[Senate Hearing 107-860]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-860
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 2623 S. 2880
S. 2640 H.R. 3421
S. 2776 H.R. 3786
S. 2788 H.R. 3858
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
85-338 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BOB GRAHAM, Florida BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CONRAD BURNS, Montana
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
Nancie Ames, Bevinetto Fellow
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 1
Anderson, Robert, Deputy Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior................................................... 12
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Daschle, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 4
Giese, Dale, Ph.D., Fort Bayard Historical Society, Silver City,
NM............................................................. 9
Hainer, Michael J., Administrator, Fort Bayard Medical Center,
New Mexico Department of Health, Fort Bayard, NM............... 7
Radanovich, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California..... 4
Stauffer, Max, Chairman, Bass Lake School District, Fish Camp, CA 25
Taylor, Jeffrey K., Assistant Director, Office of Legislative and
Congressional Affairs, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 15
Zontine, Patricia L., Chairman, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
Foundation, Shenandoah Valley, VA.............................. 27
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. The Senate Subcommittee on National Parks
will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone. The purpose of
this afternoon's hearing before the Subcommittee on National
Parks is to receive testimony on several bills pending before
the subcommittee. The bills that we will consider today
include: S. 2623, to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield in
Virginia and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park in
Virginia as a unit of the National Park System; S. 2640 and
H.R. 3421, to provide funding for school facilities in Yosemite
National Park; S. 2788, to revise the boundary of Wind Cave
National Park in South Dakota.
We have two bills dealing with lands in New Mexico: S.
2776, to provide for the protection of archaeological sites in
the Galisteo Basin; and S. 2880, to designate the Fort Bayard
Historic District as a national historic landmark.
Finally, we will consider two other House-passed bills:
H.R. 3786, to revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area; and H.R. 3858, to modify the boundaries of the
New River Gorge National River in West Virginia.
Although we have a long list of bills on the agenda this
afternoon, I think most of them are relatively noncontroversial
and should not take too much time. I am especially interested
in hearing more about the two bills authorizing park funds to
assist the public schools in the Yosemite National Park, and I
am very happy that Congressman Radanovich, the chairman of the
counterpart subcommittee in the House of Representatives, is
scheduled to testify.
While I understand the problems of the Yosemite schools, I
think it is important that the committee carefully consider
whether national parks operational funds should be used, even
in part, for non-national park purposes and whether authorizing
park funds for the schools in Yosemite will lead to similar
requests from other national parks around the country.
Two of the bills that we are considering today are
sponsored by the chairman of the full committee, Senator
Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have a conflict
this afternoon that may prevent you from staying for the entire
hearing, but, please, I will ask you to proceed with any
opening statement you would like to make at this time.
[A prepared statement from Senator Daschle follows"]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Daschle, U.S. Senator
From South Dakota
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Thomas for convening
today's hearing on the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act
(S. 2788). I am proud to be this bill's sponsor, which will not only
benefit my home state of South Dakota, but the entire nation by
expanding the protection of natural resources near the park.
Wind Cave National Park, located in Southwestern South Dakota, is
one of the Park System's precious natural treasures and one of the
nation's first national parks. The cave itself, after which the park is
named, is one of the world's oldest, longest and most complex cave
systems, with more than 103 miles of mapped tunnels. The cave is well
known for its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare, honeycomb-shaped
formation that protrudes from the cave's ceilings and walls. While the
cave is the focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally
impressive, with 28,000 acres of rolling meadows, majestic forests,
creeks, and streams. As one of the few remaining mixed-grass prairie
ecosystems in the country, the park is home to abundant wildlife, such
as bison, deer, elk and birds, and is a National Game Preserve.
I introduced the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act in
July in response to an opportunity for the National Park Service to
acquire property from willing sellers neighboring the park. The land in
question lies within the southern ``keyhole'' region, and is a natural
extension of the park. It contains the same mixed-grass prairie and
ponderosa pine forests found in the rest of the park, including a
dramatic river canyon. The addition of this land will enhance
recreation for hikers who come for the solitude of the park's back
country. It will also improve fire management in the area and protect
archaeological sites, such as a buffalo jump over which early Native
Americans once drove the bison they hunted. I understand that this
would be the first site of its kind in the National Park System.
This plan to expand the park has strong support in the surrounding
community, whose views were expressed during a 60-day public comment
period on the proposal earlier this summer. Most South Dakotans
recognize the value in expanding the park, not only to encourage
additional tourism in the Black Hills, but to permanently protect these
extraordinary lands for future generations of Americans to enjoy.
Understandably, however, some are legitimately concerned about the
potential loss of hunting opportunities and local tax revenue.
Governor Bill Janklow, has expressed his support for the park
expansion, as long as it (1) does not reduce the amount of land with
public access that currently can be hunted, (2) there is no loss of tax
revenue to the county from the expansion, and (3) chronic wasting
disease issues are dealt with effectively. These are reasonable
conditions that should be met as this process moves forward.
In response to these concerns, the National Park Service modified
its original proposal to exclude 880 acres of School and Public Lands
property from the expansion. This will help maintain public hunting
access to these areas, and protect local county tax revenues. In
addition, the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department has reached
an agreement with Wind Cave officials to monitor the occurrence of
chronic wasting disease in elk and deer herds in the park, which will
help officials better understand the disease. I am satisfied that the
proposal put forth by the Park Service effectively addresses the
concerns raised by the Governor.
Wind Cave National Park has been a valued American treasure for
nearly 100 years. This legislation provides us an opportunity to expand
the park and enhance its value to the public, so that visitors will
enjoy it even more during the next 100 years. It is my hope that my
colleagues will support this expansion of the park and pass this
legislation expeditiously.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to
working with the Chairman and the rest of the committee as it considers
this legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, for
scheduling the hearing. I very much appreciate you including
the two New Mexico-related bills. We do have two witnesses here
from New Mexico prepared to speak on one of those two bills:
Dale Giese, who is here; and Michael Hainer. I look forward to
hearing their testimony.
The first of the two bills that you referred to relates to
the Galisteo Basin. It is S. 2776. It is a bill that I
introduced to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
protect two dozen important archaeological sites in the
Galisteo Basin. This is an area south of Santa Fe, between
Santa Fe and Albuquerque. These sites contain the ruins of
Indian pueblos dating back almost 900 years and include the
largest pueblo ruins ever found.
Some of the sites also include historic artifacts related
to the Spanish colonization of the area in the 1500's. Because
these sites are close to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, many of the
sites are now threatened from development and increased use of
land and erosion and exposure to elements and vandalism.
S. 2776 directs the Secretary to protect these sites that
exist on Federal land and to work cooperatively with private
owners and pueblos in the State of New Mexico to protect sites
located on their land. We held a hearing on this bill in Santa
Fe last month. I was pleased to see the broad support from
leaders of the Pueblo community, affected landowners and local
community leaders in general. In fact, to date we have not had
a single person submit testimony in opposition to the bill.
Let me briefly turn to the other item that relates to New
Mexico. It is S. 2880. This would designate Fort Bayard
Historic District in southwestern New Mexico as a national
historic landmark. This is located a very few miles from my
home town of Silver City and has long been recognized as an
historically significant site.
I see one of the other bills on the hearing agenda would
designate a Civil War battlefield in Virginia for protection.
Fort Bayard has a Civil War connection, a Virginia Civil War
connection, in that the fort was named for General George
Bayard, who was killed at the Battle of Fredericksburg. The
fort was built in 1866. It played an important role in the
Apache Wars and the settlement of southwestern New Mexico, and
many of the so-called Buffalo Soldiers were stationed at Fort
Bayard. They served with distinction there, including one who
received the Congressional Medal of Honor.
This is, of course, also a historic medical facility and
the administrator of that medical facility, Mr. Hainer, is here
to testify, so I will not steal any of his thunder except to
say that I think both of these are very meritorious bills and I
hope we can move ahead on them this year.
Again, thank you for letting me participate in the hearing.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement.
I would like to ask Senator Domenici for any statement he
may have at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome the New Mexicans who are here and I will be here
to see them, meet, and talk with them. I have a brief comment
on the Fort Bayard National Historic Landmark, S. 2880. I am
very hopeful that I can cooperate and help, Senator, and that
we will get that done quickly.
With reference to the archaeological protection area, S.
2776, my concerns and objections to it remain the same as they
were last year. I do not believe we have to have this much
Federal interference in order, with all this property, in order
to have a preservation, something that is preserved that we can
recognize. But I am willing to listen again, as I was before,
and perhaps more people from the area are in favor or less
opposed, and we will just see what that yields. But I commend
you for introducing it again. What is behind it is very good,
very solid. Whether we have to do it this way or not, I do not
know.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
I would like to welcome Congressman George Radanovich, the
chairman of the House Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands, and the sponsor of H.R. 3421. We look forward to
hearing your testimony, Congressman. Your statement will be
included in the record in its entirety, so please feel free to
summarize your remarks. Thank you for being here and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka. I appreciate the
opportunity to describe my bill before the committee and have
it heard. Thank you very, very much.
My bill, H.R. 3421, is unique in that California is one of
the only States where operating funds for schools are based on
average daily attendance. Since the devastating flood of 1997
in the Merced River Canyon, there has been a dramatic reduction
in the number of park employees and thus fewer schoolchildren
attending these schools. With fewer and fewer children
attending these schools, fewer State dollars are committed.
The result is that the superintendent for the Yosemite
National Park and the concessionaires serving the park visitors
are attracting less than qualified candidates to work in the
park because families are not provided with adequate schools.
Furthermore, other existing Federal funding sources are
inadequate to meet the needs of the schools. PILT, or payment
in lieu of taxes, is available in both Mariposa and Madera
Counties where these schools exist and impact aid is accessible
in Madera County only, but pursuant to current law very few
dollars are actually used to fund these classrooms.
The situation is so bad for the schools that both the
superintendent of Yosemite National Park and the president of
the concessionaire services have pulled their children from the
schools. In light of these realities, I was able to secure
special funding of about $111,000 in fiscal year 2002 Interior
appropriations for these schoolchildren. However, going to
appropriators every year for this critical assistance is not
the most productive approach, and that is why I have submitted
the bill to make it permanent within the Department of the
Interior.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we should stand by and
permit the children of Park Service and concessionaire
employees from being deprived of their education simply because
their parents have been asked by our Government to work in
Yosemite. Precedent for assistance to these schools located in
national parks does exist. Yellowstone National Park has such a
program that was adopted I believe in 1942 and is limited in
its scope to the national parks because of the fact that there
are not very many where the schools rely solely upon students
from concessionaire or Federal employee services.
I do work for bipartisan support behind the measure. During
the House subcommittee and committee consideration of the
schools, a number of changes were made to address issues raised
by the administration, members of the Resources Committee, and
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. For example, the
measures make it clear that funds that will be available by the
Secretary will not go towards new construction, construction
contracts, or major capital improvements, and thus would be
limited to general upkeep, maintenance, and classroom teaching.
After these modifications, the bill was approved in the
House with bipartisan support earlier this year. After that
House passage, Senator Feinstein and I worked to develop S.
