[Senate Hearing 109-213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-213
AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT IN CONNECTICUT AND NEW JERSEY;
INCREASE PIPELINE IN DELAWARE; AMEND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ACT; AND EVALUATE COASTAL REGION IN DELAWARE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 435 S. 1096
S. 1310 S. 1378
S. 1627
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-194 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
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
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
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
Barry, Beth Anne Styler, Executive Director, Musconetcong
Watershed
Association.................................................... 23
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware........... 2
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from Delaware............... 10
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.................. 40
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 16
Fowler, John, Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation................................................... 31
Hammerling, Eric, Executive Director, Farmington River Watershed
Association, Simsbury, CT...................................... 19
Matthews, Janet Snyder, Associate Director for Cultural
Resources, National Park Service, Department of the Interior... 3
Nau, John L., III, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation................................................... 32
Roberts, Michael W., Operations Manager for the State of
Pennsylvania, Columbia Gas Transmissions Corporation........... 27
Slavin, Tim, Director, Historical and Cultural Affairs, State of
Delaware....................................................... 36
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 49
AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT IN CONNECTICUT AND NEW JERSEY;
INCREASE PIPELINE IN DELAWARE; AMEND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ACT; AND EVALUATE COASTAL REGION IN DELAWARE
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee Energy and Natural Resource,
Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SD 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. The time has come. I know there's a lot of
things going on today. We have several hearings, and we may be
doing some voting on the Floor, so I think we ought to get
started. I'm sure some of our members will show up. So good
afternoon. We welcome you to the subcommittee hearing today.
Welcome to Associate Director Janet Matthews, and our other
witnesses. Before we begin I would like to make a brief comment
regarding the proposed National Park Service management
policies.
There have been several newspaper articles and editorials
printed in the last month about this subject. It's important
that no changes have been made at this point. The proposed
changes are being reviewed as a draft document by the
executives of the Interior Department. We expect to have the
document available for public comment by the middle of October,
I believe. And I've informed Assistant Secretary Craig Manson
that the subcommittee plans to have an oversight hearing on
this proposal. So I guess all I'm saying is there's been a lot
of discussion and debate about it, as if that's the way it's
going to be, and that's not necessarily the case. It is
therefore discussion being studied. As a matter of fact, I
think they're having staff meetings today with regard to it.
So today our purpose in the hearing is to receive testimony
on five bills that we have before us: S. 435, a bill to amend
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the
Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut
for study for potential addition to the National Wild and
Scenic River System and then for other purposes; S. 1096, a
bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
portions of the Musconetcong River in the State of New Jersey
as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System,
and for other purposes as well; S. 1310, a bill to authorize
the Secretary to allow the Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation to increase the diameter of natural gas pipeline
located in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational area;
S. 1378, a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act
to provide appropriation authorization and improve the
operations of the advisory council on historic preservation;
and finally, S. 1627, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a special resources study to evaluate
resources along the coastal region of the State of Delaware and
to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a
unit of the National Park System in Delaware.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today. The first
panel is Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service. So Director, if you
would come forward please. Thank you for being here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., U.S. Senator
From Delaware
Mr. Chairman: Today I wish to offer my support for the Delaware
National Coastal Special Resources Study Act and join my colleague,
Senator Carper, in asking this Subcommittee to support our efforts to
construct the Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park. Delaware is the
only State not to have a national park and we feel strongly that the
time has come. Today, through this legislation, we are asking the
Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of establishing a
National Park Service unit in the State of Delaware.
I know what most of you must be thinking. Do we have an area worthy
of such designation? Do we have picturesque mountains like the Grand
Tetons or the Great Smoky Mountains? Are people drawn to our coasts to
find the spirituality of Joshua Tree? Do we possess landscape on par
with the beauty and serenity of Acadia National Park? Well, in a word,
yes. A little of all of the magnificence found in some of our Nation's
most famous parks can be found in our State of Delaware and that is why
the proposal presented by Senator Carper is so unique and worthy of the
next step.
I have to commend my colleague. Senator Carper brought together a
committee of dedicated Delawareans to analyze the validity of a
national park in the State of Delaware. After much deliberation, the
committee suggested a series of four interpretive centers, scattered
throughout the state, to highlight the many treasures of our state.
