[Senate Hearing 108-704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-704
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS AND CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
WORLD YEAR OF PHYSICS
=======================================================================
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. 1852 S. 2142
S. 2181 S. 2374
S. 2397 H.R. 3706
S. 2567 H.R. 1113
S. 2432 S. Con. Res. 121
__________
JULY 15, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-032 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
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
Blackwell, Charles W., Esq., Chickasaw Nation Ambassador to the
United States.................................................. 24
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.................. 2
Jones, A. Durand, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 4
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from New Jersey............. 3
Mattingly, Hon. Mack F., Former U.S. Senator, St. Simons Island,
GA............................................................. 22
Talent, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from Missouri................... 20
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Wint, Dennis M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Franklin
Institute, Philadelphia, PA.................................... 27
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS AND CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
WORLD YEAR OF PHYSICS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 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. Good afternoon. I want to welcome our
witnesses today to the National Parks Subcommittee hearing. Our
purpose is to hear testimony on seven Senate bills, one Senate
resolution, and two House bills:
S. 1852, to provide financial assistance for the
rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in
Philadelphia and the development of an exhibit to commemorate
the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin;
S. 2142, the authorize appropriations for the New Jersey
Coastal Heritage Trail Route and for other purposes;
S. 2181, to adjust the boundary of the Rocky Mountain
National Park in Colorado;
S. 2374, to provide for the conveyance of certain land to
the United States and to revise the boundary of the Chickasaw
National Recreation Area in Oklahoma;
S. 2397 and H.R. 3706, to adjust the boundary of the John
Muir National Historic Site;
S. 2432, to expand the boundaries of Wilson's Creek
National Battlefield;
S. 2567, to adjust the boundary of the Redwood National
Park in the State of California;
Senate Concurrent Resolution 121 supports the goals and the
ideals of the World Year of Physics; and the House bill H.R.
1113, to authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica
National Monument and for other purposes.
So let me thank the witnesses for coming. We have quite a
bit to cover in a single hearing, so if you are inclined to
keep your statements precise, please pursue it recklessly and
we will put them in full in the record.
Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon S. Corzine, U.S. Senator From New
Jersey, on S. 2142
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing on S. 2142, which
authorizes funding for the continued development of the New Jersey
Coastal Heritage Trail Route. I am proud to join my colleague and
friend Senator Frank R. Lautenberg as a sponsor of this legislation,
and hope it will be approved promptly.
Before I begin, let me acknowledge and congratulate Senator
Lautenberg for his long-standing leadership on behalf of New Jersey's
Coastal Heritage Trail. Senator Lautenberg has authored many laws that
protect New Jersey's coastal environment, including the law requiring
states to regularly test recreational beach water quality and the ban
on ocean dumping of sewage sludge. It was due to his efforts, along
with former Senator Bill Bradley, that the Coastal Heritage Trail was
first authorized in 1988.
I also want to recognize the efforts of Congressman Frank LoBiondo
who has introduced companion legislation in the House, H.R. 3070, and
who, like Senator Lautenberg, has been a strong advocate for the
protection of New Jersey's coast line.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is an important continuation of a
program that promotes the significant natural and cultural resources
along New Jersey's coast line. Since 1988, the New Jersey Coastal
Heritage Trail has given New Jerseyans a valuable look at our State's
maritime history, coastal habitat and wildlife. Its interpretive
trails, outdoor exhibits and welcome centers provide not just
recreation, but valuable lessons for our residents.
Since its inception, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail has been
a public-private partnership. The trail is managed by the National Park
Service, which works with the NJ Department of Environmental Protection
and local conservation groups. This partnership has made the trail a
success. The $1.2 million it has received from National Park Service
for construction of the trail, for example, has been exceeded by more
than $3.8 million in non-federal funds, a ratio of more than 3:1.
Unfortunately, the legislation authorizing the trail has expired.
S. 2142 would reauthorize the Coastal Heritage Trail for five more
years. It also would increase the total available funding from $4
million to $8 million so that the Park Service can develop two more
theme trails, continue work on existing trails and develop three more
welcome centers. In addition, the legislation requires the National
Park Service to develop a strategic plan for the trail, along with its
other partners.
This is important legislation that will benefit the 300 miles of
New Jersey coast line stretching from Perth Amboy to Cape May and the
Delaware Memorial Bridge along the Delaware Bay.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the legislation and
look forward to working cooperatively in an effort to secure the bill's
approval.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glad to see my good
friend, Senator Lautenberg, here before us and others here
today.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, we have a long list of bills on
the agenda today, although most of the bills appear to be
noncontroversial. I believe all but one supported by the
National Park Service will be OK. I have concerns with a couple
of the bills which I hope to discuss more in detail with the
Park Service witnesses in a few minutes.
These bills reflect many of the day-to-day management
issues that face our national parks ranging from the
acquisition of two-tenths of an acre at the John Muir National
Historic Site in California to the addition of 600 acres of a
Civil War battlefield in Missouri. Other bills address issues
affecting park neighbors, including the Chickasaw Nation in
Oklahoma, a church near Fort Frederica in Georgia, and a ranch
next to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Finally,
others seek increased funding for existing popular programs.
While these bills may seem relatively minor, they are
important not only for the bill's sponsors but for the local
communities and others who may be affected or who have a
specific interest in parks.
We have four witnesses scheduled to testify today,
including again my good friend here, Senator Lautenberg, and I
look forward to hearing from him and our other witnesses and
discussing these bills in greater detail at the appropriate
time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Welcome, Senator Lautenberg. Glad to have you. Please go
right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Whenever I appear
with a colleague who comes from a magnificent State like
Wyoming, a beautiful State like Hawaii, and people think of New
Jersey as an urbanized State. We happen to be the most densely
populated in the country, almost 8 million people, and probably
something like 7,500 square miles. It is tiny.
We, therefore, have to take advantage of every inch of
space that we have in a proper way. A lot of it is devoted to
the preservation of wetlands and nature reserves. We have lots
wildlife refuges. They are not big game, but they are precious
game. We are on a flyway from north to south and lots of bird
watching goes on there, a very serious interest in the
preservation of species.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today.
Our bill, the one that John Corzine and I have introduced,
the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route bill, would
reauthorize a law that was based on a bill that former Senator
Bill Bradley and I first introduced in 1988. The law was
extended, but it has now expired, bringing work on the trail to
a standstill.
The bill you are considering today would authorize a $4
million Federal appropriation for New Jersey's Coastal Heritage
Trail. That authority would sunset in 2009, allowing enough
time for unfinished trail projects to be completed.
Now, New Jersey's role in the early history of our country
was a very important one. A significant part of our State's
heritage is our coastal area. There is a 300-mile trail. It is
divided into five sections that extend south from Perth Amboy,
New Jersey to Cape May, New Jersey, and then west to Deepwater,
New Jersey.
New Jersey's Coastal Heritage Trail is unique. It is
neither a national heritage area nor a national trail.
Collaboration on this trail marked the National Park Service's
first attempt at protecting a significant resource without
actually acquiring it, and the experiment has been a resounding
success. The National Park Service, the State of New Jersey,
and many other public and private organizations have worked
hard to preserve the State's natural and cultural heritage
along the trail.
The experiment also has been a bargain in real terms.
Between 1988 and 2004, the Park Service spent $3.9 million on
trail projects while non-Federal sources contributed $5.4
million in matching funds. These funds are an important
investment in New Jersey's economy. Last year 65 million
visitors came to New Jersey. Most of the people who visited New
Jersey go to seashore and end up spending time on parts of the
Coastal Heritage Trail.
Signs and exhibits along the trail entice visitors to
explore New Jersey's maritime history, the coastal habitats,
and wildlife migration. People think of us as a crowded, highly
industrialized State, and we have been that, but New Jersey is
also filled with incredible beauty that any visitor will see,
such as a bald eagle silhouetted against a Delaware Bay sunset,
a lone fishing boat making its way through Barnegat Inlet at
dawn, or the quiet, dark waters flowing slowly through the Pine
Barrens, which is a huge reserve in New Jersey. A large part of
our State is confined to that. Such sights are also part of New
Jersey and the Coastal Heritage Trail invites New Jerseyans and
many other visitors to enjoy these splendors.
So, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that your subcommittee
and the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will see
fit to report this bill promptly as it is. Getting it passed
and signed into law will help protect our environment and
markedly improve the quality of life for millions of Americans,
all at little cost to the Nation's taxpayers. I thank you for
considering this bill and for inviting me to testify on its
behalf today.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate
your being here, and we will certainly give consideration to
your bill.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Now, if we could go ahead and have our
representative here from the National Park Service, Mr. Randy
Jones, Deputy Director. Thank you for being here, Director. You
go right ahead please.
STATEMENT OF A. DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of ground
to cover, so I will move quickly. I will start with presenting
comments and the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1852, a bill to provide financial assistance for the
rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in
Philadelphia and the development of an exhibit to commemorate
the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. The
Department does not support this bill.
The bill would authorize financial assistance in the form
of a grant to the Franklin Institute to rehabilitate the
Benjamin Franklin National Memorial and to develop exhibits in
an amount not to exceed $10 million.
We are committed in the National Park Service to supporting
initiatives to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Benjamin
Franklin and the interpretation of his legacy, especially at
Franklin Court, a unit of Independence National Historic Park
in Philadelphia, which does need work in itself. So given the
current demands on National Park Service funds, we cannot
support this legislation. Our priority is to use available
National Park Service funds to work at Franklin Court to do the
work that is needed there, and that would be our top priority
for our funds.
Moving on to the views of the Department on S. 2142, a bill
to authorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage
Trail and for other purposes, the Department supports the bill
and recommends an amendment to strike the new grant-making
authority and to clarify that the Secretary prepare a strategic
plan in partnership with the State. Funding for this trail for
fiscal year 2005 in fact is included in the President's budget
pending reauthorization of the trail. So it is very important
for this legislation to proceed so that this funding can
continue to finish the work that has been started in the last
decade there.
The bill has four main objectives.
First, it would extend the authority for National Park
Service participation in the trail for 5 years.
Second, it would increase the appropriations authorization
level from $4 million to $8 million.
Third, it would require a strategic plan to be completed
within 4 years.
And finally, it authorizes the Secretary to provide grants
subject to the availability of appropriations.
Concerning the concept of the strategic plan, Mr. Chairman,
that is actually very similar to a discussion we had when you
held the oversight hearings on the proposal for heritage areas,
and the position that we feel is very important is that we
actually do business plans, with the idea of developing and
setting a course so that these areas--and this trail is in many
ways, while an affiliated unit of the park system, analogous to
a heritage area, and we need to use this remaining time to set
a course so that the area can graduate and become self-
sufficient in the future.
Moving on to the views of the Department on S. 2181, a bill
to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the
State of Colorado, the Department supports the bill with one
technical amendment, which only serves to update the map
reference.
The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
proceed with a land exchange involving Federal lands within
Rocky Mountain National Park and private lands owned by the
MacGregor Ranch, located near Estes Park. This exchange would
allow the park to address significant access issues to improve
public access to the park while protecting the private property
rights of landowners.
Over the last decade at Rocky Mountain National Park, we
have initiated a program where we have several very popular
trails that use has severely impacted private property owners
and their rights. So we have been working on a program to
relocate those trail heads to park property so that we are
minimizing the impact on private property owners.
This legislation would authorize a boundary adjustment to
include a small tract within the park that has been negotiated
with the MacGregor Ranch, and in exchange, the Secretary would
convey up to 70 acres of Federal land to the MacGregor Ranch.
Those lands, however, would have conservation easements on them
to the same form and extent that we already own on the rest of
the MacGregor Ranch, which essentially limits its use to be
used to support the cattle ranch operations essentially for
grazing and use as a hay meadow.
MacGregor Ranch is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and is owned by the charitable Muriel MacGregor
Trust, whose purpose is educational in nature. So its use both
as an historic area and for its own public use is actually very
compatible as part of the park, and the entire ranch actually
is located within the park boundary.