2640, and I support the Senate measure, which also includes the
schools provision, plus language to authorize the Yosemite Area
Regional Transportation System and an extension of the advisory
commission for both the Manzanar National Historic Site and the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
In closing, I would urge support for H.R. 3421 and its
Senate version, S. 2640, and am available to answer any
questions that you might have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your testimony, Congressman.
While we all agree on the goal of your legislation, to ensure a
quality education for students attending those schools, there
is still a question why this should be funded by the national
park revenues instead of through the Department of Education or
another school-related funding source. Can you give us any of
your thoughts on this as to why you are asking national park
revenues to operate this school facility?
Mr. Radanovich. It would be my pleasure, Senator. Primarily
because California allocates its funds based on average daily
attendance, which, if the number of students in a school is not
very high the funding that goes toward that school drops
dramatically, and there is a threshold which is needed in order
to operate any classroom. Because of that and because most of
the programs that have been made available to areas such as
Yosemite or Mariposa County with high Federal land ownership
are simply not enough to make up in the budgets in that area.
For example, impact aid is very, very small because the
relationship between Federal employees and the rest of the
population in the county is not high enough to provide
sufficient dollars for the operation of the classroom. Also,
PILT as a program within the county does not allocate those
resources for educational purposes. It goes right into the
general fund and is used to serve a barebones supply of
services to the county.
So for Yosemite the normal funding sources are just not
enough to make it a viable school, and yet we are still
expected to attract people to run one of the crown jewels of
the National Park System.
I did mention earlier, too, that there is precedent in
Yellowstone National Park--I believe it was 1942 the provision
was made--and that it would be very narrow in scope. I do not
think this opens the door much to anything, simply because
there are very few schools in the park system where their
students are comprised 100 percent of both concessionaire and
Federal employees. So I think that that would limit the scope
dramatically.
Senator Akaka. That was going to be another question of
mine, as to what kind of students will be attending the school.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. The schools in El Portal, Yosemite,
and in Wawona are, as I had mentioned, completely attended by
concessionaire and Federal employees. There are no outside
students in those schools. If the schools are not available,
they would be forced to endure a 2-hour bus ride one way to the
local schools in Mariposa and Bass Lake through some pretty
windy roads. It is a dramatically rural area. That would make
it very, very difficult to get qualified employees to manage
Yosemite National Park, which is a big concern of ours.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much.
Are there any further questions?
Senator Domenici. I just wanted to ask, do I understand
that what you would like is to make this an entitlement rather
than an appropriated account that would occur every year?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes. Prior to this we were subject to an
appropriations and we would like to get it permanentized.
Senator Domenici. So it would not be subject to
appropriation?
Mr. Radanovich. Right. Yes. There is a cap on it up to
$750,000.
Senator Domenici. Not very easy to get new entitlements
passed up here, but good luck.
Mr. Radanovich. All right.
Thank you very much for hearing my bill.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement,
Congressman. We look forward to working with you, not only on
the Yosemite bill, but also on the many other park bills that
we need to reach consensus on over the next few weeks.
Mr. Radanovich. I make myself available to you any time
regarding that.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Well, thank you for being here.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. We only have a few witnesses scheduled to
testify this afternoon, so I thought it might be useful to ask
all of the witnesses to come forward at this time.
I know that Senator Bingaman has to leave shortly. We
normally begin with administration witnesses, but I wonder if
they would not mind deferring for a few minutes so that we can
call on the two witnesses from New Mexico, Mr. Hainer and Dr.
Giese, so that the chairman can hear their testimony on the
Fort Bayard National Landmark bill before he has to leave, and
also Senator Domenici.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all of the witnesses
to please summarize your testimony and limit your oral remarks
to no more than 5 minutes. We will include your entire written
statement in the official hearing record. So at this time, let
me call on Mr. Hainer to proceed, and following him will be Dr.
Giese.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. HAINER, ADMINISTRATOR, FORT BAYARD
MEDICAL CENTER, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FORT BAYARD,
NM
Mr. Hainer. Chairman Akaka and to the two great Senators
from New Mexico: Thank you for the honor and opportunity to
speak before you today. I bring all of you greetings, greetings
from the many U.S. armed forces veterans and other residents
receiving health care services at Fort Bayard Medical Center
today. I bring you greetings from the 380 staff of Fort Bayard
Medical Center and the many citizens of the community of Fort
Bayard, the mining district of Grant County, and New Mexico.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
I am the administrator of Fort Bayard Medical Center, which
is operated by the New Mexico Department of Health for the
management of health care services. My responsibilities are not
only for the operation of the health care services, but for the
management of the entire unincorporated community of Fort
Bayard, including infrastructure.
This is my second post of duty at a health care facility
previously operated as a cavalry fort by the U.S. Army, and
previously I was a member of the Lincoln Historic District
Preservation Board appointed by the county commission of
Lincoln County, New Mexico.
Why recognize Fort Bayard Medical Center, a hospital and
health care community, as a national historic landmark? Mr.
Chairman, Fort Bayard carried out a pioneering role in
tuberculosis and pulmonary disease treatment to veterans of the
Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, and many
citizens of New Mexico subsequent. This is of national, if not
global, health care development significance.
Fort Bayard today is an intact example of a long period of
the Federal Government's role in the settlement and development
of the Western United States and the Federal role in the
development of public health care treatments and services to
people who are often underserved by private providers.
The historic district today is accurate. It contains
architectural and cultural treasures, with few intrusions of
noncontributing structures or buildings. The period from the
1920's to 1930's remains substantially intact for enjoyment,
for provision of services today, and for the community and for
the Nation to view.
Today, the facility is currently operated as a health care
community. Uninterrupted health care services have continued
since the order beginning in 1899 and we are in our second
century of health care services. I believe that it is time to
recognize, preserve, and protect this facility and its heritage
in both military and health care development while the
opportunity exists.
I represent support for this act because it is consistent
with the criteria set forth for national historic landmark
designation; that it is compatible with the current and planned
use of the facility by the New Mexico Department of Health for
provision of health care services. It is well supported by New
Mexico's Office of Cultural Affairs, General Services
Department, and Department of Health. All three of these
entities have a vital concern and role with the operation of
the facility.
We have a strong relationship with the Fort Bayard Historic
Preservation Society and local citizens and we are unified in
our support, Mr. Chairman.
In conclusion, sir, this is an opportunity to recognize and
protect a period of Western development and a heroic era of
health care services and treatment that has extended for over
100 years. We believe this is of national significance.
Moreover, sir, today this is not just a historic relic. This is
a property, a culture, a lifestyle, and a service that
continues alive and well through the hundreds of people who
receive services and the hundreds of staff that provide them.
We exist today. This is not just an event of the past.
Thank you for the honor of speaking before you today, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hainer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Hainer, Administrator, Fort Bayard
Medical Center, New Mexico Department of Health, Fort Bayard, NM
Fort Bayard Medical Center is a multifaceted healthcare facility
occupying 466 of the total 704 acres designated as the Fort Bayard
Historic District. Sixty-two contributing buildings (and four non
contributing buildings), many contributing structures, the military
parade grounds, numerous roadways, community infrastructure systems and
other elements that comprise the core of the cultural landscape of the
Fort Bayard Historic District is nominated by this Act for designation
as a National Historic Landmark. The administrator of this NMDOH
facility is responsible for operation of numerous healthcare services
as well as occupancy of the structures and operation of the
infrastructure and services within the unincorporated community known
as Fort Bayard.
Healthcare services at the facility today include a dually
certified nursing home accepting Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement.
The United States Veterans Administration also certifies the nursing
home as a State Veterans Home. The nursing home occupies all of a large
hospital building erected in 1922 and formerly operated as a hospital.
It was built as the U.S. Army's first tuberculosis sanitarium. The
building is now licensed for 250 nursing home residents and operates at
an average census of 185 residents, including the State Veteran's Home
designated portion of the building. The state's strategic healthcare
role met by this component of Fort Bayard Medical Center is to provide
nursing home services to veterans and other individuals with
challenging healthcare needs that are not well met by private nursing
home providers. Inpatient rehabilitation and therapy services are also
provided for many patients leaving area hospitals after injury,
accident or surgery.
Fort Bayard Medical Center also provides residential chemical
dependency treatment and rehabilitation services. The former hospital
administration building built by the Veterans Bureau in 1909 is used
for this purpose. Individuals with limited healthcare resources
including numerous Native American tribal members use this service.
Fort Bayard has continuously operated as a healthcare facility
since 1899 with the transition from cavalry fort to U.S. Army Hospital.
The New Mexico Department of Health has been the occupant and operator
of Fort Bayard since 1965 after transition of the facility from the
Veterans Administration to New Mexico control. A second century of
continuous health care is now well underway at Fort Bayard. The
Department of Health maintains a commitment to pursuing quality
outcomes for the veterans and other citizens and families receiving
these services.
The designation of the facility as a National Historic Landmark has
been evaluated by the Department of Health and found to be compatible
with the Department's current and planned use of the facility. A strong
working relationship has been forged between the New Mexico Department
of Health, the New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs, the New Mexico
General Services Department and the Fort Bayard Historic Preservation
Society to collaborate in the provision of unimpeded healthcare
services concurrent with a commitment to protection of the vast
cultural resource of the historic district. The Department of Health
greatly values the public interest in the district's history. The
tremendous contribution to Fort Bayard to regional protection of
settlers during the cavalry fort period, followed by a long period of
pioneering efforts in health care is well recognized. The Department
joins the broad interest in the continued integrity of the district as
an intact historic community. The Department is committed to a managed
and shared enjoyment of the stately beauty of the district in a manner
that preserves the quality of life enjoyed by the facility residents
living at Fort Bayard today.
As the facility administrator I am acutely aware of the need for
intervention to protect and preserve the buildings and infrastructure
of the district. Damage is occurring to many of the buildings. Many of
the most valued and historic buildings are marginally protected and are
in need of repair and preventative maintenance to avoid permanent
damage or loss.
I strongly support passage of this important Act. This appeal to
the Committee to support the Act originates from my responsibilities as
facility administrator of Fort Bayard Medical Center. This Act is
supportive of an environment with an enhanced quality of life for the
Veterans and the hundreds of other residents and families who are, or
will receive healthcare services at Fort Bayard.
The Act does not impose any new restrictions or requirements that
adversely affect the operation of the healthcare services within the
district. Passage of the Act will provide for deserved recognition and
assurances for protection along with continued use of the facility for
healthcare services without interference or undesirable intrusion.
This Act also clearly reflects the desire of many concerned
citizens of Grant County and New Mexico to recognize and protect a rare
and intact cultural treasure that accurately portrays a courageous
period of western development and healthcare services improvement. The
healthcare history period at this site clearly represents a pattern of
development in treatments that is national, if not global in
significance.
Incredibly, this Act will support an ongoing tradition and
commitment to health care that is not only evident in the buildings,
structures and landscape of the historic district but also remains
vibrant and alive through the hundreds of residents receiving health
care, their families, the facility staff, the numerous volunteers and
the many community members actively involved with Fort Bayard today.
Passage of this Act is an invaluable opportunity to recognize and
preserve a significant cultural resource of national significance while
it remains intact and occupied with strong state and local support for
its management and care.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hainer.
