisal by the federal government. Funding to acquire this land would
be subject to the availability of appropriations and NPS priorities.
The park has a preliminary commitment from the Gettysburg
Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB) to provide all staffing
requirements for operations of an information and orientation center in
the train station, thereby alleviating the park of staff costs.
Anticipated operating costs for the train station that will be the
responsibility of the NPS are limited to utility costs, the rest will
be paid by the Gettysburg CVB. In the event that the Gettysburg CVB is
unable to provide staffing and funding for operations, the NPS would
seek another park partner to cover these costs and requirements.
S. 3159 and H.R. 4395 would also add 45 acres near Big Round Top
along Plum Run in Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania to the boundary of
the park. The 45-acre tract of land is adjacent to the Gettysburg
National Military Park and is within the Battlefield Historic District.
The land is at the southern base of Big Round Top at the southern end
of the Gettysburg battlefield. There were cavalry skirmishers in this
area during the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1863, but the real
significance is environmental. The tract has critical wetlands and
wildlife habitat related to Plum Run. Wayne and Susan Hill donated it
to the Gettysburg Foundation in April 2009. The Gettysburg Foundation
plans to donate ``fee title interest'' in the parcel to the National
Park Service once it is within the park boundary. It abuts land already
owned by the National Park Service.
When H.R. 4395 was marked up by the House Committee on Natural
Resources, the bill was amended to combine two map references into one
map that shows both parcels. If S. 3159 moves forward we recommend that
the bill be amended to reflect this newer map.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or members of the committee may have.
s. 3168
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 3168, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain non-Federal land in
Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort Necessity National Battlefield.
The Department supports the enactment of this legislation with
amendments. Acquisition of the property, however, would be dependent on
the results of an appraisal of its value, future availability of
funding, and National Park Service acquisition priorities.
S. 3168 authorizes the acquisition of approximately 157 acres in
Farmington, Pennsylvania. Upon acquisition, it further authorizes a
boundary adjustment for Fort Necessity National Battlefield. The
property contains traces of the historic Braddock Road and other
resources.
Fort Necessity National Battlefield was the site of the first
battle of the French and Indian War in July 1754. The war's outcome
determined that the British, rather than the French, would control the
Forks of the Ohio and, therefore, development of the colonies. Leading
troops as a then-young lieutenant colonel in the Virginia Regiment,
this battle was future General George Washington's first and only
surrender.
The existing authorized boundary of Fort Necessity National
Battlefield contains traces of the Braddock Road, built in 1755 as part
of British Major General Edward Braddock's unsuccessful and bloody
campaign to take Fort Duquesne at the Forks of the Ohio, a campaign
during which Washington served as a volunteer aide to General Braddock.
Washington had originally blazed this road in his 1754 expedition.
The property that is the subject of S. 3168 contains both
historical and landscape resources relating to the purpose of Fort
Necessity National Battlefield. If acquired, approximately 500 feet of
the historic Braddock Road trace would be added to the park and would
adjoin the existing portion of the trace within the current boundary.
An archeological site, dating approximately from the period of the
1770s to 1810s, is located on the subject property. Taverns were
constructed along the Braddock Road following the American Revolution,
but prior to the construction of the National Road. The property
contains archeological remains of a former tavern structure and
associated outbuildings and landscape. The property is contiguous to
the park's current southeastern boundary and is becoming increasingly
important as development pressures impact areas immediately adjacent to
the park. The owner of the property is a willing seller.
We would like to like to work with the Committee to develop
amendments that would provide a more precise identification of the land
that would be authorized for acquisition and to make some minor
technical changes.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the Committee.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Whitesell. I would note that
to give you 5 minutes to talk about 10 different bills and
combinations was probably unfair to start with. So thank you
for being so succinct.
I know we've been joined by Senator Bennet and, Mr.
Holtrop, if you're willing to wait a little bit longer and
suspend your testimony--I think Senator Bennet's fine if you
stay up at the table. We want to hear Senator Bennet provide us
with his thoughts on his bill, S. 3303, the Chimney Rock
National Monument proposal.
So welcome to the subcommittee, Senator. I'm proud to be a
co-sponsor of your legislation and looking forward to hearing
you testify.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Bennet. I'm proud to call you ``Mr. Chairman.''
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me
here. Ranking Member Burr, thank you also, for the opportunity
to testify at today's hearing on the Chimney Rock National
Monument Act of 2010. I introduced this legislation earlier
this month. Chairman Udall, I want to extend a special thanks
to you, as you said, for joining me as an original co-sponsor
on this important piece of legislation.
I also want to recognize Commissioner Bob Moomaw, who's
here today. He's sitting behind me and you'll hear from him
later. Commissioner Moomaw is a county commissioner from
Archuleta County, Colorado, where Chimney Rock is located. Bob,
along with his 2 fellow Archuleta County commissioners, penned
a letter to me earlier this year expressing strong support for
this legislation to designate Chimney Rock a national monument.
Bob, I know you're a busy guy and I want to express my
sincere thanks for taking the time to testify in support of
this legislation.
I'm here today to testify in support of S. 3303, the
Chimney Rock National Monument Act of 2010. Chimney Rock is
located roughly 20 miles west of Pagosa Springs in the
southwest part of our State of Colorado. This 4700-acre site is
located on San Juan National Forest land and is recognized as
perhaps the most significant historical site managed by the
entire U.S. Forest Service.
The Twin Spires of Chimney Rock depicted in the photo
besides me attracted the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians
to this area nearly a thousand years ago. This unique culture
had their main settlement in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. It had a
settlement at what is now Mesa Verde National Park near Cortez,
Colorado. The Chaco people established a remote outpost at the
base of Chimney Rock called the Great House Pueblo. The Great
House is situated just south of the Twin Spires and also is
shown beside me.
The house was built from 6 million stones, 5,000 logs, and
25,000 tons of earth and clay. All of these materials were
arduously hauled 1,000 feet up from the valley floor.
We think they established this outpost to observe a rare
lunar event, a so-called major lunar landstill, which occurs
once every 18.6 years when the moon appears to rise in the
exact same spot 3 nights in a row. The Chaco people built the
Great House Pueblo to observe this spectacular celestial event.
There are only 2 other places in the world where
archaeologists have found evidence that ancient people used
stone structures to mark a lunar standstill. Stonehenge is one
of them.
Chimney Rock has incredible historical and cultural
significance. Yet the site lacks a designation equal to that
stature. This discrepancy is why countless preservation groups
got involved with Chimney Rock. This constituency, coupled with
a bipartisan group of local officials, local Colorado counties,
municipalities, and tribes, have joined in an effort to give
Chimney Rock its proper designation. They came together and
asked me to carry legislation to designate Chimney Rock a
national monument. I was happy to answer that call.
This legislation will provide much-needed protection and
much-deserved recognition for the site. Passage of this bill
will also provide increased tourism and economic development in
southwest Colorado, something I know Commissioner Moomaw plans
to talk more about.
The measure was drafted with the help of the U.S. Forest
Service, the Archuleta County Commissioners, the Pagosa Springs
Town Council, historic preservation groups, and Native American
tribes in the region. Through this robust stakeholder process,
we've written a commonsense piece of legislation for this
important archaeological treasure.
I would draw the committee's attention to a number of
letters I brought with me today that support the overall
effort. The letters come from a bipartisan group of Archuleta
County Commissioners, where Commissioner Moomaw serves, the
Mayor and Town Council of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, the town
nearest Chimney Rock, and a wide variety of historical
preservation groups from Colorado and all across the country.
I'd like to submit these letters into the record to illustrate
the broad level of local support for this popular legislation.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My staff and I stand ready to work with the members of the
committee and the administration to address any concerns that
arise with the legislation as drafted. It's my hope that we can
work collaboratively to improve and strengthen the legislation.
It's then my hope that the committee will support the bill and
favorably report it out for consideration by the full Senate.
Thank you again, Chairman Udall and Senator Burr, for
allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of this
measure.
Senator Udall. Senator Burr, do you have any comments or
questions?
Senator Burr. No, thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Bennet. I would note 2
things briefly. One is that local involvement is wide, robust,
and strong. Second, I've been informed that this 18.6-year
cycle just began again, so I need to follow Senator Burr's
exercise and nutrition protocols so that I'm around to see it
in 16 years.
Senator Bennet. That's a good idea.
Senator Udall. I'm not worried about you.
Senator Bennet. I was worried that my remarks were going to
last 18.6 years, but they didn't.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you.
Senator Udall. I know we have a cloture vote looming, so
I'm going to turn to Mr. Holtrop, and we'll hopefully get some
questions in before Senator Burr and I need to go to the floor,
hopefully briefly, and then we'll, after we recess, we'll then
hear from the final panel.
The floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Burr: Thank
you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views on S.
3303, which would establish the Chimney Rock National Monument
in Colorado. As your opening statement and Senator Bennet's
statement indicate, Chimney Rock is a very important
archaeological and cultural site to the local community, to the
tribes, to the public, and to the Forest Service.
We believe the rich history, spectacular archaeological,
cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resource values, as
well as the community support, merits the designation of the
area as a national monument. Chimney Rock is also a very
special place to me personally.
I have visited, enjoyed, and been inspired by the area and
I am proud to testify today on behalf of the Department on
legislation that would give this natural treasure the
recognition it deserves.
Designated as an archaeological area and national historic
landmark in 1970, Chimney Rock lies on 4100 acres of the San
Juan National Forest, surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian
Reservation. The Forest Service values archaeological and
cultural resources and is proud that part of the agency's
mission is to preserve and interpret them for the public. We
believe this bill is a win-win for all.
While the Department supports S. 3303, in my written
testimony which I have submitted for the record I offer a few
specific modifications that would address some technical
concerns we have with the bill and would improve our ability to
manage resources in the area. Very briefly, I'll highlight some
of the modifications we suggest.
Regarding the requirement to designate an individual as
manager of the national monument, we would like the opportunity
to assess staffing and management needs during the early phases
of our planning process to base our initial staffing and
management decisions on identified resource management needs
and issues and public concerns and demands.
Regarding the authority in Section 6[c] to construct a
visitor's center and related exhibit and curatorial facilities,
the Anasazi Heritage Center, a BLM facility, is managed in a
service-first arrangement by the San Juan National Forest
supervisor and is one of the largest curation centers in the
Southwest, and it should be used for this purpose.
Regarding the mining and mineral withdrawal in Section
6[d], we recommend inclusion of language in this section
providing that the proposed withdrawal would be subject to
valid existing rights or that some other appropriate language
be added that addresses this concern.
Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to talk
about Chimney Rock today. The Forest Service looks forward to
working with you and the subcommittee and sponsors to carry out
the intent of the bill, and I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, on S. 3303
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on S.
3303, the Chimney Rock National Monument Act of 2010. While the
Department supports S. 3303, I would like to offer modifications that
would address some technical concerns with the bill and which would
improve our ability to manage resources in the area.
Designated as an Archaeological Area and National Historic Landmark
in 1970, Chimney Rock lies on 4,100 acres of San Juan National Forest
land surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Between A.D.
900 and 1150, the ancestors of modern Pueblo Indians occupied the lands
surrounding Chimney Rock, and the site remains of archaeological and
cultural significance to many descendant tribes. At 7,600 feet, Chimney
Rock is also the most northeasterly and highest Chacoan site known.
Chacoan culture refers to the way of life of ancient ancestors of
modern Pueblo Indians and continues to be important to the native
people in the region.
The Forest Service values archaeological and cultural resources and
considers it part of the agency's mission to preserve and interpret
them for the public. We believe the rich history, spectacular
archaeological, cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resource
values, as well as community support, merits the designation of the
area as a National Monument.
Section 4(a) of S. 3303 would establish the Chimney Rock National
Monument in the State of Colorado by designating 4,726 acres
surrounding the Chimney Rock Archaeological Area within the San Juan
National Forest as a National Monument. The purpose of the monument
would be to preserve, protect, and restore the nationally significant
archaeological, cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resources
in the area, as well as enable the public to fully utilize the
resources in the area. Section 7(c) of the bill would also provide for
continued access by Indian tribes to sites within the National Monument
for traditional and cultural uses.
Section 4(b)(2)(A) would authorize the Secretary to make minor
boundary adjustments to the monument to include significant
archeological resources discovered on adjacent public land. We
recommend that the bill be amended to substitute ``National Forest
System land'' for ``public land'' to make clear that the only public
land adjacent to the proposed monument boundary is Forest Service land.
Section 4(c) would require the Secretary to designate an individual as
manager of the National Monument. To implement this provision, the
organizational structure of the San Juan National Forest would have to
be amended to accommodate the new position. We would prefer to be
provided the opportunity to assess staffing and management needs during
the early phases of our planning process, allowing us to base our
initial staffing and management decisions on identified resource
management needs and issues, and public concerns and demands.
Section 6(a) would require the monument to be managed as a unit of
the San Juan National Forest. We recommend making a technical amendment
to this section to add language that would require the Secretary to
manage the monument in accordance with any other applicable provisions
of law. This change would make it clear that laws applicable to
management of the forest would also apply to management of the
monument.
Under section 6(b) and (c), the Secretary would be authorized to
allow uses of the monument consistent with the purposes of its
establishment including the following uses: vegetative management
treatments; timber harvest and the use of prescribed fire only if the
Secretary deems it necessary to address the risk of wildfire, insects,
or diseases; the construction of a visitor's center and related exhibit
and curatorial facilities; scientific research; acquisition
consolidation, and display of artifacts found within the monument; the
recreational and administrative use of mountain bikes and motorized
vehicles; installation, construction and maintenance of a public
utility right of way under certain circumstances; and grazing uses
through permits.
We believe that an interpretation and educational center, instead
of a visitor's center, would be more in line with the bill's purposes
of providing educational and interpretive programs to communities, and
allowing for academic scientific investigation of Chimney Rock.
Although the bill would authorize construction of a curatorial
facility, the Anasazi Heritage Center, a BLM facility, is one of the
largest curation centers in the Southwest and should be used for this
purpose. In fact, many materials from Chimney Rock are already curated
at this facility.
Section 6(d) of the bill would withdraw the affected lands from
location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws; and
would withdraw those areas from the laws governing mineral leasing,
geothermal resource leasing and mineral materials. A problematic aspect
of section 6(d) is it does not preserve valid existing rights to the
land that the bill would designate as the Chimney Rock National
Monument. There are currently mining claims, mineral leases, and
mineral material contracts which encumber the lands to be included in
the monument. The bill, as written, would prohibit the exercise of
rights which may be associated with these existing mining claims and
are associated with these mineral leases and mineral materials
contracts. For these reasons, we recommend inclusion of language in
this section providing that the proposed withdrawal would be subject to
valid existing rights, or that some other appropriate language be added
that addresses this concern.
Section 7 would require the development of a management plan, not
later than 3 years after the date of enactment, and in consultation
with Indian Tribes with a cultural or historic connection to the
monument. The management plan must identify the authorized uses for the
monument. In developing the management plan, the Secretary would
provide an opportunity for comment to the public and such entities as
State, Tribal government, local, and national organizations with an
interest in the management and use of the monument. The San Juan
National Forest land management plan would have to be amended to
incorporate the management plan for the monument. Because of the
importance of creating a successful management plan in collaboration
with the community, Tribes, and the public, and the time needed to
achieve this, the Department recommends the bill language be changed to
state that the management plan shall be completed no later than five
(5) years after the date of enactment.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service looks forward to
working with you and the subcommittee to carry out the intent of the
bill. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. Let me turn to
Senator Burr for any questions he might have of either of you.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Steve, the National Park Service currently reports a
maintenance backlog of over $9 billion. Yet 6 of the bills in
front of the subcommittee today establish either new national
park units or increase the amount of land in current units. I
guess the obvious question: Do you believe the National Park
Service should pay down the maintenance backlog before it
considers more land or more obligations?
Mr. Whitesell. You know, I think these always have to be
balanced as one looks at that potential addition to the
National Park System. The feeling I think among most of us is
that the addition of these lands are appropriate to the system.
Hence the administration's willingness to go forward with their
addition.
Senator Burr. In the case of those bills that you support,
is the Secretary willing for that to come out of the annual
budget?
Mr. Whitesell. For land acquisition?
Senator Burr. Yes.
Mr. Whitesell. I believe that we've pointed out in most of
those cases that we would be using available funds.
Senator Burr. So the answer is no.
Mr. Whitesell. I don't think we're asking for any
additional dollars for that acquisition, no, sir.
Senator Burr. So the agency's not willing to take it out of
its annual budget. It would require additional appropriations
from the Congress?
Mr. Whitesell. That's correct.
Senator Burr. OK.
How much will each of the pieces of legislation cost, 3 of
them, S. 349, the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area?
Mr. Whitesell. I believe the costs are relatively small in
terms of what's required in order to get that site off the
ground, that heritage area.
Senator Burr. My calculation was it authorized $10 million
over a period of time.
Mr. Whitesell. Right.
Senator Burr. Is that $10 million just the initial phase,
the initial investment?
Mr. Whitesell. I think that's part of the question that
comes forward with our request to Congress for consideration
for----
Senator Burr. You defer to opinion, and I hope we get a
fixed cost on that.
How about acquiring the Gold Hill Ranch in Coloma,
California? I sense a cost of $3.3 million to acquire.
Mr. Whitesell. I'd have to defer to Mr. Spisak on that
question.
Mr. Spisak. The authorization is about $3.4 million.
There are at this point $2 million that have been collected
from private funds that would go toward the acquisition of that
property.
Senator Burr. That wouldn't have anything to do with the
ongoing management of that property, the cost of it?
Mr. Spisak. That would be the acquisition portion.
Senator Burr. OK.
Senator Udall. Sir, if I could interrupt, Senator Burr.
Would you just provide us with your name and position for the
record?
Mr. Spisak. Tim Spisak, Deputy Director for Minerals and
Realty Management within the Bureau of Land Management.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Burr. First State National Historic Park?
Mr. Whitesell. You were interested in what the costs are on
that?
Senator Burr. Correct.
Mr. Whitesell. I believe the expectation for annual
operating costs are someplace in the order of about $450 to
$500,000 a year for staffing of that facility, plus there's a
portion of money that we are looking to for potential grants
for historic preservation activities.
Senator Burr. Three million in acquisition and $2.5 million
additional dollars in potential grants.
Mr. Whitesell. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Thank you.
May I ask you on S. 2953, S. 3159, S. 3168, they seek to
expand a national park unit. How much of the land involved in
the proposed expansion do we know is under current private
ownership?
Mr. Whitesell. I don't know. I know specific locations
which are under private ownership. For instance, the piece at
Fort Necessity is privately owned, and has a willing seller
that has actually approached the National Park Service about
sale of that particular property.
Senator Burr. Would the Park Service consider using eminent
domain in any of the acquisitions?
Mr. Whitesell. We always try to go forward with a willing
seller arrangement.
Senator Burr. Let me ask it one more time: Would the Park
Service consider on either one of those pieces of legislation
using eminent domain to acquire the land?
Mr. Whitesell. We would if we could not in any other way
find an ability to acquire property. We seek that very seldom,
though, as I think you know.
Senator Burr. I do.
Steve, do we know if hunting is currently allowed on any of
the land that's being proposed in those 3 acquisitions?
Mr. Whitesell. That includes, I believe, a piece at
Sleeping Bear Dunes. My understanding is that the change in the
wilderness proposals in that particular area have no impact on
current hunting or fishing activities in those areas. In fact,
the wilderness area was actually very carefully worked out with
the local community to make sure that their concerns about
access were in fact represented in how the lines were drawn for
the Wilderness Act.
Senator Burr. But in the case of private land that was
purchased for expansion of a park, it's safe to say that
private land is land that can be hunted today. Would it remain
with the Park Service as accessible for hunting?
Mr. Whitesell. It would be only to the extent that hunting
is currently allowed within those existing parks. Where we're
expanding the boundary, we would expand the same, whatever the
current management practices are.
Senator Burr. So if it did not extend hunting, then hunting
would be lost on the acquired lands?
Mr. Whitesell. That is correct.
Senator Burr. I thank the chair. I think that's good
enough. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
I might as a follow-up, as I recognize myself. On the 2
battlefield bills, there are sections that make it clear that
the Secretary may acquire only by purchase from a willing
seller publicly owned property that's located within the
property designated in this section. Similar language is--that
is the legislation dealing with Gettysburg, and then there's
similar language in the Petersburg National Battlefield
legislation as well.
Mr. Whitesell. Right. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. That may answer further Senator Burr's
important questions.
Mr. Holtrop, let me turn to you first and I've got a
question about Chimney Rock. You've identified a couple of
technical management issues you'd like to see changed and we're
more than happy to work with you on those proposed
modifications, including the clarification that the monument
designation would not affect any existing valid rights.
Apart from those changes, I just want to make it clear for
the record that the Forest Service agrees that national
monument designation for Chimney Rock--let me say, for the
Chimney Rock site--I want to be appropriate and careful here--
is appropriate; is that correct?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct, we do believe it's
appropriate.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification and clear
answer.
Let me turn back to Mr. Whitesell. On the Susequehanna
Gateway National Heritage Area, you're recommending the
committee defer action on the bill until the administration
submits heritage program legislation in the near future.
Mr. Whitesell. Right.
Senator Udall. Can you provide us with more detail on when
you expect to have that legislation ready?
Mr. Whitesell. We've worked on that proposed legislation
within the National Park Service, but we are awaiting further
discussions with the Office of Management and Budget for their
clarifications on it.
Senator Udall. You'll keep us apprised, I assume?
Mr. Whitesell. We certainly will.
Senator Udall. Apart from the recommendation to defer
action, does the Park Service consider the proposed heritage
area for the Susquehanna appropriate for national heritage
designation?
Mr. Whitesell. It does.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to First State National
Historical Park, Delaware, S. 1801. The proposed First State
Park would include several sites in different parts of the
State. Are you aware of other National Park System areas that
have multiple noncontiguous site areas and can you tell us how
the management of those sites is handled?
Mr. Whitesell. I think probably the one that's the closest
that I can think of off the top of my head would be Boston
National Historical Park, where in Boston you have a series of
separate sites owned in many cases by entities other than the
Federal Government. They have many of the similar colonial
resources that we're looking here at the potential national
park in Delaware.
So they're owned by private entities, not-for-profit
organizations who work with the National Park Service toward
the preservation of those particular properties. The Park
Service provides some degree of oversight and general direction
for the entire park and particularly supports the interpretive
programs in those locations.
Senator Udall. So there is at least a precedent or a
parallel of some sort?
Mr. Whitesell. I believe so, yes.
Senator Udall. I'm tempted to ask if those are sites where
the first tea party was created. But we'll leave that for
another discussion.
My understanding is that none of the sites within the park
are federally owned. If there is any Federal land in the park,
what would you envision the National Park Service's management
role to be? Again, this is on the First State National
Historical Park.
Mr. Whitesell. Yes. Again, I think this would be
acquisition only to the extent that it would be necessary to
establish a particular presence. I think very limited
acquisition, if any acquisition at all, is anticipated in the
development of that park.
Senator Udall. Then your management role would be what? How
would you define that?
Mr. Whitesell. Much of it is a coordinative role, working
with the partner organizations, with the State and local
governments to make sure that the interpretive programs are
well thought out, that they're coordinated, and that the
visitor walks away with a thorough understanding of the
importance of the particular units that would make up that
park.
Senator Udall. I would assume when Mr. Slavin testifies he
will speak to this and we can also ask him additional
questions.
Let me turn finally to the Fort Necessity National
Battlefield addition, S. 3168. It authorizes the Park Service
to acquire 157 acres for addition to the Fort Necessity
National Battlefield. Following on Senator Burr's important
questions about cost, do you have any estimate of the potential
land acquisition costs?
Mr. Whitesell. No, we don't. For that particular property,
as I say, we've got a willing seller that's approached us with
an interest in selling those properties. But we haven't had a
chance to do an appraisal on those lands, and that would be
necessary before we ever arrived at a fair price.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Burr, do you have more?
Senator Burr. No, thank you.
Senator Udall. Gentlemen, thank you again. I always
appreciate the fact that you come up here, share your point of
view with us, and answer our questions in a straightforward and
direct manner. Thank you.
We'll call the third and final panel to the table. We at
this point--have we heard anything from the floor? We've heard
nothing from the floor, so perhaps we can hear from our third
panel and direct some questions their way before the cloture
vote is actually called, if it's called at all. I should have
asked Senator Bennet for an update from the caucus.
[Pause.]
Senator Udall. Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for joining us
today. I know that you've come from 3 different States, so I'll
just introduce each of you in turn, and then I'll turn back to
Commissioner Moomaw for his testimony. It's a delight for me to
see Commissioner Robert Moomaw, the Honorable Robert Moomaw.
He's a Commissioner of Archuleta County, as Senator Bennet
mentioned, based in Pagosa Springs. This is a slice of heaven
every time of year, but particularly as the spring looms I know
it's just gorgeous at home. We've got a lot of moisture. It's
great to have you here, Commissioner.
Next to you, Tim Slavin, the Director of the Division of
Historic and Cultural Affairs for the State of Delaware, based
in Dover. If I think I heard Senator Carper correctly, you were
a key part in this study and the work that was done to design
this important proposal that is in front of us today.
Then Mr. Platts is President of the Susequehanna Gateway
Heritage Area, based in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania.
Before I do turn to Commissioner Moomaw, I did also want to
acknowledge that I think you've been traveling with Roy Jones.
I don't know if Roy was able to stay, but I have known Roy for
many years. He worked with my father, Congressman Mo Udall, on
the House side on many a natural resource issue, and I want to
just acknowledge Roy's friendship and wisdom and support. I
know you're in good hands, Commissioner, when you're with Mr.
Roy Jones. He's a graduate of West Point, a patriot, and just
all in all a wonderful man.
Thank you for being here. The floor is yours. I look
forward with real interest to your testimony. You have, give or
take, 5 minutes to share with us your thoughts. If you'd turn
your mike on, that would be great.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MOOMAW, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, ARCHULETA
COUNTY, CO
Mr. Moomaw. I'm sure as you know, Mr. Jones and I were
roommates at West Point.
Senator Udall. I want that for the record, of course, yes.
Mr. Moomaw. Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr: Thank you
for the opportunity to speak in favor of the Chimney Rock
National Monument Act of 2010. My name is Bob Moomaw. I am a
Commissioner from Archuleta County, Colorado. I have been
tasked by my fellow commissioners and the citizens of Archuleta
County to testify in support of this important legislation.
As Senator Bennet, mentioned, Chimney Rock is located in
Archuleta County in the Four Corners Region of southwest
Colorado. The site is located just 20 minutes west of the town
of Pagosa Springs and represents a unique archaeological
experience.
