[Senate Hearing 113-493]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-493
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1189 S. 2221
S. 1389 S. 2264
S. 1520 S. 2293
S. 1641 S. 2318
S. 1718 S. 2346
S. 1750 S. 2356
S. 1785 S. 2392
S. 1794 S. 2576
S. 1866 S. 2602
S. 2031 H.R. 412
S. 2104 H.R. 1501
S. 2111 H.R. 2197
__________
JULY 23, 2014
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-555 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Elizabeth Leoty Craddock, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE LEE, Utah
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Mary L. Landrieu and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin................. 9
Goldfuss, Christina, Deputy Director, Congressional and External
Affairs, Department of the Interior, Accompanied by Carl
Rountree, Assistant Director, National Landscape Conservation
System......................................................... 12
Portman, Hon. Rob, U.S. Senator From Ohio........................ 8
Smith, Greg, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
Systems, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture............. 38
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................... 1
Walsh, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 10
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 51
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in
room SD-366, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order. Good afternoon to all of you.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks is
holding a hearing to consider 23 bills covering a wide range of
issues relating to the Federal land administered by the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, including
national park and monument designations and boundary
adjustments, several national heritage area designations and
reauthorizations, wild and scenic river designations, national
trail designations, and other related issues.
Although the agenda is lengthy, most of the bills appear to
be non-controversial, so I am hopeful we can move through the
bills fairly quickly.
The purpose of this afternoon's hearing is to consider the
administration's views on these bills and allow committee
members an opportunity to ask any questions they may have.
We will also include any written statements that have been
sent to the subcommittee in the official hearing record.
Because of the large number of bills on today's agenda, I
will not read through the list, but at this time, I will
include the complete list of bills in the hearing record,
without objection.
I would like to take a few minutes to mention two bills of
particular interest to me. The first is S. 1794, a bill I
introduced and is co-sponsored by Senator Bennet, to designate
22,000 acres of public lands as the Browns Canyon National
Monument in Chaffee County, Colorado. This would include
designation of 10,500 acres of wilderness.
Browns Canyon is an unique natural resource. Hundreds of
thousands of visitors come to Browns Canyon year after year to
raft or kayak the canyon's exciting whitewater rapids or fish
the gold medal trout waters of the Arkansas River.
But there is a lot more to this landscape than just the
river. The rugged and remote lands to the east feature quiet
canyons and rock formations, outstanding habitat for Bighorn
sheep and elk, and sweeping views of the Collegiate Peaks in
Arkansas Valley.
Browns Canyon is also a vital economic resource. The
landscape supports thousands of jobs from river outfitters and
ranchers to the main street businesses of Salida and Bueno
Vista, to the State economy far beyond Chaffee County.
Outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, is a
core part of my State's economy. It supports 125,000 direct
jobs, over $13 billion in consumer spending, and nearly $1
billion in State and local tax revenue.
That is why I can say with confidence when we work hand in
hand with communities to preserve public lands, we are
supporting jobs, our economy, and Colorado's special way of
life.
I have spent 18 months developing this bill side by side
with Chaffee County residents and other stakeholders. I held
public meetings, received thousands of written comments, and my
staff and I conducted over 50 meetings. The resulting bill is
emblematic of how public land bills should be done, from the
bottom up and based on what the community wants.
Let me share a couple of the specific elements in the bill.
No. 1, it protects existing legal uses as they are now,
allowing fishing, hunting, boating, livestock grazing,
commercial outfitting, water supplies, mountain biking and
motorized use to continue uninterrupted.
Second, it maintains the ongoing cooperative management of
the area by the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife.
Third, it makes permanent a ban on mining for the bed and
banks of the river, protecting water supplies, boaters and
anglers.
I will submit additional testimony into the written record
for this hearing, including my intention that local ranchers
have flexibility to run livestock in the national monument and
transfer their grazing allotments to future generations.
However, in short, my bill preserves this special place
just as it is now, for us and future generations.
The bill has a wide base of support, including over 200
local businesses and sportsmen that welcome the area's gold
medal trout waters and big game hunting opportunities.
Both the Town of Buena Vista and city of Salida passed
resolutions of support, and two of the 3 Chaffee County
Commissioners, both Republicans, support the legislation with
its carefully crafted conditions. The Denver Post, Pueblo
Chieftain, and local Chaffee County Times have all come out in
favor of my bill.
Browns Canyon National Monument is an idea whose time has
come, and I speak from experience. Over the Independence Day
weekend, I rafted Browns Canyon with a group of Colorado
veterans. Like the many other times I have visited, hiked and
rafted Browns Canyon, I was awestruck by this special place,
and I am not alone in my passion for Browns Canyon or my
efforts to protect it.
There have been many attempts over the years to protect
Browns Canyon, including a more expansive 2006 bill led by
Republicans and co-sponsored by the entire Colorado
Congressional Delegation, that would have designated the entire
area as Wilderness. Now, I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this common sense
bill and protect Browns Canyon.
I would also like to comment briefly on S. 2104, Senator
Flake's bill, which I co-sponsored, to provide for
reimbursement to those States which donated funds to keep
certain national parks open during the government shutdown last
year.
When the Federal Government shut down, the State of
Colorado used their own funds to ensure continued operation of
the Rocky Mountain National Park. Colorado, like other States,
did this because they knew shutting the park would have
crippling economic effects on the towns and small businesses
near the park.
How Colorado is unique is that 3 weeks before the shutdown,
the towns near Rocky Mountain National Park were hit with
record flooding, which was already costing the community
millions of dollars in damages and lost tourism revenue.
After the shutdown, the State determined Estes Park and
other cities would be devastated by the one-two punch of a
shutdown on the heels of a flood that was sure to depress
tourism, so the State stepped up to limit the damage associated
with what was in my opinion an extremely poor decision to shut
down the Federal Government.
Regardless of how co-sponsors of this bill may view the
utility of last year's shutdown, we all agree that our States
should be repaid in full for the costs incurred to keep parks
open for our constituents and visitors to our States.
The subcommittee is also considering a related bill
sponsored by Senator Flake, S. 1750. This bill would provide
standing authority for States to pay to keep specified Federal
areas open during any future government shutdown and then get
reimbursed when Federal funds are appropriated.
Now, in my view, there is a major policy difference between
these two bills. S. 2104 would reimburse those States which
stepped in to provide funding to keep certain national parks
open to the public during the 2013 shutdown.
Each State had negotiated an agreement with the National
Park Service to provide State funds for specified amounts to
keep certain parks open during the lapse of appropriations.
Once the Federal Government reopened, the Park Service was made
whole with Federal funds as well, and I believe it is fair and
appropriate to reimburse the States for the funding they
provided.
It seems to me that the answer to solving this problem in
the future is to avoid shutting down the government in the
first place. In contrast, S. 1750 appears to contemplate
additional government shutdowns. I do not believe this is a
sound policy and I share the administration's concerns with
this proposal.
So, with that, at this time I would like to recognize the
subcommittee's ranking member, my friend and probably the best
kayaker in the Congress, Senator Portman, for an opening
statement, and after that, turn to other members of the
subcommittee for their statements.
Senator Walsh, we are glad you have joined us and we look
forward to your statement at the appropriate time.
Senator Portman.
[The prepared statements of Senators Stabenow, Cantwell,
Kaine, King, Levin, and Udall follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator From Michigan
I would like to thank Chair Landrieu for including the MotorCities
National Heritage Area Extension Act for consideration in today's
hearing.
Automobiles are part of the Michigan way of life. In 1998, I was
proud to co-sponsor the bill that established the MotorCities National
Heritage Area in Michigan. True to its purpose, the Heritage Area has
helped to preserve and promote Michigan's automotive and labor
heritage. I am pleased to co-sponsor with Senator Levin the bill before
us today, S. 2221, to extend the authority of the MotorCities National
Heritage Area through 2030.
Michigan has a diverse economy, but we are known around the world
for our leadership in the automotive industry. Henry Ford, Billy
Durant, Ransom Olds, and the Dodge brothers were among the pioneers
responsible for vast improvements in the quality of transportation and
production techniques and who helped to build the middle class. That
history, and all of the innovation that continues to this day, deserves
recognition and preservation.
The MotorCities National Heritage Area, with funding and technical
assistance from the National Park Service, has partnered with a broad
set of over 30 organizations to preserve that heritage, attract
visitors, and inspire the next generation of automobile enthusiasts and
innovators.
For example, it has established over 120 historical markers and 25
exhibits on topics such as Detroit's role as the Arsenal of Democracy
during World War II, the African American experience in the auto
industry, and the effect of the automobile on technology development.
It has helped restore the birthplace of the Model T and other buildings
of historical importance, while creating new tourist attractions.
Automotive heritage tourism events attract almost 6 million
visitors to the region each year. Overall, the National Parks
Conservation Association estimates that the 49 National Historical
Areas nationwide generated $12.9 billion in economic activity while
supporting 148,000 jobs.
Nine of those 49 heritage areas have already had their authority
extended. Only the Motorcities National Heritage Area is set to expire
this year, so it is important that we pass this bill soon so the public
can continue to enjoy the benefits of the MotorCities National Heritage
Area.
Thank you, Chair Landrieu.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From Washington
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.
I am pleased that we are moving forward today on legislation to
establish two National Heritage Areas in Washington state--the Maritime
Washington National Heritage Area and the Mountains to Sound Greenway
National Heritage Area.
These two bills are about preserving scenic, historic landscapes in
the Pacific Northwest while promoting outdoor recreation and spurring
economic growth in the area.
Washington's National Park entities are a lifeline to local
communities.
A recent National Park Service economic impact study indicates that
National Heritage Areas contribute almost $13 billion annually to the
national economy and support 150 thousand jobs. On average, each
individual Heritage Area generates almost $300 million in economic
activity and supports about 3,000 jobs--primarily through tourism and
visitor spending.
Outdoor recreation in Washington state provides my constituents and
visitors from around the country and the world a unique natural
experience.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas but none
are located in the Pacific Northwest.
The 3,000 miles of coastline that my bill designates as the
Maritime Washington National Heritage Area will promote maritime-
related tourism, economic development, and share maritime history as
told through Washington state's museums, historic ships, fishing
culture, and other activities.
The Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area recognizes
1.5 million acres of land along Interstate 90 as a scenic byway and
historic transportation corridor. Starting in the early 1800s this area
started being used for logging, mining, and farming. Due to these
activities, a transportation corridor developed bringing loggers,
trappers, miners, prospectors, and their family across the Snoqualmie
Pass to build their lives on the Puget Sound and in Seattle.
Each of these areas helps tell the story of the development of the
western United States. And it is important to protect these areas so
that future generations can enjoy and learn from them.
Not only do they tell a story, protect environmental resources, and
spur economic growth, study after study shows us that visiting National
Park entities can aid psychological and spiritual well-being.
I have heard from numerous constituents about how important these
two areas are to them.
That is why I, along with my colleague Senator Murray, proposed
legislation to designate these locales as National Heritage Areas.
Designating the Maritime Washington National Heritage Area and the
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area will help preserve
these places for generations to come. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to advance this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator From Virginia
Madame Chair, thank you for considering S. 1718, to authorize
acquisition of lands to expand Petersburg National Battlefield. I have
introduced this bill with my Virginia colleague Senator Mark Warner,
and our Virginia colleagues Congressmen Bobby Scott and Randy Forbes
introduced the House counterpart. I also want to recognize my friend
and predecessor Senator Jim Webb for his original sponsorship of this
legislation.
Virginia is a state where history can be found everywhere you look.
In preserving historic battlefields in Virginia and elsewhere, the
National Park Service (NPS) seeks not just to show visitors a field but
to immerse them in an experience. Nowhere is this philosophy more
fitting than in Petersburg, Virginia. Rather than one battle on one
field, the 1864 Siege of Petersburg went on for 292 days involving
multiple changes of fortune for the Union and Confederacy over 108
separate battles and engagements. The Union's eventual victory at
Petersburg paved the way for the surrender a week later of Robert E.
Lee to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, just upriver from
Petersburg and an NPS historical site as well. The Petersburg campaign
was also significant for the key contributions of members of the U.S.
Colored Troops. Some 15,000 of the 187,000 African Americans who served
in uniform for the Union served at Petersburg, and 15 of the 16 Medals
of Honor awarded to the U.S. Colored Troops during the Civil War were
awarded for service in the Petersburg and Richmond campaigns.
Depicting the scope of this epic struggle has long been a priority
of NPS, as many sites important to understanding the siege are unmarked
and in danger of being lost to development. This bill would authorize
NPS to add 7,238 acres over 12 parcels of land to Petersburg National
Battlefield, making it the largest Civil War historic battlefield in
the nation. This legislation strictly specifies that land acquisition
will be either from private donations or from willing sellers at fair
market value. The bill also addresses a priority of the Army in
executing two land transfers between Petersburg National Battlefield
and the adjacent Fort Lee.
Though it would be worth preserving these hallowed lands for their
historic significance alone, Virginia prides itself as a state that is
good for business, and Civil War tourism is a thriving source of
economic activity. According to a study by the Virginia Tourism
Corporation, Civil War tourists stay twice as long and spend double the
money of typical tourists. Of out-of-town visitors interviewed at 20
battlefields, two-thirds were visiting the area specifically to see the
battlefield, and three-quarters said they would visit other Civil War
sites while in the area. According to the latest NPS data, more than
591,000 people visited Petersburg Battlefield, spending more than $11
million and supporting some 150 local non-NPS jobs. The benefits of
historic tourism to local communities and small businesses is also why
I and my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Thad Cochran, introduced
legislation (S. 916) earlier this year to reauthorize the American
Battlefield Protection Program.
On the historic battlefields of the Civil War, American troops
demonstrated the meaning of freedom, particularly the thousands
fighting for their own. Passage of this legislation will ensure that
the historic deeds done in and around Petersburg are fully commemorated
for posterity.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Angus King, U.S. Senator From Maine,
on S. 1520 and H.R. 2197
Mr. Chairman--I would like to offer testimony in support of S. 1520
and H.R. 2197 to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
segments of the York River in Maine and its associated tributaries for
study for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. I am eager to see the results of a study and whether or not a
Wild and Scenic designation would be appropriate for the York River.
The York River consists of 109 miles of streams and rivers banked
by various habitats that support rare and endangered species. Based on
the findings from a reconnaissance survey conducted by the Northeast
Regional Office of the National Park Service in 2013, it is very likely
that segments of the York River exhibit the free-flowing character and
noteworthy natural, cultural and recreational resource values likely to
meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
The survey also found that the strong presence of community and
interest group support for a Study, along with a demonstrated track
record of natural and cultural resource protection, provide a strong
indication that a Wild and Scenic Rivers Study would be appropriate and
productive. Among these community stakeholders are the elected
officials of the towns of York, Kittery, Eliot, and South Berwick (the
four towns through which the river flows); the Greater York Region
Chamber of Commerce; York Land Trust; York Water District; York
Shellfish Conservation Commission; York Country Club; Great Works
Regional Land Trust; Eliot Historical Society; Kittery Land Trust;
Maine Coast Heritage Trust; Gundlow Company; and numerous other
businesses and conservation and historical groups.
However, a study is a critical step in determining what challenges
a Wild and Scenic designation may pose to infrastructure upgrades,
development, existing commercial and recreational activities and on
activities concerning energy production and transmission
infrastructure, and on the authority of state and local governments to
manage those activities, and other impacts not listed here but listed
in the bill. Determining these impacts is an important step forward in
considering a Wild and Scenic designation.
Thank you for your time and efforts in chairing this hearing. I
hope that my colleagues can join me in support of this study and will
give this bill every consideration. I look forward to the results of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Study that would be provided by passage of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator From Michigan, on
S. 2221 and S. 2293
on s. 2221
Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Portman for holding
this hearing on the MotorCities National Heritage Area Extension Act. I
also want to thank Senator Stabenow for co-sponsoring the measure and
as a member of this subcommittee for championing the bill through the
committee process.
The MotorCities National Heritage Area, also referred as the
Automobile National Heritage Area, was established on November 6, 1998
through legislation Congressman Dingell and I introduced with
bipartisan co-sponsorship. This heritage area spans across 16 Michigan
counties and includes nearly 1,200 auto-related resources, celebrating
the rich automotive and labor history of our country. Michigan is a
magnet for car enthusiasts and history buffs around the globe and
MotorCities helps them learn about our history and celebrate it with
us. When visitors come to Detroit to see where Henry Ford first built
the Model T or to Lansing to learn about the rise of Oldsmobile, the
existence of the Motor Cities National Heritage Area enhances their
visit.
By connecting hundreds of auto-related organizations and raising
awareness about these sites through its education and publications, the
visibility and impact of the resources are multiplied. The investment
of MotorCities through its grants and other assistance leverages
additional funding; every dollar in federal grants is matched on
average by more than five dollars. Federal support has been critical to
ensuring that historic resources are preserved and restored, telling
the story of an industrial sector that is an integral part of our
nation's history.
On October 1, 2014, this assistance will no longer be available
unless Congress extends the authority for MotorCities to receive
federal funding, which is what my legislation would accomplish.
Specifically, this bill would provide an additional 16 years of
authority for MotorCities to be eligible to receive federal funding. If
this bill or a similar measure is not enacted, the MotorCities heritage
area federal funding authority would be sunset. We cannot allow that to
happen.
MotorCities' work in assisting the sites in the area, as well as
coordinating and promoting auto-related events, has resulted in vital
economic development that has benefitted the region. Over a million
people visit the MotorCities NHA each year, resulting in an economic
impact to the region of over $150 million.
We cannot afford to let an organization that preserves one of
America's greatest stories and boosts economic development to falter by
eliminating the federal support that is so helpful to its work. Thank
you for holding this hearing, and I hope you will quickly advance this
legislation to the full Senate.
on s. 2293
Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Portman for holding
this hearing on the National Scenic Trails Parity Act (S. 2293). I was
pleased to join Senator Baldwin in sponsoring this legislation that
involves three trails, the North Country, Ice Age, and New England
National Scenic Trails (NSTs).
The National Scenic Trails Parity Act would correct an
inconsistency in the Park System's treatment of its NSTs by designating
all of the NSTs as units of the National Park System (NPS). Currently,
three of the six NSTs are treated by the Park Service as units of the
NPS, while the remaining three are not. It was never the intent of
Congress to treat a subset of the NSTs differently from others in the
national trails system. All of the NSTs should be treated in the same
way, including in designing and printing NPS trail brochures, accessing
funding by non-profit associations, and promoting the trails through
NPS promotional materials. This legislation would correct the long-
standing disparate treatment of these trails, and would allow these
trails to be on an equal footing with the Appalachian, Natchez Trace,
and Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trails.
I have been particularly focused on the North Country NST, which is
the longest off-road hiking trail in the country, traversing seven
states and covering 4,600 miles. The longest segment of the trail is in
Michigan, with 1,150 miles of trail. Hundreds of miles of the trail
have been constructed and maintained by volunteers. In 2013, over one
thousand volunteers provided over 77,000 hours of their time, which is
equal to $1.7 million in work. We owe it to these volunteers to ensure
the North Country NST is treated as an equal to other NSTs and provide
it with the recognition it deserves.
This legislation is a common-sense bill that simply corrects a
discrepancy in the Park Service's administration of its trails. There
is no cost to this legislation and this committee and the full Senate
should approve it without delay. Again my special thanks to Senator
Baldwin for leading this effort and thanks for holding this hearing. I
look forward to the enactment of this important legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Senator From Colorado
As Chairman of the National Parks subcommittee, I submit this
written testimony to further clarify key provisions related to
livestock grazing in my bill to designate the Browns Canyon National
Monument and Wilderness, S.1794. As stated at the hearing, my intention
is that local ranchers maintain flexibility to run livestock in the
National Monument and transfer their grazing allotments to future
generations.
To meet that intention, I included ranching as a purpose of the
monument and stated that all existing laws continue to apply after the
monument is designated, which includes transferability. The bill also
states that ``there shall be no curtailment of grazing in the National
Monument or Wilderness simply because of a designation under this
Act,'' and refers to the standards set by appendix A of the report of
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of
Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress (H. Rept.
101-405) and H.R. 5487 of the 96th Congress (H. Rept. 96-617), herein
referred to as ``appendix A.''
Appendix A is a common-sense document, and it is my intention that
it be implemented in a way that maximizes flexibility and adaptability
to changing technology. For example, Appendix A clearly allows the
maintenance of existing facilities such as fencing. However, if
ranchers choose to implement new technology that reduces the visual
effect of fencing but meets the same purpose--such as ``invisible'' or
``virtual'' fencing--it is my intention that these improvements proceed
under Appendix A.
Colorado's farms and ranches are a critical part of my state's
economy and identity and produce food and fiber for the world. In
particular, cattle ranching plays a critical role in the economy,
culture, and heritage of the Arkansas River Valley. Therefore, it is my
intention that the Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness
support that industry and educate visitors about its role.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OHIO
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, from
the Senate's best mountain climber, that is quite a compliment.
This is an important hearing because we get to look at a
bunch of different pieces of legislation, some have been talked
about already today, and I know Senator Walsh is going to talk
about others.
There are 24 bills, I think, before us. My sense is they
are mostly non-controversial, maybe all are. I look forward to
getting started on that. I do not have any bills before the
subcommittee.
I will thank the chairman and the chair of the full
committee, Senator Landrieu, for their work on the World War II
Memorial Prayer Act, which was just signed into law by the
President about two and a half weeks ago. I think this is going
to really enhance the World War II Memorial.
It allows the D-Day Prayer that Franklin Roosevelt spoke on
that momentous day to be part of the World War II Memorial,
something I have worked on for a while, and it is a beautiful
prayer for those of you who do not know it.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues and the subcommittee
staff, David Brooks and Kaleb Froehlich, for helping us to get
to that point.
I want to talk about the parks for a second. We have a neat
opportunity coming up because as you know, the Centennial is
upon us, and in 2 years, the parks celebrate a 100 year
birthday. Unfortunately, some of the parks look that old and
have a lot of deferred maintenance needs, and although we have
done a good job in some areas to try to combat that, in others,
we have not addressed it.
We have some work to do, and I think we should use this 100
year anniversary to formulate a bipartisan approach that holds
the parks up and talks about the grandeur of our parks, but
also in the process of commemorating the Centennial, helps to
prepare them for the next century.
Again, we have plenty of challenges, with tight budgets and
with a lot of deferred maintenance. A great opportunity, I
think, to use this. I know Senator Udall is interested in that,
and we look forward to working with him and others on that.
If we look back, since 1916, there has been a lot of
changes and a lot of growth, huge growth with the parks. We
have been able to restore in some cases some beautiful areas,
and in other areas, protect them.
I was just this past weekend at Cuyahoga Valley National
Park, which is our biggest park in Ohio. Most years, one of the
top ten parks in the country in terms of visitation. You
probably have not been there yet.
Senator Udall. I have not.
Senator Portman. Have to get you there. You cannot mountain
climb there but you can kayak there.
It is a great example of a suburban, urban, rural park. It
does a lot of interpretive work. Jane and I were there visiting
with the new superintendent, who is very impressive, and also
with the head of the Friends Group, which is called the
Conservative for Cuyahoga Valley National Park, and also with
one of the chief interpreters, and we got to see their new
canal interpretive center, and they have done a great job with
that.
It is just an example of a park that is really serving the
needs of a population area in northeast Ohio that does not have
necessarily access to some of the big parks out west but has
the ability to go to Cuyahoga Valley, and people use it.
So, that is what we have to be sure we are encouraging for
the next 100 years so we continue to have these tremendous
assets and these gems.
I think again this is a good opportunity today to get
through some important bills, but also I hope we will hear from
some folks about how to encourage something big on the
Centennial and being able to connect even more people to our
national parks.
It is good to have Senator Walsh with us today, and I will
turn it back to the chairman to introduce the witnesses.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Portman. Senator Baldwin,
did you have an opening statement or comments you would like to
share?
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening us,
and Ranking Member Portman.
I listened with great interest to each of your opening
statements, and it is so clear how important these local and
national resources and jewels are.
I remember several times, although many years ago, rafting
through Browns Canyon. It is a big favorite of mine. But
listening to how much each of you enjoy the outdoors, I wanted
to highlight two bills that are on the agenda today.
The first relating to the Apostle Islands area in Lake
Superior, where I would invite Senator Portman to come
kayaking, it is some of the best kayaking around, and also some
of our long distance trails, where I would invite both of you,
but certainly you, Senator Udall, to come hiking.
I am delighted to have the chance to hear later from our
witnesses on two bills that are very important to my home State
of Wisconsin.
The first is S. 2031, which would add an historic
lighthouse located in Ashland, Wisconsin, into the nearby
Apostle Islands National Scenic Lakeshore. The Coast Guard
currently manages the lighthouse, and a few years ago, they
went through a public process to find a new caretaker for the
structure. None emerged other than the National Park Service.
Local park staff at the Apostle Islands already manage 8
lighthouses in the Lakeshore, and together with the Ashland
light, they are a national treasure, and a treasure in our
northern communities of Ashland and Bayfield.
This bill would allow this local icon to be preserved, and
the bill is supported by my colleagues in the Senate and by
bipartisan members of the Wisconsin Delegation in the House of
Representatives. I am really pleased that we are able to
address this local priority in the committee today.
The second bill that I would like to highlight is S. 2293,
the National Scenic Trails Parity Act, which addresses a long-
standing disparity in treatment among the 6 national scenic
trails managed by the Park Service. Of these 6 trails, 3 were
declared units through an administrative process, and 3 operate
with many of the features but not the full array of benefits of
the unit trails.
This bill would resolve the issue, and the Ice Age Trail,
North Country, and New England National Scenic Trails would
receive parity with the other full trail units. This would
allow them to compete for resources and be included on
interpretive materials distributed by the Park Service staff,
and be eligible for foundation funding sources.
Senators from the North Country and New England National
Scenic Trails have joined me as original co-sponsors of this
bill, which would ensure that these spectacular trails can
fully serve the public in the agencies' second century.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Senator Walsh,
it is an honor to have you here. We will be eager to hear your
testimony. Senator Portman and I are trying to place this
wonderful photograph here, and I am assuming you will tell us
where that is and probably draw us to your great State of
Montana to experience it directly.
Senator Walsh.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WALSH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Walsh. Thank you, Chairman Udall, for holding this
important hearing on the East Rosebud Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act.
The East Rosebud Creek begins high up in the Absaroka-
Beartooth Mountain Wilderness, and flows to the Yellowstone
River. It is one of the most spectacular places in Montana, and
that is what the picture represents there today.
This bill will designate two sections of the creek totaling
approximately 20 miles under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968. The Act has a special place in Montana history, having
been drafted and championed by the famous Craighead brothers,
biologists, who researched grizzly bears and other species.
Private developers proposed tapping the East Rosebud Creek
3 separate times for power. Three times the proposals have been
shelved.
Earlier this year, I met with constituents about the wild
and scenic'' designation. They came to Washington to explain
why they are so passionate about keeping East Rosebud the way
it is today.
I followed up with a large public meeting in Billings,
Montana, and I was overwhelmed by the broad support of the
designation in the community, and so I introduced this bill,
but I cannot say that I am surprised by the support. Protecting
the free flowing nature of the creek means that the creek will
continue to attract people from around the world to enjoy its
Class 5 whitewater kayaking, and I stress Class 5 whitewater
kayaking.
[Laughter.]
Senator Walsh. If they are not kayaking, they will be out
fishing for wild brown trout.
Protecting the East Rosebud means we will keep drawing
backpackers to the famous Beaten Path Trail that crosses the
Beartooth plateau, all the way to Cooke City. It means keeping
a free flowing creek for the rock and ice climbers who flock to
the many walls of the East Rosebud.