Moving on to S. 2432, a bill to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to modify the boundaries of Wilson's Creek
National Battlefield in the State of Missouri. The Department
strongly supports the enactment of this legislation. The
administration transmitted a similar proposal to Congress last
month.
Wilson's Creek Battlefield lies 10 miles to the southwest
of Springfield, Missouri in one of the fastest growing areas of
the country. The current acreage of the park 1,750 acres
includes 75 percent of the actual combat areas associated with
the battle and within the park boundaries. This bill would
actually complete the inclusion in the park of the significant
battle resources and the sacred ground that was part of that
battle.
The other element of this bill would also authorize the
acquisition of the Sweeney Museum property, which is one of the
tracts identified in this legislation, and their current
collection, one of the most complete private Civil War artifact
collections in existence and artifacts of very significant
national significance. So we do support the enactment of this
bill.
Moving on to present the views of the Department of the
Interior on S. 2397 and H.R. 3706, bills to adjust the
boundaries of the John Muir National Historic Site, the
Department supports enactment of this legislation which was
submitted to the Congress as the administration's proposal.
Passage of this legislation would enable the National Park
Service to fulfill a critical element of the general management
plan by facilitating construction of a visitor parking area.
For technical reasons, we recommend the committee approve the
House-passed bill rather than the Senate bill.
The John Muir National Historic Site was established in
1964 in recognition of John Muir's efforts as a conservationist
and crusader for national parks. In some regards, Senator, I
cannot help but point out I feel that this somewhat completes
the full range of testimony before this committee. Twenty-five
years ago, I had the honor of appearing before this committee
in support of 57 million acres of new park land in Alaska, and
now to testify for a bill that is two-tenths of 1 acre as an
addition to the park certainly spans the full range of
legislative proposals.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. In the truest sense, however, this is an area
that I think could be defined in laymen's terms as a survey
glitch. We need the area added, and the House-passed bill does
not limit us to acquisition by a willing seller. We are going
to have to go to court on this one to determine who is the
owner because there is no owner of record and title searches
have not provided one. So we foresee having to go to court for
the purposes of clearing title which the House-passed bill
would allow us to do.
Because of the steep terrain immediately adjacent to the
road, this two-tenths of an acre actually is critical to the
construction of a parking lot. This is similar to the issue at
Rocky Mountain where our existing parking lot which allows for
17 cars is routinely full. Overflow parking is impacting the
neighborhoods, and this would allow us to construct a suitable
parking lot for visitors to the area.
Moving on to S. 2374, the bill to authorize a land exchange
among the Chickasaw National Recreation Area and the Chickasaw
Nation and the city of Sulphur, Oklahoma, the Department
supports the bill with amendments.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
exchange Federal land in a three-way agreement between the
Chickasaw Nation, the National Park Service, and the city of
Sulphur, Oklahoma. The bill would authorize the Secretary to
convey approximately 29 acres of land owned by the National
Park Service to the Chickasaw Nation in exchange for
approximately 39 acres of land donated to the Chickasaw Nation
by the city of Sulphur and direct the Secretary to place the
land conveyed to the Chickasaw Nation in trust for the benefit
of the Chickasaw Nation. The bill would allow the Chickasaw
Nation to construct a cultural center on the trust land and
protect the watershed and riparian resources of the national
recreation area.
There is no doubt of the significance of the tract going to
the reservation for the purposes of their history and their
heritage. We think it is an appropriate that is compatible with
the area. Furthermore, the lands that would be added to our
jurisdiction are important lands related to the watershed of
the area and therefore we think add significant benefit to the
National Park Service area.
The Department does propose two amendments to this.
First, we are concerned that the bill does not specify what
duties and responsibilities are required of the Secretary in
taking the land into trust, and we would recommend the
committee set forth those duties and responsibilities and what
responsibilities the Secretary should assume with respect to
the acquisition of these lands for the Chickasaw.
And second, we would like to clarify in the bill that the
boundary of the recreation area would be adjusted to reflect
the exchange of both parcels. The current draft of the bill
adds the lands to be acquired by the National Park Service, but
does not delete the lands to be conveyed to the tribe, and we
think those lands should be deleted from the area.
I am getting to the end Senator.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's
views on H.R. 1113.
The bill would authorize an exchange of land at Fort
Frederica National Monument in Georgia.
The Department supports this exchange between Christ
Church, Frederica, and Fort Frederica National Monument, as
outlined in the House-passed bill.
The bill would authorize the Secretary to convey to Christ
Church, Frederica, located on St. Simon's Island, Georgia,
approximately 6 acres of land within the boundaries of Fort
Frederica National Monument, in exchange for approximately 8.7
acres of land near Fort Frederica that would be acquired by the
church. The 8.7-acre site that the church proposes to exchange
for the land contains archaeological remains that have been
established to be from and are significant to the colonial
period, which is consistent with the theme of the park.
This is not the first proposal that was developed for this
exchange. We had concerns about the very first proposal that
was initiated by the church a few years ago. In the
negotiations, the alternate tract was identified which we think
does merit inclusion in the park and is a good proposal.
Finally, presenting the views of the Department on S. 2567,
a bill to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the
State of California, the Department supports the enactment of
this bill.
The legislation would enable the National Park Service and
the California Department of Parks and Recreation to manage a
large swath of State-owned redwood forest land known as the
Mill Creek property under the same terms that the State park
lands currently within the boundaries of Redwood National Park
are managed. There would be no Federal cost for land
acquisition or development resulting from this legislation,
only negligible operation and maintenance costs.
The Mill Creek property was purchased by the Save the
Redwoods League for $60 million from the Stimson Lumber
Company. The land became part of the California State park
system in June 2002 and is being managed under an interim plan
pending action by Congress to add the property to Redwood
National Park.
Mr. Chairman, that does complete my testimony on all these
bills and I would be happy to answer any of the committee's
questions and offer all of my testimonies in their complete
length for the record.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Jones regarding S. 1852, S.
2142, S. 2181, S. 2432, S. 2397, H.R. 3706, S. 2374, H.R. 1113,
and S. 2567 S. 2567 follow:]
Statement of A. Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
ON S. 1852
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1852, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of
the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary
of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. The Department does not support this
bill.
This bill would authorize financial assistance in the form of a
grant to the Franklin Institute to rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin
National Memorial, and to develop an exhibit featuring artifacts and
multimedia collections relating to Benjamin Franklin, to be displayed
at a museum adjacent to the memorial. An amount not to exceed
$10,000,000 would be authorized to be appropriated in fiscal years 2004
through 2008 for these purposes.
For many years, regardless of Administrations, the Department has
opposed legislation authorizing appropriations for non-National Park
Service construction projects. Many of these projects, like the
rehabilitation of the Ben Franklin National Memorial, represent an
important contribution to the preservation of our Nation's history.
However, each time such legislation is enacted and appropriations
follow, it further reduces a limited amount of discretionary funds
available to address the priority needs of our national parks and other
programs administered by the National Park Service. With the emphasis
we have placed on the President's initiative to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog, it has become more important than ever to avoid
authorizing funding for non-National Park Service projects that would
likely draw funds from the National Park Service's budget. We are
committed to supporting initiatives to commemorate the 300th
anniversary of Benjamin Franklin and the interpretation of his legacy,
especially at Franklin Court, a unit of Independence National
Historical Park in Philadelphia, but given the current demands on
National Park Service funds, we cannot support this legislation.
The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is an affiliated area of
the National Park System that is owned and administered by the Franklin
Institute. The Memorial includes a colossal seated marble statue of
Franklin carved by sculptor James Earle Fraser, which stands in the
Rotunda of the Franklin Institute's main building at 20th Street and
the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia. The statue and
surrounding Memorial Hall was designated as the Benjamin Franklin
National Memorial on October 25, 1972 (P.L. 92-551) and made no
provision for appropriated funds to be used for acquisition,
development, operation or maintenance of this Memorial. The House
committee report on P.L. 92-551 anticipated that the Franklin Institute
would continue to operate and maintain the Memorial at no cost to the
government.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into on November 6, 1973,
falls under the administrative authority of Independence National
Historical Park. The MOA outlines the major responsibilities of each
party regarding the operations of the national memorial. The Franklin
Institute agreed to preserve the memorial in perpetuity, that no
substantial alterations or repairs be taken without Secretarial
approval, that the public shall be admitted without charge to the
memorial, and that there will be equal employment opportunities. In
turn, the Secretary agreed to include the memorial in publications, to
make appropriate references to it in the interpretive and information
programs of Independence National Historical Park, and to cooperate
with the Institute in all appropriate and mutually agreeable ways on
behalf of the memorial.
ON S. 2142
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2142, a bill to authorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal
Heritage Trail Route and for other purposes. The Department supports
the bill if amended to strike the new grant making authority and if the
Secretary prepares the strategic plan in partnership with the State.
Funding for the trail for fiscal year 2005 is included within the
President's Budget, pending reauthorization of the trail.
S. 2142 has four main objectives. First, it would extend the
authority for National Park Service participation in the New Jersey
Coastal Heritage Trail Route for five years from May 2004 to May 2009.
Second, it would increase the appropriations authorized for the trail
from $4 million to $8 million. Third, it would require a strategic plan
to be completed within four years that both describes opportunities to
increase participation by national and local private and public
interests in the planning, development, and administration of the New
Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route and that outlines organizational
options for sustaining the trail. Finally, it authorizes the Secretary
to provide grants, subject to the availability of appropriations, to
partners managing designated trail designations.
The Department is opposed to the grant making authority provision
contained in S. 2142. We cannot support this new Federal funding
commitment at a time when we are trying to focus our available
resources on taking care of existing National Park Service
responsibilities. In addition, projects within the region may qualify
for current competitive grant programs such as the Land and Water
Conservation Fund; Save America's Treasures; Rivers, Trails and
Conservation Assistance program; and the newly proposed Preserve
America initiative.
The strategic plan authorized in S. 2142 could be an important tool
to help the trail develop a long-term management strategy that includes
creating a self-sustaining funding mechanism that does not depend
indefinitely on operational funding from the National Park Service. We
would recommend that the bill be amended to require this strategic plan
to be done in partnership with the State.
Reauthorization of the trail would enable the National Park Service
to complete implementation of the trail plan, as supported by the
public and our partners in the Implementation Guide, a blueprint for
overall trail development. Without additional time and funding, the New
Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route will be left incomplete.
Commitments to trail partners would go unfulfilled, and many additional
natural and cultural resources would not receive the partnership
assistance leveraged by the trail that supports public awareness and
stewardship through this program. Implementation of the plan is also
critical in building a base of sustainable partners and developing a
strategy for the long-term management of the trail.
The Act of October 20, 1988, as amended in 1994 and 1999,
authorized the Secretary to designate a vehicular tour route in coastal
New Jersey and to prepare an inventory of sites along the route. An
interpretive program was also mandated to provide for public
appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of important fish
and wildlife habitats, geologic and geographical landforms, cultural
resources, and migration routes in coastal New Jersey. The Secretary
was authorized to provide technical assistance, prepare and distribute
information, and erect signs along the route. The trail links national
wildlife refuges, national parklands, National Historic Landmarks, and
National Register sites with important historic communities, state
parks, natural areas, and other resources to tell the story of New
Jersey's role in shaping U.S. history and in providing internationally
important habitats for bird and other migrations.
The trail, an affiliated area of the National Park System, is a
partnership among the National Park Service; the State of New Jersey
through its Department of Environmental Protection, Commerce and
Economic Growth Commission, and Pinelands Commission; and many local
government and private non-profit partners. Through interpretation of
five themes (Maritime History, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migration,
Relaxation & Inspiration, and Historic Settlements), the trail brings
attention to important natural and cultural resources along coastal New
Jersey. The trail demonstrates the potential of new public/private
partnerships that allow the National Park Service to meet its core
mission of natural and cultural resource preservation along with
interpretation and public education in a cost-efficient manner through
technical assistance while reducing operational responsibilities. No
Federal funds are used for operations, maintenance, or repair of any
road or related structure.