Senator Bennet has already covered the historic and
archaeological significance of Chimney Rock, so I will focus my
comments on the positive economic impacts the national monument
designation would have on Archuleta County and the surrounding
region. Archuleta County is blessed with some of the most
beautiful scenario God has given to the State of Colorado and
the Nation. We have also been blessed with excellent
representation from our Federal elected officials: you, Senator
Udall, and Senator Bennet, and in the past Senator Ken Salazar,
who is now Secretary of the Interior, and Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell.
A little about where I hale from. Archuleta County
encompasses roughly 900,000 acres, of which 66 percent is
Federal land, comprised of BLM, Forest Service, and the
Southern Ute Nation. In addition, we are surrounded by
approximately 2.8 million acres of Forest Service land.
Despite our overwhelming beauty, Archuleta County is a
county of stark extremes. On the one hand we have great wealth
and on the other we also, unfortunately, have widespread
poverty, particularly among our indigenous long-term residents.
Our per capita income is only $21,683. Continued sustainable
growth is essential to the future prosperity of Archuleta
County. That is why the Chimney Rock National Monument bill of
2010 is so important. The legislation would not only protect a
nationally significant site, but it would bring prominence to
our small community.
Our economy is mostly based around tourism, construction,
and real estate. 26 percent of our homes are second homes. 47
percent of the property is owned by nonresidents. Regrettably,
the national downturn has hit our area very hard, with the
construction and real estate segments of our economy
essentially disappearing.
Prior to the downturn, Archuleta County was one of the
fastest growing counties in the country. We were listed I a
host of magazines and books as one of the most desirable places
to move nationwide. Since the downturn, we have unfortunately
lost approximately 10 percent of our population and still have
a 10.6 percent unemployment rate.
Now, I don't want to give you the impression that we're
coming to the Federal Government to solve our problems. We've
already moved aggressively to stimulate our economy and to pull
ourselves out of this recession. We've formed a new economic
development corporation that is already bringing new businesses
to Archuleta County to diversify our economy. Yet struggles in
our county continue. While there is no silver bullet to fix our
region's economic woes, the Board of County Commissioners feels
this new national monument would be a tremendous help.
As Senator Bennet illustrated, the site certainly warrants
monument status, both for giving--as a Commission, we support
the legislation, both for giving Chimney Rock the recognition
it deserves and for the new visitors it will bring to our
county.
As briefly discussed earlier, the remnants of the unique
Chacoan culture consist primarily of Chaco Canyon, a world
heritage site, Mesa Verde, a national park, and the currently
little known Chimney Rock archaeological site. Many tourists,
including folks from as far away as Europe and Asia, travel to
the Chaco Canyon, from Chaco Canyon to Mesa Verde, to get what
is perceived to be the complete picture of Chaco culture.
Sadly for Archuleta County, these tourists are often
unaware of nearby Chimney Rock and its significance to the
ancestral Pueblo people. It is our hope that a national
monument designation would change that. Tourists from across
the world will come to see the monument, stay in our hotels,
eat in our restaurants, and hopefully even visit our world-
famous hot springs.
A similar change occurred with Canyon of the Ancients,
located in a neighboring community. After Canyon of the
Ancients received monument status, tourism went up
dramatically.
Chairman Udall, members of the committee, it is for the
aforementioned reasons that Archuleta County, surrounding
counties, and the Southern Ute Nation are in support of this
legislation. Archuleta County respectfully asks that you
favorably report the Chimney Rock National Monument Act of 2010
out of your committee for consideration by the full Senate.
Passage of this legislation would protect a vulnerable national
treasure and bring important sustainable economic development
to our tourism-based economy.
Thank you for your time and the invitation to testify. I
appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on Chimney Rock
and its importance to our region. I'm happy to answer any
questions should you have them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moomaw follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Moomaw, County Commissioner, Archuleta
County, CO, on S. 3303
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the Chimney Rock
National Monument Act of 2010, S.3303. My name is Bob Moomaw and I am a
County Commissioner from Archuleta County, Colorado. I've been tasked
by my fellow Commissioners, and the citizens of Archuleta County, to
testify in support of this important legislation.
Chimney Rock is located in Archuleta County, in the Four Corners
region of Southwest Colorado. The site is located just 20 minutes west
of the town of Pagosa Springs and represents a unique archaeological
experience. I will focus my comments on the positive economic impacts
the National Monument designation would have on Archuleta County and
the surrounding region.
Archuleta County is blessed with some of the most beautiful scenery
God has given to the state of Colorado and the nation. We have also
been blessed with excellent representation from our Federal elected
officials, you--Senator Udall and Senator Bennet; and in the past,
Senator Ken Salazar, now Secretary of the Interior, and Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell.
A little about where I hail from--Archuleta County encompasses
roughly 900,000 acres of which 66% is Federal land, including Forest
Service, BLM and the Southern Ute Nation. In addition, Archuleta County
is bordered by 2.8 million acres of Forest Service land. Despite our
overwhelming natural beauty, Archuleta County is also a county of stark
extremes.
On one hand we have great wealth--with one of our trophy ranches
having just sold for $47 million dollars. On the other we also
unfortunately have widespread poverty, particularly among our
indigenous long-term residents. Our per capita income is only
$21,683.00. Continued sustainable economic growth is essential to the
future prosperity of Archuleta County. That is why the Chimney Rock
National Monument Bill of 2010 is so important.
The legislation would not only protect a nationally-significant
site, but it would bring prominence to our small community. Our economy
is mostly based around tourism, construction, and real estate. 26% of
our homes are second homes, with 47% of the property owned by non-
residents. Regrettably, the national economic downturn has hit our area
very hard, with the construction and real estate segments of our
economy essentially disappearing.
Prior to the downturn, Archuleta County was one of the fastest
growing counties in the country. We were listed in a host of magazines
and books as one of the most desirable places to move nationwide. Since
the downturn we have unfortunately lost approximately 10% of our
population and currently have a 10.6% unemployment rate.
Now I don't want to give you the impression we are coming to the
federal government to solve our problems. We have already moved
aggressively to stimulate our economy and pull ourselves out of this
recession. We have formed a new economic development corporation that
is already bringing new business to Archuleta County to diversify our
economy. Yet struggles in our County continue. While there is no silver
bullet to fix our region's economic woes; the Commission feels that
this new National Monument would be a tremendous help.
The site certainly warrants Monument status. As a Commission we
support the legislation--both for giving Chimney Rock the recognition
it deserves and for the new visitors it will bring to our County. As
briefly discussed earlier, the remnants of the unique Chacoan culture
consist primarily of Chaco Canyon, a World Heritage site; Mesa Verde
National Park; and what is currently the little-known Chimney Rock
Archeological Area.
Many tourists--including folks from as far away as Europe and
Asia--travel from Chaco Canyon to Mesa Verde to get what is perceived
to be the complete picture of the Chaco culture. Sadly for Archuleta
County, these tourists are often unaware of nearby Chimney Rock and its
significance to the Ancestral Pueblo people.
It is our hope that a National Monument designation would change
that. Tourists from across the world will come to see the Monument, and
then stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, and hopefully even
visit our world-famous hot springs.
A similar change occurred with Canyon of the Ancients--located in a
neighboring community in Colorado. After Canyon of the Ancients
received Monument status, tourism went up dramatically.
Chairman Udall, members of the committee, it is for the
aforementioned reasons that Archuleta County, surrounding counties, and
the Southern Ute Nation are in support of this designation. Archuleta
County respectfully asks that you favorably report the Chimney Rock
National Monument Act of 2010 out of your committee for consideration
by the full Senate.
Passage of this legislation would protect a vulnerable national
treasure and bring important sustainable economic development to our
tourism-based economy. Thank you for your time and the invitation to
testify. I appreciated the opportunity to share my thoughts on Chimney
Rock and its importance to our region. I am happy to answer any
questions should you have them.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Commissioner Moomaw, you made my
homesick.
Mr. Slavin, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SLAVIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HISTORICAL
AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF DELAWARE
Mr. Slavin. Thank you, Chairman Udall, for allowing me to
submit this brief testimony on S. 1801, which would establish
the First State National Historic Park in the State of
Delaware. My name is Tim Slavin and I currently serve as the
Director of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for
the State of Delaware. In this capacity I oversee the
management and stewardship of 34 historic properties comprising
119 structures and more than 600 acres of cultural landscapes.
In addition, I also serve as the State Historic Preservation
Officer and oversee the cultural resources review of all
Federal projects undertaken in our State as well as other
historic preservation-related activities.
I strongly support the passage of this bill. This bill is a
result of an untold number of hours of public consultations,
meetings with State and private agencies, and conversations
with local residents. This has been a deliberate, arduous, and
productive task and the outcome could not have been more
beneficial or useful.
The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park
is something which is valid for Delaware and should be
implemented by the National Park Service. The theme of early
settlement through birth of a Nation in Delaware is considered
by many historians to be pivotal in conveying an understanding
of Delaware's unique role in American history. The National
Park Service cited this in its special resource study, stating
that Delaware, quote, ``provides an important lens on the
subject of how early colonial leaders struggled with the notion
of breaking free from England,'' and that Delaware
``exemplifies the character of an entirely new Nation as a
result of that quest for freedom and independence.''
The multi-site design for the park likewise reflects that
history. Delaware's waves of settlement included the Swedish,
the Dutch, and the English, all in different venues, across a
beautiful and sweeping coastal area. Under the proposed design,
the hub of the park would be situated in Newcastle, which
includes one of the richest historical districts on the East
Coast, as well as a community of preservation-minded residents
and property owners who are unparalleled in Delaware.
The spokes of the park would allow for important stories
that contribute to an understanding of the early settlement and
birth of the Nation theme to be told in Dover and in Lewes as
well.
The public acceptance of this proposed project and the
amount of public input and enthusiasm for the bill should not
go unnoticed. There has been a wellspring of sentiment and
support from across Delaware, with citizens participating in
hearings and discussions and offering many of the ideas that we
see outlined in the bill. The city of Newcastle has not only
accepted its new role as the site for the park's hub, but has
embraced this new role. As someone who manages historical
properties and museums in Newcastle, I can tell you that the
specter of a national park in Newcastle has brought with it a
whole new level of public support for history and historic
preservation there.
If the park is implemented as designed--and I sure hope it
is--you will find a conscientious and welcoming community in
Newcastle.
Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be
met. Delaware's history is our Nation's history and we need to
tell that story in ways that all Americans can access it. The
fact that we currently do not have a national park in Delaware
would in my opinion not be reason enough to simply create one.
The fact that we have historical resources which the citizens
of our Nation need to see and experience in order to understand
and appreciate our Nation's great history is something we can
no longer ignore. The need for this park is based on the need
to tell our American history thoroughly and completely and to
include Delaware in that enterprise.
I'm a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works
hand in glove with the National Park Service on an almost daily
basis through our work in carrying out the provisions of the
National Historic Preservation Act and through their joint
efforts we have raised the quality of life for all Delawareans.
We consider the NPS to be an exemplary steward of our Nation's
heritage and we are unblinking in saying that they are partners
that we are proud to do business with.
But my admiration for the National Park Service is at its
roots deeply personal. My 16-year-old daughter lives in
Boulder, Colorado, and on my monthly visits to her we have
claimed Rocky Mountain National Park as one of our own little
places. It's a place we visit regularly, sometimes returning to
the same footprints we left on previous trips. These visits
have not only resulted in the 2 of us visiting other national
parks, but more importantly have shown her the value of
conscientious stewardship and the role that each person can
play in preserving our Nation's heritage.
We need to show the children of Delaware the importance of
these values and the passage of S. 1801 gives us that
opportunity.
In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its
passage and implementation and stand ready to assist the
National Park Service in any manner possible. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slavin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Slavin, Director, Division of Historical
and Cultural Affairs, State of Delaware, on S. 1801
Chairman Udall and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks of
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, thank you for allowing
me to submit this brief testimony on S. 1801, which would establish the
First State National Historical Park in the State of Delaware.
My name is Timothy A. Slavin, and I currently serve as the Director
of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for the State of
Delaware. In this capacity, I oversee the management and stewardship of
thirty-four historic properties, comprising 119 structures and more
than 600 acres of cultural landscapes. In addition, I also serve as the
State Historic Preservation Officer and oversee the cultural resources
review of all federal projects undertaken in our state, as well as
other preservation related activities.
I strongly support the passage of S. 1801. This bill is the result
of untold number of hours of public consultations, meetings with state
and private agencies, and conversations with local residents. This has
been a deliberate, arduous, and productive task, and the outcome could
not have been more beneficial or useful.
The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park is
something which is valid for Delaware and should be implemented by the
National Park Service (with passage of this bill). The theme of ``early
settlement'' through ``birth of a nation'' in Delaware is considered by
many historians to be pivotal in conveying an understanding of
Delaware's unique role in American history. The National Park Service
cited this in its special resource study, stating that Delaware
``provides an important lens on the subject of how early colonial
leaders struggled with the notion of breaking free from England'' and
that ``Delaware exemplifies the character of an entirely new nation as
the result of that quest for freedom and independence.'' (National Park
Service, Delaware National Coastal Special Resource Study and
Environmental Assessment, November 2008.)
The multi-site design for the park, likewise, reflects that
history. Delaware's waves of settlement included the Swedish, Dutch and
English, all in different venues across a beautiful and sweeping
coastal area. Under the proposed design, the ``hub'' of the park would
be situated in New Castle, which includes one of the richest historical
districts on the east coast, as well as a community of preservation-
minded residents and property owners who are unparalleled in Delaware.
The ``spokes'' of the park would allow for the important stories that
contribute to an understanding of the early settlement and birth of a
nation theme to be told in Dover and Lewes, as well.
The public acceptance of this proposed project and the amount of
public input and enthusiasm for this bill should not go unnoticed.
There has been a well-spring of sentiment and support from across
Delaware, with citizens participating in hearings and discussions, and
offering many of the ideas that we see outlined in the bill. The City
of New Castle has not only accepted its new role as the site for the
park's hub, but has embraced that new role. As someone who manages
historical properties and museums in New Castle, I can tell you that
the specter of a national park in New Castle has brought with it a
whole new level of public support for history and historic preservation
in New Castle. If the park is implemented as designed--and I hope that
it is--you will find a conscientious and welcoming community in New
Castle.
Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be met.
Delaware's history is our nation's history, and we need to tell that
story in ways that all Americans can access it. The fact that we
currently do not have a national park in Delaware would, in my opinion,
not be reason enough to simply create one. The fact that we have
historical resources which the citizens of our nation need to see and
experience in order to understand and appreciate our nation's great
history is something which we can no longer ignore. The need for this
park is based on a need to tell our American history thoroughly and
completely, and to include Delaware in that enterprise.
I am a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works hand-
in-glove with the NPS on an almost-daily basis through our work in
carrying out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act,
and through their joint efforts, we have raised the quality-of-life for
all Delawareans. We consider the NPS to be an exemplary steward of our
nation's heritage, and we are unblinking in saying that they are
partners that we are proud to do business with.
But my admiration for the National Park Service is, at its roots,
personal. My 16-year-old daughter lives in Boulder, Colorado, and on my
monthly visits to her, we have claimed Rocky Mountain National Park in
Estes Park as our own place. It's a place that we visit regularly,
returning to some of the same footprints we left on previous trips.
These visits have not only resulted in the two of us visiting other
national parks, but, more importantly, have shown her the value of
conscientious stewardship and the role that each person can play in
preserving our nation's heritage.
We need to show the children of Delaware the importance of these
values, and the passage of S. 1801 gives us that opportunity.
In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its passage
and implementation and stand ready to assist the National Park Service
in any manner possible.
Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Slavin. You've obviously done
your homework. You've also made me homesick, given Boulder,
Colorado, is a short distance from where I live. My
grandfather, if I could reminisce for 5 seconds, was the first
concessionaire in Rocky Mountain National Park. My mother spent
many a summer there. So you've further sealed the deal when it
comes to my support for this important legislation.
Thank you for your hard work and the passion you clearly
brought to this.
Mr. Platts, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MARK N. PLATTS, PRESIDENT, SUSQUEHANNA HERITAGE
CORPORATION, WRIGHTSVILLE, PA
Mr. Platts. Chairman Udall, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today in support of S. 349, an Act to establish the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania's
Lancaster and York Counties and along the scenic and historic
Susquehanna River, which we consider our own slice of heaven,
and I hope you'll be homesick for after you hear this. A
special thanks to Pennsylvania Senators Bob Casey and Arlen
Specter for their sponsorship of this legislation.
I'm Mark Platts, President of the Susquehanna Heritage
Corporation, a nonprofit organization and management entity for
the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Region, one of Pennsylvania's
12 State-designated heritage areas. I'm especially proud to be
testifying today with my 1-year-old son Timothy in the audience
to check on how dad does today. We also got him in a tie, which
is pretty cool.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted written testimony for the
record on the outstanding merits of our region to be designated
by Congress as a national heritage area. With your permission,
I'd like to highlight that testimony.
Senator Udall. Please do and, without objection, it will be
included, your full statement, in the testimony.
Mr. Platts. Thank you.
The Susquehanna River was recently named by National
Geographic as ``the mightiest river on the Atlantic Seaboard''
and ``mother of the Chesapeake Bay.'' As a native York Countian
now living in Lancaster County and going to work every day on
the shores of the Susquehanna, I'm proud to share why this
special corner of America merits national designation.
Throughout American history, the Susquehanna Gateway region
and its fertile and scenic landscape have played a starring
role in the story of America. As you learned earlier today, in
2008 the National Park Service reviewed our national heritage
area feasibility study report and agreed with this assessment,
determining that the region meets the criteria for
Congressional designation as a national heritage area. It
clearly has national important resources and stories to share.
We're pleased to have this important endorsement of our
region's place in America's story and we think it's quite a
story. Our region's history reflects events and movements that
truly represent the American experience, many flowing from the
central historical role of the Susquehanna River, one of the
oldest river systems in the world and the longest on America's
East Coast. This majestic waterway flows through the heart of
our region before it enters the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and
has been a corridor of culture and commerce for centuries. It
hosts traces of Native American life in its rock art
petroglyphs, the largest collection of those petroglyphs on the
East Coast, and the archeological remains of their settlements.
It served early colonists as a commercial highway and was once
the gateway to America's ever-moving frontier. It also almost
became the site of the Nation's capital and missed by one vote
in Congress or we'd be meeting in our region now.
The region has been a great source of American ingenuity.
The Conestoga wagon and Pennsylvania long rifle originated
here. Robert Fulton, inventor of the first successful
steamboat, was born here and today his statue stands across the
street in the Capitol in Statuary Hall with a model of the
famous rivercraft, which we'll be showing to the kids when we
go over there after this. The first iron steamboat and the
first coal-burning steam locomotive were invented here, too,
further revolutionizing transportation.
Hydroelectric dams were built on the river to provide
power, but they also created major recreation areas that have
made the Susquehanna a valued place for outdoor recreation of
all types.
Our region's Plain People, commonly known as the Amish, are
nationally recognized for their religious values, simple way of
life, and well-tended farms. Their unique customs and the
cultural landscape they have created in our region is of a
scale that is rare, if not entirely unknown, anywhere else in
America, and they attract millions of visitors each year.
A less well known story is our region's role as the seat of
national government at a critical time during the Revolutionary
War. The Continental Congress fled to York in September 1777 to
use the Susquehanna River as a natural barrier to the British
Army, who had occupied Philadelphia. While in York for 9
months, Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union, America's first constitution. I love the
``perpetual union.'' That's really a cool part of that title.
Later our region played a key part in the Underground
Railroad story and local resident James Buchanan, who became
President, and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens emerged as national
leaders in the debate over African American freedom.
The Susquehanna Gateway region is now poised to play a new
role in the national story. In May 2009, President Obama issued
an executive order on the Chesapeake Bay calling the bay a
national treasurer and proposing a substantial Federal role to
protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources,
and social and economic value of the Nation's largest estuary.
Just last week, the Federal leadership committee created to
implement the executive order released its strategy for
protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a
nationally coordinated effort to enhance the environment and
landscapes of the bay, including the Susquehanna River, which
is the bay's largest tributary. Importantly for our region, the
strategy proposes a new initiative to conserve treasured
landscapes of the bay water through broad collaborative
conservation efforts. We believe the national heritage area
model is a proven approach for doing just that and S. 349
provides Congress with ready-made legislation for jump-starting
this initiative in one of the bay's most treasured and
significant landscapes.
Launching this Chesapeake strategy with designation of
America's newest national heritage area along the bay's
greatest river, the Susquehanna, will demonstrate a strong
Congressional commitment to advancing this visionary
conservation initiative.
In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to share
our region's national significance and for the great help of
Senators Casey and Specter in getting us to this important
milestone. Those of us in the region know that our home and our
people have played a special place in America's story and we're
ready to join Congress and the National Park Service in sharing
our stories with the Nation. We ask your support for this bill
and I thank you and welcome any questions or comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Platts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark N. Platts, President, Susquehanna Heritage
Corporation, Wrightsville, PA
Chairman Udall, Senator Burr, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support
of S. 349, an act to establish the Susquehanna Gateway National
Heritage Area in Pennsylvania's Lancaster and York Counties, along the
scenic and historic Susquehanna River. I am Mark Platts, President of
the Susquehanna Heritage Corporation, a non-profit organization and
management entity for the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, one of
Pennsylvania's twelve state-designated heritage areas. The Susquehanna
River was recently named by National Geographic as the mightiest river
on the Atlantic seaboard and Mother of the Chesapeake Bay. As a native
son of York County, now residing with my family in Lancaster County and
working everyday on the shores of the Susquehanna, I am proud to come
before you today to highlight the Susquehanna Gateway region's unique
and important place in our nation's history and share why this special
corner of America merits designation as a National Heritage Area.
a place with a national story to share
According to the National Park Service, ``a National Heritage Area
is a place designated by the United States Congress where natural,
cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a
cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape arising from patterns of
human activity shaped by geography. These areas tell nationally
important stories about our nation and are representative of the
national experience through both the physical features that remain and
the traditions that have evolved within in them.''
Throughout two centuries of American history, the Susquehanna
Gateway region has played a starring role in the development of our
nation's political, cultural and economic identity. Our people have
advanced the cause of freedom and shared their agricultural bounty and
industrial ingenuity with the world. Our town and country landscapes
and natural wonders are visited and treasured by people from across the
globe. The Susquehanna River has served the nation as a major fishery,
transportation corridor, power generator and, most recently, as an
outdoor recreation venue. Our people, land and waterways are essential
parts of the national story--qualities that exemplify the National Park
Service's definition of a National Heritage Area.
The Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, originally known as the
Lancaster-York Heritage Region, has been designated as a Pennsylvania
Heritage Area since 2001. The Susquehanna Heritage Corporation serves
as the heritage area's Management Entity and has a nine-year track
record of successful heritage development activities, particularly
along the historic Susquehanna River corridor, located at the center of
the region. We have attracted substantial state and local public and
private funding support that will more than match potential federal
funding and we have developed a Strategic Plan with a primary focus on
creating an economically vital heritage and outdoor tourism asset based
on the Susquehanna River.
Designation as a National Heritage Area is an important step in
advancing heritage development initiatives for the region. National
recognition will boost visibility and visitation, bring critical
technical assistance and support to the region, and further highlight
and promote the majestic Susquehanna River--its scenic and fragile
river lands, its historic and vibrant river towns, and its special
significance to the heritage and health of the Chesapeake Bay.
national park service endorsement of our region's national significance
In 2008, our organization conducted a public involvement and
planning process that resulted in submittal of a National Heritage Area
Feasibility Study Report to the National Park Service (NPS) documenting
our region's qualifications for national designation.
After NPS staff review of the report, in September 2008 NPS
Northeast Region Director Dennis E. Reidenbach determined that our
region ``meets the criteria contained in the National Heritage Area
Feasibility Study Guidelines for potential Congressional designation as
the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area,`` and further stated
that the region, ``with its strategic location along the Susquehanna
River, colonial history, rich Amish cultural traditions, and
agricultural heritage, clearly has nationally important resources and
stories to share.''
Commenting on our organization's qualifications to manage the
proposed National Heritage Area, Mr. Reidenbach said ``as a valued NPS
partner through the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and partner in a
new National Recreation Trail, you have demonstrated your ability to
build partnerships, attract visitors and bring new recognition to the
region. Increasing your focus on the lower Susquehanna River presents
new opportunities to strengthen the unity, vibrancy and identity of the
region and the Chesapeake watershed.''
As recognized by the Park Service, our organization is ready to
serve as the Management Entity for the Susquehanna Gateway National
Heritage Area. We operate from The John and Kathryn Zimmerman Center
for Heritage at Historic Pleasant Garden, an 18th century dwelling on
the shores of the Susquehanna River, right at the heart of the region.
We are governed by a regional civic leadership Board of Directors that
provides strategic policy direction and oversight to our work. Our
Advisory Council includes almost thirty regional agencies,
organizations, associations, institutions and businesses that also
provide support and guidance. Our programs and projects have included
partnerships with many other regional organizations, as well as local,
state and national agencies. National designation will further enhance
our ability to preserve, protect and celebrate our area's significant
heritage resources and stories.
We are pleased to have National Park Service endorsement of our
region's qualifications for National Heritage Area designation and our
place in America's story--and it is quite a story.
an overview of our region's rich national heritage
The proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area is a rich
showcase for Pennsylvania's long and distinguished role in the
development of the United States, and possesses a nationally
distinctive landscape that contributes to our national heritage.
The identity of our region, particularly Lancaster County, is
strongly associated with the Plain People, more commonly known as the
Amish and Mennonite communities. We are home to America's oldest and
most densely populated Amish settlement. Their aversion to modern
conveniences and ability to continue traditional ways in the face of
tremendous external change and pressure has piqued national and
international interest for much of the past century.
Our region is a striking example of William Penn's doctrine of
religious freedom, upon which Pennsylvania was founded. Attracted by
the prospect of a life without religious persecution, European
immigrants--English, Irish, Germans, Scots--settled in the region,
bringing an assortment of faiths. By the time of the American
Revolution, Pennsylvania was one of the largest colonies, with highly
cosmopolitan communities. Some call our region the first American
melting pot. At one time the edge of the frontier, the region was also
a major outpost for those moving west.
The area's prominent role during the Revolutionary War also
exemplifies its contribution to American freedom. Fleeing Philadelphia
in 1777, the Second Continental Congress convened in York for nine
months, using the river as a barrier from the British. In York, the
revolutionary government debated and adopted the Articles of
Confederation--``America's first Constitution.''
The region's story of freedom extends to that of African-Americans
fleeing slavery. A predominance of anti-slavery sentiment and proximity
to the Mason-Dixon Line helped make the area a significant part of the
national Underground Railroad network and home to national leaders in
the debate over African American Freedom.