All those visitors stay in local hotels, eat in local
restaurants, and shop in local small businesses--in Billings,
Roscoe, Columbus, and Red Lodge. The bottom line is that this
bill is good for the local economy.
I can also tell you that 100 percent of the proposed land
for designation is already Federal land. This bill does not
impact private land around East Rosebud at all. I also
confirmed with the U.S. Geological Survey that there is no
potential for oil and gas development under the land in
question. In fact, many of the Montanans who enjoy the East
Rosebud have good jobs in the oil, gas and mining industries
elsewhere in the State of Montana.
So, this bill will change very little in how the Federal
land under the designation is administered. What it would do
and what Montanans want is to protect the free flowing and
pristine nature of the creek against future diversions and
dams.
Recreational uses like hunting, kayaking, and fishing would
not be impacted, nor would agricultural uses, such as grazing,
which occurs today, with no harm to the outstanding remarkable
values of the creek.
No Montana rivers have been added to the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System since 1976, almost 40 years. East Rosebud
Creek is the place to start. It will be good for jobs, good for
Montana's outdoor heritage, and it is widely supported by the
community.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make these
comments.
Senator Udall. Senator Walsh, thank you for those comments
and thank you for sharing this marvelous place and this
important opportunity we have to protect and preserve this
area.
I do not know if Senator Baldwin or Senator Portman have
any questions for Senator Walsh.
I would add that rock climbers are out there but ice
climbers are certifiable.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Senator Portman and I were looking with
great interest at the kayaker in this wonderful photograph, and
that is some serious boating that individual is undertaking. We
want to make sure that opportunity----
Senator Walsh. We would be happy to get Senator Portman out
there to kayak.
Senator Udall. He would be happy, I know, to visit Montana,
and we are also going to invite him to Colorado, to Browns
Canyon, although he may have already tried Browns Canyon
because he has kayaked many a river.
Thank you again. You are welcome to stay, but I know you
have a busy day. We will excuse you if that is what you need to
do. So, thank you for being here.
Senator Walsh. Thank you.
Senator Udall. As Senator Walsh departs, I think I would
like to call our witnesses to the table, and we will look
forward to their testimony.
Welcome, the two of you. We have been joined by Ms.
Christina Goldfuss. She is the Deputy Director, Congressional
and External Affairs, of the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior. I understand it is her first time appearing
before the committee. We welcome you.
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you.
Senator Udall. We have also been joined by Mr. Gregory
Smith, who is the Director of Lands, Forest Service, Department
of Agriculture.
Ms. Goldfuss, why do we not start with you? The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE GOLDFUSS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL
AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED
BY CARL ROUNTREE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONVSERVATION SYSTEM
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you. Thank you for having me today, Mr.
Chairman, and for the opportunity to present the Department of
the Interior's views on 22 bills on today's agenda.
I am accompanied today by Carl Rountree, who is the
Assistant Director for the National Landscape Conservation
System, and will be happy to answer questions on S. 1794, the
Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness Act, which is
also on the agenda.
I would like to submit our full statements on each of these
bills for the record and summarize the department's views. It
is a long list.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Ms. Goldfuss. I will run through it as quickly as possible.
To start, the department supports the following 12 bills: H.R.
412, which would authorize a study of the Nashua River and two
tributaries for potential inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
S. 1389 and H.R. 1501, which would authorize a special
resource study of the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument, New York
City.
S. 1520 and H.R. 2197, which would authorize a study of the
York River for potential inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
S. 1718, which would modify the boundary of the Petersburg
National Battlefield. S. 1785, which would modify the boundary
of the Shiloh National Military Park, and establish Parker's
Crossroads Battlefield as an affiliated area of the National
Park System.
S. 1866, which would extend the authority of the Adams
Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of
Columbia. S. 2031, which would adjust the boundary of the
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to include the Ashland
Harbor Breakwater Light.
S. 2264, which would designate two World War I memorials,
including one at Pershing Park in the District of Columbia, and
S. 2356, which would adjust the boundary of the Mojave National
Preserve.
The reasons for our support for these bills are explained
in our full statements. For several of the bills we are
requesting amendments, and we would be happy to work with the
committee on those.
Regarding S. 2576 and S. 2602, which would establish the
Maritime Washington and Mountains to Sound National Heritage
Areas in the State of Washington, and Title I of S. 1641, which
would designate the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area,
the department supports the objectives of these bills.
However, the department recommends that Congress pass
National Heritage Area program legislation before designating
any additional new Heritage Areas.
The department would support, if amended, S. 1189, which
would adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National
Historical Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium.
Regarding S. 2111, S. 2221, and Title 2 of S. 1641, which
would extend the authority for funding for 4 National Heritage
Areas, the department recommends amending these bills to
authorize an extension for Heritage Area program funding until
such time that the National Park Service has completed an
evaluation and report on the accomplishments of the areas, and
the future role of the National Park Service, and until
National Heritage Area program legislation is enacted.
The department takes the same position for S. 2318, which
would extend the authority for the commission of the Erie
Canalway Heritage Corridor.
The department does not object to S. 2293, which would
clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and New
England National Scenic Trails as units of the National Park
System.
Regarding S. 2104, which would refund the States funds that
were used to reopen and temporarily operate units of the
National Park System during the October 2013 shutdown, because
the department does not currently have the authority to make
these payments, Congress would have to pass this legislation in
order to provide the department with this authority.
The department recommends that the committee defer action
on S. 2346, which would amend the National Trails System Act to
include national discovery trails and designate the American
Discovery Trail, until such time as private sector partners are
able to demonstrate the capacity to support such an endeavor
and level of public backing necessary to ensure its continued
success.
Finally, the department strongly opposes S. 1750, which
would authorize the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
to enter into agreements with States to provide for continued
operations during times when they are unable to maintain a
normal level of operations due to a lapse in appropriations.
We disagree with the idea of enacting any laws to try to
lessen the impact of a future government shutdown for a few
select governmental activities rather than protecting all such
activities by avoiding a lapse in appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, Senators, this concludes my statement. Mr.
Rountree and I would be pleased to answer any questions that
you might have.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Goldfuss follow:]
Prepared Statements of Christina Goldfuss, Deputy Director,
Congressional and External Relations, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior
on h.r. 412
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
412, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a
segment of the Nashua River and its tributaries in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. This bill passed the
House on June 23, 2014.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation with
amendments. The river segments and tributary areas proposed for study
exhibit the types of qualities and resource values that would make it a
worthy and important candidate for potential addition to the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, we feel that priority should be
given to the 24 previously authorized studies for potential units of
the National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and
potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress.
H.R. 412 directs the Secretary of the Interior to study a 19-mile
segment of the mainstem of the Nashua River, except for a 4.8-mile
segment that is currently the subject of a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensing proceeding for an existing hydroelectric
facility (Pepperell Hydro Company, P-12721). It is the Department's
understanding that this excepted segment would appropriately allow the
FERC to complete the ongoing licensing proceeding without the delay
that a Wild and Scenic River Study would otherwise impose. As specified
in the bill, the study would include unnamed tributaries of the Nashua
River along the segment designated for study, in addition to the two
named tributaries, the Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers. The bill
requires the study to be completed and transmitted to Congress within
three years after funding is made available for it. We estimate the
cost of the study to be approximately $300,000, based on similar
studies recently conducted by the National Park Service (NPS).
The Nashua River, once severely polluted, played an important role
in the nation's river conservation history by inspiring support for
both the state and federal Clean Water Acts. The transformation of the
Nashua from a neglected and polluted waterway to one which now boasts
the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, regionally significant paddling and
fishing opportunities, a remarkable protected greenway system, and
other important natural and cultural values, is a remarkable success
story. The Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers are two of eastern
Massachusetts' most significant remaining cold-water trout fisheries.
The Northeast Regional Office of the NPS recently completed a
reconnaissance survey of the Nashua River at the request of
Representative Niki Tsongas, the sponsor of H.R. 412. The survey
provided a preliminary evaluation of the approximately 27.5 miles of
river that would be studied under H.R. 412 as a step toward a full Wild
and Scenic River Study. The findings of the survey indicate that
segments of the Nashua River exhibit the characteristics and resource
values likely to meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In addition, over the course of
the past four years, the NPS has responded to interest and inquiries
from local advocates and town officials regarding a potential Wild and
Scenic Rivers study for the Nashua River, and there appears to be
strong local support for protecting the river system.
If enacted, the National Park Service intends to undertake the
study in close cooperation with the affected communities, the relevant
agencies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and interest groups such as the Nashua River
Watershed Association through a partnership-based study approach. The
partnership-based approach is recognized in Section 10(e) of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act as a means of encouraging state and local
governmental participation in the administration of a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The partnership-based approach
also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part
of the study, which helps landowners and local jurisdictions understand
their potential future roles in river management should Congress decide
to designate part or all of the rivers being studied.
Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of
a comprehensive river management plan within three years of the date of
designation, it has become the practice of the National Park Service to
prepare this plan as part of a study of potential wild and scenic
rivers when much of the river runs through private lands. This allows
the National Park Service to consult widely with local landowners,
federal and state land management agencies, local governments, river
authorities, and other groups that have interests related to the river
prior to determining if the river is suitable for designation. Early
preparation of the plan also assures input from these entities as well
as users of the river on the management strategies that would be needed
to protect the river's resources.
As passed by the House, H.R. 412 includes certain requirements for
the study which we recommend deleting. These requirements include
determining the effect of the designation on existing commercial and
recreational activities and on activities concerning energy production
and transmission infrastructure, and on the authority of state and
local governments to manage those activities. They also include
requiring the identification of any authorities that would compel or
permit the Secretary of the Interior to include or participate in local
land use decisions or place restriction on non-federal lands, or that
could be used to condemn property. And, they include requiring the
identification of all private property located in the study area. The
purpose of conducting a study is to determine whether a river meets the
established criteria for eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. We believe that the existing criteria used for making
that determination result in a sufficient amount of information and
analysis of the effects of a Wild and Scenic River designation. The
additional requirements included in these bills could potentially
increase the cost of the study and the time required to complete it.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
on s. 1189
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1189, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls
National Historical Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium, and for other
purposes.
The Department would support S. 1189 if amended as described later
in this statement. The inclusion of Hinchliffe Stadium within the park
boundary would facilitate the National Park Service's role in
preserving and interpreting a nationally significant cultural resource
associated with the history of African-American achievement and racial
integration.
S. 1189 would amend the enabling legislation for Paterson Great
Falls National Historical Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium, one of
the few remaining stadiums in the country to have hosted Negro League
baseball, within the park boundary. The stadium is located on
approximately 6 acres of land adjacent to the existing park boundary.
The park currently encompasses a large portion of the Great Falls
Historic District, which is composed of resources associated with
Paterson's industrial history. By including the stadium within the park
boundary, this iconic property would be brought under the provisions of
the park's enabling act that authorize the National Park Service to
enter into cooperative agreements to identify, interpret, restore, and
provide technical assistance for preservation of the property. As
introduced, the bill would also authorize the National Park Service to
accept the donation of the property.
Hinchliffe Stadium, an historic 10,000-seat Art Deco structure, was
built as a public works project between 1931 and 1932 and served as a
venue for professional and amateur baseball, automobile and motorcycle
racing, entertainment and school athletic competitions. The stadium has
been owned and operated by the Paterson Public School District since
1963. The School Board closed the stadium in 1996. In March 2013, four
years after Congress authorized the Paterson Great Falls National
Historical Park, Hinchliffe Stadium was designated a National Historic
Landmark.
The stadium's national significance is tied to its history as a
Negro League Baseball venue be-tween 1932 and 1944, serving as the home
field for the New York Black Yankees, the New York Cubans, the Newark
Eagles and others. Hinchliffe games featured hometown favorite and
future Hall of Famer Larry Doby, who in 1947 would become the first
African-American ball player to integrate the American League. As cited
in the National Historic Landmark study, Hinchliffe also derives its
significance from its integral role in the social history of the city.
Many of Paterson's silk and other mill workers formed teams and played
in the stadium, making it an important part of the fabric of community
life in industrial Paterson during the Great Depression and in decades
beyond.
To raise public awareness of Hinchliffe's threatened status, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation named the stadium to its 2010
list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places and included it on
their inaugural list of America's National Treasures. The National
Trust has since been directly involved in seeking to preserve the
stadium, and in establishing a Steering Committee comprised of the
National Trust, the City of Paterson, the Paterson Board of Education,
the Friends of Hinchliffe Stadium and the National Park Service.
Through the efforts of the Steering Committee, approximately $1.2
million in funding has been secured to undertake a partial restoration
of the stadium, work that recently commenced. The restoration and
stabilization project will identify the actions necessary to preserve
and fully restore the stadium for future use.
At a special meeting of the Paterson Board of Education in May
2013, the Board voted unanimously to support legislation that would
include the stadium within the boundary of the park, with the proviso
that the school district not relinquish control of the stadium, require
National Park Service acquisition of the property, or permit the
National Park Service to acquire or manage the stadium without the
express support of the school district.
The Paterson Board of Education and the National Park Service are
in agreement about the desirability of maintaining ownership of the
stadium by the Paterson Public School District. We believe that the
role of the National Park Service with respect to the stadium should be
limited to providing interpretation, education, and technical
preservation assistance. For that reason, the Department would support
S. 1189 only if the bill is amended to prohibit the National Park
Service from acquiring ownership of the stadium. We would be pleased to
provide the committee with recommended language.
We also recommend that the legislation be amended to reference an
updated map, which would require striking ``March 2013'' and inserting
``April 2014'' on line 14 of page 2 of the bill. And, we note that the
word ``containing'' needs to be inserted between the words ``land'' and
``Hinchliffe'' on line 9 of page 2.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
on s. 1389 and h.r. 1501
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's views on S.
1389 and H.R. 1501, as passed by the House, bills to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Prison Ship Martyrs'
Monument in Fort Greene Park, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn,
as a unit of the National Park System.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation with
amendments. However, we believe that priority should be given to the 24
previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park
System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions
to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System that have not yet been transmitted to the Congress.
S. 1389 and H.R. 1501 authorize a special resource study of the
Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument. This study would determine whether this
site meets the National Park Service's criteria for inclusion in the
National Park System of national significance, suitability, and
feasibility, and need for National Park Service management. The study
would also consider other alternatives for preservation, protection,
and interpretation of the resources. We estimate the cost of the study
to range from $100,000 to $200,000, based on similar types of studies
conducted in recent years.
The Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument commemorates the sacrifice of
over 11,000 patriots who died while incarcerated in British prison
ships anchored off Brooklyn during the American Revolution. The
monument was constructed in 1908 and is located in Fort Greene Park.
Designed by the architect Stanford White and set in a landscape
designed by the landscape architects Calvert Vaux and Frederick Law
Olmsted, it is 149 feet tall and constructed of granite. Prominent
sculptural elements were executed by Adolph Alexander Weinman. The
monument's base includes a crypt containing some the remains of the
prisoners recovered from the Brooklyn waterfront in the nineteenth
century. Also, Fort Greene Park was the location of American
fortifications during the Battle of Long Island, and has been
classified as a ``Class A Battlefield Commemorative Property'' in the
National Park Service Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation
of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the United States, dated
September 2007.
Construction of the monument was funded jointly by the federal
government and the City of New York; it is currently owned by the New
York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Both the monument and
Fort Greene Park are contributing resources to the Fort Greene Historic
District that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
For both S. 1389 and H.R. 1501, we recommend an amendment to change
the reporting requirement for the study from one year after enactment
of the bill to three years after funding is made available, consistent
with the requirements for special resource studies in the National Park
System General Authorities Act. Further, since the name of the act has
been enacted into law, we recommend section 1(b)(2) of S. 1389 be
amended to reflect this.
We also recommend that the committee act on S. 1389, rather than
H.R. 1501. If the committee acts on H.R. 1501, we recommend an
amendment deleting certain requirements for the study. Specifically, we
urge deleting section 1(b)(3)(d), which would require an analysis of
the effect of designation as a unit of the National Park System on
existing commercial and recreational activities, and on activities
concerning energy production and transmission infrastructure, and on
the authority of state and local governments to manage those
activities. We also urge deleting section 1(b)(3)(e), which would
require an identification of any authorities that would compel or
permit the Secretary of the Interior to influence or participate in
local land use decisions or place restrictions on non-federal lands.
The purpose of conducting a special resource study is to determine
whether a resource meets the criteria for inclusion in the National
Park System and, if it does not, to provide information on alternative
means to protect the resource. We believe that the special resource
study requirements under existing law result in a sufficient amount of
information and analysis of the effects of including a resource in the
National Park System. These additional requirements could potentially
increase the cost of the study and the time required to complete it.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions about this matter.
on s. 1520 and h.r. 2197
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1520
and H.R. 2197, bills to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
designate segments of the York River and associated tributaries for
study for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation with
amendments. However, we feel that priority should be given to the 24
previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park
System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions
to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress.
S. 1520 and H.R. 2197, which are substantially identical, would
authorize the National Park Service to study 11.25 miles of the York
River and its tributaries in York County, Maine, for potential
inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The York River
watershed drains 33 square miles located almost entirely in the
communities of Eliot, Kittery, and York, and flows into the Gulf of
Maine through York Harbor. We estimate the cost of the study to be
approximately $300,000, based on similar studies recently conducted by
the National Park Service (NPS).
The York is a small, highly scenic, and very historic watershed.
Navigable portions of the York and its tributaries offer excellent
recreation for small powerboats, canoes, and kayaks. The ecological
resources of the York and its importance to the Gulf of Maine have been
recognized through the close association with the nearby Wells National
Estuarine Research Reserve. York Harbor and the York River were
essential to the early commercial activity of the region and many
important historic sites from the 18th and 19th Centuries have been
documented and preserved.
The Northeast Regional Office of the NPS recently completed a
reconnaissance survey of the York River at the request of
Representative Chellie Pingree, the sponsor of H.R. 2197. The survey
provided a preliminary evaluation of the approximately 11 miles of
river that would be studied under S. 1520 and H.R. 2197 as a step
toward a full Wild and Scenic River Study. The findings of the survey
indicate that segments of the York River exhibit the characteristics
and resource values likely to meet eligibility criteria for inclusion
in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In addition, over the
course of the past four years, the NPS has responded to interest and
inquiries from local advocates and town officials regarding a potential
Wild and Scenic Rivers study for the York River, and there appears to
be strong local support for protecting the river system.
If enacted, the NPS intends to undertake the study in close
cooperation with the affected communities, interested organizations,
and relevant agencies of the State of Maine through a partnership-based
study approach. The partnership-based approach is recognized in Section
10(e) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a means of encouraging state
and local governmental participation in the administration of a
component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The
partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed
river management plan as part of the study, which helps landowners and
local jurisdictions understand their potential future roles in river
management should Congress decide to designate part or all of the
rivers being studied.
Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of
a comprehensive river management plan within three years of the date of
designation, it has become the practice of the NPS to prepare this plan
as part of a study of potential wild and scenic rivers when much of the
river runs through private lands. This allows the NPS to consult widely
with local landowners, federal and state land management agencies,
local governments, river authorities, and other groups that have
interests related to the river prior to determining if the river is
suitable for designation. Early preparation of the plan also assures
input from these entities as well as users of the river on the
management strategies that would be needed to protect the river's
resources.
Both H.R. 2197 and S. 1520 include certain requirements for the
study which we recommend deleting. These requirements include
determining the effect of the designation on existing commercial and
recreational activities and on activities concerning energy production
and transmission infrastructure, and on the authority of state and
local governments to manage those activities. They also include
requiring the identification of any authorities that would compel or
permit the Secretary of the Interior to include or participate in local
land use decisions or place restriction on non-federal lands, or that
could be used to condemn property. And, they include requiring the
identification of all private property located in the study area. The
purpose of conducting a study is to determine whether a river meets the
established criteria for eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. We believe that the existing criteria used for making
that determination result in a sufficient amount of information and
analysis of the effects of a Wild and Scenic River designation. The
additional requirements included in these bills could potentially
increase the cost of the study and the time required to complete it.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
on s. 1641
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1641, a bill to establish the
Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.
The Department supports the objectives of Title I of S. 1641, which
would designate the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area. This
area has been found to meet the National Park Service's interim
criteria for designation as a National Heritage Area. However, the
Department recommends that Congress pass program legislation that
establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified National
Heritage Areas and a process for the designation, funding, and
administration of these areas before designating any additional new
National Heritage Areas.
Regarding Title II, which provides for the extension of funding
authority for the National Coal Heritage Area and the Wheeling National
Heritage Area, the Department recognizes the important work that has
been done by the organizations involved with both national heritage
areas. However, we recommend that Title II be amended to authorize an
extension for both heritage areas' program funding until such time as
the National Park Service (NPS) has completed an evaluation and report
on the accomplishments of the area and the future role of the NPS; and
until national heritage area (NHA) program legislation is enacted that
standardizes timeframes and funding for designated national heritage
areas.
The NPS is initiating phase-in of a funding formula for NHAs, which
is a merit-based system for allocating heritage area funding that
considers a variety of factors based upon criteria related to program
goals, accountability, and organizational sustainability. When fully
implemented, the performance-based funding formula plan will reward NHA
entities that bring in additional non-Federal investment and that have
developed a sustainability plan. The Department would like to work with
Congress to determine the future federal role when national heritage
areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage
program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage
area program legislation during this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides their designation and
administration as a national system. National heritage area program
legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluation of
proposed national heritage areas, guiding planning and management,
clarifying roles and responsibilities, and standardizing timeframes and
funding for designated areas.
Title I of S. 1641 would establish the Appalachian Forest National
Heritage Area encompassing 16 counties in northeastern West Virginia
and two counties in western Maryland, a region that has a rich history
of human activity shaped by the geography of the forested central
Appalachian Mountains. The proposed local coordinating entity would be
the Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc., a non-profit organization
that currently coordinates forest-related heritage tourism activities
in this region. The provisions in this bill are similar to provisions
in most of the other NHA designation bills that have been enacted in
recent years, including a total authorization of $10 million and a
sunset date for the authorization of funding 15 years after the date of
enactment.
The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc. prepared a feasibility
study for designation of the area as a national heritage area several
years ago. The National Park Service reviewed the study and found that
it met the NPS interim criteria contained in National Heritage Area
Feasibility Study Guidelines. The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area,
Inc. was informed of this finding in a letter dated August 16, 2007.
The area encompassed by the proposed NHA is a significant part of
the central Appalachian highlands that has a long history of timber
harvesting, forest management, and the production of forest products.
It is an area that provided resources for industrial expansion in the
late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but where large portions of the
forests have regrown. Areas within the proposed NHA include the
Monongahela National Forest, portions of the George Washington National
Forest, the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Seneca
Rocks-Spruce Knob National Recreation Area, along with a large number
of state forests and parks and areas protected by nonprofit
conservation organizations. The extensive hardwood forests and
undeveloped rural character of the area provide scenic vistas,
opportunities for nature observation, and outdoor recreation
opportunities.
There are also numerous historic and cultural sites within the
area, such as historic sites from the logging era and Civilian
Conservation Corps structures. It is an area well-suited to demonstrate
the connection between forest and forest products, and the folklife,
music, dance, crafts, and traditions of central Appalachia. Designation
as a NHA would help the region realize the full potential of the
cultural, natural, historic, and recreational resources of the region.
Title II of S. 1641 would extend the authorization of funding for
the National Coal Heritage Area until September 30, 2017. The National
Coal Heritage Area was established in 1996 by Public Law 104-333. Its
funding authorization, which expired in 2012 under that law, has been
extended through appropriations acts through September 30, 2015. In
total, the NHA has received approximately $3.6 million, and every
federal dollar has been matched at least once with non-federal funds or
in-kind services.
The National Coal Heritage Area spans 13 counties in the
Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia and includes significant
resources such as coal mines, camps, company stores, train depots,
memorials, parks, National Register Districts, and trails. Its mission
is to preserve, protect, and interpret historic, cultural, and natural
resources associated with West Virginia's coal mining heritage to
stimulate tourism and economic development, enhancing the quality of
life for residents. The NPS is currently concluding an evaluation of
this NHA, as required under Public Law 110-229.
Title II would also extend the authorization of funding for the
Wheeling National Heritage Area until September 30, 2017. The Wheeling
National Heritage Area was established in 2000 by Public Law 106-291.
Its funding authorization will expire under that law on September 30,
2015. In total, the NHA has received approximately $9.7 million of the
total $10 million authorized to be appropriated, and every federal
dollar has been matched in accordance with its enabling act.
The Wheeling National Heritage Area encompasses significant
historic and cultural resources in and around City of Wheeling, West
Virginia, including many that are National Historic Landmarks or listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. Wheeling played an
important role in the development and establishment of a multitude of
industries in the United States that facilitated the Nation's
expansion. The NHA helps preserve the city's Victorian architecture,
waterfront park, historic city markets, and renovated industrial
buildings.
We recommend a technical amendment to the Title II heading and to
the section subheadings to make it clear that the bill would extend the
authorization for federal funding for the two national heritage areas,
instead of reauthorizing the national heritage areas. While both
National Coal and Wheeling face sunset dates for their federal funding,
their national heritage area designations will not sunset.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
have.
on s. 1718
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1718, a bill to modify the boundary of Petersburg National
Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 1718.
S. 1718 would authorize two modifications to the boundary of
Petersburg National Battlefield. First, the bill 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 would effect a land
exchange between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the
Army involving approximately one acre under the each Department's
administrative jurisdiction.
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. The additional battlefields
proposed to be added to the park by S. 1718 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.
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 found 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. 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, other acquisition methods, such as
donation and fee simple acquisition from willing sellers based on
available funding, will be utilized for battlefield preservation.
Under a 2008 estimate, the total estimated cost of purchasing in
fee simple all of the 7,238 acres would be $29.7 million. Protection of
land through easements and donations, which is anticipated for a large
portion of the lands, would likely significantly lower acquisition
costs. The estimated cost for capital expenses (trails, wayside
exhibits, rehabilitation of existing visitor contact station, etc.) and
expansion-related costs (surveys, hazardous materials studies, etc.) is
$1.9 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 park operation and maintenance is
estimated to be $531,000. Development and operational maintenance
numbers are in 2014 dollars. All funds would be 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 bill would also effect a transfer of administrative
jurisdiction between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the
Interior involving two small parcels of land. Following the attacks of
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. Effective upon enactment of this bill, the Army would receive
administrative jurisdiction over the 1.170 acres of park land where the
perimeter fence is located and the National Park Service would receive
1.171 acres of land at Fort Lee. The Secretary of the Army is
supportive of this provision. There is no cost associated with this
exchange.
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 this bill.
on s. 1750
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department on S. 1750, a bill
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture to enter into agreements with States and political
subdivisions of States providing for the continued operation, in whole
or in part, of public land, units of the National Park System, units of
the National Wildlife Refuge System, and units of the National Forest
System in the State during any period in which the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, is unable to maintain normal
level of operations at the units due to a lapse in appropriations, and
for other purposes.
The Department strongly opposes S. 1750. We have a great deal of
sympathy for the businesses and communities that experienced a
disruption of activity and loss of revenue during last fall's
government shutdown and that stand to lose more if there is another
funding lapse in the future. However, we disagree generally with the
idea of enacting laws to try to lessen the impact of a future
government shutdown for a few select governmental activities rather
than protecting all such activities by avoiding a lapse in
appropriations. We also believe that this legislation specifically,
with its mandate to enter into agreements to reopen public lands at the
request of a state, would be very difficult to execute. Furthermore, we
are concerned that agreements to have states provide funding for
activities that are inherently Federal in nature, even for a short
period of time, would undermine the longstanding framework established
by Congress for the management of Federal lands under the stewardship
of the Department.