The trail has been authorized an appropriation of not more than
$4,000,000 to carry out its purposes during the ten years between 1994
and May 2004. The $3.9 million in Federal support between 1994 and 2004
included $1.2 million in development funding and $2.3 million in
National Park Service operational support. The trail has received $1.9
million in cash grants and $3.6 million in selected in-kind
contributions and partnership support, well exceeding the one-to-one
matching requirement established by the 1994 amendments. Since the
authorization ceiling has almost been met, the Department supports
increasing the ceiling by an additional $4 million.
The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route has special value to
the National Park Service. With over 10 years of experience behind it,
it serves as a model for successful partnerships among the Federal
government, state and local governments, and partner organizations.
Instead of traditional Federal ownership, the Trail uses technical
assistance through interpretation as the protection strategy for the
resources along the 300 miles of New Jersey coastline where people
continue to live and work. Land ownership and day-to-day operations
remain with the partner organizations and agencies. It is an example of
an integrated system of local, state, and Federal partnership
cooperation with people working on a state-wide level to promote
preservation and stewardship of resources as well as economic
development strategies. It is an excellent example of the ``seamless
network of parks'' strategy encouraged by the Department. The costs are
very modest when compared to the management expense of national park
units.
For example, the Delsea Region Welcome Center for the trail is
located at Fort Mott State Park. The State contributed workspace,
rehabilitated the building, assisted with exhibit development, and has
operated and staffed the facility since it opened in 1993. The National
Park Service assisted by developing exhibits for both the park and for
the trail, and by preparing an audio-visual orientation program.
Attendance at Fort Mott has nearly quadrupled since becoming a trail
destination and Welcome Center.
The trail produces brochures and a web page that provide national
visibility to destinations and resources that might otherwise be
overlooked. Over sixty destinations are linked under the five
interpretive themes. All trail destinations provide their own
management, staffing, and public programs. The trail supports
ecotourism and heritage tourism initiatives in New Jersey where tourism
is the second largest employer, creating over 400,000 jobs in 2003 and
bringing in $26 billion in tourism-related expenditures. Last year over
50 million visits were made to the New Jersey shore regions--a huge
audience for the awareness, preservation, and stewardship message of
the trail. Millions of visitors go to the New Jersey Shore to enjoy the
beaches in the summer. The trail not only provides rainy day
alternatives for tourists, but it also extends the summer season and
provides additional year-round opportunities for both residents and
visitors who visit the Jersey Shore on an annual basis.
The trail has also supported cutting edge environmental and
migratory habitat research through two National Park Foundation grant
projects in partnership with New Jersey Audubon using Doppler radar and
acoustic sound recordings to track nighttime songbird migration through
New Jersey. This is critical as New Jersey lies along the migratory
Atlantic Flyway, and the Delaware Bayshore region of New Jersey is
designated as a Ramsar Treaty Wetland of International Importance
component of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and a
site in the Nature Conservancy's Last Great Places Program.
ON S. 2181
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 2181, a bill to adjust the
boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado.
The Department supports S. 2181 with a technical amendment to
update the map reference. This bill would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to proceed with a land exchange involving Federal land within
Rocky Mountain National Park and private lands owned by the MacGregor
Ranch, located near Estes Park, Colorado. This exchange would allow the
park to address significant access issues to improve public access to
the park while protecting the private property rights of landowners.
The Secretary would receive title to three parcels of vacant land
encompassing approximately 6 acres. Two of the parcels are located
within the authorized boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park. This
legislation would authorize a boundary adjustment to include the third
parcel within the park boundary. In exchange for the three parcels, the
Secretary would convey up to 70 acres of Federal land to the MacGregor
Ranch. As a condition of the land exchange, the Secretary would reserve
a perpetual easement on the Federal parcel for the purposes of
protecting, preserving and enhancing the conservation values of the
Federal parcel. The parcel conveyed to the MacGregor Ranch will remain
within the authorized boundary of the park, and will be used as an
irrigated hay meadow and for grazing cattle.
Rocky Mountain National Park was established by Congress on January
26, 1915, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United
States and to protect the natural conditions and scenic beauties of
this portion of the Rocky Mountains. The park currently encompasses
approximately 266,000 acres and has some of the most beautiful mountain
scenery to be found anywhere in our country. Each year the park draws
over 3 million visitors.
The MacGregor Ranch was homesteaded in 1873, which predates the
establishment of Rocky Mountain National Park. In 1917, shortly after
the establishment of the national park, the National Park Service built
a residence for park employees just inside the park boundary, with
access via a one-lane dirt road which crosses the MacGregor Ranch for
about 3/4 of a mile. This access was provided with the permission of
the MacGregor family, but no easement, right-of-way, or other legal
document was ever recorded.
The MacGregor Ranch is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and is owned by the charitable Muriel MacGregor Trust. The
mission of the Trust is to support youth education through the
preservation and interpretation of the historic buildings and
educational tours of this working high mountain cattle ranch. In 1980,
the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park was amended to include
much of the MacGregor Ranch, and in 1983 the National Park Service
purchased a conservation easement covering 1,221 acres of the ranch.
While much of the ranch is located within the authorized boundary of
the national park, it remains private property.
In the early 1970's, hikers and rock climbers began using the
access road through the MacGregor Ranch to reach a small parking lot
located just inside the park boundary. Known as the Twin Owls
trailhead, the popularity of the area has grown steadily. In recent
years, overflow parking has negatively impacted the ranch, and traffic
on the one-lane access road has negatively affected the character of
the historic homestead and has diminished the quality of the historic
scene that visitors to the ranch come to experience.
For several years, the National Park Service and the MacGregor
Ranch have been working to find a solution to the traffic and parking
problems. Several Environmental Assessments have been prepared to
examine various alternatives and gather public input. In 2003, based on
public input and an Environmental Assessment, the National Park Service
decided to relocate the Twin Owls parking lot to the east end of the
MacGregor Ranch, some distance away from the historic homestead. A new
access road and a larger trailhead parking lot that can accommodate 80
to 100 cars will be built at the new location.
So that the rules and regulations governing Rocky Mountain National
Park can be enforced at the new trailhead and along the access road,
the land needs to be incorporated into the national park. To accomplish
this, the MacGregor Trust and the National Park Service have agreed to
a land exchange. The three parcels acquired by the National Park
Service will be used for the development of the new parking lot and
access road. The conveyance of up to 70-acres of Federal land to the
MacGregor Ranch with a conservation easement will ensure that the
property is used solely for ranching.
No appraisals have been done on the properties to be included in
the land exchange; however, the National Park Service believes that the
lands are of comparable value. It is estimated that the cost of the
exchange could be approximately $13,000, which includes an
environmental site assessment and other closing costs.
The estimated development cost for the parking lot, access road,
vault toilet, connector trail and related improvements is $800,000.
Rocky Mountain National Park has already programmed the funds for this
development from 80% Fee Demonstration and National Parks Pass
revenues. Annual operating costs are not expected to increase as the
new development is replacing existing facilities and employs
sustainable design principles.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Page 2, line 4 strike ``121/60,467, dated September 12, 2003.'' and
insert ``121/80,154, dated June 2004.''.
ON S. 2432
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2432,
a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to modify the
boundaries of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield in the State of
Missouri. The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 2432. The
Administration transmitted a similar proposal to Congress on June 10.
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield lies 10 miles to the southwest
of Springfield, Missouri, in one of the fastest growing areas of the
country. The current acreage of the park is approximately 1,750 acres,
but only 75 percent of the actual combat areas associated with the
battle are within the park's boundaries. S. 2432 would provide
permanent protection from development for significant resources that
are integral to the historic events that the park was established to
commemorate. It would add approximately 615 acres from six parcels of
land that make up the remaining significant resources outside the park
boundary that are directly related to the battle. This bill also
authorizes the acquisition of the Sweeney Museum property and
collections, one of the most complete private civil war artifacts
collections in existence. This expansion was included as part of the
General Management Plan, and is the number one acquisition priority for
the National Park Service's Midwest Region. The operational cost of the
Sweeney collection and land structures is estimated at $500,000.
In addition, the Act that established the park in 1960 stated ``. .
. the Secretary of the Interior shall acquire . . . the lands (together
with any improvements thereon) comprising the Wilson's Creek
Battlefield site near Springfield, Missouri, and any other lands
adjacent to such site which in his opinion are necessary or desirable
to carry out the purposes of this Act.'' These parcels would
significantly increase the park's capability to interpret the important
events surrounding the battle of August 10, 1861, in which over 537
Union and Confederate soldiers lost their lives and 2,500 were wounded.
There are six areas proposed for inclusion within the park's
boundaries. Area 1 encompasses 20 acres including General Sweeney's
Museum of Civil War History, a garage, and a house. The Sweeney museum
is a private museum that houses one of the best privately owned Civil
War collections in the United States. The collection includes 8,000-
10,000 museum objects and numerous archives related to the Battle of
Wilson's Creek and the Civil War in the Trans-Mississippi West.
Acquisition of the entire Sweeney Archives & Collections is essential
to enhance the interpretation and visitor experience of the park. It is
anticipated that school groups, researchers, and traditional visitors
will use the museum.
Area 2 includes 160 acres encompassing the hilltop where Colonel
Franz Sigel began his bombardment of the Confederate encampment and his
forces' route of approach to the Sharp stubble field. It also includes
a portion of the historic Dixon farmstead that was used as a field
hospital. The inclusion of the site would enhance interpretation of the
impact of the battle on civilians who lived in the valley.
Area 3 includes 150 acres encompassing the ridge that became known
in the aftermath of the battle as Bloody Hill. Bloody Hill was the core
combat area of the Battle of Wilson's Creek. It was an area of intense
fighting involving thousands of troops. Casualty rates, particularly
among Union forces, proportionately were among the highest seen during
the entire war.
Area 4 includes 200 acres encompassing the Guinn Farm, Moody's
Spring, and the intersection of Telegraph and York Roads. The Guinn
Farm was the site of a skirmish between a portion of Sigel's retreating
forces and troops of the Missouri State Guard; a Union artillery piece
was abandoned here. Moody's Spring provided a year-round water source
for both Union and Confederate encampments during the Civil War. The
Telegraph Road was critical as a means of linking transportation and
communication with southwestern Missouri and St. Louis to the north and
Arkansas and Fort Smith to the south. Colonel Sigel's troops also used
both the Telegraph Road and the Little York Road during their retreat
from the battle.
Area 5 includes 25 acres encompassing the approach of the Union
forces under General Nathaniel Lyon. The first shots of the battle were
fired here when Lyon's advance troops clashed with southern foragers.
The anticipated construction of a trail in this area would allow
visitors to retrace General Lyon's route to encounter the battlefield
as the main Union force did on the morning of August 10, 1861.
Finally, Area 6 encompasses 60 acres including the rallying point
for Louisiana and Arkansas forces that had retreated from the Ray
cornfield after nearly overwhelming advancing Union infantry in the
opening stages of the battle.
Inclusion of these six areas would allow the National Park Service
to more completely tell the story of the Civil War battle at Wilson's
Creek while protecting the lands that played a prominent role in this
encounter.
Once this legislation passes, the National Park Service will work
cooperatively and collaboratively with the landowners. An appraisal of
the properties has not yet been done; however, the total land
acquisition cost for the six areas is estimated at $6.15-$7.38 million,
which includes the estimated $2.5-$3.0 million to acquire the museum
collection. Area 1, the Sweeney property, is a high priority in the
National Park Service's Midwest Regional Office's land acquisition
ranking system.