Agriculture is among the most distinct aspects of the Susquehanna
Gateway region. For centuries the area has been a breadbasket for the
nation, and its patchwork of cropland is a defining feature of the
landscape. The region's farms are also a backbone of the state's
economy. From subsistence farming by Native Americans, to traditional
cultivation by the Plain People, to modern food production, the region
possesses rich stories of agriculture's past, present and future.
In addition to agri-business, for centuries the region has been a
center for a large and highly diverse collection of manufacturing
businesses--local and international, small and large, new and old. This
tradition of design, production and innovation continues. Some examples
of the goods currently produced in the region are: motorcycles,
barbells, coffins, paper, pottery, tanks, furniture, wallpaper,
violins, tapestries, dental prosthetics, hydraulic turbines, and
cigars. The transporting of goods, which was critical to the growth of
agriculture and manufacturing, also made the region a center for
innovation. From the Conestoga wagon to the first iron steamboat to the
first coal-burning steam locomotive, the area has a rich history of
transportation ingenuity.
why the susquehanna gateway region merits national designation
The research and planning process for development of a Statement of
National Significance for the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National
Heritage Area produced major themes that document the region's
significant place in the national story. These themes reflect events
and movements that truly represent the American experience. The
region's significance is also reflected in its many natural and
historic resources, including one National Natural Landmark, five
National Historic Landmarks, and 329 sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
The region's national heritage themes derive from the central role
that the Susquehanna River, one of the oldest river systems in the
world, has played in the history of the area. The four-hundred-and-
fifty-mile-long river, the longest on the East Coast, flows southeast
through the heart of the Susquehanna Gateway region before it enters
the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. Throughout the region's history, the
Susquehanna has been a unifying element. The natural abundance of
animal and plant life here long attracted Native Americans, followed by
European settlers who transformed the landscape from woodlands into
farms and small towns. The later discovery of coal in the river's
higher reaches, as well as an industrial boom in Lancaster and York
Counties, increased commercial traffic on the river. Ever since the
eighteenth century, both industry and agriculture have coexisted here.
In the American mind, the area is synonymous with Amish culture,
and the beautiful rural landscape they created that still exists in
large parts of the region. Today, those scenic qualities attract
visitors from throughout the United States and around the world.
Although agriculture still represents a significant part of the
area's economy, the industrial base has declined while recreation and
natural areas have grown. The proposed Susquehanna Gateway National
Heritage Area, then, has experienced a cycle in which local values
regarding the uses of the landscape have changed from predominantly
agricultural to markedly industrial, and more recently to a focus on
the natural and historical environment. National Heritage Area
designation will help preserve this nationally important and unique
landscape.
The four major interpretive themes developed for the Susquehanna
Gateway region are therefore focused on the Susquehanna River as a
national corridor of culture and commerce, the area's roles as a
gateway to settlement of America's frontier and capital of the new
nation during the Revolutionary War, the Amish, and the region's place
in the cause of African American freedom.
the susquehanna river as a corridor of culture and commerce
Long before European settlers first explored the Susquehanna River,
Native Americans lived here. They left traces of their lives in rock
art at several petroglyph sites as well as in archaeological remains at
town sites and other locations. Almost 2,900 archaeological sites have
been recorded in the Lower Susquehanna River basin, about half of which
lie within the Susquehanna Gateway region with several listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. When Captain John Smith explored
the Chesapeake Bay in 1608, he journeyed up the Susquehanna and formed
a trading alliance with Native Americans, opening a trade network
extending from the bay to the Great Lakes.
The natural abundance and richness of the Susquehanna that was so
attractive to native peoples eventually drew European settlers as well.
After William Penn received his grant in 1681 and began settling his
colony, the Susquehanna's fertile valley lured European farmers,
hunters, and merchants. The first of these settlers arrived in the
region--at that time America's frontier--about 1710.
Under Penn's leadership, the region was the locus of a unique
relationship with the area's original residents. About 1684, Penn
reserved land on the east bank of the Susquehanna as a refuge for the
Susquehannock and other native peoples who had been displaced. Known as
Conestoga Indian Town, the site became an important place for treaty
making between 1696 and 1762. Benjamin Franklin printed transcripts of
treaty sessions and a pamphlet denouncing the infamous massacre of the
Conestoga Indians in 1763.
The Susquehanna River served the colonists from the beginning as an
important commercial highway to the Chesapeake Bay. Indian paths here
were transformed into roads, one of the most important being the Great
Wagon Road from Philadelphia westward to the frontier. In the 19th
century, canals and railroads enabled farmers and entrepreneurs in the
area to ship agricultural and industrial products east and west to
remote markets. Robert Fulton, inventor of the first commercially
successful steamboat, was born in Lancaster County in 1765 and his
birthplace is a National Historic Landmark. York County's John Elgar
constructed the first iron steamboat in America and launched it on the
Susquehanna in 1825. In 1831, York Countian Phineas Davis designed and
built the first practical coal-burning steam locomotive,
revolutionizing railroad transportation. A York foundry constructed
both Elgar's steamboat and Davis's locomotive.
Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century, rafts and
canal boats floated down the river to the Chesapeake, transporting
lumber, iron, and other products to the wider world. In the river's
towns and hamlets, craftsmen and industrialists established workshops
and factories that made many of these products. In the 20th century, as
both industry and river shipping declined, hydroelectric dams were
constructed to provide power. The dams also created recreation areas
that made the river a place for diverse outdoor activities, especially
boating and fishing.
From a wilderness area to a rural landscape to an industrial
environment to a recreational haven, the river has undergone
significant changes over the centuries that are representative of
similar trends on rivers across the nation. The story of the
Susquehanna River therefore reflects the American experience, including
Native American culture, European settlement, the alteration of the
landscape to rural farmland, the construction of towns, the rise and
decline of industries, and changes in the use of the river from
exploitation and commerce to recreation and conservation.
the amish identity in the american mind
Because Pennsylvania was established as a refuge for immigrants of
all religious persuasions, other denominations quickly followed the
founding Quakers to the colony. Among early settlers were Germans that
included ancestors of what are today called Amish, Mennonites, and
others--the ``Plain People.'' Pacifistic and spurning modern technology
and most worldly things, the Plain People are generally lumped together
as ``The Amish'' in the popular American imagination. Their religious
values, ``simple'' way of life, and well-tended farms speak to the
deepest feelings that Americans have about ourselves and our national
experience: that virtuous, hardworking, humble people can carve from
the wilderness a way of life that is respectful of the natural world
and of their fellow human beings. The Amish seem to personify the
virtues of faith, honesty, community, and stewardship--perceptions that
may be based more on myth than reality but still constitute the heart
of our national image and how we see ourselves when we are at our best.
The German settlers arriving along the Susquehanna in the 1710s
cleared farmsteads and made a landscape that today appears to have been
little altered. In reality, the area is vastly different now in many
ways, from paved roads to electric lighting to the residential and
commercial development. Within the rural areas, however, the hand-built
houses, barns, and other structures, the sizes and patterns of fields
and woodlots, the varieties of crops achievable with horse-drawn plows,
and the farming methods used have created a landscape that is unique in
America.
Elsewhere in America, commercial farming and mechanization
epitomize the term ``agribusiness.'' In the Susquehanna Gateway region,
however, the ancient ideal of the family farm of manageable size seems
to have been achieved and sustained. Whether or not the landscape
created and maintained by the Plain People can accurately be regarded
as typical of the 18th or 19th centuries, it clearly is not of the
present. To most Americans, it looks like the rural landscape of our
dreams: farmland as it ought to be, the Jeffersonian ideal brought to
life.
Today, the Amish and other Plain People of the region are also
frequently the subject of considerable sentimentalism, commercial
exploitation, and intrusive curiosity. Nostalgic longing for an
imagined ``simpler'' past, ignorance of the dangerous and often
backbreaking labor associated with farming, willingness on the part of
some to substitute the imitation for the authentic for the sake of
profit, and the environmental impact of countless gawkers threaten the
very thing that people come to see. Commercialism especially endangers
the landscape.
A balance must be maintained between sustaining the rural
environment that visitors want to experience and the fact that the
community of Plain People is a living, changing one. Some of the people
are moving from Lancaster County across the river into York and other
parts of Pennsylvania, pressured to do so because their population is
growing and farms can only be subdivided to a certain point before they
become too small to be economically feasible.
Many Amish are involved in enterprises other than agriculture:
operating or working in restaurants, baking and canning foods for sale,
engaging in quilting and other crafts, and constructing wooden garden
furniture and playhouses. Although these ``nontraditional'' and
unromantic occupations may disillusion some visitors, such activities
help offset the economic uncertainty of farming and enable the Plain
People to sustain their more traditional ways of life, preserving the
rural landscape for which they have become known throughout the world.
The Plain People are not unique to this region, but the landscape
they have created here is of a scale and scope that is rare if not
entirely unknown elsewhere in America. The people and their landscape
well represent the national story of American agriculture and the way
it has transformed the natural environment.
gateway to the frontier
Close on the heels of Pennsylvania's early English and German
settlers came Scots-Irish immigrants who moved west to the backcountry
in the 1720s. Many settled in western Lancaster County, where they
buffered the eastern settlements from the Indians farther west. The
Great Wagon Road, on which the Scots-Irish and other immigrants
journeyed west from Philadelphia, passed through Lancaster and York,
then turned south at the Appalachian Mountains and led to the
backcountry of Virginia and the Carolinas. By the mid-18th century, it
was one of the busiest highways in the colonies as immigrants from the
Susquehanna Gateway region trekked south through the Shenandoah Valley
of Virginia. They and their descendants populated not only the frontier
farther south in the Carolinas but also the Appalachian Mountains to
the west.
These emigrants from the Susquehanna Gateway region took with them
two local innovations that attained national renown: the Conestoga
wagon and the Pennsylvania-Kentucky rifle. The origins of both are
murky, but the wagon was developed as early as 1716 and was named for
the Lancaster County area where it was created. Built like a small
boat, it could transport large cargoes without shifting, thanks to the
wagon's sloping sides and ends. At first the wagons were used to
transport produce and goods locally, but they soon were adopted for
long-range freight shipping and proved vital to the transport of
supplies into the backcountry well into the 19th century.
The long rifle was developed by Pennsylvania German gunsmiths in
the Susquehanna Gateway region by the 1740s. Gunsmiths from
Pennsylvania through Virginia to North Carolina were soon producing
them as settlers migrated south. Because of their widespread popularity
in Kentucky, the firearms later became commonly known as Kentucky
rifles.
The emigrants also took with them the vernacular architecture that
was their common heritage--especially the log dwelling, the stone
house, and the bank barn--and transformed the backcountry as they had
the Susquehanna region. Their influence is obvious in Virginia's
Shenandoah Valley, which owes them much of its built environment and
landscape, and spread into the backcountry of the Carolinas, the
Appalachians, and beyond, eventually carrying their cultural influence
and independent spirit throughout America.
The Susquehanna Gateway region was a nationally significant gateway
to the settlement of the ever-moving frontier. In the early 18th
century, the people developed a vernacular architecture, a host of
useful and innovative tools for survival and growth, and a sustainable
system of farming that transformed the landscape here. When subsequent
generations emigrated to the west and south, they took with them their
methods of construction, their wagons and rifles, and their
agricultural techniques to likewise transform much of the rest of the
country.
revolutionary turning point
During the Revolutionary War, the Susquehanna Gateway region became
the seat of government for the Continental Congress, the new nation's
executive body, at a crucial time in the conflict. After meeting first
in Philadelphia, then Baltimore, and then Philadelphia again, the
Continental Congress fled to the Pennsylvania frontier in September
1777, where the Susquehanna River provided a natural barrier to the
British Army. The British compelled Congress to flee when their army
occupied Philadelphia after defeating George Washington's troops in the
Battle of Brandywine. Congress convened for a day in Lancaster, then
moved west across the river to York, where it remained until June 1778
when it returned to Philadelphia. While in York, Congress achieved a
major objective of national significance--adoption of the Articles of
Confederation and Perpetual Union, the ``first constitution'' of the
United States of America. Originally presented to Congress for
consideration in 1776, Congress approved the Articles in November 1777
while holding its sessions in the York County courthouse and sent
copies to the states for ratification, which was completed in 1781.
While Congress concluded debate on the Articles at York,
Washington's army suffered defeat at Germantown and American general
Horatio Gates forced General John Burgoyne's British army to surrender
at Saratoga. Washington and his army huddled for the winter of 1777-
1778 at Valley Forge. In February 1778, France and America signed
treaties of alliance that the Congress at York ratified in May. Thomas
Paine buoyed American spirits when he published The American Crisis,
Number V, in March 1778, in Lancaster, and his letter ``To the People
of America,'' appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette in June when the
newspaper was published in York. With the British evacuation of
Philadelphia in June, Washington fought them to a draw at Monmouth, New
Jersey and Congress moved back to Philadelphia.
Later, in 1781, as the colonies neared success in the struggle for
independence, an American prisoner-of-war camp was established near
York in 1781. Known as Camp Security, the facility operated until 1783
and housed British soldiers who had surrendered at Saratoga. One of the
few remaining revolutionary prisoner-of-war sites surviving in the
United States, Camp Security is threatened by development. The American
Battlefield Protection Program, in its 2007 Report to Congress on the
Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the
United States, listed Camp Security as a highly threatened and
important site.
The Susquehanna Gateway region is one of only four locations to
serve as the capital of the United States during the struggle for
independence. There, during its meetings in York, the Continental
Congress completed its debates on the Articles of Confederation and
disseminated it to the states for ratification. The region is therefore
nationally significant as the birth site of the new nation's first
governing document. In addition, it was while Congress was in York that
the victory at Saratoga occurred, the Continental Army matured at
Valley Forge, and France entered the war as an American ally. This
often-overlooked moment of American history at York was when the young
nation turned a critical corner on the road to independence.
the cause of african american freedom
Two additional Susquehanna Gateway stories contribute to the
region's national significance: the area's part in the Underground
Railroad and the role that two local residents played as national
leaders--James Buchanan and Thaddeus Stevens.
Pennsylvanians, especially Quakers and Plain People, were
instrumental in development of the Underground Railroad. Those escaping
slavery arrived by boat, traveling secretly up the Susquehanna River,
or on foot. They found many residents, both black and white, eager to
help. Fugitive slave laws passed by Congress in 1793 and with the
Compromise of 1850 enraged Northerners who opposed slavery. They saw
the act as a violation of states' rights and the principles of liberty.
When legislative appeals and litigation failed, some antislavery
advocates resorted to direct action, hiding fugitives, breaking into
jails to free them, and even resisting with violence.
An episode in eastern Lancaster County in September 1851, was one
of the deadliest instances of violent resistance to slavery and
provoked a national outcry. It began when ``slave-catchers'' surrounded
the house of a black man near Christiana. The group included a Maryland
slaveholder who failed to identify the man as the fugitive being
sought. Armed local residents soon surrounded the group, shots were
fired, the slaveholder was killed and his son and several others were
wounded. More than two dozen black and white men and women were later
arrested, charged with treason for interfering with the application of
the law, tried in Christiana, and acquitted. The Christiana resistance
became a national cause celebre.
Two national leaders in the Slavery debates of the 1850s-1860s were
Lancaster residents James Buchanan and Thaddeus Stevens. Buchanan,
United States President from 1857 to 1861, was regarded as a Northern
man with Southern sympathies who supported slaveholders' rights and
despised abolitionists. He also thought secession was illegal, along
with using military power to stop it. Although most historians conclude
that his presidency was a failure for not stopping the slide toward
secession, it is unclear what he could have done to prevent it. After
Buchanan left office, he returned to Wheatland, his home in Lancaster,
where he became the first former president to write his memoirs.
Wheatland is now a designated National Historic Landmark.
Thaddeus Stevens, born in Vermont, settled in Lancaster in 1815. He
served in Congress from 1849 to 1853 and from 1859 until his 1868
death. Ardently antislavery in his convictions, Stevens was active in
the Underground Railroad and became a leader of the ``Radical
Republicans'' during the Civil War. He advocated total war against the
south, was an architect of Reconstruction and the Constitution's 14th
Amendment, and helped lead the impeachment movement against President
Andrew Johnson in 1868. After Stevens died in 1868, his body lay in
state in the Capitol and was buried in a Lancaster cemetery chosen
because it was not ``limited as to race.'' His house and law office in
Lancaster are being restored as a museum complex.
community support for sharing our nationally-significant stories
Beyond our region's compelling stories of national significance, to
be considered as a National Heritage Area the National Park Service
also says that ``...a strong base of local, grassroots support is
essential...with the visible involvement and commitment of key
constituencies.'' Public participation has been crucial to the success
of the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area. We have demonstrated that
strategic engagement of the public is the most effective means of
raising awareness about the heritage area's mission and goals and
building a broad base of support.
Our successful record of public involvement is reflected in strong
community support for designation of the region as a National Heritage
Area, with a broad cross-section of regional constituencies providing
statements of support for national designation in our Feasibility Study
Report. These include: our Board of Directors, made up of regional
business, government and civic leaders; the Lancaster and York County
Boards of Commissioners, representing bi-partisan regional political
leadership; and our Advisory Council, representing historical societies
and museums, historic preservation and land conservation trusts,
downtown revitalization groups, convention and visitors bureaus,
planning commissions, parks departments, chambers of commerce and
hospitality businesses. These endorsements reach beyond those signing
the statements, bridging to thousands of residents and hundreds of
businesses that their organizations represent across the heritage area.
We also planned and conducted community meetings to garner input
about national designation from our strong regional partnership
network, including residents, government, community groups, non-profits
and private businesses. These well-attended gatherings helped us look
at the heritage area through the lens of national significance, define
the region's unique national stories, identify significant assets and
demonstrate local support for national designation. The contributions
received at the meetings proved to be of tremendous value to the
overall process and produced a clear consensus that National Heritage
Area designation has strong public support and is the right approach
for our region.
The boundaries of the proposed National Heritage Area, which
include all of Lancaster and York Counties with the Susquehanna River
corridor at the center, also received strong support from participants
at the community meetings conducted to discuss the region's potential
national designation.
why national heritage area designation is important for our region
Building on our success as a state heritage area, national
designation will help expand our activities to a larger, national
audience and make our stories and resources part of the National Park
Service interpretive and marketing network. Support for heritage area
programs--and the recognition that comes with national designation--
will elevate the status of our region and identify the area as a place
for visitors to experience rich and authentic national history.
As a National Heritage Area, the many cultural, historic and
natural resource organizations in the region will also be eligible for
additional technical assistance and grants, providing much-needed
support for historic resource conservation, interpretation, education,
planning and recreational development. Such support will help regional
partners invest in new interpretive initiatives focused on our
nationally significant stories, ensuring that the region's impact and
influence on the nation is shared with residents and visitors more
effectively. Most significantly, these new resources will help reduce
the risk of nationally significant resources being degraded or lost.
National designation will also help create an economically vital
heritage and outdoor tourism asset based on the Susquehanna River by
boosting visibility and visitation and bringing new technical
assistance and support to the area through the National Park Service.
This will enhance economic development activity centered on heritage
and outdoor tourism and help the river corridor reach its true
potential as a place for national learning and recreation.
As a National Heritage Area, the region will also have greater
ability to strengthen its powerful network of partnerships, raise and
distribute funds, and otherwise work to implement heritage development
goals. For its part, the National Park Service will receive extensive
leverage for its investment in our work by embracing and incorporating
into its national system an established, successful heritage area with
nationally significant stories and resources that will enhance the
offerings currently available in existing national parks and heritage
areas.
our newest place in the american story--a treasured landscape of the
chesapeake bay
The Susquehanna Gateway region is poised to play a new role in the
national story. In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order
13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. This first-ever
presidential directive on the bay called the Chesapeake a ``national
treasure'' and proposed an enhanced federal role ``to protect and
restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and
economic value of the nation's largest estuarine ecosystem.'' The
Executive Order established a Federal Leadership Committee for the
Chesapeake Bay that just last week, on May 12, 2010, released its
Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, a
nationally coordinated effort to save the environment and landscapes of
the bay and its watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Strategy proposes a new initiative by the
National Park Service to conserve treasured landscapes of the bay
watershed through partnership areas--broad, collaborative conservation
efforts in priority landscapes. The National Heritage Area model
provides a proven approach for doing just that, and the Susquehanna
Gateway National Heritage Area Act provides ready-made legislation for
jump-starting this important initiative in one of the bay watershed's
most historically and environmentally significant landscapes.
National Heritage Area designation of the Susquehanna Gateway
region--including our reach of the bay's largest tributary--will
significantly enhance recognition of the Susquehanna's important
relationship to the Chesapeake. National recognition of our region--
much of it the scenic, recreational and historical equivalent of a
National Park only 90 minutes from where we sit today--will provide new
resources for protecting the river's natural and cultural landscape. It
will help raise public awareness of the need to improve river and bay
environmental quality and preserve their natural and cultural heritage
for the benefit of current and future generations.
Launching the Chesapeake Strategy with designation of America's
newest National Heritage Area along the bay's greatest river will
signal a commitment to this new national initiative.
in closing
Thank you again for this opportunity to share our region's national
significance with the Subcommittee. We ask for your support and
advocacy for the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act. Those
of us in the region know that our home and our people have played a
special place in America's story, and we are ready to join Congress,
the National Park Service, and the rest of the National Heritage Area
Network in sharing our stories with the nation. I welcome any questions
that you and your colleagues may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Your enthusiasm's contagious and
the history of the Susquehanna region is important and very,
very significant. As a casual--well, I'd say more than a casual
student of American history; your recitation of the important
events reminded me again of the crucial role that the people of
Pennsylvania played and the region itself did. So I look
forward to working with you.
I know Senator Casey would have liked to have been here and
I know Senator Boxer as well, who had a bill on the agenda.
The cloture vote's under way. I think I have--I don't
necessarily want to pick between 3 important testifiers here,
but I might ask Commissioner Moomaw. You talked about how you
believe a national monument would increase tourism. How
significant is tourism to the economy of Archuleta County?
Mr. Moomaw. Tourism really, tourism is our economic
priority. The other 2 legs of the economic thing, construction
and real estate, are also tourism-driven. So we are a total
tourism-driven economy and we are trying to diversify that, but
that will still remain our primary economic driver.
Senator Udall. I would note for the record that Chaco
Canyon is well known, Mesa Verde is well known. I would
anticipate that Chimney Rock would become well known. You're
right, it's a trifecta that once the national monument
designation is attached I think we'll see even greater travel
to those 3 sites and greater understanding and knowledge, and
then the support to the local economy that would result. I look
very much forward to this becoming a reality.
I wanted to do something quite unusual. Roy Jones, who was
not present when I made some comments about him earlier, has
returned, and he does have a great reach. David Brooks, the
staff director of the subcommittee, served with Roy over on the
House side when Roy was the deputy staff director, and
everything he knows he attributes to Roy. So I want to again
thank Roy for his public service and his passion for America's
public lands and special places.
At some risk, I want to just--Mr. Slavin, I asked Mr.
Whitesell about the fact that none of the sites in the park
would be owned by the Federal Government. What do you see as
the Park Service's role, given that's the plan?
Mr. Slavin. I would echo what the gentleman said from the
National Park Service. We're looking to them to be the kind of
primary sponsor of the park, to guide us with the
interpretation themes, with some of the standards for
interpretation. But there are a ready number of volunteer
organizations and not-for-profit organizations and my own
division standing at the ready to pick up those interpretive
programs and put them in place.
Senator Udall. Mr. Platts, I probably should go, but what
I'd like to ask you to do for the record is provide some
examples of the types of activities that your organization's
been involved in to help care for the historic areas. If you
would submit those for the record, I'd really appreciate it,
and I will make a point of learning even more from what you
submit in addition to your testimony.
Let me thank you each again for making the trip down to
your Nation's capital. Some members of the committee may submit
additional questions in writing, and if so we may ask you to
submit questions for the record. I know you have no problem
with that. We'll keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to
receive any additional comments.
With that, again thank you very, very much for taking the
time, and the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Murkowski
s. 3303
Findings
Question 1. Please provide the committee with a list of the
archeological resources and values that will be protected if this
legislation is signed into law.
Answer. The proposed monument features archaeological resources
showing occupation by the late A.D. 800s, with most intensive
occupation occurring during the Chaco florescence during the Pueblo II
period (A.D. 900-1150). The Chimney Rock community was on the
northeastern edge of the larger Chaco world that began to coalesce in
the late A.D. 900s, and most sites within the proposed Chimney Rock
National Monument date to the Pueblo II period. Chimney Rock has been
called the ``ultimate outlier'' as it provides an excellent example of
a Chacoan outlier; and can provide information on a broad range of
issues ranging from prehistoric economics to astronomy and their
interrelationships.
The Chimney Rock complex is composed of clusters of residential
structures or ``villages'' and smaller sites which cover the time range
of 850--1125 A.D. during the Ancestral Puebloan cultural development
periods defined as Pueblo I and Pueblo II. Eight large villages are
within the proposed national monument boundary; these are East Slope,
Stollsteimer, Pyramid Mountain, Ravine, North Piedra, South Piedra,
High Mesa, and Peterson Gulch.
The people at Chimney Rock grew corn and beans, hunted animals in
the region including deer and elk, and gathered wild plants for food
and medicines. Far away from the river, the high mesa dwellers utilized
check dams, reservoirs, and diversion ditches to farm and provide
drinking water. The many resources of Chimney Rock eventually attracted
the attention of the major Ancestral Puebloan center at Chaco Canyon,
93 miles to the southwest.
The population of Chimney Rock seems to have expanded during the
time when the Ancestral Puebloans built Great House Pueblo on the high
mesa top. It is believed that Chimney Rock became part of the larger
Chacoan regional community as an outlier or satellite community during
the time when Chaco Canyon became a ceremonial center to unify a
dispersed population through pilgrimage festivals and ceremonial
rituals. The festivals would have been related to the re-distribution
of goods (corn, timber, pottery, meat, etc.) and ceremonial rituals
related to cycles of the Sun and Moon. Chimney Rock itself could have
been an occasional host to these festivals with its Chacoan Great House
Pueblo serving as focus. Ancestral Puebloans probably used Chimney
Rock's pinnacles in the observation of astronomical events called
``lunar standstills.''
The Ancestral Puebloans moved away from the Chimney Rock villages
and the valleys in the 1100's. No later buildings or artifacts have
been found. Maybe the weather at this location became too cold and dry,
enemies became too persistent, or resources and farming areas became
depleted. For whatever reason or combination of reasons, it was time to
move on.
Many sites within the proposed national monument have experienced
virtually no research. The relatively untouched area has many mysteries
to be unlocked by current and future generations of archaeologists.
Research questions include the relationship between local peoples and
the larger Chacoan world; the role(s) of Chacoan outliers; economic
strategies of the Chimney Rock community; the use of the site by
Ancestral Puebloan astronomers; how and why the site was abandoned.