S. 1750 would require the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary
of Agriculture to enter into agreements with States or their political
subdivisions, upon their request, to accept funds to open National Park
units, National Wildlife Refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and
National Forests. The authority would be in effect only during a period
when the Secretary is unable to operate and manage the units at normal
levels. The bill would also provide for reimbursement for the amounts
provided to the Secretaries to reopen the sites when appropriations are
enacted providing retroactive funding, or when the State or political
subdivision establishes that entrance fees were collected for the
period covered by the agreement. If those requirements are not met, the
Secretary would have discretionary authority to provide to
reimbursement to the states, subject to the availability of
appropriations.
The desire to avoid the kind of disappointment to the public and
disruption of economic activity that results from a lapse in Federal
appropriations is understandable. When the partial government shutdown
occurred from October 1 through October 16, 2013, a lot of attention
was focused on effects of closures of national parks, national wildlife
refuges, public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and
national forests--all places that are highly valued by the public for
their recreational offerings and that serve as economic engines for the
communities in which they are located.
It was because of the critical importance of these sites that the
Secretary of the Interior agreed to reopen several of them using
donated funds during the partial shutdown. As the shutdown entered its
second week, the National Park Service entered into donation agreements
with six states to accept the donation of funds necessary to allow the
National Park Service to temporarily reopen 13 national park units. In
these cases, the states were concerned enough about the loss of
economic activity associated with certain national parks to use their
own funds to alleviate the impact of park closures.
These agreements did help a select number of businesses and
communities. However, they should not be held up as a model of how the
Federal government should do business. The national parks that were
opened during the shutdown were fortunate to be located in states that
had the resources and political will to fund them. The National Park
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, which all seek to treat the land units under their stewardship
equitably, have grave concerns about enshrining in law a process that
favors units located in states willing to donate funds to operate them
over those located in other states.
Furthermore, the agreements were designed to be temporary,
emergency measures for some individual situations, and would not
necessarily work for operating all Federal lands. Even for those sites
where agreements might work, the potential difficulty of executing
agreements on the scale envisioned by S. 1570-every agreement that
every state or political subdivision requests-at a time when most of
the agencies' staff would be furloughed, cannot be overstated. During
last October's partial shutdown, it was an enormous burden on the
National Park Service and the Department, with their skeletal staffs,
to execute just six agreements to reopen 13 park units. If a large
number of states requested such agreements for a large number of sites
in a future shutdown, the agencies likely would not have the capacity
to respond to all of the requests.
The 2013 Federal government shutdown had terrible impacts for
American citizens, businesses, communities, states, and the economy as
a whole. These impacts are summarized in the report released by the
Office of Management and Budget entitled ``Impacts and Costs of the
October 2013 Federal Government Shutdown'' (November 2013). The report
makes clear that the economic effects and disruption to lives and
activities from the shutdown were felt far and wide. Enacting a law to
try to avoid the impact of a future shutdown on specified activities is
not a responsible alternative to simply making the political commitment
to avoid a shutdown in the future by providing appropriations for all
the vital functions the Federal government performs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
have.
on s. 1785
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1785, a bill to modify the boundary of Shiloh National Military Park
in the States of Tennessee and Mississippi, to establish Parker's
Crossroads Battlefield in the state of Tennessee as an affiliated area
of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 1785.
S. 1785 would add three sites related to the Siege and Battle of
Corinth to the boundary of Shiloh National Military Park. In 1991, the
``Siege and Battle of Corinth Sites'' was designated a National
Historic Landmark. The Corinth Battlefield Protection Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-271) authorized the creation of the Corinth Unit, as
part of Shiloh National Military Park, to ``interpret the Siege and
Battle of Corinth and other Civil War actions in the area in and around
the city of Corinth, Mississippi.'' The legislation defined a large
partnership role with state, local, and private park partners in the
planning, development and interpretation of the unit. The law also
authorized a special resource study to identify and determine any other
areas that would be appropriate for inclusion in the unit.
The ``Corinth Special Resource Study and Boundary Adjustment
Environmental Assessment,'' completed in 2004, identified 18 sites that
have a high degree of integrity and significant resources that would
provide opportunities for public enjoyment, and recommended that these
be included in the boundary of the Corinth Unit of Shiloh National
Military Park. In 2007, Congress amended the Corinth Battlefield
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 110-161, Section 127) to expand the
boundary of the Corinth Unit of Shiloh National Military Park to
include 12 of those sites.
S. 1785 would further modify the boundary of Shiloh National
Military Park to include three of the six remaining sites identified in
the 2004 special resource study. These three sites--the battlefields of
Fallen Timbers, Russell House, and Davis Bridge--would contribute
significantly to telling the remarkable story of the Union Army's
Mississippi Valley Campaign during the Civil War, especially the Battle
of Shiloh, Tennessee and the Siege of Corinth, Mississippi. The
Mississippi Valley Campaign was a major milestone on the road that led
to the final success of the Union Army in the war and the ultimate
reunification of the nation.
The first battlefield that S. 1785 would include in Shiloh's
authorized boundary is Fallen Timbers. On April 8, 1862, after two days
of fierce fighting at Shiloh, Major General Ulysses S. Grant dispatched
Brigadier General William T. Sherman on a reconnaissance to investigate
Confederate intentions. Sherman encountered a large Confederate field
hospital protected by a force of Southern cavalry under Lieutenant
Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest in an area called Fallen Timbers.
Sherman advanced against the Confederate force and captured the field
hospital with its surgeons and about 250 wounded Southern soldiers and
about 50 wounded Union soldiers that had been previously captured by
the Confederates. After this engagement, the Confederates retreated to
Corinth and Sherman returned to Shiloh Church. Thus, the final shots of
the Battle of Shiloh were fired at Fallen Timbers. A cautious and
methodical Union advance would now mark the beginning of the advance
upon, and siege of Corinth.
The Fallen Timbers Battlefield site consists of 468 acres of
agricultural and forested land, a small portion of which is developed.
The Civil War Trust has acquired approximately 270 acres of this land
with the intention of donating it to the federal government. The
remaining 198 acres that would be included in the boundary are in
private ownership.
The second battlefield that S. 1785 would include in Shiloh's
authorized boundary is the Russell House. On May 17, 1862, during the
advance upon Corinth, Union forces led by Major General Sherman, fought
a Confederate brigade and compelled the southern force to abandon its
strong outpost at the Russell House situated on the Tennessee-
Mississippi state line. Because the position possessed a great natural
strength, Sherman's men lost no time fortifying it and driving the
enemy further south toward Corinth.
The pastoral setting of the Russell House Battlefield retains a
high degree of integrity, contains the extant remains of field
fortifications, and has high potential for archeological survey and
research. The approximately 666-acre tract that would be included in
the boundary is in private ownership.
The third battlefield that S. 1785 would include in Shiloh's
authorized boundary is Davis Bridge. On October 5, 1862, Union troops
attacked a retreating Confederate force at Davis Bridge on the Hatchie
River. The Federals drove the Confederates back across the river,
seized the bridge, and charged into a thicket east of the river.
Confederates defending the heights overlooking the crossing to the east
inflicted heavy casualties on the Federals and checked their further
advance, thereby permitting the defeated Confederate force to retreat
south into Mississippi. The engagement at Davis Bridge was the last
Confederate offensive in Mississippi.
In 1998, a 598-acre portion of the Davis Bridge Battlefield was
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge across
the Hatchie River has long since washed away and the banks of the river
have undergone erosion, but the 1,090 acres proposed to be included in
the park boundary retain a high degree of integrity with much of the
acreage remaining in agricultural cultivation or woodlands. The State
of Tennessee owns approximately 845 of these acres. An approximately
five-acre plot, which is a contributing property to the Siege and
Battle of Corinth National Historic Landmark, has been donated to the
National Park Service by the Davis Bridge Memorial Foundation.
If this legislation is enacted, we anticipate that we would acquire
the majority of land by donation and that we would not develop visitor
services or facilities at the three sites for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, land acquisition and development costs would be minimal. Our
current estimate for administrative costs associated with land donation
at the three sites is $60,000 to cover title searches, environmental
site assessments, and closing actions.
S. 1785 would also establish Parker's Crossroads Battlefield in the
State of Tennessee as an affiliated area of the National Park System.
The bill designates the city of Parkers Crossroads and the Tennessee
Historical Commission as the management entity for the affiliated area
and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical
assistance and enter into cooperative agreements with the management
entity for the purpose of providing financial assistance for the
marketing, marking, interpretation, and preservation of the affiliated
area. As an affiliated area, Parker's Crossroads Battlefield would
continue under non-federal ownership and management, but the owner
would be required to administer the site consistent with laws
applicable to units of the National Park System.
Affiliated areas comprise a variety of locations in the United
States that preserve significant properties outside of the National
Park System. Some of these have been designated by Acts of Congress and
others have been designated administratively. All draw on technical
assistance or financial aid from the National Park Service.
The Parker's Crossroads Battlefield is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places and is significant for its role in the
military history of the Civil War and its archeological potential to
yield information concerning the battle. The Parker's Crossroads
Battlefield was the final engagement of Confederate now-Brigadier
General Nathan Bedford Forrest's West Tennessee raid of December, 1862
which resulted in the disruption of Major General Ulysses S. Grant's
supply lines as his army advanced towards Vicksburg. Forrest's raid and
the simultaneous destruction of Grant's supply depot at Holly Spring,
Mississippi, caused Grant to end his overland campaign against
Vicksburg.
Since the battle, the area has remained largely in agricultural
fields and forests consistent with its appearance in 1862, and the site
retains a high degree of integrity. It is likely that the site contains
physical remnants of the battle which can provide information
concerning troop movements and areas where primary fighting occurred.
The site is known to contain the remains of soldiers who were killed
during the fighting and other burials may have also occurred there.
We recommend amending both of the map references in S. 1785 to
allow for more current maps to be substituted. We would be happy to
provide the committee with recommended language and updated maps. We
may also suggest some technical amendments.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee may have.
on s. 1866
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. 1866, a bill to provide for an extension of the
legislative authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a
commemorative work in honor of former President John Adams and his
legacy.
The Department supports S. 1866 with two amendments.
This bill would extend to December 2, 2020, the authorization for
establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to
honor President John Adams and his legacy.
The authority to establish the John Adams memorial was originally
enacted on November 5, 2001. The Adams Memorial Foundation (Foundation)
requested that the subject of the commemoration be determined to be of
preeminent and lasting significance to the nation so that the proposed
memorial might be placed in Area I, a request that was considered
favorably by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC)
in 2002 and recommended to Congress. Public Law 107-315, enacted on
December 2, 2002, granted the Foundation the additional authority to
seek a site within Area I for the memorial.
Authorizations under the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) have a
seven-year sunset period, which extends from the date Area I authority
is granted by Congress, to allow time to obtain a building permit and
begin construction of a memorial. The Foundation was unable to select a
site, design the memorial, receive the requisite approvals, or raise
sufficient funds for the construction of the memorial by the expiration
of its authority on December 2, 2009, seven years after the enactment
of the Area I authority. Public Law 111-88 extended the Foundation's
authority until September 30, 2010, and Public Law 111-169 further
extended it until December 2, 2013.
With the additional seven years of legislative authority provided
by S. 1866, the Foundation should be in a viable position to achieve
site and design approvals as well as to raise the minimum 75 percent of
the funds sufficient to build the memorial. Should the Foundation meet
these thresholds, the Secretary of the Interior may exercise her
authority under the CWA to grant an additional three-year
administrative extension to allow the Foundation to finalize
construction documents and raise the balance of necessary funding. The
Department recognizes that the Foundation has worked diligently through
the process of securing a site location within Area I, including
appearing before the NCMAC on numerous occasions. The Area I approval
by Congress in 2002 would continue to be valid under this proposed
extension of authority. The Department is cognizant of the complexities
involved in selecting a location for this memorial, and looks forward
to continuing to work with the Foundation as it moves forward through
this process.
P.L. 107-62 establishes an account for the deposit of excess funds
with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Department recommends one
amendment that would establish the account with the National Park
Foundation consistent with Section 8906(b)(3) of the CWA, and similar
to authorizing laws for other memorials. The Department also recommends
the bill be amended to clarify the disposition of excess funds should
the authority to establish the memorial lapse. We would be glad to work
with the Subcommittee on these two amendments.
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 may have.
on s. 2031
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2031, a bill to amend the act to provide for the establishment of the
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in the state of Wisconsin, and for
other purposes, to adjust the boundary of that National Lakeshore to
include the lighthouse known as Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light, and
for other purposes.
The Department supports the enactment of S. 2031 with the
amendments discussed below.
S. 2031 would adjust the boundary of the Apostle Island National
Lakeshore (Lakeshore) to include the Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light,
thereby transferring ownership of the historic 1915 lighthouse to the
National Park Service (NPS) from the U.S. Coast Guard in accordance
with previously enacted legislation which mandates that any Federal
property located within the boundaries of the Lakeshore be transferred
to the Secretary of the Interior without further administrative action.
S. 2031 ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can maintain the
breakwater, and, in accordance with the terms of the previously enacted
legislation, the U.S. Coast Guard can continue to maintain a Federal
aid to navigation in the lighthouse. All three agencies would be
required to cooperate in their operations so that each of their agency
missions is served.
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, located on the south shore of
Lake Superior, is responsible for the care of what renowned lighthouse
historian F. Ross Holland, Jr., has described as ``the largest and
finest single collection of lighthouses in the country.'' The park
manages six historic light stations, and a total of eight standing
light towers--more than in any other unit in the National Park System.
All of the lighthouses currently located within the boundary of the
Lakeshore, as well as the Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light, are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Lakeshore has developed into one of the premier locations in
the National Park System for historic preservation and education
centered on lighthouses, including interpretive programs highlighting
the stories of light keepers and the expansion of the United Sates in
the late 19th century through maritime commerce. In 2006, Apostle
Islands rehabilitated the 1863 Raspberry Island Lighthouse, which is a
very popular visitor attraction. This year, the Lakeshore is concluding
a major historic preservation project that will rehabilitate the 1856
Old Michigan Island Light, the oldest in the park, and significantly
improve conditions at four other light stations.
All of the lighthouses currently managed by Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore were transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the
National Park Service as part of a Congressionally authorized boundary
adjustment and land transfer in 1986 that mandated that any Federal
property located within the boundaries of the Lakeshore be transferred
to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. At
the time of the 1986 transfer, the future of the Ashland Light was not
in question.
In May 2012, the Coast Guard announced its intent to dispose of the
Ashland Light under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act
(NHLPA). The NHLPA, enacted in 2000 as an amendment to the National
Historic Preservation Act, provides a public process for the disposal
of Federally owned historic light stations by allowing them to be
transferred at no cost to Federal agencies, State and local
governments, nonprofit corporations, educational agencies, and
community development organizations. The first step is the
determination of the property as ``excess to service requirements'' by
the U.S. Coast Guard and its identification as a historic structure.
This determination is reported to the General Services Administration
and notice is given that applications may be made for the structure. If
an application is accepted, the lighthouse is simply transferred to the
applicant subject to compliance with requirements to maintain the light
and make it available to the public.
No public or private entity, aside from the NPS, expressed interest
in obtaining and maintaining the Ashland Light through the NHLPA
process. However, as the Ashland Light is not within the existing park
boundary, a boundary adjustment is needed to clarify that the property
will be administered as part of the park.
The Ashland Light sits in Lake Superior's Chequamegon Bay, less
than two miles offshore of the small city of Ashland, Wisconsin. The
tower is visible from most of the city's waterfront, and the light
shines brightly at night. Images of the Ashland Light are everywhere in
the city; they adorn the logos of the local newspaper, the Chamber of
Commerce, and many local businesses. Few residents, however, have
actually visited the Ashland Light or understand the vital role it
played in one of the busiest ports on Lake Superior a century ago.
The Ashland Light is currently in fair condition, but its long-term
survival as part of the nation's maritime heritage is not assured. The
NPS and the local community are optimistic that the condition could be
improved and appropriate visitor educational opportunities could be
provided in the future if the Ashland Light were managed as part of
Apostle Island National Lakeshore. With the addition of the Ashland
Light, the NPS would manage all of the nationally significant historic
lights in the region, further enhancing the park's role in historic
lighthouse preservation and education.
The Department would recommend two amendments.
The Department recommends deleting the portion of the amendment
made in Section 2 that provides buffer zone language. The park boundary
adjustment in S. 2031 includes only the lighthouse itself, not any of
the waters of the Bay. The NPS has no authority to manage or permit
activities outside of park boundaries. Fishing, boating, snowmobiling,
and all other existing uses of the Bay's waters are not affected by
this bill. The buffer zone language is unnecessary.
The Department also recommends that the portion of Section 2 of the
bill directing the Federal agencies to cooperate in their operations be
amended to clarify Congressional intent. The bill does not otherwise
alter the statutory standards or other mandates of the three agencies,
nor does it affect the ongoing need for them to work cooperatively to
carry out those mandates in the area, as they currently do with respect
to other lighthouses within the boundary. We would be glad to work with
the Subcommittee to amend the existing language to ensure that the bill
does not affect the missions of these agencies.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am prepared to answer
any questions from members of the Committee.
on s. 2104
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 2104, a
bill to require the Director of the National Park Service to refund to
States all State funds that were used to reopen and temporarily operate
a unit of the National Park System during the October 2013 shutdown.
S. 2104 requires the Director of the National Park Service to
reimburse each State that provided funds to open and temporarily
operate a unit (or units) of the National Park System in October 2013,
when there was a lapse in appropriations for most Federal government
activities. The bill specifies that the reimbursement shall be carried
out using funds appropriated for the National Park Service after
enactment of this legislation. We estimate that the cost of reimbursing
the States would be approximately $2 million.
From October 1 through October 16, 2013, the National Park Service,
along with other bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior,
implemented a shutdown of our activities due to a lapse in
appropriations. Under the closure determination and notice issued by
the Director of the National Park Service, and consistent with
applicable law, the National Park Service closed and secured all 401
national parks across the country, suspended all activities, and
furloughed more than 20,000 National Park Service employees.
In response to the economic impacts that the park closures were
having on many communities and local businesses, as the shutdown
entered a second week, Secretary Jewell announced that the Department
would consider agreements with Governors who indicated an interest and
ability to fully fund National Park Service personnel to reopen
specified national parks in their States. Six States--Arizona,
Colorado, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah--signed donation
agreements with the Department to open a total of 13 park units that
are all significant contributors to tourism in the States where they
are located. State donations under these agreements totaled
approximately $3.6 million. Once these agreements were signed and the
funds were transferred, the National Park Service reopened the national
parks in accordance with the specific agreements.
Under the terms of the agreements, the States donated to the
National Park Service lump sum payments in advance to cover the cost of
operating the parks for a specific number of days. Further, these
agreements stipulated that funds donated and used to re-open the parks
could not be returned to the States. The employees who returned to work
in these parks during the shutdown were paid for these days out of the
funds donated by the States. When Congress passed a continuing
resolution providing appropriations for the first three and a half
months of FY 2014 on October 16, 2013, the National Park Service was
able to resume operations on October 17, 2013, and stop charging
employee time against the funds that had been donated by the States.
Once the shutdown ended, the National Park Service immediately
began the process of reimbursing the six States for the portion of
donated funding that was not expended to operate the parks, which
totaled approximately $1.6 million. However, the National Park Service
does not have the authority to reimburse States for the portion of
funding that was expended (approximately $2 million); an act of
Congress is needed for that. S. 2104 would provide that authority. We
would like to point out that, as written, the source of funds for
repayment will be derived from future appropriations, not from funds
received by the parks in FY14.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
on s. 2111
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 2111, a bill to reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
(NHA).
The Department recognizes the important work of the Board and Staff
of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation to preserve
Yuma, Arizona, a natural crossing area on the Colorado River, and a
landmark in America's westward expansion. We recommend that S. 2111 be
amended to authorize an extension for heritage area program funding
until such time as the National Park Service (NPS) has completed an
evaluation and report on the accomplishments of the area and the future
role of the NPS; and until national heritage area program legislation
is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding for designated
national heritage areas. In this case, we note that funding is
currently authorized for the Yuma Crossing NHA through FY 2015.
The NPS is initiating phase-in of a funding formula for NHAs, which
is a merit-based system for allocating heritage area funding that
considers a variety of factors based upon criteria related to program
goals, accountability, and organizational sustainability. When fully
implemented, the performance-based funding formula plan will reward NHA
entities that bring in additional non-Federal investment and that have
developed a sustainability plan. The Department would like to work with
Congress to determine the future federal role when national heritage
areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage
program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage
area program legislation during this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated heritage areas, yet there is no
authority in law that guides the designation and administration of new
heritage areas as a national system. Program legislation would provide
a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage
areas, offer guidelines for successful planning and management, clarify
roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardize timeframes
and funding for designated areas.
S. 2111 would extend the authorization for federal funding for the
Yuma Crossing NHA for 15 additional years, until September 30, 2030.
The Yuma Crossing NHA was established in 2000 by Public Law 106-319.
Since its creation, this NHA has become the nexus of the Yuma, Arizona,
community, bringing together a multitude of partners including business
and Quechan Indian Tribe leaders; economic development organizations;
city, county, state, and federal government representatives; and
members of the agricultural community to focus on improving regional
recreation, economic development, historic preservation efforts, and
natural resource conservation opportunities. In total, the NHA has
received $4.2 million in federal Heritage Partnership Program funding,
and every federal dollar has been matched at least once with non-
federal funds.
Yuma Crossing NHA is an example of how effective collaborative
efforts can be in supporting local communities and economies. This NHA
has made tremendous progress over the last decade revitalizing Yuma's
riverfront, which was once an overgrown thicket of non-native trees and
underbrush and a corridor for illegal activities. Thanks to the work
coordinated and accomplished by the NHA, working with the Bureau of
Reclamation and other state and federal agencies, the Yuma Crossing NHA
has reconnected the community to the Colorado River, created an
extensive multi-use recreational trail system and restored more than
400 acres of wetlands. The effectiveness of Yuma Crossing NHA in
creating an increased sense of community for the region, expanding
regional recreational opportunities, supporting the restoration of
critical wetlands habitat and important community cultural assets, and
leveraging local financial and human capital support cannot be
overstated.
The Yuma Crossing NHA has succeeded in leveraging its relationships
and abilities to better the overall community. For instance, in 2008-
2009, when faced with a severe economic recession, Arizona State Parks
contemplated closing the Yuma Quartermaster Depot and the Yuma
Territorial Prison, both key state historical parks within the City of
Yuma. In response to this situation, the City of Yuma and the Yuma
Crossing NHA agreed to lease and manage the two parks, rather than see
them shuttered. The community embraced this collaborative effort and
demonstrated its support by donating $70,000 during the first two
months of the parks' new management. Since then, the NHA has upgraded
the parks' museum exhibits, reduced operational costs, and increased
visitation.
We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to
make it clear that the bill would extend the authorization for federal
funding for the national heritage area, instead of reauthorization of
the national heritage area. While the Yuma Crossing NHA faces a sunset
date for its federal funding, its national heritage area designation
will not end.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
on s. 2221
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 2221, a bill to extend the authorization for the Automobile National
Heritage Area in Michigan.
The Department recognizes the important work of the MotorCities
National Heritage Area Partnership in preserving, interpreting and
promoting the automotive and labor heritage of Michigan. We recommend
that S. 2221 be amended to authorize an extension for heritage area
program funding until such time as the National Park Service (NPS) has
completed an evaluation and report on the accomplishments of the area
and the future role of the NPS; and until national heritage area (NHA)
program legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding
for designated national heritage areas. Because the sunset date for the
authorization of funding for the MotorCities NHA is September 30, 2014,
the FY 2015 Budget proposes a one-year extension (through FY 2015).
The NPS is initiating phase-in of a funding formula for NHAs, which
is a merit-based system for allocating heritage area funding that
considers a variety of factors based upon criteria related to program
goals, accountability, and organizational sustainability. When fully
implemented, the performance-based funding formula plan will reward NHA
entities that bring in additional non-Federal investment and that have
developed a sustainability plan. The Department would like to work with
Congress to determine the future federal role when national heritage
areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage
program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage
area legislation during 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 as a national system. Program legislation
would provide a much-needed framework for the evaluation of proposed
national heritage areas, offer guidelines for successful planning and
management, clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and
standardize timeframes and funding for designated areas.
S. 2221, as introduced, would extend the authorization of federal
funding for the Automobile National Heritage Area for an additional 16
years until September 30, 2030. The Automobile NHA was designated in
1998 by Public Law 105-355 to preserve the cultural and historic
landscapes associated with the automobile in Southeastern and Central
Michigan. The NHA covers 10,000 square miles and includes portions of
16 counties, and 250 townships and municipalities, in southeast and
central Michigan. The mission of this NHA is focused on raising
awareness and understanding about the impact of the automobile on this
region with an emphasis on increasing tourism, expanding education and
encouraging revitalization. This is accomplished through voluntary
partnerships with communities and citizens, and local, state, and
federal agencies emphasizing public access, economic development,
regional planning and interpretive programs that highlight the role of
auto and labor history in the region.
We also recommend a technical amendment to the bill that would
allow the name of the heritage area to reflect the common parlance of
MotorCities NHA, rather than Automobile NHA. Public Law 105-355
designated the Automobile National Heritage Area and the Automobile
National Heritage Area Partnership as the management entity for the
NHA. In subsequent years, the management entity has been renamed the
MotorCities National Heritage Area Partnership. An amendment to change
the name of the heritage area to reflect the name of the management
entity would eliminate the dual names used for the heritage area.
During its 16 years of existence, the MotorCities National Heritage
Area Partnership has a significant record of achievement and, with
government funding assistance since its establishment, has shown
significant success in working with partners and the federal government
to preserve, interpret, and promote the significant resources of the
local communities within the region. In total, the NHA has received
over $6.3 million in federal funding, and every federal dollar has been
matched at least once with non-federal funds and in-kind services.
The MotorCities National Heritage Area partnership has undertaken
preservation, education and tourism initiatives to great success. It
has worked with its partners to save the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant,
the birthplace of the Model T automobile. Once semi-abandoned and
threatened with demolition, today Henry Ford's 1906 automotive factory
stands and interprets the story of the first affordable automobile for
Americans. This National Historic Landmark is open for tours and
events. In order to build an understanding of the interconnected
stories of the MotorCities NHA, the group has begun a Wayside Exhibit
program to create a comprehensive system of approximately 250 outdoor
exhibits in communities throughout central and southeastern Michigan
that connect the auto and labor history of the region. Done in
partnership with a seven year grant from the Federal Highway
Administration Department of Transportation and Michigan's Department
of Transportation, the signage will commemorate the shared automotive
heritage and increase public awareness of the interrelated sites within
the NHA to locals and visitors alike. The Heritage Area understands
that tourism is a driving economic factor within the region and has
been working on a tourism collaboration effort called ``Autopalozza''
with their state partners at the State Travel Michigan and the Detroit
Convention and Visitors Bureau. This umbrella group functions to
promote the various major, special, automotive attractions that are
particular to the State of Michigan. With innovative partnerships like
this, the NHA reaches a much broader audience for visitors, and exposes
the heritage area to a national audience.
The management entity has worked tirelessly to connect nearly 1,200
auto-related sites, attractions and events, the largest concentration
of auto-related resources in the world. The heritage area management
entity facilitates public private partnerships for the preservation of
heritage resources and remembers the auto industry's past while
celebrating its future. The auto industry centered in Michigan put the
world on wheels, created the American middle class, and continues to
define the way we live, work and play.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
on s. 2264
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2264, a bill to designate memorials to the service of members of the
United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 2264 with two amendments.
