[Senate Hearing 108-638]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-638
AVALANCHES IN NATIONAL PARKS; UINTA RESEARCH AND CURATORIAL CENTER;
MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK; BARATARIA PRESERVE UNIT; AND TO AMEND THE
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 931 S. 1678
S. 2140 S. 2287
S. 2469
__________
JUNE 8, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-296 WASHINGTON : 2004
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah.................. 4
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 20
Hamre, David, Avalanche Expert, Alaska Railroad Corporation...... 35
Krieger, Karen, Heritage Resource Coordinator, State of Utah
Division of Parks and Recreation............................... 33
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 18
Matthews, Janet Snyder, Associate Director for Cultural
Resources, National Park Service, Department of the Interior... 9
Nau, John L., Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 26
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 2
Talent, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Missouri................ 25
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Thompson, Tom L., Deputy Chief, National Forest System, USDA
Forest Service................................................. 7
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 45
AVALANCHES IN NATIONAL PARKS; UINTA RESEARCH AND CURATORIAL CENTER;
MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK; BARATARIA PRESERVE UNIT; AND TO AMEND THE
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. The committee will come to order. Good
afternoon and welcome to all of you.
This is kind of an unusual week, but we intend to go ahead
with our usual process here. I want to welcome the
representatives from the Department of the Interior and
Agriculture and other witnesses to the National Parks
Subcommittee hearing.
Our purpose is to hear testimony on five bills: S. 931, the
bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a
program to reduce the risk from and mitigate the effects of
avalanches on visitors in units of the National Park System and
other recreational users of public lands; S. 1678, a bill to
provide for the establishment of the Uinta Research and
Cultural Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the States of
Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes; S. 2140, a bill to
expand the boundaries of the Mount Rainier National Park; S.
2287, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Barataria Preserve
unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, and to
change the name if we can, in the State of Louisiana, and other
purposes; S. 2469, a bill to amend the National Historic
Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and
improvement for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
So I want to thank the witnesses and we look forward to
your testimony and the opportunity to deal with these five
bills. Let me turn to my friend from Hawaii.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
I have briefly reviewed the bills on today's agenda and
they seem to be for the most part noncontroversial. Earlier
this Congress the Senate passed a bill that I introduced to
provide for a national policy to protect the fossils and other
prehistoric resources on Federal lands. I am interested to
learn more about this curatorial center that Senator Bennett's
bill would authorize outside of the Dinosaur National Park.
I also want to hear the testimony of my friend Senator
Stevens on avalanches. It is something that Hawaii does not
have, for now anyway, but we certainly want to help our friend
from Alaska on that.
All of the other bills are sponsored or co-sponsored by
members of this committee and I look forward to helping in
their efforts to move those bills through.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the witnesses to the
subcommittee this afternoon and look forward to hearing more
about each of these bills. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
We are pleased to have Senator Stevens here from Alaska.
Senator, do you care to go ahead?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Akaka. I appreciate your taking the time, particularly
during this period, to carry out this hearing on these bills.
I appear with regard to S. 931. Across avalanche-afflicted
States, government agencies such as the Department of
Transportation, private organizations, and mining companies
spend large sums each year on avalanche mitigation. Depending
on the severity, the season cost per State may range from $3 to
$10 million annually. While such damage can bring hardships to
many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a
friend or family member.
The majority of avalanche fatalities are the result of
recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. In 2002
to 2003, 58 people lost their lives in avalanches across North
America. 23 of these individuals were caught in slides while
snowmobiling, a common and necessary activity in my home State
of Alaska. In April, Richard Staley, captain of the Fairbanks
Ice Dogs hockey team, was killed when his snow machine caused
an avalanche that left a debris pile 150 feet long and 13 feet
deep.
We can help avoid such tragedies by assisting in minimizing
the accessibility of accurate forecasts--by maximizing the
accessibility of accurate forecasts and providing increased
grant opportunities for research.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, in
coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, to establish an
avalanche protection program which will provide early
identification of the potential for avalanches and mitigate the
effects of avalanches on visitors, recreation users,
transportation corridors, and neighboring communities. In this
effort, the program will maximize the resources of the National
Avalanche Center of the Forest Service and establish an
advisory committee to assist in the development and
implementation of the program.
I would ask that my full statement appear in the record,
Senators, and I would just tell you this. My home is in
Girdwood, Alaska, which is 38 miles south of Anchorage. I am
awakened when I am home by the sound of artillery, and that is
artillery shells that are being fired at the mountain to try to
dislodge the overhangs that develop when intensive winds push
snow and ice to the point where those peaks can, as they start
to melt, they can cause avalanches.
We do our best to avoid avalanches, but it is a difficult
thing to do. We need better assistance from the governments
where we can have the sharing of information that this bill
would bring about. So I would urge that you give it early
consideration and I look forward to working with you in that
regard. If you have any questions I will be glad to answer
them.
By the way, in some areas those artillery pieces were
recently called back because those pieces were needed in the
current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. So those
communities are somewhat in danger now.
Senator Akaka, you just have to think of this. We share
volcanoes with you, but these avalanches are just as bad as
volcanoes when they start causing enormous snow slides coming
down those mountains.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator From Alaska,
on S. 931
Across avalanche-afflicted States, government agencies such as the
Department of Transportation, private organizations and mining
companies spend large sums each year on avalanche mitigation. Depending
on the severity of the season costs per State may range from $3 to $10
million annually.
While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities,
none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. A majority
of avalanche fatalities are a result of recreational activities in
unmitigated avalanche areas. In 2002-2003, 58 people lost their live
sin avalanches across North America--23 of these individuals were
caught in slides while snowmobiling. A common and necessary activity in
my home State of Alaska. In April, Richard Staley, Captain of the
Fairbanks Ice Dogs hockey team was killed when his Snowmachine caused
an avalanche that left a debris pile 150 feet long and 13 feet deep. We
can help avoid such tragedy by assisting in maximizing the
accessibility of accurate forecasts, and providing increased grant
opportunities for research.
S. 931 directs the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with
the Secretary of Agriculture, to establish an avalanche protection
program which will provide early identification of the potential for
avalanches and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors,
recreational users, transportation corridors and neighboring
communities. In this effort the program will maximize the resources of
the National Avalanche Center of the Forest Service and establish an
advisory committee to assist in the development and implementation of
the program. This advisory committee will be comprised of 11 members
from Federal land management agencies, concessionaires or permittees,
State Departments of Transportation and individuals from Federal or
State-owned railroads, such involvement will ensure the vital
cooperation between the Federal Government and local communities that
is necessary in successfully mitigating the potentially devastating
effects of avalanches.
Avalanche mitigation cannot be based solely on forecasts and
research. Many communities require specific means, including hard to
come by artillery, to remove avalanche hazards posing an increased risk
of damage--these tools are a vital part of the avalanche mitigation
effort. Just last month, the U.S. military notified two resorts that
five 119-A Howitzers must be returned for use in the war in Iraq. This
artillery was on loan to the Sierra-Nevada ski resorts of Alpine
Meadows and Mammoth Mountain, which were using them to knock down loose
snowpack threatening the two resorts. Artillery is an effective and
valuable safety tool. S. 931 directs the Secretaries to work with the
Secretary of the Army to establish a central depository for artillery
and ammunition for avalanche control. This provision opens an avenue
for those Federal and non-Federal entities to seek valuable resources
that are not currently readily accessible. In maintaining essential
transportation and communication corridors and minimizing the tragic
accidents that occur every year, it is imperative that we assist, to
the greatest extent possible, in the prevention and forecasting of
avalanches. This bill brings those resources to the entities tat need
them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of
avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors,
and our local communities.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Senator. Your full
statement will be in the record.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Do you have any questions?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Thomas. You do not have snow problems?
Senator Akaka. No. We have got to prepare for that.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. We will certainly look forward to working
on your bill.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Senator Bennett, I see that you are here,
sir. Thank you for being here, Senator. Please go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with you. I am here to testify in behalf of
S. 1678. It is the Uinta Research and Curatorial Center Act,
which I introduced late last year. The bill would authorize the
Park Service to construct a research and curatorial facility
for the Dinosaur National Monument and its partner, the Utah
Field House of Natural History Museum. That is a Utah State
park unit that is located in Vernal, Utah.
Now, since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones in the
area in the early 1900's, the Dinosaur National Monument has
been a tremendous tourist attraction and haven for both amateur
and expert dinosaur enthusiasts and has produced over 600,000
items that are now in its museum collection. Unfortunately,
these items are currently stored in 17 different facilities
throughout the park. I have visited the park and seen the
condition of this storage and it runs the whole range of
suitability, but unfortunately it is usually at the bottom end
of the range of suitability for the storage of these artifacts.
Many of the resources are at risk because of the failure of
the scattered facilities to meet National Park Service
standards at the minimum. So they are below existing minimum
standards or, as we might say in the building trades, they do
not meet code. But they are stored nonetheless because we have
to keep them somewhere.
A new research and curatorial facility is greatly needed to
bring the park's collections up to standard, to meet code, if
you will, and ensure its protection. Otherwise we run the risk
that these resources will be permanently damaged and some of
them may even be lost forever.
So I believe this legislation represents a model of how the
Federal Government can meet these challenges by utilizing its
relationships with State and local governments. This will not
be a purely Federal activity. By sharing facilities as proposed
by my bill, taxpayer dollars can be saved and the mission of
the Park Service to preserve these resources for future
generations can be met.
So the State has stepped forward and built, at a cost of
$6.5 million, a newly completed and now dedicated State museum,
with the proposed Federal facility co-located at the State
museum, on the same piece of real estate. The National Park
Service staff, visiting scholars, interns, volunteers would
have access to the State's museum space for exhibits,
classrooms, conferencing, education, and of course public
services such as restrooms, parking, and the other things, that
would not require any Federal investment. That portion of the
infrastructure is already there. The Federal project that my
bill would authorize would be built immediately adjacent to it
and connecting with it.
Now, Vernal City and Uintah County have stepped forward
with their support, because they are providing the land, valued
at approximately $1.5 million, to be donated to the Park
Service for the construction of the proposed facility. In other
words, the Federal money would go entirely into bricks and
mortar and not into acquiring any land, that having been
provided by the city and county.
Because of the significant local commitment, enthusiasm in
the community is very high. A few weeks ago at the dedication
of the state museum, approximately half of the county's 26,000
residents were in attendance. Those of you who come from rural
areas know how difficult this can be, to get that many people
in one place at one time, and that demonstrated the amount of
local support.
I have a stack of letters of support from both the city and
the county and I would ask consent that they be included in the
record following my statement.
Senator Thomas. They shall be included.
Senator Bennett. Now, there is an additional partner,
private partner, in this project along with the State, the
county, and the city, the Intermountain Natural History
Association. They have agreed to fund and carry out the soil
and environmental testing necessary to permit the Park Service
to accept this donation. Other Federal agencies, such as the
BLM and the Forest Service, who are also in need of collection
storage have become minor partners and would be able to take
advantage of this storage facility.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it's imperative that we care
for the paleontological resources and ensure their availability
to further generations both for scientific study as well as the
enjoyment of the public. This legislation is a proactive
approach to accomplishing those objectives. I think it is an
excellent example of a cost-effective partnership between the
Park Service, the State of Utah, the city of Vernal, Uintah
County, and private organizations. It is the kind of
cooperative activity I think the Congress ought to applaud and
support.
I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you
today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert F. Bennett, U.S. Senator From Utah,
on S. 1678
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today regarding S. 1678, the Uintah
Research and Curatorial Center Act, which I introduced late last year.
The bill would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to
construct a research and curatorial facility for Dinosaur National
Monument and its partner, the Utah Field House of Natural History
Museum, in Vernal, Utah. The facility would be co-located with the
Museum while helping to preserve, protect, and exhibit the vast
treasures of one of the most productive sites of dinosaur bones in the
world.
Since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones by the
paleontologist Earl Douglass in 1909, and the subsequent proclamation
as a national monument in 1915 by President Woodrow Wilson, the
Dinosaur National Monument has been a haven for both amateur and expert
dinosaur enthusiasts. At present, Dinosaur National Monument has more
that 600,000 items in its museum collection. Unfortunately, these items
are currently stored in 17 different facilities throughout the park.
Many of these resources are at risk due to the failure of the scattered
facilities to meet minimum National Park Service storage standards. A
new research and curatorial facility is greatly needed to bring the
park's collection up to standard and to ensure its protection.
The curatorial facility will also fill a critical role as a
collection center for the park and partners' fossil, archaeological,
natural resource operations and collections, and park archives.
Moreover, in these days of limited budgets, the decision to co-locate
this facility with the state's museum will also save taxpayer dollars.
The state of Utah has just completed and dedicated its new Field House
Museum at a cost to the state of $6.5 million dollars. Because of the
co-location, NPS staff, visiting scholars, interns and volunteers would
have access to the state museum's space for exhibit, classroom,
conferencing, education, restrooms, public access, parking, and other
needs not included in the curatorial facility.
The 22,500 square foot facility will be built outside the
boundaries of the park on land donated to the Park Service by the City
of Vernal and Uintah County. The legislation will also permit the Park
Service to accept the donation of the land, valued at approximately
$1.5 million dollars.
Other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and
the Forest Service, who are also in need of collections storage, have
become minor partners and would utilize a small portion of the storage
facility. An additional partner in the project, the Intermountain
Natural History Association, has agreed to fund and carry out the soil
and environmental testing necessary to permit the Park Service to
accept the donation.
Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we care for these
paleontological resources and ensure their availability to future
generations, both for scientific study and the enjoyment of the public.
This legislation is a proactive approach to accomplishing those
objectives and is an excellent example of a cost effective partnership
between the National Park Service, the State of Utah Department of
Natural Resources, the City of Vernal, and Uintah County of which this
Congress ought to applaud and support.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you very much,
Senator.
Any questions?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Thomas. No questions. All right, sir. Thank you. We
appreciate your being here.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. We will be prepared now for panel one: Mr.
Tommy L. Thompson, Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest
Service, USDA; and Ms. Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate
Director, Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior.
We thank you both for being here. We look forward to your
testimony and your insight into these bills. According to the
way they are listed, we will start with Mr. Thompson if that is
all right.
STATEMENT OF TOM L. THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to appear before this committee to present
the views of the administration on S. 931, the Federal Lands
Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003. It is a bill that
would establish a program to reduce the risks from and mitigate
the effects of avalanches on recreation users and of visitors
to public lands.
The U.S. Forest Service supports the concepts contained in
this bill. However, we cannot support S. 931 unless amended to
delete the formation of a grants program and to designate the
Secretary of Agriculture as the lead for this bill. At a time
when we are trying to reduce backlogs and maintain National
Forest System lands, we cannot afford to take on new funding
responsibilities under the grants program.
We support a coordinated and improved avalanche protection
program on public lands. Visitors to public lands that are
threatened by avalanches fall roughly into three categories:
those folks who are driving on mountain highways, people
visiting developed sites like ski areas, and people who are
going in the back country to either crosscountry ski or
snowmobile.
Much of the back country and developed winter recreation
that takes place in avalanche terrain occurs on national
forests. Over the past 50 years, the vast majority of avalanche
fatalities have occurred on National Forest System land. The
Forest Service plays an important role in avalanche
coordination and safety and the expertise that the agency can
bring to developing an avalanche program as envisioned in this
legislation is significant.
The Forest Service, working with the National Park Service,
has a long history of addressing avalanche protection on all
Federal lands. The Forest Service began permitting ski areas on
national forests in the 1930's and soon recognized that
avalanches threaten skiers' safety both traveling to and within
permitted ski areas.
To reduce the threat, the Forest Service established the
Snow Ranger program in 1938 to provide Forest Service winter
sports personnel with rigorous snow science expertise,
avalanche forecasting, and training in the use of explosives
for avalanche control. Since the 1950's the Forest Service has
played a significant role in furthering research on avalanches.