May I call on Dr. Giese.
STATEMENT OF DALE GIESE, PH.D., FORT BAYARD HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
SILVER CITY, NM
Dr. Giese. Chairman Akaka, Senator Bingaman, Senator
Domenici, committee members: I am Dale Giese. I have worked for
the National Park Service for more than 8 years, mostly in the
field of history, mostly military history, at Fort Union, a
military post in New Mexico, and Petersburg Battlefield in
Virginia. I have also served more than 30 years as a professor
of history at New Mexico State University and Western New
Mexico University, and I am testifying for S. 2880.
In 1866, Major John Pope, commanding officer of the
Military Division of Missouri, recorded: ``I have established
only one new post on the frontier''--on the Apache frontier,
``--that is located near the headwaters of the Mimbres River,
about 150 miles west of the Rio Grande. This post, with Fort
Cummings at Cook Spring, Fort Selden on the Rio Grande, Fort
Stanton on the Bonito River between the Rio Grande and the
Pecos, form a line of posts covering the southern frontier of
New Mexico.''
Because of the Indian danger, there were small ranching and
mining settlements in the Fort Bayard area before 1866. With a
great deal of native resistance, the Spanish had begun
developing the Santa Rita copper mine 60 years previously,
1804. Silver City and Pinos Altos were rich in minerals.
Mexican miners worked the arroyos and canyons for placer gold
as early as 1850.
As word of gold and silver spread, miners and settlers
began pouring into the area beginning in 1863. Apache Indians
viewed these activities as an encroachment upon their lands and
they offered stiff resistance to these invaders of their
hunting grounds. Conflicts began to escalate.
The California Volunteers captured the Apache leader Mangas
Coloradas near Pinos Altos and took him prisoner to Fort McLane
near the Grant County Airport. Fort Bayard was established to
combat this threat to settlement. Conflicts occurred as far as
Deming, Glenwood, Pinos Altos, and the Silver City mining
district.
Fort Bayard's soldiers, of which hundreds were Buffalo
Soldiers, and their Navajo and Apache scouts on the side of the
soldiers, participated in many engagements against famous
Apache war leaders such as Victorio, Nana, and Geronimo.
Expedition after expedition departed from Fort Bayard to
capture these Apaches or kill them, and it was no easy task to
combat these tough, dedicated fighters who were so well adapted
to their native land.
The usual story prevailed time and again in the reports of
lieutenants who found only traces of the Indians. The rain and
snow, they said, were extreme. The soldiers ran out of
supplies. Their horses gave out during the chase. Often reports
of these soldiers concluded with the number of deer or turkey
they killed. The Indian threat finally ended when Geronimo
surrendered at Skeleton Canyon in New Mexico in September 1886.
Fort Bayard as a military post was no longer needed. An
unusual sequence of events helped to preserve the integrity of
Fort Bayard when the post was abandoned in 1899.
In the same year, Surgeon General George Sternberg proposed
transferring the post of Fort Bayard to the Army medical
department because of its healing qualities in the high
altitude and the dry, sunny climate.
David Kammer, historic surveyor of Fort Bayard Historic
Preservation Society, for that society recently completed his
historic survey of the fort in April 2001. The purpose of his
survey was to include Fort Bayard on the State and National
Historic Sites register. In his research he came to an
interesting conclusion. The first 30 years of Fort Bayard was
very important. However, he began to realize the far-reaching
influence and importance of the army hospital established in
1899 and lasting until the period of 1923.
Kammer's research began focusing on the housing and healing
of personnel during the sanitorium of the hospital era. In
1899, the fort became the first sanitorium dedicated to the
treatment of U.S. Army officers and enlisted men suffering from
pulmonary tuberculosis. Under Major D.M. Appel and Major George
E. Bushnell's jurisdiction, outstanding research discoveries
and procedures were developed and implemented.
Kammer received recognition for his outstanding work as
well as Bushnell. Their care and treatment of this dreaded
disease set world standards for successfully controlling
tuberculosis until modern medicines were developed. Under these
physicians' guidance, the post became a self-sufficient
community with an orchard, dairy cows, cattle, hogs, vegetable
farm, and bakery. Hundreds of trees, bluegrass, and flower beds
were planted on or near the parade ground just to freshen the
air. There was also a small research center with guinea pigs.
The doctors believed tuberculosis could be held at bay or even
cured with a strict regimen of fresh fruits, vegetables, and
exposure to air 24 hours a day.
During World War II, German prisoners of war were housed at
Fort Bayard. They were employed in the physical care of the
buildings and they built and repaired the irrigation system,
worked on the roads, planted trees, and worked on the cemetery.
Again, the role of the post changed. The Veterans
Administration took over and the military post and sanitorium
became a central hospital for the care and treatment of
veterans. The post's adjoining military cemetery, dating back
to 1866, became a national cemetery. Then in 1965 the State of
New Mexico assumed control of the post as a long-term health
care facility and presently employs, as Mike said, 380 people.
Kammer states that: ``Although many of the facilities the
Army physicians instituted are no longer in existence, the
present hospital building today is over 80 years old and stands
as a tribute to their work. It is a remarkable example of turn
of the century architecture.'' And to this day, Fort Bayard
continues to play a vital role in the surrounding communities.
Its continuous use through the years has ensured the post's
fair state of preservation.
Some of the buildings date to the late nineteenth century
and many of them to the early twentieth century. Fort Bayard is
a tribute to all those civilians and officers and enlisted men
since its beginning in 1866. Today it continues to offer
visitors a rare opportunity to see a military post as it would
have appeared 100 years ago while it continues to grow and
change with the times.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Giese, your time is expired.
Dr. Giese. I have concluded, except I do have 25 letters of
support from mayors and city councils, etcetera.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much.
At this time I would like to ask for any questions from
Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici to the two witnesses.
Senator Bingaman.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. I
appreciate very much the two witnesses testifying. I think
their testimony is excellent. I appreciate particularly the
photos that are included in Mr. Hainer's testimony. I think
they give a very good feel for the condition of the facility at
this point and I think that is very useful, and also the
detailed history that Dr. Giese has gone through for us.
So I hope we can move ahead with this legislation. I think
designating this a national historic landmark would be an
appropriate thing to do and would be good for the long term
future of Fort Bayard. So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for
letting this be part of the hearing.
Senator Akaka. Senator Domenici, any questions?
Senator Domenici. Yes. Senator Bingaman, I would like to
join as a cosponsor.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Domenici. I thank you. But I do think before we
vote the bill out I would like to have somebody that would
interpret this language tell me what are the limits and
obligations of the Federal Government? The concept of a
national historic landmark is one thing, but when you have
facilities that are still operating ongoing, what does the
Federal Government have to do or what can they not do? I do not
think you are talking about us taking it over and running it as
a medical facility. I do not see that anywhere here. I think it
could be understood in that way, perhaps.
Who would be a person in the Federal Government that would
interpret this and tell us what it would do?
The Chairman. I believe the other witnesses we have today
can probably give us good testimony on that, the Park Service
and BLM witnesses.
Our intent--let me just say for the record, we have tried
here to provide a designation which in no way interferes with
the continued ownership or operation of the facility as it now
exists, and I think we have done that and that certainly is the
purpose.
Senator Domenici. I thank you very much for letting me
understand it better and I hope we can pass it soon.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
We will continue with the witnesses. Mr. Anderson, please
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide the committee with the administration's
views on S. 2776, the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites
Protection Act. The legislation would enable Federal agencies
to work cooperatively with private landowners, pueblos, State
and local governments, and other interested parties to help
preserve and protect the nationally significant archaeological
resources of the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico.
The Bureau of Land Management is currently working to
develop a comprehensive community-based management program for
the Galisteo Basin in keeping with Secretary Norton's four C's:
consultation, cooperation, communication, all in the service of
conservation. S. 2776 is consistent with this effort and
therefore the Department of the Interior supports the
legislation.
There are three important provisions of S. 2776. First, the
bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
voluntary cooperative agreements with willing owners of
archaeological sites on private lands if the private landowners
are interested in preserving and maintaining the sites. This is
essential to development of a community-based management plan
for the basin.
The second major provision directs the Secretary of the
Interior to work with the Governor of New Mexico, the New
Mexico State Land Commissioner, affected Native American
pueblos, and other interested parties to develop a general
management plan for the archaeological sites in the Galisteo
Basin. This direction is also consistent with the current BLM
management activities in that basin.
Of the 24 sites referenced in S. 2776, nine are currently
managed in whole or in part by BLM. Our archaeologists have
done extensive research on these sites and have developed
longstanding positive working relationships with the local
Pueblo Indian communities, the affected State agencies, the
University of New Mexico, and local conservation organizations
on all aspects of the protection of the archaeological
resources of the Galisteo Basin.
The Department supports the third major provision of S.
2776, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire
lands from property owners willing to donate, sell, or exchange
their land and explicitly provides that the Federal Government
cannot acquire lands under S. 2776 without the full consent of
the property owner.
The Bureau of Land Management is the only Federal agency
currently managing any of the sites identified in S. 2776 and
we encourage the committee to consider designating the BLM as
the lead Federal land managing agency for the preparation and
implementation of the management plan for the sites referred to
in section 59(b).
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this bill
and I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Anderson, Deputy Assistant Director,
Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with the
Administration's views on S. 2776, the Galisteo Basin Archaeological
Sites Protection Act. S. 2776 would enable Federal agencies to work
cooperatively with private land owners, Pueblos, State and local
governments, and other interested parties to help preserve and protect
the nationally significant archaeological resources of the Galisteo
Basin in New Mexico. The Bureau of Land Management is currently working
to develop a comprehensive community-based management program for the
Galisteo Basin in keeping with Secretary Norton's 4 C's--consultation,
cooperation, communication, all in the service of conservation. S. 2776
is consistent with this effort, and, therefore, the Department of the
Interior supports the legislation.
The lands surrounding Santa Fe and the area known as the Galisteo
Basin contain a rich cultural heritage of national significance. The
first Spanish explorations in this area found thriving Pueblo Indian
communities dating back to prehistoric times. Today, the ruins of these
pueblos commemorate both the achievements of the ancestral Pueblo
people and the events which shaped the early history of New Mexico and
the Southwest.
Lands to the north of Santa Fe are Pueblo Indian reservations,
while the lands to the east and west are largely public lands managed
by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. Portions of this land, such as
the Pecos Wilderness and the La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC), have been set aside for special protection; other areas
are managed under the principle of ``multiple use'' and other laws,
such as the National Historic Preservation Act.
The southern part of Santa Fe County has a pattern of mixed
ownership, with private lands predominating. Development of this area
is proceeding at a rapid pace as the population of Santa Fe County
continues to grow. Both the State of New Mexico and the BLM manage key
parcels in this area.
Natural processes take a toll on the cultural resources, but the
threats posed by human uses are potentially more serious. Vandalism and
careless excavations in the prehistoric and early historic ruins are a
source of great concern to modern Pueblo peoples and threaten some of
the most important archeological sites with wholesale destruction.
Development of both residential and commercial real estate presents
risks to the ruins, trails, petroglyphs, and other traces of history
and prehistory that remain in this landscape. Illegal trash dumping and
other activities of this type have had a serious adverse impact on the
natural and cultural resource values.