Please see the list of resources within the proposed monument
boundaries below.
Question 2. Please provide the committee with a list of the
geologic resources and values that will be protected if this
legislation is signed into law.
Answer. Geologically Chimney Rock and Companion Rock attract
visitors, and may have been a factor contributing to prehistoric
settlement in the area.
Long before humans found the mesas and spires of Chimney Rock, this
impressive landmark was created by the forces of nature: millions of
years of slow settling of mud in a shallow sea; gradual drying of the
sea and migration of beaches and rivers across the ancient basin;
thick, humid swamps dominated by dinosaurs and giant insects; the
catastrophic birth of mighty volcanoes and their scouring, deadly
eruptions; slow but constant uplift and tilting of the land; millenia
of glaciers and vast floods as the glaciers melted away; erosion of the
exposed beach sands and ocean-bottom muds (now solidly cemented into
rock). Chimney Rock's twin spires are entirely natural in origin, the
erosional remnant of a thick sequence of sedimentary rock laid down in
the late Cretaceous Period, from about 100-70 million years ago. The
oldest rocks exposed in the area (to the north of Chimney Rock) are the
terrestrial and marine-shoreline sandstones and siltstones of the Mesa
Verde Group; above these beds lies the shallow sea-bottom Lewis Shale,
which forms the slopes and canyons of the Chimney Rock area. The shales
are capped by the tidal, beachfront, and river sand layers of the
Pictured Cliffs Sandstone. It is this unit that forms the mesa tops and
dramatic stone pillars of the Chimney Rock formation. Erosion proceeded
to remove the rock layers as they were uplifted. The rising mountains
to the north and other worldwide climate factors altered weather
patterns. From the early Pleistocene Epoch (about 2 million years ago),
glacial periods also affected the climate. It is likely that the
Pictured Cliffs Sandstone was exposed as a narrow ridge during the
latest Pleistocene or earliest Holocene, about 100,000 years ago,
probably as a series of spires and walls and possibly arches. After the
most recent retreat of the Wisconsin Glaciation (about 15,000 years
ago), the most active erosion ended, leaving the twin formation we call
Chimney Rock, standing free of the softer shales and weaker sandstones
that once surrounded and covered it. Fossils of extinct plant and
animal communities exposed within the formation reflect biological
evolution.
The geologic history of Chimney Rock is not complex, and therein is
its strength. It is natural history laid bare, easy to comprehend. The
rock layers are clearly displayed, the sequence of geologic change is
there for all to see. Chimney Rock's geologic value is the simple,
beautiful record of one of the most significant and awe-inspiring
periods of geologic time: the last retreat of the Cretaceous Inland
Seaway, the end of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals, the rise of
the Rocky Mountains, the unfathomable power of the Ice Age glaciers,
the floods of their fading, and finally the arrival of humans, who
would lift in their hands a stone 70 million years old, cement it with
mud from an ocean floor 90 million years old, to build a great pueblo
beside stone towers carved by nature 50,000 years ago, for a culture
that came to Chimney Rock 1,000 years ago, to be excavated 80 years
ago, and admired and studied and pondered today. Such is the span and
reach of the geology of these spectacular pinnacles, and the story it
tells.
Question 3. Is there any potential for the mining of any mineral or
mineral materials to be developed within the boundaries of the area
recommended to be made a National Monument?
Answer. There is potential for: gravel (Andrew G. Raby & John S.
Dersch, 1997), coal, tight gas sands (Dakota), oil and gas in Dakota,
and oil and gas in Fractured Mancos Shale Play (Richard E. Van Loenen
and Anthony B. Gibbson, eds., USGS Bulletin, 2127, 1997). There is also
deep wildcat potential in Entrada (pers. Comm.., 2001, P. Leschak). The
Chimney Rock Archaeological Area is currently withdrawn from oil and
gas leasing; other portions of the proposed monument are already
predominately classified as NSO (no surface occupancy) in the San Juan
Public Lands Management Plan Revision and Leasing Analysis released as
a Draft in 2007 and to be finalized next year. The many significant
archaeological resources would make large-scale development requiring
surface disturbance unlikely, as these resources would need to be
avoided or mitigated.
Question 4. Are there any mining deposits known to exist within the
boundaries of the proposed monument that could be utilized in the
manufacturing of any renewable energy equipment such as solar panels,
batteries, wind mills, or machinery that could be used to convert
biomass into heat, electricity, or biogases?
Answer. No mining deposits that could be utilized in the
manufacturing of any renewable energy equipment are known to exist.
Question 5. What is the potential for solar development in the
proposed monument if the designation is not applied?
Answer. The area currently has one solar powered restroom facility,
an indication that solar power can be effectively used on a limited
basis within the area. Potential for commercial solar development
within the proposed monument boundaries is limited. The area includes
many steep slopes which would make development difficult; there is no
large area flat enough to establish an array of solar receptors. The
many significant archaeological resources would also make large-scale
development unlikely, as these resources would need to be avoided or
mitigated.
Question 6. Please provide a list of all flora and fauna known to
exist within the boundaries of the proposed national monument and
indicate which, if any, are either listed as threatened, endangered, or
candidate species by either the Federal or State government?
Answer. The vegetative community around the cuesta is somewhat
unusual, with some southern desert species located on or near the
archaeological sites. A species of cholla cactus has been identified at
the High Mesa site which does not occur naturally outside of the Sonora
Desert and is suspected to be associated with deliberate cultivation
practices of the Ancestral Puebloan culture. The long narrow slope (45
degrees or steeper) flanking the northern edge of the cuesta hosts a
regenerating forest cover of warm-dry mixed conifer (Colorado blue
spruce, Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce) typical of the forest cover
known from soil studies to have been ubiquitous in the area before
human settlement some 1,000 years ago, but now totally replaced by
ponderosa pine, juniper, Gambel oak and pinon except for this narrow
relict vegetation zone. The pinon forest cover itself is of interest:
it is almost certainly a result of the human occupation, covering a
small zone on the High Mesa coincident with the High Mesa Village site
at about 7,200 feet elevation. Dendrochronology studies by the Arizona
Tree-Ring Laboratory in the early 1990's showed that the mature pinon
pine trees began growing on the site between 400 and 600 years ago,
close to halfway back to the Ancestral Puebloan occupation period
(about A.D. 950 to 1125).
Broad- and narrow-leaf yucca and other ``desert'' species occur
across the upper mesa and cuesta. Ponderosa pine with an understory of
Gambel oak and other shrubs dominates the gentler terrain of the
rolling foothills surrounding the mesas. Open meadows dominated by a
mixture of native and non-native grasses are found throughout the area.
Shrubs such as big sagebrush and rabbitbrush are commonly found in
these open meadows. Aztec milkvetch, a Forest Service sensitive
species, is found within the proposed national monument. Other
sensitive species include Philadelphis fleabane, New Mexico butterfly-
weed, Gray's Townsend daisy, and Violet milkvetch. Areas of high
biodiversity significance are also located within the proposed national
monument or nearby areas.
The area provides habitat for many wildlife species of conservation
concern and species that are economically and socially important on the
SJNF. There are 10 Forest Service sensitive species with habitat
present in the area. Sensitive species with habitat present and season
of use include American peregrine falcon (spring through summer), bald
eagle (fall through winter), flammulated owl (spring through summer),
Lewis' woodpecker (spring through fall), northern goshawk (year-round),
olive-sided flycatcher (spring through summer), fringed myotis (spring
through summer), spotted bat (spring through summer), Townsend's big-
eared bat (spring through summer), and Gunnison's prairie dog (year-
round). Peregrine falcons have occupied the area for over 20 years,
nesting on Companion Rock; the Peregrine falcons can often be seen from
the Great House area. Bald eagles occupy the area from fall through
winter feeding largely on big game carrion and fish from the Piedra
River. Flammulated owls and olive-sided flycatchers are migratory birds
that breed in the area during summer. The Lewis' woodpecker is a
primary cavity nester that nests in dead or live trees along forest
edges. The fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend's big-eared bat
may utilize the areas rock spires, outcrops, or canyons for roosting,
while foraging in adjacent grasslands and conifer forests. Gunnison's
prairie dog is mostly associated with grassland openings on generally
flat or very gentle terrain. Steep canyons within the area provide
marginally suitable habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO), a
federally listed species. MSO surveys have been conducted in the area,
but there have been no detections to date. State listed threatened
species include: MSO, bald eagle, and river otter. River otters are
present in the Piedra River.
Additional species of interest which could be identified include:
band-tailed pigeon, black-throated gray warbler, Brewer's sparrow,
broad-tailed hummingbird, golden eagle, Grace's warbler, gray vireo,
green-tailed towhee, Lazuli bunting, pinyon jay, prairie falcon,
Virginia's warbler, and violet green swallow. Four species listed as
management indicator species and economically important within the area
are: Black bear, elk, Merriam's turkey and mule deer.
Question 7. Please provide a five year report on the number of game
animals taken by hunters within the game management unit(s) within the
boundaries of the proposed monument?
Answer. The proposed monument lies within Game Management Unit
(GMU) 771. GMU 771 encompasses public, private and Tribal lands.
Hunting on public and private lands is through regulated harvest
managed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Hunting on Tribal
lands is managed by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe via coordination with
the CDOW. GMU 771 provides year-round habitat for many game animals,
but is most known for providing winter range for elk and mule deer. The
most commonly hunted big game animals in the Unit include black bear,
elk, mule deer, and mountain lion. Merriam's turkey is commonly hunted
during spring and to lesser extent during fall. Small game species
present in the Unit include Abert's squirrel, badger, red fox, raccoon,
ring-tailed cat, striped skunk, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed
weasel, muskrat, band-tailed pigeon, beaver, bobcat, cottontail rabbit,
white-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, crow, mourning dove, and marmot.
The following table illustrates the number of big game animals
taken by hunters in GMU 771, for all manners of take on public and
private lands. The data was collected by CDOW and is an estimate of the
total harvest for the GMU. The table also includes harvest of Merriam's
turkey across Archuleta County. Although no quantitative data is
available, GMU 771 likely accounts for at least one third of the total
turkey harvest in Archuleta County due the large amount of hunting
occurring in the Unit. Harvest data is unavailable for most small game
species. Data relevant to small game species is generally limited and
provided across much larger geographic scales (beyond the GMU
boundary). Small game hunting across the GMU occurs at a smaller level
than big game and turkey hunting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAME ANIMAL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black bear * 1 1 3 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elk 154 210 174 141 148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mule deer 322 362 467 369 368
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merriam's turkey (Spring Turkey Harvest) **244 **230 **239 **141 **188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain lion 1 2 * 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*No data available
**Information reported for Archuleta County.
Question 8. Please provide a list of any streams or lakes within
the boundaries of the proposed monument area as well as an assessment
of fishing opportunities within the area?
Answer. No streams or lakes are located within the proposed
monument boundary.
Question 9. Please provide a list of each of the cultural resources
found within the boundaries of the proposed monument?
Answer. The following table shows archaeological resources that
have been recorded within the boundaries of the proposed monument. Over
150 sites have been identified within the proposed monument boundary.
Many areas within the proposed boundaries have no or limited survey and
additional resources could be found within the proposed monument.
Archaeologists generally use two determinations of eligibility,
``eligible'' and ``not eligible,'' as laid out in the National Historic
Preservation Act. However, for a variety of reasons, some sites are
considered ``unevaluated'' or ``needs data.'' In some cases these sites
were recorded prior to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or
were not documented adequately to support a recommendation of
eligibility. The Forest Service as a whole is trying to re-evaluate all
``unevaluated'' or ``needs data'' sites in our system. As projects
occur within the Chimney Rock Area, we have been re-evaluating
``unevaluated'' resources. Within the last five years, approximately 20
sites within the area have been re-evaluated. There is clearly more
work to do. We expect to continue working on evaluating the backlog of
unevaluated resources as projects occur within the area and as time
permits. At this time, there is no plan to address the remaining
``unevaluated'' sites in a single project.
Question 10. Please provide a list of existing or planned
educational opportunities found within the boundaries of the proposed
monument?
Answer. The Chimney Rock Interpretive Program (CRIP) is managed and
staffed by the National Forest Service and volunteers of the Chimney
Rock Interpretive Association (CRIA). CRIA is a pan-tribal non-profit
group whose volunteers offer education and interpretation. CRIA
conducts daily guided walking tours and operates the Visitor Center
during the primary use season, May 15 to September 30. There are four
walking tours daily; these tours last 2 to 2.5 hours and focus on the
sites located on Chimney Rock Mesa. In addition to the four daily
walking tours, there are special evening programs twice per month, a
``full moon'' program featuring Native American musicians and a
discussion of the archaeo-astronomy of Chimney Rock and a ``night
skies'' program which discusses archaeo-astronomy, and planetary and
stellar astronomy. An early morning tour is also held at the summer
solstice to provide the opportunity to view summer solstice alignments.
Additional tours are conducted for larger groups, particularly school
groups; CRIA has an outreach program to local schools where CRIA
volunteers help prepare students for their fieldtrip to Chimney Rock by
visiting the schools and conducting educational programs. An annual
program, ``Life at Chimney Rock,'' is designed to allow visitors
(particularly families) to experience aspects of Puebloan life by
providing opportunities to grind corn, make ceramics, process yucca,
and throw an atlatl. Monthly meetings featuring speakers discussing
local archaeology are also held. Currently preparations for a (2011)
symposium on Chimney Rock and Chacoan Archaeology are underway. The
possibility of CRIA hosting online educational materials on Chimney
Rock is being investigated. Geology tours occur at Chimney Rock
annually. Special tours were offered during the lunar standstill (2004-
2008) so that visitors could view the moon rising between the
pinnacles. Native American dances, organized by Friends of Native
Culture, have been held at the site annually for the last 16 years.
Research at the site (e.g., multiple surveys, fill reduction
excavations conducted by the University of Colorado, architectural
documentation at the site, and geophysical survey conducted by Colorado
School of Mines) also provides educational opportunities to university
students.
The management plan in the bill would address the issue of
educational programs and opportunities.
Question 11. Please provide a list of each of the recreational
activities that currently occurs within the proposed monument and an
assessment of whether recreational uses will increase of decrease for
each activity if the monument is designated?
Answer. (see table).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Use if
Current Activity National Monument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archaeological Visitation/Interpretation Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astronomical Interpretation Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geological Interpretation Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiking Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bicycling Same to minor increase*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting Same to minor decrease*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horseback Riding Same to minor increase*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Skiing Same**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snowshoeing Same**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*predominately local visitors
**predominately local visitors; could decrease if road was kept open
year-round
Question 12. Please provide a list of new recreational activities
that could occur within the national monument (if designated) and
whether or not the new uses would reduce similar recreational
activities on non-monument lands in the area?
Answer. None anticipated. The management plan in the bill would
address the issue of recreational opportunities.
Question 13. Please describe each of the visual resources that can
be seen within the monument (if designated) and whether similar visual
resources exist within the county or counties where the proposed
monument is located?
Answer. See questions/answers 1, 2, 6, 9, 20, and 21. There are no
similar visual resources within the county that exists.
Question 14. What exactly are the scenic values within the proposed
national monument?
Answer. See questions/answers 1, 2, 6, 9, 20, and 21.
Question 15. Does the forest have a scenic value rating system, and
if so, how do the scenic values within the proposed monument compare to
those within the surrounding National Forest?
Answer. Yes. On lands administered by the Forest Service, the Draft
Land Management Plan identifies five Scenic Integrity Levels (SIL)
through the Forest Service Scenery Management Plan: (Very High SIL,
High SIL, Moderate SIL, Low SIL, and Very Low SIL). Scenic classes and
constituent information about landscape values are used to determine
the extent, quality, and location of desired scenery conditions.
Generally, Very High or High Scenic Integrity levels are assigned to
Wilderness and other congressionally designated areas. Other
surrounding management areas will be assigned a scenic integrity level
that is consistent with the desired condition. Scenic integrity is used
as a measure of existing scenic condition. The existing Chimney Rock
Archeological Area is rated as ``High.'' This refers to landscape where
the valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be
present; however, they must repeat form, line, color, texture, and
pattern common to the landscape character so completely, and at such
scale, that they are not evident. The majority of the remaining area
within the proposed National Monument boundary is also rated as
``High.'' The area to the west referred to as Peterson Mesa is rated as
``Moderate''--this refers to landscapes where the valued landscape
character appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain
visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.
Question 16. What existing expertise does the Forest Service have
to interpret this resource of this proposed monument for the public?
Answer. The Forest Service together with local volunteers has been
interpreting the site for the last 16 years. The Forest Service has
many professionals on staff with experience in interpretive programs
and archaeology. For example, the current District Archaeologist holds
a Ph.D. in Anthropological Archaeology, has worked in archaeology for
over 25 years, has served as a college professor, has been certified as
a teacher at the primary and secondary level, and has helped develop
educational programs (as part of this and previous jobs). The San Juan
National Forest and Southwestern Colorado BLM units (including Canyons
of the Ancients National Monument) are managed jointly out of the
Public Lands Center (Durango). Personnel managing the site already meet
with other professionals managing Chacoan Sites (e.g., from Chaco
National Park the BLM) annually as part of the Chacoan Interagency
Management Group. These meetings discuss interpretation and other
issues of site management.
The Forest Service and CRIA have worked together to develop a
handbook for interpreters and conduct a two-day annual orientation for
all volunteers at the site. Many volunteer tour guides have been
working at the site for many years (some since interpretation at the
site began 16 years ago). Mentoring and monitoring programs are in
place to assure that visitors are offered quality interpretation.
Visitor comments at Chimney Rock indicate that many visitors feel the
interpretive program at this site compares favorably to those at other
local sites (e.g., Mesa Verde and Aztec Ruins).
Question 17. How many and what would the cost of hiring the
additional interpreters to provide the 7 days a week interpretive
services proposed for this monument?
Answer. Up to this point, the interpretive program at Chimney Rock
has been largely staffed with volunteers. Tours at the site are
currently provided by the CRIA, a non-profit organization with over 70
active volunteers. CRIA conducts interpretive activities at the site
under a Special Use Permit for Campground and Related Granger-Thye
Concessions. CRIA works very closely with the Forest Service in
providing services and training interpreters. They collect minimal fees
and sell some items (e.g., t-shirts and books) to help meet their
costs. The services provided by the volunteers at Chimney Rock last
year are valued at over $250,000. The San Juan National Forest made
this valuation, based on the number of hours that volunteers put in at
the site and the approximate pay-grades that would have been required
to accomplish the same tasks (GS 03 to GS 09).
Although some staffing needs might develop were the site to become
a National Monument, the Forest Service would anticipate continuing to
work with our dedicated volunteers to provide services at Chimney Rock
into the future. Ultimately, management and staffing decisions would be
addressed in the management plan required by the bill, but will be
limited to existing resources upon enaction
Question 18. Will this proposed monument need additional facilities
such as an interpretive center or upgrades to existing facilities, if
so, what will be the cost to build these new or improved facilities?
Answer. The CRIA has developed a long-term wish list of site
facilities. The wish-list includes: an interpretive center capable of
displaying artifacts, a parking lot (near the lower parking area) with
additional RV parking, improvements to the lower restrooms including
running water, shuttle service from the lower parking lot area to the
sites, hiking trails near the lower parking area, construction of a
pithouse near the lower parking area, hiking trail from lower parking
to the site, upgraded signage, some shade and/or benches on the upper
trail, hand rails on a difficult portion of the upper trail. While the
local interpretive association has put together a logical set of needed
improvements, the management plan to be prepared by the Forest Service
would ultimately address which (if any) of these site improvements
within the confine of existing resources, if enacted would be pursued.
Question 19. Given the archeological resources sited in the
findings of this bill; why shouldn't this monument be turned over to
the Park Service for inclusion in the National Park System?
Answer. Managing cultural resources falls within the Forest Service
mandate and is well within our capabilities. Our management of Chimney
Rock, particularly our collaboration with the non-profit Chimney Rock
Interpretive Association and volunteers, has helped the site gain the
recognition and the reputation it currently has as an interpretive area
and demonstrates our ability to manage the archeological resource. The
Forest Service currently manages six national monuments (one jointly
with the BLM). The proposed Chimney Rock National Monument falls within
our San Juan Public Lands offices where the San Juan National Forest is
jointly managed with Bureau of Land Management-administered lands under
the authority of Service First. The San Juan Public Lands offices
include BLM's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, meaning that
this particular administrative unit already has a great deal of
experience in managing world-class archaeological resources. The San
Juan National Forest would continue to manage lands adjacent to the
proposed Chimney Rock monument. Many visitors to the site provide
comments expressing their appreciation for a management and
interpretive approach that provides an alternative to regional National
Park Service units.
Question 20. Please provide the Committee with a detailed
description of the specific geological and astronomical time resources
within the proposed monument and describe how the Forest Service would
interpret the astronomical time resources to the public?
Answer. Geological features, astronomy, and archaeology intersect
at Chimney Rock. The dramatic pinnacles of Chimney Rock and Companion
Rock probably were a draw for prehistoric people. These geologic
features are visible from all puebloan site groups (villages)
identified within the proposed monument. It has been suggested that the
proximity to the pinnacles and alignments viewed through them is one
reason for the Chacoan influence at Chimney Rock.
The importance of astronomical alignments, and thus views, within
the Chimney Rock Archaeological District (5AA985) has been explored by
many researchers. Important alignments recognized by the Ancestral
Puebloans are expressed in the built environment. The best known
archaeo-astronomical alignment at Chimney Rock is the (northern) lunar
standstill, during which the moon rise can be seen between the
pinnacles (Chimney and Companion Rocks) from the Great House Pueblo;
the lunar standstill would have occurred at 18.6 year cycles and the
two recognized construction phases at the Great House Pueblo (5AA83),
in AD1076 and AD1093, coincide with lunar standstills. Other recognized
alignments include alignments marking the summer and winter solstice
and the fall and spring equinox. The ``sun tower'' was probably a solar
observatory marking the winter solstice over the east slope. From the
stone basin, the Ancestral Puebloans could watch the sun rise over the
north wall of the Great House (5AA83) on the summer solstice. Viewed
from across the Piedra River, at the C-Block Pueblo on Peterson Mesa,
the sun would have risen between Chimney Rock and Companion Rock on
both the spring and fall equinoxes. Another recognized alignment is the
south wall of the Great House (5AA83) with the Crab Nebula (1054 A.D.),
as viewed from the stone basin.
The archaeo-astronomy of Chimney Rock is currently discussed during
standard site tours. Special tours are offered during alignments when
the site is accessible. Special tours are offered at the summer
solstice. Special tours were also held during the northern lunar
standstill (2004-2008). The archaeo-astronomy of the site is also
discussed during ``Full Moon'' and ``Night Skies'' events (offered
monthly during the operating season). Astronomy, in a more general
sense, is the focus of the ``Night Skies'' event; telescopes are
positioned in and near the upper parking lot during this event. Chimney
Rock continues to be in an area with comparatively low light pollution,
rendering the site a prime location for star gazing.
Although specific management of the site would be addressed in the
management plan, these types of interpretive opportunities would
continue. Additional events (e.g., winter solstice and fall and spring
equinox events) could be added.
Question 21. Please describe in detail the geology, ecology, and
prehistoric archeology within this proposed monument, how they relate
and differ to the same resources in the surrounding area?
Answer. The Chimney Rock area is unique within the surrounding
area. The Pueblo II sites within the proposed monument don't occur
across a large surrounding area; the visually striking geologic
pinnacles are within the proposed monument; the ecology, while
generally similar to the larger area, has been culturally modified.
There is a concentration of Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1150) sites within
the proposed monument (and immediately adjacent private and tribal
lands). This concentration, mostly within a mile of Chimney Rock Mesa
and within view of the geologic pinnacles, is unique. This
concentration of Pueblo II sites is the largest concentration of such
sites located in the Upper San Juan Basin. The Pueblo II occupation is
considered a Chacoan outlier and is located 150 km from the rim of
Chaco Canyon and 72 km from Aztec Ruins. The area is the northeastern
most and most isolated Chacoan settlement, and appears to have been
among the earliest outliers constructed. The site differs from other
Chacoan settlements in that it is located in a montane setting, rather
than in the more typical desert environment.
The geologic resources within the proposed monument includes the
pinnacles (Chimney Rock and Companion Rock); while the geologic
processes which formed these features are not particularly complicated
and are similar to those experienced across the larger area, the
features themselves are a spectacular marker on the landscape. The
exposure of these features lays bare the processes which formed them.
It is these geologic resources which probably attracted ancient
settlers into the area.
At its peak, well over 1000 people could have lived within the
Chimney Rock village groups. These people engaged in agriculture,
producing crops of corn, beans, and squash. Agriculture required the
construction of check dams to help provide water. The people also
hunted wild game and seem to have harvested timber during the spring
and summer (most timbers used by Ancestral Puebloans was cut during the
winter). It has been proposed that some of the resources produced at
Chimney Rock were exported to Chaco Canyon, although research needs to
continue in this area. It is possible that game meat, agricultural
products, and/or timber (a key research question given the lack of
large sources of timber near Chaco) would have been exported.
Part of what makes Chimney Rock interesting is that the
archaeological resources are grouped in such a compact area and that
interrelationships between culture, geology and the natural world can
be studied in a setting which has not been substantially re-settled
since the Pueblo II period, leaving appreciable evidence available to
researchers.
Question 22. What studies have occurred within the area that has
not been carried out at other archeological sites in Southern Colorado
and Northern New Mexico?
Answer. The proposed Chimney Rock National Monument contains the
``Ultimate Outlier'' of Chaco Culture - the Chimney Rock Great House
and associated sites. These sites which were part of the Chaco Culture
from 1076 to 1125 CE contain all the architectural and material culture
hallmarks which characterized Chaco Culture, yet incorporated unique
and outstanding landscape and archaeo-astronomical features which are
representative of a wider-Chacoan ``world view.'' Among those sites
identified as Chacoan outliers, the Chimney Rock Pueblo is
distinguished by being the most isolated, the highest, and the most
remote from arable land. (Malville and Putnam, 1993).
In addition to these distinctions, Chimney Rock is uniquely tied to
the essence of Chaco Culture. ``Because of its geographic and
astronomical uniqueness, Chimney Rock may have developed into a . .
.ceremonial center within the Chacoan regional system to which people
periodically traveled to conduct ceremonies and reaffirm social
solidarity.'' (Malville, 2004 p. 17). As stated in the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park World Heritage Nomination, ``Complex religious
ceremony permeated the Chacoan's daily lives, thus reinforcing the
system's effectiveness. Religious features were integral components of
all Chacoan communities'' (1987). Chimney Rock Great House with its
twin spires and astronomical alignments integrated these religious
features in the most dramatic fashion.