While there are numerous sites identified in the proposal, I would just
like to take a moment to note several that have been especially close
to me in my years in the Senate.
Pea Patch Island is a 228-acre park located off the coast of
Delaware City, Delaware that houses Fort Delaware, one of our country's
oldest Civil War-era fortifications and Delaware's oldest State Park.
The island, with its fort, seawall and other archeological remains, is
listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. The island also
houses a State nature preserve, providing critical habitat to thousands
of wading birds. It is also the largest heronry north of Florida.
Delaware also played a special role in the Underground Railroad and
the proposal will highlight the 18 sites in Delaware. These include a
hideout at the Governor's mansion, the court house where abolitionist
Thomas Garrett was tried, the Mother African Church in Wilmington where
slaves were helped to escape under the cover of an African American
Festival founded in 1814 and still celebrated today and numerous other
sites utilized by the principal Underground Railroad conductor, Harriet
Tubman.
Finally, I would like to mention our coastline, our beaches. Now
into September, we have said goodbye to another fantastic beach season
with millions of people visiting our shores. The historic sites and
wildlife refuges that dot our coastline are unique to the area and to
the Nation.
These links to Delaware's past are important to our Nation's future
and I am proud to join my colleague in supporting this legislation.
STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Dr. Matthews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to appear before you today, to discuss the views of the
Interior Department on S. 435, S. 1627, S. 1096, S. 1310, and
S. 1378 that I will discuss in limited detail within the
hearing time afforded.
As to S. 435 and S. 1627, the Department supports enactment
of both bills, with a technical amendment on each, attached to
my testimony. S. 435 presents an opportunity to build on the
success of the Upper Farmington River, designated in 1994,
using the partnership-based model of Wild and Scenic River
designations to study the addition of the Lower Farmington and
Salmon Brook. The relevant communities--the State of
Connecticut and the Farmington River Watershed Association--
have all come together to seek a similar study.
S. 1627 is an opportunity for a special resource study of
Delaware's long, distinguished history of Native American
occupation, colonial settlement, and historic transportation.
If authorized, the Department expects to coordinate this study
with the recently authorized Captain John Smith Chesapeake Bay
National Historic Water Trail Study. The Department supports
requesting direction of future funding for completion of
previously authorized studies. Currently, 25 studies are in
progress, and we hope by the end of 2005 to complete and
transmit six to Congress. The Department suggests consistency
in timeframe for submitting such studies for S. 435 and S.
1627, providing for submission no later than 3 years after
funds are made available.
With regard to the Musconetcong River as a component----
Senator Thomas. Madam Secretary, would you mind if I
interrupted you for just a second, and asked the Senator to
come forward? He wanted to make a comment on the bill you've
already talked about, if you don't mind.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would love to hear
the rest of Dr. Matthews' comments. I'm not in a big rush.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Senator Thomas. We just didn't want you to be here longer
than you had to be.
Dr. Matthews. Thank you. With regards to the Musconetcong
River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, the Department supports this bill, which 13 riverfront
municipalities have passed resolutions also in support of. With
regard to S. 1310, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to allow Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation to increase the
diameter of the natural gas pipeline in the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation area, the Department supports with a
technical amendment attached to the testimony.
With regard to S. 1378, a bill to amend the National
Historic Preservation Act, to provide appropriation
authorization, and improve the operations of the advisory
council, the Department supports with an amendment attached to
extend the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund for
10 years until 2015. The bill would also make a number of
changes to the authority for the advisory council, and change
the authorization level for the council from $4 million to such
sums as may be necessary. And it makes permanent the council
authorization.
In 1966, the Historic Preservation Fund grew out of the
recommendations of the Special Committee on Historic
Preservation of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In the 1960's
and the 1970's the Historic Preservation Grant Program evolved,
and in a remarkably productive partnership with State
governments on a cost-sharing basis, in cooperation with State
historic preservation offices and tribal historic preservation
offices, local governments and private entities. Today, for
example, we have a national register listing totaling nearly
80,000 properties, inclusive of some 1.4 million properties
found throughout our neighborhoods, towns, tribal lands,
special places, cities, roadways, and waterways. Also, for
example, in cooperation with the Internal Revenue Service, the
Federal tax rehabilitation credit program has rehabilitated
over 1,200 National Register properties, created 50,000 jobs,
15,000 new housing units, and generated $3.8 billion in
leveraged private investments in 2004 alone.