S. 2264 would redesignate Pershing Park in the District of Columbia
as the National World War I Memorial and allow for the enhancement of
the park through the construction of appropriate sculptural and other
commemorative elements, including landscaping, to further honor the
service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I.
The bill also designates the Liberty Memorial of Kansas City at
America's National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the
National World War I Museum and Memorial. Finally, the bill makes
amendments to the World War I Centennial Commission Act.
The Department has testified previously on other bills which sought
to designate a National World War I Memorial in either the District of
Columbia or at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri. In the
111th Congress, S. 760 and H.R. 1849 proposed designating the Liberty
Memorial as the National World War I Memorial, while S. 2097 would have
rededicated the District of Columbia War Memorial as a National and
District of Columbia World War I Memorial. In the 112th Congress, H.R.
938 proposed to designate the Liberty Memorial as the National World
War I Museum and Memorial, and the District of Columbia War Memorial as
the District of Columbia and National World War I Memorial. In each
case, the Department testified that it was premature to establish a
National World War I Memorial without studying existing sites that may
already serve that role. The Department also testified that a national
memorial to World War I already exists in the District of Columbia.
General John J. Pershing Park, located in the area along
Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets NW, was built by the
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation and is now under the
jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The park includes a statue
of General Pershing and artwork detailing the major battles in World
War I that involved U.S. troops. Quotations on the existing World War I
Veterans Memorial at Pershing Park include General Pershing's tribute
to the officers and men of the American Expeditionary Forces of World
War I and a commemoration of those who served in the United States Navy
in World War I. The Department believes that this is the appropriate
site to commemorate World War I.
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) has
concluded that the existing World War I Memorial at Pershing Park
serves today as a national memorial to the veterans who served in World
War I. On July 23, 2013, NCMAC considered H.R. 222, which would have
established a new and separate memorial to the veterans of World War I
within the District of Columbia. The Commission unanimously recommended
enhancing the existing World War I Memorial in Pershing Park rather
than establishing a second memorial. More recently, on May 6, 2014,
NCMAC considered S. 2264 and its companion bill, H.R. 4489. The intent
of the bill to enhance the existing commemoration at Pershing Park was
met with unanimous approval.
S. 2264 directs that there will be no infringement upon the
existing District of Columbia War Memorial, and provides for compliance
with the Commemorative Works Act (CWA), with two exceptions. The bill
waives section 8905 with regard to site selection, as Pershing Park is
an existing memorial site and the bill only calls for its re-
designation. The bill, also, waives section 8908(b) of the CWA, as the
Area I designation process is precluded by re-designation of Pershing
Park. The Department agrees with these waivers. It further prohibits
Federal funds from being used for the design, establishment, or
enhancement of a memorial or commemorative work by the WWI Centennial
Commission.
Because of the importance of World War I to the history of the
United States and consistent with the treatment of memorials to other
significant wars fought by our country, the Department believes that
this bill would designate the National World War I Memorial as a new
unit of the National Park Service, which would in turn be managed by
the National Mall and Memorial Parks. We recommend that language be
included in the text of the legislation establishing the memorial as a
separate unit of the National Park System.
The Department also recommends striking ``national'' from the name
of the title of the memorial to redesignate Pershing Park in the
District of Columbia as the World War I Memorial. No other memorials to
our country's wars sited in the District of Columbia have ``national''
in their title, including the World War II Memorial, the Korean War
Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. H.R. 4489, as
reported by the House Natural Resources Committee, includes this
recommendation. We believe siting the World War I Memorial in our
nation's capital will allow the memorial to stand on its own and
provide appropriate recognition to honor the service and sacrifice of
all those who fought in this war.
The proposed amendments are attached. In addition, the Department
of Justice advises that it has constitutional concerns with S. 2264,
which it intends to convey to the Committee by separate transmission.
This concludes my testimony on S. 2264, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Proposed amendment to S. 2264
On page 2, strike lines 17-19 and insert:
''(a) REDESIGNATION.--Pershing Park in the District of
Columbia is hereby redesignated as the `World War I Memorial',
a separate unit of the National Park System.''
on s. 2293
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 2293, a bill to clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age,
and New England National Scenic Trails as units of the National Park
System.
The Department does not object to S. 2293.
S. 2293 would amend the National Trials System Act to require the
North Country, Ice Age, and New England National Scenic Trails to be
designated as units of the National Park System. The National Park
Service (NPS) has carefully considered the concerns of Congressional
members that certain trails are excluded from equal participation in
NPS funding and programs because they are not currently counted as
units of the National Park System. Although most of these concerns have
been addressed through administrative actions, the National Park
Service would not object if Congress determines that conferring unit
status on these trails is the most expedient means of addressing any
perceived inequality. The NPS recommends that the potential concerns of
local communities be considered prior to undertaking any change to a
particular trail's designation to ensure continued public support,
which is critical to the success of our long distance trails.
The NPS administers, or co-administers, a total of 23 long-distance
trails, including three that are counted as units of the National Park
System. In addition to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which was
established in 1968 and listed as a unit of the National Park System in
1972, the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and the Natchez Trace
National Scenic Trail were listed as units in the mid-1980's through an
administrative decision reflecting the extent of Federal land ownership
and the NPS' administration of these trails.
Regardless of how the trails are counted, all of the long-distance
trails administered by the National Park Service are, by law, part of
the National Park System. Therefore, designating any trail as a unit
does not change the management of that trail, or affect any existing
agreements, easements, or other legal instruments in effect for the
administration of the trail. However, we recognize that this difference
in the manner in which certain trails are designated may have led to
the perception that the trails are receiving unequal treatment.
The National Park Service has taken steps to assure that trails
have equal access to NPS funding and that the public is aware of the
National Scenic and Historic Trails on the NPS website and other forms
of media. We also worked with the National Park Foundation, our
Congressionally authorized philanthropic partner, to allow the long
distance trails to be considered for grant funding.
The National Park Service recognizes and values the unique
relationship and partnerships that have been developed with communities
along these national trails. We will continue to work with the trail
partners to improve communications and address any of the concerns that
have been regarding equal participation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
on s. 2318
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 2318, a bill to reauthorize the
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Act.
The Department recognizes the important work of the Erie Canalway
National Heritage Corridor Commission (Commission) and its primary
partner, the Erie Canalway Heritage Fund, Inc., in preserving,
interpreting, and promoting the 524-mile system of historic canals that
compose the Erie Canalway. We recommend that S. 2318 be amended to
authorize an extension for the Commission until such time as the
National Park Service (NPS) has completed an evaluation and report on
the accomplishments of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
(Corridor) and the future role of the NPS, and to provide for the
transition of management of the Corridor from the Commission to the
Erie Canalway Heritage Fund, Inc., during the evaluation period. We
further recommend that National Heritage Area (NHA) program legislation
be enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding for designated
national heritage areas.
The NPS is initiating phase-in of a funding formula for NHAs, which
is a merit-based system for allocating heritage area funding that
considers a variety of factors based upon criteria related to program
goals, accountability, and organizational sustainability. When fully
implemented, the NPS funding formula plan will reward NHA entities that
bring in additional non-federal investment and that have developed a
sustainability plan. The Department would like to work with Congress to
determine the future federal role when national heritage areas reach
the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage program funding.
We recommend that national heritage area program legislation be enacted
during 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 as a national system. Program legislation
would provide a much-needed framework for the evaluation of proposed
national heritage areas, offer guidelines for successful planning and
management, clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and
standardize timeframes and funding for designated areas.
S. 2318, as introduced, would extend the authorization of the
Commission for an additional 15 years, until December 21, 2030. The
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor was designated by Public Law
106-554, enacted on December 21, 2000, to preserve, interpret, promote,
and provide access to the Erie Canalway's historical, natural,
cultural, scenic, and recreational resources. That law established the
Commission to develop and implement the Canalway Plan and foster
initiatives within the Corridor, and provided for the Commission to
sunset 10 years after enactment. Section 8203 of Public Law 111-11
extended the authorization for the Commission for an additional five
years, until December 21, 2015.
As the designated authority for implementing the Canalway Plan, the
Commission serves as the management or local coordinating entity. A
more limited extension of the Commission's authorization would enable
it to continue beyond December 21, 2015, as the entity able to receive
federal heritage area funding while a transition to the local
coordinating entity takes place. Through FY 2014, the Corridor has
received approximately $8.4 million.
The Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor encompasses the most
commercially enduring and historically significant system of canals in
the United States. This waterway played a key role in turning New York
City into a preeminent center for commerce, industry, and finance.
Besides being a catalyst for growth in the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys,
these canals helped open up western America for settlement and for many
years transported much of the Midwest's agricultural and industrial
products to domestic and international markets. The Corridor covers
4,834 square miles, includes portions of 23 counties and 234
municipalities, and is home to 2.7 million people across the state of
New York. The mission of the Corridor is focused on preserving and
sharing the extraordinary heritage of the Erie Canalway, promoting the
Corridor as a world-class tourism experience, and fostering vibrant
communities connected by the waterway. This is accomplished through
close collaboration among the Commission, the Erie Canalway Heritage
Fund, Inc., and voluntary partnerships with communities and citizens,
and local, state, and federal agencies.
As mentioned earlier in this statement, the Department recommends
that S. 2318 be amended to provide for the Erie Canalway Heritage Fund,
Inc., (Fund) to be the local coordinating entity for the Corridor. The
Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has been established
exclusively for charitable, educational, and civic purposes. It focuses
its activities on implementing the vision formed by the citizens of the
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor and is a key partner with the
Commission in helping to implement the Corridor's preservation and
management plan. We would be happy to work with the committee on
language that would provide for the appropriate transition of
management of the Corridor from the Commission to the Fund.
Amending the bill to provide for the nonprofit organization to be
the local coordinating entity would be consistent with the general
trend of other national heritage areas that were first authorized with
commissions as the management entity. As our experience with heritage
areas has grown, we have found that nonprofit organizations have
certain advantages over federal commissions as local coordinating
entities, including the fact that they do not sunset and they are
better situated to do the fundraising needed to sustain the heritage
area as it moves toward self-sufficiency. At this time, only three of
the 49 authorized national heritage areas, including Erie Canalway,
have federal commissions serving as their management or local
coordinating entities.
Finally, we recommend a technical amendment to the title of the
bill to make it clear that the bill would reauthorize the Commission
rather than the entire Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Act,
which suggests that the Corridor designation faces expiration. While
the Commission faces a sunset date in 2015, the Act establishing the
Corridor as a national heritage area does not sunset.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
on s. 2346
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
committee to present the Department's views on S. 2346, the National
Discovery Trails Act of 2014.
The National Park Service, in accordance with P.L 102-461,
conducted a study on the feasibility and desirability of adding the
American Discovery Trail (ADT) to the National Trails System. This
study, which was transmitted to Congress in 1998, found that the ADT
could be appropriate for designation as a new class of national trails,
separate from National Scenic Trails or National Historic Trails.
Nevertheless, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 2346
until such time as private-sector partners are able to demonstrate the
capacity to support such an endeavor, as well as the level of public
backing necessary to ensure its continued success. Further, prior to
supporting any proposal to amend the National Trails System Act to
include any new category of trails, the National Park Service would
recommend additional discussions between the NPS, the bill's sponsor,
and advocates of the National Discovery Trail concept to clarify the
purpose of National Discovery Trails and determine if the need for such
trails could be met through an existing category of national trail.
Finally, we would propose several amendments to address concerns
with language that could hinder effective management of the trail
corridor, particularly the limitations on acquisition authority.
S. 2346 amends the National Trails System Act by adding ``National
Discovery Trails'' as a new category of trail that may be designated as
part of the Act and designates the American Discovery Trail as the
first National Discovery Trail. The bill further amends the National
Trails System Act by establishing the following criteria for National
Discovery Trails: the trail must link one or more areas within the
boundaries of a metropolitan area, and should connect to other trails;
the trail must be supported by a competent trail-wide volunteer-based
organization and have extensive local and trail-wide support by the
public, user groups, and by affected State and local governments; and,
the trail must pass through more than one state and be a continuous,
walkable route. Further, the bill requires the appropriate Secretary to
administer the trail in cooperation with a trail-wide volunteer based
organization, and to develop a comprehensive management plan for the
trail.
The ADT was proposed in 1990 as a continuous mid-continent, coast-
to-coast trail to link metropolitan areas to the nation's major long-
distance trails, as well as to shorter local and regional trails. In
October 1992, through P.L. 102-461, Congress directed the Secretary of
the Interior to study the feasibility and desirability of adding the
ADT to the National Trails System. This study was completed in December
of 1995, and submitted to Congress in 1998. The over 6000-mile route of
the ADT, as described in this legislation and mapped in the feasibility
study, extends from Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware to Point Reyes
National Seashore in California. The ADT crosses the states of Nevada,
Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
The feasibility study team visited many parts of the trail's route,
analyzed its purposes and goals as a stand-alone project and as an
integral part of the National Trails System. Five purposes were
identified that apply specifically to the ADT. These purposes were
primarily based on the trail proponents' ideas and visions for the
trail, and are as follows: provide a continuous coast-to-coast route
for non-motorized users (e.g., hikers, bicyclists, equestrians);
establish a marked route connecting representative examples of
America's heritage; serve as an East-to-West spine, linking many major
trails and strengthening the national network of trails; enable users
to experience the spectrum of American landscapes; and create
opportunities for people to meet, communicate with, and appreciate
others from around America and the world.
The National Park Service study team developed the following three
alternatives based on its findings:
Alternative 1 examined the ADT as a potential National
Scenic Trail.
Alternative 2 recognized the unique characteristics of this
trail and suggested a new category of trails within the
National Trails System.
Alternative 3 explored taking no Federal action.
S. 2346 is based on Alternative 2, a new category of long-distance
trails.
Under Alternative 2, Congress would authorize the ADT as a National
Discovery Trail--the first of its kind. Congress would need to amend
the National Trails System Act to include National Discovery Trails as
an additional class of trails in the National Trail System before the
ADT could be authorized as a National Discovery Trail.
One of the primary reasons for proposing the establishment of
National Discovery Trails would be to address a potential conflict with
National Scenic Trails following roads. When the ADT was initially
proposed, a guiding principle in identifying the trail's route was that
it be located on public lands and rights-of-way to avoid the
acquisition of private land. This meant that the proposed trail often
was routed along roads. If it is authorized, long segments of the ADT
will be on roads for the foreseeable future. However, the National
Trails System Act specifically prohibits the use of motorized vehicles
along National Scenic Trails. This new class of trails could be located
along roadways, if necessary, to make the trails continuous. Unlike a
National Scenic Trail, it would be acceptable--although not desirable--
for a National Discovery Trail to have segments where there were no
opportunities for an off-road, non-motorized, trail experience.
National Discovery Trails would have several other distinct
features. Currently, there are no trails that are primarily intended to
tie together existing trails and urban areas into the national network
envisioned by the National Trails System Act. National Discovery Trails
would be intended to link existing national, regional, and local trails
into an integrated system, much like the way the interstate highway
system functions. Similarly, these national trails would connect urban
areas where most Americans live with rural and backcountry areas.
Notwithstanding the potential benefits of creating a new class of
national trails and authorizing the ADT as the first National Discovery
Trail, we have a number of outstanding questions about the new
classification, and in particular, the proposed ADT.
Strong partnerships are vital to any national trail, and would be
especially important in the structure envisioned by S. 2346. The
Appalachian Trail was the model and impetus for the National Trails
System. When that trail was established as a National Scenic Trail in
1968, it was well-supported by a vibrant nonprofit organization, the
Appalachian Trail Conference, with thousands of members and decades of
trail-building experience. For the National Park Service, helping
protect and administer the Appalachian Trail from the beginning has
been a mutual partnership, with both the conference and the service
offering their skills and strengths to keep the trail viable and
intact.
However, some of the trails subsequently established as part of the
National Trails System have not had--and still do not have--strong
partner organizations. In some cases, the Federal agency administering
a trail has had to wait for such a group to get started or to assist in
organizing it. Trail partnerships are essential to the well-being of
the National Trails System. While S. 2346 endeavors to address this
concern through a provision in the bill requiring that one of the
criteria for establishing a National Discovery Trail is that there
already exists at least one competent, volunteer-based organization for
the proposed trail, backed up by extensive State and local public
support, the NPS remains concerned that this provision may not prove
sufficient to ensuring the capacity of the incoming partner
organization. In the case of the ADT, the NPS is concerned that the
trail does not currently meet the proposed threshold of competency and
public support, and would recommend deferring action in designating it
as a National Discovery Trail until such time as the ADT's private-
sector partners are able to demonstrate the capacity to support such an
endeavor.
Beyond specific questions about the ADT, the NPS would recommend
that additional consideration be given to the purpose of introducing a
new class of national trails, and the potential impact on existing
national trails. As with any new designation, attention should be given
to the justification, need, and demand for a new category of trails.
The criteria and standards for determining if a particular trail is
appropriate for designation should be very clearly defined. Further, if
designated National Discovery Trails lack the capacity to ensure
consistency and congruence with existing national trails, the public
could be confused and the value of the National Trails System as a
whole could be diminished.
Other successful models of partner-driven and community-based long
distance routes, such as the East Coast Greenway--an entirely volunteer
and community-supported long distance trail primarily dedicated to non-
motorized routes traversing the numerous east coast states--could
potentially provide similar benefits, while addressing concerns of
Federal involvement and placing control of trail development with local
and State entities. The NPS would welcome the opportunity to work with
the bill's sponsor, and advocates of the National Discovery Trail
concept, to address these issues and offer support in developing a
model that meets the needs of all the parties involved.
If the Committee moves forward on this bill, we would like to work
with you on amendments to provide clarity and consistency. We are
particularly concerned about language in two places where we believe
State and local jurisdictions, which would have the primary
responsibility for protecting and managing segments of National
Discovery Trails, would be severely hampered in their ability to keep
the trail open to the public and to provide recreational access by
limiting land acquisition or appearing to limit rights-of-way.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be glad to answer
any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
on s. 2356
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2356, a bill to adjust the boundary of the Mojave National Preserve.
The Department supports the enactment of S. 2356, but recommends
two amendments regarding the acreage to be transferred out of the park
and a qualification on the lands to be acquired by donation.
S. 2356 would adjust the boundary of Mojave National Preserve to
remove approximately 525 acres on the north side of the park from the
boundary of the park. This acreage would be transferred to BLM for a
proposed rail alignment. XpressWest is constructing a high-speed rail
line from Victorville, CA, to Las Vegas, NV. The proposed route would
follow and generally parallel Interstate 15 (adjacent to the north
boundary of the Preserve), except for the grade to Mountain Pass, which
is too steep and the road curve too sharp to allow for the rail line to
follow the Interstate. The NPS lacks authority to grant rights-of-way
for railroads; the BLM, however, has such authority and can grant any
necessary permits, in accordance with section 501 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, to XpressWest to complete the project. The
area proposed for transfer to the BLM would accommodate the grade and
curve requirements for the proposed high-speed train through the
Mountain Pass.
As mitigation for the removal of land from the boundary of the
park, this bill authorizes that other land would be acquired by
donation. The bill authorizes approximately 4 acres of land be acquired
for every acre of land removed from the preserve. The bill would
authorize the transfer of 525 acres of National Park Service land to
the Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the necessary railroad
right-of-way, and the Preserve to receive in exchange a donation of
approximately 2,100 acres of private land.
S. 2356 also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit
cattle grazing, in accordance with applicable NPS laws and policies, on
the land acquired under Section 3(a) by donation. The bill states that
cattle grazing shall take place during the period beginning on the date
on which the land is acquired and ending on the date that is 25 years
after the date on which the land is acquired, to the same extent
permitted on the day before the date of enactment of the Act.
The NPS allows agricultural grazing if it is specifically
authorized in a park's enabling legislation. Section 510(a) of P.L.
103-433, the enabling legislation for Mojave National Preserve,
specifies that the privilege of grazing domestic livestock on lands
within the preserve shall continue to be exercised at no more than the
current level, subject to applicable laws and NPS regulations. NPS
Management Policies state that, ``The Service will phase out the
commercial grazing of livestock whenever possible and manage
recreational and administrative uses of livestock to prevent those uses
from unacceptably impacting park resources.''
We recommend two amendments to S. 2356. Section 3(a)(2) authorizes
the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of approximately 525 acres
of land from the National Park Service (NPS) to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The official map, numbered 170/120,846-B, delineates
the transfer of approximately 520 acres. The Department recommends that
the acreage in the bill be amended to match the map.
Section 3(a)(1) authorizes the acquisition by donation of
approximately 4 acres of land within or adjacent to the boundary of the
preserve to be used for mitigation for every 1 acre of land removed
from the preserve. The Department recommends that the donated land be
qualified as land identified in the Mojave National Preserve's Land
Protection Plan as suitable for fee acquisition. We will be happy to
work with the committee on the appropriate language for the second
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am prepared to answer
any questions from members of the Committee.
on s. 2576
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2576, a bill to establish the
Maritime Washington National Heritage Area.
The Department supports the objectives of S. 2576. The Maritime
Washington National Heritage Area has been found to meet the National
Park Service's interim criteria for designation as a National Heritage
Area. However, the Department recommends that Congress pass program
legislation that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified
National Heritage Areas and a process for the designation, funding, and
administration of these areas before designating any additional new
National Heritage Areas. The Department also recommends a technical
amendment to provide for an official NPS map to accompany the
legislation.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, although
there is no authority in law that guides their designation and
administration as a national system. National heritage area program
legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluation of
proposed national heritage areas, guiding planning and management,
clarifying roles and responsibilities, and standardizing timeframes and
funding for designated areas.
S. 2576 would establish the Maritime Washington National Heritage
Area to include Federal, State, local and tribal lands that allow
public access and are at least partly located within one-quarter mile
landward of the shoreline from Gray's Harbor to the Canadian border and
extending through the City of Seattle to include Lake Union. This
``Salt Water Coast'' covers 3,000 linear miles of coastline.
The proposed local coordinating entity would be the Pacific
Northwest Maritime Heritage Advisory Council operating under the
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.
A Feasibility Study for a Washington State National Maritime
Heritage Area was completed and published by the Washington Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in April 2010. The NPS
conducted a review of the study for consistency with the interim
National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. The review of this
document and a subsequent revised Statement of Importance and boundary
justification, submitted March 5, 2012, found that it meets these
criteria. The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation was informed
of this finding in a letter dated June 5, 2012.
The unique geography of the Puget Sound, northern coast, and Grays
Harbor region reflects a maritime history both before and after our
nation's borders were set. The steep terrain of glacier-clad mountain
ranges juxtaposed to saltwater shoreline with a temperate climate
enabled native people build a complex culture around canoe routes and
salmon cycles. By the late 18th century Spanish, English, and Russian
explorers were mapping and naming places in the region in the name of
science and the interest of colonial empire. After the 49th parallel
was established as the nation's northern border in 1846, this new
corner of the country entered a dramatic period of social, political
and military development. The vast conifer forests were easily
accessible for timber production and the coastal geography made
possible its transport to the developing American west. The timber
trade and the abundant marine resources--especially salmon--of the
Strait of San Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the Pacific Ocean,
attracted American, European, and Pan-Asian settlers who provided the
labor for thriving port economies such as Port Angeles, Port Townsend,
and Port Gamble.
The proposed Maritime Washington National Heritage Area stretches
from northern points of entry at Bellingham and Blaine south to the
protected harbors of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. The focal point of the
heritage area is the greater Puget Sound area, a system of
interconnected marine waterways, harbors, bays, and inlets along the
shores of the San Juan Archipelago and the many waterfront towns,
cities, and ports that have grown up here over time. The naval
facilities on Puget Sound have built and repaired vessels in their
fleet for over a century. Today, the region still relies on these
waterways to make up the largest marine highway system--its famous
ferries--for day-to-day transportation.
The cultural landscape of the region tells the stories of a rich
Native American civilization, development of the farthest territorial
corner of the United States, of gold rushers and ship builders, and of
a gateway to Alaska, Asia, and the seaports of the world. Traditional
Native American sites, lumber towns, logging mills, salmon processing
plants, historic ships, lighthouses, museums, and a host of other
maritime-related objects, sites, and traditions relate these stories
and make up the proposed Maritime Washington National Heritage Area.
The designation would strengthen and encourage the partnership of
organizations that have for two decades been committed to the
recognition, preservation, and continued economic, recreational, and
educational use of this landscape and its resources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
have.
on s. 2602
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2602, a bill to establish the
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area in the State of
Washington.
The Department supports the objectives of S. 2602. The Mountains to
Sound Greenway area has been found to meet the National Park Service's
interim criteria for designation as a National Heritage Area. However,
the Department recommends that Congress pass program legislation that
establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified National
Heritage Areas and a process for the designation, funding, and
administration of these areas before designating any additional new
National Heritage Areas. The Department also recommends a technical
amendment to provide for an official NPS map to accompany the
legislation.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, although
there is no authority in law that guides their designation and
administration as a national system. National Heritage Area Program
legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluation of
proposed national heritage areas, guiding planning and management,
clarifying roles and responsibilities, and standardizing timeframes and
funding for designated areas.
S. 2602 would establish the Mountains to Sound Greenway National
Heritage Area to include lands within the Yakima River basin upstream
of Manastash Creek and the cities of Ellensburg, Roslyn, Cle Elum, and
South Cel Elum in Kittitas County. It would also include all lands in
the Snoqualmie River, Cedar River, and Lake Washington watersheds, the
Puget Sound near shore watersheds within and including the cities of
Seattle and Shoreline, and 22 additional cities in King County.
The proposed local coordinating entity would be the nonprofit
corporation Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust (Trust).
NPS review of the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage
Area Feasibility Study completed by the Trust in March 2012, found that
the study did not meet the NPS Interim National Heritage Area
Feasibility Study Guidelines. The NPS requested the Trust provide a
revised statement of national importance; themes and a list of
associated resources; a summary of traditions, customs, beliefs and
folk life; and a boundary justification. The NPS received the Addendum
from the Trust on May 27, 2014, which (1) explained that the Mountains
to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area is nationally important for
its association with the expansion of our national transportation
system and the creation of our modern timber industry; (2) identified
three themes associated with the region's national importance and their
related historic and natural resources; (3) summarized the ongoing
traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife that interprets and
celebrates the region's national importance; and (4) justified the
proposed boundary in relation to the strategic assemblage of resources
and opportunities for conservation, recreation and education, as well
as public interest in this national heritage area designation.
The proposed Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area
tells a nationally important story of how the Northern Pacific and
Milwaukee railroads, and later the Sunset Highway and Interstate 90,
created the final section of an historic transportation corridor that
wove the Northwest into the nation's fabric, opened up trade between
the United States and Asia, and led to the development of the nation's
modern timber industry.
Although the Puget Sound area was part of the United States by
1950, the Cascade Range isolated the region from the rest of the
nation, with little access to its abundant natural resources and
sheltered deep-water ports. Chartered by President Lincoln in 1864, the
Northern Pacific Railroad was constructed along a Native American
pathway through the nearly impassible Snoqualmie Pass to reach Seattle
20 years later. The connection of the Eastern seaboard and Great Lakes
with the farthest reaches of the continental United States reinforced
the newly drawn American-Canadian border. The City of Seattle grew into
a booming hub for shipbuilding and the trade of foreign goods and the
region's own wealth of natural resources, opening the country's first
trade routes on what we now call the Pacific Rim. Rail towns sprung up
along the main lines with mill and coal towns on the spurs, while piers
stretched into Puget Sound, attracting immigrant workers whose
descendants live in the region today.