ON S. 2397 AND H.R. 3706
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2397 and H.R. 3706, bills to adjust the boundary of the John Muir
National Historic Site.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation, which was
submitted to Congress as an Administration proposal last year. Passage
of the legislation would enable the National Park Service to fulfill
one of the General Management Plan objectives for the park by
facilitating construction of a visitor parking area. As explained later
in the testimony, we recommend that the committee approve H.R. 3706
rather than S. 2397.
John Muir National Historic Site was established in 1964 by Public
Law 88-547 in recognition of John Muir's efforts as a conservationist
and a crusader for national parks and reservations. The site includes
the home where John Muir lived from 1890 until his death in 1914, the
historic Martinez adobe, Mt. Wanda, and the Muir grave site. Included
in the 1988 boundary expansion (Public Law 100-563) that added Mt.
Wanda to the park was a 3.3-acre parcel owned by the City of Martinez.
Following passage of the legislation, the city donated the parcel to
the National Park Service to be administered as part of the national
historic site.
At the time of the transfer, both city and National Park Service
staff believed that the 3.3-acre parcel, located between the south side
of Franklin Canyon Road and the Santa Fe Railroad line, encompassed all
of the land between the street and the railroad line. However, in 1994,
while surveying the area, the National Park Service discovered that a
0.2-acre (9,500 square foot) tract abutting the south edge of the road
had not been part of the parcel donated by the city. Furthermore, it
was determined that no one was listed as the owner of the tract with
the county tax assessor, that it lacked a tax assessor parcel number,
and that no taxes had been collected or paid on the parcel since the
1960's. All efforts to trace the ownership of the property have been
unsuccessful.
This 0.2-acre parcel is needed for a new 32-car/2-bus visitor
parking area, as called for by the park's 1991 General Management Plan.
The park's existing 17-space parking area regularly fills to capacity,
causing visitor parking to overflow onto the adjoining neighborhood
streets. The City of Martinez has sought the additional off-street
visitor parking to respond to residents' concerns. Construction of the
parking area is estimated to cost about $200,000, and funds from the
National Park Service's Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (the 20
percent fund for which non-fee-collecting parks are eligible) have been
set aside for this purpose. Because of the steep terrain of the area,
there are no suitable alternatives within the boundary for a parking
lot that excludes this 0.2 acre tract. Work cannot proceed on the
parking lot until the park acquires the tract.
Despite the tiny size of this parcel, the National Park Service
cannot use minor boundary adjustment authority under 16 U.S.C. 4601-9
to add the property to the boundary. One of the criteria for use of
that authority is that the National Park Service obtain written consent
from the owner of the affected property. In this case, as mentioned
previously, the owner cannot be located.
Both S. 2397 and H.R. 3706 provide for adoption of a new boundary
map that places the 0.2 acre parcel in question within the boundary of
the John Muir National Historic Site, and both authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to acquire the tract and administer it as part of the
park. However, S. 2397 provides for acquisition only from a willing
seller. Since the owner cannot be located, we anticipate acquiring
title through condemnation, which S. 2397 would not allow. H.R. 3706
does not include a ``willing seller'' provision and therefore would
allow acquisition through condemnation. For that reason, we urge the
committee to approve H.R. 3706, which was passed by the House on June
21, rather than S. 2397.
ON S. 2374
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 2374. This bill would authorize a
land exchange among the Chickasaw National Recreation Area, the
Chickasaw Nation and the City of Sulphur, Oklahoma.
The Department supports S. 2374 with amendments. The bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to exchange Federal land in a
three-way agreement between the Chickasaw Nation, the National Park
Service, and the City of Sulphur, Oklahoma. This bill would authorize
the Secretary to convey approximately 29 acres of land owned by the
National Park Service to the Chickasaw Nation in exchange for
approximately 39 acres of land donated to the Chickasaw Nation by the
City of Sulphur, Oklahoma; direct the Secretary to place the land
conveyed to the Chickasaw Nation in trust for the benefit of the
Chickasaw Nation; allow the Chickasaw Nation to construct a cultural
center on the trust land; and protect the watershed and riparian
resources of Chickasaw National Recreation Area.
The Chickasaw Nation has expressed an interested in establishing a
cultural center inside or adjacent to the park. The cultural center
would include a performing arts theater, plaza area, administration/
cultural education center, visitor center, stickball field, village,
agricultural field, amphitheater, and parking lots. In 2000, the NPS
Intermountain Regional Director signed a letter of support to work with
the Chickasaw Nation and the City of Sulphur to investigate the
possibility of a land exchange to allow the construction of the
cultural center on a site currently within the park's boundary, after
that property has been exchanged for a site of equal value.
This bill would provide the following benefits to the National Park
Service, the Chickasaw Nation, and the City of Sulphur:
The NPS would enhance its ability to protect scenic values
and reduce potential land use encroachments on both the east
and west boundaries of the park through close cooperative
efforts with the Chickasaw Nation and the City of Sulphur. The
Chickasaw National Recreation Area, through a partnership with
the Chickasaw Nation, would meet its mandate to provide access
to the culture and history of the Chickasaw Nation, in a way
that allows the Nation to tell their story to the millions of
park visitors. The addition of Tract 102-26 to Chickasaw
National Recreation Area would help to protect Wilson Creek and
its drainage, a major tributary to Veterans Lake located within
current park boundaries.
The Chickasaw Nation would establish an important research,
education, and museum facility to document and extend
understanding of their culture to its members and visitors on
lands that hold significant historical connection to the
Chickasaw Nation.
The City of Sulphur and the surrounding Murray County
communities would contribute to the protection of land
resources within the county, while providing additional
economic development potential to the local economies.
Enactment of this bill would acknowledge and support the
long and vibrant partnership among the National Park Service,
the Chickasaw Nation, and the citizens of Oklahoma.
Set aside as Sulphur Springs Reservation in 1902, Chickasaw
National Recreation Area has gone through several expansions and name
changes. The Chickasaw Nation, fearful that Seven Springs now
``Pavilion Springs'' would end up in the hands of private developers,
agreed to cede the springs to the Federal government. Amending the
Treaty of Atoka of 1897, the Chickasaw and the Choctaw ceded a tract of
640 acres containing the springs to the Federal government for $20 an
acre. The government set aside the 640 acres as the Sulphur Springs
Reservation in 1902. In 1904, 218 acres were added and Sulphur Springs
Reservation was opened to the public. Renamed Platt National Park in
1906 in honor of Senator Orville H. Platt of Connecticut, it carried
that name for the next 70 years.
In the mid 1960's, a series of events occurred including the
construction of Arbuckle Dam and Lake, the formation and management of
the Arbuckle Recreation Area by the NPS, and the addition of land along
Rock Creek to connect the recreation area to Platt National Park. In
1976, Platt National Park, the Arbuckle Recreation Area, and additional
lands were combined and renamed Chickasaw National Recreation Area to
protect and expand water and other resources, to memorialize the
history and culture of the Chickasaw Nation, and to provide for public
outdoor recreation.
From prehistoric times to the present, access to the combination of
cool water, mineral springs, cool breezes, shade, and wildlife has
created at Chickasaw National Recreation Area an experience that sets
it apart from the surrounding environment. The springs and streams of
Chickasaw come from a complex geological and hydrological feature and
these resources have been economically and environmentally significant
throughout the history of the region, and are valuable for scientific
research.
The park holds a vast diversity of natural resources. These unique
flora, fauna, waters, and geological formations have withstood the
external pressures of man made and natural changes.
The Secretary, the Chickasaw Nation and the City have completed all
required environmental compliance and have signed a preliminary
agreement to effect the land exchange to allow the construction of a
cultural center. The value of the federal land and non-federal land is
approximately equal, as determined by the Secretary through an
appraisal performed by a qualified appraiser and in conformance with
the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Through
the signed preliminary agreement, the Chickasaw Nation has agreed to
bear all costs associated with this transfer, including environmental
surveys, appraisals, boundary surveys, title examinations, and closing
costs.
The land to be conveyed to the Chickasaw Nation holds significant
historical and cultural connections for the people of the Nation, and
the proposed use by the Nation is consistent with protecting park
values.
The Department proposes two amendments following this statement.
First, we are concerned that the bill does not specify what duties and
responsibilities are required of the Secretary in taking the land into
trust. The Department has devoted a great deal of time to trust reform
discussions. The nature of the trust relationship is now often the
subject of litigation, and much of the current controversy over trust
stems from the failure to have clear guidance as to the parameters,
roles and responsibilities of the trustee and the beneficiary. As
Trustee, the Secretary may face a variety of issues, including land use
and zoning issues. Accordingly, the Secretary's trust responsibility to
manage the land should be addressed with clarity and precision.
The Department has an established regulatory process for taking
land into trust that would provide such clarification. Before land is
taken into trust through this process, the Secretary considers
important issues such as the use of the land and the potential impact
upon the relationship between the tribe and local residents. If
Congress directs the Secretary to take land into trust, as it does in
the bill, we feel that Congress should provide the guideposts for
defining what that relationship means. Both the Executive Branch and
the Judicial Branch are faced with the question of what exactly does
Congress intend when it puts land into trust status. Congress should
decide these issues, not the courts.
Therefore, we recommend the Committee set forth in the bill the
specific trust duties it wishes the United States to assume with
respect to the acquisition of these lands for the Chickasaw. For
example, the bill should be more specific about the use of the trust
property. We understand that the Chickasaw Nation, the State of
Oklahoma, the City of Sulfur and the National Park Service have worked
to address some of these issues, including the use of the trust land.
An amendment that in part reflects this agreement is provided at the
end of this testimony. The benefits of either the regulatory approach
or Congress providing more specific direction concerning the
Secretary's trust duties are that it would clearly establish the
beneficiary's expectations, clearly define the roles and
responsibilities of each party, and establish how certain services are
provided to tribal members.
Second, we would like to clarify that the boundary of Chickasaw
National Recreation Area will be adjusted to reflect the exchange of
the two parcels.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Page 5, line 6 strike ``to allow the construction of a cultural
center and to protect'' and insert ``for the exclusive purposes of
constructing and operating a tribal cultural center to interpret the
culture and history of the Chickasaw Nation and for protecting''.
Page 6, line 8 strike all after ``Boundary Revision.--'' and insert
``Upon completion of the conveyance of the non-Federal land to the
Secretary pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall revise the boundary
of Chickasaw National Recreation Area to reflect the exchange with the
Chickasaw Nation.''.
ON H.R. 1113
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department's views on H.R. 1113. This bill
would authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National
Monument.
The Department supports an exchange of land between Christ Church,
Frederica and Fort Frederica National Monument, as outlined in H.R.
1113. Although appraisals have not been completed for the two parcels,
we expect that the value of the land received by the National Park
Service (NPS) will be more than the value of the land given up so there
will be no need for land acquisition funding. The NPS would incur
increased operational costs associated with the exchange because of the
archeological value to the park of the acquired lands. However, the
amount of those costs cannot be determined until the significance of
the resources present on the site NPS acquires is established.
The Department testified in support of this bill at a House
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands hearing on
April 8, 2003. At the House markup the bill was amended to adjust the
amount of land to be given by the NPS to Christ Church from 4.8 acres
to 6 acres in order to provide sufficient land for the church to
complete their development project. As a part of this process, the NPS
worked closely with Representative Kingston's office to assure that the
historic scene of the National Monument will be protected and that the
park's artifact storage facility and other buildings would remain
within the park boundary.
H.R. 1113 would authorize the Secretary to convey to Christ Church,
Frederica, located on St. Simons Island, Georgia approximately 6 acres
of land within the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument in
exchange for approximately 8.7 acres of land near Fort Frederica that
will be acquired by Christ Church. Upon completion of the exchange, the
Secretary shall revise the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument
and administer the land acquired through the exchange as part of the
monument.
Fort Frederica National Monument is located 12 miles northeast of
Brunswick on St. Simons Island, Georgia. The monument's authorized
boundary contains 250 acres and preserves the remains of a fortified
town established and laid out by Governor James Oglethorpe in 1736 to
defend against invasion from Spanish colonies in Florida.