Chimney Rock may be the key to providing greater insights into the
Chaco Culture. Questions are still unanswered as to the organization of
Chacoan society and source of its apparent power which created
monumental architecture and a remarkable regional system. Judge and
Malville (2004) have hypothesized that some of the power possessed by
leaders living in Chaco Canyon may have come from their possession of
``esoteric'' astronomical knowledge, some of which may have been
acquired at Chimney Rock. The spectacular sunrises and moonrises
visible from the Chimney Rock Great House may have established Chimney
Rock as a source of calendrical information.
If regularly scheduled regional festivals were held in Chaco
Canyon, at which a dispersed population gathered on specified days, a
regional calendar with an accuracy of one or two days was necessary.
Calendrical information could have been visually communicated from the
Chimney Rock Pueblo to Pueblo Alto via Huerfano Mountain, as has been
demonstrated by Freeman et. al. The observation methodology of the
astronomical calendar and the communication capabilities between
Chimney Rock and Pueblo Alto may have been important elements in the
management of the regional system. (Judge and Malville, 2004 p. 17)
Chimney Rock shares many of the same architectural and cultural
attributes as other Chacoan Outliers. However, in many respects it is
more exciting than other Outliers, because its integration with the
spectacular landscape, archaeo-astronomy features, and what it speaks
to us of the Chacoan World. Lekson (2004) makes a compelling argument
as to why Chimney Rock is the ``Ultimate Outlier,'' and how
understanding Chimney Rock enriches and clarifies our understanding of
the Chaco Culture:
Chimney Rock is at the edge, on the periphery of the Chaco world.
What does the periphery tell us about Chaco as a center? There were
other Chaco style sites, but Chaco was many times larger and
incomparably grander that any 11th century outlier. Chaco alone is
simply an anomaly, a pathology, an aberration. Within a region, Chaco
becomes something like a capital. With the rise and fall of roads,
outliers define the region. But close, in-lying outliers lack
descriptive clarity and rhetorical force. Many Great Houses, surrounded
by a murky sea of smaller unit pueblos, escaped detections through
decades of archaeological scrutiny. It takes a blatant ringer way out
on the edge like Chimney Rock to validate all the humdrum, cookie-
cutter outliers that fill our maps with dots.Patterns show clearest
against contrasting backgrounds. Perched on the far periphery, where
backgrounds contrast the most, Chimney Rock validates the center.
Chimney Rock is one of the strongest patterns in a robust Chacoan
pattern, and the research possibilities are the more promising for it.
This dramatic and isolated place invites some interesting thinking
about design, semiotics, and cognition, because its configuration and
relationships are so strong. (Lekson, 2004 p.viii).
Chimney Rock, unlike many Southwestern prehistoric sites, is unique
in that it was not occupied before the Chacoan Phase, and it was not
occupied after abandonment. Nor has it been vandalized. Therefore, it
is a well defined and preserved ``time capsule,'' presenting an
``uncontaminated'' snapshot of Chacoan culture at its height, without
the obscuring layers of earlier or later habitation found at so many
other sites.
A clear vision and appreciation of Chaco Culture is not possible
without Chimney Rock. The Chimney Rock Great House, Great Kiva, Stone
Basin site, and the Chimney Rock Pinnacles are as equally or better
preserved than most Chacoan Outliers and the complex of sites around
Chimney Rock represents an unparalleled opportunity for exploring the
complex dynamics of an outlier complex.
Referenced Materials
Judge, W. J., and J, M. Malville
2004.--Calenderical Knowledge and Ritual Power. In
Chimney Rock.- The Ultimate Outlier. J. M. Malville,
editor, pp. 151-162. Lexington Books, Rowan and
Littlefield Publishers, Boulder Co.
Lekson, Stephen H.
2004.--Chimney Rock: The Ultimate Outlier. In Chimney
Rock: The Ultimate Outlier. J. M. Malville, editor, pp.
vi-viii. Lexington Books, Rowan and Littlefield
Publishers, Boulder Co.
Malville, J. McKim
2004.--The Ultimate Outlier. J. M. Malville, editor,
Lexington Books, Rowan and Littlefield Publishers,
Boulder Co.
Malville, J. McKim and Claudia Putnam
1993.--Prehistoric Astronomy in the Southwest.
Johnson Books, Boulder.
Question 23. Please provide the Committee with a detailed
description of what opportunities are available at this site to
``enhance the understanding ...Ancestral Puebloans'' that is not
available at other similar already protected areas like Mesa Verde or
Chaco Canyon?
Answer. Chimney Rock is a Pueblo II site dating to (AD 950 - 1150);
this is contemporaneous with Chaco Canyon. Mesa Verde, while also
linked to Ancestral Puebloans, is not part of the Chacoan phenomenon
and was inhabited after Chimney Rock and Chaco Canyon were abandoned;
Mesa Verde was at its peak during the 13th Century. Chimney Rock is the
northeastern-most Chacoan outlier; it was recognized as a Chacoan
Outlier in the Chacoan Sites Protection Act (1992). Aztec Ruins,
another Chacoan site located nearby, is interpreted as having been
built by social elites moving out of Chaco and reflects migration. The
Chimney Rock area reflects how a local population was drawn into the
Chacoan phenomenon. The complex offers us an opportunity to study how
and why Chacoan influence extended into outlying areas and how, in
turn, this community was integrated into the Chacoan world. The
economic relationship between the resource-rich Chimney Rock area and
resource-poor Chaco Canyon is one interesting avenue of study; the
astronomical (and possibly religious) significance of Chimney Rock
within the larger Chacoan world is also worthy of further study.
Establishment provision
Question 24. Please provide the Committee with a description of how
and why the proposed designation will preserve the existing
anthropological, geologic, hydrologic, biological, visual and scenic
resource more than the current land management designation for the area
does?
Answer. The Forest Service may change the administrative
designations. A National Monument designation can only be changed by an
Act of Congress. As currently proposed, the national monument would
also encompass a larger area, bringing Peterson Mesa, where the
important Peterson Gulch site group is located, into the area managed
for its cultural resources. The Chimney Rock Archaeological Area
(CRAA), encompassing a portion of the proposed monument, was initially
defined as a Special Interest Area with archaeological resources under
regulation U3 (regulation/designation since revoked). The CRAA is
currently managed as a 10C area, a revocable Forest Service
Administrative Designation, and is recognized within the Forest Plan.
Although the Forest Service has recognized and managed the Chimney Rock
area for its archaeological resources since the 1970s, changes in
management direction in the future could modify our ability to protect
the resources within the proposed monument boundaries from development
(e.g., mineral development). A portion of the proposed monument area is
currently protected using our management designation; these
designations have helped set the area aside from development, allowing
us to manage it as the special area that it is. The entire area is
subject to current federal law (e.g., National Historic Preservation
Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, National Environmental
Policy Act, etc.). Designation as a monument would recognize the
importance of the Chimney Rock area and facilitate cohesive long term
management/protection of the entire area.
Question 25. Please provide the Committee with a description of how
and why the preservation of the existing anthropological, geologic,
hydrologic, biological, visual and scenic resource will help the public
more fully realize the resources listed above?
Answer. The resources at Chimney Rock are interconnected.
Preserving the associations of these resources helps maintain the
integrity of setting and feeling of the archaeological resources. How
can a visitor fully realize the archaeo-astronomical alignments within
the area without maintaining the geologic (and scenic) values? Other
aspects of setting (e.g., our forested slopes) help visitors understand
the differences between this area and other parts of the Chacoan world;
helping them identify with why this area could have been important
economically. Our wildlife also enhances visitor experience at the
site; a pair of peregrine falcons nest on Companion Rock; watching
these birds teach their fledglings how to fly and hunt has become a
visitor (and interpreter) favorite. The interconnections between the
resources at Chimney Rock enrich visitors' ability to understand the
archaeological resources and enhance visitors' experience with
beautiful scenery and entertaining wildlife. Please see questions 1, 2,
6, 20 & 21.
Question 26. If not designated, what would be the impacts on each
of the listed resources (please be as specific as possible).
Answer. See Question #24.
National Monument status would provide enduring protection.
Designation might also serve to focus management, public, and
scientific interests on the area, furthering our knowledge of and
ability to protect the resources listed. Specific impacts are unknown;
threats are ever-changing.
Question 27. What will be the cost to the Forest Service of the
preservation, restoration, and protection of the existing
anthropological, geologic, hydrologic, biological, visual and scenic
resources within the proposed monument, if it is designated by
Congress? Please provide an estimate of the cost for each five year
increment of the next 25 years.
Answer. Until a management plan is developed, no specific costs for
preserving, restoring, and protecting the resources within the proposed
national monument can be estimated. Current costs associated with the
facility average $485,000 per year; this figure does not include
volunteer time valued at approximately $250,000 per year. Current costs
for running the area include maintenance of facilities (e.g.,
restrooms, roads, and parking lots), site stabilization (including
architectural documentation, moisture monitoring, and wall
stabilization), management and archaeological support, and other costs
associated with managing the area (e.g., fuels reduction projects).
Vegetation Management
Question 28. The bill restricts vegetative management to those
other than timber harvest; is there any commercial timber within the
proposed monument?
Answer. There is commercial timber within the proposed monument but
it is not within the timber management emphasis area as defined in the
current San Juan National Forest Resource Management Plan (1992). Given
the terrain of the area, only a small portion of the proposed monument
has road access that would allow harvesting of timber.
Question 29. As the Forest Service reads this bill will it be
allowed to use chaining or other mechanical means such as disking, to
reduce fuels?
Answer. Section 6(b) allows ``vegetative management treatments
within the National Monument, except that timber harvest and prescribed
fire may only be used to address the risk of wildfire, insects, or
diseases that would endanger the National Monument or imperil public
safety.'' The Forest Service interprets this to mean that mechanical
means of managing vegetation would be allowed.
In order to manage for healthy forests and reduce the risk of
severe fire and/or insect-caused mortality, it will be necessary to
conduct thinning with some periodic removal of timber or biomass.
Reducing the risk of severe wildfire is a critical factor in protecting
the area's cultural resources. The Forest Service will continue to use
all measures to facilitate fuels reduction that are consistent with
current law. Some form of mechanical fuels reduction will be necessary
given that prescribed fire is not an option in portions of the proposed
monument, due to unsuitable terrain and the density of sensitive
archaeological resources.
Question 30. Given past fires at Mesa Verde, what is the likelihood
of the Forest Service using prescribed burns to manage vegetation at
the monument, if it is designated?
Answer. It is highly likely that the Forest Service will use
prescribed fire to manage vegetation in the monument. We are currently
preparing two burn plans in the Chimney Rock Archeological Area. One of
those is a multi-agency burn with the Southern Ute Agency of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. These burns are part of a comprehensive fuels and
forest health management plan for the area.
Question 31. What is the fuel loading and fuel conditions within
the bounds of the proposed monument at this time?
Answer. Fuel loading within the boundaries of the proposed monument
is moderate to high at this time. Vegetation types within the proposed
monument include grassland, mountain shrublands, pinon-juniper
woodlands, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Most of this
vegetation (with the exception of pinon-juniper) is classified in Fire
Regime I or II, that is, historically fires burned through it
frequently (generally less than 30 years). In the ponderosa pine
forests, historical fires were low intensity understory burns that
occurred every 5 to 30 years. No fires larger than a few acres have
occurred in the CR area in over 100 years. As a result surface fuels
are very high, especially in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
forests. In addition, Rocky Mountain and Utah juniper, two woodland
species that are highly flammable, have been encroaching into the
ponderosa pine forests as a result of fire exclusion and have added to
the fire hazard and fuels load. Mixed conifer forests are becoming more
dominated by low-fire resistant Douglas-fir while the more-fire
resistant ponderosa pine is declining. Shrublands are dense with large
amounts of dead and decadent fuel. Grasslands have low fuel loading as
a result of past overgrazing, but invasive species (in particular
cheatgrass) are present in the grasslands and increase the fire hazard.
Recent vegetation management treatments have mitigated some of the fuel
loads and fire hazard (see the next item), however much remains to be
done to restore health to the plant communities and reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic fire.
Question 32. Has the agency done any vegetation management or fuels
management within the proposed boundaries of the monument in the last
20 years? If so how much, where, and at what cost?
Answer. Prior to 2000, very little vegetation management was done
within the boundary of the proposed monument. In 2003 the Forest
Service began preventative spraying of pinon pine trees to protect them
from pinon ips, a bark beetle that killed pinon trees on millions of
acres in the Four Corners area from 2003 through 2006. Spraying
occurred on high value trees along the access road, adjacent to
archeological sites and near the visitor center in 2003 and 2005 at a
total cost of approximately $30,000. In 2004 Forest Service crews
thinned 28 acres near the visitor center and along the access road.
Slash from the thinning was piled and later burned at an estimated cost
of $14,000. In 2008 a total of 414 acres were mechanically treated with
mastication equipment to thin the forest and remove understory shrubs
and ladder fuels. Treatments occurred primarily in ponderosa pine
forests on the north and east sides of the Chimney Rock Archeological
Area at a total cost of $210,024. In 2009, 15 acres of pinon-juniper
woodland adjacent to the upper parking lot and numerous ruins were
thinned and piled by the San Juan Hotshot Crew. Most of the piles were
burned in the winter of 2009-2010. In fall 2009 and spring 2010,
Veteran's Green Corps, managed by the Southwest Conservation Corps
under a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service, thinned and
piled 105 acres in ponderosa pine forests on the west side of the
Archeological Area at a total cost of approximately $25,000.
Question 33. Have any of the trees been impacted by insects or
diseases in the past, if so, by what pathogen and how severely where
they infected?
Answer. In the past 7 years bark beetles have killed numerous pinon
pine, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees. The worst mortality has
occurred in Douglas-fir trees on the steep slopes north of the rock.
Beetles have killed pinon pine and ponderosa pine in small pockets,
especially on the drier, south aspects. These pests are currently
present in the area at endemic levels and continue to kill trees every
year.
Authorized Uses
S. 3303 authorizes the construction of a visitor's center.
Question 34. Please provide the Committee an estimate of the cost
of constructing an all weather road to the site as well as the cost of
a visitor center for the monument (based on the cost of other similarly
sized monuments in 2012 and 2020 dollars)?
Answer. An all weather road (gravel surfaced) is estimated at
$300,000 per mile (2010 dollars). The current road system is closed to
motorized vehicles from December 1 through May 15, as conditions
permit. Given heavy snow pack within the proposed monument boundaries,
it is unlikely year-round operations would be practical. The existing
visitor contact area is approximately \3/4\ of a mile from Highway 151
and the entire length of the existing road is approximately 3.5 miles.
Until a management plan is developed, no specific details on size,
staffing or cost of a visitor center or interpretive center can be
estimated. In addition, a management plan would address the road
system.
Question 35. Please also provide the Committee with an estimate of
the annual costs of operating such a visitor center for the same amount
of days per year as the Mesa Verde National Park facilities?
Answer. It is doubtful that any visitor center at Chimney Rock
would operate year round, given snow conditions on the site; it could
be anticipated that the facility would operate fewer days than that at
Mesa Verde National Park, where some facilities are operated year-round
(i.e., Chapin Mesa Archaeological Museum) and others have comparatively
short operating seasons (e.g., Far View Visitor Center, open mid-April
to mid-October). The current season at Chimney Rock is May 15 to
September 30. The cost of staffing the visitors' center at Far View
currently runs $144,000 for a staff of eight (during the summer
season). It would probably cost at least $259,000 annually to run a
year-round facility at Chimney Rock (this would include a full-time GS-
11 interpreter - $90,000; two GS-05 staff - $70,000; utilities -
$50,000; brochures/exhibit maintenance/educational supplies - $40,000;
office & janitorial supplies - $30,000; and vehicle - $5,000). The
management plan would address specifics such as operating season,
facilities, and staffing, which would be contingent on existing and
available resources.
Question 36. Please provide the Committee with an estimate of the
annual and decadal maintenance budget for such a facility?
Answer. The management plan called for in the bill would address
issues such as potential construction of an interpretive center. No
decisions regarding the construction of this facility or design have
been made at this time.
Question 37. If the monument is designated, please help us
understand where on the construction priority list for Region Two of
the Forest Service such a visitor center might fall and in what year it
might rise to a level that the Forest Service would recommend funding
such a project?
Answer. The management plan called for in the bill would address
issues such as potential construction of an interpretive center.
Question 38. Are the facilities currently located at Chimney Rock
currently within the Recreation Fee program? If so, how much revenue
(gross and net) did those facilities take in during FY 2009 and 2010?
Answer. The facilities located at Chimney Rock are currently
managed under a Special Use permit for Campground and Related Granger-
Thye Concessions. The Chimney Rock Interpretive Association, a non-
profit organization operates the facility and provides tours of the
Chimney Rock Mesa sites. The organization relies on volunteers to
provide services and has used portions of its (net) income as matching
funds for grants for archaeological work at the site. In FY2008, gross
income was $114,520; net income was $20,051. In FY2009, gross income
was $109,390; net income was $33,677. Figures for FY2010 are not
available as the season is in progress.
Question 39. How many visitors per year does the Chimney Rocks area
currently enjoy?
Answer. Approximately 11,000 visitors visit Chimney Rock annually.
Question 40. If designated, does the Forest Service plan on
stationing any research personnel at the site? If so, what is the
annual total cost per employee including, but not limited to, salary,
benefits, retirement, and overtime?
Answer. The bill calls for a management plan to be developed for
the resource. These decisions would be addressed within that document.
No research personnel are currently stationed at the site on a full-
time basis.
Question 41. S. 3303 authorizes the acquisition, consolidation and
display of artifacts. Do federal agencies have to adhere to the same
provisions of the Antiquities Act that the public does? If so, wouldn't
collecting artifacts within the monument run afoul of the provisions of
the Antiquities Act?
Answer. The provision in S. 3303 would allow the acquisition,
consolidation and display of artifacts found within the proposed
national monument. The artifacts would include previously excavated
materials from Chimney Rock. We understand that the intent is not to
authorize the Forest Service to collect currently unexcavated
artifacts, although there may be some additional discovery and
collection of artifacts as a result of necessary maintenance or
construction activities. Federal agencies are subject to a number of
laws regarding archaeological collection, excavation, and curation.
There are many regulations which discuss excavation, collection,
and curation. The Federal Government began to address collection of
archaeological materials with the Antiquities Act (1906); the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA, 1979) clarified and
strengthened regulations. ARPA included strengthened law enforcement
provisions to prevent looting and sale of archaeological resources by
the general public. Additional legislation, such as the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 1966) and Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1992) also address aspects of
how and under what circumstances archaeological resources are collected
and how they are curated. Federal agencies are required to meet and
enforce the provisions of these laws. Federal agencies issue research
permits for excavation and removal of artifacts (under ARPA).
In the event that the Chimney Rock Collections were consolidated
the curation facility would not necessarily be located within the
monument boundaries and could be an existing facility, such as the
Anasazi Heritage Center. Materials from Chimney Rock are currently
curated at many facilities (including the Anasazi Heritage Center,
Denver University, and Colorado Historical Society); having materials
from the site spread through many facilities makes it harder to analyze
the collection. Any facility housing federal artifacts has to meet
specific standards (as per the National Historic Preservation Act).
Question 42. S. 3303 allows for the recreational and administrative
use of mountain bikes and motorized vehicles. Given ``The unique,
thousand-year-old Ancestral Puebloan community located beneath the
prominent Chimney Rock Pinnacles.'' Wouldn't such uses put the
archeological resources at risk?
Answer. This provision would continue to allow visitors to ride or
drive up the existing road to reach the site and would maintain the
existing prohibition of off-road travel within the unit. Off-road use
of any vehicles has the potential to damage archeological and natural
resources. However, it is anticipated there may be times administrative
off-road access would be appropriate in limited circumstances (e.g.,
fire management).
Question 43. One of the authorized uses within the proposed
monument is grazing. Are there currently any grazing permits within the
proposed monument? If so, how many and how many AUMs are permitted and
how many are allowed under the existing annual grazing plan?
Answer. The Peterson Gulch/Mesa area is included in the Turkey
Allotment, which is active. The rest of the proposed monument is not
within a current grazing allotment. The Turkey allotment is permitted
for 127 cow-calf pairs from June 1 to June 30 annually; this equals 168
AUMs. It is fully stocked at this level. The Peterson Mesa area
represents less than 25 percent of the Turkey Allotment.
Question 44. S. 3303 restricts mineral entry, patents, leasing, and
geothermal; please provide the Committee a detailed list of the known
and potential mineral and geothermal resources within the boundaries of
the proposed monument, including but not limited to oil and gas, hard
rock minerals and rare earth minerals, as well as the solar and
geothermal potential of the lands?
Answer. Please see answer to Question #3 regarding mineral
potential. There may be some geothermal potential. However, the thermal
gradient is low and there are no markets nearby. The regional area is
indicated to have good potential for solar. However, within the
proposed boundaries, there is no flat area that is large enough to
establish an array of solar receptors.
Question 45. I see that there are a number of power lines and gas
pipelines that would be encumbered by the National Monument. Would it
make Forest Service management of the area less complicated if we
either: 1) created the monument so those permitted rights-of-way were
remained within the boundary of the monument, or 2) pulled the
boundaries back away from that infrastructure?
Answer. There is a right of way for a gas line (along State Highway
151) that was granted before the Forest Service acquired the property.
There is also a buried electrical line that services the visitor's
cabin. Having these utilities within the proposed monument would not
pose a problem
Question 46. I see in your testimony that you do not think a
visitor center is the correct facility to put in the area if it is
designated. What would the correct facility be and how much will that
cost to construct? And what will it cost to maintain and staff each
year after that?
Answer. A Visitor Center suggests that its primary focus is to
provide tourist information to the visitors who tour a location. An
Interpretive/Education Center has a goal of disseminating knowledge and
providing education. Interpretive Centers do not have the goal of
collecting, conserving and studying objects rather; they focus on
communicating the significance and meaning of heritage. They work to
educate and raise awareness. We believe that an Interpretation/
Education Center is the appropriate facility to meet the goals of the
legislation.
Until a management plan is developed, no specific details on size,
staffing or cost of a facility can be estimated.
______
Responses of Stephen E. Whitesell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
maintenance backlog
Question 1a. Mr. Whitesell, you stated during the Subcommittee
Hearing that the National Park Service takes a number of factors into
consideration when determining if the NPS should acquire new land
despite the $9 billion maintenance backlog. Can you please provide a
list of those factors in order of importance?
Answer. For the FY 2011 budget, the Department of the Interior
looked at criteria to target landscape-level conservation, especially
river and riparian conservation and restoration, and conservation of
wildlife and their habitat, as well as recreational opportunities in
urban landscapes and cultural and historical preservation of
significant events. In addition, the Departmental criteria included
consideration of leveraging nonfederal funds, partnerships, involvement
of other bureaus, and urgency. NPS criteria to prioritize which parcels
of land to seek funding for are based on: threat to the resource;
preservation of the resource; visitor use facility accommodation;
involvement of partners, non-profit groups or availability of matching
funds; continuation of an ongoing effort; recreational opportunities;
and local support for a project.
Question 1b. How will the new acquisitions proposed in this
Subcommittee Hearing affect the maintenance backlog?
Answer. It is not possible to determine the impact that acquiring
land for new units will have on the maintenance backlog until a NPS
completes a comprehensive condition assessment of the newly acquired
land and attendant facilities.
However, we note that some of the parcels under consideration for
addition to existing national park units are vacant and/or contain
significant open space. These cquisitions would capitalize on the
operation and maintenance already in place on adjacent land, which
would reduce maintenance costs and needs. In addition, it is DOI's
policy that the bureaus identify the operation and maintenance costs
associated with the purchase of the land and request that funding in
the budget cycle following the completed purchase.
Question 1c. Will new National Park Units immediately add to the
maintenance backlog if they include structures upon acquisition?
Answer. If the NPS acquires land for a new unit that contains
structures that have deferred maintenance needs and the NPS determines
that the structures should be repaired rather than demolished, those
structures would contribute to the NPS maintenance backlog.
We note that it is DOI's policy that the bureaus identify the
operation and maintenance costs associated with the purchase of the
land and request that funding in the budget cycle following the
completed purchase.
Question 1d. Will land additions to existing parks immediately add
to the maintenance backlog? If so, wouldn't it be wise to pay down the
existing backlog before taking on new obligations?
Answer. If the NPS acquires land for an existing park that contains
structures that have deferred maintenance needs and the NPS determines
that the structures should be repaired rather than demolished, those
structures would contribute to the NPS maintenance backlog. Most of the
land NPS acquires for existing parks is undeveloped, so there is
relatively little contribution to the maintenance backlog from these
new acquisitions.
hunting
Question 2a. Please list the current units of the National Park
Service which allow hunting.
Answer. Hunting is allowed in the following units of the national
park system:
Alagnak Wild River
Amistad National Recreation Area
Aniakchak National Preserve
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
Assateague National Seashore
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve
Big Cypress National Preserve
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Big Thicket National Preserve
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Bluestone National Scenic Riverway
Buffalo National River
Canaveral National Seashore
Cape Cod National Seashore
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Chickasaw National Recreation Area
City of Rocks National Reserve
Craters of the Moon National Preserve
Cumberland Island National Seashore
Curecanti National Recreation Area
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Denali National Preserve
Fire Island National Seashore
Gates of the Arctic National Preserve
Gateway National Recreation Area
Gauley River National Recreation Area
Glacier Bay National Preserve
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Teton National Park
Great Sand Dunes National Preserve
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Katmai National Preserve
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
Lake Clark National Preserve
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area
Little River Canyon National Preserve
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Missouri National Recreation River
Mojave National Preserve
New River Gorge National River
Niobrara National Scenic Riverway
Noatak National Preserve
Obed Wild and Scenic River
Ozark National Scenic Riverway
Padre Island National Seashore
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River
Ross Lake National Recreation Area
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area
Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve
Yukon-Charley National Preserve
Question 2b. Is hunting allowed on any of the land that is being
proposed for new National Park Units? If so, will the NPS continue to
allow hunting?
Answer. First State National Historical Park is the only proposed
new park unit discussed at the hearing. The NPS is not proposing to
acquire any land as part of this park, and so would not regulate
hunting. Hunting, if any, would be subject to State law and local
ordinances.
Question 2c. Is hunting allowed on any of the land that is being
proposed as additions to existing parks? If so, will the NPS continue
to allow hunting?
Answer. Hunting may be allowed on the property proposed for
addition in accordance with State or local laws and with the permission
of the current land owner. The parks whose boundaries are proposed for
expansion, such as Petersburg National Battlefield (S. 2953),
Gettysburg National Military Park (S. 3159), and Fort Necessity
National Battlefield (S. 3168), do not allow hunting, so once acquired,
hunting would not be allowed on lands proposed as additions.