The Milwaukee Road crossed the Cascades in the early 1900s using
pioneering tunneling and electrification techniques. The high speed
electric trains of the Milwaukee Road carried Japanese silk to New
York, the nation's most precious rail commodity after gold and silver
bullion, but the railroad made its money carrying passengers to ski,
hike, and climb at Snoqualmie Pass. The conservation ethic that
developed in the region from enjoyment of the region's natural beauty
is strongly held today.
Washington's modern economy is descended directly from the Northern
Pacific Land Grant that was used to build the railroad. In place of
public financing, the railroad received the largest federal land grant
in American history. The railroad was granted 40 million acres--every
other square mile of land in a checkerboard pattern up to forty miles
on either side of the right-of-way. This consolidated ownership, as
well as steam technology brought by the railroad, created the booming
timber industry that helped rebuild San Francisco after the 1906
earthquake and fueled shipbuilding in World War I. Airplanes being
produced for the military on a large scale for the first time were
built from the region's prized spruce trees. Demand for this aircraft
led William Boeing to found a company in the region in 1916 that
supplies the nation's air transportation industry today.
Plantation forestry involving sustained-yield harvest and
reforestation was invented in 1937 by William Weyerhauser, who had
amassed one and a half million acres of Washington timberland. He
established the first seedling industry at Snoqualmie Falls and began
to manage timber across multiple harvests, a radical idea at the time.
This remains the industry standard across much of the country today.
The cultural heritage of the Mountains to Sound Greenway National
Heritage Area is alive in the ethnic diversity of the region's
population, in the traditions, customs and celebrations, and in
museums, festivals, historic sites, and interpretive trails that both
residents and visitors enjoy today. Following modern-day political and
land-management structures, the proposed heritage area boundaries are
pragmatic, thus offering the best formula for long-term success as
communities seek to manage, enhance, and interpret resources across
this landscape.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Goldfuss.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF GREG SMITH, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOERST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a comment on two
bills. Mr. Chairman, I am Greg Smith, the acting associate
deputy chief, National Forest System, and we thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
Browns Canyon. The USDA supports S. 1794. We defer to the
Department of the Interior regarding the provisions of the bill
affecting the BLM. S. 1794 would designate approximately 22,000
areas of Federal land that are managed by two agencies, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, as the Browns
Canyon National Monument.
Within the monument, 7,900 acres of public land managed by
the Bureau of Land Management, and 2,500 acres managed by the
National Forest System, on the Sedalia Ranger District, on the
Pike and San Isabel National Forest, would be designated as the
Browns Canyon Wilderness.
S. 1794 would designate approximately 12,060 acres of
national monument and 2,500 acres of wilderness to be
administered by the Forest Service, as depicted on the map
entitled ``Browns Canyon National Monument'' dated November 7,
2013.
We have determined these lands designated to be compatible
with the current Pike and San Isabel National Forest Plan.
Therefore, Senate bill 1794 provides existing grazing in the
national monument and wilderness shall continue, and motorized
and mechanical transports shall be prohibited in the portion of
the national monument east of the Arkansas River, except on
roads and trails open to such uses on the date of enactment of
this Act.
Additionally, grazing permits or leases for national
monument areas shall continue to be administered and no
curtailment of grazing in the national monument or wilderness
shall occur due to the designation of this Act.
Nothing in this Act affects the use of any allocation of
water, water rights, or interest in lands on the date of
enactment of this Act, and the Forest Service may prescribe
measures to control non-invasive plants and noxious weeds
within the National Forest System portions of the national
monument and wilderness.
Subsection 7 stipulates that Forest Service Road 184 within
the new national monument shall be maintained as a Level II
road. Subsection 3 would allow the temporary closure of the
roads to any and all use to protect the public safety and for
maintenance and other administrative uses. Forest Service Road
184 within the proposed national monument is currently open,
and in accordance with laws and regulations, will be maintained
administratively to prevent resource damage, trespassing, and
public safety issues.
However, the department does not support specifying the
maintenance level in this legislation. In addition, we
recommend several technical corrections to the bill, as
detailed in our testimony, regarding the type, the date of the
map on the record, and also minor technical area wording in
Section 7, invasive species and noxious weeds.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony on this bill.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Smith. We will now turn to
questions from members of the committee. Senator Baldwin, I
know you have a busy schedule.
Senator Portman. He has one more bill, I think.
Senator Udall. You have one more bill?
Mr. Smith. One more bill.
Senator Udall. I am sorry. I was excited to get to
questions. My apologies.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. The USDA supports S. 2392. The Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542, protects the free flowing
conditions, water conditions, and outstanding remarkable
natural, cultural, and recreational values of some of our most
precious waters.
It also provides an opportunity to build partnerships among
landowners, river users, tribal nations, and all levels of
government.
S. 2392 amends Section 3(a) of the Act to designate certain
segments of East Rosebud Creek in Carbon County, Montana as
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It adds a 13
mile segment from the source of the creek in the Absaroka-
Beartooth Wilderness to East Rosebud Lake as a wild river, and
a 7 mile segment below East Rosebud Lake to the first private
land as a recreational river.
This bill is consistent with the Custer National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan, which identifies the
segments as eligible for designation as a wild and recreational
river, respectively.
The Custer National Forest has not conducted a suitability
study on East Rosebud Creek. As eligible rivers, these segments
are currently managed by the Custer National Forest in a manner
that is consistent with the proposed designations.
The proposed designations would prohibit future FERC,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, licenses of any new
hydroelectric projects or facilities directly affecting those
creeks. There are no existing FERC licenses or no pending
proposals for licenses in the Rosebud Creek area.
Congressional designation of the two segments would not
disrupt or alter existing management or use of areas
surrounding the East Rosebud Creek, but would require
additional planning and monitoring for the creek and adjacent
Custer National Forest lands.
We recommend that Section (b) be deleted as the river
segments' proposed designation because they are entirely
bounded by National Forest System lands.
Mr. Chairman, this does conclude my statement.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Smith, Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture
on s. 1794
Mr. Chairman, I am Greg Smith, Acting Associate Deputy Chief,
National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) regarding S.1794, the ``Browns Canyon National Monument and
Wilderness Act of 2013.''
S. 1794 would designate approximately 22,000 acres of federal land
that are managed by two federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management
and the Forest Service as the Browns Canyon National Monument. Within
the Monument, 7,960 acres of public lands managed by Bureau of Land
Management and 2,500 acres of National Forest System lands on the
Salida Ranger District on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests
would be designated as the Browns Canyon Wilderness.''
USDA testified in support of the designation of the Browns Canyon
before the House Natural Resource Committee, regarding H.R. 4289, the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, on March 11, 2010. At that time, USDA
expressed concern regarding allowing continued motorized use of Turret
Road; in S. 1794 the wilderness boundary has changed and thus has
remedied our concern. S. 1794 would designate approximately 12,060
acres of National Monument and 2,500 acres of Wilderness to be
administered by the Forest Service, as depicted on the map titled
``Browns Canyon National Monument'' dated November 7, 2013. We have
determined these land designations to be compatible and congruent with
the management prescriptions in the current Pike and San Isabel
National Forest Plan. Therefore, USDA supports S. 1794. We defer to the
Department of the Interior regarding provisions in the bill affecting
BLM.
S. 1794 provides that existing grazing in the National Monument and
Wilderness shall continue and motorized and mechanical transport shall
be prohibited in the portion of the National Monument east of the
Arkansas River, except on roads and trails open to such uses on the
date of enactment of this Act. Additionally, grazing permits or leases
for the National Monument area shall continue to be administered and no
curtailment of grazing in the National Monument or Wilderness shall
occur due to the designation of this Act. Nothing in this Act affects
the use or allocation of any water, water right, or interest in water
on the date of enactment of this Act and the Forest Service may
prescribe measures to control nonnative invasive plants and noxious
weeds within the Forest Service portion of the National Monument and
Wilderness.
Subsection 7(a)(2)(D)(i) stipulates that Forest Service Road 184
within the new National Monument shall be maintained as a Level II
Road. Subsection (iii) would allow for temporarily closures of the road
to any and all uses to protect public safety and for maintenance or
other administrative uses. Forest Service Road 184 within the proposed
National Monument is currently open, and in accordance with laws and
regulation will be managed administratively to prevent resource damage,
trespass, or public safety issues. However, the Department does not
support specifying the maintenance level in this legislation.
In addition, we recommend several technical corrections to the
bill, the first regarding the date of the map on record at the BLM
Salida, CO, office. The map is dated November 5, 2013, not November 7,
2013 as written in S. 1794. We also recommend additional technical
corrections to Section 7(e), `Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds', in
order to be consistent with law, regulation and policy; the words
`nonnative' and `plants' should be struck and the word `species' should
be inserted in place of `plants'.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
on s. 2392
Mr. Chairman, I am Greg Smith, Acting Associate Deputy Chief,
National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) regarding S. 2392, the ``East Rosebud Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act''
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542 (16 U.S.C. 1271-
1287, as amended) protects the free-flowing condition, water quality,
and outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural, and recreational values
of some of our most precious waters. It also provides an opportunity to
build partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, and
all levels of government.
S. 2392 amends Section 3(a) of the Act to designate certain
segments of East Rosebud Creek in Carbon County, Montana, as components
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It adds a 13-mile segment from
the source of the creek in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to East
Rosebud Lake as a wild river, and the 7-mile segment from below East
Rosebud Lake to the first private land as a recreational river.
The Department supports S. 2392.
The bill is consistent with the Custer National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan Amendment Number 2, approved December 15,
1989, which identifies the segments as eligible for designation as wild
and recreational respectively. The Custer National Forest has not
conducted a suitability study for East Rosebud Creek; therefore, the
Department does not have a recommendation regarding designation under
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, as eligible rivers, these
segments are currently managed by the Custer National Forest in a
manner consistent with the proposed designations.
The proposed designations would prohibit future Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (FERC) licensing of any new hydroelectric
facility on, or directly affecting, these creek segments. There is no
existing FERC license, or pending proposals for licenses, in the East
Rosebud Creek area.
Congressional designation of these two segments would not disrupt
or alter existing management or use of the area surrounding East
Rosebud Creek, but would require additional planning and monitoring for
the creek and adjacent Custer National Forest lands.
We recommend that Section 3(b) be deleted as the river segments
proposed for designation are entirely bounded by National Forest System
lands.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I wanted to see--
Senator Baldwin has a busy schedule--if she had any questions
for the witnesses.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do, one,
hopefully brief.
Senator Udall. Take your time.
Senator Baldwin. Ms. Goldfuss, I am really proud that my
home State has hosted two of the scenic trails that I discussed
in my opening statement earlier. I love hiking, so I really had
the pleasure of taking advantage of these spectacular trails.
As you heard, unfortunately, Wisconsin's Ice Age Trail and
North Country Trail, as well as the New England National Scenic
Trail, do not enjoy full unit status that other national scenic
trails do that are administered under the National Park
Service.
We actually have in this country 3 trails with full status
and 3 without. So, I wonder if you could just share with us why
this disparity exists.
Ms. Goldfuss. I wish I had an easy answer for you.
Senator Baldwin. I wish you did, too.
Ms. Goldfuss. I assume the question would not be asked if
you knew it already.
Senator Baldwin. That is 4 years of correspondence back and
forth.
Ms. Goldfuss. Exactly. In preparation for this hearing, we
have had many discussions internally looking at some of the
enabling legislation and some of the administrative decisions
that came about in the disparity between the two categories
that we have, 3 as units, 3 as not.
All I can say is we agree that it is inconsistent, and I
just hope you can continue to work with us on this, because we
do have administrative authorities that we can use, and we also
want to keep working through some of the questions that your
office has raised.
Senator Baldwin. I appreciate that, and certainly think
that if we were to advance this legislation, we would have real
clarity. So, I appreciate your answer. I have been working on
this for about 4 and a half years, previously as a member of
the House and now as a member of the Senate, and I look forward
to continuing to work together.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my
questions are going to go to the point I made earlier about the
need for us to be good stewards of the Park Service and with
all the backlogs that we have, to make sure we are not
continuing to expand the Park Service in ways that might look
attractive short term but put us even further behind in terms
of our ability to maintain the properties, and again, be good
stewards.
So, as I look at this, the bills that modify or expand
boundaries, S. 1189, S. 1718, S. 1785, S. 2031, S. 2356, they
all seek to expand National Park units.
So, my question for you, Ms. Goldfuss, would be how much
land is involved overall, and how much land is currently in
private ownership. Do you know the answers?
Ms. Goldfuss. Are you saying cumulatively for all the bills
that we have presented today?
Senator Portman. Cumulatively, yes. I was lumping together
all these one, two, three, four, five that all expand or modify
boundaries.
Ms. Goldfuss. I apologize. I do not have the exact number
for all of the bills. I could attempt to add, but it would be
very rough.
Senator Portman. Why not give us an example, for instance,
the Mojave National Preserve, or the Paterson Great Falls
National Historical Park?
Ms. Goldfuss. Paterson Great Falls is the addition of a
stadium that neighbors the park, so it is small in acreage, and
actually the Park Service would not be taking over or in the
amendment we are proposing, we would not be taking it over, it
would be a preservation easement that would be placed over the
actual stadium. The city of Paterson and the school district
there would hold on to the actual ownership of the stadium.
When it comes to the battlefield in----
Senator Portman. Let's just back up for a second on the
stadium. I have seen a photograph of it. It would be putting an
easement on to preserve it. What would that require in terms of
additional personnel from the Park Service or costs for the
Park Service?
Ms. Goldfuss. If the legislation were to be passed, we
would have to look at--right now, we have staff on the ground,
so incorporating that would not take additional staff
immediately. We would want to look at what the interpretation
needs were and how we would incorporate that into the existing
unit.
So, I would not have numbers right now in terms of
additional personnel, and then we would have to study what
requirements we have in terms of maintaining that stadium.
There have been studies that are pretty large in terms of the
upkeep for that, but that would not be a burden we would take
on initially.
Senator Portman. How about the Mojave National Preserve?
Ms. Goldfuss. So, 2,100 acres would be eventually donated
to the National Park Service, but at this time, those acres
have not been identified for donation yet.
Senator Portman. Again, and maybe there is a better example
of this, Shiloh or Petersburg or Apostle Islands, as we talked
about, what does that mean in terms of the Park Service, in
terms of additional personnel, additional costs?
Ms. Goldfuss. Unfortunately, it is going to be unique to
each unit. If you look at the Apostle Islands----
Senator Portman. Let's take the 2,100 acres at Mojave,
let's say that is in fact donated.
Ms. Goldfuss. Right.
Senator Portman. Donations are great, but then the upkeep
and the maintenance, the stewardship. I assume the park would
have a role there.
Ms. Goldfuss. Correct, and in that particular case, we have
asked that the lands identified be tied to our land protection
plan for the park, so in that case, when the lands are donated,
if they are of high resource value, it is actually a benefit
for us, because it is easier to manage the area when it is
connected. So, whether it is private ownership in holdings'
areas right next to the park--I mean I think Apostle Islands
actually might be an example of what you are looking for, where
we are taking on an additional lighthouse.
Senator Portman. Yes.
Ms. Goldfuss. From our perspective, history does not stop,
even though we have an enormous maintenance backlog, that is a
top priority for us to address, and thank you so much for your
comments on the Centennial in the beginning.
We really see the Centennial as an opportunity to prepare
the parks for our next generation and our second century. We
have the responsibility at the same time to address historic
moments in time. That is part of our mission. We cannot
disconnect them.
So, although we recognize the maintenance backlog is
something we are working very hard to address and a top
priority in our budgeting, we also see that opportunities to
include new pieces of history and tell the story for all
Americans are very important as we continue going forward.
Senator Portman. Would it be possible for you to give the
subcommittee an analysis of each of these? I am sure you have
it. How much it will increase the operating expenses at each
unit, and also just specifically, how many more personnel would
be required, so we have that for the record.
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, definitely, we will get you want we can.
Senator Portman. You know, again, you talked about the
maintenance backlog. What is the impact on the maintenance
backlog? Is it going to make it even worse? I assume it does,
because we are not talking about additional funding in these
bills. We are talking about acquisitions.
How about hunting and fishing? When you look at some of
these new proposed park units, S. 1389, S. 1785, S. 2293, for
instance, areas where I assume there would be hunting and
fishing currently underway. What is proposed there? Do you
know?
Ms. Goldfuss. I wish I had all the names memorized with the
numbers. If you can tell me which ones you are talking about.
Senator Portman. S. 1389.
Ms. Goldfuss. S. 1389. So, that is in New York City, the
Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument Preservation Act, so it is a park
actually in Brooklyn, so hunting and fishing----
Senator Portman. Probably not a lot of hunting there.
Ms. Goldfuss. Right, not a lot of hunting there.
Senator Portman. Yes. Although, it looks pretty wooded.
[Laughter.]
Senator Portman. OK. Let's leave Brooklyn out of this,
although it does look--they probably have some wild turkeys
there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Portman. How about S. 1785.
Ms. Goldfuss. OK, Shiloh National Military Park. Let me
just find out where Shiloh is.
Senator Portman. Shiloh Battlefield in Tennessee.
Ms. Goldfuss. I can get you the information on hunting in
that particular battlefield area, but once again, I am not sure
it is a major concern in the area. It is pretty residential.
Senator Portman. What might be most helpful is if you would
just give us an analysis, again, for purposes of analyzing
these where you think it is an issue, and whether there is a
way to deal with that.
Ms. Goldfuss. We would be happy to.
Senator Portman. The language in S. 2104 suggests
approximately $2 million was advanced from the States to the
Park Service to keep different units open. What is the exact
figure that will be reimbursed to the States listed in the
legislation? We talked about that earlier. How much will each
State be receiving?
Ms. Goldfuss. Two million is the total, and we can get you
a breakdown by State.
Senator Portman. OK. That would be helpful. Do you have any
sense of how many visitors were lost nationwide when those
units were closed for the shutdown, which I think was about 16
days?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes. So, there was a loss. We did a report
soon after the shutdown to look at the impacts. There was about
$414 million lost nationally in gateway communities, and around
11 million visitors nationally.
Senator Portman. Wow. This includes local community impacts
from the gateway communities?
Ms. Goldfuss. Excuse me?
Senator Portman. That would include the local community
impact?
Ms. Goldfuss. Correct.
Senator Portman. OK. Does the inclusion of 4(c)(1) in that
S. 1750 language allow the States to receive a refund for all
the amounts provided to the Parks Service without returning any
fees that might have been charged to visitors during the
shutdown? How do you deal with that? I assume there were fees
still collected in some of those places--or not?
Ms. Goldfuss. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Senator Portman. Were there fees collected during that
period?
Ms. Goldfuss. In the parks that were closed?
Senator Portman. Yes, when the States took them over.
Ms. Goldfuss. I will have to get back to you on how we
handled the fee collection during that period of time and how
much money----
Senator Portman. Can you just let us know?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes. I believe we did carry on in the parks
that were reopened by the States, but I do not have an exact
figure on that.
Senator Portman. Have you netted that out in terms of the
amount to be repaid?
Ms. Goldfuss. We will get it for you.
Senator Portman. OK. That is great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith, just quickly, on yours, you did a good job
describing them on the lands, you have BLM/U.S. Forest Service
involvement here.
With regard to the Colorado River--I am sorry--the Colorado
Wilderness Act amendment, which would be S. 1794, I guess, just
a question, why were those areas not originally included in the
Colorado Wilderness Act? Do you know?
Mr. Smith. My understanding is it was originally put in the
Wilderness Act but it was larger; and I think it was taken out.
Senator Portman. OK. Why will the BLM and the Forest
Service and others maintain control over the purposed area
instead of the land being classified as a National Park Service
national monument?
I understand BLM and Forest Service are going to maintain
control over some of the areas.
Mr. Smith. I think basically we have been managing those
lands together for some time, so I think that is the reason we
went that way. I do not have any knowledge of why it was not
proposed for transfer to the Park Service. I think it is just
the way they have been managed. Most of them have been managed
as the proposed designation as it is already, so I think it was
just the logical flow, to just keep it within the BLM and
Forest Service.
Senator Portman. OK. With regard to the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act designations, S. 412, S. 1520, H.R. 2197 and S.
2392, from the testimony earlier, it sounds like the
designations, at least for the one in Montana, is not going to
change the purposed uses of the river or the water uses or the
surrounding land. Is that true with all these?
Mr. Smith. That is correct.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the answers in your
follow up.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Portman, for a thorough
review of many of these important bills.
I wanted to just respond to Senator Portman's important
questions about Browns Canyon. As I understand it, and we will
make sure it is very clear for the record, the land proposed in
the wilderness--for the wilderness in my bill, there has been a
wilderness study a year for more than 20 years, to determine
whether it was part of the original process, and therefore,
would have been designated as a wilderness study area in the
first Bush administration.
Because it was identified as having wilderness qualities,
it has been managed as a tier one Roadless area because of its
wild and undisturbed nature.
As I mentioned, in 2005/2006, Congressman Hefley, with whom
Senator Portman and I both served in the House, proposed 22,000
acres, give or take, as wilderness in this area. For a number
of reasons, it did not get to the finish line but there was a
lot of support that was generated at that time.
One of the reasons we did not get to the finish line was
there was still local concerns, and over the next 8 years, I
worked along with a lot of other stakeholders to get to a point
where there is just broad support for this, as I mentioned in
my earlier remarks.
So, with that, let me turn to Mr. Smith, just for comments.
You let it be known you support the two bills you are
testifying on, the Browns Canyon National Monument designation,
and the East Rosebud Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers' site. I do
not have any questions for you, although that could change over
the next few minutes.
One other point, since we are talking about Browns Canyon
again. Senator Portman had asked about the management of the
area. There was an unique arrangement, Senator Portman, that
was derived 6 or 8 years ago between the BLM, the Forest
Service and our Department of Wildlife and Natural Resources in
Colorado.
They share costs. They share management. Given the mixed
ownership of the area, it has actually been an exemplary, I
should say, partnership. We maintained that.
That was one of the conditions that locals asked us to
embrace because again, it has worked very well, it has given
the rafting companies and the anglers and many others certainty
about whatever permitting processes are necessary, and how
those lands are managed.
It is very, very uplifting when you go there and see how
this corridor is managed, from the trash that is generated to
the launches themselves, and the way the various users
coordinate on the river corridor, whether it is anglers,
whether it is the rafters or the hikers. There are equestrians
that use the area as well.
It is a nice creative way in which to manage that river
corridor.
So, let me turn to Ms. Goldfuss. Let me ask you first about
S. 2104, which would authorize appropriations to reimburse the
States which donated funds to keep certain national parks open
during the government shutdown last year.
It is my understanding that the parks that received State
donations ultimately received their full Federal appropriation,
so they actually received double funding during the shutdown.
Is that your understanding as well? It may get at sort of what
Senator Portman was trying to discover, if you will. He has a
keen eye. He used to head the OMB. We want to make sure his
questions are answered.
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, that is correct. They did get their full
appropriation and got the donation during the period of time of
the shutdown.
Senator Udall. My next question is to S. 1189, which would
modify the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National
Historical Park in New Jersey to add the Hinchliffe Stadium to
the park.
When the park was designated, the stadium was excluded from
the proposed park boundary because of questions about its
historical significance. The Park Service now supports adding
the stadium to the park boundary.
What accounts for those change of views with respect to
including the stadium in the park? Has there been a re-
evaluation of the historical significance of the site?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, that is correct. Since the original
legislation, there has been a report and a review, and it has
actually been designated as a national historical landmark, so
we have identified that significance.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification. Continuing
with you, several of the bills on today's agenda would extend
the authorization period for specific National Heritage Areas
so that they could continue to receive Federal funding.
In recent years, the committee has included language in
Heritage Area bills requiring the Park Service to conduct an
evaluation of the area prior to the expiration of its funding
authorization, and to make recommendations about the need for
future funding requirements, so Congress could in the end
better evaluate how successful the Heritage Area has performed.
I want to make sure I understand the Park Service's
position on these various Heritage Area funding
reauthorizations. Your recommendation is that evaluations
should be conducted for these areas before they are given long
term funding reauthorizations; is that correct?
Ms. Goldfuss. Correct. We are looking at the extension so
that we can have the time to conduct the actual evaluation and
reports that would give you that information.
Senator Udall. Let me follow up on a related issue that you
raised. Every time the Park Service has testified on a bill to
establish a new National Heritage Area, the testimony
recommends that action on the bill be deferred until program
legislation is enacted, which would better define the
designation and administration of these areas.
From what I understand, most recent Heritage Area
designations have had studies which have been approved by the
Park Service prior to designation, and for the most part, the
management language in every Heritage bill is essentially the
same.
What would Heritage Area program authority add beyond the
requirements that are currently included in all of those bills?
Ms. Goldfuss. We look at the program authority similar to
the creation of the Park Service as a whole and the system. So,
initially, we had individual parks, and then once we had a
collective of individual parks, we needed a system and a
framework for actually managing each of the parks.
The Heritage Areas, we have now had 30 years, 49 different
Heritage Areas, and in terms of coordinating and really setting
up a framework for the future on these, it is helpful to have
that program legislation in place to administer them.
Senator Udall. One final Heritage Area related question,
apart from your recommendation for action on the 3 proposed
Heritage Areas, Appalachian Forest in West Virginia, the
Maritime and Mountains to Sound Heritage Areas in Washington
State, have the appropriate studies been completed and
reviewed, and are all 3 areas appropriate for designation as
National Heritage Area sites?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, that is true. They have all been found
suitable and we worked closely with the communities on the
ground to make sure they understand those needs and identified
the right characteristics.
Senator Udall. I am going to go off my formal list of
questions. So, do you still feel like the Heritage Area system
is administered more on an ad hoc basis than, if you will, a
consistent or formulaic basis using ``formulaic'' in a positive
way, not a critical way?
Ms. Goldfuss. Our Heritage Area staff in the system does an
amazing job to set up the framework, and we do apply the same
standards as much as we can, but it is similar to any of the
systems and programs that we administer. Having legislative
authority and actual criteria that is in law is helpful for
administering things in perpetuity.
Senator Udall. We have a number of National Heritage Areas
in Colorado which have proven their worth many times over, and
we want to continue to improve the administration as well as
the education and availability of those areas.
I want to work more with you all as we move forward.
Ms. Goldfuss. They are huge opportunities to coordinate on
the ground.
Senator Udall. Yes, and clearly, I believe, within the Park
Service mission. Now, let me move to S. 1866. That would extend
the legislative authority for the Adams Memorial. The memorial
was initially authorized, I believe, in 2001. The Commemorative
Works Act provides 7 years for the sponsoring organization to
generate the required permits and raise the funding needed to
build the memorial.
In the past, several memorials have had their legislative
authority extended multiple times. Why? The sponsors were
unable to raise enough money to begin construction. You are
familiar with that.
As a result of those many extensions, the Park Service
recommended a change to the law which authorized it to
administratively extend the authority an additional 3 years, if
the sponsor met certain requirements. I think that is right.
You are now supporting extending authorization for this
memorial an additional 7 years or a total of 19 years. Is this
acknowledgement that the time requirements in the Commemorative
Works Act are still unworkable?
Ms. Goldfuss. I would say it depends on which memorial we
are looking at and the ability of the outside groups to
actually raise the funds. So, we would not say that the
timeframes are unworkable. It really depends.
We have seen many that have met and been able to accomplish
their goals in the timeframe that is given in the Commemorative
Works Act, but for those that cannot, we need the ability to
extend it, and then we also feel that the timeframes are
necessary to reevaluate and make sure that it is still a viable
proposal.