Fort Frederica was one of the earliest English settlements in what
ultimately became the State of Georgia, preceded by Fort King George
(1721), located near Darien, Georgia, and the Cities of Savannah (1733)
and Augusta (1735), also established and planned by Oglethorpe. Fort
Frederica was a prosperous community of substantial homes whose
residents were tradesmen and farmers supplying the garrison stationed
there much the same way communities provide goods and services to
military installations today. In 1739, Britain and Spain entered a war
that eventually involved Fort Frederica. After the 1748 treaty,
Frederica's military garrison was withdrawn and the town of Fort
Frederica fell into decline. In 1758, a fire destroyed most of the
existing structures.
Fort Frederica National Monument was established on May 26, 1936.
Subsequent legislation increased the authorized boundary to 250 acres
and directed the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Battle of
Bloody Marsh memorial site on St. Simons Island. Subject to the 250-
acre limitation, the Secretary was also authorized to acquire
additional marshland acreage west of the Frederica River, across from
the National Monument, for additional protection of the historic scene.
On June 29, 1993, following a lengthy campaign involving the
efforts and support of the Trust for Public Land and many private
citizens of St. Simons Island, Fort Frederica acquired 28 acres of
land, including river frontage on the south side of the town site, that
had been planned for a major marina development. This acquisition
preserved the historic view of the river approach to Fort Frederica.
The 6-acre parcel that H.R. 1113 directs the Secretary to give to
Christ Church is within this 28-acre acquisition.
The 8.7-acre site that Christ Church proposes to exchange for the
land at Fort Frederica contains archeological remains that have been
established to be from the colonial period. Tradition indicates that
the land includes General Ogelthorpe's home, however we are unaware of
any archeological survey work that has been completed on this tract to
positively determine if this is the case.
The main town site within the National Monument contains several
well preserved and partially reconstructed colonial ruins. There may be
additional administrative and operational costs associated with
protecting a small archeological site detached from the main park unit
and it has not been determined if that cost is commensurate with the
limited additional interpretive value of the site if it only contains
additional Frederica era resources but does not include Oglethorpe's
home.
S. 2567
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2567, a bill to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the
State of California.
The Department supports enactment of S. 2567. This legislation
would enable the National Park Service and the California Department of
Parks and Recreation to manage a large swath of state-owned redwood
forest land, known as the Mill Creek property, under the same terms
that state park lands currently within the boundary of Redwood National
Park are managed. It would thus provide for more efficient and cost-
effective management and protection of a very ecologically important
resource in the coastal redwood region of northern California. There
would be no Federal costs for land acquisition or development resulting
from this legislation, and only negligible operation and maintenance
costs.
S. 2567 would revise the boundary of Redwood National Park and
increase the park's acreage limitation from 106,000 acres to 133,000
acres to accommodate the addition of the 25,500-acre Mill Creek
property and about 900 acres of state park lands that have been
acquired since the last park boundary adjustment was enacted in 1978.
The Mill Creek property consists of the watersheds of Mill Creek and
Rock Creek, tributaries to the Smith River, and is contiguous to the
Redwood National Park boundary. This property has been studied and
proposed for park status since the early 1900's, most recently in the
1960's as the heart of an early proposal to establish Redwood National
Park. Coast redwoods comprise almost 95 percent of the forest type on
the property. The land includes about 121 acres of ancient redwood
forest, and contains 23 species that are endangered, threatened, or of
special concern. Mill Creek supports the most significant run of Coho
salmon in the entire Smith River watershed and has been identified as
critical to the recovery of the species.
The Mill Creek property was purchased by the Save-the-Redwoods
League for $60 million from the Stimson Lumber Company, which was
phasing out logging operations on the property and wanted to sell the
land. Funding for the purchase came from a variety of state and private
sources. The land became part of the California state park system in
June, 2002, and is being managed under an interim plan pending action
by Congress to add the property to Redwood National Park.
If the Mill Creek property is included within the boundary of
Redwood National Park, it will be managed under the same cooperative
management agreement that the National Park Service and the California
Department of Parks and Recreation currently use to manage the National
Park Service property and the three state parks within the boundary.
The joint Federal-state management arrangement at Redwood is unusual
within the National Park System, but has come to serve as a model of
interagency cooperative management efforts.
The Federal-state management arrangement at Redwood stems from the
origins of the park. The 1968 legislation that established Redwood
National Park and the 1978 legislation that expanded it included three
existing state parks within the boundary in anticipation of eventual
conveyance from the state to the National Park Service. For a variety
of reasons, that conveyance did not occur. The state parks currently
own about 32 percent of the land within the Redwood National Park
boundary, and about half the acreage of the ancient redwood forest in
the park. In the 1990's, after years of experiencing duplication of
efforts and management conflicts, the National Park Service and the
California Department of Parks and Recreation established a framework
for cooperative management of the Federal and state parks. Congress
facilitated this effort by providing authority for the National Park
Service to enter into a cooperative management agreement for the
Redwood parks with the state agency--and, incidentally, has since
extended that authority to all units of the National Park System due in
large part to the success of the arrangement at Redwood.
The Federal-state cooperative management agreement at Redwood
National Park allows the two park agencies to operate the entire
105,000-acre area in a unified manner. In a reflection of that unity,
while ``Redwood National Park'' remains the legal name for the park,
the name of the site that is used for public information purposes is
``Redwood National and State Parks.'' The management decisions of both
agencies are guided by a joint General Management Plan, adopted in
2000. The two agencies share staff, equipment, and facilities to
fulfill common resource protection and visitor service goals. They
develop common procedures for activities such as issuing special use
permits, and common programs for park operations such as staff training
and media relations. They develop and implement schedules so that the
two agencies cover for each other and avoid duplication. Both agencies
benefit from efficiencies in the areas of law enforcement,
interpretation, administration, resource management and maintenance.
Facilities and space on the new parcel will increase these efficiencies
by providing centralized staging areas, storage space and offices for
these joint operations.
Adding the Mill Creek property to the boundary of Redwood National
Park, as S. 2567 would do, would enable the National Park Service and
the California Department of Parks and Recreation to extend all the
benefits of the cooperative management agreement to that property, as
well. The result would be the more efficient and effective management
and protection of land that provides a critically important
contribution to the ecological values that the National Park Service
protects at Redwood National Park.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. Your testimony will be
included in the record.
Redwood Park that you just mentioned is kind of a
conglomeration of State, city, and national park units. Is that
not right?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Or lands, rather.
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Senator. In the truest sense,
it is a partnership between the National Park Service and the
State of California. There are three separate State parks, and
the State park employees and the National Park Service
employees work as a team and share resources and share expenses
for the operation of the area as a whole.
Senator Thomas. Is this going to be a cost-saving change
for the National Park Service?
Mr. Jones. In some regards, we think it is because it would
allow this particular block of land to be considered in the
same context as all of the other existing State blocks of land
and not have to be treated in a different form or in a
different manner. So it provides consistency so that everything
can be operated under one document and one agreement.
Senator Thomas. Back to the Benjamin Franklin Memorial.
What is your priority there? You had something you wanted to
work on rather than what is suggested here in the bill. Is that
correct?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Senator. We do have a section
of Independence National Historical Park dedicated to the
history of Benjamin Franklin. That is a site that does need
work and investment to improve our interpretation and our
facilities there. We think that should be our top priority for
our existing funds.
In the context of history, while the Franklin Memorial is
an affiliated unit of the National Park System, not a full
unit, citing back to the 1970's when Congress passed the
legislation, the committee report language at that time
specifically said in establishing the area as an affiliated
area that it was under the assumption that the private sector
would continue to fund and operate the area and not the
National Park Service.
Senator Thomas. This heritage trail route. What type of a
unit is that with respect to the Park Service?
Mr. Jones. It was a piece of legislation that passed in and
of itself. It is sort of a marriage of an affiliated unit with
the heritage area concept. That is one of those things, as we
have discussed before at other hearings, the whole evolution of
the heritage area concept, which is probably what this is most
analogous to.
A lot of excellent work has been done, working with the
State. They have established a series of welcome or visitor
centers in the area. They have developed a series of
publications. Work is well underway and I think we have made
very good progress. There is no doubt of the significance of
this area from a variety of points of view because there are
National Park System units in the area. There are also a series
of national wildlife refuges in the area because it is a very
important area for migratory birds, as well as beautiful
beaches. So we have a continuing role, and the purpose of this
bill is really just to allow us to finish our work so that the
area can graduate and move on on its own in a few years.
Senator Thomas. There is no authority there for land
acquisition or control of private lands surrounding or those
kinds of things?
Mr. Jones. No, sir, there is not.
The one concern we do have on that bill is the authority to
create new grant-making authority to local entities. We feel
that there are already existing authorities that could be used,
for example, the State-side Land and Water Conservation Fund in
cooperation with the State, the Save America's Treasures
program, and other programs that we feel provide existing
authority that is adequate to any of those needs, rather than
creating new grant-making authority to this area. So we would
prefer not to see that in the bill.
Senator Thomas. Senator Talent, I will get right back to
you. I will let the Senator ask questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jones, I would like to ask a couple of questions about
H.R. 1113, the land exchange at Fort Frederica National
Monument in Georgia. As I understand your testimony, the lands
to be conveyed to Christ Church were acquired by the Park
Service in 1993. If these lands were important enough to add to
the park 11 years ago, why do you now support transferring them
out of the park?
And second, was this exchange initiated by the Park Service
or by the church?
Mr. Jones. The lands that we are proposing and agree could
go to the church were part of a larger tract. Our purpose and
interest in the original acquisition of this tract was for the
values on the rest of the tract--I believe it was somewhere
between 26 and 30 acres in size. Being part of the larger
tract, it is the other values that were of significance to the
park. The lands that would go to the church are directly
adjacent to the park's maintenance facility and other developed
facilities. Therefore, we feel this is a use that can be
compatible with the park purposes, especially since the lands
that they are now proposing to exchange with us definitely do
have significant resources and value that add to the purposes
of the park.
The second question. It is my understanding that the
initial discussions were initiated by the church. They made an
original proposal to us that we did not support and said we
would not support. They then, over a period of time, came up
with this new proposal that we have been working with them on
that would add significant resources to the park. So that is
why we feel we are in a position to support it today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
My other question is on S. 2567, the Redwood National Park.
According to your testimony, the State of California owns 32
percent of the land in Redwood National and State Park. What is
the relative funding contribution of the National Park Service
and the State of California's Department of Parks and
Recreation for the management of the combined Redwood National
and State Park?
Mr. Jones. Senator, I have to apologize and say I would be
happy to supply that to you for the record. I do not know those
numbers off the top of my head. But both the State and the
National Park Service do put significant resources into the
area and we feel we have an excellent team relationship with
the State in managing this resource for the public.
Senator Akaka. From what I have seen of the map, it looks
as though it is a good move.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Talent.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MISSOURI
Senator Talent. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just
want to thank you for scheduling the hearing on S. 2432, you
and the ranking member, and also Mr. Jones and the
administration for their support. This is the Wilson's Creek
National Battlefield bill.
Just for the record--and I will not go through the whole
opening statement, although I would like to submit it for the
record, Mr. Chairman--this was a very significant early battle
in the Civil War, the first major battle west of the
Mississippi. It was in August 1861. General Nathaniel Lyon
tried to drive the Confederates entirely out of the State of
Missouri. He was unable to do it. But they fought a big battle
with 2,300 casualties. It was inconclusive but it was very
important in terms of the history of the war.
It is a great battlefield, a very pristine one. We do need
to expand it a little bit because of the pressure that we are
getting from the urban growth out of the city of Springfield,
which is growing very rapidly. So we are working with the
administration, and we are going to try to acquire at least
initially Sweeney's Museum, which is one of the biggest private
Civil War collections in the country, and add it to the
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.