The Department of the Interior supports the three main provisions
of S. 2776. First, the bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into voluntary cooperative agreements with willing owners of
archeological sites on private lands, if the private land owners are
interested in preserving and maintaining the sites. This is essential
to the development of a community-based management plan for the Basin.
The second major provision directs the Secretary of the Interior to
work with the Governor of New Mexico, the New Mexico State Land
Commissioner, affected Native American pueblos, and other interested
parties to develop a general management plan for the archaeological
sites in the Galisteo Basin. This direction is consistent with current
BLM management activities in the Galisteo Basin. Of the 24 sites
referenced in S. 2776, nine (9) are currently managed in whole or in
part by the BLM. The other sites are on state or private land. BLM
archaeologists have done extensive research on these sites, and have
developed long-standing, positive working relationships with the local
communities of La Cieneguilla and La Cienega, Pueblo Indian
communities, the affected state agencies, the University of New Mexico,
and local conservation organizations on all aspects of the protection
of the archaeological resources of the Galisteo Basin.
Through its planning process, the BLM has set aside land near La
Cienega for special protection in its Resource Management Plan. The
area encompassed by this plan includes the BLM-managed portions of La
Cienega Pueblo and Petroglyphs, La Cienega Pithouse Village, and La
Cieneguilla Petroglyphs. Management prescriptions for the BLM sites
include grazing exclusions, withdrawal from mineral entry, and a No-
Surface-Occupancy stipulation for oil and gas development. These
management prescriptions were developed by the BLM in consultation with
Native American tribal governments, state and local governments,
stakeholders, and the general public, through participation
opportunities afforded by land use planning and environmental review
processes.
The BLM manages additional sites in the Galisteo Basin: 68 acres at
Burnt Corn Pueblo; 40 acres at Petroglyph Hill; 190 acres at Pueblo
Blanco; 70 acres at Pueblo Galisteo/Las Madres; and 80 acres at San
Lazaro Pueblo, a National Historic Landmark. The BLM's decisions on
appropriate uses of the areas must take into consideration the impact
of approved activities on the rich cultural and archaeological
resources which are present there.
The Department supports the third major provision of S. 2776, which
allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands from property
owners willing to donate, sell, or exchange their land--and explicitly
provides that the Federal government cannot acquire lands under S. 2776
without the full consent of the property owner. The BLM's Taos Field
Office has been very involved with local government, stakeholders, and
interest groups over the past several years to improve our resource
management efforts in the Basin. The BLM is working with the Trust for
Public Lands, Santa Fe County, the county lands commission, and local
community groups to acquire critical lands within a 5,000 acre green
belt, to protect its open space and natural resource values. The BLM,
Santa Fe County and the local community have been working together to
develop a management strategy for the Cerrillos Hills, a prehistoric/
historic mining district in the west-central part of the Basin. The BLM
plans to continue these efforts to protect the cultural resources of
the Galisteo Basin.
The Bureau of Land Management is the only Federal agency currently
managing any of the sites identified in S. 2776. For this reason, we
encourage the Committee to consider designating the BLM as the lead
Federal land managing agency for the preparation and implementation of
the management plan for the sites referred to in Section 5(b).
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the Committee with
the Administration's views on S. 2776. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Jeffrey Taylor from the National Park Service, will you
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY K. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
represent the administration on six of the bills that are
before the subcommittee today. The first one I would like to
speak on is S. 2623, which is a bill authorizing the Secretary
to establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove
Plantation National Historical Park within the existing
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of
designating a Cedar Creek-Belle Grove unit of the National Park
System, we do recommend that the committee defer action on S.
2623 during the remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet the
President's initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance
backlog, we need to continue to focus our resources on caring
for the existing areas in the National Park System. Park units
of a similar size, once fully operational, can have annual
operational costs of between $1 million and $2 million. That
represents a significant amount compared to the $9.3 million
that was requested in fiscal year 2003 for park base
operational increases across the entire National Park System.
S. 2623 would establish an approximately 3,000-acre Cedar
Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National
Historical Park within the Shenandoah Valley of northwestern
Virginia. It would establish a boundary for the national
historical park within which the existing key partners would
continue to own, operate, and manage visitor anchor sites
within the park boundary. The Park Service would be authorized
by this bill to acquire the remaining property from willing
landowners, completing preservation of the historic and natural
landscape.
This bill would also establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield
and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory
Commission to ensure local, regional, and national involvement
in the preparation and implementation of a management plan for
the national historical park.
The legislation would also permit the Belle Grove
Plantation and Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to continue
to privately own their respective resources critical to the
story of Cedar Creek, while permitting the National Park
Service to acquire adjacent lands within the boundary from
willing sellers only. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation
may continue to conduct its reenactments, a primary purpose of
the foundation. It is anticipated these organizations would
remain as full partners within the boundary, working together
with the National Park Service and other partners in a regional
collaboration.
The second bill I would like to speak on today is the
companion bills of S. 2640 and H.R. 3421. Both of these bills
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental
funding that is necessary to assist the State of California or
local school districts in providing educational services and
facilities for students attending schools located within
Yosemite National Park.
In addition, S. 2640 would authorize the expenditure of
park funds in support of a regional transportation system
outside Yosemite and would extend the advisory commissions for
both Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Manzanar National
Historic Site.
The Department supports both S. 2640 and H.R. 3421 as we
believe that students who attend schools in Yosemite should
have access to the same educational services and facilities
found elsewhere in the State of California. However, we do not
want this to set a precedent that parks should take over
responsibility for schools or create an NPS school system.
The Department also supports the other provisions in S.
2640 regarding expenditure of funds outside Yosemite and, if
amended, the continuation of the two advisory commissions.
The next bill that I would like to speak on is S. 2788.
This is a bill that revises the boundaries of Wind Cave
National Park in the State of South Dakota. At this time the
Department does not support S. 2788. The Department is
committed to eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog,
which of course is a high priority of the President. We need to
continue to focus our resources on existing areas in the
National Park System. For this reason, the Department will only
support additions to existing parks that involve no new costs
or minimal costs to the Federal Government for land
acquisition, operations, and maintenance.
This legislation does authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to acquire 5,675 acres adjacent to Wind Cave National
Park. A ranching family currently owns 5,555 acres of the land
and has indicated they would be willing to sell the property to
the United States. Another 40 acres of land from a willing
seller would preserve a viewshed for the park. The remaining 80
acres would be an administrative jurisdiction transfer from the
Director of the BLM to the Director of the National Park
Service.
The acquisition cost for the proposal was estimated at $5
million to $6 million, although actual costs will not be known
until the land appraisals are completed.
The next bill is S. 2880. This bill, as you have heard
already today, would designate Fort Bayard Historic District as
a national historic landmark and would authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance
for protecting the landmark.
The Department recommends that the bill be amended to
direct the National Park Service to conduct additional research
to evaluate whether Fort Bayard is eligible for national
historic landmark designation. National historic landmarks
designated by the Secretary of the Interior share two essential
qualities: they are places that illustrate a nationally
significant theme, trend, event, or person; and they retain a
high degree of integrity, that is authenticity, to the period
to which the property was significant.
The national historic landmarks program has an established
and time-tested process for nominating properties of
exceptional importance in illustrating or interpreting the
heritage of the United States. This process includes an
evaluation by the National Park System Advisory Board to ensure
that designated historic places possess the highest level of
significance and historical integrity.
Because of this important evaluation process, it is
extremely rare for a national historic landmark to be
designated through legislative action. It is also rare to
authorize financial assistance to a single non-NPS site. It
would be more appropriate to apply for funding through the Save
America's Treasures grant program, which is well suited for
historic properties such as this one.
We would be happy to continue working with the New Mexico
State Historic Preservation Office to evaluate the property's
potential national significance.
I do see my time is up. I do have one more bill if that is
all right, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Taylor, since you have so many bills to
speak about, you may exceed the time.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The final bill is H.R. 3858, a bill to expand the boundary
of the New River Gorge National River by 1,962 acres and to
exchange approximately one quarter acre of private land with an
adjacent private landowner for a quarter acre of Park Service
land.
The Department is unable to support H.R. 3858 in its
entirety at this time. The Department would ask that Congress
defer action on subsection (a), regarding a boundary
adjustment, until additional planning addressing the
acquisition and cost of additional lands at New River Gorge
National River has been completed. The Department does,
however, support subsection (b) of this bill as it provides for
an even land exchange involving no cost or nominal cost.
The legislation proposes to adjust the boundary of New
River Gorge to include seven tracts of land encompassing 1,962
acres. The addition of these lands within the park's boundary
would complete the rim to rim acquisition of lands on both
sides of the gorge, permanently protecting its outstanding
scenery in accordance with the legislation that originally
designated the park. However, we have not yet completed a
formal study with public involvement to determine the
appropriateness of including these lands within the park.
The last provision of this bill, as I mentioned before,
exchanges a small quarter acre for a quarter acre; that we do
support.
New River Gorge was established in 1978 to conserve and
protect 53 miles of the New River as a free-flowing waterway.
It is located within the National Coal Heritage Area and the
New River is one of 14 rivers designated as an American
Heritage River. Completion of the planning process at New River
Gorge National River will ensure that there is adequate public
review regarding our land acquisition needs.
I have one more bill here we go. This is H.R. 3786, Mr.
Chairman. It is a bill that would revise the boundary of the
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and
Arizona. We do support H.R. 3786. The revision of the boundary
would not contribute to the National Park Service maintenance
backlog because the exchange would not result in any additional
facilities, increased operating costs, or additional staffing.
The current owner of the private property to be exchanged
initiated this proposal and, although the Service has not yet
appraised the parcels involved, the owner's appraisal indicates
that the Service will receive lands with a higher value than
those the Service would exchange.
This bill would amend Public Law 92-593 and give the
Secretary the authority through an exchange to change the
boundary of Glen Canyon by adding 152 acres and deleting 370
acres in Kane County, Utah. It would also revise the authorized
acreage of the park from 1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000 acres.
This is needed to correct the total acreage within the park
boundary that was incorrectly identified in the park's enabling
legislation. Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling also
would not add any new facilities, increase operating costs, or
require additional staffing.
H.R. 3786 enjoys a broad cross-section of support. The
nearest communities to the lands proposed for exchange, Big
Water, Utah, and Page, Arizona, recognize the importance of
protecting the national recreation area.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I would be
happy to entertain any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Taylor follow:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey K. Taylor, Assistant Director, Office of
Legislative and Congressional Affairs, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
S. 2623
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2623, a bill to
authorize the Secretary to establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and
Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park within the existing
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating
a Cedar Creek Belle Grove unit of the National Park System, we
recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 2623 during the
remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet the President's initiative to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to continue to
focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park
System. Park units of a similar size, once fully operational, can have
annual operational costs of $1-2 million, which is a significant amount
compared to the $9.3 million that was requested in FY 2003 for park
base operational increases across the entire National Park System.