Question 2d. Will the National Park Service pledge not to extend
the temporary hunting closures in Yukon-Charley NPP and Denali NPP?
Answer. A temporary closure to the taking of wolves under the
state's general/sport hunting regulations within Yukon-Charley Rivers
National Preserve expired on May 31, 2010. Any consideration of
temporary closures in the future would be based on facts and conditions
at that time.
The closure to the taking of black bear cubs and sows with cubs in
a portion of Denali National Preserve (and Gates of the Arctic National
Preserve) will continue to December 31, 2010. That practice had been
authorized by the State of Alaska in Game Management Units 19 and 24,
which includes areas within the national preserves. Any consideration
of temporary closures after December 31, 2010, would be based on the
facts and conditions at that time.
Question 2e. Can you please provide a detailed list of formal
complaints received by the National Park Service regarding air
transport service for sport hunters to Noatak National Preserve?
Answer. In January 2010, the NPS issued a competitive solicitation
for big game hunter transport services in Noatak National Preserve.
Five air transport companies applied and received commercial use
authorizations in March 2010. The NPS has limited the total number of
sport hunt clients transported by these businesses to limit conflicts
with subsistence hunters pending completion of a public planning
process to find long-term solutions to those conflicts. Client numbers
were also allocated through the competitive process.
Three companies (Ram Aviation, Golden Eagle Outfitters and
Northwestern Aviation) made formal appeals to the NPS Alaska Regional
Office concerning their client allocations. Those appeals were
considered by three NPS employees who were not involved with the
initial authorizations and who have experience in the areas of sport
hunting, subsistence and commercial visitor services. This panel
recommended, and the regional director concurred, that allocations were
made in a reasonable manner. All of the operators were also asked to
provide suggestions to the Superintendent of Noatak National Preserve
regarding the manner in which the 2011 client allocations would be
distributed.
eminent domain
Question 3a. Would the National Park Service use Eminent Domain to
obtain private land from unwilling sellers?
Answer. Acquisition by condemnation is sometimes necessary to
establish just compensation, to clear title, or to prevent imminent
damage or unacceptable threats to park resources and values. The NPS
would only use condemnation in a manner consistent with any applicable
law and policy. The Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 directs that,
unless otherwise provided, no funds appropriated in the Act for the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended for the
filing of declarations of taking or complaints in condemnation.
Question 3b. Please list the occasions in which the National Park
Service has used Eminent Domain to:
1) Establish new parks?
Answer. There are no such occasions. Unless otherwise specified by
law, the NPS can use eminent domain only within previously authorized
boundaries of the National Park System. National Park System units are
established by Presidential proclamation or by act of Congress.
2) Expand boundaries of existing parks?
Answer. There are no such occasions. The NPS can use eminent domain
only within previously authorized boundaries of the National Park
System.
susquehanna gateway national heritage area (s. 349)
Question 4a. Has there ever been a previous attempt to place the
land in the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area within
a National Park System unit?
Answer. There have been no legislative proposals to place the land
in the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage area within a
unit of the national park system.
Question 4b. Of the 49 National Heritage Areas that currently exist
how many contain land of another land management agency?
Answer. Of the 49 existing national heritage areas, the following
28 areas contain federally-owned land or resources:
Question 4c. When will the Administration submit a legislative
proposal with the criteria needed to evaluate potentially qualified
national heritage areas and the process for designation and
administration of those areas?
Answer. The Administration intends to submit a legislative proposal
that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified national
heritage areas and a process for the designation and administration of
these areas in the near future.
Question 4d. Please outline each specific cost that the creation of
the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area will involve.
Answer. The bill provides for an authorization of appropriations of
$10 million over a fifteen-year period with a maximum of $1 million in
any given year.
Question 4e. Would the National Park Service prefer for the
proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area to become another
type of National Park Unit? If so, what type of unit?
Answer. National heritage areas are not units of the national park
system. Susquehanna Gateway was evaluated under NPS criteria for
designation as a national heritage area. Units for inclusion within the
national park system are evaluated with a different set of criteria,
and the process is separate from a national heritage area designation.
Question 4f. Is it possible for a feasibility study of the proposed
heritage area to be completed by a local entity and submitted to the
Administration for approval thereby avoiding the need for legislation
to authorize a study?
Answer. Yes. In fact, in most cases, supporters of a proposed NHA
work within the region to develop the study, with the NPS serving in an
advisory capacity. If the study is prepared by a local entity, the NPS
evaluates the study to determine whether it meets the ten interim
criteria for designation as a national heritage area.
Question 4g. Are you aware of any other National Heritage Areas
that are proposed for association with the Department of Agriculture?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture was initially the lead agency
for the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership; the NPS assumed
the role as lead agency by a subsequent enactment by Congress.
Additionally, some early bills to designate the Kenai-Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area had the Department of Agriculture
as the lead agency.
Question 4h. Has the National Park Service or anyone else conducted
a study to determine the feasibility of establishing the Susquehanna
Gateway National Heritage Area?
Answer. In 2008, a local entity, the Susquehanna Gateway
Corporation, prepared and submitted the feasibility study for the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area to the NPS for evaluation.
The NPS reviewed the study and found that the area met the ten interim
criteria for designation as a national heritage area.
Question 4i. How many other National Heritage Areas are there in
Pennsylvania?
Answer. There are six existing national heritage areas in
Pennsylvania, including the Lackawanna Heritage Valley, Oil Region,
Rivers of Steel, and Schuylkill River national heritage areas, as well
as the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and the Path of
Progress National Heritage Tour Route.
Question 4j. Will this designation as a National Heritage Area
place any new restrictions on property owners' regarding use or
development of their property?
Answer. No, a national heritage area designation does not prohibit,
under Federal law or regulations, any actions which may otherwise be
taken by the property owner with respect to the property. A national
heritage area is not a unit of the National Park System, nor is any
land owned or managed by the NPS.
Question 4k. Have National Heritage Area designations in any state
had any adverse impact on private property?
Answer. In a 2004 report (GAO-04-593T), the Government
Accountability Office concluded that national heritage areas do not
appear to have affected property owners' rights. The designating
legislation and the management plans of some areas explicitly place
limits on the areas' ability to affect private property rights and
uses. Designation legislation for eight areas prohibited the federal
government from imposing zoning or land-use controls on properties
within these areas, and legislation for thirteen areas explicitly state
that the area's managing entity cannot interfere with any person's
rights with respect to private property or have authority over local
zoning ordinances or land-use planning.
acquisition of gold hill ranch (s. 1596)
Question 5a. What is the estimated value of the Gold Hill Ranch?
Answer. No formal appraisal has been conducted by the BLM, but the
American River Conservancy (which is working closely with local
community groups to raise funds for acquisition) has estimated the
value of the property to be approximately $3.3 million.
Question 5b. Please provide a list of all costs associated with S.
1596.
Answer. The Department of the Interior's known, direct costs for
appraisal, staff processing time, and environmental site assessment are
estimated at approximately $30,000. As for the acquisition of land as
well as construction of any potential visitor center, we expect, and
have discussed with the Conservancy and the sponsor, that funds needed
would come from donations already being raised by the private sector.
Question 5c. How much would it costs to build a visitor center at
the Gold Hill Ranch? When would the BLM plan to develop such a visitor
center?
Answer. No estimate has been given, and the BLM has no plans to
develop a visitor center. If the visitor center authorized in the bill
were to be built, we expect, and have discussed with the Conservancy
and the sponsor, that funds needed would come from donations already
being raised by the private sector.
Question 5d. Please describe how the land and property involved is
currently being used.
Answer. Currently the land and facilities (including a historic
house, a barn, and a small inoperative dairy) are part of a privately-
owned ranch.
Question 5e. If the BLM acquires the Gold Hill Ranch, how will the
use of the land change? How will access by the general public be
affected?
Answer. Acquisition by BLM would change the land use from a
privately owned ranch to a publicly-owned restored historic site. At
present, the private owners do not allow public access to the ranch.
Following acquisition, public access to all portions of the property
would be allowed as a managed use. We expect that most public use will
be in the form of tours of the historic buildings.
special resource study of the general of the army george catlett
marshall national historic site (s. 1750)
Question 6a. When does the National Park Service anticipate
completing the suitability and feasibility study for the General of the
Army George Catlett Marshall National Historic Site?
Answer. The NPS will make every effort to complete the study within
the three years of the date on which funds are first made available, as
the legislation requires.
Question 6b. How common is it to designate a new unit of the
National Park System with[out] first completing a study?
Answer. The majority of areas that have been authorized by Congress
as new units or that were designated new units in the last 15 years
(since the 104th Congress) have been the subject of an NPS study prior
to designation. Units that have been authorized without a study
completed first include: presidential monuments in the Nation's capital
(the Eisenhower memorial and John Adams memorial will be units after
they are completed), presidential home sites (the Ronald Reagan Boyhood
Home and the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace will be units after
they are acquired), special memorials (Oklahoma City, Flight 93), and a
few other sites in exceptional circumstances. For example, Port Chicago
Naval Magazine National Memorial, which was designated a unit of the
National Park System by this Congress, was a congressionally designated
national memorial that the NPS was interpreting and managing under an
agreement with the Department of Defense prior to its designation as a
unit.
Question 6c. Does the NPS ever recommend creating a new unit
without first completing a study? If yes, please list the instances.
Answer. We are unable to find an example in the last 15 years of a
unit of the National Park System that the NPS recommended to Congress
for designation as a unit without it first being studied. In recent
years, the NPS supported through Departmental testimony the
establishment of Port Chicago as a unit of the National Park System, as
well as the establishment of the Flight 93 memorial and the
authorization of the Adams Memorial Monument, all of which, as noted
above, were not studied.
Question 6d. Does the National Park Service foresee any issues in
the course of the study that might lead to a negative recommendation
for designation?
Answer. Until the study is authorized and the NPS begins the
scoping phase, it is premature to identify any issues that might lead
to a specific recommendation.
Question 6e. What percentage of National Park Service Resource
Studies regarding new units result in the NPS recommending not to
establish the new Park Unit?
Answer. In the past decade, about three out of four studies of
potential new units of the National Park System have determined that
the subject area did not meet the NPS criteria for new units and have
recommended not establishing a new unit. Some of those studies have
found that an area might meet the criteria in the future if
circumstances affecting the feasibility of the site change.
Question 6f. Has the National Park Service ever found a compelling
reason in the course of a study to justify designation before a study
has been completed? Please provide a list.
Answer. We cannot identify any situation where the NPS has
conducted a study of an area and has urged designation of a new unit
prior to completion of a study. Under this Administration and previous
Administrations, it has been a longstanding practice for the NPS to
urge Congress to defer action on the establishment of a new unit until
the study for it has been completed.
establishment of first state national historical park (s. 1801)
Question 7a. Is creating the First State National Historical Park a
greater priority than the over $9 billion maintenance backlog? If not,
should we then wait until the backlog is paid down before this new unit
is established?
Answer. The proposed First State National Historical Park, which
has been found to meet the NPS criteria for new units, would be an
important addition to the National Park System. Its designation should
not have to be postponed because there is a maintenance backlog within
existing units of the National Park System.
Question 7b. Please list all the costs associated with the
establishment of this First State National Historical Park?
Answer. The Special Resource Study estimated annual operating costs
for the park at $450,000 to $550,000, which would fund from five to
seven FTEs, and costs associated with completing the general management
plan at $600,000. S. 1801 also authorizes $3 million in one-time
matching grants for rehabilitation of existing structures to serve as
administrative and visitor services facilities for the park and $2.5
million in one-time matching grants for historic preservation,
interpretive devices, and the design, construction, installation, and
maintenance of exhibits.
Question 7c. Please describe how the National Park Service would
interpret resources related to the purposes of the park but which are
located outside the boundary of the Historical Park.
Answer. Interpretation could occur through scheduled activities
conducted by Park Rangers or volunteers at the location of the
resources, wayside exhibits, publications, or audio-visual
presentations.
Question 7d. Can you please list all other parks which have had
one-time matching grants to State and local governments, private
property owners and nonprofit organizations to pay for the historic
preservation of non-Federal resources within the park boundaries?
Answer. Individual park units do not provide grants to other
entities, however, the Save America's Treasures (SAT) grant program has
awarded grants for the preservation of nationally significant historic
properties and museum collections in park units and other entities.
From 1999 to 2010, NPS awarded a total of 1,132 SAT grants totaling
$293.7 million. Eligible applicants include State, Tribal, and local
governments, nonprofit organizations, and federal agencies funded
through the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act.
The NPS has awarded 46 SAT grants to NPS units, totaling $18.2
million. Additionally, the NPS has awarded several SAT grants to
nonfederally-owned properties within the boundaries of national park
system units. These include:
Central High School in Little Rock, AR
Ellis Island in Jersey City, NJ
Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA (Martin Luther King,
Jr., NHS)
Sewall-Belmont NHS, in Washington, DC
Shipyard 3 Riggers Loft in Richmond, CA (Rosie the Riveter
World War II Homefront NHP)
Alcatraz Island Gardens, in San Francisco CA
Question 7e. Please discuss what new construction will be necessary
as a result of the establishment of the First State National Historical
Park.
Answer. We do not anticipate any new construction associated with
the establishment of the park. Existing facilities that would serve as
administrative and visitor services facilities would be rehabilitated
with the grants that are proposed in S. 1801.
Question 7f. When the First State National Historical Park is
established will any resources be immediately added to the maintenance
backlog?
Answer. An assessment has not been completed on the resources
within the proposed park so their status is unknown.
united states civil rights trail system feasibility study (s. 1802)
Question 8a. How much of the land associated with the trail would
be owned by the National Park Service?
Answer. We cannot determine how much, if any, land the study would
recommend for NPS ownership until the study has been completed and the
alternatives have been fully analyzed. We note, however, that the
legislation appears to intend for the NPS to consider a commemorative
trail with little or no NPS land ownership outside of existing units
related to the theme.
Question 8b. How much of the trail is in private ownership and does
the National Park Service plan on someday plan on owning the entire
trail in fee?
Answer. We cannot answer the question of current land ownership
(private vs. public) until the study has been completed and the
alternatives fully analyzed.
Question 8c. When will the feasibility study be completed?
Answer. The NPS will make every effort to complete the study within
the three years of the date on which funds are first made available, as
the legislation requires.
Question 8d. Please list all the feasibility studies currently
pending to be completed by the National Park Service.
Answer. The following table lists the status of the 44 currently
pending studies, as of August 30, 2010:
modification of the boundary of petersburg national battlefield (s.
2953)
Question 9a. How much would S. 2953 increase the size of the
Petersburg National Battlefield? What percentage of the National
Battlefield would this increase represent?
Answer. The boundary of the park would be authorized to increase by
7,238 acres. The current authorized boundary of the park is
approximately 2,739 acres. If enacted the park boundary would become
approximately 9,977 acres. The newly authorized lands would make up
approximately 72.5% of the new boundary.
Question 9b. Will the changes in size of the National Battlefield
require any additions in the number of personnel?
Answer. The park estimates that an additional seven FTE would be
required, based on the park's revised General Management Plan: one for
resource management, two for interpretation, and four for maintenance.
Question 9c. What will the total cost of expansion be?
Answer. If all the lands to be added to the boundary are purchased
in fee simple the cost is estimated at approximately $29.7 million.
However, more than half of the land proposed for addition is currently
held by foundations or non-profit organizations and a large amount of
the land is expected to be donated. Estimated costs for capital
expenses (trails, wayside exhibits, rehabilitation of existing visitor
contact station,) and expansion-related costs (surveys, hazardous
materials studies) are an additional $1.74 million. Development of
visitor services and interpretation at these new battlefield locations
would be minimal and would include small parking areas, wayside
exhibits, and trail and other enhancements to the sites. The annual
increase in operations and management is estimated to be approximately
$484,000. These costs are all in 2008 dollars.
Question 9d. How much of the land in this proposed expansion is in
private ownership and have any of the owners objected to this proposal?
Answer. Of the 7,239 acres proposed in the expansion, approximately
2,714 acres are held by non-profit groups and the City of Petersburg.
Approximately 4,524 acres are privately owned by approximately 192
individual owners. At this time we are unaware of any objections by the
private property owners.
Question 9e. Have any property owners within the proposed expansion
area objected to being included within the boundary?
Answer. Please see the response to question 9d.
Question 9f. How will the National Park Service use the property
that is proposed for acquisition?
Answer. When Congress created the park in 1926, only a fraction of
the battlefield acreage associated with the 26 major battles of the
Petersburg Campaign was included in the original boundary. The
battlefields proposed for addition to the park will allow the public to
better understand the size, complexity, and duration of the 9+ month
Petersburg Campaign and siege while offering protection to existing
park resources.
designate wilderness in sleeping bear dunes national lakeshore (s.
2976)
Question 10a. Approximately how many property owners have in-
holdings within the boundaries of the land designated as wilderness by
S. 2976?
Answer. There are five private tracts that are within the proposed
wilderness, and all are shown on Sheet 4 of the map referenced by S.
2976. None are developed and none have development potential. They are
either remnant linear holdings that originally were very narrow rights-
of-way to parcels long ago purchased by the Lakeshore (three tracts),
or they are a portion of long rectilinear tracts already residentially
developed, where the house lies outside the wilderness boundary, but a
portion of the tract, at a distance from the house, lies within
wilderness (two tracts). We plan to initiate title searches on the
three rights-of-way, as similar tracts elsewhere in the park have been
found to be owned in full by the NPS because we purchased all the
properties they formerly accessed. To our knowledge, no individuals
claim ownership of these rights-of-way. The other two tracts are
accessed regularly by their owners via roadways to their homes lying
outside of the proposed wilderness. Regardless of the likely ownership
of the rights-of-way, we have depicted all five properties as private,
and they retain any and all private rights associated with them.
Question 10b. Are property owners currently allowed to use
motorized vehicles to access their property and will these changes as a
result of the designation?
Answer. Four of the five private tracts are currently accessible by
motor vehicle. Only one of the five private tracts is ``landlocked'' by
the proposed wilderness, and it is not accessible by motor vehicle. It
is a remnant linear holding that originally was a very narrow right-of-
way to parcels long ago purchased by the Lakeshore. Title searches on
similar tracts elsewhere in the park have been found to be owned in
full by the NPS because we purchased all the properties they formerly
accessed. To our knowledge, no individual claims ownership of this
right-of-way. The designation would not change how any of these tracts
may be accessed.
Question 10c. Has the existing general management plan for Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore treated the land as wilderness for
management purposes or will this designation constitute a major change
in land use?
Answer. The park's 2009 General Management Plan calls for the area
proposed as wilderness in this bill to be managed as wilderness. Formal
wilderness designation will not change the way in which land use is
currently managed in the area proposed as wilderness.
Question 10d. Will there be a net loss in hunting acreage? Can you
please provide in detail the agreements that were reached to ensure
that hunting activities in this area will not be affected by this
wilderness designation?
Answer. There will be no loss whatsoever in hunting acreage. The
act that established Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, P.L. 91-
479, specifically allows hunting in the park, and states that it will
be governed by applicable State and Federal law. The language of S.
2976 affirms that hunting will continue by stating in Section 4(a)(3)
that ``Nothing in this Act affects hunting under applicable Federal and
State laws (including regulations) within the Wilderness.''
Question 10e. Please list all activities that will be allowed in
the proposed wilderness area. Please list all activities in the
proposed wilderness area that will not be allowed.
Answer. A variety of recreational uses, management actions, and
certain facilities are permitted in wilderness areas under the
Wilderness Act of 1964 and NPS policies. Among the uses, management
actions, and facilities permitted in wilderness are the following:
The NPS honors legal obligations to make available equal
opportunities for people with disabilities in all programs and
activities. This requirement includes opportunities to
participate in wilderness experiences. While the NPS does not
modify wilderness environments specifically for accessibility,
allowances are made for appropriate mobility devices within
wilderness, and for use of service animals.
Non-motorized recreational uses (e.g., hiking, picnicking,
camping, canoeing) hunting and fishing.
Trails, campsites, toilets, and signs necessary for visitor
safety or to protect wilderness resources.
Emergency actions and equipment necessary to ensure life-
safety, fire-management activities (including fire
suppression).
Preservation of historic properties eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Use of facilities for landowners with valid property rights
in a wilderness area.
Scientific activities, research, and monitoring natural
resource management actions such as restoration of extirpated
species, controlling invasive exotic species, endangered
species management, and protection of air and water quality.
Certain administrative facilities, if necessary, to carry
out wilderness management objectives (e.g., storage or support
structures, ranger station).
Native American religious activities and other actions
recognized under treaty-reserved rights.
The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and
developments. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the following uses are not
permitted in a wilderness:
Permanent improvements or human habitation structures
(historic structures are excluded).
Permanent and temporary roads.
Use of motor vehicles and motorized equipment (except for
emergency purposes).
Landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes).
Other forms of mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles).
Commercial enterprises (except for those that are necessary
for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of
the area, such as guiding and outfitting).
With the exception of permanent roads, the Act does recognize that
the above uses may be permitted if necessary to meet the minimum
requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or for
emergency purposes.
In addition to the above prohibitions, NPS policies also prohibit
some developments such as new utility lines, permanent equipment
caches, site markings or improvements for non-emergency aircraft,
borrow pits (except for small-quantity use of borrow material for
trails), and new shelters for public-use picnic tables. Listed are the
most frequent considerations regarding wilderness, but this is not a
comprehensive list as it would be impossible to list all potential
activities upon which decisions to allow or prohibit might have to be
made, according to applicable law and policy.
Question 10f. How unusual is it to allow motorized transportation
within a wilderness area? Please list all wilderness areas within the
National Park System that allow motorized transportation.
Answer. NPS policies allow for limited use of motorized
transportation within wilderness. That limited use applies to all 60
wilderness areas in 49 units of the National Park System that the NPS
manages. Examples of this limited use include the use of helicopters
for search & rescue, access for individuals to their private in-
holdings, and fire control activities.
revise boundaries of gettysburg national military park (s. 3159)
Question 11a. When will the federal government appraisal of the
Lincoln Train Station be completed? Do you anticipate the costs to
increase as a result of the federal government appraisal of the Lincoln
Station acquisition and rehabilitation?
Answer. A timetable for the appraisal cannot be completed until the
NPS has been given the authority to acquire the train station. The
costs will be determined by the appraisal. The anticipated acquisition
cost for the complete rehabilitation of the train station is
approximately $772,000, subject to an appraisal by the federal
government.
Question 11b. How will the acquisitions affect personnel and
staffing at Gettysburg National Military Park? Will additional NPS
staff be needed? If so, how much will that increase the operating
budget?
Answer. The park has a preliminary commitment from the Gettysburg
Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB) to provide all staffing
requirements for operations of an information and orientation center in
the train station, thereby alleviating the park of staff costs.
Anticipated operating costs for the train station that will be the
responsibility of the NPS are limited to utility costs; the remaining
costs will be paid by the Gettysburg CVB. In the event that the
Gettysburg CVB is unable to provide staffing and funding for
operations, the NPS would seek another park partner to cover these
costs and requirements.
Question 11c. S. 3159 would add 45 acres of land near Big Round Top
along Plum Run in Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania to the boundary of
the Park. How does the National Park service plan to use this land?
Answer. The land abuts a portion of the current park boundary and
will be undeveloped.
Question 11d. Does the land near Big Round Top along Plum Run have
any specific interpretive value or is it needed to protect the park
from encroachment?
Answer. There were cavalry skirmishers in this area during the
Battle of Gettysburg, July 1863, but the real significance is
environmental. The tract has critical wetlands and wildlife habitat
related to Plum Run.
acquire land for inclusion in fort necessity national battlefield (s.
3168)
Question 12a. Upon acquisition of 157 acres in Farmington, PA, S.
3168 further authorizes a boundary adjustment for Fort Necessity
National Battlefield. What is the total amount of land that could be
added to Fort Necessity National Battlefield?
Answer. The 157 acres of ``non-Federal land'' to be acquired is
identical to the land to be included in the boundary adjustment to Fort
Necessity National Battlefield. The land is comprised of an 18.84-acre
parcel, at the southeastern boundary of the park's main unit, along
Scott Hollow Road, and a 137.78-acre parcel, at the southern boundary
of the park's main unit, along Rankin Road.
Question 12b. Is all the land being proposed to addition to Fort
Necessity National Battlefield privately owned? Are all owners willing
sellers?
Answer. The owner of the two parcels in question is a willing
seller.
Question 12c. How will the National Park Service use the property
that is proposed for acquisition?
Answer. The property contains historical and landscape resources
relating to the purpose of Fort Necessity National Battlefield,
including traces of the Braddock Road that was built in 1755 as part of
British Major General Edward Braddock's unsuccessful and bloody
campaign to take Fort Duquesne at the Forks of the Ohio. A trailhead
for a park trail, linking traces of the Braddock Road within the parcel
to those within the current boundary of the park, will be located on
the property. The NPS also intends to interpret archeological resources
along the road trace, and may expand the park trail system through the
remainder of the property.
Question 12d. Please provide a list of all the costs associated
with the land acquisitions and boundary adjustments in S. 3168.
Answer. The property has not been appraised, and actual acquisition
costs would be dependent upon an appraisal.
Question 12e. How is the proposed land currently being utilized?
How will the acquisition of the land by the NPS change the use of the
land?
Answer. The current land owner uses the property for recreational
purposes. Acquisition of the land by the NPS will maintain recreational
use, although hunting will no longer be permitted.
Question 12f. Will there be a net loss of hunting land as a result
of this land acquisition by the National Park Service?
Answer. Hunting, which is permitted on private land by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and regulated by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, with the permission of the owner, will no longer be
permitted on the acquired property.
Question 12g. What is the estimated value of the land identified
for addition to Fort Necessity National Battlefield?
Answer. The property has not been appraised yet.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
April 26, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Northern California-Western Nevada-
Pacific (NCWNP) District of the Japanese American Citizens League
(JACL) supports S. 1596, the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act of
2009.
The Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act would authorize the Bureau
of Land Management acquisition of the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm
Colony near Gold Hill, California. This site marks the destination of
more than 20 colonists who, in 1869, fled Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan for
California and established the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony. This
is widely believed by prominent historians to be the first Japanese
``Jamestown'' settlement in North America. It is here where Okei, a 19-
year-old-girl who was the first Japanese to die in America, is buried.
Our community members know it as ``Okei's Grave,'' and each year,
Japanese Americans visit the site to remember and pay tribute to this
adventurous and pioneering spirit.
Today the property is up for sale and its history, along with its
open space, hiking trails and pastureland could be lost. We hope you
will co-sponsor and actively support this legislation. Further, as
chair of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, your efforts
are critical to helping the Wakamatsu Foundation and the American River
Conservancy preserve this marvelous site so that future generations can
learn more of our nation's immigrant history and enjoy another rich
example of what makes America great.