To further public safety, the Forest Service established
the National Avalanche Center in the early 1990's. The National
Avalanche Center manages the military artillery program for
avalanche control, coordinates a network of back country
avalanche education advisory centers, transfers state-of-the-
art avalanche technology to advisory centers, facilitates
avalanche research, and develops and distributes avalanche
safety products. There are 17 avalanche back country centers
located in various locations in Alaska, Washington, California,
Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.
The Forest Service manages 16 of these centers and the
State of Colorado manages one of them. Many of these centers
operate through voluntary efforts and donations. The Forest
Service typically provides about 50 percent of the operating
funds for each of these centers and community friends
organizations and other agencies typically provide the other 50
percent.
In light of these past and ongoing efforts that the Forest
Service has contributed toward avalanche awareness and
protection, we recommend that the bill designate the Secretary
of Agriculture to lead the establishment of a coordinated
avalanche program in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Interior.
In addition, we recommend that the formation of a new
grants program under section 3(e) be deleted from the bill. The
Departments of Agriculture and Interior must focus existing
funding on effectively managing Federal lands, including
avalanche awareness and protection. Creating a new
responsibility to fund grants could divert available funds away
from these operational needs.
S. 931 establishes a central depository for ordnance that
is used for avalanche control. A central depository is
important because all the military artillery assets appropriate
for avalanche control could be stored in a single location and
could be better managed, including assuring optimum climatic
storage conditions.
At the same time, we must be aware of the need to look for
alternatives to this military ordinance. It is estimated that
there is a 10 to 15-year supply of usable assets remaining in
the United States and the technology exists to develop a system
that could replace and outperform the military artillery.
We appreciate the efforts that the committee is extending
to reduce the risk of avalanche hazards to the public. I want
to thank you for this opportunity to share our views on S. 931
and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom L. Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, USDA Forest Service, on S. 931
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before this committee to present the views of the administration on S.
931, Federal Lands Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003, a bill
to establish a program to reduce the risks from and mitigate the
effects of avalanches on recreational users of and other visitors to
public lands. The USDA Forest Service supports the concepts contained
in this bill. However, we cannot support S. 931 unless amended to (1)
delete the formation of a grants program and (2) designate the
Secretary of Agriculture as the lead for this bill. At a time when we
are trying to reduce backlogs and maintain National Forest System
lands, we cannot afford to take on the new funding responsibilities
under this grants program.
S. 931 describes several goals that would be favorable to the
public. These include improved program coordination and development to
reduce the risk of avalanche to visitors of public lands, the creation
of an advisory committee to assist in development and implementation of
an avalanche protection program, and the establishment of a central
depository for ordnance used for avalanche control purposes. We support
a coordinated and improved avalanche protection program on public
lands.
Visitors to public lands that are threatened by avalanches fall
roughly into three categories: people driving on mountain highways;
people visiting developed sites like ski areas; and people going into
the backcountry to cross country ski or ride a snowmobile. Much of the
backcountry and developed winter recreation that takes place in
avalanche terrain occurs on National Forests. Over the past 50 years,
the vast majority of avalanche fatalities have occurred on National
Forest System lands.
The Forest Service plays an important role in avalanche
coordination and safety, and the expertise that the agency can bring to
developing an avalanche program as envisioned in this legislation is
significant. The Forest Service, working with the National Park
Service, has a long history of addressing avalanche protection on all
federal land. The Forest Service began permitting ski areas on the
National Forests in the 1930's and soon recognized that avalanches
threatened skiers' safety both traveling to and within permitted ski
areas. To reduce the threat, the Forest Service established the Snow
Ranger Program in 1938 to provide Forest Service winter sports
personnel with rigorous snow science expertise, avalanche forecasting,
and training in the use of explosives for avalanche control. Since the
1950's, the Forest Service has played a significant role in furthering
research on avalanches.
To further public safety, the Forest Service established the
National Avalanche Center in the early 1990s. The National Avalanche
Center manages the military artillery program for avalanche control,
coordinates a network of backcountry avalanche education and advisory
centers, transfers state of the art avalanche technology to the
advisory centers, facilitates avalanche research, and develops and
distributes avalanche safety products. There are 17 avalanche
backcountry centers located in various locations in Alaska, Washington,
California, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.
The Forest Service manages 16 of the centers and the State of Colorado
manages one. Many of these centers operate through volunteer efforts
and donations. The Forest Service typically provides about 50% of the
operating funds for each of their centers and community ``friends''
organizations, and other agencies typically provide the other 50%.
In light of these past and ongoing efforts that the Forest Service
has contributed towards avalanche awareness and protection, we
recommend that the bill designate the Secretary of Agriculture to lead
the establishment of a coordinated avalanche program in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, we recommend that the
formation of a new grants program under section 3(e) be deleted from
the bill. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior must focus
existing funding on effectively managing Federal lands, including
avalanche awareness and protection. Creating a new responsibility to
fund grants could divert available funds away from these operational
needs.
S. 931 establishes a Central Depository for ordnance that is used
for avalanche control. A Central Depository is important because all of
the military artillery assets appropriate for avalanche control could
be stored in a single location and could be better managed including
assuring optimal climatic storage conditions. At the same time, we must
be aware of the need to look for alternatives to military ordnance. It
is estimated that there is a 10 to 15 year supply of usable assets
remaining in the United States. The technology exists to develop a
system that could replace and outperform military artillery.
We appreciate the efforts that the committee is extending to reduce
the risk of avalanche hazards to the public. Thank you, for the
opportunity to share our views on S. 931. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. You did not wish to
comment on the other bills that are before us? You do not wish
to comment on the other bills before us?
Mr. Thompson. Not today.
Senator Thomas. Ms. Matthews.
STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Ms. Matthews. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting the
Department of the Interior to present comments on the five
bills before your subcommittee today. In the interest of time,
may I briefly summarize our position on each bill and submit
full testimonies for the record?
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Ms. Matthews. First, S. 931 would direct a coordinated
avalanche protection program, as you have heard. The Department
supports the concepts, however cannot support the bill unless
amended to delete the formation of a new grants program;
second, designate the Secretary of Agriculture as the lead for
the bill. At a time when we are trying to reduce backlogs to
maintain lands for which we currently hold responsibility, we
cannot afford to take on new funding responsibilities under
this grants program.
Second, S. 1678 would establish a research and curatorial
center and interpret the resources of Dinosaur National
Monument collections in accordance with National Park System
museum standards. The Department of the Interior supports this
bill with a technical amendment to accurately reflect the
correct spelling of the name of the center, ``Uinta,'' the
project partners choosing that spelling in conjunction with the
mountains themselves rather than the county. We also submit a
current map detailing the location for the center, on the site
relative to the partners' structures on the site.
With regard to S. 2140, that would expand the boundaries of
Mount Rainier National Park, the Department supports enactment,
but would like to work with the committee on an amendment
described later in this statement. This legislation would
enable acquisition of a new campground site and other
facilities to replace the Carbon River campground that exists
but is frequently inaccessible due to flooding. This proposal
is consistent with the administration's priority to reduce the
deferred maintenance backlog, make parks more accessible, and
implement the only boundary expansion in Rainier's general
management plan adopted in 2002.
With regard to S. 2287, it would adjust the boundary of the
Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historic
Park and Preserve in Louisiana. The Department supports the
bill with amendments included in this testimony. The bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire more than
3,900 acres by transferring existing federally owned lands to
the park system, which would expand the authorized acreage of
the preserve from 20,000 acres to approximately 23,000 acres.
The bill would also make clarifying amendments to title 9
of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, the
legislation that established the park.
With regard to S. 2469, which would provide appropriation
authorization and aims to improve the operations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department
supports this bill, but, with the understanding that certain
provisions will be amended to incorporate changes proposed by
the Department and the Advisory Council in testimony.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, a post-
World War II coming-of-age of middle class representation in
Congress, created the Advisory Council as a key actor in the
Federal historic preservation partnership program. The council
is the principal advisor to Federal agencies as well as to
State and tribal governments on many aspects of public policy.
The 20-member council includes Federal agencies, State and
local government officials, private citizens, and qualified
professional experts in the fields within historic
preservation. It advocates full consideration of historic
places in Federal decision-making and oversees section 106 of
the Act.
S. 2469 proposes: One, additional membership to this
sitting council, a designee option for the Governor member, and
amends the existing quorum requirement. The Department supports
these proposals.
Two, improves the council's financial and administrative
services, a proposal also supported by the Department.
Three, authorizes the council not only to obtain or receive
property, facilities and services, but also to solicit such
from Federal or non-Federal entities.
Four, would strike the council's current annual
appropriation authorization, authorizing such amounts as may be
necessary to carry out this title, a provision that supports
the President's 2005 budget.
S. 2469 last proposes a new section 216 to the 1966 Act,
increasing authority to work with Federal grant-making agencies
to improve effectiveness in meeting the purposes and policies
of the Act. Section 216(a) as drafted would specifically confer
on the council the authority to modify grant selection
criteria, to administer jointly grant or assistance programs,
with the proviso that it would not be inconsistent with the
statutory authority of the program.
This section mirrors a provision in the House companion
bill, H.R. 3223, introduced last year in October. At that point
the Department worked closely with the council to draft
amendments. These amendments, which we support, are attached to
our testimony and included in the testimony of John Nau, the
chairman of the Advisory Council. Were the committee, the
subcommittee, to amend S. 2469 to reflect those amendments, the
Department could fully support this bill. The Department is
concerned that section 216(b) is duplicative of the provisions
in section 202 of the 1966 Act.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the
committee have on this or the other four bills.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Matthews follow:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Department of the Interior
on s. 931
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 931,
a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
coordinated avalanche protection program that would provide early
identification of the potential for avalanches, and reduce the risks
and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users,
neighboring communities, and transportation corridors.
The Department supports the concepts contained in S. 931. However,
the Department cannot support the bill unless amended to (1) delete the
formation of a new grants program, and (2) designate the Secretary of
Agriculture as the lead for this bill. At a time when we are trying to
reduce backlogs and maintain what we already own, we cannot afford to
take on the new funding responsibilities under this grants program.
The history of avalanches influencing visitor safety on public
lands is significant and well-documented. Three hundred and ninety-two
people have perished in avalanches on public lands in the past twenty
years and as winter sport activities continue to rise, so will
avalanche incidents. Avalanche fatalities on National Park Service
(NPS) managed lands account for about six percent, whereas avalanche
fatalities on National Forest lands account for about ninety percent of
the total. Avalanches kill more people on public lands than any other
natural event.
The National Park Service and United States Forest Service have
actively managed a coordinated aggressive avalanche protection program
since the late 1930's. Although the National Park Service provides
limited funding and extensive data collection to the Forest Service, it
should be noted that the Forest Service is the lead agency with regard
to avalanche awareness and mitigation efforts. The Forest Service
program includes managing the National Avalanche Center in Ketchum,
Idaho, as well as fifteen regional backcountry avalanche centers. These
avalanche centers issue avalanche danger advisories for limited and
specified geographic areas throughout the west, the northeast, and
Alaska.
Currently these programs include snow pack and climate analysis,
provide avalanche awareness information via publications, visitor
centers, weather radio, and internet sites, teach avalanche awareness
classes to the public, and develop and provide avalanche control work
using explosives and passive control devices. It is recognized that
these centers only exist in and serve a limited number of geographic
areas, and all have limited resources. However, they continue to
provide information to millions of recreation users and to other
government and private agencies.
The primary avalanche control method includes hand and aerial
projected explosive charges. However, many areas are using passive
control measures such as the spreading of charcoal on avalanche prone
slopes and manually triggered releases. Although the bill prescribes
the use of artillery, the National Park Service is prohibited from
using this method in congressionally designated wilderness areas, where
the majority of avalanche hazard zones exist in the National Park
System. The artillery systems that are used in NPS areas were not
designed to trigger avalanches or to be used in very cold environments.
In 1999, Yellowstone National Park experienced several difficulties
with unexploded ordnance resulting in risk to park visitors and our
employees. Military systems other than the ones currently employed have
been carefully analyzed and none appear to be applicable as avalanche
control systems.
To further complicate this issue the U.S. military recently
requested the return of five howitzers that cooperators were using to
prevent avalanches, including the one at Yellowstone, to be used for
active military service. Of the many benefits of the bill, developing
alternatives to military artillery for avalanche control would be very
desirable.
We recognize that there is much room for improvement in avalanche
management methods, and the Department respectfully urges this
committee to consider the following suggestions for strengthening S.
931 and making its implementation more efficient and effective.
First, we recommend that the bill designate the Secretary of
Agriculture to lead the establishment of a coordinated avalanche
program. The U.S. Forest Service has considerable experience in
avalanche control and data gathering, oversight of National Avalanche
Centers, and a greater percentage of incidents that warrant the
designation of the Department of Agriculture as the best department to
develop and manage the program.
Secondly, we recommend that the formation of a new grants program
under section 3(e) be deleted from the bill. The Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior must focus existing funding on effectively
managing Federal lands, including avalanche awareness and protection.
Creating a new responsibility to fund grants could divert available
funds away from these operational needs.
We believe that this bill will provide the appropriate Federal
support for services such as avalanche forecasting, munitions
management, and public information to ensure visitor protection on
public lands.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide our perspective. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
on s. 1678
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1678, a bill to establish the Uintah Research
and Curatorial Center in the city of Vernal, Utah. We thank Senator
Bennett and the other members of the Utah delegation for their interest
and support in protecting the resources of Dinosaur National Monument,
the site for which the Center is intended.
The Department of the Interior supports this bill with a technical
amendment, to accurately reflect the correct spelling of the name of
the center--Uinta. The partners have chosen to spell the name of the
center in the same way the Uinta Mountains are spelled and not the
County of Uintah. We also have a current version of the map that more
accurately shows the location of the center in its relationship to
other partner structures on the site.
S. 1678 would authorize the National Park Service to establish the
Uinta Research and Curatorial Center on land outside the boundary of
Dinosaur National Monument. The land would be acquired by donation from
the city of Vernal, Utah and be no more than five acres. S. 1678 would
authorize the center to be used for the curation, storage, and research
of the museum collection of Dinosaur National Monument and provide for
curation of other collections held by other federal agencies, tribes,
and universities under the guidelines of cooperative agreements with
the Secretary. The State of Utah, local agencies, academic
institutions, and appropriate private nonprofit entities may also enter
into agreements to manage and use the site. The bill requires that the
land not become part of the Monument or be subject to laws and
regulations applicable to the Monument. This language is common when
Congress has authorized NPS administrative sites in the past.
Dinosaur National Monument was established on October 9, 1915 to
protect an extraordinary deposit of dinosaur remains of the Jurassic
period. While the park contains many other significant resources, the
centerpiece continues to be the paleontological specimens for which the
park was originally established. They are considered by the scientific
community as internationally significant and represent the single best
window into the life of Jurassic dinosaurs. The collection contains
type specimens from which specific dinosaurs are named, as well as many
one-of-a-kind specimens. The collection is heavily used by outside
researchers as well as the NPS. The collection also contains
significant archeological, biological, archival, and historic objects
that preserve the cultural and natural history of the park.
The 1986 General Management Plan identified a need for a
collections building and upgraded lab facilities under the preferred
alternative. In the late 1990's Utah State Parks began planning for the
construction/reconstruction of the Utah Field House Museum in Vernal.
The park began working with the State to develop a partnership to
provide collections space for the state as well as the park. The Field
House Museum received $5.5 million from the State of Utah for the
reconstruction, to be co-located with the collections building on
property acquired by the City of Vernal and Uintah County. The portion
of the property for the Uinta Research and Curatorial Center is being
donated to the National Park Service (approximately \1/4\ of the lot,
estimated value of approximately $375,000).
The 2001 Collection Management Report identified 609,000 items in
the collection. The collections are currently stored in 11 different
facilities throughout the park, including garages, most of which meet
few NPS museum standards. Maintenance and curation has been deferred
due to lack of space or proper facility to prepare for storage. Of the
957 museum standards currently applicable to the park, the park barely
meets 50% of them.