Senator Udall. Your judgment is the Adams Memorial has
potential, the Adams Memorial is important enough, the Adams'
family has such a significant historical place in America, that
we should keep this possibility alive?
Ms. Goldfuss. Correct; yes.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to S. 2293. It would clarify
that 3 national scenic trails shall be administered as units of
the National Park Service. Senator Baldwin spoke about this
earlier. Why is legislation necessary for this, and to pile on
ever so gently, why have you not classified the 3 trails the
same as the other national scenic trails?
Ms. Goldfuss. I will just extend what I said to Senator
Baldwin. The case is not clear here. There is administrative
authority in terms of addressing this question of unit status.
Through this hearing and through our conversations with
Senator Baldwin, we are going to take a closer look at this,
because it is somewhat nomenclature. For the most part, we
administer and apply the same set of standards and different--
you know, the trails are able to get the same amount of our
attention and funding.
So, for us, we do not feel like there is a disparity
between the trails, but we recognize that it can seem
inconsistent and we need to take a closer look.
Senator Udall. I look forward to seeing your analysis and
understanding further where we are and where we might go. It is
impressive looking at the National Scenic Trails System. I did
not know the extent to which there were these kinds of
opportunities.
Once again, America leads the way, and it makes me really
proud to see this, and I know we will work to further enhance,
support and protect these trails, and I would bet add some
additional ones because it seems to be something certainly
Senator Portman and I spend time on, get excited about,
providing greater access to the incredibly diverse nature of
our landscapes in America.
Senator Portman, I am finished with my questions. Do you
have any other thoughts?
Senator Portman. No, I do not. Thank you. I appreciate the
follow up. I know at least the staff on our side did not have
all the answers, so that would be helpful as we move forward
from this hearing.
Ms. Goldfuss. Most definitely.
Senator Portman. Thank you.
Senator Udall. If there are no further questions, I want to
thank both of you for taking the time to come to the Hill, and
for your thoughtful and informative testimony.
Some members of the committee may submit additional
questions in writing. If so, we may ask you submit answers for
the record. I know you will be happy to comply with those
requests. We will keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to
receive any additional comments.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Christina Goldfuss from Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Some of the bills in the hearing seek to expand
National Park Units. How much of the land involved in these proposed
expansions is currently in private ownership? How many additional acres
will be added to the National Park System?
Question 2. Will expanding the boundaries under S. 1189, S. 1718,
S. 1785, S. 2031, and S. 2356 require any additional personnel to work
at each location? What will the total cost of expansion be in each
case?
Question 3. If S. 1189, S. 1718, S. 1785, S. 2031, and S. 2356 are
signed into law, how will it affect the annual operating expenses at
each location?
Question 4. How will the new units under S. 1389, S. 1785, and S.
2293 add to, or affect, the maintenance backlog?
Question 5. How is the land under consideration in S. 1641, S.
2576, and S.2602 currently being utilized? Will the National Heritage
Area designation change how the land is currently being used?
Question 6. Is any land under consideration in S. 1641, S. 2576,
and S.2602 privately owned? If so, have any of the land owners objected
to these proposals?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Bill Imbergamo, Executive Director, the Federal Forest
Resource Coalition
On behalf of the over 390,000 Americans who earn their living
managing our National Forests and BLM forest lands, we applaud the
introduction of the Public Access to Public Lands Guarantee Act of
2013. The recent unnecessary closure of the National Forests System and
BLM lands created significant disruption for our members and
potentially vast liability for the Federal government.
Of course, as you note, it is strongly preferable for Congress and
the Administration to simply avoid any future government shutdowns.
Further, it is incumbent upon Congress to take action immediately to
stabilize appropriations and provide full year funding bills for our
Federal land management agencies. The Forest Service and BLM have been
funded since 2008 by a series of 12 short-term omnibus bills and
Continuing Resolutions, which have last on average just 5 months. In
fiscal year 2013, the Forest Service field units did not receive their
final allocation of appropriations until half way through the fiscal
year.
The Forest Service faces significant obstacles as it attempts to
manage the our public forests. Most of these consist of frivolous
appeals and litigation by groups who do not support forest management.
These groups exploit the laws passed by Congress and interpreted by the
Courts. These difficulties are compounded when the agency budget is
unstable, unpredictable, and passed in short-term chunks. Congress must
act to clarify the tangle of laws that enable this type of dilatory
behavior.
Your legislation would be helpful in the unfortunate event that the
Congress and President fail once again to find common ground, leading
to another unnecessary shutdown. Many states are capable of assuming
management responsibility on the National Forest System. Having such a
process in place would help prevent unnecessary disruption of vital
forest management activities. We look forward to working with you on
this legislation.
______
Statement of Phyllis Baxter, Executive Director of Appalachian Forest
Heritage Area, Inc., on S. 1641
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the Subcommittee's consideration of S.
1641 to establish the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area. We
would like to offer brief comments in support of this bill and to share
with you some of the ongoing benefits of this endeavor.
Appalachian Forest Heritage Area celebrates the central Appalachian
forest including its history, culture, natural history, forest
management and products. Our grassroots partnership has been operating
as an ad hoc heritage area initiative for over ten years within
eighteen counties in the highlands of West Virginia and western
Maryland. Our organization promotes rural community development through
heritage tourism development and forest conservation.
We have developed diverse stakeholder support, identified assets
related to forest heritage, and established an organization through a
broad range of partnerships with public, non-profit, and private
entities. We have completed a Feasibility Study addressing the National
Heritage Area criteria identified by the National Park Service, and
supported by over 165 support letters. This study has been reviewed and
approved by the National Park Service as meeting those criteria. In
completing this study, and through our planning, operations, and
efforts to seek national designation, we have done all that we can to
follow the steps and standards set forth in the proposed National
Heritage Area program bill, so that if and when such a bill is passed,
we will be fully compliant with its provisions and expectations.
Appalachian Forest Heritage Area has operated as a sustainable
organization for more than ten years, demonstrating that we are
committed to helping build the future for our unique and nationally
significant forest region. We explore the relationship between the
Appalachian highlands forest and the people who live within it by
developing interpretive products to share multiple forest heritage
themes and stories, connecting cultural heritage and natural tourism
sites, and establishing a forest heritage museum and information
center. We mobilize volunteers to assist cooperating public lands and
private landowners with forest conservation efforts such as non-native
invasive species control, tree plantings, and recreation improvements.
We administer a dynamic AmeriCorps program which places members with
local sites providing direct service for conservation, historic
preservation, and heritage development.
We are seeking National Heritage Area designation primarily because
this honor will acknowledge the nationally significant role that the
Appalachian Forest has had in our nation's history, and will provide
recognition of the importance of our region's forest heritage resources
historically and today. National Heritage Area designation will provide
us with access to technical assistance and resources that will help us
reach out more effectively across the entire 18-county, two-state area,
and enable us to accomplish much more to benefit our forests, our area,
and our communities.
National Heritage Areas are a proven strategy to support
collaborative regional efforts where stakeholders are working together
to preserve their nationally significant resources while leveraging
those resources for appropriate growth and community benefit.
Appalachian Forest Heritage Area is working every day towards
accomplishing these goals for our rural, under-developed area. We ask
you to support this Bill to establish the Appalachian Forest National
Heritage Area to recognize, protect, and help develop the forest
heritage assets of this outstandingly beautiful, nationally significant
region.
Thank you for your attention to our efforts.
______
Statement of Land Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 1794
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 1794, the Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness Act. The
Department supports S. 1794 as it applies to lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and defers to the Department of
Agriculture regarding lands within the National Forest System Lands.
background
Browns Canyon is characterized by its rugged beauty, colorful
outcroppings and the abundant wildlife of the Arkansas River Valley.
The west side of the proposed national monument features Browns Canyon
which descends 3,000 feet to the Arkansas River. From the river, the
land climbs dramatically to an elevation of 10,000 feet. A significant
herd of bighorn sheep resides within Browns Canyon and it is an
important winter range for deer and elk. Hunters and hikers alike take
in the spectacular vistas across the Arkansas Valley to the 14,000 foot
peaks of the Collegiate Range, while the gulches and canyons offer
exceptional opportunities for solitude.
The Arkansas River is one of the nation's most popular whitewater
rafting destinations, with more than 300,000 visitors floating it
annually. Nearly half of these visitors float the nationally-renowned
Browns Canyon segment. In addition to whitewater rafting, visitors
enjoy fishing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding,
snowshoeing and photography in the area.
For over a decade, bipartisan proposals have been proposed to
protect Browns Canyon. Local elected officials, sportsmen's groups and
business owners have endorsed Senator Udall's current proposal to
permanently protect this dramatic landscape.
s. 1794
S. 1794 proposes to designate nearly 22,000 acres of Federal land
in Chaffee County, Colorado, as the Browns Canyon National Monument.
The bill further proposes to designate over 10,000 acres of the
national monument as wilderness. Approximately 9,750 acres of the
proposed monument and 7,960 acres of the proposed wilderness are lands
currently managed by the BLM, and approximately 12,060 acres of the
proposed monument and 2,500 acres of the proposed wilderness are lands
currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Each agency would
continue to manage these areas following designation.
Each of the national monuments and National Conservation Areas
(NCAs) designated by Congress to be managed by the BLM is unique.
However, these designations typically have critical elements in common,
including: withdrawal from the public land, mining, and mineral leasing
laws; limiting off-highway vehicles to roads and trails designated for
their use; and language that charges the Secretary of the Interior with
allowing only those uses that further the conservation purposes for
which the unit is established. Furthermore, these Congressional
designations should not diminish the protections that currently apply
to the lands. This bill honors these principles, and we support the
monument's designation as it applies to lands managed by the BLM.
The core of the proposed national monument would be designated as
the Browns Canyon Wilderness. This area meets the definition of
wilderness; the land and its community of life are largely untrammeled.
It has retained its primeval character and has been influenced
primarily by the forces of nature, with outstanding opportunities for
primitive recreation or solitude.
Under the bill, most of the existing Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
will be incorporated into the Browns Canyon Wilderness. Approximately
120 acres of land within the WSA will not be designated as wilderness
and would be released from WSA status. These released acres along the
Arkansas River will be managed as part of the monument, but release
from WSA status will provide more flexibility in the area contiguous to
the river.
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor on an
updated map prior to markup of the legislation.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1794, we
look forward to its swift passage.
______
Statement of Kathie Younghans, Amicas Restaurant and Microbrewery,
Salida, CO
Dear Senator Udall:
We the undersigned* businesses support you in moving forward to
designate a National Monument for the Browns Canyon Area along the
Arkansas River in Colorado. Browns Canyon provides a unique combination
of exciting whitewater, wildlife and wilderness recreation. We believe
a national monument designation would preserve Browns Canyon while
sustaining jobs, growing our economy and protecting Colorado's quality
of life for generations to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other names and organizations have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The area is renowned for offering a range of year-round
opportunities for exploring Colorado's outdoors. Browns Canyon is the
most popular whitewater rafting destinations in the nation and folks
regularly visit to go whitewater rafting, kayaking, hiking, hunting and
fishing in Browns Canyon and biking and off-roading in the surrounding
area. As a national monument, Browns Canyon would attract tourists
statewide, nationally and internationally who will visit our Valley,
spend their well-earned dollars and boost our economy all while
appreciating this remarkable Colorado landscape.
A designation would attract public attention and increase tourism
to the Arkansas River Valley. We support your efforts to protect Browns
Canyon and ask you to move as quickly as possible to secure a much
deserved national monument designation to help promote our community
and tourism to the area.
______
Statement of April Prout-Ralph, Marketing Director, Chaffee County
Visitors Bureau
The Chaffee County Visitors Bureau would like to extend its support
for the designation of Browns Canyon as a National Monument. We will
support any proposals which do not deny access to any user groups.
More than 150,000 visitors will annually float this stretch of the
Arkansas River with a commercial rafting organization. In Colorado
outdoor recreation generates more than $10 billion in annual revenues
to our state economy and supports close to 107,000 jobs. Many
businesses in Chaffee County depend on tourists and the tourism
activities they come to enjoy.
Permanent protection such as a National Monument creates visibility
for local communities which help safeguard and highlight the amenities
that attract visitors and businesses that support and thrive from
increased tourism.
A 2011 study of 17 recently established National Monuments found
that without exception, local communities experienced economic growth
following a monument's designation. Both jobs and tourism increased in
those areas where national monuments had been established.
______
Statement of Katie Blackett, CEO, and Scott Braden, Director of
Conservation, the Colorado Mountain Club, Golden, CO
The Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) fully supports designation of a
new national monument and wilderness to protect the outstanding
recreational opportunities and natural resources of Browns Canyon on
the Arkansas River. CMC, in particular, appreciates the leadership of
Sen. Udall for starting a conversation around protecting Browns Canyon.
Founded in 1912 and celebrating our Centennial this year, CMC
boasts over 7,000 members and 14 chapters across the state. CMC members
engage in over 3,000 hikes, trips and activities per year, the majority
in our state's iconic Rocky Mountains. We have been active in
conservation issues since our founding; indeed CMC members were deeply
involved in the establishment of Rocky Mountain National Park in 1916.
Since that time we have advocated for protection of wild places and
have defended opportunities for human-powered recreation.
One of Colorado's crown jewels, Browns Canyon offers a range of
year-round recreational opportunities in a beautiful and wild setting.
In addition to being the nation's most popular whitewater rafting
destination, Browns also offers hiking, kayaking, hunting, fishing and
photography opportunities. The whitewater tourism industry in the
Arkansas valley has a total economic impact of $60 million per year. A
national monument designation will only increase the name recognition
and thus the tourism for the region.
The Outdoor Industry Association's recent study found that outdoor
recreation is one of the bright spots of our national economy, with an
annual contribution of $646 billion and creation of 6.1 million jobs.
We urge our leaders to find ways to facilitate this growth in outdoor
recreation, and protection of our public lands is one of the most
effective ways to make sure we nurture our outdoors recreation economy.
Additionally, Colorado College's State of the Rockies survey found that
78% of Coloradans believe that we can protect land and water and have a
strong economy at the same time, and that 67% of Coloradans self-
identify as conservationists, and that this label bridges partisan,
ethnic and rural/urban lines in the state.
Statement of David N. Potts, Chaffee County Commissioner, Board of
Commissioners, Salida, CO
As a sitting County Commissioner of Chaffee County, Colorado I
extend my support for the creation of the Browns Canyon National
Monument. For all to understand that tourism is the current economic
foundation of Chaffee County, that the rafting industry has not yet
recovered from the drought of 2002 and we need to recognize the
international marketing advantage that the industry will benefit from
by floating through the Browns Canyon National Monument.
By supporting the creation of the Browns Canyon Monument, I
understand from the presentation of the proposal that no existing uses
will be affected in any manor detrimental to those uses. The proposal
also states that the Turret Trail (FS 184) will remain intact for its
current total of nearly seven miles.
In the development of ``The Management Plan'' there needs to be an
element of understanding for impact on Chaffee County's infrastructure,
specifically County Roads 194, 301 & 300. These county roads will be
the main and easiest accessible routes to the proposed monument other
than the Arkansas River. The county should be a member in standing of
the ``Management Team'' with the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S.
Forest Service and the Colorado Parks & Wild Life and receive due
consideration for any further development, maintenance and general
upkeep of these county roads because of the anticipated increase of
use.
This letter of support speaks only for me and not for the Chaffee
County Board of Commissioners as a whole.
Statement of Pete Maysmith, Executive Director, Conservation Colorado
Dear Senator Udall,
Thank you for sponsoring the Browns Canyon National Monument with
Wilderness Act and your leadership on winning permanent protection for
this Colorado icon. You have created a well-rounded bill that reflects
input and significant support from from a vast array of stakeholders;
that is an impressive accomplishment.
Conservation Colorado applauds S. 1794 and is excited to see
progress, especially its upcoming hearing before the National Parks
subcommittee. Your bill would create a 22,000 acre national monument
centered on the Arkansas River, and additionally designate a 10,500
acre wilderness area within the monument. Your Browns Canyon National
Monument proposal would allow for rafting and fishing to continue on
the clear flowing waters, and preserve the canyon for future
generations.
Conservation Colorado recently commissioned a statewide poll on how
constituents feel about designation of Browns Canyon National Monument.
A resounding 77% said that they support designation. This support was
widespread across rural and urban parts of Colorado, among men and
women, including Republicans as well as Democrats. In particular,
suburban women were especially supportive.
The stretch of the Arkansas River that runs through Browns Canyon
is one of the most popular white-water recreation areas in the country.
It brings in $55 million each year to the local economy. Last year,
rafters spent nearly 50,000 more user days on Colorado rivers,
including an increase of 10,000 user days on the Arkansas River alone.
The Arkansas River is continually the highest grossing river in
Colorado.
Recently, the non-partisan research organization Headwaters
Economics analyzed the economic growth connected to the seventeen
national monuments that were designated between in 1982 and 2011 in
eleven Western states. The study showed that population, employment,
personal income, and per capita income either remained steady or
improved in the areas surrounding the national monuments. Permanent
protection of Browns Canyon as a national monument creates visibility
that will likely be a strong economic benefit for local communities
given that the designation will safeguard and highlight the very
amenities that attract people and businesses to Chaffee County.
National monuments develop into long-term economic boosts for their
communities and states by increasing and improving tourism, recreation,
and the relocation of businesses and people.
A national monument designation will guarantee the social,
environmental, and economic legacy of Browns Canyon remains unaltered
for future generations to be able to continue to enjoy as we do today.
Thank you again for your efforts.
______
Statement of Martin Walsh, Mason City, IA
To Whom it May Concern:
I would like to submit my support for the National Scenic Trails
Parity Act to bring various long distance hiking trails to the same
protection as the Appalachian Trail and others.
Two of the trails being considered, the North County Trail and the
Ice Age Trail service the Midwestern United States, an area severely
lacking in National Parks and public land in general. As a resident of
Iowa and a lifelong Midwesterner, I think it is crucial to grant these
trails the protection and significance allotted by this act.
Thank You.
______
Statement of Gary Klatt, Whitewater, WI
national park unit status for the ice age, north country, and new
england national scenic trails
I am heavily invested in the Ice Age Trail as a 21 year active
volunteer and board member of the Ice Age Trail Alliance. We are at a
good and difficult place in our development right now. Good because we
have an excellent, hard-working and effective staff and a strong
volunteer base. Difficult because we have put our planned 1000+ mile
trail down on most of the easy places--e.g. public land and willing
landowners. The remaining 400 miles we need to complete will require
impressive work and money as we compete with developers and convince
landowners to give or sell us access. Having Unit Status will be a huge
help in our efforts to extend our trail and in getting folks to value
hiking and being outdoors.
______
Statement of Rita Fox
Please vote in favor of giving National Park Unit Status to the Ice
Age, North Country, and New England National Scenic Trails so that they
would have the same status as the Appalachian, Natchez Trace, and
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trails. I would like to see the Ice
Age National Scenic Trail (and two others) administered by the National
Park Service, given the same status within the agency and make us
eligible for the array of new funding and resource support appropriated
to support the National Park System.
With the Ice Age Trail so accessable to people in the state of
Wisconsin, it is important to me to see it get all the help it can to
exist. I have hiked the entire 1100 miles and work on the Mobile Skill
Projects and appreciate all it takes to build and maintain trail such
as ours. This help would be welcomed. Thank you.
______
Statement of Bruce E. Matthews, Executive Director, North Country Trail
Association
The North Country Trail Association supports the passage of S.
2293, the National Scenic Trails Parity Act. There is no logic or
rationale in the current--and inexplicable--disparity among National
Park Service-administered trails, with three having unit status
(Appalachian, Natchez Trace and Potomac Heritage) and all the
advantages associated in their management thusly, and three other
relegated to a lesser status (North Country, Ice Age and New England).
For many years, professional staff within the National Park Service as
well as the major citizen support groups have attempted to redress this
clear disparity, to no avail.
The North Country Trail Association greatly appreciates the
leadership of Senators Baldwin, Levin, Markey and Blumenthal with this
bill, and we urge the Senate to correct this disparity and accord equal
status to all the national scenic trails administered by the National
Park Service.
______
Statement of Dean Paynter, Janesville, WI
This message is in support of S. 2293 which confers National Park
Unit Status on the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as well as the North
Country National Scenic Trail and the New England Trail. The Ice Age
Trail passes through the heart of the City of Janesville and is the
focal point of trail systems in our community. Enhancements to the Ice
Age National Scenic Trail are beneficial to everyone in Wisconsin.
The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is comparable to other trails
with unit status, like the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails. It is
comparable in length, in regional significance, in geologic scientific
study, as a tourism asset, as it shows off the beauty of the State of
Wisconsin.
We very much appreciate the attention of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee to this important issue.
Thank you!
______
Statement of Marjorie DeJongh
I am writing to request your support of the Ice Age Trail as part
of the National Scenic Trails Parity Act.
This trail helps stimulate the local economy and protect the
environment at the same time. Thank you for your consideration and
assistance.
______
Statement of David W. Phillips
Dear Senator Landrieu,
I am writing to you to express my strong support for Senate Bill
2293, The National Scenic Trails Parity Act.
I am now 70 years old and have remained active and in good health
in large part because of an active lifestyle. National Scenic Trails
have provided me recreation, inspiration and spiritual solace since my
boyhood. I still view an early backpacking trip on the Appalachian
Trail in Pennsylvania as a turning point in my teen years, a time when
my life's path had begun to take me in a very negative direction.
Something happened on that trip that opened up other, more positive
possibilities. I have now lived more than half of my life in Wisconsin
and have used the North Country Trail and the Ice Age Trail as
opportunities to connect with nature, history and the better qualities
of my fellow human beings.
I have worked as a volunteer on the Ice Age Trail for thirty-eight
years and have a deep understanding of its uniqueness and importance.
Not only does it connect some of the most outstanding features of the
last ice age, it is unique in that it connects communities of people
all along the way. Yes, it is like other long distance trails in that
it goes through lots of wild country, but it also connects villages and
towns along the way, giving people of all ages an opportunity to walk
out of their towns and enjoy and be inspired by the forests, farmland,
prairies and wetlands that sustain us physically and spiritually.
Wisconsin is infinitely more beautiful once we leave the highway. A
well maintained footpath is the best way to experience that beauty.
The Ice Age Trail is about 60% complete at this time. The work done
thus far has involved a tremendous number of volunteer hours and
financial assistance from individuals and businesses. The completion of
the last 40% of the trail will require an all out effort by all
partners. Enactment of the National Scenic Trails Parity Act will be a
critical component to realize this goal.
Thank you for consideration of my letter. I will appreciate an
opportunity to have it placed in the hearing record.
______
Statement of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, on S. 2602
Chairman Udall, Senator Portman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for holding today's hearing. I am Cynthia Welti, Executive
Director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, and am pleased to
offer these comments in support of S. 2602 to establish the Mountains
to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area. The Trust would like to thank
Senator Cantwell and her staff for their hard work with us and the
National Park Service to develop the consensus legislation pending
before the Committee. We also appreciate the support from Senator
Murray for this legislation. Finally, we would also like to thank
Congressman Reichert for introducing a House companion. A broad
coalition of residents, businesses, government agencies, elected
officials, and nonprofit organizations has come together in support of
this designation effort because they are excited about the economic,
cultural, and community benefits that National Heritage Area status
will provide. This designation fits the Mountains to Sound Greenway for
the major role this area played in the formation of our nation, and
continues to serve today as a model of natural areas in balance with
economic growth.
the landscape
The Mountains to Sound Greenway is located in Washington State and
encompasses 1.5 million acres surrounding Interstate 90 from Seattle,
across the crest of the Cascade Mountains, to Ellensburg in Central
Washington. The Greenway contains conserved public forests and parks,
private rural farms and working forests, and the fifteenth-largest
metropolitan area in the nation. The Mountains to Sound Greenway is a
large, lived-in, iconic landscape, spanning three watersheds, with more
than 900,000 acres of public land, 1,600 miles of recreational trails,
28 cities, and more than 1.4 million residents. The Greenway provides
easy access to outdoor recreation and nature for millions of people, a
key to the quality of life in Washington State.
history
The Mountains to Sound Greenway is nationally important for its
association with the expansion of our national transportation system
and the creation of our modern timber industry. Beginning with the foot
paths that Native Americans used to cross the Cascade Mountains,
Snoqualmie Pass has funneled cultural exchange between east and west
for thousands of years. This unique geography shaped travel routes,
drove commerce and culture, and inspired bold acts of development and
groundbreaking conservation.
The footpath over Snoqualmie Pass linked the Coast Salish tribes
with Yakama people of the Columbia Plateau, and ultimately, through an
extensive trading network, to the Great Plains. The route they
established, following the lowest pass in the North Cascades, went on
to shape how this region and the United States developed.
The Oregon Treaty of 1846 which set the US northern boundary west
of the Rocky Mountains, included the Puget Sound area, key to the
nation's future trade routes. However, the daunting natural barrier of
the Cascades mountain range kept the region and its valuable assets
isolated from the rest of the nation. While the mountains, forests, and
waterways of the region were rich in natural resources, and offered
extremely valuable deep-water harbors on the Pacific Ocean, these
assets were not available because of the lack of overland connection to
the established markets of the eastern United States.
In 1864, President Lincoln signed the charter for a northern
transcontinental railroad, mandating that the terminus be on Puget
Sound. Lacking cash to fund the massive construction effort, the United
States awarded the Northern Pacific Railroad the largest land grant in
American history. The government transferred forty million acres, or
two percent of the contiguous United States, to the railroad as a
subsidy for building the rail line.
Construction of the Northern Pacific, and later the Milwaukee
Railroad, through the Snoqualmie Pass area was crucial in connecting
this remote corner to the rest of the nation. This historic
transportation corridor forged a singularly rugged traverse through the
last frontier of the continental United States, before descending
through vast stands of timber to reach the estuarine complex of Puget
Sound. These east-west transcontinental rail lines, and later the
Sunset Highway and Interstate 90, connected the Atlantic seaboard and
the Great Plains with Seattle and Puget Sound, weaving the Pacific
Northwest into the nation's fabric and placing the last link in the
chain allowing full trade between the United States and Asia.
The towering rainforests are a defining feature of the Pacific
Northwest, and the Northern Pacific Railroad land grant has been
instrumental in shaping the timber industry as a cornerstone of the
region's economy. The privatization of massive quantities of federal
land in the Cascades changed timber's business model, transforming the
industry from a collection of small, temporary operations to long-term
resource management of tree harvesting in the Cascades. This led to
sustainable harvesting practices that have been replicated across the
nation.
The Northern Pacific Railroad saw the potential value of the
forests alongside its tracks, and was determined to capitalize on that
resource. They created a timber subsidiary that became Plum Creek
Timber, the largest private landowner in the nation to this day. Some
of the land was sold to other timber interests, including 900,000 acres
that launched the Weyerhaeuser timber company. Both Plum Creek and
Weyerhaeuser are still based in the Seattle area.
This wealth of timber that provided the resource base to complete
our nation's rail system in the late 1800s went on to supply crucial
construction materials to power the American war machine in World War
I. Boeing was founded in the Seattle area to turn the region's spruce
trees into war planes, and Douglas Fir was used to build ships for the
U.S. Navy.
The railroads, and the network of logging roads that came with
them, created access to the Cascade Mountains for a wide array of
outdoor recreation. Citizens of the region flocked to the mountains for
skiing, hiking, mountaineering, and other endeavors, and began forming
a special bond with their natural surroundings that still defines the
region's culture today.