I sure appreciate your holding this hearing and would
appreciate being able to move the bill as quickly as we can. So
thanks for your consideration. And I will put the rest of my
statement in the record, if that is OK.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Talent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Talent, U.S. Senator
From Missouri
WILSON'S CREEK BATTLEFIELD BOUNDARY BILL
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today and thank
you for including S. 2432, to expand the boundaries of Wilson's Creek
National Battlefield in Southwest Missouri.
The battle at Wilson's Creek was one of the bloodiest battles early
in the Civil War and the battleground and buildings of historic
significance should be protected and preserved.
As states seceded from the Union in 1860-61, Missouri attempted to
maintain neutrality. However, with a pro-southern governor and a pro-
Union legislature, Missouri was destined to fight a civil war within
the very state itself.
All hope of neutrality ended in July 1861 when a peace conference
between Governor Jackson and Union Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon
failed, with Lyon declaring that he would rather ``the blood of every
man, woman and child within the limits of the State should flow, than
she should defy the Federal Government. This means war!''
After forming an army, General Lyon drove the pro-Confederate
Missouri State Guard under Major General Sterling Price into the south-
west of the state, where he prepared to finish them off. He was
ultimately unsuccessful in his endeavor, as the Confederate Army won
the battle at Wilson's Creek.
The battle fought at Wilson's Creek on August 10, 1861, was the
first major Civil War engagement west of the Mississippi River,
involving about 5,400 Union troops and 12,000 Confederates. Although a
Confederate victory, the Southerners failed to capitalize on their
success and the battle led to greater federal military activity in
Missouri. Wilson's Creek was also the scene of the death of General
Lyon, the first Union general to be killed in combat.
Although a minor engagement, this was one of the most fiercely-
contested of the war. The Federals were outnumbered more than 2 to 1.
They lost 1,235 (223 killed, 721 wounded, 291 missing) while inflicting
on the Confederates a loss of 1,184 (257 killed, 900 wounded, 27
missing). They killed or wounded 214 Confederates for every 1,000 of
their own troops engaged, whereas the Confederates inflicted only 81
casualties on the same basis.
Currently, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield is ranked among the
most pristine Civil War battlefields in the country. But that does not
make it immune from the pressure of the Springfield's urban sprawl.
Recently, it was placed on the Civil War Preservation Trust's list of
at-risk battlefields. The Springfield area is one of the fastest
growing communities in the nation. If this piece of American history is
going to be preserved, we must to act quickly and I appreciate the
Administration's support in this endeavor.
Additionally, my legislation also authorizes the acquisition of the
Sweeney museum; a private museum that houses one of the best privately
owned Civil War collections in the United States. The collection
includes thousands of artifacts and numerous archives related to the
Battle of Wilson's Creek and the Civil War in the region. Acquisition
of the entire Sweeney Archives & Collections is essential to enhance
visitors' interpretation and experience of the park.
The full story of the battle should be preserved for generations to
come, not buried under the Springfield suburbs. I appreciate it being
included in this hearing and I look forward to working with the
Chairman to have this legislation approved by the full committee.
Senator Thomas. A couple of other quick ones. The Chickasaw
land conveyed to the Chickasaw Nation will be the site of their
national cultural center. What is the role of the national park
in that?
Mr. Jones. The area would be the tribe's. They would
operate it. We would not have operational expenses involved in
it. We have talked to them and we are willing to cooperate with
them as far as advice and ideas so that our experiences in the
world of visitation--we would be happy to give them advice in
that area.
Senator Thomas. Advice is inexpensive then. Is that right?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. On this Wilson's Creek, the bill is titled
Wilson's Creek Battlefield National Park. You referred to it as
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. Which is it?
Mr. Jones. You have got me, Senator.
Senator Talent. I think it is Wilson's Creek National
Battlefield.
Mr. Jones. I believe it is too.
Senator Thomas. Very good.
Any other questions?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Thomas. We will let you off the hook.
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much. As always, it is a pleasure
to be here.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Now we would like to have our panel 2: the Honorable Mack
Mattingly, former U.S. Senator from Georgia, and Mr. Charles
Blackwell, Chickasaw Nation Ambassador to the United States
here in Washington.
Welcome, Senator. Nice to have you here, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. MACK F. MATTINGLY,
FORMER U.S. SENATOR, ST. SIMONS ISLAND, GA
Mr. Mattingly. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, Senator Talent,
I have a statement that I would like to make and we will get
back to the Civil War in Missouri when we get to the Oglethorpe
site, which is even older.
But it is a pleasure to be here to testify on H.R. 1113. As
a member of Christ Church, Frederica, it has been my task for
the last 2 \1/2\ years in trying to obtain a land exchange
between Fort Frederica and the church that would benefit both
parties. This effort, as has been stated, was started several
years ago, but with the assistance of Congressman Kingston that
he and I started in March 2002, he arrived at a solution with
H.R. 1113. And together with Senators Miller and Chambliss, I
believe that we can culminate this effort this year.
Christ Church has agreed with the Sea Island Company of Sea
Island, Georgia, which was, I might add, the host of the G-8
summit which just recently completed, to exchange
approximately--we were taking our Christ Church property of
approximately 23 acres that belongs to Christ Church and
trading that for 8.7 acres of land Sea Island owns that is
noted as the ``Oglethorpe site.'' We would now want to exchange
that site of 8.7 acres for 6.0 acres of Fort Frederica as
designated by the surveys that have been submitted to you. The
land that we are exchanging to Sea Island will be usable land
for them, whereas the land that we are getting from Sea Island
would not be because of its historical value.
Christ Church has doubled in size in the last 9 years and
the additional land is needed for its expansion. The 6 acres
that is adjacent to Christ Church owned by Fort Frederica
National Monument does not detract from the National Monument
site and is a perfect site for the church. But in addition this
8.7 acres that Fort Frederica will acquire is not only larger,
but is a historical site that is contiguous to the monument and
is no doubt of great value.
James Oglethorpe, as many have stated, briefly occupied
this 8.7 acres as his homestead. Preservation of such sites, as
they are non-renewable resources, should be protected by the
Park Service from damage and destruction and also preserved for
future scientists and the public. In fact, as has already been
quoted, a December 23, 2002 letter from the U.S. Department of
the Interior is significant in that they do support this land
exchange. The Oglethorpe site sits on around 300 acres with
probably about 50 acres of it high ground and the balance was
marsh. This site has great significant potential and deserves
to be protected and nominated for inclusion in the National
Record of Historic Places. Public access and damage to the site
should be reduced by deeding it to the Federal Government.
I want to thank you for your time and attention to this
matter. As you know, this bill passed the House of
Representatives with no objection. Hopefully it could pass
intact with the same wording that they passed, which is what
this bill is. Hopefully it can pass out this year.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your and the ranking member's
attention to this matter.
To Senator Talent, I would say that General Oglethorpe came
and created the colony of Georgia before there was a United
States. So we go way back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mattingly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mack F. Mattingly, Former U.S. Senator (R) GA
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today to testify in
regards to H.R. 1113. As a member of Christ Church, Frederica it has
been my task to assist our church in trying to obtain a land exchange
between Fort Frederica and the church that would benefit both parties.
This effort was started several years ago, but with the assistance of
Congressman Kingston that he and I started in March, 2002, he arrived
at a solution with H.R. 1113. And together with Senator Chambliss and
Miller, we can culminate the effort this year.
Christ Church has agreed with the Sea Island Co. of Sea Island,
Georgia(host of the recent successful G-8 Summit) to exchange
approximately 23.124 acres of land that belongs to Christ Church for
8.69 acres of land Sea Island owns, that is noted as the Oglethorpe
site. We now want to exchange the General Oglethorpe site of 8.69 acres
designated by Shupe Surveying Co., PPC dated 9/19/00 for 6.0 acres of
land of Ft. Frederica, as designated by Shupe Surveying Co., dated 12/
20/99. The land we exchange to Sea Island will be usable land for them,
whereas the land we receive from Sea Island would not be because of its
historical value.
Christ Church has doubled in size in the last nine years and the
additional land is needed for its expansion. The 6.0 acres that is
adjacent to Christ Church owned by Ft. Frederica National Monument does
not detract from the National Monument and is a perfect site for the
church, but in addition the 8.69 acres that Fort Frederica will acquire
is not only larger, but is a historical site that is contiguous to the
monument and is no doubt of great value.
James Oglethorpe as many have stated, briefly occupied this 8.69
acres as his homestead. Preservation of such sites, as they are non-
renewable resources, should be protected by the Park Service from
damage and destruction and also preserved for future scientists and the
public. In fact, a December 23, 2002 letter from the U.S. Department of
the Interior is significant in that they support this land exchange.
The Oglethorpe site was on around 300 acres with probably only 50 acres
of high ground and the balance marsh. This site has great scientific
potential and deserves to be protected and nominated for inclusion in
the National Record of Historic Places. Public access and damage to the
site should be reduced by deeding it to the federal government.
Thank you for your time and attention to this testimony Mr.
Chairman. ,
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Mattingly. Do you have any questions?
Senator Thomas. Just a question before we go to the other.
The land considered for the transfer here was acquired by the
National Park Service in 1993 to protect the river viewshed. So
how does the church plan to use this land that it acquires, and
will that protect the viewshed and so on?
Mr. Mattingly. It does protect it, and the use of the land
will be for a new church in the future.
Senator Thomas. Any questions, Senator?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Talent. Senator Talent?
Senator Talent. No.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Blackwell, please.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. BLACKWELL, ESQ.,
CHICKASAW NATION AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Blackwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of
Governor Bill Anoatubby of the Chickasaw Nation and my fellow
40,000 Chickasaw citizens. We have written testimony that I
would submit to the record and I have a few remarks I would
like to have in the record as well.
I am accompanied here today and would like the chair's
permission to introduce Mr. Donald Day who is the former mayor
of the city of Sulphur and presently on the city council of
Sulphur, but most importantly on this project, he has been
working on this with the tribe and for the city and with the
National Park Service for over 15 years. I would request the
chair's permission having Mr. Day, on behalf of the city of
Sulphur, be given the opportunity to submit written statements
after today's hearing.
Senator Thomas. Without objection, we will do that.
Mr. Blackwell. I have served as the Chickasaw Nation envoy
to Washington for almost 15 years, and activities just such as
this, not only for the Chickasaw Nation but for tribes all over
the country, and the communities surrounding the tribal
communities, the cities, and the States, this is an excellent
example of what good, solid cooperation can produce.
I find it refreshing, in the historical context of this
action, to have the gentleman from the National Park Service
asking the tribe to inform them about the trust stewardship.
To put it in historical context, after the removal of the
Chickasaw Nation and its people from Mississippi, Alabama, and
Illinois to a considerably smaller place in Oklahoma, what was
then Indian territory, we found a spot that became the natural
spiritual center, geographical spiritual center of the tribe in
Indian territory in the new Chickasaw Nation. We immediately
put up the barriers of protection, which is what we see the
basic tenets of the Federal trust relationship to be. With the
coming dissolution in 1902 of the Chickasaw Nation because
Oklahoma statehood was looming on the horizon, out of respect
for this site, the Chickasaw Nation prevailed on the Federal
Government to take the site into trust and protect it for
eternity because of its cultural, social, and spiritual
significance to us. Now 100 years later, we are involved in a
land exchange that returns some of that land to the overview of
the tribe for a cultural center which is exactly for that
purpose.
The National Park Service has been wonderfully cooperative
working with the tribe and the city of Sulphur. As I say, I
find it refreshing for us to be in the position to do what we
have always done, which is explain to those who have come after
us how important some of these places are and how they have to
be respected and protected. And that is what the National Park
Service does with the National Park System all over the United
States.
The only other point I would make is Governor Anoatubby has
asked that I prevail upon you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee
and Senator Akaka to please approach this with all due speed.
It has been 15 years in the making and it is important. On the
business side of it, timing is important.