S. 2623 would establish an approximately 3,000-acre Cedar Creek
Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park in the
Shenandoah Valley of Northwestern Virginia. The new park would
encourage partnerships and build on years of local preservation
efforts. Although originally conceived as a battlefield park, the local
partners expanded the purpose of the new park to include a much broader
scope of history, while embracing the key goal of promoting the Civil
War heritage of the Shenandoah Valley. S. 2623 would establish a
boundary for the National Historical Park within which the existing key
partners will continue to own, operate, and manage visitor ``anchor''
sites within the park boundary. The Park Service would be authorized to
acquire the remaining property from willing landowners completing
preservation of the historic and natural landscape.
The bill would also establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle
Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory Commission to ensure
local, regional, and national involvement in the preparation and
implementation of a management plan for the national historical park
and to identify additional sites of significance outside the park
boundary. Finally, S. 2623 would authorize the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with private landowners, non-profit
organizations, governmental entities, and others for the purpose of
preserving, interpreting, operating, maintaining, and managing park
resources.
For over 135 years there have been local efforts to protect the
Civil War heritage of the Shenandoah Valley. Numerous States have
acknowledged the importance of the Shenandoah Valley by placing
monuments and memorials on the historic landscape to honor the lives
lost in battle.
The Battle of Cedar Creek, also known as the Battle of Belle Grove,
was a major event of the Civil War and the history of this country. It
represented the end of the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. This
victory by Union forces had major political implications, as well in
contributing to the reelection of President Abraham Lincoln. With
President Lincoln's reelection, the resolve of the Union side to
continue the war was assured.
The Plantation of Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive
battle of Cedar Creek. In addition to the value of the site itself, the
Belle Grove Plantation permits the story of the battle, the Shenandoah
Valley, and the way of life in America before, during, and after the
Civil War to be told. The site also includes a significant Manor House
and a slave cemetery, among many other important elements. As such, the
recognition in this legislation of both the battle and the way of life
at that time enormously adds to our appreciation of the significance
and meaning of the Shenandoah Valley and the Civil War. The park
boundary represents portions of the historical core of the battlefield
and includes the remaining earthworks, the Vermont Monument, and the
New York Monument.
The Belle Grove Plantation Manor House was built in 1797 with
design assistance from President Thomas Jefferson. The Manor House was
saved by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and has been open
to the public as a National Trust Historic Site and private museum
since 1967. Several other private historic homes within the boundary
are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia
Historic Register. In addition, in 1969, the National Park Service
formally honored the national significance of the Shenandoah Valley in
the Civil War with the designation of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historic Landmark.
Due to a unique combination of natural features, the area around
Cedar Creek has a nearly uninterrupted history of human occupation, as
evidenced by archaeological remains. The park also memorializes the
important stories of the area including how Belle Grove Plantation was
constructed and operated by African-American slaves who also used caves
and caverns in and around Cedar Creek as part of the Underground
Railroad.
The legislation would permit the Belle Grove Plantation and the
Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to continue to privately own their
respective resources critical to the story of Cedar Creek, while
permitting the National Park Service to acquire adjacent lands within
the boundary from willing sellers only. The Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation may continue to conduct its reenactments, a primary purpose
of the Foundation. It is anticipated that these organizations will
remain as full partners within the boundary, working together with the
National Park Service and other partners in a regional collaboration.
The legislation also fully implements the purposes of the
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and
Commission Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333, Title VI, Section 606) and
strengthens the already valuable partnership between the National Park
Service and the recently created Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
Foundation. It responds to the findings of the previous Special
Resources Study, prepared by the National Park Service, and the
Foundation's approved management plan for the National Historic
District.
After the Civil War Advisory Commission recognized the significance
of and threats to a great number of battlefields in the Shenandoah
Valley, Congress responded with legislation to establish a national
park unit that could have potentially included 12 battlefield units in
excess of 100,000 acres. The National Park Service, at that time,
opposed this as the wrong approach to protecting this historic
landscape, and recommended a heritage partnership instead. As a result,
Congress established both a National Historic District to function as
the heritage partnership, and authorized the Secretary of the Interior
to prepare a Special Resource Study to determine ``whether the District
or components thereof meet the criteria for designation as a unit of
the National Park Service.''
The Special Resource Study analyzed an approximately 93,000-acre
region including 10 battlefield sites. It determined that there is a
current need for direct National Park Service management on core
portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield within a study area for that
battlefield that consisted of 15,000 acres. The Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields Foundation and other non-profit and public entities will
preserve lands at other battlefield sites in the National Historic
District.
The bill is supported by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation,
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle Grove Incorporated,
the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and the Counties of
Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren, as well as the towns of Strasburg
and Middletown, demonstrating that the park proposal has broad local
backing.
Should the Committee proceed with the legislation, we believe some
amendments are needed to clarify various provisions and to conform the
language to that used for other units of the National Park System. We
look forward to working with you and the sponsors if this bill moves
forward.
S. 2640/H.R. 3421
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 2640 and H.R. 3421. Both of these
bills would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide
supplemental funding that is necessary to assist the State of
California or local school districts in providing educational services
and facilities for students attending schools located within Yosemite
National Park. In addition, S. 2640 would authorize the expenditure of
park funds in support of a regional transportation system outside
Yosemite National Park, and would extend the advisory commissions for
both Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Manzanar National
Historic Site. On December 10, 2001, the Department presented testimony
on H.R. 3421 before the subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands of the House Resources Committee.
The Department supports S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, as we believe that
students who attend schools in Yosemite National Park should have
access to the same educational services and facilities found elsewhere
in the State of California. However, we do not want this to set a
precedent that parks should take over responsibility for schools or
create an NPS school system. The Department also supports the other
provisions in S. 2640 regarding the expenditure of funds outside
Yosemite National Park and if amended, the continuation of the two
advisory commissions.
Schools have been located within Yosemite National Park for over
125 years to serve the needs of park employees and their children. At
present, two elementary schools are located within the park at Wawona
and in Yosemite Valley. A third elementary school and a small high
school are located in El Portal, the park's administrative site located
on federal property just outside the park boundary. Most students
attend the larger county high school in Mariposa because of the lack of
opportunity for a comprehensive program at the El Portal school.
The Yosemite Valley School has about 46 students in grades
kindergarten through eighth grade, divided into three classes. The
amount of funding from the State of California, according to a formula
based on average daily attendance, actually supports only two teachers.
The elementary school in El Portal has 50 students in seven grades,
divided into multi-graded classrooms. The Wawona school is like the old
``one-room'' schoolhouse, with 20 children in grades K-8, and one
teacher. Because the current funding formula provides for only one
teacher, and the maximum teacher/student ratio has been reached, the
school is unable to serve more than 20 students. Consequently, there
have been instances in which parents were left with the choice of
either home-schooling their children or transporting them on their own
to schools elsewhere. Some parents have elected these options
voluntarily because of the conditions at the Wawona school.
Because the schools in the park are located long distances from the
administrative offices of their school districts, there has been
limited access to services that are normally available to students that
attend schools elsewhere. For example, access to teachers to serve
students with special needs is very limited, and road and weather
conditions can often further restrict teachers' abilities to reach the
park. Subjects such as band, art, music, choir, or even physical
education are provided only if parents are able to find additional
funding to hire an aide. Many facilities are in need of repair or do
not meet state or federal standards.
The quality of education that students receive in these schools
suffers as a result of lack of funding and staffing. For example,
teachers who teach only one grade level can focus on curriculum and
standards for that grade, while teachers in the Yosemite schools are
responsible for multiple grade levels. In addition to their educational
duties, they must also tend to administrative duties normally performed
by other employees. As a result, teachers at the Yosemite schools are
unable to give the time or attention necessary to provide the quality
of education that the students deserve.
Recruitment and retention of employees at Yosemite National Park is
also adversely affected by the quality of the park schools. Many highly
qualified NPS employees with school age children who might otherwise be
interested in applying for jobs at Yosemite are discouraged from doing
so because of the school situation. Recently, a highly qualified
individual declined to accept an offer for a division chief position at
the park after realizing that the schools could not meet the special
needs of his child. Park employees often cite the schools as a major
factor in their decision to transfer from Yosemite to other
assignments.
Both S. 2640 and H.R. 3421 authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into cooperative agreements with the local school districts
for the maintenance and minor upgrades of facilities, and the
transportation of students to and from school. The Secretary may adjust
the amounts made available to local school districts if State and local
funding of schools fall below current funding levels. While we strongly
believe that the responsibility for providing educational services
rests with the State of California, we realize that the quality of
education received by the children of park employees and others who
attend the Yosemite schools is dependent on the resources of the local
school districts. We believe that this legislation is a start at
providing the means to improve the schools in Yosemite National Park.
Section 4 of S. 2640 addresses regional transportation at Yosemite
National Park. The Department has long supported the concept of public
transportation providing access to Yosemite National Park. The 1980
General Management Plan identified the development of a regional
transportation system as the long-term approach for transporting people
to Yosemite National Park. In 1999 Mariposa, Merced, and Mono counties
created a Joint Powers Authority as an entity to implement the Yosemite
Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and entered into a
Cooperative Agreement with Yosemite National Park. YARTS provided an
attractive alternative for visitors and employees without having to
replace the use of private cars. NPS participated in the initial
funding of this project using fee demonstration program authority. In
2001, YARTS carried over 38,000 passengers, including park employees,
during Yosemite's prime visitor season (May through September). Many of
these visitors chose to leave their cars at their motels or other
locations outside the park. By choosing YARTS to access the Yosemite
Valley, over 11,000 parking places were made available during the
summer. YARTS has been successful in providing a quality alternative to
automobile travel.
Entering into its third year of operations, YARTS has had to reduce
the number of runs it provides due to funding shortfalls. Funding is no
longer coming from appropriated funds because the agency lacks the
authority to expend funds outside the park boundary. The authority
provided through previous appropriations bills has expired.
Nonetheless, YARTS has been enormously successful again this summer and
the demand for the service continues to grow.
The regional transportation system is an important means to solve
Yosemite's parking and congestion issues by reducing the amount of
infrastructure development within the park, and thus substantially
reducing the funding requirements for implementing the Yosemite Valley
Plan. This bill amends existing legislation by adding Yosemite National
Park to an authorization that allows Zion National Park to enter into
agreements and expend funds outside the boundaries of the park for
transportation purposes.
Section 5 of S. 2640 would extend the advisory commissions for
Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Manzanar National Historic
Site. The advisory commissions for these two parks provide the NPS with
important input from the local community on a variety of management
issues.
The Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission has been
composed of 11 members appointed by the Secretary. The commission
advises the NPS on development issues and on the interpretation of the
site. Some of the members were internees at Manzanar during World War
II. Others are prominent citizens of the East Side of the Sierra. The
commission expired last spring at a critical time as the Manzanar
National Historic Site is completing the interpretive design work for
the visitor center in the former auditorium of the camp.
The Golden Gate National Recreation Area commission is composed of
18 members nominated primarily by the counties in which the park is
located. The purpose of the Golden Gate NRA advisory commission is to
advise on general policies and matters related to planning,
administration and development for this 30-year-old park. The
commission has worked side by side the park staff for these 30 years.
Its role as a public hearings board is crucial to the numerous projects
and management decisions that are being considered by this large urban
park. We would like to work with the committee on an amendment
regarding the representation of recreational users on the commission.