By the mid-1950s, residents started to realize that it was possible
for us to delve too deeply and overwhelm the natural bounty of the
region. A new era of citizen-led conservation began. Local citizens
united to create a sewage-treatment authority to clean up Lake
Washington in the 1950's--a groundbreaking antecedent to the Clean
Water Act. In the 1960's, voters enacted the largest park-bond issue in
the country at that time to preserve and expand a network of parks and
boulevards. In 1979, citizens of King County voted to preserve prime
farmland in the county, the first time voters anywhere in the nation
had voted to tax themselves to preserve farmlands. In the late 1980's,
Washington State Parks acquired 300 miles of the defunct Milwaukee
Railroad, leading to what is now the longest rail-trail conversion in
the country.
greenway coalition
By the mid-1980s, the Seattle region was beginning to boom with new
technology industries and the population was growing rapidly. Concerned
citizens realized that much of this growth would sprawl out from
Seattle along Interstate 90. In 1991, community leaders formed a
coalition of agencies, businesses, and activists, the non-profit
Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, to create and implement a common
vision that would balance strong economic growth with retaining the
region's defining characteristics: a dramatic physical landscape whose
history is still very much intact, giving rise to and sustaining a
unique ecological resource and a network of towns and cities
inextricably tied to the land.
In its first two decades of work, this Mountains to Sound Greenway
coalition has rendered remarkable accomplishments. Working with large
timber corporations and government agencies, partners have connected a
major swath of public land, instituted new education programs, and
involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers in trail renovation and
ecological restoration.
heritage study
After 20 years of successful collaboration in creating the
Mountains to Sound Greenway, residents realized the time had come to
gain official recognition of this special place in our nation that
deserves special care. The National Heritage Area program stood out as
the best vehicle for this recognition, providing a flexible framework
and tools for formalizing partnerships and interpreting resources--
without affecting property rights or land management structures. In
2009, the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust initiated the Heritage
Study, a public involvement campaign to gain formal recognition of the
landscape, and to lay a pathway for the upcoming decades. The Heritage
Study was a stakeholder-driven process that included more than 150
meetings with more than 1,000 individuals.
As a part of the Heritage Study, stakeholders from around the
Greenway agreed upon boundaries. The boundaries of the proposed
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area are based on the
history of the transportation corridor in the vicinity of Snoqualmie
Pass, marked by the intersection of the Northern Pacific and Milwaukee
Railroad transcontinental rail lines, the historic Sunset Highway, and
today's Interstate 90. The boundaries encompass many of the railroad
spur lines that stretched north and south from these transcontinental
lines in the center of the Greenway, comprising an assemblage of
resources that tell the Greenway's story with focus and integrity.
The proposed boundaries are appropriate to the Greenway's
nationally important themes. They are pragmatic, realistic, and follow
modern-day political and land-management structures, thus offering the
best formula for long-term success as Greenway communities seek to
manage and interpret resources across this diverse landscape. They are
based in strong public interest and hold significant opportunities to
enhance the resources of this land and its nationally important story.
The Greenway Trust studied the feasibility of establishing a
National Heritage Area extensively and, working closely with the
National Park Service, met all the agency's program criteria.
community support
Nearly 2,000 elected officials, agencies, businesses, and
individuals have expressed their support of the Mountains to Sound
Greenway National Heritage Area, and are excited about the benefits of
this non-regulatory approach to conservation.
Major corporations, such as supporters Microsoft, Expedia, CH2M
HILL, and Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), see the advantages of
locating near an inspiring landscape with easy access to mountains,
lakes, and trails. Elected officials know the long-term benefits of
engaging the whole community in local planning. The legislation has
support from Governor Inslee, the entire King County Council, and all
Kittitas County Commissioners. A wide range of nonprofits support
designation, drawn by the opportunities to protect quality of life
while conserving natural and historic resources and growing tourism.
Between the Kittitas County Historical Museum in Ellensburg, the Museum
of History and Industry in Seattle, the Association of King County
Historical Organizations, and a dozen others, the campaign has robust
backing from the historical community.
This designation will help us keep the balance between urban and
natural areas as people continue to move here. It will build an
awareness of this unique landscape that highlights its historical
contributions to the nation and draws tourism dollars to local
communities. Designating the Greenway as a National Heritage Area will
also empower citizens, businesses, interest groups, and government
agencies to work together more efficiently toward ensuring the Greenway
remains a cornerstone of this broad community for generations to come.
With National Heritage Area designation, we can promote a shared vision
of the Greenway that will aid in raising private funds to leverage
government grants and vastly increase the productivity of our efforts.
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 Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area
Act. Those of us in the region know that our home and landscape 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. We
welcome any questions you may have.
______
Statement of the American Hotel & Lodging Association
Dear Chair Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski,
The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA), the sole national
association representing all segments of the 1.8 million-employee U.S.
lodging industry, strongly supports Senator Flake's legislation,
S.1750, the Public Access to Public Land Guarantee Act, and S.2104, the
National Park Access Act, and we thank the National Parks Subcommittee
for holding a hearing to discuss these bills.
During last year's government shutdown, many small businesses and
communities across the country with economies that rely on our national
parks lost hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity due to
the National Park Service's decision to wait more than a week before
authorizing states to reopen and operate parks using non-federal funds.
These communities' principal industry, and in some instances only
significant industry, is tourism and this delay had very serious
consequences. Hoteliers in particular were severely impacted by the 16-
day shutdown, during which our industry lost $115.2 million in economic
activity.
S.1750 provides valuable safeguards against shutdown delays in the
future and would prevent interruptions in normal operation before they
start by allowing the Administration to enter into agreements with
states to allow for the continued operation of public lands due to a
lapse in appropriations. In addition, S.2104 would help repair some of
the economic impact on communities by requiring the federal government
to refund to the states all state funds used to operate a unit of the
National Park System during the October 2013 shutdown.
S.1750 and S.2104 ensure that no matter what happens in Washington,
the communities across the country that rely on national parks as their
economic drivers will not face undue hardship. The successful operation
of our national parks is crucial to the economic viability and job
creation capabilities of the hotels, resorts, restaurants, retail
outlets, and many other small businesses relying on park visitors.
Consequently, we urge the full Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to prevent future economic uncertainty by scheduling a mark-
up of Senator Jeff Flake's legislation as soon as possible.
______
Statement of Greg Bryan, Mayor, Town of Tusayan, AZ
Dear Chair Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski,
On behalf of the Town of Tusayan, Arizona, which sits at the
southern entrance to Grand Canyon National Park, and the many
businesses in our and surrounding communities, we would like to express
our strong support for our Arizona Senator Flake's legislation S.1750,
the Public Access to Public Land Guarantee Act, and S.2104, the
National Park Access Act. We would also like to thank the National
Parks Subcommittee for holding a hearing to discuss these bills.
Our community, as well as communities across America, was severely
impacted when the federal government shut down last fall for 16 days.
Millions of dollars were lost in our community and hundreds of millions
across our country in communities that depend upon our National Parks,
Monuments and Recreation areas as key, if not sole, components for our
economies. Not only were our citizens and businesses significantly
impacted, but visitors from around the world arrived at great expense
only to be turned away. Those types of impacts and reduction in trust
in America's tourism industry have long term consequences for our
country and communities.
We need to have the confidence that our National Parks, Monuments
and Recreation areas will not be used again as tools in political
fights on Capitol Hill. We invest millions of dollars in our
infrastructure as Towns and businesses, only to have it diminished by a
sudden and complete closure during a critical part of our already short
tourism season. Many businesses depended upon that last piece of
opportunity to save funds to tide them over for the winter and have
funds to start up the next year. It placed many in jeopardy of not
being able to reopen the following year and forced them to lay off many
staff that were facing the same hardship issues.
We encourage the Subcommittee to look favorably on these pieces of
legislation that will help to rebuild confidence in our National Park
and destination tourism industry by assuring that those communities and
states that choose to reopen during another government shutdown will
have the opportunity to do so. It took 12 days last time for the
National Park Service to decide there was a way to allow States to
cover the cost of reopening our national treasures and those days cost
us all dearly. We ask you to support S.1750 in its effort to make this
process a defined one, not subject to political manipulations in the
future. We hope there will never be another shutdown, but people,
desires and motivations change and we see this as a prudent safety net
for one of America's critical tourism industries and pieces.
We would also encourage you to support S.2104, which will enable
the repayment for thousands of dollars that were spent in reopening our
Parks for 5 days during the last shutdown. When the budget was passed,
the NPS was reimbursed for all lost wages and costs, as well as
retained all entrance fees that were collected during that five day
period. In essence they received a windfall by being paid by States and
then paid by the government for the same services. We would ask that
you see the integrity and moral value in seeing that we are reimbursed
through this legislation.
We very much appreciate the work this Subcommittee does and hope
that you will see the relevancy and significant importance to our
communities and States across America in these pieces of legislation.
We would be most happy to provide any information needed and answer any
questions the Subcommittee might have.
______
Statement of Shawn Pomaville, Managing Director, Motorcities National
Heritage Area, on S. 2221
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the MotorCities National Heritage
Area Partnership regarding S. 2221, a bill to extend the authorization
of the MotorCities National Heritage Area. These views are being
presented by Shawn Pomaville, Managing Director of the MotorCities
National Heritage Area.
The MotorCities National Heritage Area Partnership, also known as
the Automobile National Heritage Area Partnership, was established in
1998 by Public Law 105-355 to interpret and protect the unique cultural
and economic contributions Michigan has made to the automotive
industry. The MotorCities National Heritage Area Partnership preserves
and tells the story of American car-making and its global significance,
a story that cannot be told anywhere else. It is the story of the
automobile and its role in helping to establish and expand industry in
the United States. It is the story of the role of the labor movement
and the social impact of the automotive industry on past, present and
future generations.
The MotorCities National Heritage Area Partnership tells this
unique story through regional partnerships and activities that
celebrate the land, people, natural resources and communities. The
methods by which we tell the story include education, preservation,
interpretation and resource stewardship. Often referred to as the
Silicon Valley of the automotive industry, the MotorCities National
Heritage Area spans over 10,000 square miles in southeast Michigan and
contains over 6 million people.
During its 16 years of existence, the MotorCities National Heritage
Area has had a significant record of achievement. It has worked closely
with the business community; county and state governments; and multiple
non-governmental organizations to build a network of partner sites
dedicated to preserving and interpreting America's automotive story.
According to an Evaluation Report issued by the University of
Michigan-Dearborn's Institute for Local Area Government that concluded
in 2013, the MotorCities National Heritage Area has achieved the
proposed accomplishments envisioned in the authorizing legislation and
subsequent General Management Plan, which set forth the framework and
direction for the coordinating entity. These include the following:
MotorCities National Heritage Area has clearly helped to
preserve the historical, cultural and recreational resources
related to the region's auto and labor history, including
preservation for future generations.
MotorCities National Heritage Area has enhanced the region's
economic vitality through heritage tourism investments.
MotorCities National Heritage Area has increased the
organizational capacity of grantees and partner organizations.
Working together, the network has developed several successful
public projects which would not have otherwise been put in place. These
projects prevent our history from merely sitting idle or simply
crumbling away as would have been the case with the Ford Piquette
Avenue Plant in Detroit. This is the site of Henry Ford's first factory
built for Ford Motor Company and the birthplace of the Model T. With
the assistance of the MotorCities National Heritage Area, the Piquette
Plant has been transformed from a semi abandoned eyesore to a
celebrated National Historic Landmark hosting thousands of tourists
each year. This created an economic impact by spurring on more
investment in the neighborhood. The economic benefits of heritage
tourism projects such as this include creating new jobs and businesses,
increasing tax revenues, and diversifying the local economy.
An example of an interpretation and education project whose purpose
is also to build a sense of regional identity, is the public Wayside
Exhibit program. This program promotes heritage tourism and educates
visitors and residents alike. Approximately 230 exhibits have been
installed to tell the unique, automotive-related stories of the people,
places and ideas that shaped the region.
In 2012, the Northeast Regional Office of the National Park Service
commissioned an economic impact study and hired an independent firm,
Tripp Umbach, to measure the community and economic impact of the
National Heritage Areas. As a leading expert in their field, Tripp
Umbach has conducted more than 400 customized studies for major
corporations, healthcare organizations, universities and non-profit
organizations throughout the world. Tripp Umbach collected primary data
from six National Heritage Areas, including information on operation
and capital expenditures and tourism information. According to the
Tripp Umbach study, the overall annual economic impact of National
Heritage Areas in the United States is $12.9 billion, which is a direct
result of federal funding provided annually for the Heritage
Partnership Program within the National Park Service.
The economic impact is comprised of three main areas: tourism,
operational expenditures and grant-making activities, with the majority
of the impact (99%) generated by tourism spending. These include:
$4.6 billion in direct impact (tourism spending, National
Heritage Area operational expenditures and grant making
activities);
$8.3 billion in indirect and induced impacts (employee
spending and businesses supporting the tourism industry).
The study further concluded that National Heritage Areas support
more than 140,000 jobs throughout the nation, including 94,000 jobs
directly and 45,000 indirectly. The Tripp Umbach report concluded that
the overall impact of National Heritage Areas and their related
spending and operational activities generated $1.2 billion in Federal
taxes. The type of taxes paid includes payroll taxes, income taxes and
corporate taxes.''
MotorCities National Heritage Area likewise leverages federal funds
to great advantage. Since 2009, every $1 the MotorCities National
Heritage Area has awarded through its community grant challenge program
has been matched by more than $5 in funding or in-kind services. This
reflects a major commitment of resources on the part of partners
throughout the area. It is an example of how a modest investment of
tax-payer dollars can have a significant impact in regions that need it
the most.
Continuing coordination and capacity building is required to
protect the millions in federal and local investments made to date.
According to the Evaluation from the University of Michigan-Dearborn's
Institute for Local Area Government, without the Heritage Area and its
affiliation with the National Park Service, it is unlikely that these
partnerships and their benefits would continue, placing much of
Michigan's automotive heritage at risk of disappearing.
Michigan would lose the ability to leverage the cultural and
historic linkages from its rich automotive heritage that contribute to
a sense of pride in the region and afford a multitude of economic
impacts.
Our region tells the ongoing story of an industry and people that
are integral to our national history, relevant to our present, and can
provide unlimited inspiration for our future.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the testimony of the MotorCities
National Heritage Area Partnership. Thank you.
______
Statement of Andy Ingraham, President/CEO, National Association of
Black Hotel Owners, Operators & Developers,
Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, Leader McConnell, and Leader
Pelosi:
The successful operation of our national parks is crucial to the
economic viability of the hotels, resorts, restaurants, retail outlets,
and many other small businesses relying on these park visitors. We
commend Senator Jeff Flake and Congressman Steve Daines for their
leadership in offering legislation to ensure the impacts felt during
the recent government shutdown are not repeated in the future. With
Rep. Daines' Protecting States, Opening National Parks Act (H. 3286)
and, today, Senator Flake's Public Access to Public Lands Guarantee Act
(S. XXX), we are one step closer towards putting safeguards in place to
offset the threat of another damaging government shutdown. During the
recent 16-day government shutdown, the National Park Service waited
more than a week before authorizing states to reopen and operate
national parks using non-federal funds. This delay resulted in the loss
of hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity in communities
whose principle, and in some instances only, industry is tourism. Our
national parks are integral to such communities, and with their closure
thousands of citizen's livelihoods are impacted.
S. XXX and H. 3286 provide valuable safeguards against such delays
in the future and would prevent interruptions in normal operation
before they start. In the event of a government shutdown, S. XXX would
require the federal government to enter into an agreement with any
state or municipality that offers non-federal funds to temporarily
operate public lands, even if that reopening is only partial.
Additionally, both bills would require the federal government to refund
the state or municipality, if Congress retroactively appropriates funds
or if the federal government collected entry fees for those lands
during the shutdown.
Unfortunately, uncertainty arising from the partisan gridlock in
Washington continues to prevent any guarantee of avoiding future
government shutdowns. This uncertainty will only further impair the
ability of lodging and many other industries to continue driving
economic growth and job creation. Senator Flake's and Rep. Daines'
bills assure that no matter what happens in Washington, the small
businesses and communities across the country that rely on national
parks will not face undue economic uncertainty and strife.
We urge the House of Representatives and the Senate to act quickly
on this legislation to ensure the stability of the local economies
throughout the country that rely on our national parks.
______
Statement of Nathan Fey*, Colorado Stewardship Director, American
Whitewater
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other names and organizations have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator Udall and Congressman Lamborn:
As a collective voice for the thousands of Colorado's citizens and
visitors that recreate on our public lands and waters, we are writing
in support of efforts to permanently protect Browns Canyon of the
Arkansas River in Colorado.
Outdoor Alliance Colorado (OAC) is a new coalition for human
powered outdoor recreation that includes: the Colorado Mountain Club;
the Colorado Mountain Bike Association; the Colorado networks of the
Access Fund and American Whitewater; and Outdoor Alliance. OAC
advocates for the protection and enjoyment of public lands and waters
in Colorado, on behalf of those that hike, mountain bike, climb,
paddle, ski and snowshoe.
Browns Canyon of the Arkansas River comprises roughly 23,000 acres
of Forest Service and BLM lands in Chaffee County. The area is renowned
for providing year-round opportunities to climb, paddle, mountain bike,
ski and hike. By preserving this incredible landscape that surrounds
the Arkansas River, we can ensure that visitors and citizens alike can
continue to benefit from inspiring recreational experiences, and
continue to sustain and grow our local and regional economy.
In Colorado, outdoor recreation generates over $10 billion annually
in revenues to our state economy and supports 107,000 jobs. Activities
like hiking, biking, climbing, camping, whitewater rafting, and
kayaking, are enjoyed by nearly 4 million people each year, helping to
generate $500 million in state tax revenue. People from across Colorado
and the country regularly visit the region to enjoy these activities,
and it is critical that Browns Canyon be protected to both ensure that
the area will remain open to outdoor recreational pursuits and to
preserve Colorado's outdoor legacy for future generations.
Outdoor Alliance Colorado strongly supports permanent protection of
Browns Canyon, to:
Preserve opportunities for solitude and human---powered
recreation including rafting, kayaking, climbing, biking and
hiking.
Ensure that the outdoor recreation opportunities and natural
legacy of this unique area remains intact for future
generations.
Permanently assure that no new road construction would
damage the area's watershed or wildlife habitat.
For over a decade, there have been bipartisan efforts to protect
this unique area, and therefore we request that you finally ensure this
area receives the protection it deserves. Your leadership is needed and
appreciated, so that future generations can experience the beauty,
clean water and air, and wildlife that we have today.
______
Statement of Christina King, Private Boaters Coalition Officer, Pikes
Peak River Runners Officer
The purpose of this letter is to provide written support for the
Brown's Canyon National Monument. I recently attended the public
meeting in Nathrop, Colorado on April 13, 2013. I listened to the many
comments and am impressed with the responses and the detailed work done
to date. My only regret is that the size of the proposed monument was
decreased to the most recent proposed size.
The Private Boaters Coalition & Pikes Peak River Runners (both
based in Colorado) consists of groups of boaters who consider the
Arkansas River their home river. They also travel to many western
rivers and enjoy wild areas along whitewater rivers. The term ``private
boaters'' is typically a misnomer but is a commonly used term that
describes the self-outfitted public who regularly runs western rivers
using their own skills and equipment. Private boaters support the
protection of Brown's Canyon (through its close relationship to the
Arkansas River). They recognize and support the value of protecting
this area with a wilderness proposal. The Private Boaters Coalition and
Pikes Peak River Runners represent at a minimum 300 private boaters
probably more but we only track membership in our online community.
The Arkansas River corridor is a wonderful place to see bighorn
sheep, deer, occasional beaver and the general beauty of a wild area.
Protecting these qualities through wilderness & national monument
legislation ensures that future boaters will also enjoy these resources
as we see them today. Legislating Brown's Canyon as a wilderness area
(while not turning the Arkansas into a wilderness area) will protect
the adjacent corridor areas as well as protecting this wild area as
well. Private boaters are a strong presence in the Brown's Canyon area
and contribute to the economic well-being of Buena Vista and Salida
areas. Many boaters have purchased second (future retirement) homes
including land in the valley and have strong ties to this area. Please
protect this area and do not let the OHV motorized group dominate the
decision to not allow more motorized use in the area. There are many
areas outside of this boundary where they can ride. We want this area
protected for quiet use and future recreational enjoyment by the many
other non-motorized stakeholders involved. We are fine with continued
grazing use but have seen first-hand evidence of cattle dung and
erosion caused by cattle use along the river. Please continue to work
with ranchers to control cattle use along the riverbanks. We work very
hard to tread lightly and appreciate others who do the same.
Please consider this letter as strong support of introducing the
Brown's Canyon National Monument proposal. Please feel free to contact
me if you have any questions.
______
Statement of Thomas D. Rushin, Chairman, Board of Directors, Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area, on S.2111
Dear Mr. Chairman Udall, Ranking member Portman, and other
distinguished members of the Subcommittee; I appreciate this
opportunity to submit testimony on S.2111 on behalf of the Board of
Directors of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, as well as its
many public and private partners.
In 2000, when Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl introduced and
secured enactment of legislation to designate the Yuma Crossing a
National Heritage Area, Yuma, a city of 100,000 located in the
southwest corner of Arizona, faced serious challenges.
Despite its location on the Colorado River, Yuma had become
disconnected from the river. A jungle of non-native vegetation,
infested with hobo camps, trash dumps and meth labs, made
access to the river nearly impossible and certainly dangerous.
Yuma's downtown riverfront was severely blighted. Originally
designated as a National Historic Landmark in the 1960's, the
Yuma Crossing NHL was categorized by the National Park Service
as in a ``threatened'' status.
By 2002, the Yuma community had developed a management plan, which
was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The plan focused
primarily on reclaiming Yuma's riverfront from an environmental,
recreational and commercial standpoint.
Since then, more than $100 million of public and private investment
has transformed Yuma's riverfront with 400 acres of wetlands
restoration, (considered a model in the desert Southwest); two large
riverfront parks with 9 miles of waterside trails; and a revitalized
downtown riverfront which has both rescued the National Historic
Landmark and attracted substantial private investment along the
Colorado River.
How was this accomplished? While the National Park Service funds of
about $3 million over the last 12 years has been important seed money
used to leverage projects, that funding alone would not have made all
this possible. In fact, no single investor or funder could have made
this happen. And that is the point. Success has been based on creating
strong partnerships among an extremely diverse set of stakeholders.
Let me give you just three brief examples:
1) The Yuma East Wetlands: Once overrun with salt cedar and
phragmities, 400 acres has now been restored with cottonwoods,
willows, and mesquites. Many believed that high soil salinity
and low river flows made restoration technically impossible. An
even greater challenge was to bring together the Quechan Indian
tribe, area farmers, and governmental agencies at all levels to
agree upon and implement a restoration plan-a voluntary and
cooperative plan that respected tribal concerns, conventional
farming practices, and private property rights. Not only was
the restoration completed, but in 2013, the local partners
struck an historic deal with the Lower Colorado River Multi-
Species Conservation Program (Bureau of Reclamation) for a 50-
year program of maintenance.
2) The Heritage Area was able to bring together the City of
Yuma, a private developer, and historic preservation interests
to facilitate a $30 million investment in a riverfront hotel
and conference center. In the course of the project, the
Heritage Area integrated the telling of the Yuma Crossing story
into Pivot Point Plaza along the original 1877 rail alignment
of the first train to enter Arizona. The National Historic
Landmark has now been rescued from its threatened status.
3) In 2010, when the deep recession and severe state budget
cutbacks threatened closure of Yuma's two state historic parks,
the Heritage Area stepped in to save the parks-working with the
City of Yuma, the Yuma Visitors Bureau and most importantly the
entire Yuma community-raising funds to renew and revitalize
their museums and grounds. Today, the parks are in a strong
financial position and Arizona State Parks has begun the
process of negotiating a long-term agreement to ensure local
management and empowering the local community.
All three of these examples provide strong evidence of the need for
the National Heritage Area's important and continuing role in Yuma's
progress and the need to maintain our valuable partnership with the
National Park Service. To that point, I have attached statements of
support for reauthorization from Yuma City Council, Yuma County Board
of Supervisors, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the Yuma County Chamber
of Commerce. As NPS Director Jon Jarvis has said, ``National Heritage
Areas are places where small investments pay big dividends''. Yuma is a
prime example.
Our Heritage Area empowers local citizens and government to
preserve their heritage resources, to tell their unique stories, and to
revitalize their communities, and in so doing, they allow these
citizens to improve the quality of their lives and their economic
opportunities. I urge this Subcommittee to approve S. 2111 because the
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area has proved to be both very
effective at preserving nationally significant resources and at using
federal funds to leverage significant non-federal investment.
Finally, I think it important to address an issue for which there
has been a great deal of misinformation. Some Washington, DC-based
interest groups have made allegations that the Yuma Crossing NHA has
somehow threatened private property rights. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Ten years ago, the Heritage Area and the Yuma Farm Bureau came
together to clear up some misunderstandings, and the partnership with
the farming community is as strong as ever. In fact, a 5th generation
farmer, Patty Ware, serves on our Board and served as our Chair for a
number of years. She became so exasperated with these unfounded rumors
that she wrote a letter to the Heritage Foundation, a copy of which I
am appending to my testimony. She never received a response. It is
worth reading in its entirety, as it sets the record straight. But let
me quote just a few sentences from the February 22, 2011 letter:
``Private property rights are the fundamental basis of our
way of life (farming). However, so is the truth. What you keep
dredging up and re-circulating is not the truth. . .Perhaps
getting out of Washington DC and actually seeing what is going
on would do the Heritage Foundation some good. I invite you or
your staff to come to Yuma and find out the facts.''
Thank you.
______
Statement of Vickie Sue Vigil, President, Salida Business Alliance
The Salida Business Alliance is a group of 65 plus networking
businesses We have members on Highway 50 as well as in Historic
Downtown Salida. Our focus is working with all business and community
groups to improve the economic environment as well as to enhance the
culture and beauty of our city.
I am writing to express the support of our business group for any
efforts to permanently protect the Browns Canyon area of the Arkansas
River in Chaffee County, Co. This area is renowned for offering a range
of year-round opportunities for experiencing Colorado's outdoors.
Browns Canyon is the most popular whitewater rafting destination in the
nation.
People from across the state and country regularly visit this area
to hike, hunt, fish or enjoy the spectacular scenery. By preserving
this incredible landscape that surrounds the river, we can ensure that
visitors continue to benefit from inspiring recreational experiences,
and continue to sustain and gfow our local and regional economy.
Our businesses benefits from tourist that come to this areat o
visit unique places like Browns Canyon. We strongly support protecting
the Browns Canyon area.
______
Statement of Alan H. Rowsome, Senior Director of Government Relations
for Lands, The Wilderness Society
Dear Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Portman:
The Wilderness Society, on behalf of our over 500,000 members and
supporters from across the country, would like to express our views on
the legislation being heard tomorrow in the Subcommittee on National
Parks, and respectfully request that this letter be included in the
July 23, 2014 hearing record for the Subcommittee.
s. 1794--browns canyon national monument and wilderness act of 2013
The Wilderness Society strongly supports, S. 1794, which would
protect 22,000 acres of public land as a national monument, including
10,500 acres designated as the Browns Canyon Wilderness. Browns Canyon
is a natural wonder that is of vital importance to Colorado citizens
for recreation, local economic benefits, hunting and angling, and many
other uses. Browns Canyon is one of the most popular destinations in
the country for whitewater rafting--bringing in more than $23 million
annually to the Upper Arkansas Valley economy.
The proposed national monument will also protect one of the most
spectacular landscapes in Colorado as well as important habitat for
wildlife including black bear, bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, mountain
lions, eagles, falcons, imperiled bats and many other species of
wildlife.