The Chickasaw Nation is bearing all the financial
responsibility for this. No burden to the Federal Government or
to the city of Sulphur. The city of Sulphur has been more than
gracious in the process.
We request your attention for an expeditious consideration.
Thank you for being here and we appreciate your time and
attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles W. Blackwell, Esq., Ambassador to the
United States of America From The Chickasaw Nation, on S. 2374
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of Governor
Anoatubby and my fellow citizens of The Chickasaw Nation, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today to convey our support for S.
2374 which provides for the conveyance of certain land to the United
States to be held in trust for the Chickasaw Nation and to revise the
boundary of Chickasaw National Recreation Area in Oklahoma.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced us, the Chickasaw Nation to
sell all twenty two million plus acres of our tribal lands east of the
Mississippi River beginning in 1837 and to remove its citizens to lands
west of the Mississippi River in Indian Territory (present day
Oklahoma). The Tribe reestablished its government in 1856 by written
constitution assuming sovereign jurisdiction over six million acres,
the exterior boundaries of which now include all or parts of 13
counties in south-central Oklahoma. The subject land lies within the
original exterior boundaries of the lands held in trust for the
Chickasaw Nation by the federal government in Indian Territory.
The Chickasaw people are stewards of the land and have always
religiously protected our natural environment. After the Removal to
Indian Territory, Chickasaw leaders sought out special places in our
new lands where culturally significant and other important Chickasaw
ceremonies and rituals could be continued. Immediately, the water
springs which now comprise the Chickasaw National Recreation Area and
the surrounding environs were identified as a culturally significant
place. Sulphur Springs, as it came to be called, was identified by the
Chickasaw people and our tribal government as a culturally significant
special place to be treated with reverence and deep respect.
In 1902, with fear of the commercialization of the Springs and with
the pending dissolution of Indian Territory, of Chickasaw government
regulation and control of tribal affairs and lands, the Chickasaw
Nation government granted the land at Sulphur Springs to the United
States government to hold, preserve and protect in perpetuity. It was
then that the United States assumed trust responsibility from The
Chickasaw Nation for the protection and preservation of Sulphur
Springs. Soon the land and springs were designated as Platt National
Park with free public access and use of the springs, which has
continued to this day. Platt National Park was renamed the Chickasaw
National Recreation Area (CNRA) in 1976.
About 1987, the Chickasaw Nation first expressed interest in
establishing a cultural center inside or adjacent to the Chickasaw
National Recreation Area. With full understanding that the National
Park Service could not give CNRA public land directly to the Chickasaw
Nation but could, indeed, exchange for land of equal value and use, the
National Park Service identified a piece of property owned by the City
of Sulphur as potential exchangeable property. The City of Sulphur,
being most supportive and interested in having the Chickasaw Nation
Cultural Center located nearby, offered to donate the property to the
Chickasaw Nation for the exchange. This cooperative effort demonstrates
how mutual respect, mutual understanding and open, honest communication
can produce mutually beneficial results between local governments, the
Federal government and as American Indian Tribal government. I must
note from direct observation, that Governor Anoatubby's vision and
sustained leadership enhanced by hard work by Gerard Baker, former CNRA
Superintendent (now at Mt. Rushmore), and Mr. Donald Day, former
Sulphur City mayor, has made the Chickasaw Nation Cultural Center a
reality.
Today, the Chickasaw Nation is joined not only by the National Park
Service and the City of Sulphur, but also by many other local
communities and organizations with the mutual goal of creating a center
for Chickasaw tribal culture and history for the three million annual
visitors to the park thereby creating an attraction predicted to
increase the visitors to 4.5 million in the first year of operation
alone. It is this cooperative spirit and communal effort which has led
us to the partnership which supports the exchange of the land to be
used as a site for the Chickasaw Nation Cultural Center.
Quick consideration, and we hope approval by the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, of this land exchange is the first
step in moving forward with this exciting and important project. This
will allow the Chickasaw Nation to build a cultural center to recognize
and commemorate its historic and cultural heritage as well as play an
on-going role in the economic and cultural well-being of southern
Oklahoma. Thank you for your consideration of S. 2374.
Senator Thomas. All right. Thank you, sir.
The Park Service is to convey this site in trust to the
Chickasaw Nation. It will be a trust then. Is that correct?
Mr. Blackwell. Well, I think maybe I will take off my
tribal diplomat's hat and put on the old lawyer's hat. I think
maybe there is some confusion about the language. It is my
understanding--correct me if I am wrong--that the land is right
now in trust. It is in the Federal trust. It will stay in
trust. The Federal Government will hold it in trust for the
Chickasaw Nation to use for a cultural center.
Senator Thomas. And exchange land of equal value.
Mr. Blackwell. Well, actually we are coming out a little
bit behind in the deal I think. The Federal Government is
making out to the tune of $536, if I remember, give or take.
Senator Thomas. We ought to hurry it a long on that then,
had we not?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Blackwell. And we are happy to be able to do that.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you.
Any questions?
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blackwell, the administration has recommended that it
supports the bill but asks that it be amended to explicitly
state what the Federal Government's trust responsibilities are
for the land that will be acquired by the Chickasaw Nation. In
my experience, trust issues are not normally addressed as part
of a minor land exchange proposal such as this. Does the
Chickasaw Nation support the administration's request to define
specific trust responsibilities in this bill?
Mr. Blackwell. I appreciate the Senator's attention to
this. I am a little confused about it. I do not see any change
in the roles or responsibilities that have existed now between
the Chickasaw Nation and the Federal Government for over 200
years. Specifically on this piece of land, the relationship has
been pretty well defined for over 100 years. I find it
unnecessary to go into a great deal of detail. The folks at
home, the tribal officials, the National Park Service, local
park people, and the city of Sulphur people have worked this
out over the last 15 years. It is for a cultural center. The
trust responsibility of the Federal Government is much the same
as it is for any land held in trust for a tribe, any tribal
government around the country.
But this is for a cultural center. What is going to be
constructed on that land, Senator, is a replica of traditional
village prior to white contact.
Senator Thomas. Well, we thank you very much for being
here. As difficult as it is sometimes, we will try and move
this bill along.
Mr. Blackwell. I understand that, Senator, and I appreciate
it.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
If there is no further business, the committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record:]
Statement of Dennis M. Wint, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, PA
I am Dr. Dennis Wint, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
I very much appreciate your willingness to consider Senate Bill
1852, a bill to authorize Federal funding for the rehabilitation of the
Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. Further, I would like to take this
opportunity to extend my gratitude to the sponsors of this
legislation--Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Rick Santorum for their
steadfast support for the restoration of the Benjamin Franklin National
Memorial.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to favorably
report this legislation because it will authorize the appropriation of
funding that is critical to the integrity of one of our nation's most
awe-inspiring national memorials--the Benjamin Franklin National
Memorial at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Unveiled in 1938, this national memorial is unique, because unlike
other national memorials throughout the United States, it does not
receive an annual allocation of Federal funds to support programs,
operations, or preventative maintenance.
Founded in 1824, The Franklin Institute is one of the nation's
premier science and technology museums and also serves as custodian of
the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.
In the spirit of inquiry and discovery embodied by Benjamin
Franklin, the mission of The Franklin Institute is to honor the
lifetime achievements of America's distinguished scientist, statesman,
inventor, diplomat, and founding father and to foster the development
of a scientifically and technologically literate society.
Indeed, The Franklin Institute brings Franklin's legacy of inquiry,
discovery, and learning to nearly one million visitors each year, over
350,000 of whom are visiting schoolchildren. Every visit to The
Franklin Institute begins with a moment of reflection and inspiration
in the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.
In 1972, Public Law 92-511 designated this site as the Benjamin
Franklin National Memorial.
In 1973, a Memorandum of Agreement, executed between the U.S.
Department of the Interior and the Franklin Institute, directed the
Department of Interior to cooperate with the Institute in ``all
appropriate and mutually agreeable ways in the preservation and
presentation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial Hall as a
national memorial.'' Under the terms of the 1973 Agreement, the
Institute is required to admit the public to Memorial Hall free of
charge.
However, The Franklin Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization, and over the last 66 years, the burden of maintaining
this national memorial has been the total responsibility of The
Franklin Institute. More than $15 million has been expended from The
Franklin Institute's operating and capital budgets to preserve and
maintain the memorial since 1938 when the Memorial was built.
In spite of our diligent efforts to maintain and expenditure of
Institute resources, I regret to inform the Subcommittee that this
national treasure has fallen victim to the pressures of time,
especially the interior marble surfaces and structures that house the
statue of Benjamin Franklin, and the exterior.
The Interior Department has not provided any federal funding to the
Franklin Institute for maintaining this national memorial with the
exception of a $300,000 ``Save America's Treasures'' grant awarded in
Fiscal Year 2000. Although this funding did help to improve ADA
accessibility to the memorial, it left other structural and surface
issues unresolved. To address these issues, The Franklin Institute is
currently engaged in a private fundraising campaign that is expected to
yield over $7 million for the restoration of the Memorial and exhibit
enhancement.
Mr. Chairman, timely passage of this legislation is important
because we are eager to renovate and restore the Memorial by 2006,
which is the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.
In July 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law House
Resolution 2362, that created the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary
Commission. This Commission, which I co-chair with Senator Specter, is
charged with studying and recommending programs and activities
appropriate for this important anniversary.
Since the Memorial Hall's opening in 1938, tens of millions of
Americans have had the opportunity to salute Franklin's remarkable
impact in Philadelphia at this Hall. As we continue to develop plans to
welcome visitors from throughout the world to visit the Memorial and
Philadelphia, it is important that the Franklin Institute commence on
the meticulous restoration to make the Memorial a place of appropriate
reverence to Dr. Franklin on this momentous anniversary of his birth.
Our private fundraising campaign will help match our request for
federal assistance. However, it is critical for The Franklin Institute
to secure this one-time authorization and appropriation to ensure that
the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is preserved and presented to
future generations in a manner befitting Benjamin Franklin's enormous
legacy for our Nation.
A rehabilitated Memorial will present Franklin and his
inspirational story for the study and observation of future generations
of Americans and citizens worldwide. Accordingly, I respectfully urge
this Subcommittee to support Senate Bill 1852 so that it may pass
Congress before adjournment of the 108th Congress.
Thank you for your invitation to testify on this very important
matter.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, October 8, 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 July 15,
2004, on S. 1852, S. 2142, S. 2181, S. 2374, S. 2397, S. 2342, S. 2567,
H.R. 1113 and H.R. 3706. These responses have been prepared by the
National Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on this
matter. We apologize for the delay in our response,
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Craig Thomas
Question 1A. S. 1852, Benjamin Franklin National Memorial: The bill
authorizes up to $10 million for rehabilitation of the Franklin
Memorial.
How will the funds be used and is $10 million enough to complete
the rehabilitation effort?
Answer. As stated in our testimony, the Department does not support
this $10 million grant. After checking with the Franklin Institute, it
offered the following information in response to this question:
In preparation for the commemoration of Franklin's 300th birthday,
the Franklin Institute has indicated that it intends to revitalize this
non-federal memorial and create a space of reverence for its growing
number of visitors. In addition to drawing up architectural plans that
will maintain the National Memorial's historic integrity, it has plans
for this public space that include the following major enhancements:
Repair and restoration of the self-supporting dome of the
National Memorial;
Professional cleaning and refurbishment of entrance stairs,
marble walls, floors, and the 30-ton Franklin statue;
Creation of a cutting-edge multi-media experience, including
sound, video, and holographic technologies;
Dramatic new lighting and signage, appropriate inscription
of inspirational quotations, and audiovisual additions to
enhance the Memorial experience; and
Creation of a 10,000 square foot exhibit adjacent to the
National Memorial dedicated wholly to Benjamin Franklin,
featuring an unmatched collection of Frankliniana from around
the world.