This new facility would allow the park to meet nearly 98% of those
standards. Of particular importance are the health and safety concerns
from radon gas production in the enclosed areas where radioactive
specimens are currently stored. Due to lack of space, park staff must
conduct their duties in the aisles of the old paleo lab at the Quarry
Visitor Center. This lab, as well as the entire Center, is in serious
need of rehabilitation, having suffered extensive structural distress
since its construction in the 1950's. As such, the Quarry Visitor
provides neither adequate storage space nor a suitable environment for
staff to work in. The NPS has a project planned to stabilize and
rehabilitate the historic Quarry Visitor Center in FY 2007 as part of
the five-year line-item construction program.
The Uinta Center will provide for approximately 22,500 square feet
of work and storage space and cost approximately $8.8 million, which
covers only the construction of the building. Funding for the
construction is currently programmed for FY 2007. In addition, one-time
costs for moving the collection, equipping the laboratory, furnishing
offices, and meeting IT needs are estimated to be approximately
$400,000. Additional recurring costs for the operation of the center--
either through direct additional NPS funding, or partnerships with
other agencies that have expressed an interest in using the facility,
are estimated to be approximately $250,000 to $300,000 per year. This
includes additional staffing to perform administrative and maintenance
functions as well as basic operational costs (utilities, necessary
supplies, materials and equipment).
A decision was made early in the process not to include the site as
part of the monument. The site is not contiguous with the present park
boundary and is nearly fourteen miles from the closest park entrance.
However, it is in the City of Vernal, Utah and is the site for the
newly constructed Utah Field House of Natural History Museum. The State
will be the primary partner with the NPS. The Field House will provide
visitors and residents access to the museum and programs on the natural
history of the area, while the Uinta Center will provide the storage
and research function of a world-class museum. Other partners in the
project include the City of Vernal, Utah and Uintah County who have
donated the land for the project. Both communities see this venture as
an economic benefit and an enhancement to the surrounding region's
tourism efforts. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Ashley
National Forest will also work with us and store their collections
here.
The Uinta Research and Curatorial Center is another example of the
goal of the Department and the National Park Service to meet the needs
of the agency while working with partners. The Center will provide
proper storage for irreplaceable artifacts, improve working conditions
for staff and visiting scientists, partner with the state to provide
educational opportunities, and give visitors the chance to discover the
many wonders of eastern Utah.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you and the committee may have.
______
on s. 2140
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2140, a bill to expand the
boundary of Mount Rainier National Park.
The Department of the Interior supports enactment of S. 2140, but
would like to work with the committee on an amendment, as described
later in this statement. This legislation would enable the National
Park Service to acquire a site for a new campground and other
facilities to replace an existing campground along the Carbon River
that is frequently inaccessible due to flooding, and it would also
enhance recreational opportunities and services for visitors in other
ways. This proposal is consistent with the Administration's priority to
reduce the National Park System's deferred maintenance backlog and to
make parks more accessible.
S. 2140 would authorize the acquisition from willing sellers of up
to 800 acres of land near the Carbon River entrance to Mount Rainier
National Park in the northwestern corner of the park. It would
implement the only recommendation for a boundary expansion contained in
the park's new General Management Plan, adopted in 2002. The plan
identifies the addition of these lands as a means to allow the National
Park Service to replace the Ipsut Creek campground, picnic area, and
day-use parking for access to the popular Carbon Glacier and Wonderland
Trail. These facilities, and the two-lane gravel Carbon River Road that
serves them, are located within or close to the Carbon River
floodplain. They are flooded on average every seven years, resulting in
significant road damage. Repairs to the Carbon River Road from a 1996
flood cost $750,000. The repairs lasted a month before another flood
damaged the road again. The road now has a facility condition index of
.56, a ``serious'' rating, worse than ``poor.'' The campground, which
has a facility condition index of .31, or ``poor,'' has to be closed
whenever the washouts occur. It is likely that a future flood will
permanently preclude vehicular access to the campground.
With the addition of the new lands in the Carbon River Valley above
the floodplain, the National Park Service could develop a 190-acre
recreational-administrative hub that would include a replacement 50-
campsite vehicular-accessible campground, picnic sites, and
administrative and visitor contact facilities. The new facilities would
include a ranger office and housing, allowing a ranger presence in the
area that has been missing since the current ranger facilities were
abandoned due to flooding. Once a major flood event permanently closes
the Carbon River Road, the road would be converted to a hiking and
biking trail, and the Ipsut Creek campground would become a backcountry
campground accessible by foot or bike.
Acquisition of the nearly 800 acres of land is estimated to cost
about $3 to $6 million, although no appraisals have been completed.
Development costs for a new 50-site campground, a picnic area,
associated roads and parking, a water and septic system, along with
modifying an existing home and a small maintenance building, are
estimated to be $4.8 million. Additional operating costs associated
with the new site would be negligible. Funding for the acquisition and
line-item construction projects would be addressed through the
prioritization process used by the National Park Service. A projection
cannot be made at this time as to when such projects would be of
sufficient priority to merit their inclusion in the National Park
Service budget.
Adding the new area along the Carbon River corridor to the park
would have other benefits besides facilitating development of new
camping and administrative facilities in a safer location. It would
provide additional hiking trails and accessible riverbank fishing,
protect scenic resources of the road corridor entering the park from
the west, and contribute to a comprehensive plan for a large corridor
of diverse outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands along State
Route 165. It would also provide protection for natural resources,
including habitat for the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, bull
trout, and salmon, which are all listed or proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered species. The new boundary would better reflect
the natural ecosystems and processes needed to maintain the health of
the park, which has been impacted by logging along its borders,
urbanization, and population growth since 1899, when the original
boundary for Mount Rainier National Park was established.
Lying in between the existing boundary of the park and the area
proposed for addition to the park is a mile-long corridor of land that
is part of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Section 4 of S.
2140 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to manage that land to
maintain the area's natural setting in a manner consistent with the
area's designation as part of a late successional reserve. We are in
discussions with the Department of Agriculture about this provision,
and the Departments would like to work with the committee on developing
an amendment that would address management of this area.
S. 2140 would also allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a
one-acre site in the community of Wilkeson for a permanent visitor
contact facility, or welcome center. Having welcome centers in the
Mount Rainier gateway communities, including Wilkeson, is supported by
the park's General Management Plan as a critical component of the
park's provision of services to visitors. The National Park Service
already operates a welcome center in a leased facility in Wilkeson to
serve visitors headed toward the Carbon River and Mowich areas of the
park, as well as Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and state and
local recreational areas. The Wilkeson center will serve an even more
critical function if the boundary change proposed by this bill is
fulfilled and recreational opportunities in the Carbon River corridor
are expanded. The authority in this bill simply provides the option, if
the opportunity arises, for the park to own rather than lease a welcome
center in Wilkeson. The cost of the facility, for which we do not have
an estimate, would be offset by savings of $26,000 annually that is
currently spent on the leased site.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions you or the other members of the
subcommittee have.
______
on s. 2287
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on S.
2287. This bill would adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve
Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (Park)
in Louisiana.
The Department supports S. 2287 with the amendments included in
this testimony. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to acquire more than 3,900 acres adjacent to the Barataria
Preserve (Preserve) unit of the park by transferring existing federally
owned lands to the National Park Service (NPS), which would expand the
authorized acreage of the Barataria Preserve from approximately 20,000
acres, to approximately 23,000 acres. The bill would also make
clarifying amendments to Title IX of the National Parks and Recreation
Act of 1978, the legislation that established the park.
The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was
established to preserve significant examples of the rich natural and
cultural resources of Louisiana's Mississippi Delta region. The park
illustrates the influence of environment and history on the development
of a unique regional culture. The Barataria Preserve, one of the park's
six units and currently consisting of approximately 18,400 acres, is
located in Jefferson Parish, about 10 miles south of New Orleans.
The boundary expansion proposed by S. 2287 would allow the addition
of estuarine and freshwater wetlands to the Barataria Preserve's
boundaries, allowing the boundary to conform to existing waterways and
levee corridors that mark the interface between developable land and
estuarine wetlands. The expanded boundary would also include wetlands
that are part of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary, the most
biologically productive in North America, which has experienced the
highest rate of land loss of any of our coastal wetlands.
S. 2287 would transfer to NPS primarily wetlands already in federal
ownership, but unavailable for public use at ``Bayou aux Carpes'' and
``Bayou Segnette'', two of the three study areas that a 1996 NPS
boundary study found to be appropriate and feasible for inclusion
within the boundary of the preserve. The study also concluded that
adding the two areas would enhance interagency management of the upper
Barataria basin.
S. 2287 would add all of the Bayou aux Carpes area, consisting of
approximately 2,905 acres, to the park. Approximately 2,268 acres
within this area are wetlands acquired by the Justice Department in
1996 as the result of the settlement of a lawsuit. Currently, the NPS
has constructive possession of the deeds for these lands but no
authority to manage them.
The bill would also add approximately 815 acres of the Bayou
Segnette area, also referred to as the ``CIT Tract''. The CIT Tract
consists of wetlands owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
as the result of a separate lawsuit settled in 1994. The Corps has
indicated its willingness to transfer management authority for these
lands to the NPS once the Hurricane Protection Levee is complete and an
easement is granted to the local levee district along the boundary of
the tract.
S. 2287 would also include approximately 821 acres of private
property, in 10 tracts, within the park boundary which could be
acquired by the Secretary from willing sellers. The NPS has contacted
all of the owners of these properties, and none have opposed the
boundary change. Four of the tracts, totaling approximately 250 acres,
are extensions of wetland properties already within the present
boundary. An additional 485-acre tract is entirely jurisdictional
wetlands with limited access and no potential for development. The
owners of this property have petitioned members of Congress for
legislation that includes them within a new boundary. While appraisals
have not been completed, estimates based on other recently appraised
wetlands would result in a potential cost of approximately $170,000 for
all of these wetlands, if they were acquired.
The remaining five tracts of private property, about 86 acres, are
not jurisdictional wetlands. The owners of the two largest properties,
each just under 40 acres, have expressed their interest in being
included within a new boundary, and a willingness to consider selling
to the NPS. One of these properties has a single residence upon it, the
owner of which would be granted lifetime occupancy in the event of
federal acquisition, in accordance with the legislation that
established the park. A small swamp tour business is located on the
other 40-acre property and the owners of both the property and the
business have expressed their support for inclusion of the property
within the boundary. The park does not anticipate acquiring these lands
at this time, and appraisals have not been completed. NPS is also
unaware of any recent nearby sales that could serve as a comparable.
However, in the past NPS has paid between $10,000 and $80,000 per acre
for comparable land within the boundary with the higher figure for lots
that included utilities, highway, and waterfront access. These lands
are isolated, accessible only by a dirt road and do not include
utilities, highway or waterfront access. Although the potential price
range per acre is large, NPS believes that if these lands were
appraised the cost per acre would be in the lower end of the range. If
a figure of $25,000 per acre is used, the cost for these 86 acres could
potentially be approximately $2.1 million.
The expanded boundary proposed in S. 2287 would also include a
State-owned highway right-of-way and State-owned hurricane protection
levee properties that run along the current boundary. Although these
properties would remain in State ownership, their inclusion within the
new boundary would provide opportunities for partnerships between the
NPS and the State or its subdivisions for law enforcement and boundary
patrol.
Managing the additional lands, consisting of boat patrols conducted
with varying frequency, could have an effect on park operational costs.
Because the lands would remain undeveloped we estimate that it could
cost approximately an additional $100,000 to manage them. A more
accurate budget estimate would depend upon many factors, including the
ability of the Park to reallocate resources and future plans for the
addition. The addition of the federal properties would not contribute
to the maintenance backlog because no facilities would be added and the
federal lands would be acquired by direct transfer and would not
involve acquisition costs other than those to process the transfer.
The NPS has had extensive consultations with local governments and
taken appropriate steps to increase public awareness on the proposed
actions in S. 2287. In 1999, both the Jefferson Parish Council and the
Village of Jean Lafitte adopted resolutions that support the Federal
land transfers.
S. 2287 would also amend Title IX of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 to make corrections in the name of the park and
the Barataria unit and amend several provisions that are obsolete or
need clarification, including removing references to a ``Park
Protection Zone'' that was never established by local or State
government.
We recommend four amendments to S. 2287, which are attached to this
testimony. The first corrects the map reference in the bill. The second
clarifies that the lands involved would be transferred to the NPS at no
cost, the way similar intergovernmental transfers have typically taken
place in other NPS areas. The third and fourth amendments would ensure
that the needs of both the local levee district and the Service are
satisfied with respect to the Hurricane Protection Levee along the
boundary of the tract.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Proposed Amendments
s. 2287, jean lafitte national historical park
On page 2, line 11, strike ``numbered 467/81000'' and insert
``numbered 467/80100''.
On page 3, line 7, insert ``at no cost'' after ``shall be
transferred''.
On page 3, line 9, strike ``and''.
On page 3, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and'' and
insert a new subparagraph (iii), as follows:
``(iii) the CIT Tract shall be transferred subject to any easements
that have been agreed to by the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Army.''.
______
on s. 2469
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's comments on S. 2469, the National Historic
Preservation Act Amendments Act of 2004, a bill to provide
appropriation authorization and to improve the operations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Department supports S.
2469, with the understanding that certain provisions will be amended to
incorporate changes proposed by the Department and the Advisory Council
in this testimony. We applaud the Advisory Council's efforts to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations as it assists our
citizens in preserving this Nation's important historic places for
future generations of Americans.
Almost 40 years ago, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as a key actor in
the Federal historic preservation partnership program. The Council is
the Nation's principal advisor to Federal agencies as well as to State
and tribal governments on many aspects of Federal historic preservation
public policy. The Council is comprised of 20 members, representing
Federal agencies, private citizens, and experts in the field of
historic preservation. Its mission is to advocate full consideration of
historic values in Federal decision-making; to oversee the Section 106
process that requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their
programs and projects on places of historic value; to review Federal
programs and policies to further preservation efforts; to provide
training, guidance, and information to the public and Federal entities;
and to recommend administrative and legislative improvements for
protecting the nation's heritage.
S. 2469 proposes amending the Council's statutory authorization in
five key areas. The first provision would add additional membership to
the sitting Council, permit a designee for the Governor member, and
amend the existing quorum requirements. The Department supports these
proposals as efforts to increase overall Council effectiveness and
influence. The second provision seeks to improve the Council's
financial and administrative services, a proposal also supported by the
Department. The third area authorizes the Council to not only obtain or
receive property, facilities and services from any Federal or non-
Federal entity, but to also solicit these items, a provision supported
by the Department. The fourth area of proposed change would strike the
Council's appropriation authorization of $4 million for each fiscal
year 1997 through 2005, and to instead authorize such amounts as may be
necessary to carry out this title, a provision that supports the
President's 2005 Budget.
S. 2469 lastly proposes a new section (Section 216) to the National
Historic Preservation Act by which the Council has increased authority
to work with Federal grant-making agencies to improve the effectiveness
of those programs in meeting the purposes and policies of the National
Historic Preservation Act. The bill proposes this in two ways: 1) by
authorizing the Council to administer cooperatively and jointly Federal
agency grant or assistance programs; and, 2) to review and to make
recommendations to the Federal agency, the President, and the Congress
on ways to improve these programs or to increase annual funding levels.
Section 216(a) as drafted would specifically confer on the Council
the authority to modify grant selection criteria and the authority to
administer jointly the grant or assistance program with the proviso it
would not be inconsistent with the statutory authority of the grant
program. By mandating dual agency administration, the Department is
concerned that this section would create confusion and increase
processing and oversight time for many programs that are running
effectively now.
This section mirrors a provision in the House companion bill, H.R.
3223, introduced on October 1, 2003. Last year, the Department worked
closely with the Council to draft amendments to Section 216(a) to
address our concerns with the language of the bill. These amendments,
which we support, are attached to our testimony and are included in the
testimony of John L. Nau, III, Chairman of the Advisory Council. If the
subcommittee was to amend S. 2469 to reflect these amendments, then the
Department could fully support this bill. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Advisory Council and the committee to
amend S. 2469 to resolve our concerns regarding Section 216(a).