The JACL is the largest and oldest civil rights and educational
organization in the country that serves the Asian Pacific Islander
population. We have 113 chapters and 15,000 members nationwide, with
over 60 of those chapters located in the State of California. We
support S. 1596 and request for your assistance in its passage.
Sincerely,
Patty Wada,
Regional Director, JACL NCWNP District.
______
Japanese American Citizens League,
San Jose Chapter,
San Jose, CA, April 21, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Gold Hill--Wakamatsu Colony SB 1596 Support
Dear Chairman Bingham: The Gold Hill Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm
Colony site is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places
at a ``level of national significance''. We need your support to help
orient the American people to the Gold Hill site so that it can become
recognized as its own ``Plymouth Rock'' for Japanese Americans. Your
leadership is critical to the preservation of this First Colony site.
Senator Barbara Boxer has requested a hearing on Senate Bill 1596,
the Gold Hill Wakamatsu Preservation Act, before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee and expects this hearing will be held in early May.
The San Jose JACL, as part of the Nation's oldest and largest Asian
American Civil and Human Rights organization, asks for your aid in
preserving Japanese American heritage by supporting SB 1596!
Sincerely,
Leon Kimura,
President.
______
National Japanese American Historical Society,
San Francisco, CA, April 20, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman, On behalf of the National Japanese American
Historical Society, I wish to convey my strongest support for S. 1596,
the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act of 2009 and ask that you
support it as well. This legislation holds historic significance not
only to Japanese Americans, Californians, but for Americans nation-
wide, and our partners internationally.
The Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act authorizes the Bureau of
Land Management acquisition of the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony
near Gold Hill, California. This site marks the destination of more
than 20 colonists who in 1869 fled Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan for California
and established the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony widely believed
by prominent historians to be the first Japanese ``Jamestown''
settlement in North America. This cultural landmark still holds the
gravesite of Okei, a 19-year-old girl who was the first Japanese to die
in America along with the original house used by the Japanese
colonists.
This year, the National Japanese American Historical Society is
participating in the Kanrin Maru Commemoration which is celebrating the
150th anniversary of the arrival of the first official Japanese escort
and delegation to the United States of 1860 (Edo to San Francisco to
Washington DC). Wakamatsu was established only 9 years after the
signing of Treaty of Amity and Commerce, and is recognized as the first
settlement from Japan. Today, bilateral relations between the US and
Japan remains as strong as ever with sister-city programs blossoming.
Today the property is up for sale and its history along with its
open space, hiking trails, and pasturelands could be lost. The story of
these first pioneers to the Pacific Coast must be preserved. Your
sponsorship of this legislation would take a significantly important
step toward preserving this landmark site so that future generations
can learn from and enjoy.
Very sincerely yours,
Rosalyn Tonai,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Shigeki J. Sugiyama, MPA, MJS, Lt. Colonel, United States
Army (Retired), and Past President, Japanese American Citizens League,
Richmond, CA
I am writing to thank you for your support of the Gold Hill-
Wakamatsu Colony Project and to encourage your efforts to obtain
federal funding for preserving the historically significant Wakamatsu
Colony site at Gold Hill.
Although I learned about of the existence of the Wakamatsu Colony
years ago when I was still active in the Japanese American Citizens
League, the historical significance of the so-called Wakamatsu Colony
did not occur to me until I learned more about the immigrant group that
came from Aizu-Wakamatsu when I visited Okei's grave site at Gold Hill
earlier this year. While it is important for the descendants of the
early Japanese settlers such as myself to have the site of the first
settlers that came before our parents and grandparents marked for
posterity's remembrance, I believe there is an even more important
reason to mark the site.
While I do not know what motivated Sir Matsudaira Katamori, the
lord of the Aizu clan, to allow his vassals to emigrate to America, it
appears that he did so at a time when his government, the Tokugawa
Shogunate that he had so loyally served, was disintegrating. Katamori's
Matsudaira family descended from Tokugawa Iyeyasu, the founder of the
Tokugawa dynasty. Moreover, Katamori had been charged with protecting
the shogunate's interests in Kyoto, the Imperial Capital, against the
insurgents that were bent on bringing down the shogunate However, he
was driven out of Kyoto by the insurgents shortly before his clansmen
emigrated to America. In the final struggle to preserve the Tokugawa
shogunate, many of Katamori's vassals fought to the bitter end, finally
committing seppuku rather than submitting to the insurgents.
The so-called Meiji Restoration is usually credited with Japan's
opening to the West following the initial cracks opened by Commodore
Perry and Ambassador Townsend Harris. However, that Katamori allowed
and supported his vassals' emigration to the United States at a most
critical time in Japan's history suggests to me that he and others
closely associated with the Tokugawa shogunate looked to the United
States as the one nation that could best help Japan maintain its
integrity against the encroaching European powers (England, France,
Russia.) Thus, Katamori allowing his vassals to come to America seems
to be evidence of his effort to help assure the future of Japan.
My thought that insiders of the Tokugawa shogunate looked to the
United States to gain the knowledge and skills needed to defend itself
against European encroachment is further supported by there being a
number of headstones (seven or more) for Japanese samurai in a grave
yard in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The samurai died in 1871 and the
early 1870s in New York City or its vicinity. My understanding is that
the Japanese samurai whose tombstones are in New Jersey were sent to
America by Sir Matsudaira Shungaku, the lord of Echizen (now Fukui) at
about the same time as the Aizu clansmen were sent to the California.
As the Matsudaira name suggests, Shungaku was also of the Tokugawa
family line and was a prominent member of the inner circle of the
Tokugawa regime. There are also indications that the vassals Shungaku
sent to America from Echizen-Fukui were routed through Satsuma, one of
the clans that led the effort to topple the Tokugawa regime, thus
suggesting that even the insurgents looked favorably toward the United
States
I am not aware of any scholarly studies into the background of the
Wakamatsu Tea Colony or of members of the Tokugawa regime's inner
circle looking to the United States as the source of the knowledge and
skills needed to preserve Japan's national integrity. However, the loss
of the Gold Hill site to development would erase the only tangible
evidence that elements of the Japanese government under the Tokugawa
shogunate were reaching to the United States to develop the human
resources needed to move Japan into the modern world and to defend
against European encroachment.
I am not a scholar and do not have time left to pursue my own study
into this aspect of the history of the friendly relations between Japan
and the United States. In a way, the story of the Wakamatsu Colony may
be somewhat akin the Jamestown and Roanoke Colony stories. So I
earnestly hope that the Graner House and the Gold Hill site of Okei's
grave be preserved so that they may someday peak someone's interest
into looking into what I believe is a significant aspect of the
historical relationship between Japan and the United States.
______
American River Conservancy,
Coloma, CA, April 20, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington DC.
RE: Support for S. 1596--Gold Hill Wakamatsu Colony Preservation Act
Dear Senator Bingaman: Over the past three years the American River
Conservancy, a non-profit conservation organization, has assisted the
Japanese-American community, local historians, businesses and farmers
achieve national recognition for the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm
Colony. To the best of our research, the Wakamatsu Colony site is:
the first Japanese colony in North America;
contains the gravesite of Okei Ito, the first Japanese woman
buried on American soil;
the birthplace of the first naturalized Japanese-American;
and
the site where many traditional Japanese crops were first
grown and introduced to California and the United States.
Recently, the National Park Service placed this site on the
National Register of Historic Places at a level of national
significance. Now, the property is up for sale and its history along
with its open space, hiking trails and productive agricultural soils
could be lost. To date, we have raised $2 million of the $3.3 million
necessary to acquire the property as well as $480,000 to restore the
original farmhouse occupied by the Wakamatsu Colonists beginning in
1869.
We believe that the Bureau of Land Management, with its strong
local presence and management of thousands of acres of public lands
nearby is best positioned to acquire the property and work with the
local community to preserve and interpret the story of these first
pioneers. There is no opposition to this project. To date, we have
received over $530,000 in private donations from over one thousand
local residents, local businesses, Japanese-Americans and Japanese
supporters overseas towards the acquisition and protection of the
property. We believe this project will attract international attention
and help sustain the strong bilateral relations that exist between the
United States and Japan.
On behalf of the American River Conservancy and the project's many
supporters, I respectfully request your support for S. 1596, the Gold
Hill Wakamatsu Preservation Act of 2009. This legislation is a vital
step in preserving this first colony site for the enjoyment and
education of future generations.
Sincerely,
Alan Ehrgott,
Executive Director.
______
California State Assembly,
Sacramento, CA, July 9, 2009.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
U.S. House of Representatives, 508 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McClintock: I support federal legislation
authorizing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acquisition of the
Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony site located in my district near
Gold Hill, California. l support it because I believe firmly that it is
a cultural and historic site of national significance to the United
States, the Japanese community and to the state of California.
Then-Governor Ronald Reagan designated the site as a state historic
site in 1969; an event that was memorialized by Representative Harold
Johnson in a floor statement to the U.S. House of Representatives on
May 7, 1969. Like many of his decisions, Governor Reagan was right to
bestow such a commemoration of the sacrifices made by more than 20
colonists who fled war in Japan to start a new life of promise and
freedom, like so many others, in the United States.
I have visited the site and am amazed at the preservation of the
original 1854 Graner House occupied by the colonists and the gravesite
and memorial of Okei Ito, the first Japanese person buried on American
soil. Along with countless Samurai artifacts brought by the colonists,
these treasured historical artifacts should not be lost permanently at
the expense of development pressure. The current owners, the Veerkamp
family, have willingly and patiently worked with the Wakamatsu Colony
Foundation to ensure the land is protected. I believe we should do
everything we can do to help and I ask that you sponsor legislation
authorizing this BLM project.
With kind regards, I hope you will consider my views.
Sincerely,
Ted Gaines,
Assemblyman, 4th District.
______
California Rice Commission,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Support for S. 1596--Gold Hill--Wakamatsu Preservation Act
Dear Senator Bingaman: The California Rice Commission, representing
the state's 2,500 rice farmers and over 40 milling and marketing
organizations, unanimously supports S. 1596. Our industry owes its
start to early Japanese immigration into California. For over 50 years
following the Gold Rush, farmers attempted to grow rice across
California's fertile valleys and delta to no avail. It was not until
the first Japanese variety Kiushu was planted that our industry took
root. Today these ricelands provide reliable food for a nation,
thousands of jobs for rural communities and unparalleled habitat for
230 species of wildlife.
There is no doubt that word of the successes of the early Wakamatsu
settlers sparked interest in the agricultural riches that could be
found in California. S. 1596 would authorize the Bureau of Land
Management to acquire and manage the site of the first Japanese colony
in North America, the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony. These 22 settlers
planted many important crops, including rice in the Sierra Foothills
community of Gold Hill, just above the site where James Marshall first
discovered gold in California. The 270 acre ranch where the Wakamatsu
Colony settled is now available for the first time since its purchase
by the Veercamp Family over 100 years ago.
This legislation is vital to ensure that an important piece of
history is not lost. We respectfully and with the greatest emphasis
request your support of S. 1596.
Sincerely,
Tim Johnson,
President & CEO.
______
People to People International,
Kansas City, MO, April 20, 2010.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Suite 112, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: It is mypleasure to lend support to you and the
many individuals dedicated to S. 1596, the Gold Hal-Wakamatsu
Preservation Act. Your efforts are critical to this important site and
will mean so much to Japanese-Americans, as well as Japanese culture
worldwide.
As the President and CEO of People to People International (PTPI),
an organization established by my grandfather, U.S. President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, to enhance Peace through Understanding, I believe it is
essential to retain the historical significance of this site. People to
People International celebrates diverse cultures at the grassroots
level. Our dedicated members work to enhance friendship and
understanding locally and globally. We recognize the importance of
preserving this cultural gem.
Many thanks, Senator Boxer, for your dedication to this important
issue. I believe it is culturally, educationally and environmentally
prudent to ensure the passage of S. 1596 and wish you every continuing
success. California's rich history of welcoming immigrants to the
United States is uniquely represented through this historic site, and I
believe it would be such a tragedy for all if this were lost for future
generations.
Best regards,
Mary Jean Eisenhower,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
______
National Trust for Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC, January 8, 2010.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
National Parks, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mark: I am writing in support of a bill that is of great
importance to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and I urge
you to schedule a hearing on it as early as possible when the Senate
returns for the second session.
The United States Civil Rights Trail bill--S. 1802 introduced by
Senator Burris--would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study for the protection and interpretation of
American civil rights sites across the county. These sites are of
tremendous value to our history as a nation, and the first step in
assessing this inventory's importance as a collection is for the
National Park Service to conduct this study. The National Trust is
particularly interested in the potential addition of some or all of the
sites to a National Civil Right Trail System and the study would
provide Congress with recommendations regarding the route.
There are a large number of places associated with historic events
of the civil rights movement in the United States scattered across many
states. At least 49 of these sites have been nominated for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places. Many are already managed by
state or local agencies and organizations committed to their
preservation and interpretation.
The bill would direct the Secretary to identify the resources and
historic themes associated with the fight to secure equal rights for
African-Americans and focus on the period from 1954 through 1968. The
Interior Department would review existing studies and reports, such as
the Civil Rights Framework Study, to produce a report to complement,
not duplicate, other research in this field. The Secretary would also
make alternative recommendations, with cost estimates, for their
preservation by the National Park Service, other federal, state, or
local governmental entities, or private and nonprofit organizations.
This bill would help establish needed connections with agencies,
organizations, and partnerships already engaged in civil rights site
preservation and the protection of historically significant landscapes,
districts and structures.
In addition to Senator Burris' legislation, a companion measure,
H.R. 685, sponsored by Rep. Clay from Missouri passed the House on
September 29th and has been received in the Senate as well. It was
referred to your full committee.
Establishing a National Civil Rights Trail System to link sites
with common signage, maps, and educational materials; improve public
awareness; and facilitate the study of their importance in history
would be an invaluable asset in chronicling the movement's watershed
role in the American story. I urge your support for S. 1802 and ask
that you begin to move this measure by scheduling a hearing when the
Senate reconvenes.
Warmest regards,
Richard Moe,
President.
______
The Conservation Fund,
Government Relations,
Arlington, VA, May 19, 2010.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall and Senator Burr: As the Subcommittee meets
today to receive testimony on national parks legislation, we write in
strong support of S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, the Petersburg National
Battlefield Boundary Modification Act.
The 292-day siege of Petersburg took its toll on soldiers and
civilians alike as 70,000 combatants became casualties while some
civilians were driven from their homes. Almost a quarter of the entire
Civil War was fought around the city of Petersburg as Generals Ulysses
S. Grant and Robert E. Lee came head-to-head in their effort to control
the rails and other supply lines which the Confederacy so desperately
needed for its survival. Over the course of the nine-and-a-half months
and 108 separate engagements covering more than 176 square miles, the
conflicts at Petersburg were the most extensive and complex battles of
the entire war. The outcome of the longest siege in American history
proved pivotal as well and set the stage for the surrender of the
Confederacy only seven days after the fall of Petersburg.
The Petersburg National Battlefield has experienced threats to
physical resources and to the visitor experience from incompatible
residential, commercial and industrial development along park borders
due to the impact of high growth in its surrounding counties. Several
important portions of nationally significant battlefields related to
the Petersburg Campaign have already been lost with development of an
industrial park, a steel recycling plant and residential housing.
Concerned about these losses, National Park Service staff developed an
Assessment of Integrity Report that identified nationally significant
battlefield lands critical to the park's mission that lie outside its
boundaries. Twelve nationally significant battlefields totaling
approximately 7,238 acres met National Park Service criteria for
integrity, interpretability, suitability and feasibility for
protection. These battlefield areas were included in the Final General
Management Plan and within the recommended boundary expansion for the
park.
If enacted, S. 2953 and H.R. 3388 would further the Petersburg
National Battlefield General Management Plan by:
Providing Congressional authority to the National Park
Service for a 7,238-acre boundary expansion of Petersburg
National Battlefield as recommended by the National Park
Service's 2005 Final General Management Plan.
Authorizing the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
the Army to move forward with a small exchange of land
(approximately 1. 17 acres/each) between the Petersburg
National Battlefield and the Fort Lee Military Reservation
adjacent to the Park to be managed in accordance with all
department and agency laws.
Providing authority to the Secretary of Interior to acquire
and receive donations of land from willing sellers as
authorized by the new 7,238-acre boundary expansion.
We wish to commend Senator Jim Webb and Senator Mark Warner for
their outstanding leadership in the preservation of unprotected
hallowed ground on the battlefields in the Petersburg, Virginia, area
by introducing this legislation to expand the boundary of the
Petersburg National Battlefield. Our organizations strongly support the
recommendations listed above, and we urge the Subcommittee and full
Committee to create a positive, long-term legacy of the
sesquicentennial of the Civil War by approving S. 2953 and H.R. 3388
this Congress. In addition to honoring those brave men who fought and
died on these fields, this legislation would increase heritage tourism
in Virginia and would enable Americans to learn more about Virginia's
critical role in the final year of the Civil War.
With the Civil War's sesquicentennial in 2011, Congressional
approval and enactment of this boundary expansion legislation during
the 111th Congress would appropriately commemorate this chapter of
America's history. Thank you for your leadership on this important
initiative.
Sincerely,
Dan Sakura,
Vice President.
______
Statement of the Society for American Archaeology, on S. 3303
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) appreciates this
opportunity to testify in support of S. 3303, the Chimney Rock National
Monument Act of 2010. This legislation would provide enhanced
protections for the unique and priceless Chimney Rock Archaeological
Area in the San Juan National Forest, Colorado.
SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in
1934, has been dedicated to the research about and interpretation and
protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more
than 7,000 members, SAA represents professional archaeologists in
colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the
private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other
nations around the world.
Chimney Rock Archaeological Area is a 4,726-acre plot in
southwestern Colorado's San Juan National Forest, and it was designated
a National Historic Landmark in 1970. The archaeological resources of
this area are the physical record of the ancestors of modern Pueblo
Indian tribes. The ancient peoples who occupied Chimney Rock and the
surrounding area left behind significant architecture as well as
hundreds of smaller archaeological sites. The importance of these
resources in our efforts to understand the past and the peoples who
came before us cannot be overstated.
Though the Forest Service works hard to protect Chimney Rock and
other cultural heritage sites located on its land for present and
future generations, the current level of oversight afforded to the area
through its present designation is inadequate. Chimney Rock needs a
clearer, more concise cultural resource protection mandate, one that
will enable more staff and financial resources to be dedicated to
surveying, inventorying, maintaining, and interpreting the site.
Designation of the Chimney Rock Archaeological Area as a National
Monument under S. 3303 will allow the federal government to provide
support needed for the public to enjoy and learn about the significant
natural, cultural, and scientific resources of this area.
The legislation would also set forth a number of other steps to
support the designation and future viability of the Monument. The
Department of Agriculture, in consultation with Indian tribes and other
stakeholders, would develop a management plan setting forth uses of the
Monument as authorized by the Act, including use of the land by Indian
tribes for cultural and religious purposes, scientific and
archaeological research, and the construction of a visitor's center and
curatorial facilities. Lands contained in the Monument would be
withdrawn from mining and mineral leasing activities. Importantly, S.
3303 would also authorize the Department to include public lands
adjacent to the park in the Monument if those lands contained
significant archaeological resources.
Chimney Rock is one of the most significant archaeological sites in
the nation. It's designation as a National Monument will expand our
knowledge of the continent's past and ensure the preservation of its
cultural resources for future generations of Americans. SAA strongly
urges that the committee and full Senate consider and pass this
important legislation as quickly as possible.
______
Statement of David J. Brown, Acting President, National Trust for
Historic Preservation, on S. 3303
On behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (National
Trust), I applaud the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources'
leadership in considering S. 3303, the Chimney Rock National Monument
Act of 2010. Chimney Rock, located in southwestern Colorado, is
possibly the most important cultural site managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. It is the northernmost and highest Chacoan site known to
exist, and yet it lacks a designation equal to its cultural
significance. The National Trust believes that a national monument
designation would bring Chimney Rock the recognition and permanent
protection it so clearly deserves.
Chartered by Congress in 1949, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation is the largest nonprofit, membership organization
dedicated to helping people protect, enhance and enjoy the places that
matter to them. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., eight regional
and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50
states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust
provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national
network of people, organizations and local communities committed to
saving places, connecting people to our history and collectively
shaping the future of America's stories. For over 20 years, the
National Trust has advocated for the preservation and enhancement of
historic and cultural resources on federal public lands.
Chimney Rock exhibits many of the features that earned Chaco Canyon
a World Heritage Site designation. Between A.D. 925 and 1125, the
ancestors of modern Puebloan Indians occupied Chimney Rock, and the
site remains of cultural significance to many descendant tribes.
Hundreds of cultural elements surround Chimney Rock's soaring twin rock
spires, including the Great House Pueblo, which archaeologists believe
may have contained as many as thirty-five rooms. Located on a steeply
sloped rock mesa approximately 1,000 feet above the Piedra River,
Chimney Rock has a commanding view of the valley below and the nearby
San Juan Mountains.
The first excavations of Chimney Rock were led by Jean Allard
Jeancon, the curator of archaeology and ethnology at the Colorado
Historical Society in 1920. In 1970, archaeologist Frank Eddy, now an
emeritus professor at University of Colorado-Boulder, first documented
the stylistic connection between the architecture of Chaco Canyon and
Chimney Rock. That same year, Chimney Rock was also listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. In 1988, Dr. J. McKim Malville,
now professor emeritus of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences at the
University of Colorado-Boulder, discovered that every 18.6 years, the
moon, as seen from the Great House Pueblo, rises between the twin rock
spires during an event known as the Major Lunar Standstill. The dates
of Major Lunar Standstill cycles appear to match the construction
chronology of the Great House. The last Major Lunar Standstill was in
2006, and the next time Standstill will occur in the years 2024 and
2025.
In recognition of the foregoing cultural and archaeological values,
S. 3303 would designate Chimney Rock as a national monument. The 4,726-
acre monument would consist of two units, the main unit surrounding the
Great House and a second, smaller unit called Peterson Mesa to the
west. All of the lands in the proposed monument are owned and managed
by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the San Juan National Forest. If
approved by Congress, Chimney Rock would become the U.S. Forest
Service's seventh national monument, but the first designated chiefly
for the recognition and protection of cultural and archaeological
values.
A national monument designation would be a win-win for this
nationally important cultural site, the community, tribes and the
public. A designation would attract public attention and increase
heritage tourism to Archuleta County and the Four Corners area.
Historically, national monument designations also have brought
increased federal funding and resources, thereby providing for higher
quality visitor facilities, more interpretation, better public
education and improved site stabilization. Finally, the designation
would provide the Forest Service with a clear mandate to identify and
protect Chimney Rock's archaeological and cultural values.
The National Trust supports the intent of S. 3303 and many of the
provisions currently in the bill. In particular, we support the
language requiring the development of a management plan within three
years of the enactment of the bill and provisions allowing for the
continued use of the monument by Native American tribes for traditional
ceremonies and plant gathering activities. We also support the bill's
provisions for the designation of a monument manager as soon as
practicable after development of the management plan. The designation
would not require additional staff to be hired, as a line manager could
be designated for this role. The Forest Service assessment of staffing
levels in the San Juan National Forest and any necessary amendments to
the organizational structure can be completed as part of monument
planning process.
However, we believe that the bill should be amended by modifying
the provision authorizing the creation of a public utility right of way
within the monument. Specifically, we believe that the legislation
should require that any transmission line, pipeline or any other
legitimate use of the right of way should avoid negative effects on
Chimney Rock's view shed. The small size of this designation and the
importance of protecting the monument's view shed, which is largely
free of modern-day intrusions, make it an inappropriate location for
additional large scale transmission lines and pipelines. This minor
change to the bill is narrow in scope, would not in any way limit the
development of existing rights of way in the monument, and is, in our
opinion, necessary in order to ensure that the Forest Service manages
Chimney Rock in a manner consistent with its national monument
designation.
Additionally, the National Trust supports the Forest Service's
position for a small-scale interpretation and educational center at the
national monument instead of a full-fledged visitor's center. The
National Trust also supports the Forest Service's recommendation to
provide for the curation and exhibition of scientific and cultural
resources from Chimney Rock at the nearby BLM Anasazi Heritage Center.
Americans are fortunate to have so many of the nation's historic
and cultural treasures under federal stewardship. The National Trust
strongly supports the designation of Chimney Rock as a national
monument, but recommend the amendments discussed above.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony to the
Subcommittee on National Parks, and would welcome the opportunity to
further assist the Committee should it have any questions about our
testimony.
______
Statement of Jeannette A. Feeheley, President, Citizens for Access to
the Lakeshore (CAL), Citizen, Benzie County, MI
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Subcommittee,
Thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony to express our
organization's support of S. 2976. Its introduction represents the
result of over eight years of work by the National Park Service (NPS)
and input by us and hundreds of other organizations and individuals
into NPS proceedings to establish a new General Management Plan and
Wilderness Study for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SLBE),
which runs for seventy gorgeous miles along prime Lake Michigan
shoreline in Benzie and Leelanau Counties in Northwest Michigan. The
NPS in 2009 finalized and adopted its new General Management Plan for
this Lakeshore, but significant parts of it cannot be implemented
unless and until its accompanying Wilderness proposal is adopted by
Congress and signed into law.
We are extremely grateful to the Senate sponsor of this bill, the
Honorable Carl Levin, who has been of immense aid to us and others in
our negotiations over the years with the NPS, and to the Senate co-
sponsor, the Honorable Debbie Stabenow. We are likewise grateful to our
Congressmen for Benzie and Leelanau Counties, who also have long been
highly engaged in this bi-chamber, bipartisan effort. A similar bill to
S. 2976 has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by the
Honorable Pete Hoekstra and co-sponsored by nine Michigan House
Members, including the Honorable Dave Camp, whose district includes a
portion of SLBE.
In 2002, a public outcry erupted in Benzie and Leelanau Counties
where the Lakeshore is located over the then current General Management
Plan (GMP) proposals that were nearing their final stage and well on
their way to adoption by the NPS. Until the 2002 NPS Newsletter had
been released that gave details of Four Alternatives the NPS was
considering at that time, along with their Preferred Alternative, most
of the general public in the area were unaware of its implications. A
few members of the public began publicizing those implications, and
many in the area became incensed. After studying the matter and
attending NPS hearings on such, some of my neighbors and I realized
that there was no public nor local governmental body nor volunteer
organization sufficiently manned to mount the sustained effort it would
take to get the NPS to listen and respond to our concerns, so we formed
Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore (CAL) as a nonprofit, citizen
advocacy group to do so. We recruited membership, elected a Board of
Directors and collected dues and donations sufficient to support our
newsletters, public presentations, educational outreach and the
development and maintenance of a CAL Web Site.