The local community began working with their lawmakers on a
bipartisan basis almost a decade ago on this legislation and this has
resulted in endorsements from a wide array of stakeholders including
sportsmen, conservationists, outdoor recreation outfitters, and local
businesses. Additionally, this input helped to create legislation which
balances current uses with conservation by allowing for existing
livestock grazing and other existing uses to continue. We commend
Senator Udall for crafting a bill with significant input from the local
community that would not only protect this vital economic driver but
also preserve as wilderness a natural icon in the state of Colorado.
This legislation is extremely popular both locally and statewide,
with a recent poll showing that 77% of Colorado residents support
protecting Browns Canyon as a national monument. We would urge this
committee to advance this vital bill which not only protects a unique
natural wonder but also provides long-term economic certainty for the
hugely important statewide outdoor recreation economy--of which
whitewater rafting generates $140 million annually.
s. 2602--mountains to sound greenway national heritage area
The Wilderness Society is pleased to offer our support for S. 2602,
A bill to establish the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage
Area in the State of Washington, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell
(D-WA), and its companion bill H.R. 1785, Mountains to Sound Greenway
National Heritage Area Act, sponsored by Representative David Reichert
(R-WA-8). This bi-partisan bill will establish the 1.5-million-acre
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area, stretching from the
city of Seattle across the crest of the Cascades to the eastern edge of
Kittitas County, in the heart of central Washington.
The Interstate-90 corridor is the main transportation artery that
runs through this landscape, connecting east to west, following
centuries-old travelways that have fueled the growth and development of
the region. Traveling along this corridor, one realizes the great need
and opportunity a National Heritage Area designation poses for this
region. For decades, the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust has worked
to protect the beauty and natural character of this landscape and
facilitate large-scale collaboration across land management agencies
and interest groups to realize a critical common vision for this
corridor-one that manages growth, drives a robust economy, and
recognizes and embraces the cultural heritage of the land. Since the
Trust's creation, the organization has protected more than 225,000
acres of land, organized more than 500,000 hours of volunteer time
toward community-based stewardship projects, educated more than 3,000
children annually about the environment, and facilitated broad-based
collaboration among multiple interests along the Greenway.
The National Heritage Area designation would not only nationally
recognize the unique heritage and history of natural resource
conservation along this corridor, it would also establish a cooperative
management framework to facilitate collaboration among the various
government agencies, interest groups, and citizens. The Trust would
also be designated as the local coordinating entity-a role the Trust as
informally played for decades-thereby implementation of projects and
programs among the diverse partners of the Heritage Area.
Since 2009, the Trust has worked diligently to thoroughly assess
the feasibility of the designation opportunity, convening more than 150
public meetings, engaging more than 1,000 citizens, and securing
support of more than 2,000 elected officials, agencies, businesses, and
individuals. The Wilderness Society is proud to join this long list of
supporters, advocating for the Congressional designation of the
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area. The Heritage Area
will encompass the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, the most-visited wilderness
area in the country, and one our organization has been working to
expand in recent years. The National Heritage Area designation would
recognize the importance of the most wild places in this landscape as
well as the most rapidly urbanizing, providing the critical opportunity
to continue to balance the natural integrity of the region with the
myriad needs of this dynamic landscape.
For these reasons we urge your support of both S. 1794, the Browns
Canyon National Monument and Wilderness Act and S. 2602, the Mountains
to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area Act.
______
Statement of Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs
Dear Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Portman:
Trout Unlimited respectfully requests that the July 23, 2014
Subcommittee on National Parks hearing record include this letter in
support of S. 1794, the Browns Canyon National Monument and Wilderness
Act. S. 1794 would designate Browns Canyon in Chaffee County, Colorado
as a National Monument. On behalf of Trout Unlimited 153,000 members
including over 10,000 in Colorado we strongly support and urge passage
of S. 1794.
It has been 23 years since the first legislation was introduced in
Congress to permanently protect Colorado's Browns Canyon. Browns
Canyon, and the Arkansas River that runs through it, includes world-
class hunting and fishing habitat. Recently the Arkansas River was
awarded Gold Medal status recognizing its outstanding fishery. It is
also one of the most popular whitewater rafting and kayaking
destinations in the country.
Legislation to protect this area was first introduced in 1991, and
since then there have been 13 separate bills to conserve this important
area. Despite broad public support, none of these bills have passed
Congress. In 2005, Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO) and Senator Wayne
Allard (R-CO) introduced the Browns Canyon Wilderness Act to
permanently protect the area. Currently, Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and
Michael Bennet (D-CO) have proposed the Browns Canyon National Monument
and Wilderness Act of 2013 to conserve the 22,000 acre Browns Canyon
National Monument.
Recently the threat of mining in the area has emerged, as a series
of mining claims have been filed in Browns Canyon straddling the
Arkansas River. These claims were filed during a lapse in what had been
an administrative closure for over 20 years. The mining claims are a
reminder of the need for the type of lasting protection for Browns
Canyon that S. 1794 would provide.
The time is now to finish the work of protecting Browns Canyon. We
strongly urge passage of S. 1794.
______
Statement of David Brown, Executive Director, America Outdoors
Association
Dear Senator Udall:
The draft Brown's Canyon National Monument and Wilderness Act
legislation of November 18, 2013 has several provisions which are
important to outfitters and the continuation of their services to the
public.
The Purposes Section helps clarify the legislation's intent
to ``sustain traditional uses in the Brown's Canyon area,
including hunting, angling, livestock grazing, commercial
outfitting, and boating''.
While the banks of the Arkansas River will be part of the
National Monument, the bill authorizes the Bureau of Land
Management to maintain its cooperative relationship with the
State of Colorado in managing river outfitters within the
Arkansas Headwater National Recreation Area. The Arkansas River
itself is excluded from the boundaries consistent with the
river level.
Withdrawal of the area within the boundaries of the Monument
from mining and mineral extraction will help maintain the
recreational and scenic values of the area.
The Forest Service will continue to manage those lands
within its boundaries, providing continuity to outfitters who
are operating within the National Forests that become part of
the Monument.
The authorization of outfitting in the Wilderness should
relieve the requirement to determine the ``need'' for
outfitting for any services occurring there now. The agencies
will likely be required to determine the extent to which those
services are necessary to fulfill the recreational purposes of
the Wilderness. However, the Arkansas River itself and its
banks are excluded from the boundary of the Wilderness.
Your intent to maintain the economic values derived from recreation
and outfitting are well recognized. Therefore, I feel certain that you
will monitor the development of the Management plans for the Monument
and Wilderness to ensure that the intent of the legislation is
realized.
Thank you for your consideration of the interests of the outfitting
industry in the development of this legislation.
______
Statement of Scott Bosse, Northern Rockies Director, American Rivers,
on S. 2392
Dear Chairman Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski:
On behalf of American Rivers, we offer the following testimony in
support of S.2392, the East Rosebud Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2014
sponsored by Senator John Walsh (D-MT) and co-sponsored by Senator Jon
Tester (D-MT). This legislation, which would protect one of Montana's
most spectacular free-flowing rivers by adding it to the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System, enjoys popular local support and the language
in the bill is clear, clean and concise. The bill had a hearing before
the National Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Energy & Natural
Resources Committee on July 23, 2014.
American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and
conserves clean water for people and nature. Since 1973, American
Rivers has protected and restored more than 150,000 miles of rivers
through advocacy efforts, on-the-ground projects, and an annual
America's Most Endangered Rivers campaign. Headquartered in Washington,
DC, American Rivers has offices across the country and more than
200,000 members and supporters, including more than 700 in Montana.
Many of our Montana members live along and/or recreate on East Rosebud
Creek.
American Rivers has been working with local citizens to protect
East Rosebud Creek since 2010, when Hydrodynamics, Inc., a Bozeman-
based energy company, first proposed building a hydropower project on
the creek on lands managed by the Custer National Forest. The project,
which eventually was withdrawn by the proponent on May 31, 2013 in the
face of strong local opposition, was the third such hydropower project
proposed on East Rosebud Creek in the past two decades.
Under S.2392, two reaches of East Rosebud Creek totaling 20 river
miles would be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
forever protecting their free-flowing character, clean water, and
outstanding scenic, wildlife, fishery, recreational, geologic and
historic values. Both reaches flow across public lands managed by the
Custer National Forest. No private lands would be included in the Wild
and Scenic designation.
While Montana currently has four Wild and Scenic rivers (the three
forks of the upper Flathead River and a 150-mile reach of the Upper
Missouri River) totaling 368 river miles, Congress has not designated a
Wild and Scenic river in the state since 1976. A recent poll
commissioned by Montanans for Healthy Rivers found that nearly nine in
ten Montana voters support maintaining or increasing the number of
protected rivers in the state, and 75 percent support the federal Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. Support for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
amongst Montanans cuts across all demographic categories including age,
gender, geographic region, party affiliation, and ideology.
Local support for protecting East Rosebud Creek as a Wild and
Scenic river runs strong among local homeowners, ranchers, and business
owners, and opposition is virtually non-existent. Friends of East
Rosebud, a local grassroots organization formed to protect East Rosebud
Creek's free-flowing character, clean water, and special values, has
collected signatures from more than 1,800 citizens from 43 states who
want to see it preserved in its current condition. Earlier this year,
on April 12, 2014, approximately 130 citizens from southern Montana
showed up at a public meeting in Billings to express their support for
a bill to designate East Rosebud as a Wild and Scenic river. Virtually
no one spoke up in opposition to a Wild and Scenic designation.
conclusion
Montana has 177,000 miles of streams, yet only 368 stream miles, or
two tenths of one percent, have been protected through inclusion in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. As one of Montana's most
spectacular free-flowing rivers that has faced repeated threats from
hydropower development over the past two decades, East Rosebud Creek is
an excellent candidate for Wild and Scenic designation and one that
enjoys popular local support. For these reasons, we urge the Senate
Energy & Natural Resources Committee to vote in favor of S.2392 so it
can move to the full Senate for consideration.
Thank you for considering our testimony on this important
legislation.
______
Statement of Mike Kissack, Arkansas River Outfitters Association
Dear Senator Udall,
The Arkansas River Outfitters Association (AROA) is a professional
organization comprised of and representing the majority of the
commercial outfitters on the Arkansas River. Our membership consists of
outfitters representing rafting, float fishing, walk and wade fishing,
photography, kayak instruction, shuttle services, climbing, hiking, and
many other activities within the Arkansas River Valley. As an
organization we are strongly in favor of the current proposal for
National Monument and Wilderness designation for Browns Canyon.
This unique landscape is not only the most rafted stretch of
whitewater in the nation, but it's also extremely popular with
countless other user groups. The legislation as drafted seems to allow
all user groups the ability to utilize this area just as they always
have. As an organization that draws visitors to this region to
experience its natural beauty and recreational opportunities, having
this designation gives us a tremendous advantage in our ability to
market the Arkansas River Valley. Just telling guests that they will be
rafting through a proposed National Monument has been a sales tool that
has worked for many of us already. In an increasingly competitive
marketplace unique advantages like this are essential to our viability
and the viability of our surrounding communities.
Aside from the obvious benefits of protecting habitat, preserving
wilderness for future generations, and guarding this beautiful
landscape, the economic impact of this designation on our communities
would be tremendously positive. According to the 2012 Commercial River
Use in the State of Colorado Report generated by the Colorado River
Outfitters Association (CROA), commercial boaters on the Arkansas River
had a direct expenditure of $20,543,280 and an overall economic impact
of $52,590,798. This is money that is spent on food, lodging, and with
other businesses in our mountain communities. Additionally, a report
generated by Headwaters Economics entitled The Value of Public Lands:
Lessons for Communities & Businesses Around Browns Canyon, shows that
rural areas like the Arkansas River Valley see significant increases in
population, employment, personal income, and per capita income
immediately following a National Monument designation within their
surrounding areas.
In conclusion, AROA would like to thank you for the effort that you
have put forth in drafting this legislation and strongly supports it in
its current state.
______
Statement of Tom Kleinschnitz, Chairman, Colorado River Outfitters
Association
Dear Senator Udall and Congressman Lamborn:
On behalf of the Colorado River Outfitters Association, I am
writing to express our support of any efforts to permanently protect
Browns Canyon of the Arkansas River.
Considered Colorado's most appreciated but unprotected landscape,
Browns Canyon comprises roughly 23,000 acres of Forest Service and BLM
land. The area is renowned for offering a range of year-round
opportunities for exploring Colorado's outdoors. Browns Canyon is the
most popular whitewater rafting destinations in the nation. The
regional whitewater rafting, kayaking and all other whitewater sports
industry accounts for over $23 million in direct expenditures for a
total economic impact of over $60 million in the Arkansas Valley
annually.
People from across the state and country regularly visit to go
whitewater rafting, kayaking, hunting and fishing in Browns Canyon. For
example, roughly 150,000 visitors participate annually in commercial
rafting trips with our outfitters on this stretch of the Arkansas River
alone, due in no small part to the area's outstanding wild scenery.
Places like Browns Canyon are an important part of many Coloradoans'
personal identity, and attract and retain talented individuals to the
region to enjoy a high quality of life. By preserving this incredible
landscape that surrounds the river, we can ensure that visitors
continue to benefit from inspiring recreational experiences, and
continue to sustain and grow our local and regional economy.
In Colorado, outdoor recreation activities generate over $10
billion annually in revenues to our state economy and supports 107,000
jobs. Our businesses depend on these visitors and the activities they
come to enjoy. Colorado and the Arkansas River Valley is also an
integral part of the national outdoor recreation, conservation and
historic preservation economy, which contributes $1.06 trillion
annually to the U.S. economy, and supports 9.4 million American jobs.
For over a decade, there have been bipartisan efforts to protect
this unique area. Browns Canyon is a national treasure which deserves
to be permanently protected to both ensure that the area will remain
open to whitewater boating, fishing, hiking and other recreational
pursuits to preserve Colorado's outdoor legacy for future generations.
As a business association whose members and partners are dependent on
this area for economic security, we strongly support designation of
Browns Canyon as a National Monument or Wilderness area without further
delay. Sincerely,
______
Statement of Kevin A. and Betsey Delorey, Madison, WI, on S. 2293
We wish to go on record as in support of S.2293--National Scenic
Trails Parity Act. Will you please see that our support is entered into
the appropriate record for this bill?
Thanks for your efforts.
______
Statement of Dennis Giese, Board of Commissioners, Chaffee County
Colorado, Salida, CO
As a current Chaffee County Commissioner, I would support the
Brown's Canyon Wilderness s Area legislation with the conditions below.
This area includes Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
lands with the following as the general boundaries:
North--300ATV1-2 and 185 DRC1 (ATV routes authorized by the
Fourmile Travel Plan)
East--Parallel West side of the Aspen Ridge Road with offsets
to allow for camping and parking
West--Original BLM Wilderness Study Area (Arkansas River)
South--South of the ``Turret Trail'' Road and Original BLM
Wilderness Study Area
The area summarized above should coincide with the general
description of the Brown's Canyon Wilderness Area that has been
proposed the last several years.
This support is conditioned on the preservation of the existing
access of current users and that there is no further closure of areas
or designation of use to current and historical users of this area.
This includes ATV access along the ``Turret Trail'' Road and the
current grazing allotments.
This support does not speak for the Chaffee County Board of
Commissioners as a whole but only for me.
______
Statement of Carol Donnelly, Chair, on Behalf of the Friends of the
York River, on S. 1520
Dear Chairman Udall and Committee Members:
As representatives of a broad-based community effort, we are
writing to express our strong support for S. 1520 (and H.R. 2197), a
Bill to Amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to Designate Segments of
the York River and Associated Tributaries for study for Potential
Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
While Maine is blessed with many beautiful rivers that are also
economically and ecologically productive, some water ways rise above
others. And in southern Maine, the York River is a standout.
The York River is one of southern Maine's defining features. Its
waters are clean and flow in large part unencumbered from their origins
high in the watershed at York Pond, where it begins its 11-mile journey
and turns from fresh to salt water before entering the Gulf of Maine at
York Harbor. The watershed has a diversity of habitats and ecological
communities--extensive salt marshes, a mix of forest types and
countless freshwater wetlands. Wildlife abounds--28 species of fish
have been documented in this small river system, and its salt marshes
provide resting and nesting places for migrating and resident birds.
But it is not just natural values that make it special: the York
River is a resource appreciated and used by people for hundreds of
years--from Native Americans on through the periods of European
settlement, when the river served as a vital transportation link and
source of industry. The beautiful, preserved historic buildings, plus
remnants of old granite dams and mills found today along its
tributaries, testify to the rich history of the York River.
The York River is a resource appreciated and used today, from
commercial fishermen to those who enjoy fishing and boating as pastimes
on the river. The river attracts vacationers and seasonal as well as
the year round residents, providing important economic opportunities
for small businesses in the area. Area students study the ecology and
history of the York River through schools and a local museum.
The National Park Service (NPS) recently released a preliminary
evaluation of the suitability of the river, ``Wild and Scenic River
Reconnaissance Survey of the York River,'' that recognized the
outstanding and remarkable values of the river. The report concluded
that ``Based on a preliminary analysis through this reconnaissance
survey, the National Park Service concludes that the York River appears
to be a good candidate for a Wild and Scenic River Study...In sum, all
of the elements for a successful Study process appear to be in place
for the York River.''
For the past four years, residents of the towns of York, Eliot, and
Kittery have been meeting, discussing, and exploring the concept of the
National Park Service's Wild and Scenic Partnership Program and what it
could mean for the York River watershed. After extensive public
meetings with a variety of residents and special interest groups, we
have determined that the Partnership Program may be a very good fit for
the York River, whose many tributaries flow through the three towns. We
would very much like to receive funding through the Park Service to
conduct the comprehensive 3-year study to help make this determination.
We have broad support: The boards of selectmen in all three towns
voted to support the National Park Service paid study. In addition,
many civic groups and individuals--including a regional Chamber of
Commerce, several local businesses, the local shellfish commission and
two local historic preservation organizations--have endorsed the
concept of the study. In all, thirty-one organizations and individuals
have written letters of support for the York River Study Bill.
This is a wonderful opportunity for residents of York, Kittery, and
Eliot to gather important information on the York River and to explore
its eligibility for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Partnership Program. And
just as importantly, to explore whether the Wild and Scenic Partnership
is appropriate for the river and our three communities.
We urge you to pass Senate bill 1520 so we can begin on this path
of discovery.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important
legislation.
______
Statements of Martha Raymond, National Coordinator for Heritage Areas,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior
The National Park Service (NPS) received the statement of national
importance for the proposed Maritime Washington National Maritime
Heritage Area. Thank you for preparing the statement as a supplement to
the Washington State National Maritime Heritage Area Feasibility Study.
While it is not our role to offer a recommendation regarding
National Heritage Area designation until the NPS is asked to provide
testimony on a pending bill before Congress, we have reviewed the
feasibility study, statement of importance and boundary description per
the interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. The
study met criteria 2-10 and the statement met criterion 1 by explaining
why the heritage area is nationally important, linking the nationally
important story to an assemblage of resources, and explained the
heritage area boundary in relation to the assemblage of resources.
Together, these documents have addressed and met all ten interim
feasibility study criteria.
We recognize that a lot of hard work went into the preparation of
these documents. We wish you success as you work towards designation
and building an organization and partnership that can coordinate
heritage area activities. If you would like further guidance, please do
not hesitate to contact Gretchen Luxenberg of the Pacific West Regional
Office, at 206-220-4138, or Martha Raymond, National Coordinator for
Heritage Areas, at 202-354-2222.
addendum to the mountains to sound greenway national heritage area
feasibility study
The National Park Service (NPS) received the Addendum to the
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area Feasibility Study,
May 27, 2014. Thank you for revising the Addendum in accordance with
our guidance memo dated May 6, 2014 to include a statement of national
importance, themes, associated resources, traditions, customs, beliefs
and folklife, and a boundary justification.
While it is not our role to offer a recommendation regarding
National Heritage Area designation until the NPS is asked to provide
testimony on a bill before Congress, we have reviewed the Addendum in
accordance with the interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study
Guidelines. Based upon our review, conducted with the National Heritage
Area Coordinator for the Pacific West Region, we find that the
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area Feasibility Study
(March 2012) and Addendum (May 6, 2014) meet all feasibility study
assessment criteria.
The May 6, 2014 Addendum specifically meets criteria 1, 2, 5, and 9
by (1) establishing that the proposed Mountains to Sound Greenway
National Heritage Area is nationally important for its association with
the expansion of our national transportation system and the creation of
our modem timber industry; (2) identifying three themes associated with
the region's national importance and a strategic assemblage of 48
national important historic resources and 12 natural resources; (3)
demonstrating that there are ongoing traditions, customs, beliefs, and
folklife that are a valuable part of the region's national importance;
and (4) justifying the proposed boundary in relation to the strategic
assemblage of resources and opportunities for conservation, recreation
and education, as well as public interest in national heritage area
designation.
Congratulations! We recognize the hard work that went into the
reassessment of and revisions to sections of the Addendum. It has been
a pleasure working with Doug Schindler, Elizabeth Lumley, and Ben
Hughey on your staff, as well as meeting Board President, Bill Chapman
and Executive Committee Member, Janet Ray.
We wish you success as you work towards designation and building
interest in the national importance and historic resources of the
proposed Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area. If you
would like further information about the review process, please contact
me at (202) 3542222. For technical assistance related to heritage
projects or preparations of management planning, please contact Linda
Stonier, Heritage Area Coordinator for the Pacific West Region, at 415-
623-2322.
______
Statement of Joe Taylor, President/CEO, Quad Cities Convention &
Visitors Bureau, Moline, IL, on S. 2346
The Quad Cities Convention and Visitors Bureau promotes tourism for
Davenport/Bettendorf, Iowa and Rock Island/Moline, Illinois and
supports S. 2346 to create a new category of discovery trail for the
National Trails System and to designate the American Discovery Trail as
the first trail of this kind.
The ADT runs coast to coast from California to Delaware and passes
through the Quad Cities as it goes across Iowa and Illinois. The Quad
Cities has an extensive local trails system that already connects to
the ADT route and would increase tourism to the Quad Cities as the
trail becomes the equivalent of the interstate highway system for
bicyclists.
The Quad Cities Bicycle Club, Bi-State Regional Commission, Rock
Island County, the City of Rock Island, the City of Moline, the Village
of Carbon Cliff, Henry County and the Henry County Economic Development
Partnership all have endorsed the ADT and its addition to the national
trail system.
The bureau and its partners encourage passage of S. 2346 to advance
trail development for the nation.
______
Statement of Ralph ``Terry'' Scanga, Jr., General Manager, Upper
Arkansas Water Conservancy District, Salida, CO
Dear Senator Udall;
As you are aware the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District
negotiated particular language to be included in the authorizing
legislation in order to provide protection of water rights in the
Browns Canyon area as well as future water rights development in the
Arkansas River. The purpose of this letter is to summarize those
protections.
The protections include language that precludes the Federal
Government from imposing a reservation for water rights within the
proposed National Monument or the Wilderness areas and interferring
with the exercise of existing water rights within that area. Further
the Arkansas River, no matter at what level, is excluded including the
waters of the river.
Also of significant note is that the included area does not
encompass areas where existing water right diversions are located and
therefore will not interfere with the operation and maintenance of
those structures that appropriate water from the Arkansas River.
I appreciate you and your staff taking the tune and effort to
respond to our concerns in the protection of the water resources of the
Upper Arkansas Basin.
______
Statement of Ken Rosevear, Executive Director, Yuma County Chamber of
Commerce, Yuma, AZ
Dear Senator McCain:
On behalf of the Yuma County Chamber's 850 members, I am writing to
express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Yuma Crossing
National Heritage Area. Since its inception in 2000, the Heritage Area
has had an enormously positive impact on the economy and landscape of
Yuma. In particular, it was the driving force to reclaim and revitalize
seven miles of riverfront along the Lower Colorado River. It led the
effort to save Yuma's state historic parks when Arizona State Parks had
scheduled their closure due to state budget cuts in 2010. It has
leveraged a small federal investment of National Park Service funds
into a total public and private investment on the riverfront of more
than $100 million.
You will hear from some in Washington ``think-tanks'' ( but not in
Yuma) about certain as yet unspecified ``threats of private property
rights''. I cannot speak for all Heritage Areas, but here in Yuma, the
Heritage Area has not only scrupulously respected private property
rights but has also encouraged and facilitated significant private
investment along the riverfront.
The loss of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area would be a
terrible set-back for our community, just as we attempt to recover from
the deep national recession. We thank you for having spearheaded the
original designation, and request that you help us preserve and
maintain the progress our community has made over the last 13 years.
______
Statement of Gregory S. Ferguson, Chairman, Yuma County Board of
Supervisors, Yuma, AZ
Dear Senator McCain:
On behalf of Yuma County, I want to add my support for the
reauthorization of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area through
2030. We are particularly appreciative of the way the Heritage Area has
worked in close partnership with so many sectors of our community. It
has all been based on voluntary and cooperative efforts with business,
farmers, non-profit groups and government agencies. The changes along
the Colorado River can only be described as amazing.
We need the Heritage Area to continue to manage the Yuma East
Wetlands and the state historic parks, so that the riverfront continues
to thrive. This is a really cost effective investment of National Park
Service funds, which are being leveraged at a rate of 5:1.
We will follow up with a formal resolution from the Yuma County
Board of Supervisors. We very much appreciate your continuing support
for the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.
______
Statement of Patricia Ware, Chairwoman, Yuma Crossing National Heritage
Area Executive Committee, Yuma, AZ
I am writing to express my concern about the Heritage Foundation's
continuing allegations that the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
(YCNHA) is some terrible threat to private property rights. It is
simply not true.
Many years ago, there was some misunderstanding within our
community about this issue. i am a landowner who was included within
the original boundary designation of the YCNHA. As a Farm Bureau
member, I was appointed to represent the Farm Bureau at YCNHA Board
meetings. The Farm Bureau and YCNHA worked closely together to resolve
any outstanding issues. I attended every meeting until the boundaries
were amended by Congress through H.R. 326 on October 11. 2005. No one
else from these other groups doing all the complaining ever attended a
single meeting. They were, however, kept informed of all meetings and
actions.
Part of the resolution between the Farm Bureau and the YCNHA was to
bring people like myself who are original homesteaders and farmers in
this community onto the Board. I became a board member in 2005, and now
serve as the Chairwoman of the Board of Directors.
My wish is that the individuals ``stuck in the mud'' on this
particular part of YCNHA's history take time to ask people such as
myself who were involved directly. Please stop ``harping'' on self
serving half truths and look to the actual events. Please feel free to
contact me at [email protected], and I will provide any
information you request to support the truth on this matter.
Ask anyone in Yuma about the Heritage Area, and you will find very
strong support for the efforts to reclaim our riverfront on the
Colorado River. We have built two riverfront parks, seven miles of
multi-use trails, restored 400 acres of wetlands, and spurred over $30
million of private investment in the downtown riverfront. Our most
recent effort was to save two state historic parks from closing and to
take over their operations by raising $70,000 in community donations in
a 60 day period. This has all been done on a strictly voluntary and
collaborative basis.
I will not speak for all National Heritage Areas, but you have the
Yuma Crossing all wrong. Perhaps getting out of Washington, DC and
actually seeing what is going on would do the Heritage Foundation some
good. I invite you or your staff to come to Yuma and find out the
facts. Until then, I ask that the Heritage Foundation stop with the
groundless allegations.
Private property rights are the fundamental basis of our way of
life (farming). However, so is the truth. What you keep dredging up and
re-circulating is not the truth. Please give this letter your
consideration and know all the facts stated are true and documented.
I ask you to please move on from this tedious, untrue, and ongoing
criticism of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, and instead
focus on other subjects that are more current and warrant your concern.