In addition, the Department is concerned that Section 216(b), which
would grant the Council the authority to review Federal grant or
assistance programs and make recommendations, would be duplicative of
Sections 202(a)(6) and 202(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act
and thus, is unnecessary.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an invaluable
partner of the Department as we both carry out the national vision that
created the national historic preservation program more than 30 years
ago. Throughout that time, the Department and the Council have worked
effectively and collegially together to enhance historic preservation
efforts across the nation. The Department looks forward to continuing
this relationship with the Council as we implement one of the most far-
reaching and important Federal policies on historic preservation in the
next quarter century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may
have.
______
Proposed amendment to S. 2469,
National Historic Preservation Act Amendments
On page 4, strike line 3 through p. 5, line 16 and insert the
following:
``(g) EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN
MEETING THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ACT--Title 11 of the Act is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
`SEC. 216. EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
`(a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS--The Council may enter into a
cooperative agreement with any Federal agency that administers a grant
or assistance program for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of
the administration of such program in meeting the purposes and policies
of this Act. Such cooperative agreements may include provisions that
modify the selection criteria for a grant or assistance program to
further the purposes of this Act or that allow the Council to
participate in the selection of recipients, if such provisions are not
inconsistent with the grant or assistance program's statutory
authorization and purpose.
`(b) REVIEW OF GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS--The Council may----
`(1) review the operation of any Federal grant or assistance
program to evaluate the effectiveness of such program in meeting the
purposes and policies of this Act;
`(2) make recommendations to the head of any Federal agency that
administers such program to further the consistency of the program with
the purposes and policies of the Act and to improve its effectiveness
in carrying out those purposes and policies; and
`(3) make recommendations to the President and the Congress
regarding the effectiveness of Federal grant and assistance programs in
meeting the purposes and policies of this Act, including
recommendations with regard to appropriate funding levels.''.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
We have been joined by Senator Landrieu and Senator
Cantwell. Senator Landrieu, do you have a statement, a comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
I do have a statement I would like to submit for the record.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
Senator Landrieu. But I just have a comment, just to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the support of S. 2287, which expands
the boundaries of the Jean Lafitte National Park. It has been a
beautifully developed park in the New Orleans metropolitan
area. It is quite unique, Mr. Chairman, in that it establishes
within only 30 minutes of downtown New Orleans just an
excellent place for millions of visitors to be able to see the
great expanse of the wetlands that this committee has done so
much to try to protect.
So I just came today to thank you, to urge passage of this
bill, to thank the Department and the administration for their
support, and to submit some other testimonies from interested
parties in Louisiana to the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator From Louisiana,
on S. 2287
I would like to thank the Chairman for scheduling this hearing
today on a number of items including one that I have introduced, S.
2287, the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve Boundary
Adjustment Act of 2004. In addition to my statement, I would also like
to introduce into the record a statement in support of the legislation
by the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was
established in 1978 to preserve for present and future generations
significant examples of the rich natural and cultural resources of
Louisiana's Mississippi Delta region. The park seeks to illustrate the
influence of environment and history on the development of a unique
regional culture. It is named for Jean Lafitte who was a pirate (or
privateer as he like to be called) that fought alongside U.S. forces in
the Battle of New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812.
The park consists of six physically separate sites and a park
headquarters located in New Orleans. The sites in Lafayette, Thibodaux
and Eunice interpret the Acadian culture of the area. The Barataria
Preserve (in Marrero) interprets the natural and cultural history of
the uplands, swamps and marshlands of the region. Six miles southeast
of New Orleans is the Chalmette Battlefield and National Cemetery, site
of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans and the final resting place for
soldiers from the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II
and Vietnam. The park's visitor center, which is located in the
historic French Quarter, interprets the history of New Orleans and
diverse cultures of Mississippi Delta region.
It is the Barataria site that is the focus of our attention today.
The Bill before us would merely adjust the boundary of the Barataria
preserve unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve and
by doing so, protect a crucial component of one of the largest and most
productive expanses of coastal wetlands in North America--coastal
Louisiana or as they are known: America's Wetlands.
The Barataria preserve is the only part of our coastal wetlands
preserved in the National Park System. As we strive to find ways to
stem the tide of coastal erosion in Louisiana, and bring about the
restoration of wetlands already lost, it is equally important that we
protect those areas that remain such as the Barataria preserve so that
Americans can experience, first hand, the amazing beauty and fertility
of Louisiana's bountiful coastal wetlands--the most threatened wetland
ecosystem in the country--disappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square
miles a year.
Located on the outskirts of New Orleans, where it is accessible not
only to the people of New Orleans but also to the millions of tourists
from around the world that visit New Orleans and south Louisiana,
Barataria serves as an interpretive experience of this greatest of
coastal wetlands.
This bill expands this national treasure without any cost to the
federal government while preserving private property rights. It simply
transfers to the Park over 3,000 acres of wetlands already in Federal
ownership, already paid for by the American people. These lands, which
are adjacent to the Preserve, became Federal as a result of the
settlement by the Justice Department of two lawsuits brought by the
landowners against Federal agencies. However, because these acres are
not managed by the park, they are presently unavailable for public use.
An Act of Congress is necessary to allow inclusion of these lands into
a new boundary.
My bill does just that, opening these lands for canoeing, wildlife
viewing, exploration, fishing, and hunting, all under the management
and protection of the park service. The bill grants long-term
protection to crucial resources that the Park Service has found
suitable and feasible for inclusion within a new boundary through a
1996 boundary study.
The Park is immediately adjacent to the developed areas of the
Westbank of Jefferson Parish along much of its boundary while the
Barataria unit in particular Is right next door to a hurricane levee.
Making more of the park boundary contiguous with the levee that divides
developed land from undeveloped wetlands enhances opportunities for
direct cooperation between these communities and the Park for
management of shared concerns. These concerns include the routing of
storm-water run-off; the discharge of treated sewage; estuarine water
quality and its effects on fisheries and recreational uses; wetland
restoration and mitigation; and a number of other problems and
opportunities. The Park has worked with Jefferson Parish in seeking
creative solutions to these problems and will continue to do so. The
addition of these properties will only enhance their chances for
success.
It is for all of these reasons that I am hopeful the Committee will
approve of this measure in the near future. The expansion we seek in
this Bill benefits us today as well as tomorrow.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like
to thank you for holding this important hearing, because today
we will hear testimony on S. 2140, which deals with the
expansion of the Mount Rainier National Park. I introduced this
along with Senator Murray, and it is a bipartisan effort, with
legislation introduced in the House that is almost identical,
championed by my colleague Representative Jennifer Dunn. That
legislation has been moving in the House.
We in Washington are incredibly fortunate to live near such
a pristine, beautiful public land. Mount Rainier, which anybody
who has visited the Northwest understands, towers over all
Washingtonians. The park is really an important part of our
economy, with over a million visitors from all over the world
coming on an annual basis.
However, without this legislation the park and the expense
of repairs on the park are going to continue to be a challenge.
That is because the Carbon River keeps washing out the road at
the northwest corner of the park. This is the access entrance
where people have a day hike and launch point. But when that
resource is washed out, as frequently it is because of where it
actually situates in regard to the Carbon River, we continue to
pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every time the river
washes out the camp area and the entrance to the park.
So to ensure that visitors will continue to have the
camping and hiking experiences, this bill authorizes a small
but critical boundary expansion for Mount Rainier National Park
to allow the National Park Service to acquire 800 acres. And I
might add that this is 800 acres from willing landowners who
want to sell their land.
The bill would allow the National Park Service to rebuild
the campground in a replacement area on lowland hiking trails
and would alleviate the need for this consistent repair every
time the river washes out the campground.
So I am pleased that the private landowners have supported
this expansion and I would like to also enter into the record,
Mr. Chairman, a letter from community and business leaders,
including city and county government officials, outdoor
industrial retailers, and other local tourist businesses that
also support this expansion.
I would again just like to thank you for this hearing and
the promise of moving this legislation swiftly through the
legislative body so that we can actually save the taxpayers
money in the future from constant repairs that are needed in
this particular area and continue to give access to just an
incredible resource that the national park at Mount Rainier is
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. We will have time for a couple of questions
then. Chief, I guess everyone seems to agree that this ought to
be in the hands primarily of the Forest Service. You say out of
17 centers now 16 of them are Forest Service-operated?
Mr. Thompson. That is true, 16 are managed by the Forest
Service.
Senator Thomas. You spend almost half a million then, I
think, on the program?
Mr. Thompson. We spend about close to half a million
dollars, and then cooperators, communities and other agencies
put up about the same amount of money. So it is about a million
dollars being invested in those 17 centers right now.
Senator Thomas. Do you expect there would need to be more
centers to accomplish your mission?
Mr. Thompson. It is possible, as we look at the expansion
into back country use, that there may be the need for more
centers, and there are some areas that are not covered by
centers presently. So it is possible. At this time we do not
have information that would say exactly where those ought to
be, should be, if there were more.
Senator Thomas. If this were to change the responsibility
for implementing the bill, what would that do to the cost to
the Forest Service?
Mr. Thompson. It obviously depends upon the grant portion
of it right now, and if the grant program remained in the bill
that would add significant costs, depending upon what the
expansion of that. Without the grant program in the bill, there
may be some need for extra commitment of resources. Right now
that 400 to $500,000 from the Forest Service standpoint is
coming out of our recreation budget, and so that would have to
be prioritized based upon other needs at this point in time.
Senator Thomas. I do not think I understand the grant
thing. If it were grants, what does that mean?
Mr. Thompson. Well, the grant program as described in the
bill would give grants to the States or entities to help
support their costs in carrying out the program. The grant
would come from the Federal Government.
Senator Thomas. I see, OK.
Then, Ms. Matthews, Interior is in agreement with the
Forest Service as to how this ought to be managed?
Ms. Matthews. Yes, because the percentage is so much higher
than what is currently the program of the Forest Service in
comparison to ours, 6 percent versus 90.
Senator Thomas. I see. So it would be done in cooperation,
but the responsibility would lie with the Department of
Agriculture.
Ms. Matthews. The lead agency.
Senator Thomas. Would there be a financial obligation for
Interior?
Ms. Matthews. Well, we have existing programs for avalanche
control within the zones and the areas in Yellowstone, Glacier,
Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Olympic, North Cascades, and those
would be continued.
Senator Thomas. I believe the Uinta research thing suggests
$8 million or something. But I believe it authorizes ``the
necessary funding.'' What do you think the funding would be
here for the Dinosaur National Monument?
Ms. Matthews. I think our estimate is $8 million, $4.8
million for the facility itself. That is our estimate, an
existing home and a small maintenance building, estimated to be
about $4.8 million. Of course, the public benefit underlined on
top of the 8O0 acres of land, $3 to $6 million, is immense.
Senator Thomas. OK. I am always a little concerned when it
just says ``authorizes the necessary funding,'' because it is
hard to tell what that would be.
Mount Rainier adjustment, how much has been the expenditure
on this road repair and so on; do you know?
Ms. Matthews. The road repair cost has been about $785,000
over a period of time; that has been roughly what we have spent
over a 10-year period for clearing away the debris, the build-
up, the flood waters, and repairing the roadway. Of course,
getting rid of that expense in the future and constructing
campsites in an area that will not be subject to flooding will
be a cost savings ultimately.
Senator Thomas. This is an expansion of approximately 1,000
acres?
Ms. Matthews. Eight hundred acres.
Senator Thomas. Eight hundred.
Ms. Matthews. It is for 50 campsites, and I think the other
visitor facilities are also maximized and added to
significantly.
Senator Thomas. Then the cost of the 800 acres, do you have
a notion what that will be?
Ms. Matthews. Well, I do.
Senator Thomas. I guess they talk about there could be
donations or sales, changes.
Ms. Matthews. Yes, there could be.
I am sorry, we will get that to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
We estimate that acquiring this land will cost about $3 million to
$6 million.
Senator Thomas. Yes, if you do not mind.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Matthews, I have two questions. One question for you is
on S. 2469, the bill reauthorizing the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. One of the provisions, and sort of
repeating the question that was just asked, one of the
provisions in the bill would give the advisory council the
authority to solicit contributions and donations. I understand
from your testimony that the Department supports this
authority.
I am not familiar with many Federal agencies that have a
similar authority to solicit funds or donations. So how does
this work in the Department of the Interior? Which of your
agencies or bureaus are authorized to solicit contributions?
Ms. Matthews. We were discussing that on our way out of the
main Interior Building and anticipating that answer, and
actually, Senator, we will have to get back to you on that
because we have not done a survey of who, if anyone, can
solicit funds at this point. So I am really not prepared to
give you an answer, but we will provide it, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Although several bureaus in the Department of the Interior have
express authority to ``accept'' gifts, no bureau has express authority
to ``solicit'' donations. The Department has historically interpreted
these authorities not to allow solicitation, although we are aware that
certain other governmental agencies have interpreted acceptance
authorization in their statutes to include the authority to solicit.
The Take Pride in America Program is the one program in the Department
that has an express authorization to solicit. In addition, Congress has
chartered foundations, including the National Park Foundation and the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to solicit donations to benefit
Departmental bureaus, including the National Park Service.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
The other question is on S. 1678, which authorizes the
curatorial center outside of Dinosaur National Monument in
Utah.
Ms. Matthews. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. According to your testimony, the site for
the new center will be donated and the cost to build the new
facility will be approximately $8.8 million. Is the proposed
curatorial center different from the new Utah Natural History
Museum, or will they share the same building?
Ms. Matthews. Our responsibility and the testimony you
heard this morning was that the actual expenditure for the Utah
Field House of Natural History State Park Museum was $5.5
million. We had indication that $5.5 million had come from the
State of Utah. Our part in that is the curatorial facility and
the curatorial facility cost is--we will submit it. It is part
of our testimony. We will provide that for you.
Our approximation is $8.8 million for a 22,500 square foot
building, the curatorial facility, which incorporates what we
showed in our record as 11 different storage centers,
warehouses, and incorporates all that material together under
acceptable National Park System standards. That ranges from
everything, everything from climate control to whether it has
windows or not, earthquake protections depending on what part
of the country you are in, and whether you need, what you need.
There are certain standards for that and it would get these up
to the curatorial standards that we require in optimal
conditions for other facilities, and provide through the
partnerships facilities to show how those collections are
curated. Curation is a big part of the professional standards
required. They all require certain things. For a public
facility where it shows the curation, it can be a really
effective educational standard and really educational exhibit
for students and others to learn how tedious this work is done
to preserve these materials for future generations.
[The information referred to follows:]
The proposed curatorial center is a separate structure from the new
Utah Natural History Museum, however they are both located within the
same site.
Senator Akaka. Will they be sharing the same building?
Ms. Matthews. The curatorial facility is not in the same
building. The Field House of Natural History is a State park, a
museum that is already constructed and under way. It just
opened. But all within the same area.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Senator Talent, can you wait? I have one
more question.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Matthews, just a process question first. If Senator
Thomas sought to move the Senate bill or the House bill or we
moved S. 2140 or the companion bill and we passed that this
year, would the Park Service put acquisition dollars into next
year's budget cycle? Is that what would happen?
Ms. Matthews. For 2006 or beyond.
Senator Cantwell. I think the committee probably would
benefit from the historical repairs and improvements and an
estimation of how often that washout actually occurs. So a
projection, if you could, of what the expense to the National
Park Service would be, say in the next 5 to 10 years, if we did
not improve the road as well, because I think that that is what
you are trying to get at with your numbers.
Ms. Matthews. Right.
Senator Cantwell. I think the last repair was $750,000, but
I think that there have been some repairs in between there and
I think that there are more projected for the future. Could you
provide the committee with some estimates?
Ms. Matthews. We will provide that, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
While we cannot predict how much damage will occur to the road
during the next five to ten years, on the basis of recent weather
patterns and the erosion of natural barriers between the river and the
road, we could expect to spend about $175,000 to $230,000 during that
period if a decision was made to keep the road open to vehicular
traffic.
Senator Cantwell. The historical number and some estimates
for the next, say, 10, 15 years of what we might also be
expecting.
Ms. Matthews. Yes. What I have here is that the 1998 flood
repair by itself cost $750,000.