S. 2788
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department on S. 2788, a bill to revise the boundary of Wind Cave
National Park in the State of South Dakota.
The Department does not support S. 2788. The Department is
committed to eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog. We need to
continue to focus our resources on existing areas in the National Park
System. For this reason, the Department will only support additions to
existing parks that involve no new cost or minimal cost to the Federal
government for land acquisition, operations, and maintenance.
Wind Cave National Park, established in 1903, is one of the
Nation's first national parks and the first cave set aside for
protection. The cave itself, after which the park is named, is one of
the world's oldest, longest, and most complex cave systems with more
than 104 miles of mapped passages. The cave is well-known for its
exceptional display of boxwork, a rare honeycomb-shaped formation
protruding from the cave's ceilings and walls. While the cave is the
focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally impressive
with 28,295 acres of rolling prairie, majestic forests, and pristine
creeks. Legislation passed in 1912 established the Wind Cave National
Game Preserve creating a permanent national range for buffalo and other
Native American game animals as may be placed therein. In 1935, the
Wind Cave National Game Preserve was transferred into Wind Cave
National Park.
This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire 5,675 acres adjacent to Wind Cave National Park. A ranching
family currently owns 5,555 acres of the land and has indicated they
would be willing to sell the property to the United States as a lasting
legacy to their father. Another 40 acres of land from a willing seller
would preserve a viewshed for the park. The last 80 acres would be an
administrative jurisdiction transfer from the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management to the Director of the National Park Service. The
acquisition cost for the proposal is estimated at $5 to $6 million
although actual costs will not be known until the land appraisals are
completed. In many cases, non-profit groups are willing to purchase the
properties and hold them for a short period of time until the National
Park Service is able to designate land acquisition funding.
S. 2788 would help protect the mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa
pine forest and provide recreational opportunities for day-hikers and
backpackers who seek solitude in the park's backcountry. The additional
land will preserve a viewshed and improve wildland fire management,
helping to reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Archaeological
sites, such as a thousand year-old buffalo jump over which early Native
Americans once drove the bison they hunted, exist on the land presently
owned by the ranching family.
The current annual base funding for Wind Cave National Park is
$1.892 million. If enacted, additional funding would be required due to
anticipated increases in the number of FTEs needed for increased
wildlife and interpretive responsibilities. In addition, construction-
funding of $1.817 million would be necessary for the removal and
installation of fencing.
S. 2880
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2880. This bill would
designate Fort Bayard Historic District as a National Historic Landmark
and would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical
and financial assistance for protecting the Landmark.
The Department recommends that the bill be amended to direct the
National Park Service to conduct additional research to evaluate
whether Fort Bayard is eligible for National Historic Landmark
designation. National Historic Landmarks designated by the Secretary of
the Interior share two essential qualities: they are places that
illustrate a nationally significant theme, trend, event, or person,
and, they retain a high degree of integrity, that is, authenticity, to
the period in which the property was significant.
Authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-292)
and regulated under 36 CFR Part 65, the National Historic Landmarks
Program has an established and time-tested process for nominating
properties of exceptional importance in illustrating or interpreting
the heritage of the United States. This process includes an evaluation
by the National Park System Advisory Board to ensure that designated
historic places possess the highest level of significance and
historical integrity. Because of this important evaluation process it
is extremely rare for a National Historic Landmark to be designated
through legislative action. It is also rare to authorize financial
assistance to a single non-NPS site; it would be more appropriate to
apply for funding through the Save America's Treasures grant program,
which is well suited for historic properties such as this one.
Located in southwestern New Mexico, Fort Bayard illustrates several
important chapters in American military history and the settlement of
the southwestern United States. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard
functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-
American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in nearby
mining districts. The area was later developed by the U.S. War
Department as a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium.
Fort Bayard Historic District was listed on the National Register
of Historic Places on July 7, 2002 at the state level of significance.
In transmitting the nomination to the National Park Service in May
2002, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office requested the
opinion of the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places
regarding the potential for the property to have national significance.
Upon listing the property, the Keeper of the National Register
concurred with the State Historic Preservation Office that, from the
documentation presented, there no longer remains enough of the pre-1922
facility in order to justify a national level of significance as the
first Army TB hospital. Much of the pre-1922 complex was destroyed and
replaced with larger and more modern facilities when the Veterans
Administration assumed administrative responsibilities in 1922.
This assessment concurs with an earlier opinion developed by
National Park Service Historian, Robert Utley, that although Fort
Bayard was a ``key outpost'' in the Apache Wars from the 1860s through
the 1880s, ``expansion and modernization of the Veterans Hospital has
obliterated much of Old Fort Bayard'' (Fort Bayard, National Survey of
Historic Sites and Buildings, 1958).
In its review of the documentation this summer, the National
Register recommended that the State Historic Preservation Office
consider evaluating the property's national significance for its
association with the post-1922 Veterans Administration proposed
development of the sanatorium as ``the largest institution of its kind
in the world.'' At present, we do not have enough information to
evaluate the national significance of the Veterans Administration's use
of the facility. For these reasons, we urge that S. 2880 be amended to
direct the National Park Service to conduct a study of Fort Bayard to
determine if it qualifies for designation as a National Historic
Landmark.
We would be happy to continue working with the New Mexico State
Historic Preservation Office to evaluate the property's potential
national significance during the post-1922 Veterans Administration
period. This work would ensure that the site receive the appropriate
level of historic recognition.
H.R. 3786
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3786. This bill would revise
the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States
of Utah and Arizona.
The Department supports H.R. 3786. The revision of the boundary
would not contribute to the National Park Service (``Service'')
maintenance backlog because the exchange would not result in any
additional facilities, increased operating costs, or additional
staffing. The current owner of the private property to be exchanged
initiated this proposal and although the Service has not yet appraised
the parcels involved, the owner's appraisal indicates that the Service
will receive lands with a higher value than those the Service would
exchange. The owner has indicated, however, that no cash payment to
equalize values would be required, which should remove the need for any
land acquisition funds.
H.R. 3786 would amend Public Law 92-593 and give the Secretary of
the Interior the authority, through an exchange, to change the boundary
of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (``Park'') by adding 152 acres
and deleting 370 acres in Kane County, Utah. The bill would also revise
the authorized acreage of the park from 1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000
acres. This change would correct the total acreage within the park
boundary that was incorrectly identified in the park's enabling
legislation. Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling also would
not add any new facilities, increase operating costs, or require
additional staffing.
The 152 acres that the Service would acquire are located east of
Highway 89, approximately 5 miles south of Big Water, Utah and are
contiguous to the existing park boundary. The 370 acres that the
Service would exchange are located west of Highway 89 and are adjacent
to privately owned lands. Although within the boundary of the
recreation area, the 370 acres are physically and visually isolated
from the rest of the recreation area by topographic features.
The owner of the private land has had an appraisal completed on the
lands that are proposed for exchange. If this legislation were enacted,
the Service would conduct its own appraisal on the two parcels.
However, the owner's appraisal determined that the 152-acre parcel
($5,500 per acre for a total appraised value of $836,000), which the
Service would receive, was worth approximately seven times more per
acre than the 370-acre parcel ($750 per acre for a total appraised
value of $277,500) the Service would exchange.
H.R. 3786 would also correct the acreage ceiling error stated in
Public Law 92-593, the 1972 enabling legislation for Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area. Public Law 92-593 incorrectly estimated Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area's acreage within the boundary to be
1,236,880 acres. Using the same boundary identified on the map
referenced in the 1972 enabling legislation, application of modern map
reading and geographic information system technologies have determined
that an acreage of 1,256,000 acres more accurately reflects the amount
of land within the 1972 boundary.
H.R. 3786 enjoys a broad cross section of support. The nearest
communities to the lands proposed for exchange, Big Water, Utah and
Page, Arizona, recognize the importance of protecting the National
Recreation Area. Also, this exchange would provide an opportunity for
private development at one of the main access points to lands held by
the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA).
Such private development could enhance the 40,000 acres held by SITLA
and is supported by the State of Utah and Kane County, Utah.
In previous testimony before the House Subcommittee, we recommended
two changes - to correctly identify and date the map, as well as allow
the National Park Service to enter into agreement with the landowner
regarding how the exchanged lands will be managed. Those changes have
been incorporated into the bill before you now.
H.R. 3858
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3858, a bill to expand the
boundary of the New River Gorge National River by 1,962 acres and to
exchange approximately , acre of private land with an adjacent private
landowner for a 1/4 acre of park service land.
The Department is unable to support H.R. 3858 in its entirety at
this time. The Department would ask that Congress defer action on
subsection (a), regarding a boundary adjustment, until additional
planning addressing the acquisition and costs of additional lands at
New River Gorge National River has been completed. The Department does
however support subsection (b) of H.R. 3858 as it provides for an even
land exchange involving no cost or nominal cost.
This legislation proposes to adjust the boundary of New River Gorge
National River to include seven tracts of land encompassing 1,962
acres. The addition of these lands within the park's boundary would
complete the rim-to-rim acquisition of lands on both sides of the
gorge, permanently protecting its outstanding scenery in accordance
with the legislation that originally designated the park. However we
have not yet completed a formal study with public involvement to
determine the appropriateness of including these lands within the park.
The last provision of this bill proposes a land exchange and
boundary modification with an adjacent local landowner for a parcel of
land, approximately 1/4 acre in size, of equal value and equal size.
This resolves an issue of private property encroachment and as a result
the boundary is slightly altered, but there is no net change in the
authorized acreage.
New River Gorge National River was established in 1978 to conserve
and protect 53 miles of the New River as a free-flowing waterway. This
unit of the National Park System encompasses over 70,000 acres of land
along the New River between the towns of Hinton and Fayetteville. The
park and surrounding area are rich in cultural and natural history,
with an abundance of scenic and recreational opportunities. The New and
Gauley Rivers offer world-class whitewater boating, rock climbing, and
fishing. The New River Gorge Bridge is the longest single span arch
bridge in the world, and the second highest bridge in the United
States. The New River Gorge has the most diverse assemblage of plant
species of any river gorge in the southern Appalachians, it possesses
considerable animal diversity, and is the state's leading warm-water
fishery. Cultural resources include significant archeological sites as
well as 19th and 20th century historic resources, towns, and commercial
centers related to mining and transportation of coal, that played an
important role in America's industrial history. New River Gorge
National River is located within the National Coal Heritage Area
(1996), and the New River is one of 14 rivers designated an American
Heritage River (1998).
All of the lands included in the proposed boundary adjustment are
currently under private ownership and we understand that all six
private landowners are willing sellers. Two of the tracts proposed for
inclusion contain approximately 648 acres of steep, wooded slopes
within the gorge, and are adjacent to Hawk's Nest State Park. The two
other parcels, totaling 52 acres, provide access to an area that is
heavily used by rock climbers and other visitors. The remaining two
parcels would add 1,262 acres along the rim of the gorge. Completion of
the planning process at New River Gorge National River will ensure that
there is adequate public review regarding our land acquisition needs.