With a total project cost of $17.8 million, the Institute believes
that $10 million in Federal funding, when combined with private sector
funding from local and regional sources (see below) would be sufficient
to complete this rehabilitation effort.
Question 1B. Does the state or local community plan to provide any
funds to support this effort?
Answer. We understand that the Franklin Institute anticipates being
able to raise the balance of funding for this $17.8 million project
through the generosity of a myriad of funding sources, including, but
not limited to, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of
Philadelphia, and local and regional private fenders, including
corporations, foundations, and individuals.
Question 1C. S. 1852, Benjamin Franklin National Memorial: How many
visitors does the Franklin Memorial receive in a given year?
Answer. According to the Franklin Institute, the Benjamin Franklin
National Memorial welcomes 800,000 visitors annually, 300,000 of whom
are visiting schoolchildren. However, the memorial is located in the
rotunda of the Franklin Institute so it hard to clarify if visitors are
going to the Franklin Institute and pass by the memorial or if the
statue is the main reason for their visit.
Question 2A. S. 2142, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route: This
is neither a Heritage Area or a Trail.
What type of unit of the National Park System is it?
Answer. This is an affiliated area of the National Park System,
however, it was established as a ``unique'' project at the time (1988)
that was intended to use interpretation alone as the mechanism to build
awareness and stewardship leading to resource protection rather than
the traditional use of Federal ownership and Federal management of the
resources. The trail is unusual in that the National Park Service does
not directly own or manage any land, buildings, or natural or cultural
resources or provide employees for guided tours or visitor/welcome
centers. Everything is done through partnerships with the partners
owning, staffing, and managing the resources. The National Park
Service, however, does provide technical assistance in the form of
brochures, wayside exhibits, orientation exhibits, welcome center
exhibits, resource publications, films, advice on interpretation and
resource protection that all strive to raise public awareness of New
Jersey's varied natural and cultural resources. In the process of
raising awareness, we hope that it will also lead to increased
stewardship and protection of those resources at a minimal cost and
without the use of traditional Federal ownership.
Question 2B. How many other units of this type does the National
Park Service have?
Answer. There are currently 25 affiliated areas of the National
Park System. There are no other affiliated areas that are similar to
the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route that only use
interpretation for resource protection and stewardship.
Question 3. S. 2142, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route: The
bill raises the ceiling for funds that are authorized to be
appropriated. How do you anticipate using the funds and have any funds
been obtained from sources other than the Federal government?
Answer. The Trail calls for the development of five interpretive
theme trails (Maritime History, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migration,
Relaxation & Inspiration, and Historic Settlements) and five regional
welcome centers (in facilities owned and staffed by partners.) To date,
three of the themes and two welcome centers have been developed.
The remaining activities to fulfill elements within the approved
Implementation Guide include:
Develop remaining two theme trails focusing on cultural
sites.
Upgrade exhibits for existing two welcome centers and
develop remaining three welcome centers including videos,
brochures, and exhibits. All welcome centers are owned,
operated and staffed by partners.
Produce additional wayside exhibits for trail sites for
remaining two theme routes.
Develop new overall trail orientation video as well as four
regional videos.
Update all regional and trail-wide brochures as theme trails
are completed.
Develop complete highway directional system.
Provide technical assistance to state park system, wildlife
management areas, historic sites, and other non-profits in
their efforts to preserve and interpret significant natural and
cultural resources at trail sites.
Periodically review and re-certify trail sites as official
destinations.
Develop additional regional videos, resource publications;
and school materials as funds and opportunities for new
partnerships or funding allow.
Develop a long-term transitional management plan for the
roles of the National Park Service and its partners following
initial implementation.
Based on the 1994 legislation, there is now a requirement that
Federal dollars be matched on a 1:1 basis. The trail has raised
approximately $1.9 million in non-federal grants, and partners have
provided an estimated $3.6 million in in-kind services.
Question 4. S. 2181, Rocky Mountain National Park Boundary
Adjustment: Has the park identified other areas for potential
acquisition? If so, how many acres and what is your timeline for
acquisition?
Answer. Each year Rocky Mountain National Park sets priorities for
land acquisition and submits this information for inclusion in the NPS
Land Acquisition Ranking System. For FY 2006, we have identified 3
parcels of land at Rocky Mountain with a combined area of 77.9 acres as
potential acquisitions. After the submittal of these parcels, they are
rated and ranked at the Regional and Washington level and placed in
priority order on the nationwide land acquisition list. Typically, only
a few of the projects identified as potential acquisitions are selected
from this list for inclusion in the President's budget submission. As
such, it is impossible to state what the timeline for acquisition would
be for these parcels.
Question 5A. S. 2374, Chickasaw National Recreation Area Land
Exchange: The land to be conveyed to the Chickasaw Nation will be the
site of a new Chickasaw Nation Cultural Center.
Will the National Park Service have any role in managing or
providing interpretive programs in the cultural center?
Answer. No, it is not envisioned that the NPS will have a direct
role in managing or providing interpretation at the cultural center.
There is always the possibility of a future partnership between the
Nation and the NPS, but there are no definitive plans.
Question 5B. If so, how many National Park Service employees are we
talking about and will the Park Service be reimbursed for the effort?
Answer. See answer above.
Question 6A. S. 2397 and H.R. 3706, John Muir National Historic
Site Boundary Adjustment Act: The National Park Service identified 0.2
acres adjacent to the [park] that no one owns.
Are you confident that no one has title to the 0.2 acres?
Answer. Yes. There has been an exhaustive search for the title for
this piece of property. We are confident that no one has title.
Question 6B. What is the anticipated cost to complete the
transactions for the National Park Service to take ownership of the
property?
Answer. We anticipate that it will cost less than $5,000 for title
work and a hazardous materials survey for the property.
Question 6C. Has the National Park Service been managing the
property during the last several years?
Answer. Yes, the park has been maintaining the property. This
includes grass cutting during fire season, fence work, and maintenance
of trees on the plot.
Question 7. S. 2432, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield: The bill
is titled Wilson's Creek Battlefield National Park, but you refer to it
in your testimony as Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. What is the
correct name and should the bill be amended to reflect the correct
name?
Answer. The correct name is Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.
The name was changed from ``Wilson's Creek Battlefield National Park''
to ``Wilson's Creek National Battlefield'' in the Act approved December
16, 1970 (84 Stat. 1441). The bill should be amended to reflect the
correct name.
Question 8A. S. 2432, Wilson's Creek National Battlefield: The bill
will authorize acquisition of the Sweeney Museum property and
collection, which is considered one of the most complete private civil
war artifacts collections in existence.
What is the approximate cost to the Federal government to acquire
the collection?
Answer. The appraised value of the collection is between $2.5 and
$3.0 million as stated in our testimony. The buildings and property
have not been appraised but we estimate they will cost an additional
$1.5 to $2.0 million. The total for the collection, property, and
buildings is estimated to be $4 to $5 million.
Question 8B. Does the National park Service have adequate space to
house and interpret the collection?
Answer. The collection is displayed and interpreted in General
Sweeney's Museum, which is part of the approximately 20 acres in Area
1. The museum building, a garage, and a house would be included in the
purchase of the area, along with the collection. The collection will
remain in the museum. A few of the objects may be moved to the present
visitor's center to be displayed as part of the battlefield exhibit
there.
Question 8C. How many additional employees will it take to curate
and interpret the collection?
Answer. The operational cost of the Sweeney collection and land
structures is estimated at $512,000. Additional funding and employees
would be needed to preserve and provide public access to the Sweeney
Museum collection. These employees would provide museum services,
facility maintenance, utility costs, information technology support,
security and interpretation. They would also ensure that a meticulously
documented collection of between 8,000 and 10,000 museum objects are
preserved and managed, 12,000 square feet of facilities is properly
maintained, and public access and interpretation are provided for
200,000 visitors (including over 8,000 students) annually. These
estimates, however, have not been reviewed through the budget process
or evaluated against other competing priorities. There may also be
opportunities for reducing these costs through improved efficiencies
and greater coordination with other NPS programs or activities. The
following is a break down of the number of FTEs needed and the
operational costs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE Funding
Function Needed Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curator............................................ 1.0 $80,000
Interpreters....................................... 3.0 170,000
Education Specialist............................... 1.0 80,000
Contract Preventative Maintenance of Structures and 1.0 82,000
Grounds...........................................
Provide Utilities.................................. 20,000
Administrative Support............................. 0.5 35,000
Contract IT Support................................ 0.5 45,000
--------------------
Totals......................................... 7.0 $512,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 9A. S. 2567, Redwood National Park boundary adjustment:
The joint Federal/State management arrangement at Redwood National Park
is unusual within the National Park System.
Do you find this arrangement to be a cost-saving measure for the
Federal government?
Answer. Yes. The coordinated management of the Redwood national and
state parks is more efficient and effective than separate management
would be. The two entities are able to integrate their ranger forces,
coordinate resource management and interpretive functions and share
facilities, campgrounds, and maintenance staff. This cuts costs for
both the Federal government and the state government.
In a larger sense, the Federal government is saving money by the
continued state ownership and management of about one third of the land
within the boundary of Redwood National Park. Had the state conveyed
its Redwood parks to the National Park Service, as was envisioned in
the 1968 legislation that established Redwood National Park, the
Federal government would be financing 100 percent of the cost of the
park.
In a similar vein, Senator Akaka asked at the July 15 hearing what
the relative funding contribution was of the National Park Service and
the State of California's Department of Parks and Recreation for the
management of the Redwood National and State Parks. We offered to
answer that question for the record. For Fiscal Year 2004, the state is
contributing $1.3 million in operational funds (about 15 percent), and
the National Park Service is contributing $7.4 million (about 85
percent). However, the state figure does not include significant
funding from the State Department of Parks and Recreation for planning,
resource management, and road and trail maintenance that is not
accounted for in individual state park budgets.
Question 9B. If so, which other units of the National Park System
would be good candidates for such an arrangement and are you actively
pursuing changes at those parks?
Answer. The cooperative management authority that was provided for
Redwood National Park in 1997 to enable it to coordinate management
functions with the Redwood state parks was extended to all units of the
National Park System in Section 802 of the National Park Service
Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391). Although there are no
other national park units that have integrated the management of the
Federal and state parks to the extent that managers have done at
Redwood National and State Parks, there are several units that
currently have cooperative management agreements with state or local
parks. Examples include Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Boston Harbor Islands
National Recreation Area, Lowell National Historical Park, Fort Stanwix
National Monument, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, and
Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park. We anticipate that
cooperative management agreements will be used between the National
Park Service and the states of Washington and Oregon if Congress enacts
pending legislation to establish the Lewis and Clark National
Historical Park. The National Park Service will continue to pursue
opportunities throughout the system to enter into agreements with state
and local park authorities to share operational resources where that
will result in more effective and efficient use of staff and funding.
Question 10. H.R. 1113, Fort Frederica National Monument land
exchange: Does any above ground structure remain on the former
homestead of James Oglethorpe?
Answer. The land that the NPS would receive has traditionally been
identified as the site of the home of James Oglethorpe. Although the
land is privately owned, one limited archeological investigation
confirmed that a house site on the property was from the Frederica
period. No above ground remains from the Frederica era are present.
Question 11. H.R. 1113, Fort Frederica National Monument land
exchange: Does the National Park Service plan to build any structures
or hire new personnel to protect and interpret the property it will be
receiving from the church?
Answer. The extent of NPS development will be based upon the level
and significance of the resources that are present. Any development
would be planned through either a Development Concept Plan or an
amendment to the General Management Plan where recommendations would be
made for structures and staffing. At this time NPS does not plan to
construct any facilities other than perhaps some limited parking for
access, fencing, signage, and limited interpretive media for the site
such as bulletin boards or wayside exhibits. Some staffing will be
required to administer, maintain, and protect the site, but until the
level of resources present on the site is determined it is difficult to
state what level of staffing will be required and whether the staffing
can be absorbed within existing resources or will require new
personnel.