Senator Cantwell. Yes. OK, if we could get that, that would
be great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Ms. Matthews. Happy to provide that.
Senator Thomas. Senator Talent.
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions for this
panel.
Senator Thomas. I just have one more and it has to do with
the Historic Preservation Act. It indicates the council has had
about $4 million operating funds with a specific ceiling. Now,
instead of carrying a specific ceiling, why, they are
interested in having an authorization for unlimited
appropriation.
How do you see this cost change?
Ms. Matthews. Well, I am not sure that I am really as
prepared to go into the specifics of that as your second panel
would be. Mr. Nau has been a great leader in historic
preservation and has initiated the Preserve America executive
order and the program to designate communities around the
country, and I think he is well prepared to discuss that, if I
may defer to our chairman of the Advisory Council, sir.
Senator Thomas. All right, we will defer then.
So thank you very much to you and we will seat the next
panel and then, Senator, if you have a statement you can just
go right ahead.
Mr. John Nau is chairman of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, from Houston, Texas; Ms. Krieger,
heritage resource coordinator, State of Utah Division of Parks
and Recreation; and David Hamre, avalanche expert, Alaska
Railroad Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska, who flew here.
Now, Senator, if you would care to go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MISSOURI
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate that very much, and thank you also for allowing me
to sit in on your subcommittee. I am not going to repay your
generosity by reading my entire statement.
I do want to thank you for holding this hearing so quickly
on S. 2469, which is legislation to reauthorize and expand the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In Missouri we are
well familiar with the council's work and grateful to the
council for that work because it has been involved with
restoration of Union Station, rehabilitation and expansion of
Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, preservation of World War II
stonework at Fort Leonard Wood, the Market Street redevelopment
project in St. Louis, and many other historic projects in
Missouri.
I am pleased to be sponsoring the reauthorization of the
advisory council. It would simply reauthorize the agency
largely as is, Mr. Chairman, with a few changes. One of them
you mentioned, having a permanent authorization for the
appropriation level rather than periodic lifting the cap so
that the appropriation can be as needed, rather than within an
artificial cap.
I think we need to do that to accommodate the President's
request for this year, and generally support what the council
has been doing, particularly in the area of heritage tourism. I
really want to recognize Chairman Nau, who is here before the
subcommittee today, and his work with regard to things like the
historic courthouse preservation program in Texas, which has
done a wonderful job of preserving courthouses around the State
of Texas and linking that to heritage tourism.
We are very interested in that in Missouri because it is
such a big tourism State and because we have concerns about how
we are going to preserve these wonderful buildings which are
such an important part of our State. Really, one way to do that
is to link them up to the tourists who are interested in
looking at the history of Missouri, and the council has been a
leader in that. Mr. Nau has been a great chairman of the
council.
So I have been pleased to sponsor this legislation,
grateful to you and the ranking member for holding this hearing
so quickly on it, and looking forward to the testimony of the
panel. I have a statement to submit for the record, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Talent follows:]
Statement of James M. Talent, U.S. Senator From Missouri, on S. 2469
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today and thank
you for including a bill which I recently introduced S. 2469. This
legislation will reauthorize and expand the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.
The Council has been closely involved with historic preservation
cases in Missouri including the restoration of Union Station and
rehabilitation and expansion of Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, the
preservation of World War II stonework at Fort Leonard Wood, the Market
Street Redevelopment Project in St. Louis and many other historic
projects in my state. I am grateful for your involvement, interest and
leadership.
It is also a pleasure to see my good friend John Nau today. Mr. Nau
serves as Chairman of the Advisory Council. Thank you, Mr. Nau, for
coming to Washington to appear before this committee. You have an
amazing commitment to historic preservation and a vision for the future
of the agency.
For example, your historic court houses program in the state of
Texas is a shining example of how historic preservation should work.
The program was a great economic stimulus and thanks to your
leadership, these rural areas will reap the benefits of the program for
years to come. On a larger scale, your Preserve America program will
bring together federal state and local governments to stimulate a
better appreciation for our historic buildings and resources.
The ACHP plays a pivotal role in the National Historic Preservation
Program. Founded as a unique partnership among Federal, State, and
local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to advance the
preservation of America's heritage while recognizing contemporary
needs, the program has matured and expanded over time. S. 2469 makes
some needed changes to the Council to allow for it to continue serving
the nation.
S. 2469 would amend the Act to provide the Council appropriation
authority, expand its membership and improve operations. In 1998, the
Council's reauthorization provided for $4,000,000 annually through
2005. S. 2469 omits a specific dollar ceiling, allowing instead for an
amount necessary to carry out its responsibility. It would also provide
a permanent appropriation authorization instead of periodic
reauthorization periods.
As an independent agency, the Council plays a key role in shaping
historic preservation policy and programs at the highest levels of the
Administration. They have the ability to coordinate a national program,
assisting Federal agencies in meeting their preservation
responsibilities. The Council also works with States, tribes, local
governments as well as the private industry.
I can't stress how important these historic preservation programs
are thought-out the nation. I am honored to have introduced the
legislation to allow the good work at the council to continue and
improve. I look forward to Mr. Nau's testimony today.
Additionally, both Mr. Nau and the National Park Service have
included a suggested amendment in their testimony regarding the federal
grant programs. I am supportive of these clarifying changes to the
legislation.
Senator Thomas. Fine. Submit it and it will be included.
Welcome. Thank you very much for being here. Mr. Nau, would
you care to begin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. NAU, III, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Nau. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and particularly thank
you, Senator Talent.
It is a pleasure to testify before you this afternoon
regarding the reauthorization proposal for the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. I thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the vital importance of historic preservation programs
to our Nation and the essential role that the advisory council
plays in this effort.
The National Historic Preservation Act, which created the
ACHP, is a strong demonstration of the collective wisdom of the
U.S. Congress in three vital regards: first, the importance of
preserving America's heritage; second, the necessity of
building upon the foundation of our past to create a better
future; third, the strength of linking Federal, State, tribal,
and local efforts in partnership with the private sector to
accomplish these goals.
The ACHP is actively involved in pursuing these goals on
behalf of the Congress, the President, and, most importantly,
the American people. It is also actively involved in changing
itself to better meet the needs through wise stewardship of the
Federal Government's historic assets that can stimulate
economic development through activities such as heritage
tourism.
The ACHP has focused its energies on reestablishing the
leadership role that the framers of the 1966 Act envisioned. As
part of that effort, on March 3, 2003, the President signed
Executive Order 13287, Preserve America. That same day, Mrs.
Laura Bush announced the administration's Preserve America
initiative, which is a government-wide effort to recognize and
celebrate our joint heritage.
Since January 15 of this year, we have designated 80
Preserve America communities across the Nation and have more
than 100 applications waiting for approval. Last month the
President and Mrs. Bush presented the first four Preserve
America Presidential awards for projects that spur heritage
tourism and highlight notable privately funded preservation
projects.
The ACHP has been recast to more effectively accomplish and
efficiently implement its mission in accordance with this
executive order. We are leveraging our resources and building
partnerships to promote the benefits of preservation across
this Nation. The benefits are many: educational, cultural,
environmental, social, and, importantly, economic, with the
most immediate benefit being economic development opportunities
available to communities, especially rural communities, through
their participation in heritage tourism.
Now, we all know that the Federal Government works best
when it works in partnerships with States, counties,
communities, tribes--in short, when it works in partnership
with the constituents that you represent. Preserve America
initiative promotes such activity and the executive order
directs Federal agencies to actively engage in such
partnerships.
Our job is to encourage this process and program. We are
building successful partnerships with Federal agencies and we
will continue to build on those relationships to maximize our
efficiency and effectiveness.
Now, Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am a businessman
and I would not be here if I did not believe that there is a
clear return on this investment. My experience as chairman of
the Texas Historical Commission tells me that this works. I
have seen it work.
We are before the committee today because your assistance
is essential to allow us to realize this evolving role. Section
106 is a very important and significant responsibility.
However, we believe ACHP's mission is broader and we have
adopted several proposed changes: First, amend the current
time-limited authorization and replace it with permanent
appropriations authorization. Next, authorize the President to
add the heads of three additional Federal agencies to the ACHP
membership. Third, authorize several technical amendments that
would allow us to function more rationally and efficiently and
provide us with the authority and direction to work
cooperatively with Federal funding agencies to assist them in
using their existing grant program to more effectively advance
the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act.
With regard to that last change and based on the testimony
you have already heard, I would like to request that the
committee accept some minor revisions to the language of S.
2469 as introduced. This clarifying language, which is appended
to my written statement, will address a concern raised by the
Department of Interior that you have heard, and they do concur
with this amendment.
I would also like to bring to the committee's attention the
testimony the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers has prepared in support of this bill. The
SHPO's, as you know, are our principal partners carrying out
preservation activities at the State level. We value their
support and appreciate their letter.
I hope that the subcommittee will favorably consider our
request. I thank you for the time and welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nau follows:]
Statement of John L. Nau, III, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, on S. 2469
summary statement
An independent Federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) promotes historic preservation nationally by
providing a forum for influencing Federal activities, programs, and
policies that impact historic properties. In furtherance of this
objective, the ACHP seeks reauthorization of its appropriations in
accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (NHPA). The ACHP also
offers amendments to its authorities that we believe will strengthen
our ability to meet our responsibilities under NHPA and provide
leadership and coordination in the Federal historic preservation
program.
background
The ACHP was established by Title II of NHPA. NHPA charges the ACHP
with advising the President and Congress on historic preservation
matters and entrusts the ACHP with the unique mission of advancing
historic preservation within the Federal Government and the National
Historic Preservation Program. In FY 2002, the ACHP adopted the
following mission statement:
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the
preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our Nation's
historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on
national historic preservation policy.
The ACHP's authority and responsibilities are principally derived
from NHPA. General duties of the ACHP are detailed in Section 202 (16
U.S.C. 470j) and include:
Advising the President and Congress on matters relating to
historic preservation;
Encouraging public interest and participation in historic
preservation;
Recommending policy and tax studies as they affect historic
preservation;
Advising State and local governments on historic
preservation legislation;
Encouraging training and education in historic preservation;
Reviewing Federal policies and programs and recommending
improvements; and
Informing and educating others about the ACHP's activities.
Under Section 106 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f), the ACHP reviews
Federal actions affecting historic properties to ensure that historic
preservation needs are considered and balanced with Federal project
requirements. It achieves this balance through the ``Section 106 review
process,'' which applies whenever a Federal action has the potential to
impact historic properties. As administered by the ACHP, the process
guarantees that State and local governments, Indian tribes, businesses
and organizations, and private citizens will have an effective
opportunity to participate in Federal project planning when historic
properties they value may be affected.
Under Section 211 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470s), the ACHP is granted
rulemaking authority for Section 106. The ACHP also has consultative
and other responsibilities under Sections 101, 110, 111, 203, and 214
of NHPA, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is considered an agency with ``special
expertise'' to comment on environmental impacts involving historic
properties and other cultural resources.
The ACHP plays a pivotal role in the National Historic Preservation
Program. Founded as a unique partnership among Federal, State, and
local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to advance the
preservation of America's heritage while recognizing contemporary
needs, the program has matured and expanded over time. The Secretary of
the Interior and the ACHP have distinct but complementary
responsibilities for managing the National Historic Preservation
Program. The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service, maintains the national inventory of historic properties,
sets standards for historic preservation, administers financial
assistance and programs for tribal, State, and local participation, and
provides technical preservation assistance.
The ACHP also plays a key role in shaping historic preservation
policy and programs at the highest levels of the Administration. It
coordinates the national program, assisting Federal agencies in meeting
their preservation responsibilities. Through its administration of
Section 106, the ACHP works with Federal agencies, States, tribes,
local governments, applicants for Federal assistance, and other
affected parties to ensure that their interests are considered in the
process. It helps parties reach agreement on measures to avoid or
resolve conflicts that may arise between development needs and
preservation objectives, including mitigation of harmful impacts.
The ACHP is uniquely suited to its task. As an independent agency,
it brings together through its membership Federal agency heads,
representatives of State and local governments, historic preservation
leaders and experts, Native American representatives, and private
citizens to shape national policies and programs dealing with historic
preservation. The ACHP's diverse membership is reflected in its efforts
to seek sensible, cost-effective ways to mesh preservation goals with
other public needs. Unlike other Federal agencies or private
preservation organizations, the ACHP incorporates a variety of
interests and viewpoints in fulfilling its statutory duties, broadly
reflecting the public interest. Recommended solutions are reached that
reflect both the impacts on irreplaceable historic properties and the
needs of today's society.
New Directions. Since assuming the Chairmanship in August 2001, I
have taken steps to ensure that the ACHP fulfills the leadership role
envisioned for it in NHPA. In doing so, we have focused the ACHP on
pursuing the broader policy goals of the National Historic Preservation
Program.
In creating the ACHP, Congress recognized the value of having an
independent entity to provide advice, coordination, and oversight of
NHPA's implementation by Federal agencies. The ACHP remains the only
Federal entity created solely to address historic preservation issues,
and helps to bridge differences in this area among Federal agencies,
and between the Federal Government and States, Indian tribes, local
governments, and citizens. While the administration of the historic
preservation review process established by Section 106 of NHPA is very
important and a significant ACHP responsibility, we believe that the
ACHP's mission is broader than simply managing that process.
NHPA established a national policy to ``foster conditions under
which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources can
exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations.'' Among other things,
the statute directed Federal agencies to foster conditions that help
attain the national goal of historic preservation; to act as faithful
stewards of federally owned, administered, or controlled historic
resources for present and future generations; and to offer maximum
encouragement and assistance to other public and private preservation
efforts through a variety of means.
To promote this policy and to exercise its intended leadership, the
ACHP has taken the following steps:
Developed an Executive order to promote the benefits of
preservation, improve Federal stewardship of historic
properties, and foster recognition of such properties as
national assets to be used for economic, educational, and other
purposes. President Bush issued this as Executive Order 13287,
``Preserve America,'' on March 3, 2003.
Created an initiative for the White House to stimulate
creative partnerships among all levels of government and the
private sector to preserve and actively use historic resources
to stimulate a better appreciation of America's history and
diversity. The initiative is known as ``Preserve America'' and
was announced by Mrs. Laura Bush on March 3, 2003.
Used ACHP member meetings to learn from local government and
citizens how the Federal Government can effectively participate
in local heritage tourism initiatives and promote these
strategies to Federal agencies and tourism professionals.
Undertook a major new initiative to improve the
participation of Native Americans in the National Historic
Preservation Program.
The ACHP's 20 statutorily designated members address policy issues,
direct program initiatives, and make recommendations regarding historic
preservation to the President, Congress, and heads of other Federal
agencies. ACHP members meet four times a year to conduct business, with
two meetings in Washington, DC, and two in other communities where
relevant preservation issues can be explored. However, the ACHP members
and I are actively involved in ACHP business on a continual basis,
particularly since January 2004 when the Administration's Preserve
America initiative began to gain momentum.
In 2002, we reorganized the ACHP membership and staff to expand the
members' role and enhance work efficiencies as well as member-staff
interaction. To best use the talents and energy of the ACHP members and
ensure that they fully participate in advancing the ACHP's goals and
programs, three member program committees were created: Federal Agency
Programs; Preservation Initiatives; and Communications, Education, and
Outreach.
In addition, we created an Executive Committee comprised of myself,
the ACHP vice chairman, and the chairman of each of the other
committees to assist in the governance of the ACHP. Several times a
year, we appoint panels of members to formulate comments on Section 106
cases. Member task forces and committees are also formed to pursue
specific tasks, such as policy development or regulatory reform
oversight. On average, three such subgroups are at work at any given
time during the year. Each meets about five to six times in the course
of its existence, is served by one to three staff members, and produces
reports, comments, and policy recommendations.