As you know the Department is committed to the President's
Initiative to eliminate the National Park Service's deferred
maintenance backlog. The planning process would also address the land
acquisition, operations, and development costs of the lands proposed
for addition. We estimate that the addition of 1,962 acres within the
boundary would require no less than $2 million in additional land
acquisition funds. It is possible that several of the tracts of land
proposed for acquisition would be maintained in an undeveloped
condition and therefore have minimal administrative costs associated
with them. However one tract may require some development to provide
adequate accommodation for the high levels of public use.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any question that you or
members of the subcommittee might have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I know you had a number
of bills to make statements on.
Mr. Max Stauffer, chairman of the Bass Lake School
District, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MAX STAUFFER, CHAIRMAN, BASS LAKE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, FISH CAMP, CA
Mr. Stauffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am here to
testify regarding S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, which are authored by
Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative George Radanovich
respectively. Specifically, I want to express my support for
the language in both pieces of legislation that ensures the
three schools within Yosemite National Park have the tools
necessary to educate children.
Because the need at these schools is so critical, I urge
the Senate to approve the bills. I am testifying on behalf of
the Bass Lake and Mariposa County School Districts. These
districts serve families in Sierra Nevada Mountain communities
stretching over more than 1,500 square miles in and around
Yosemite National Park. Three elementary schools serve Yosemite
families, El Portal, Yosemite Valley, and Wawona. El Portal and
Yosemite Valley Schools have enrollments of about 50 children,
while Wawona averages about 20.
These mountain schools are charged with educating children
of National Park Service and concessionaire employees. Because
of their size and geographical location, the Yosemite schools
are very difficult and very costly to serve equitably. Services
such as special education, speech, reading remediation, fine
arts, foreign language, and library services are very limited
or not provided at all, while students at our other sites have
these programs available. Because of the distance and
difficulty of travel, particularly in the winter, staffing of
these services is nonexistent.
Our schools exist because Yosemite National Park exists.
The Federal Government through the National Park Service and
the concessionaire requires many employees to live in the park
to meet the mission of the agency, which is to preserve and
protect the park and provide services for park visitors.
These schools are not amenities. They are a basic public
service that all Americans should have a right to. These
schools are necessary because, given the terrain, weather,
winter driving conditions, transportation costs, and distances
from other schools in the district, it is unreasonable to
expect families to go elsewhere.
Good schools are important to recruit and retain good
employees. It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract
quality employees to Yosemite because our schools cannot
provide the educational opportunities larger, more urban
schools can. The chief operating officer of the park
concessionaire has purchased a home in an adjacent city in
order to access a better education for his children. The park
superintendent has moved his two children to Mariposa schools
because he believes that the park schools do not meet the basic
standards and his children would miss out on the extra programs
available to students in the Mariposa schools. This option is
not available to those with lower-paying positions, such as law
enforcement personnel, clerks, naturalists, firefighters,
housekeeping workers, and maintenance personnel. Without
quality people to manage the park, the resource and the visitor
experience will suffer.
The deficit that the three park schools incur for their
districts is about $100,000 each or over $300,000 per year. The
California budget shortfall severely compounds our problem as
cuts are already being felt statewide in education. State
funding is inadequate because it does not take into
consideration the uniqueness of the school's location, the
small size, and the multi-grade teaching environments such as
exist at Wawona School. With seven grade levels in a one-
classroom school, the teaching principal must prepare and teach
seven lessons, seven lesson plans from kindergarten to sixth
grade, follow the rigorous new curriculum standards for seven
grades, all while managing the facility, handling
administrative and secretarial duties, and even doing building
maintenance.
No alternative education possibilities exist for parents in
the park without major transportation investments. Because the
deficit affects the ability to provide an education to the
other students in the districts, there is pressure from some
school board members to close Wawona School.
This situation is no longer acceptable to the parents of
Yosemite schools or the trustees serving them. Over the past
year and a half, parents, community members, administrators and
school board members from both the Bass Lake School District
and Mariposa School District have been meeting to solve some of
the educational problems facing the schools in Yosemite. With
the help of Senator Feinstein and Congressman Radanovich, we
are closer to solving our problems.
One solution involves a high level of cooperation between
the two school districts and the National Park Service. It
involves allowing funds from the National Park Service to be
used to help improve the educational opportunities of its
employees' children.
Yellowstone Park has been doing this since 1949. Similar
legislation would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into voluntary agreements with the two school districts. The
additional funding provided within these agreements would be
used to increase the level of service for special education
students, make up the deficit factor that impacts other schools
in the districts, provide for after-school tutorials, implement
reading intervention in the primary grades, gifted and talented
programs, and bring in specialists for fine arts, science, and
physical education. It would also provide relief for
transportation and maintenance costs.
This issue is not about inflating the school bureaucracy,
sir, nor is it about increasing salaries. The issue is all
about equity. The issue is all about the kids in Yosemite. They
deserve and have a right to a quality education.
We need your help now. The families in Yosemite are
counting on you. We respectfully ask for your support of S.
2540 and H.R. 3421. Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Stauffer. I just
want to tell you that yesterday I received a letter from a
school that is from Wawona in the southern district of Yosemite
National Park, and here I have letters written by the students
asking us to favorably consider this.
Mr. Stauffer. They are as dedicated to the project as their
parents are, sir. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. So may we hear now from Ms. Patricia
Zontine.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA L. ZONTINE, CHAIRMAN, SHENANDOAH VALLEY
BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION, SHENANDOAH VALLEY, VA
Ms. Zontine. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of
the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation on S. 2623, the
Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National
Historic Park Act. The foundation supports the creation of the
park and this legislation.
As you know, the foundation is the successor organization
to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District Commission. The foundation was created in 2000 as the
first step in implementing the commission's management plan for
the national historic district. The foundation serves as the
management entity for the district, partnering with local,
regional, and national organizations and governments to
preserve and promote the Shenandoah Valley Civil War heritage.
As such, we at the foundation are in a unique position to
observe and experience the deep support that this new park
enjoys. This support reaches across all levels of government
and throughout groups at the local, regional, and national
level. I have with me copies of resolutions from local
organizations and governments, all supporting this legislation,
and would ask that they be made a part of the record.
The Battle of Cedar Creek, fought in October 1864, was one
of the most important battles of the Civil War. It was one of
the largest ever fought in the Shenandoah Valley and it was the
end of the Confederacy's power in the valley for the remainder
of the war, and it strengthened popular support in the North
for President Lincoln, ensuring his reelection several weeks
later.
In addition to the importance of the battle itself, Cedar
Creek and Belle Grove are also uniquely positioned to tell the
civilian side of the Civil War story, as are many of the
national historic district's battlefields. Here visitors have
the rare opportunity to experience the stories of the families
who struggled to survive the war that swirled around them.
Through the last 140 years, the importance of this battle
and the surrounding area has been widely recognized. Belle
Grove Plantation has been preserved by the National Trust of
Historic Preservation and Belle Grove, Inc., as a significant
historic site since the 1960's and as a result is largely
unchanged since it was built over 200 years ago. In 1969, Cedar
Creek and Belle Grove were designated a national historic
landmark.
In the late 1980's, local residents created the Cedar Creek
Battlefields Foundation to protect and interpret the
battlefield. About that same time, Congress passed legislation
calling for a National Park Service study of the valley's Civil
War sites. This study, completed in 1992, stated that 15 of the
valley's battlefields, including Cedar Creek, were eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places and that collectively
they met the criteria for national park status.
The 1992 study led to the creation of the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields National Historic District by Congress in 1996 and
the development and completion of the district's management
plan in the fall of 2000. The 1996 legislation also directed
the National Park Service to prepare a special resources study,
SRS, to further assess the potential for a national park in the
Shenandoah Valley. Completed in early 2001, the SRS found that
the Cedar Creek Battlefield met Federal criteria for national
park status. These findings supported the recommendation in the
district management plan that a national park unit be created
in partnership with local governments and organizations at
Cedar Creek.
The point here is that there is great consensus, both
locally and Federally, that protecting the battlefield at Cedar
Creek and Belle Grove is of national importance.
The Battlefields Commission singled out Cedar Creek as
having the greatest potential for hosting a National Park
Service unit for a number of reasons. First, the battlefield
itself is still primarily farm land, where visitors can get a
real sense of the progress and prosecution of the battle and
its troop movements. Belle Grove, the center of the
battlefield, anchors the scene today as it did 140 years ago.
The battle holds national significance, not only for its size,
but also as a harbinger of the end of the war and its impact on
the presidential election.
The creation of this park would allow the Park Service to
provide strong technical and other support for the national
historic district. This park will help ensure the success of
the district itself. This is why the park is a key component of
the district's management plan.
The district and the park also offer a model for future
partnership-based public-private endeavors. The mission of both
the foundation, as the district's management entity, and the
park has been to partner with private and public entities at
the local, regional, and national levels to articulate a
unified vision for the protection and interpretation of these
national historic resources. This public-private partnership
model has been successful, bringing together disparate views to
speak with one voice.
The park itself will protect and encourage both the local
ownership of the land as well as the living history activities
that take place there. It will continue and expand the
preservation efforts that have been going on privately for
almost 40 years. It will help bolster the Shenandoah Valley's
economy through heritage tourism.
In addition to its unassailable Civil War significance, the
site offers extensive opportunities for Americans to experience
a wide scope of their history--Native American sites, a
colonial pioneer homestead, the plantation manor house and
grounds, remains of slave quarters and Underground Railroad
sites and stories. Each of these helps to place the battle
itself in the context of the broader American story.
In conclusion, historians and lay people alike intuitively
recognize the importance of the lessons of the U.S. Civil War
and its impact on the American experience. We were reminded of
this last week as we heard Governor Pataki read President
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in New York City. Remembering and
experiencing our history makes us a stronger Nation. We need to
protect and share the places where that history comes alive,
and the creation of this park will offer countless generations
of Americans the opportunity to steep themselves in the lessons
of the past. It will help us be better stewards of our future.
Therefore, on behalf of our local, regional, and national
partners, I offer our wholehearted support for this
legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zontine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia L. Zontine, Chairman, Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields Foundation, Shenandoah Valley, VA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
Foundation on S. 2623, the Cedar Crock Battlefield and Belle Grove
Plantation National Historical Park Act. The Foundation strongly
supports the creation of the park and this legislation.
THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE
SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION
I am the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Shenandoah Valley
Battlefields Foundation. As you know, the Foundation is the designated
management entity for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National
Historic District. The District encompasses most of the Shenandoah
Valley of Virginia--eight counties and four independent cities.
Recognizing the national significance of the Civil War story in the
Shenandoah Valley, Congress created the National Historic District in
1996 to protect, interpret, and promote 10 key Civil War battlefields
in the Valley. At the same time, Congress also created the Shenandoah
Valley Battlefields National Historic District Commission and tasked it
with developing a management plan for the District. After three years
of work and almost 100 public meetings, the Commission developed and
submitted its Management Plan with tremendous public and private
support. It was approved by the Secretary of the Interior and
promulgated in the fall of 2000.