At our founding, CAL never expected it would take eight years for
the issues to get addressed, nor had we any idea that it would require
new legislation to be passed by Congress, but the tedious and
painstaking efforts by all concerned will be worth it if the
legislation before you is passed. The bill is needed in order to allow
the Park Service to implement the 2009 outcome of NPS proceedings and
negotiations with the public which became, over eight years time, a
true collaboration, in our view, among the Park Service and all its
stakeholders.
We are very grateful to SLBE Superintendent Dusty Shultz for the
new GMP and Wilderness Study subsequently developed and approved at the
agency level in 2009. Superintendent Shultz had not been a part of the
development of the former GMP proposals in the early 2000's, having
arrived at the Park as its new Superintendent after they had already
reached their final stage. When the Secretary of Interior, in response
to public outrage, requested withdrawal in October 2002 of that
previous GMP, Superintendent Shultz responded by thenceforth devoting
much staff time and resources to learning why the community was so
alarmed and why the NPS had been so taken by surprise by the outrage.
Those early years also saw the appointment of a new Director of the
NPS Midwest Region, Mr. Ernie Quintana, who came to SLBE to view the
Lakeshore, which had become one of his new responsibilities. During
that visit, he was kind enough to meet with CAL Board members in the
presence of Superintendent Shultz. After listening to us, he expressed
his view that we seemed to have legitimate concerns, that the NPS could
address them, and that he would be supportive in that effort. He has,
indeed, been supportive at all crucial, NPS/internal review and
approval stages over the many years on these efforts, and we are very
grateful to Director Quintana and his Midwest Region Staff in Omaha.
One of the first steps taken by the NPS during that contentious
time was to send new personnel to SLBE who had expertise in public
relations. CAL and others wondered at the time if Mr. Tom Ulrich had
been sent simply to tell the local population that we didn't know or
understand anything and to admonish us for having dared to question the
federal bureaucracy. However, we soon learned that Mr. Ulrich was not
sent for window dressing or simply to smooth ruffled feathers. Instead,
we found him to be a dedicated public servant who was committed to
listening to the concerns of the agency's stakeholders and who adeptly
helped establish a working relationship among what had become, by that
time, two distinct adversaries: the National Park Service vs. the
SLBE's surrounding local communities.
CAL strongly believes that, from 2002-2009, these two sides learned
to listen and talk with each other as never before, and that the NPS
adopted a new view that it is better to aggressively publicize its
processes and actively and genuinely solicit input up front rather than
assume all is well only to learn late in the game that its stakeholders
had not understood the implications of what it planned to do. The
materials developed by the NPS in this particular effort are a vast
improvement over what was available to the public before. For instance,
after the GMP process was resumed in 2006, inter-active communication
tools were newly available to the public on an improved NPS Web Site
that made it much easier for the general public to access, read and
submit formal comment on each NPS proposal. It also appeared that the
NPS liberalized, or, at least, publicized better, that any citizen who
so desired could be put onto their mailing list to receive NPS
proposals each step along the way where there was opportunity for
public input.
In addition, ever since 2002, CAL had been speaking at local and
county government meetings, road commission hearings, Chamber of
Commerce meetings, Rotary Clubs, etc., in an attempt to inform as many
people as possible about our discoveries of the implications of the NPS
proposals. So the NPS spent the time and resources necessary to do the
same and more: Superintendent Shultz and Deputy Superintendent Ulrich
and other NPS staff began to attend meetings of their stakeholders/
customers' organizations to make themselves available for questioning
at their stakeholders' convenience and on their stakeholders' own
territory. And, once the new GMP process was restarted in 2006, the NPS
developed a Power Point Presentation they took ``on the road'' rather
than relying on the few standard NPS Open Hearing dates which the
public may or may not be able to attend.
As for the substance of the problem, it was, in a nutshell, that in
1981 the NPS had concluded a Wilderness Study and made a wilderness
recommendation at a very young Park still deep in a contentious
acquisition phase, its enabling legislation having only been passed in
1970. The full impact of that Study would not become apparent to the
public until much later, after most of the land had come under Park
Service ownership. Two and a half decades passed with issues simmering
in seemingly piecemeal NPS actions that the public only saw as
separate, isolated irritants. However, the full implications of the
1981 Wilderness Study and its inherent incompatibility with reality
surfaced explosively in the 2002 GMP.
Complicating matters was that this Park had not originated with
vast amounts of never-used or never-privately-owned land, but of land
that had been mostly held and used by small, private landowners for two
centuries, along with two small areas of state park land. In order for
the Park to become a reality, most of those private owners had to be
removed from their land after the 1970 enabling legislation was passed.
Many of the land parcels had been in the owners' families' possession
for generations. Some were very willing to sell, some were not, and
some were taken by eminent domain or its perceived threat. Another
acquisition method was a sale in which the owners were allowed to
reside for a specified time, usually through a twenty-five year lease.
Although generally beloved by the most of the local populace now,
the Park's very creation had been wrenching and painful. Indeed, it had
taken the whole decade of the nineteen sixties for proponents of a new
federalized Park to win sufficient support inside the State of Michigan
for the 1970 enabling legislation to pass. The promise held out to all
at the time was that, by taking the land and making it a federal
Lakeshore, its woods and dunes and beautiful beaches would forever more
be saved for the recreational uses of the general public rather than
swallowed up and transformed by large-scale private developers.
So, in 1981, the general public had little idea that
``wilderness'', if applied where roads already existed, would require
the removal of those roads. The Wilderness acreage recommended in 1981
did, indeed, include many county roads in both Benzie and Leelanau
Counties, roads which have provided the historical access to the
beaches. The general public also had little idea that the 1981
``wilderness'' would be interpreted by the NPS as a call for the
destruction of many historical features throughout the Park. Indeed, it
took two other citizens' groups, with the help of Senator Levin, to get
the NPS to recognize that there were historical resources and cultural
viewscapes worth saving within a Park where acquisition and a return-
to-nature agenda were on full throttle. Never-the-less, enough was
understood about the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation that it was
politically highly contentious from its inception: the Secretary of
Interior would not approve it nor move it along for further approval.
The Congress at that time reacted to the Secretary's inaction by
inserting a few sentences about the 1981 Wilderness Study in a 1982
amendment to the Park's 1970 enabling legislation. The purposes of the
1982 amendment had mostly to do with making the acquisition process
fairer to all property owners and with removing certain areas of land
around Glen Lake from the Park boundaries. Even though the 1982
legislation's intent and purposes had nothing to do with wilderness,
Congress inserted language into that bill that instructed the NPS to
manage all the land within the 1981 Wilderness Study as if it was
``wilderness'' unless and until Congress said otherwise. The effect, as
noted in the Congressional Record at the time, was a wilderness
designation imposed by the back door, a de facto wilderness where none
had been formally designated by Congress according to the procedures of
the Wilderness Act.
Over the years, the NPS attempted, from time to time, to acquire
the county roads within those de facto wilderness areas, per the 1982
Congressional action. However, for thirty years, the Counties have
adamantly resisted federal acquisition of their roads, having no wish
for their residents and tourists to lose public access to the beaches.
The Park Service was never successful in eliminating the historical
vehicular access on the mainland, but was successful on the Park's two
islands, North and South Manitou, by disallowing use of the landing
piers by cars and by a 1987 letter to South Manitou residents.
The building tension over the NPS's repeated attempts to acquire
the counties' roads came to a head in the 2002 GMP proposals. Having
little familiarity with the long forgotten 1981 Wilderness Study and
having little acquaintance with the fact that the Study's effects had
become federal law in 1982, most local people were completely
dumbfounded in 2002 on a number of levels:
Why did the 2002 GMP call for the acquisition and
demolishment of the county roads, which provide the only
vehicular access of the general public to the beaches?
Why did the 2002 GMP propose ``mouldering'' many of the
area's historical resources?
Why did the 2002 GMP proposals portray half the Lakeshore as
a place where the human foot had left no mark and where only
``wilderness'' had existed?
In this aspect, the GMP's tone, as well as the content, was highly
offensive to local people who themselves or their parents had
been uprooted from the very land now called a ``wilderness''
where, allegedly, no one had ever settled. In reality, the
local populace had first hand knowledge that said lands had
been farmed, settled and lumbered for generations, and that
Native Americans and lumbering companies had worn trails that
still exist and are used to this day. South Manitou Island,
with its great natural harbor and nautical refuge in Lake
Michigan, had been settled, farmed and lumbered even before the
City of Detroit was developed. The 2002 GMP proposals were not
only offensive for proposing that the general public lose its
access to the beaches, the very purpose of the enabling
legislation, but added insult to injury by attempting to wipe
out the magnificent human history of the area's forebears.
And why did Park Service staff, in attempting to explain
these matters to an outraged citizenry, keep saying that it had
all been ``mandated'' by Congress?
It took CAL much study of past legislation and NPS documents to
track down all the historical events leading to the disastrous 2002
collision between the Park Service and SLBE's local communities.
Once CAL identified the 1981 Wilderness Study and the 1982 law as
the cause of much of the problem, CAL sought to have the offending
lines in the 1982 legislation removed, which would have freed the Park
Service from any wilderness ``mandate'' and would have allowed them to
begin afresh a new GMP unencumbered with de facto wilderness. However,
we ascertained, to our initial disappointment, that there was no
Congressional, political or agency will for such. It appeared that
doing so might be interpreted and maybe contested by wilderness
proponents as a removal of ``wilderness'' from the Lakeshore, even
though such had never been officially designated.
However, our Senators and Congressmen actively supported the
public's desire to be heard, and, at the same time, they actively
supported the Park Service's desire to allow for a cooling off period
and to give the NPS time to look anew at the problems and situation.
Our Senators and Congressmen supported the NPS' entering into a long,
multi-year, continuing dialogue with the local communities. Our elected
officials also supported CAL whenever it appeared to us that the NPS
was not listening nor understanding us. Thanks to our Senators and
Congressmen, we learned to read and speak Park Service-ese, and the NPS
learned to understand us, even though we weren't always conversant or
familiar with the multitudinous NPS procedures, policies and technical
terms.
It worked! The 2009 GMP/Wilderness Study addresses and corrects all
the unresolved issues of the previous Wilderness Study. Now the areas
proposed for wilderness make sense, and will provide that the
primitive, natural areas can remain as much of the local population
wishes--in their natural state--without cutting off public access where
it is needed.
The bill before you, if adopted, will finally, finally throw out
the flawed 1981 Wilderness Study that has had our Lakeshore tied up for
so long in administratively applied wilderness sanctions where they
were inappropriate and unenforceable, and will replace it with the new
2009 Wilderness recommendation that puts the Lakeshore's counties'
roads, beaches, fundamental historical resources and all remaining
private inholdings outside wilderness jurisdiction. At the same time,
the bill would give a true, Congressionally approved wilderness
designation to those areas of the Park, a good half of its acreage,
where a wilderness designation is appropriate and can be easily
enforced by the Park Service and supported by its stakeholders.
The bill is a win/win for proponents of wilderness and conservation
as well as proponents of public access and varied recreation usage. It
is not a bill where the proponents give grudging, reluctant support,
feeling compromised and unhappy about something. Rather, this is a bill
wherein almost everyone involved has emerged quite satisfied.
CAL highly supports this bill and respectfully asks your
consideration for its passage.
______
Statement of James E. Spurr, President, Great Lakes Shipwreck
Historical Society, on S. 1651
background
Senate Bill 1651 amends a land Patent (deed) granted the United
States 1n 1996 to a non-profit corporation, the Great Lakes Shipwreck
Historical Society (``GLSHS'').
The land is located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, at Whitefish
Point, on Lake Superior.
The 8.2 acres of land is a former United States Coast Guard
(``USCG'') and U.S. Lifesaving Service Station and contains historic
buildings on the National Register. In fact, the 1861 lighthouse was
enabled by Abraham Lincoln and was important at the time so to assist
in delivering northern ore to foundries in support of the war effort.
Whitefish Point is also an important migratory bird way. Each
spring and fall, many migratory birds use Whitefish Point so to rest,
feed and minimize the distance in crossing Lake Superior. The historic
buildings and now a shipwreck museum are by and large visited in the
summer and the thus do not much or directly conflict with the needs of
migratory birds, when properly managed.
Senate Bill 1651 updates the restrictions upon the 8.2 acres of
GLSHS property, reflecting conditions more restrictive than those
Congress first imposed in 1998 and in keeping with an agreement reached
between the landowners at Whitefish Point with respect to the manner in
which development should be limited and the surrounding land utilized
in the future.
introduction
Whitefish Point, Michigan, on Lake Superior, is occupied by three
parties:
a.) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (``USFWS'')--
33 acres
b.) The Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society
(``GLSHS'')--8.2 acres
c.) The Michigan Audubon Society (``MAS'')--2.6 acres
GLSHS and MAS hold title by 1998 Congressional Patents, which for
MAS has been amended in the past, in particular to update the grant and
address inconsistencies as circumstances change. (Ex.1) Thus, Amending
land Patents with respect to Whitefish Point, such as would S.B. 1651
accomplish and as supported by GLSHS, is not without precedent.
Modifying land patents on this particular site has been done before.
In 1998, when Congress conveyed 8.2 acres to GLSHS, it conditioned
the conveyance upon the continued use and ``interpretation and
preservation of maritime history.'' (Ex. 2)
Congress further conditioned the 1996 Patent by allowing that no
development, with the exception of a gift shop and museum wings, should
occur. A 1992 plan, depicting the museum wings that Congress allowed,
is specifically referenced in the 1996 Patent. The reference to the
1992 plan now needs to be modified and updated to reflect changing
circumstances.
The museum wings were intended to allow GLSHS to offer a mariner's
memorial, video theatre and changing exhibit gallery. (Ex. 3, Page 23)
That goal remains, but the landowners and neighbors have agreed and
signed a thorough land use plan reducing the size of the museum wings
and requiring further improvements to the site.
In 2002, GLSHS, the USFWS and MAS negotiated, drafted and signed
the Human Use and Natural Resource Management Plan (``2002 Plan''),
allowing for habitat restoration and improvement, limited development
and controlled human use in accordance with its terms and provisions.
(Ex. 4)
The problem is the Patent continues to reference what is now by the
agreement of the parties an outmoded plan and model. Senate Bill 1651
simply inserts the 2002 Plan, replete with additional conditions for
the use and management of the surrounding land, for the less
restrictive plan of the decade before. The 2002 Plan is far more
comprehensive and improves Whitefish Point in many respects not
addressed by the earlier 1992 plan.
timeline
1983--The USCG executed a 25 year lease with the GLSHS for its land
at Whitefish Point.
1985--GLSHS opened a museum on site and began to restore historic
buildings on the National Register, interpret maritime history and
expand underwater archeology programs.
1998--Congress transferred title to 8.2 acres to GLSHS. At the same
time, MAS was granted 2.6 adjacent acres by a similar patent.
2001--MAS filed suit against GLSHS over concern for the popularity
of the museum and the resulting use of the land.
2002--MLUI served as the consultant and its efforts led to the
parties signing and agreeing to implement the 2002 Plan. (Ex. 5,
highlighted pages taken from the 2002 Plan) The case was settled, in
part allowing for that which is highlighted on Ex. 6. The highlighted
page is taken from the 2002 Plan, agreed to by all parties.
2003--GLSHS seeks to resolve the inconsistency in its Patent, which
still references the 1992 plan, an earlier document that the 2002 Plan
later replaced, with the agreement of all Whitefish Point landowners.
reason for the patent amendment
S.B. 1651 would substitute the 2002 Plan for the 1992 plan
currently referenced in the 1996 Patent.
The 2002 Plan reflects the agreement of the surrounding landowners.
The 2002 Plan was approved by a Federal Court as the resolution of then
pending issues between the parties. Amending the GLSHS Patent removes
the risk of it violating the current Patent, containing a reversionary
clause, the conditions of which are outdated and which by the agreement
among the parties, can be improved for a unique site of historical and
ecological significance.
Should S.B. 1651 be enacted (the mirror image of S.B. 1651, H.B.
2121 has already passed the House unanimously), GLSHS would do nothing
more than continue to fulfill the conditions and purposes of its Patent
and implement the numerous improvements to the site agreed to by all in
the 2002 Plan.
comparisons between the 1992 plan and the 2002 plan
Presently, the GLSHS Patent, due to its reference to the 1992 plan,
allows for larger museum wings than are agreed to and found within the
2002 Plan. (Ex. 7) Thus, S.B. 1651 would, by the inclusion of the 2002
Plan, scale back the size of the museum wings.
The parking lot, shared by GLSHS, MAS and Whitefish Township
residents, will also be reduced in size and cars will park further from
the historic site. (Ex. 8)
Habitat would be created so to improve the property and make a more
hospitable environment for migratory birds. (Ex. 9)
The video theatre and changing exhibit gallery would enhance
education and GLSHS would share the theatre with environmental groups
such as MAS and others so to assist in educating about the natural
history and significance of Whitefish Point.
conclusion
If S.B. 1651 is passed the GLSHS land patent would be amended to
replace the outdated 1992 plan, by way of restrictive conditions, with
the more thorough, more restrictive, more recent 2002 Plan, agreed to
by all surrounding landowners.
The Amended Patent, referencing the 2002 Plan, will:
A. Create natural habitat beneficial and important to
migratory birds,
B. Restrict human activities on site that would benefit
migratory birds and native vegetation,
C. Reduce the size of the museum wings,
D. Reduce the size of the parking lot closest to historic
buildings,
E. Allow for the continued healthy operation of a non-profit
corporation which maintains historic buildings and researches
and documents off shore archeological shipwreck sites,
F. Protect existing jobs in tough economic climate in a
remote location,
G. Allow, by the video theatre and changing exhibit gallery,
for more effective education of our maritime past and natural
resources.
Senate Bill 1651 does not spend a dime of taxpayer money. Rather,
it allows a private non-profit to continue to do good work, as was
agreed as acceptable and beneficial in several respects by its adjacent
landowners.
The above testimony is sworn to be true and accurate.
______
Civil War Preservation Trust,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2010.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, 304 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of
the national nonprofit Civil War Preservation Trust, I am writing in
strong support of H.R. 3388 and S. 2953, to modify the boundary of the
Petersburg National Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
for other purposes. The Civil War Preservation Trust has preserved more
than 29,000 acres of hallowed ground throughout the United States,
including more than 1,858 acres at Petersburg National Battlefield and
the associated battlefields.
Almost a quarter of the entire Civil War was fought around the city
of Petersburg, as Generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee came
head-to-head in their effort to control the vital but vulnerable supply
lines into the Confederate capital at Richmond. Over the course of
nine-and-a-half months from June 1864 to April 1865, 108 separate
engagements covering more than 176 square miles were fought in and
around Petersburg. The outcome of the longest siege in American history
proved pivotal as well and set the stage for the surrender of the
Confederacy's largest and most successful army only seven days after
the fall of Petersburg.
The Petersburg National Battlefield has experienced threats to
physical resources and to the visitor experience from incompatible
residential, commercial and industrial development along park
boundaries due to the impact of high growth in surrounding counties.
Significant battlefield lands related to the Petersburg Campaign have
already been lost through development of an industrial park, a steel
recycling plant and residential housing.
Concerned about these losses, National Park Service staff developed
an Assessment of Integrity Report that identified nationally
significant battlefield lands critical to the park's mission that lie
outside its current boundaries. Twelve nationally significant
battlefields totaling approximately 7,238 acres met National Park
Service criteria for integrity, interpretability, suitability and
feasibility for protection. These battlefield areas were included in
the Final General Management Plan (GMP) and within the recommended
boundary expansion for the park. The twelve associated battlefields
are: Boydton Plank Road, the Crater, Five Forks, Fort Stedman/Picket
Line Attack, Globe Tavern, Hatcher's Run, Jerusalem Plank Road,
Peebles' Farm, Petersburg-Assault, Petersburg-Breakthrough, Reams'
Station and White Oak Road. Please note that the Civil War Preservation
Trust has itself protected land outside park boundaries at six of these
sites.
H.R. 3388 and S. 2953 would further the Petersburg National
Battlefield GMP by providing authority to the Secretary of Interior to
acquire and receive donations of land from willing sellers within the
7,238-acre expanded boundary, allowing for the preservation and
interpretation of vulnerable and unprotected hallowed ground.
Incorporation of the twelve battlefields associated with the Petersburg
Campaign into the Petersburg National Battlefield will create
opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War
landscapes and resources, allowing the Park to convey a more
comprehensive Civil War story.
It is also worth noting that the Petersburg Battlefield, as well as
each of the battlefields associated with the siege of Petersburg, was
recognized as a nationally significant historic resource in a 1993
Congressional study on the status of the nation's Civil War
battlefields conducted by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission.
In conclusion, the Civil War Preservation Trust fully supports the
passage of H.R. 3388 and S. 2953 to modify the boundary of the
Petersburg National Battlefield. With the Civil War's sesquicentennial
beginning in 2011, Congressional approval and enactment of this
boundary expansion legislation during the 111th Congress would
appropriately commemorate this chapter of America's history.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on these
important pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
O. James Lighthizer,
President.
______
Civil War Preservation Trust
Washington, DC, May 18, 2010.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, 304 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of
the national nonprofit Civil War Preservation Trust, I am writing in
strong support of H.R. 4395 and S. 3159, to revise the boundaries of
the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train
Station, and for other purposes. The Civil War Preservation Trust has
protected more than 29,000 acres of hallowed ground throughout the
United States, including nearly 700 acres at Gettysburg.
The Battle of Gettysburg, the largest battle ever fought on
American soil, has become enshrined as part of our nation's history.
For three days in July 1863, Confederate General Robert E. Lee
concentrated his full strength against Union Major General George G.
Meade's Army of the Potomac at the crossroads county seat of
Gettysburg. Approximately 1/3 of the 158,000 soldiers in blue and gray
who fought at Gettysburg became casualties of the titanic battle.
H.R. 4395 and S. 3159 would allow for the incorporation of two
historically significant properties into the boundary of the Gettysburg
National Military Park. The two properties include the Lincoln Train
Station, the site at which President Abraham Lincoln arrived before
delivering the Gettysburg Address, and 45 acres of land at the southern
end of the battlefield adjacent to current NPS-owned property, the site
of cavalry skirmishes during the battle. Incorporation of these sites
into the Gettysburg National Military Park will create opportunities
for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and
resources, allowing the Park to convey a more comprehensive story of
the Battle of Gettysburg. In addition, this boundary expansion is
consistent with the Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 General
Management Plan (GMP).
It is also worth noting that the Gettysburg Battlefield was
recognized as a nationally significant historic resource in a 1993
Congressional study on the status of the nation's Civil War
battlefields conducted by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. In
that report, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission identified
Gettysburg as a Priority I site, its highest designation.
In conclusion, the Civil War Preservation Trust fully supports the
passage of H.R. 4395 and S. 3159 to modify the boundary of the
Gettysburg National Military Park. With the Civil War's
sesquicentennial beginning in 2011, Congressional approval and
enactment of this boundary expansion legislation during the 111th
Congress would appropriately commemorate this chapter of America's
history.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on these
important pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
O. James Lighthizer,
President.
______
Dodona Manor,
The George C. Marshall International Center,
Leesburg, VA, May 17, 2010.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Senator,
Hon. Richard Burr,
Senator, National Parks Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: S.1750
Dear Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr: I am pleased that you
included S.1750 as you consider a comprehensive National Parks bill for
the 111th Congress. Today's agenda is full, so I will be concise.
My name is Stephen C. Price. I am President of the George C.
Marshall International Center Board of Directors. We own and operate
General Marshall's home in Leesburg, Virginia.
Marshall's home--known as ``Dodona Manor''--is fully restored and
financially viable. Built in the 1820's it was designated a National
Historic Landmark in 1996. We opened our doors to the public in 2005
after a multi-million dollar restoration funded by private donations,
federal aid, including a prestigious ``Save America's Treasures'' grant
from the Department of the Interior, and appropriations from The
Commonwealth of Virginia and local government. Recognizing the
significance of the Marshall home, Senator Webb and Congressman Wolf
have introduced bills--S.1750 and HR.3757--in their respective chambers
that direct the National Park Service to study the fitness of Dodona
Manor to be granted Affiliate Status within the NPS system.
As you know, conferring Affiliate Status on an historic property
does not mean that the Department of Interior will either acquire or
operate the property. Affiliate Status is a prime example of a public-
private partnership that allows a privately owned and operated historic
property of international significance to benefit from the power of the
media umbrella and promotional actions of the National Park Service.
Should such a study conclude that Dodona Manor is a fit property to be
granted Affiliate Status, and Congress concurs, Marshall's home would
benefit from an association with the National Park Service that would
include its placement on the NPS website and the installation of
special NPS road directional signs.
Senator Webb's bill ( S.1750) which is before you is
straightforward: it merely directs the NPS study the appropriateness of
Affiliate Status for General Marshall's home. I hope that you and the
rest of the National Parks Subcommittee will support this legislative
action.
General Marshall was Army Chief of Staff and President Roosevelt's
principal military adviser during World War II. Retiring at the end of
the war, President Truman immediately appointed him as his special
envoy to China to attempt the negotiation of a ceasefire between the
Nationalists and Communists. Upon return, Truman turned to him again
and selected him in 1947 to be Secretary of State. Confronted with a
devastated Europe that augured poorly for the creation of a peaceful
continent, he was responsible for the Marshall Plan that stimulated
economic recovery. It is not an exaggeration to credit this program
with the creation of the prosperous and peaceful Europe that has
evolved into the European Union.
Recognizing his immense achievement he was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1953. It was most appropriate that President Obama, in his
acceptance speech for the same prize, noted the lasting contributions
of the Marshall Plan.
When the Korean War erupted and began going badly for the United
States and its allies, President Truman turned to Marshall once again
and appointed him as Secretary of Defense. To this job he brought his
immense organizational skills to bear in the ongoing work of
consolidation of what had formerly been the War and Navy Departments.
After stepping down from this second cabinet position, retirement
eluded him as he served as president of the American Red Cross.
In describing Marshall, Winston Churchill said:
In war he was as wise and understanding in counsel as he was
resolute in action. In peace he was the architect who planned
the restoration of our battered European economy and, at the
same time, laboured tirelessly to establish a system of Western
Defence. He has always fought victoriously against defeatism,
discouragement and disillusion. Succeeding generations must not
be allowed to forget his achievements and his example.
His Leesburg, Virginia home, Dodona Manor, stands as a monument to
this great American to insure that he is not forgotten.
Thank you Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for the
opportunity to ask your support for our effort to tell the story of
General Marshall. Please know that you and any members of the
subcommittee, including their staff, would be most welcome to come for
a visit--Leesburg is just an hour away.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen C. Price,
President.