The ACHP has a leading role in both the Preserve America Steering
Committee and its operational subgroup. In coordination with the White
House, the Preserve America Steering Committee sets policy and oversees
the initiative. The operational subgroup works with State, regional,
local, and private interests and across all involved Federal Agencies
to coordinate the daily efforts involved with the Preserve America
Community and Preserve America Presidential Award programs. The ACHP's
Office of Federal Agency Programs works with each Federal agency's
newly created Senior Policy Official, who focuses on Section 106 and
Preserve America within his or her agency.
We have further committed and tasked a staff member, under the
direct supervision of the Executive Director, to coordinate our Native
American Program. As part of that program, we held our first formal
meeting of the Native American Advisory Group two weeks ago, from May
26-27. The group seeks to improve relations and coordinate efforts with
tribes and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers on issues of historic
preservation, which are of particular and unique importance to tribes
from both economic and cultural perspectives.
The staff carries out the day-to-day work of the ACHP and provides
all support services for the ACHP members. To reflect and support the
work of the committees, the Executive Director reorganized the ACHP
staff into three program offices to mirror the committee structure.
Staff components are under the supervision of the Executive Director,
who is based in the Washington, DC, office. There is also a small field
office in Lakewood, Colorado.
proposed amendments to the national historic preservation act
Background to Reauthorization. The ACHP has traditionally had its
appropriations authorized on a multi-year cycle in Title 11 of NHPA
(Section 212, 16 U.S.C. 470t). The current cycle runs through FY 2005
and authorizes $4 million annually. These funds are provided to support
the programs and operations of the ACHP. Title II of NHPA also sets
forth the general authorities and structure of the ACHP.
The ACHP seeks to amend its appropriation authorization for two
reasons. First, the authorization extends only through FY 2005 and must
be renewed for FY 2006 and beyond. Of more immediate concern, however,
is the relationship of the current authorization to our FY 2005 budget
request now pending before Congress. For FY 2005, the President's
budget seeks $4.6 million for the ACHP. Because this is over the
authorization limit, the Executive Office of the President directed the
ACHP to propose any legislation required to modify its authorization to
be consistent with the President's budget.
The ACHP is therefore seeking amendments to the authorizing
legislation at this time. At its February 2003 and May 2003 member
meetings, the ACHP endorsed an approach to the reauthorization issue.
The approach addresses the immediate appropriations authority issue and
also seeks amendments to the ACHP's composition and authorities to
better enable the ACHP to achieve its mission goals.
The bill S. 2469, to amend the National Historic Preservation Act
to provide appropriation authorization and improve the operations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, was introduced by the
Honorable James M. Talent on May 20, 2004. A companion bill, H.R. 3223,
is pending before the House Resources Committee.
The changes proposed by the ACHP and contained in S. 2469 are
explained in this overview.
Appropriations Authorization. This provision (Section 1(f)) would
amend the current time-limited authorization and replace it with a
permanent appropriations authorization.
When the ACHP was created in 1966, its functions were exclusively
advisory and limited, and the agency was lodged administratively in the
Department of the Interior. Since then, Congress has amended NHPA to
establish the ACHP as an independent Federal agency and provide it with
a range of program authorities crucial to the success of the National
Historic Preservation Program.
Not unlike the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the National
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the ACHP now functions as a small
but important Federal agency, carrying out both advisory and
substantive program duties. Specific language creating a permanent
appropriations authorization would draw upon the similar statutory
authorities of the CFA and NCPC. No ceiling to the annual
appropriations authorization would be included in the authorizing
legislation, but rather the appropriate funding limits would be
established through the annual appropriations process.
Expansion of Membership. This provision (Section 1(c)) would expand
the membership of the ACHP by directing the President to designate the
heads of three additional Federal agencies as members of the ACHP.
The ACHP has been aggressively pursuing partnerships with Federal
agencies in recent years and has found the results to be greatly
beneficial to meeting both Federal agency historic preservation
responsibilities and the ACHP's own mission goals. Experience has shown
that these partnerships are fostered and enhanced by having the agency
participate as a full-fledged member of the ACHP, giving it both a
voice and a stake in the ACHP's actions. The amendment would bring the
total number of Federal ACHP members to nine and expand the ACHP
membership to 23-an administratively manageable number that preserves
the current majority of non-Federal members. A technical amendment to
adjust quorum requirements would also be included.
Authority and Direction to Improve Coordination with Federal
Funding Agencies. This provision (Section 1(g)) would give the ACHP the
authority and direction to work cooperatively with Federal funding
agencies to assist them in determining appropriate uses of their
existing grants programs for advancing the purposes of NHPA.
For example, it is our experience that programs such as the
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) administered through the States by the
Department of the Interior have the flexibility to provide matching
seed money to a local non-profit organization to support a heritage
tourism program.
The ACHP would work with agencies and grant recipients to examine
the effectiveness of existing grant programs, evaluate the adequacy of
funding levels, and help the agencies determine whether changes in the
programs would better meet preservation and other needs. Any
recommendations would be developed in close cooperation with the
Federal funding agencies themselves, many of which sit as ACHP members,
and with the States. The proposed amendment would also allow the ACHP
to work cooperatively with Federal funding agencies in the
administration of their grant programs.
Please note that, after the original bill was drafted and
introduced, the National Park Service recommended to the ACHP that the
provision be slightly reworded to clarify the ACHP's authorities. We
concur with those changes and have appended revised language for
Section 1(g) to this statement.
Technical Amendments. These provisions would provide four technical
changes that would improve ACHP operations:
1. Authorize the Governor, who is a presidentially appointed member
of the ACHP, to designate a voting representative to participate in the
ACHP activities in the Governor's absence. Currently this authority is
extended to Federal agencies and other organizational members. The
amendment would recognize that the personal participation of a Governor
cannot always be assumed, much like that of a Cabinet secretary
(Section 1(c)(2)).
2. Authorize the ACHP to engage administrative support services
from sources other than the Department of the Interior. The current law
requires the ACHP's administrative services to be provided by the
Department of the Interior on a reimbursable basis. The amendment would
authorize the ACHP to obtain any or all of those services from other
Federal agencies or the private sector. The amendment would further the
goals of the FAIR Act and improve ACHP efficiency by allowing the ACHP
to obtain necessary services on the most beneficial terms (Section
1(d)).
3. Clarify that the ACHP's donation authority (16 U.S.C. 470m(g))
includes the ability of the ACHP to actively solicit such donations
(Section 1(e)).
4. Adjust the quorum requirements to accommodate expanded ACHP
membership (Section 1(c)(3)).
conclusion
The ACHP has reached a level of maturity as an independent Federal
agency and as a key partner in the National Historic Preservation
Program to warrant continued support from Congress. As demonstrated by
its recent program accomplishments-including the President's Executive
Order 13287, the Preserve America initiative, and the Native American
Program-the ACHP is a vital component of the Federal historic
preservation program.
We believe that the legislation we seek, coupled with periodic
oversight by this Subcommittee and the annual review provided by the
Appropriations Committees, is fully justified by our record of
accomplishment. We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably consider
this request, including our recommended technical amendments.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in these issues, and we
thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to present our
views.
______
APPENDIX
revised provision relating to achp role in federal grant programs--
january 15, 2004
(g) EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN
MEETING THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ACT--Title II of the Act is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
`SEC. 216. EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
`(a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS--The Council may enter into a
cooperative agreement with any Federal agency that administers a grant
or assistance program for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of
the administration of such program in meeting the purposes and policies
of this Act. Such cooperative agreements may include provisions that
modify the selection criteria for a grant or assistance program to
further the purposes of this Act or that allow the Council to
participate in the selection of recipients, if such provisions are not
inconsistent with the grant or assistance program's statutory
authorization and purpose.
`(b) REVIEW OF GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS--The Council may
`(1) review the operation of any Federal grant or assistance
program to evaluate the effectiveness of such program in meeting the
purposes and policies of this Act;
`(2) make recommendations to the head of any Federal agency that
administers such program to further the consistency of the program with
the purposes and policies of the Act and to improve its effectiveness
in carrying out those purposes and policies; and
`(3) make recommendations to the President and the Congress
regarding the effectiveness of Federal grant and assistance programs in
meeting the purposes and policies of this Act, including
recommendations with regard to appropriate funding levels.'
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Let us see. I believe in our listing here Mrs. Krieger, Ms.
Krieger.
STATEMENT OF KAREN KRIEGER, HERITAGE RESOURCE
COORDINATOR, STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Ms. Krieger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am here representing the State of Utah Division
of Parks and Recreation to give testimony on S. 1678. In 1996
the State of Utah began planning the new Utah Field House of
Natural History State Park Museum in Vernal, Utah. The old
Field House Museum was built in 1950 and has outdated,
inefficient heating and cooling systems and electrical systems
and very inadequate space for new collections. Many specimens
have to be stored in old mechanical chase areas just below the
building's ceilings. These areas are difficult to clean,
impossible to maintain proper climate control, and have limited
access due to their very low ceilings and overall cramped
spaces. The museum's public spaces and exhibits were equally as
outdated.
As we planned for the museum, discussions with the staff at
Dinosaur National Monument revealed that we share many needs in
common: appropriate storage space for specimens, space for
researchers, curation areas, and education areas for the
general public. We quickly realized that by joining together we
could enhance both of our projects and further both missions
while reducing our individual projects' square foot
requirements.
A partnership was born and both agencies worked together to
create building programs that could come together, provide a
whole scientific and educational facility built by two separate
agencies, one State, one Federal. As both agencies discussed
our needs with the leaders of Vernal, Utah, and Uintah County,
Utah, they recognized the benefits to their community of having
state-of-the-art educational and scientific facilities in the
heart of their region. They too joined the partnership.
Uintah County purchased property and the four partners
worked together to develop a site plan that would accommodate
everybody's needs and expectations. As of May of this year,
Vernal City expanded sidewalks, provided curb and gutter,
street lighting, and extended the sewer lines to the property,
and also provided funding for the educational components of the
field house museum. The county, in addition to purchasing
property, has built and paved the parking lot, and the State,
as Senator Bennett described, has brought power, water, sewer,
and data lines to the property and built a new museum, complete
with classroom, theater, and 10,000 square feet of new exhibits
that tell the story of the Uinta Mountain region's rich
paleontological and fossil resources.
The museum opened May 22, 2004, to the delight of over
13,000 visitors. In our first week of operation we had over
30,000 visitors.
The part of the property adjoining the new museum to the
east awaits our Federal partner's contribution to the
partnership. When the partnership began, the State eliminated
curatorial spaces, specimen storage areas, specimen study
areas, processing areas, and the paleontological lab that is
meant to be viewable and open to the public. These spaces were
put into the National Park Service's building program, and we
do have a map that we can submit for your review to see how the
two facilities would join together.
The State has built the elevator, we have put in the
classroom, and we have located our staff offices at the point
where the two buildings would join so that we could share
office space, we could share the educational facility, we could
share the elevator, and so that the paleontology lab would look
right into our two-story volume lobby area, a very exciting
area for visitors.
These spaces were put into the Park Service's building
program. Until the Uintah research and curatorial facility is
built, we are left using the old, inadequate storage spaces,
now three blocks away from our new museum, for our curatorial
activities. In addition, we have stopped accepting new
materials and are closed as a Federal repository.
Demand for oil and gas leases on Federal lands in the Uinta
Mountain region continually grows, spurring economic
development in the rural communities of this region while
generating more and more cultural and paleontological specimens
for excavations required as part of the permitting process.
Also a part of the process is the deposit of these specimens in
Federal repositories that can care for them and make them
available for study. As demands grow, area facilities are
filling up and closing their doors to new collections.
Keeping these specimens in the area from which they were
excavated is of prime interest to all the partners. The ability
to study them in close proximity to other associated resources
really increases the value of the collection to scientists and
to visitors alike. The State of Utah's public extrication
programs in the new Utah Field House of Natural History State
Park Museum are dependent on the collections and the knowledge
those collections contain. The specimens and their stories
inspire and direct the exhibits, public programs, and outreach
activities the citizens of the region and those visiting the
region expect and desire. The paleontological resources of this
region are well known by researchers worldwide and yet are not
fully studied because their current inaccessibility.
Bringing together the collections of both Dinosaur National
Monument and the Utah Field House in one, appropriately suited
facility in their area of origin would create a popular and
productive scientific center with immediate educational
outlets. These collections are the documents of change, the
fragmentary archive on which we base our knowledge of the
natural world. Encoded within these collections is the past of
our planet. Continued deciphering of that past by scientists
working alongside our public program specialists is essential
to the State's and the National Park Service's educational
missions.
In addition, our visitors demand and deserve current
authentic information delivered in engaging ways. The field
house provides a safe place for families to enjoy spending
meaningful time together. It provides economic benefits to the
Uintah Basin by generating valuable tourism dollars and offers
a way to link science with the public. Without the ability to
collect, properly care for, or to study the vast record of the
Earth's history, so available in the Uinta Mountain region, our
opportunities for providing these quality services will
dramatically diminish.
We cannot complete our mission without the collections and
the information they hold and we cannot appropriately link the
collections without the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hamre.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HAMRE, AVALANCHE EXPERT,
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION
Mr. Hamre. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: Thank
you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of S. 931.
Natural hazards are prevalent throughout the United States,
with hurricanes on the eastern seacoast and the Gulf Coast,
tornadoes in the heartland, and earthquakes in California.
Avalanches plague the Western States and Alaska.
There has been a considerable amount of Federal expenditure
which has improved our ability to forecast hurricanes,
tornadoes, and earthquakes, but there has been no corresponding
expenditures on avalanches, even though the majority of
avalanche terrain lies on Federal land. The fatality rate
continues to rise nationally. In the last 15 years it was worst
in Colorado, followed closely by Alaska, Utah, Montana,
Wyoming, Washington, and Idaho. But seven other States have
also suffered losses, including New Hampshire with five deaths
and Arizona with one.
Most fatalities occur on Forest Service land, but 15
fatalities in the last 15 years have occurred on national park
lands as well.
The avalanche fatality rate at this point in the United
States is higher than in any other country. Existing programs
include the forecast offices as identified by the Forest
Service, but they also include site-specific risk mitigation
programs that are run by Park Service, ski areas, highways, and
railroads. No comprehensive analysis of needs has been
conducted on a broad base to identify programs that might
assist in reducing risk nationally.
S. 931 would address this lack through the identification
of problems and potential solutions and the coordination of
efforts nationally. Available funds dispersed proportionate to
the magnitude of avalanche problems in each State through the
formula grant mechanism would help to identify and solve some
of the problems that are occurring nationally.
I have detailed in my written testimony some of the
detailed examples of the problem areas around the country and
how funding might help some of these problems. An example of
this occurred last winter on Marias Pass in Montana, where
avalanches occurred off national park lands on one side,
wilderness study areas on the other side, onto U.S. Highway 2
and also onto the Burlington Northern Railroad. There was a
derailment of a train, knocked 15 cars off the tracks, spilled
grain into the wild and scenic river area, and it was about an
hour before that that an Amtrak train with 300 passengers on
board had passed through that same area.
The solutions to the problems in this particular case are
fairly intractable and difficult because there are a lot of
national value public lands in the area, wilderness lands and
national park lands, that it is difficult to do risk mitigation
on.
The proposed bill also establishes a central depository for
military artillery and to support the military artillery
program in avalanche work. Currently the military artillery and
for the past 50 years has been the backbone of avalanche
control. There has been no good substitute developed which
could take the place of military artillery in the short term.
The bill would propose to set up some kind of a revolving fund
which would forward base identification and procurement of
assets, surplus assets out of the military that are suitable
for long-range avalanche use. It could also be used to fund
alternatives development to military artillery. In the case of
the revolving fund, a grant might be set up to establish that
fund and then the users could reimburse the costs of that
grant.
The loss of the 105 howitzer system nationally right now
could very much affect our transportation corridors and lead to
much longer closure times on transportation corridors
throughout the country, such as U.S. 2 in Montana, I-90 in
Washington with 22,000 cars a day, I-70 in Colorado with 15,000
cars a day, Seward Highway in Alaska with 7,000 cars a day, and
Utah 210 with 8,000 cars a day. I believe another example of
that is the Teton Pass location in Wyoming that goes over the
hill where a lot of the work force that drives to Jackson every
day comes from Driggs, Idaho.