The Management Plan for the National Historic District called for
the creation of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to lead
the implementation of the plan. The Foundation's mission is to partner
with local, regional and national organizations and governments in a
coordinated effort to preserve the Shenandoah Valley's Civil War
heritage and share it with the nation.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK AREA
The proposed Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation
National Historical Park enjoys wide and deep support across all levels
of government and among groups at the local, regional and national
levels. We at the Foundation are in a unique position to observe and
experience this support. As a member of the now sunset National
Historic District Commission, we found that our work was part of a
continuum of interest and support for the preservation of our nation's
Civil War story in the Shenandoah Valley.
As you may know, the Battle of Cedar Creek--fought in October
1864--was one of the most important battles of the Civil War. What
started as a bold, sweeping Confederate attack on Union forces ended,
after Sheridan's fabled ride to rally his troops, with a crusading
Union counter-attack and final victory. It was the end of the
Confederacy's power in the Shenandoah Valley for the remainder of the
war. And it strengthened popular support for President Lincoln,
ensuring his re-election several weeks later.
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove are uniquely positioned to tell both
the military and civilian sides of the Civil War story--as are many of
the District's battlefields. Here, visitors have the rare opportunity
to experience the stories of the mothers and children who struggle to
survive the war that swirled around them.
Belle Grove Plantation is significant for both its history and
architecture. Built by one of the Valley's founding families and with
presidential associations--Thomas Jefferson and James Madison--it is
largely unchanged since it was built over 200 years ago.
In recent decades, local and national interest in the history of
this specific area of the Valley has grown. In 1969, shortly after
Belle Grove was acquired by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove were designated a National
Historic Landmark. In the late 1980s, local and national support for
the preservation and interpretation of this battlefield was evidenced
once again with the creation of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation.
(Together Cedar Creek and Belle Grove have preserved almost 900 acres
of land at this site.) About this time Congress passed legislation
calling for the National Park Service to study the Valley's Civil War
sites. Published in 1992, this study determined that the 15 Valley
battlefields were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
and identified them collectively as potential Park Service units. It
was this study that indirectly led to the 1996 legislation that created
the National Historic District and called for development of the
District Management Plan.
This legislation also directed the National Park Service to develop
a Special Resources Study. This study was completed early in 2001. Its
findings supported the recommendations from the Management Plan that
Cedar Creek and Belie Grove met the criteria for a National Park unit.
THE PARK AND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT'S MANAGEMENT PLAN
As the Commission was developing the District's Management Plan, we
found strong local support for the preservation of the battlefield at
Cedar Creek as well as the other nine battlefields in our legislative
mandate. Cedar Creek, however, was singled out as a recommended
National Park Service unit. The battlefield itself is still farmland--
visitors can get a real sense of the strategic and tactical maneuvers
of the battle. Belle Grove, at the center of the battlefield, anchors
the scene today as it did 140 years ago. And the battle holds national
significance not only for its size but also as a harbinger of the end
of the war.
Further, the Commission felt that the creation of the national park
at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove would allow the Park Service to provide
strong technical and other support to the National Historic District.
This Park would help ensure the success of the District itself. Thus,
the creation of this Park is a key component of the District's
Management Plan.
The District and the Park also offer a model for similar future
endeavors. Both projects are partnership-based concepts. The mission of
both the Foundation, as the District's management entity, and the Park
has been to partner with private and public entities at the local,
regional and national levels to articulate a unified Vision for the
protection Fund interpretation of these national historic resources.
The legislation before you would codify this partnership model by
spelling out the roles of each of the partners: the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and all
levels of government. We support this language with one exception. We
would like to suggest, as an organization specifically created by a
congressional mandate, that it would be appropriate that this be
reflected in Sec. 13(b)(5) and that the word ``may'' be replaced with
the word ``shall'' such that the sentence reads, ``The Shenandoah
Valley Battlefields Foundation shall continue to administer and manage
the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District . . .''
THE CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION
NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK
In addition in its unassailable Civil War significance, the site
offers extensive opportunities for Americans to experience a wide scope
of their history: native American sites, a colonial pioneer homestead,
the plantation manor house and grounds, remains of slave quarters, and
underground railroad sites and stories. Each of these helps to place
the battle itself in the context of the broader American story.
The park will also protect a number of natural resources in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed: land and waterways, wildlife and breathtaking
valley and mountain views.
CONCLUSION
Historians and lay-people alike intuitively recognize the
importance of the lessons of the U.S. Civil War and its impact on the
American experience. We were reminded of this last week as we heard
Governor Pataki read President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in New
York. Remembering and experiencing our history makes us a stronger
nation. We need to protect and share the places where that history
comes alive. And the creation of this park will offer countless
generations of Americans the opportunity to steep themselves in the
lessons of the past. It will help us be better stewards of our future.
Therefore, on behalf of our local, regional and national partners,
I offer our wholehearted support for this legislation.
Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statements. I
have a few questions for each of you.
Mr. Taylor, I have questions for you about S. 2640 and H.R.
3421, which would authorize National Park Service funding of
schools serving Yosemite National Park. This afternoon you
testified in opposition to two minor park boundary expansion
proposals in another bill establishing a new Civil War
battlefield, and in previous hearings this year the
administration has opposed virtually every other park
designation or expansion proposal in order to focus your
resources on eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog.
Yet the administration now supports a bill to use up to
$750,000 of park operating revenues each year at Yosemite and
to use those funds for non-park purposes. So my question to you
is can you explain why this proposal is acceptable, but the
others were not?
Mr. Taylor. That is a very good question, Mr. Chairman. I
think one of the reasons why we do support Senator Feinstein's
and Congressman Radanovich's legislation is because, as the
Congressman mentioned, there are really very few other
resources to look towards to address the educational needs, and
I guess from a purely self-interested point of view in terms of
recruitment, the educational situation has impacted negatively
on our abilities to recruit and maintain staff people in the
park and to a lesser degree, of course, concessionaires. The
reason for that is because we require staff people to actually
reside in the park and it is between a 1 and 2-hour commute to
the nearest local community where other school opportunities
might reside.
So it has affected us directly, this educational system,
and that is what has caused us to look favorably towards this
legislation.
Senator Akaka. There has been a fear that other requests
might come in from other areas on this.
Mr. Taylor. We share that fear, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Well, we will think about that.
I have another question for you on the Yosemite bill. You
support the legislation, but say that you do not want to create
a precedent, as I said, putting the Park Service in the
business of funding of small rural schools in the vicinity of
the parks. For example, both Big Bend National Park in Texas
and Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona have small rural
schools within their park boundaries. How is the Yosemite
situation different from these other parks?
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the specifics to
answer your question. I would be glad to get back with you and
your staff on that, on that particular issue.
Senator Akaka. I have another question for you, Mr. Taylor,
on S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, which authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to use revenues from fees, among other sources, to
fund Yosemite schools. Yet the legislation also prohibits the
Secretary's use of fees collected under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act, the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program, or the National Park Passport Program.
What fee revenues are left for the Secretary to use for the
Yosemite schools?
Mr. Taylor. One minute.
[Pause.]
Mr. Taylor. I am afraid we are going to have to pass on
that as well, Senator. I would be glad to get back with you.
Senator Akaka. Fine. Will you provide that for us?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. I have a question for you on S. 2788, the
proposed addition to Wind Cave National Park.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. You stated in your testimony that the
Department would prefer to spend Park Service resources to
reduce the maintenance backlog in existing Park Service units.
It is my understanding that Senator Daschle worked closely with
the Park Service in writing this bill. Is it the case that,
apart from these funding concerns, the proposed additions to
Wind Cave National Park would complement the existing park
lands and advance the park's purposes?
Mr. Taylor. I think other than the financial concerns that
I have already expressed, Mr. Chairman, I think we do see the
value of adding this acreage to the existing park.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor, for your
responses.
Mr. Anderson, since the BLM supports S. 2776, there are not
many questions to ask. Your testimony states that you would
prefer that the BLM be designated as the lead agency for the
preparation of the general management plan. The bill simply
directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare the plan. Are
you concerned that the Secretary might not delegate this to the
BLM even though the sites are on BLM lands?
Mr. Anderson. I do not think we are concerned. However, we
just wanted to reiterate the fact that of the 24 sites we do
have 9 of them currently, and we are positioned, in terms of
our field offices, we are positioned well there between Santa
Fe and Albuquerque. If we were to acquire cooperative
agreements or additional land, we are in a good position to
administer those sites.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Hainer, the National Park Service's
position is that the expansion and modernization of the medical
center has essentially destroyed much of the historically
significant features of the site. Would you care to respond
about this feeling?
Mr. Hainer. Thank you for an opportunity to respond, Mr.
Chairman. I believe that the comment or the perspective that
the expansion in the early 1920's under the U.S. Public Health
Service to build a centralized hospital, which was at the time
reputed to be the world's largest tuberculosis treatment
center, is a viewpoint that does not recognize the continued
value and historic efforts beyond 1920 to the present day. I
believe, Mr. Chairman, that my testimony was that the
pioneering role in tuberculosis treatment included both
Spanish-American War, World War One, and following World War
Two veterans, and I consider the period beyond 1920 to be of
great historic value as well, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hainer.
Dr. Giese, if the Fort Bayard is designated as a national
landmark, what are the Fort Bayard Historical Society's plans
to be involved with the landmark?
Mr. Giese. We would like to be very closely involved. Fort
Bayard really needs help badly. The buildings are in a bad
state of preservation and we would like to bring a lot of money
through grants, etcetera, to improve those buildings, and that
would be our main role. In addition, we would like to operate a
museum for visitors there, a visitors center. But we would not
want to in any way interfere with the hospital operation and I
do not think we would.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Stauffer, I have a question for you. You indicate in
your testimony that the Yosemite National Park superintendent
has moved his children to nearby Mariposa County schools.
Mr. Stauffer. That is correct.
Senator Akaka. If Federal funding must be used for Yosemite
area schools, would it be more cost effective to close some or
all of the existing schools within the park and instead send
the children to a smaller number of better equipped schools?
Mr. Stauffer. It may be more cost effective, sir, but it is
a 50-mile one-way drive from Yosemite Valley to Mariposa and in
the winter that route is very treacherous. I cannot even
suggest to subject kindergarten kids to an hour and a half bus
ride through the snow to Mariposa. It is just not practical. It
is just not something that I could even recommend or even think
about.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ms. Zontine, my final question is to you. Due to funding
concerns, the National Park Service is opposing S. 2623----
Ms. Zontine. Yes.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. Which would provide protection
for Cedar Creek Battlefield. In your opinion from a
preservation standpoint, what would happen if we follow the
administration's recommendation and do not designate Cedar
Creek Battlefield as a unit of the National Park Service?
Ms. Zontine. I do not know how familiar you are with the
Shenandoah Valley, but we are getting a lot of developmental
pressure in our part of the valley, Frederick County, where
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove are located, from the Washington,
D.C., metropolitan area. I think it is the fastest growing
county in the Shenandoah Valley. Because of this developmental
pressure, I feel that a delay in designating this a park will
further threaten the historic nature of both the battlefield
and the Belle Grove Plantation, the integrity of the site.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your statements and
your responses before the subcommittee this afternoon. Your
comments no question will be very helpful to the committee and
hopefully we will be able to move these bills through the
committee and the Senate in the next few weeks.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks if anyone
wishes to submit additional comments or materials to be
included in the record. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]