This bill will help to create a comprehensive approach
toward avalanche education and risk management and implement
programs that safeguard the future of our existing mitigation
efforts. So I would urge you to pass it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamre follows:]
Statement of David Hamre, Avalanche Expert, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, on S. 931
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for having me
to testify on S. 931 today. I have prepared a condensed statement for
the hearing today, but would like my entire statement entered into the
record.
Natural disasters are suffered throughout our country regularly.
Hurricanes take their toll on the eastern seaboard. Tornadoes plague
the heartland. California suffers from earthquakes. Most of the western
states and Alaska suffer yearly from the consequences of snow
avalanches. Much effort is put forward by the federal government to
mitigate the effects of other natural events, but little is spent on
avalanches. The majority of avalanche terrain in the U.S. lies either
on National Forest or Park Service lands. With the current trends
toward recreation in the mountains, and attendant increases in traffic
on roads and in ski areas, the death toll from avalanches in the U.S.
has surpassed that of any other country as of the latest recording
period. With the current trend line in the rise of avalanche
fatalities, sometime in the next 10-20 years they will surpass
tornado's as the leading cause of natural hazards fatalities in the
U.S. The bill before you proposes to address this rising toll in two
ways.
First, it establishes a system for distributing avalanche funding
through a formula grant to avalanche specific projects in affected
states. Projects in each affected state would receive a proportionate
share to help solve the difficult problems that have been created by
the public's desire to recreate on federal lands. A few examples of the
problems needing comprehensive solutions:
1. The encounter probability for avalanches hitting a vehicle on
Utah highway #210, which feeds the ski areas of Alta and Snowbird as
well as extensive land on the Wasatch National forest, is currently at
85%. This means any natural avalanche occurring is almost certain to
hit a vehicle. With the explosion of backcountry skier usage on the
forest, the risk continues to rise. There is also great risk of a mass
disaster when a first avalanche stops traffic on the road and is
followed closely by a second avalanche onto the stopped traffic.
Alternatives for risk reduction need to be analyzed and implemented
before there is a large disaster.
2. U.S. Highway #2 and the Burlington Northern Railroad through
Glacier National Park in Montana have been drastically affected by
avalanches in the past two years. They have suffered extensive
shutdowns and business interruption with attendant losses estimated in
the millions of dollars. This includes losses to grain farmers in North
Dakota from untimely delivery of their product and diversion of Amtrak-
passenger trains. Implementation of risk reduction strategies could
help reduce these lengthy closures as well as assist in earlier
springtime openings of the nearby Going to the Sun highway through
Glacier National Park to accommodate visitors.
3. Increasing numbers of snowmobile riders have been involved in
avalanche accidents in the west. With the advent of better technology
in the machines, riders are able to access steep avalanche terrain with
increasing frequency. There is a learning curve to understanding
avalanche risks that this community has not embraced. Some dedicated
educational effort such as classes or a video could produce a higher
awareness and thus lower the death rate. There is presently no impetus
for the private sector to provide these tools. States particularly hard
hit by snowmachine deaths are Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, and
Washington.
4. The access road to the Alpine Meadows Ski Area in California, a
county road, has a high traffic count combined with high avalanche
probability. Lack of local zoning laws has resulted in numerous houses
being built in the avalanche zones just below the road. This makes
explosive control of avalanches problematic at best. An alternative
would be to build structures in the starting zone to keep avalanches
from beginning in the first place, except the starting zone is on
Forest Service land in a declared wilderness. There is a strong
recognition that eventually a major accident could occur here without
some solution, but the stakeholders all believe that someone else needs
to fix the problem. A small federal grant could be matched with funding
from the various stakeholders to resolve this issue.
The other mechanism used by S. 931 to assist the avalanche
community is the provision for a central depository for artillery and
supplies used for avalanche control. Since it's first use on national
forest lands in 1947, military artillery has been the backbone of our
defense of lives and property in ski areas, highways, and railroads
throughout the country. In that 50 years, no comparable system has
emerged that can take the place of military artillery. Users of
artillery work closely with the U.S. Army, who is authorized to enter
into agreements to provide the weapons systems. Over time the military
has continued to move towards more sophisticated weapons that are more
complex and difficult to use than is required for avalanche work. To
date this hasn't been an issue because the avalanche program has been
using surplus systems. The end of these systems is now very near,
however. There are few remaining assets suitable for avalanche work,
and these few assets are in poor shape. The attached pictures describe
their condition well.
The provision for a central depository, along with a corresponding
grant, would allow us to establish a revolving fund that would acquire
the remaining assets from the Army, refurbish them back to a usable
condition, and keep them available for the avalanche community on a
reimbursable basis. The corpus of the revolving fund would thus stay
intact.
A revolving fund grant might also allow for the research and
development effort necessary to establish a suitable alternative to
artillery. For the sake of protecting our transportation corridors such
as I-90, U.S. 2, and others, reliance on a single system should be
avoided in case a systemic problem develops with that system and it is
condemned. Viable alternatives need to be developed in the next ten to
20 years to military artillery. Given the wide range of stakeholders,
it's difficult to raise the funding necessary to further this
initiative. Users can ultimately pay for this work through back end
reimbursement once a viable product is developed.
One possible language change to the bill would be to allow the
director of the program to divert a portion of the formula grant, such
as up to 20% of the funding, to issues of broad national significance.
This would allow all locations to benefit equally from programs aimed
at reducing avalanche accidents such as the snowmobile example given.
It's a credit to the efforts of the avalanche community in this
country that developed recreations sites, highways and railroads faced
with avalanche terrain have so few fatalities annually. Providing for
some simple tools for the future can ensure this legacy continues, and
can also help stop or reduce the growth of avalanche deaths from
recreational use in the backcountry areas of our forests and parks.
Senator Thomas. Very well. Thank you so much, all three of
you, for being here. Just a couple of quick questions.
Mr. Nau, is there any sort of criteria for what qualifies
as a national historic site?
Mr. Nau. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is within the
Department of the Interior, administered by the National Park
Service under the Secretary's standards. It is clearly
outlined. Would you want me to go into that criteria?
Senator Thomas. No. Historic sites are another thing. This
is historic preservation. So are there criteria or is it--if my
little town wants to do something for the main street, is that
what we are doing? Or are we actually doing it on the basis of
its historic value?
Mr. Nau. What is important to your community or communities
around the country I think in terms of creating historic
preservation is being able to link those local resources of
your community with the assets that are owned by the State,
those assets that may be near your community that are owned by
the Federal Government, both historic sites as well as cultural
and natural sites, and have them become linked through a trails
program that either is a natural trails program, such as the
overland stage coach, or a trail that is put together, so that
the story of the people, the sites themselves, and most
importantly they can be linked for economic development for
those communities that are integrated into this type of trails
program.
So I do not think there is a definition of a site so much,
sir, as there is the ability to bring all of those assets that
are linked culturally or historically together to make it a
good visitor experience as the tourist comes in. Most of the
local people, no matter what State or region they are in, they
know what their history is. The idea of heritage and cultural
tourism and the program that we think the Federal Government
should be talking about helps just link those resources
together.
Senator Thomas. I see. Well, I am sure that what you say is
true. On the other hand, there is a limit to how much the Park
Service, for example--what are there, 389 parks or something
now, plus other things? So there is a limit to that, and I
think there has to be some determination, some separation, some
classification of what logically is Federal and what is not.
I know that is not an easy thing to do, but I am getting
more and more concerned about the fact that you set up these
programs and any time they want some economic activity, why, we
call it something and get some Federal. And that really is not
the basic purpose of it. So I understand what you are saying
and appreciate it.
Now, the funding. When you assist somewhere then, does the
Park Service or someone take on a responsibility for continuing
to fund that, or is it the original costs or both, or how does
that work?
Mr. Nau. Well, let me give my experience in Texas, where we
put this type of program together to great success. We used no
Federal money. As a matter of fact, it was less than $100,000
of State funding to kick off this program.
I think now I understand what your original question was.
You do not need to continue to feed this type of program. The
revenues that are generated from the tourists, the heritage
tourists that will come into those communities, in many, many
respects, Mr. Chairman, will generate the revenue to integrate
the local resources and the Federal resources.
It is a big, big number. Heritage tourists by the year 2005
are going to be a $200 billion business in this country. In
Texas, for every dollar the State has invested we have a
documented $23 return. So it is a good business.
The only program that we are pushing forward here is just
to raise the level of awareness of the benefits of heritage
tourism. There is very, very--as far as our bill is concerned,
there is no new money to generate this program.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Nau, I want to congratulate you and
commend you for what you are doing for the communities across
the country. I particularly want to ask about solicitations and
would like to follow up on the proposal to give the advisory
council authority to solicit donations. Can you explain to me
what it is that you cannot do now and why the advisory council
needs authority to solicit donations?
Mr. Nau. Certainly, Senator. Right now we can receive
donations. Again, based on experience in Texas, going to what
Senator Talent said on the courthouse program, when you create
these partnerships and you begin to talk to the community or
the State or private sector about the benefits, that they will
accrue from creating heritage tourism programs. Many times you
find people that want to step forward, be it corporations,
individuals, or foundations, that are interested in helping
their community or their courthouse or their program, and you
are in an embarrassing situation where you are sitting at the
table talking about the program, they want to be able to
provide some resource to you, either time or money, and you
cannot solicit it.
It is a fine line between accepting and soliciting when you
are sitting there and promoting and selling a program. I would
not want to be in the position of being accused of soliciting
when I am selling it and somebody wants to give it to me. That
is the reason for it. I would certainly not want to get out and
get in competition with the National Trust or any, Historic
Hawaii or anyone like that. It is more being able to accept
what I am selling.
Senator Thomas. Senator Talent, do you have any questions?
Senator Talent. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand it, the idea here is to--we are not
changing the standards for what is designated as an historic
site or anything like that.
Mr. Nau. No.
Senator Talent. And the idea is instead, if a community--
and this is very common in Missouri--has for example Civil War
battlefields, cemeteries that are already of historic
significance, and so if the council, either in connection with
an application to be designated an historic site or otherwise,
helps the tourism department and local authorities in linking
up, providing services to prospective tourists, so that they
may want to plan a trip and visit the battlefield, visit the
cemetery, visit the courthouse, and this of course helps
generate the kind of revenue that we then need to maintain
these historic sites, and the council helps facilitate that; is
that really what you are talking about?
Mr. Nau. That is correct. There are 26 States that have
some form of heritage tourism program, which means there are 24
that do not. Our job here is to simply point out the benefits.
As you explained, Senator, taking St. Louis, if there would be
a way to move just 10 percent of the people that go through
that national park arch and take them out 20 or 30 miles to St.
Charles or other historic sites, that is what the purpose of
this is.
It is not to add any more inventory. It is to point out the
assets and integrate them into programs, so that the rural
communities, where the biggest opportunity is, have the biggest
benefit.
Senator Talent. I really want to congratulate you on that,
because, as is often the case, there has been a lot of work
being done in this area, both by various Federal agencies,
local foundations, State governments, and yet they are often
not working together and so we lose a lot of the benefits, both
in terms of the history of local communities and also in terms
of tourism. The two are linked, as you pointed out, because if
it is sustainable from a tourism standpoint then it really
helps in maintaining these buildings.
So you made the council really--I think this is what it was
designed to do, as a kind of facilitator, mediator, agency that
puts partnerships together, and you are already doing that;
that is correct, is it not?
Mr. Nau. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Talent. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Well, thanks to all of you for coming and we appreciate it
and we will look forward to working with these bills and see if
we can move them forward. Thank you so much. There may be other
questions in the next few days. If there are, I hope you will
respond.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are answers to the follow-up questions
from the hearing held by the Subcommittee on National Parks on June 8,
2004, on S. 931, S. 1678, S. 2140, and S. 2237. These responses have
been prepared by the National Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on this
matter.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
s. 931, federal land recreational visitor protection act of 2003
Question 1a. According to S. 431, ``the Secretary shall apportion
the amount of funds made available for the fiscal year among States
with avalanche zones based on the ratio that the total area of
avalanche zones located in each State bears to the total area of all
avalanche zones in all States.'' Could you explain ``avalanche zones''
and the breakdown by state of the area occupied by avalanche zones?
Answer. ``Avalanche zones'' can best be defined as treeless areas
between 30-45 degrees that include open slopes, gullies and bowls.
There currently is no nationwide inventory of ``avalanche zones'' To
gather this information will be problematic. The number of avalanche
zones as defined might be roughly calculated using Geographic
Information Systems or a similar technology but that work has not been
completed on a state-by-state basis.
The term avalanche zone, in the context of the bill, appears to be
independent of the avalanche hazard, or risk to the public. A more
robust measure of the avalanche potential of each state would also
include the number of people exposed to avalanches by these ``avalanche
zones'' or to factor in the number of fatalities by state. Another
alternative would be to allow the advisory committee to establish
criteria or priorities to direct funding where it is most needed and
will be used most efficiently.
Question 1b. How much of the area occupied by avalanche zones is on
National Park Service land and how much is on Forest Service land?
Answer. Since a mapping of avalanche zones has not occurred on a
national basis, there are no figures to determine how many acres are on
National Forest System lands versus National Park lands. There are
countless avalanche zones on NPS lands and FS lands. At issue is how
many of those zones pose a threat to visitors, and transportation
corridors.
Question 1c. How much could each state expect to get if the annual
appropriation is $10 million?
Answer. It is difficult for the NPS to calculate the split among
states; however because of the sire, the amount of Federal lands, and
the topography of Alaska, and using the definition of an ``Avalanche
Zone'', Alaska would likely receive the majority of funding. However if
statistics on the number of fatalities per state were to be used,
Colorado would likely receive the most funding with Alaska close
behind.
Question 2. What is DOI'S role in the existing avalanche monitoring
program and what is the department's annual operating budget for the
program?
Answer. Of the agencies within DOI, we believe NPS has the greatest
involvement, providing limited funding of approximately $27,000 to the
national avalanche program and raw data to the Forest Service's
National Avalanche Center such as snow depth, wind direction etc. In
addition, the NPS expends operational dollars in the following parks to
maintain/monitor and protect the visitor and employee from the threat
of avalanches.
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK--The Road Crew provides mitigation/
control work to several of the winter passes. These services are built
into their core program.
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK--The Road Crew provides mitigation/control
work to the winter opening of the Going to the Sun Road.
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK--During spring road opening of the Tioga
Pass, Yosemite National Park maintains a staff of two Avalanche
Forecasters, who provide training, site monitoring and mitigation/
control work that supports the road crew--The park expends
approximately $30,000 annually for the monitoring and mitigation work.
MT RAINIER/OLYMPIC AND NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARKS--These three
parks collectively contribute $27,000 annually to the Pacific Northwest
Avalanche Center. In return the Avalanche Center provides the park with
winter and spring forecasting and training services (limited to
awareness courses).
Several other parks have absorbed the cost of avalanche forecasting
and limited control work into their base-operating budget.
s. 1678, uintah research and curatorial center act
Question 3. How are artifacts from Dinosaur National Monument
currently stored?
Answer. The collections are currently stored in 11 different
facilities throughout the park, including at the Quarry Visitor Center,
in sheds, in garages, in the basement of the park headquarters
building, and numerous other locations. Of the 957 museum standards
currently applicable to the park, the park meets approximately 50% of
them.
Question 4. The following questions pertain to funding for
construction and operation of a curatorial facility for Dinosaur
National Monument:
Question 4a. Approximately how much will it cost to build the
curatorial facility?
Answer. In FY07 dollars, $8.8 million for 22,500 square feet.
Question 4b. What is the anticipated annual operating expenses?
Answer. $300,000 per year.
Question 4c. How many employees will be required to run and support
the facility (researchers, security, maintenance, etc.)?
Answer. A minimum of 5 permanent employees will be required to
operate and maintain the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center.
Dinosaur National Monument will move 3 existing permanent employees to
the building (Curator, Paleontologist, and Geologist). In addition to
these 3 employees, a minimum of 2 other permanent employees will be
needed to operate the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center, including
an Administrative ``technician and a Maintenance Mechanic.
Question 4d. Will the entire staff consist of government employees
or would the NPS outsource any positions at the facility?
Answer. Several options exist regarding the 2 additional positions
that are needed to operate and maintain the Uintah Research and
Curatorial Center. Federal employees could fill these two positions,
State of Utah employees could fill them, or the work could be
contracted.
s. 2140, expanding and making mount rainier national park
more accessible act
Question 5. How much has the National Park Service spent in the
past 10 years to repair and maintain the portion of road affected by S.
2140? How much do you estimate the National Pail. Service would spend
during the next 5 to 10 years if S. 2140 is not enacted?
Answer. The National Park Service has spent about $785,000 during
the last 10 years to repair the portion of the Carbon River Road that
frequently washes out. Of that amount, $750,000 was spent on the major
1998 repair that lasted only one month because the road was again
damaged by a flood.
While we cannot predict how much damage will occur to the road
during the next five to ten years, on the basis of recent weather
patterns and the erosion of natural barriers between the river and the
road, we anticipate spending about $175,000 to $230,000 during that
period if a decision was made to keep the road open to vehicular
traffic for access to the existing Ipsut Creek campground. Current
repairs needed to open the road for two-way traffic would cost about
$125,000. Annual repairs would be about $5,000 and, every fifth year,
about $35,000. That would bring the total to $175,000 for five years
and $230,000 for ten years.
Question 6. How will the number of campsites and picnic sites he
affected by S. 2140?
Answer. Currently, there are 29 campsites and a picnic area at the
Ipsut Creek Campground. Eventually, unless a decision is made to
continue repairing the Carbon River Road, these facilities will not be
accessible by automobile. They are already inaccessible by vehicle when
the road floods. The park plans to continue to operate the campground
for visitors who hike or ride bicycles to the site.
If S. 2140 is enacted, and if funds are made available for the
National Park Service to acquire the new area added to the park by the
legislation, plans call for development of 50 auto-accessible campsites
and three picnic areas.
Question 7. How much do you expect the acquisition and construction
to cost? Do you expect to use any transportation funds to complete the
road portion of the project?
Answer. We estimate that acquiring the land will cost about $3
million to $6 million and developing it for visitor and administrative
use, about $4.8 million. In the future, we expect only minor repairs to
be made to the portion of the Carbon River Road that leads to the Ipsut
Creek Campground, just enough to provide substandard access. It is
likely that the funding for those repairs would come from in-park funds
redirected from other park operations or the NPS repair and
rehabilitation budget.
s. 2287, jean lafitte national historical park and preserve
boundary adjustment act of 2004
Question 8. A portion of the land being acquired by the National
Park Service is currently administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Will the Corps continue to have any need for access or be involved in
any way with future management and use of the land'?
Answer. It is our understanding, based on conversations with the
Corps that, once the transfer takes place, they would have no further
need for access or to be involved in management of the property.
Question 9. What is the anticipated cost to complete the proposed
land acquisition?
Answer. There would be no costs associated with the acquisition of
the federal lands. Of the 521 acres of private land added to the
boundary, about 250 acres would have no additional costs because they
are already owned by the National Park Service. Another 485 acres of
wetlands would cost an estimated $170,000. The remaining 86 acres that
are not wetlands have not been appraised and NPS does not anticipate
acquiring these lands at this tune. However, in the past NPS has paid
between $10,000 and $80,000 per acre for comparable land within the
boundary. These lands are expected to be at the lower end of that range
and if a figure of $25,000 per acre is used the total cost for the
entire 86 acres would be $2.1 million.
Question 10. Has the National Park Service surveyed the land for
possible hazardous waste?
Answer. Yes, a Level I hazardous waste assessment has been
completed. No hazardous materials were found.
s. 2469, national historic preservation act amendments act of 2004
Question 11. Will S. 2469 allow the Advisory Council to streamline
the process for section 106 consultation or reduce the time required to
complete the consultation process?
Answer. This bill does not directly amend section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Recent revisions to 36 CFR 800 have
addressed streamlining the consultation process under section 106 and
reduce the time required. This bill seeks to improve Council
administration and operational efficiency and to ensure the Council
better serves Federal agencies and the Council's stated purposes apart
from the Section 106 process.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
March 3, 2004
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: As business and community leaders from the
Mount Rainier National Park region, we recognize the significant role
that the national parks play in our local economies. We appreciate your
dedication and support for this park's protection and proper funding.
We particularly support your efforts to improve and expand Mount
Rainier National Park through such actions as the 800-acre Carbon River
Valley boundary expansion, addressing the park's maintenance backlog,
and fully funding the park's day-to-day operations.
Healthy and vibrant national parks are good for business.
Washington state's national parks are prime examples of how
conservation can enhance the economies of surrounding communities.
According to an economic model developed by researchers at Michigan
State University, more than 7 million visitors to ten Washington
national park sites in 2001 spent a total of $204,500,000. This
supported 5,362 jobs and generated more than $87 million worth of
wages, salaries, and payroll benefits. Mount Rainier National Park
alone generated roughly $30 million in total visitor spending and 776
jobs. In local restaurants and bars, Mount Rainier visitors generated
$6.75 million in sales. Visitor spending at lodging facilities produced
another $5.5 million.
As Mount Rainier National Park enters its second century of
existence, it is more important than ever that Congress invest in the
park's maintenance, protection, and operations. Investing in our
national parks returns even greater benefits for our local communities
and economies.
Thank you for your continued support for national park protection
and funding.
Sincerely,
John W. Ladenburg,
Executive,
Pierce County, WA.
Ruthie Reinert,
Executive Director,
Tacoma Regional Convention &
Visitors Bureau.
Steve Leahy,
President and CEO,
Gr. Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Cathy Riggs,
Executive Director,
Enumclaw Chamber of Commerce.
David Greybill,
President and CEO,
Tacoma-Pierce Chamber of Commerce.
Mark Bauer,
Administrator,
City of Enumclaw, WA.
Allan Zulauf,
Chairman,
Puyallup Watershed Council.
Steve Miller,
President,
Mount Rainier Business Association.
Nancy Neyenhouse,
Conservation Chair,
The Mountaineers.
Jeremy Foust,
Manager,
Summit Haus.
Denis Madsen,
President and CEO,
Recreational Equipment Inc.
Joan Miller,
President,
Wilkinson Historical Society.
Peter Whittaker,
Owner,
Rainier Mountaineering Inc./
Summit Haus.
Kevin McCarty,
General Manager,
White Pass Ski Area.
Lou Whittaker,
Owner,
Rainier Mountaineering Inc.
John Keates,
Parks & Recreation Director,
City of Enumclaw, WA.
______
Statement of Heather Weiner, Director, Northwest Region,
National Parks Conservation Association, on S. 2140
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, Senator Cantwell and other
honorable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony in support of S. 2140, to extend the boundary of Mt.
Rainier National Park. I am the Director of the Northwest Region of the
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), which is the only
national, nonprofit conservation organization that advocates
exclusively for the national parks. Through public education, advocacy,
and citizen outreach, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and enhance
America's National Park System for present and future generations.
Established in 1919 by a former park superintendent, today we have more
than 12,000 members in Washington and Oregon, and more than 300,000
members nationwide.
The Mount Rainier Boundary Adjustment Act, S. 2140, will add
approximately 800 acres of the Carbon River valley to this century-old
national park. A large coalition of business owners, chambers of
commerce, local governments, and gateway community members join NPCA in
supporting Senator Cantwell's bill. A letter from these community
members is included with this testimony.
Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, along with most of the Washington
delegation, introduced a companion bill, H.R. 265 and this bill passed
the House on June 1, 2004.
We support S. 2140 for many reasons. Primarily, the boundary
extension will save taxpayer dollars by preventing the need for road
repairs after seasonal washouts along the Carbon River. (The last major
washout was in February 2003). S. 2140 will conserve one of
Washington's last inland rainforests, with tumbling rivers, reflective
lakes, and stunning views. It will also protect Mount Rainier's
foothills from encroaching development, salmon habitat loss, and
further strain on its natural resources. By improving visitor access
and campgrounds in the under-utilized northwest section of Mount
Rainier National Park, this bill is good for business, and good for
Washington State.
Mt. Rainier National Park hosts some 1.3 million recreational
visits annually. These visitors spent $29.34 million in 2001,
supporting some 776 jobs in the communities outside the park. Senator
Cantwell's bill will help increase those dollars and jobs by increasing
economic opportunities in near-by gateway communities such as Enumclaw,
Wilkeson, Burnett, South Prairie, Carbonado, and Puyallup.
NPCA believes the best way to improve Mount Rainier National Park
is to protect its foothills and to provide visitors with improved
access to all park entrances. The 236,000-acre National Park is quickly
becoming a biological island surrounded on the west by suburban
development. The park's proximity to Seattle, Tacoma and Portland
invites more than 1 million visitors annually, most arriving in June,
July, and August. Traffic jams, air pollution from idling cars, and
frustrated visitors clog the Nisqually entrance to the park; in fact,
almost half of all park visitors (46%) use the Nisqually entrance. Mt.
Rainier National Park, after a 5-year public planning process,
recommended improving visitor access through the Carbon River entrance
to the park by extending the boundary.
Unfortunately, time is running out for the Carbon River Valley. The
willing land sellers (Thompsons, Marshes and Plum Creek) have received
other offers to buy, and develop, the valley. Although the two
families, and Plum Creek, want their properties to become part of this
icon park, they all face strong pressures to sell to resort and housing
developers.
On behalf of our coalition of businesses, chambers of commerce,
local governments and community leaders, NPCA thanks you for
considering this bill and urges the U.S. Senate to approve this bill.
______
Statement of Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, on S. 2287
My name is Mark Davis. I am the executive director of CRCL, which
has its offices in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On behalf of the Coalition
to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL) I would like to thank Senator Mary
Landrieu for authoring this important bill and I would also like to
thank Subcommittee Chairman Thomas and the other members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony in strong
support of S. 2287. CRCL is a non-profit, non-partisan education and
advocacy organization was formed in the mid 1980s by conservationists,
local governments, business, environmentalists, civic and religious
organizations who shared a concern about the fate of the greatest
coastal wetland and estuarine complex in the 48 contiguous United
States and commitment to the responsible stewardship of those natural
treasures.
On a personal note, I am also one of the many people who enjoy the
beauty and educational opportunities of the park. There simply is not
another place like this where the history and natural heritage of the
great Mississippi River delta are so accessible and visible. It is a
true treasure that enriches us all.
The bill before you today provides an opportunity to expand that
treasure, the Barataria unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park
and Preserve. Located about one half hour from downtown New Orleans,
the preserve provides a window for exploration of America's most
productive and threatened wetland ecosystem--the vast coastal and
estuarine marshes and swamps of the Mississippi River delta. No other
national park protects and interprets a representative sample of
coastal Louisiana The location of the Barataria unit is convenient not
only to the citizens of New Orleans and southeast Louisiana, but also
to the millions of American and foreign tourists who visit New Orleans
and south Louisiana. This is the one place where they can get a glimpse
of this great resource by walking a system of park service trails and
boardwalks, canoeing along quiet bayous, and being guided by a ranger
through the park's interpretive programs.
This bill makes possible something that is all too rare--the
expansion of a national treasure at no cost and with no impact on
unwilling private property owners.
The bill transfers to the park land already in Federal ownership,
already paid for by the American taxpayer. This is as it should be.
Having paid dearly for the purchase of these wetlands, the American
people have a right to gain access to these lands, and to see them
managed by the National Park Service for the public good. These lands
came into Federal ownership as a result of the settlement of two
lawsuits brought by landowners against the United States. The issues
adjudicated in those lawsuits: the desire of property owners to profit
from the development of wetlands; the desire of the public to see those
wetlands protected for their greater societal values; and the optimal
location of federally sponsored hurricane protection levees to separate
development from the dangers of flooding, are all important issues.
These issues go to the heart of our struggle as a nation to balance
competing interests when it comes to protecting wetlands and people at
risk-at risk because they live in wetlands near the coast. In this
case, those issues were settled when the lawsuit was settled. The
hurricane levee excluded these wetlands, the property owners have
received compensation, and its time now to add these properties to the
park. Doing so will open them to visitation by the public for a
multitude of purposes, including hunting, fishing, canoeing, viewing
wildlife, and interpretation.
Transferring these properties to NPS management will also enhance
opportunities for partnerships between the park and Jefferson Parish.
The location of the Barataria unit literally right next to the
hurricane levee and the subdivisions it protects provides unique
challenges and unprecedented opportunities. The park is working with
the parish to find creative solutions for problems faced in every
urban-wetland interface: storm-water run-off, sewage discharge, wetland
restoration, and other issues. By having more of that interface between
the levee and development in park management, there will be fewer
landowners to satisfy as solutions are devised. Devising solutions for
these issues is critical to the future health of our estuaries, and the
parish and the park are committed to working together to find those
solutions.
The levee corridor that separates much of the park from developed
areas has already been identified by local elected officials and the
Corps of Engineers as a potential recreational greenspace and trail
corridor, linking communities together and to the park beyond. Adding
these properties enhances the ability of the park and the West
Jefferson Levee District to work cooperatively towards this goal,
without the potential impediment of intervening non-NPS properties.
The new boundary proposed in this bill includes within it several
tracts of private property. These properties were either excluded from
the original lawsuits on technical grounds, or are non-wetlands, or
are, in a few cases, portions of wetland tracts that overlap the
existing boundary line, leaving small parcels and a difficult to manage
boundary. The interests of these owners are protected by the
legislation as written. Those that desire to sell may do so if Congress
appropriates the funds from Land and Water Conservation Fund at some
future date and if a price can be mutually agreed upon. Those that
desire to maintain their ownership are free to do so.
State property to be included within the new boundary, the Highway
3134 right-of-way or the levee rights-of-way, will continue in state
ownership and management. Including it within the boundary enhances
opportunities for cooperative management, law enforcement and boundary
patrol.
In closing, let me just say that the expansion of the Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve will be as one of the great gifts
of our generation to the generations that follow We enthusiastically
support the expansion of the park as called for in this bill.
______
Statement of Edward F. Sanderson, President, National Conference of
State Historic Preservation Officers, on S. 2469
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
supports S. 2469 amending Title 11 of the National Historic
Preservation Act improving the operation of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP).
introduction
The National Conference has a direct interest in the ACHP for two
reasons.
1. The National Conference is, by statute, a voting member of the
ACHP.
2. The members of the National Conference-the State Historic
Preservation Officers carry out 98% of the work involved in complying
with the ACHP's regulations implementing Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800).
The vitality of the ACHP is directly related to the daily work of
the State Historic Preservation Officers.
council membership
Under President Bush, historic preservation has received an
unprecedentedly high level of attention in the federal government. As
the President's appointee as Chairman, John L. Nau, III, has
aggressively implemented the Administration's policy. One outcome is
the growing interest among federal agencies to participate in historic
preservation activities and to be voting members of the ACHP. Adding
more federal agencies to the Council will benefit both the conservation
of America's heritage and communication among agencies concerning the
balance of historic preservation values and agency development
projects.
Increasing the quorum from nine members to eleven is a logical
accompaniment to the increase in membership.
financial services
The Council is a small agency with a limited budget. It needs to be
able to find the most effective means to handle administrative
services. This Section will allow the Council to identify a cost
effective deliverer of these services.
donation authority
The additions to the Council's donation authority language should
make it easier for the private sector Council Members to solicit
donations for important historic preservation activity.
appropriation authorization
The Council has proved its worth over the past four decades.
Elimination of the necessity for reauthorization and of a budget
ceiling is appropriate.
historic preservation fund authorization
In closing, I would also like to bring to the Committee's attention
that the authorization for deposits from the proceeds of off shore oil
lease revenues into the Historic Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. 470h)
expires at the end of FY 2005. I am pleased to note that Rep. Hefley
has introduced H.R. 4443 in the House, which will extend the
authorization through 2010. The National Conference is working on the
introduction of a companion bill in the Senate and hopes the Committee
will support reauthorization through 2010.