For another example, in fiscal year 2005 alone, the Save
America's Treasures grant program awarded 145 matching grants
to 43 States and the District of Columbia, totaling $29.5
million. The Historic Preservation Fund targets grant support
for partnership activities to State historic preservation
offices, tribal historic preservation offices to preserve
America's native cultures and Historically Black Colleges and
Universities for preservation of significant campus buildings.
Save America's Treasures Grant Programs are for endangered,
nationally significant properties, and the Preserve America
grants are for heritage tours and economic revitalization.
Therefore, these grant programs not only preserve historic
resources, they are proven attractors of the new economic
investment.
With regard to the advisory council, this critical
government agency protects historic resources while
facilitating government-sponsored development through
compliance tools under section 106. We defer to the advisory
council in your upcoming panel for discussion of these specific
provisions; however, we support the council's effectiveness in
strengthening its role in considering the historic resources of
our Nation to benefit future generations.
The Historic Preservation Fund for almost 40 years has been
highly successful in meeting the objectives established by
Congress in preserving the increasingly vital historic
resources that define our Nation. The proposed amendment to
extend the authorization to 2015 is attached to the testimony.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, I would
be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Matthews follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National park Service, Department of the Interior
ON S. 435
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 435,
a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment
of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook for study for potential
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Department
supports enactment of this legislation with one technical amendment.
While the Department supports the authorization of this study, it
is important that future funding requests go towards completing
previously authorized studies. There are currently 25 studies in
progress, and we hope to complete and transmit 6 to Congress by the end
of 2005. Therefore, the Department will focus the funding provided
towards completing these studies.
S. 435 presents the opportunity to build from the success of the
Upper Farmington River, which was designated a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1994. At that time, the
partnership-based model of Wild and Scenic River designations, with a
limited federal role and no federal land acquisition authority, was
essentially an experiment. Now, 11 years later, it is a testament to
the success of that partnership approach that the Lower Farmington and
Salmon Brook communities, the State of Connecticut, and the Farmington
River Watershed Association have all come together to seek a similar
study.
The portion of the Farmington River under consideration runs
approximately 40 miles from the Upper Farmington's downstream endpoint
to the Connecticut River. The Lower Farmington has its own distinct
character that compliments the ``outstandingly remarkable'' fish,
wildlife, historic and recreational resources that qualified the upper
river for designation. A notable historic feature, the Farmington
Canal, served as an important regional transportation link from its
opening in 1825 until the mid-1840's when railroad tracks were laid
upon its obsolete towpath. Today, much of this feature is being
converted into a recreational multi-use path and greenway, providing
outstanding access to recreational, scenic and historic attributes of
the river valley.
In July 2005, results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey of
the Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook uncovered what is believed to be
the State of Connecticut's largest populations of the federally
endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). Salmon Brook is
a major tributary of the Farmington River, and is well known for its
outstanding scenery and trout fishing.
It is significant that the communities and interest groups
associated with the Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook have had the
unique opportunity to observe and interact with the National Park
Service and the Farmington River Coordinating Committee (created to
oversee management of the Upper Farmington Wild and Scenic segment) for
more than ten years. The development of these relationships should
facilitate the completion of the study required by this legislation.
The Department suggests one amendment to S. 435. Section 2 of the
bill requires that a report on results of the study be submitted to the
Senate and House authorizing committees no later than three years after
the date of enactment of the Act. We believe it more feasible to
provide that this occur no later than three years after funds are made
available based on the number of studies currently being conducted by
the Department.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
Proposed amendment to S. 435, Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook
in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
On p. 2, line 17, strike ``the date of enactment of this Act'' and
insert ``funds are made available to carry out this Act''.
S. 1096
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee to present the Department of the Interior's position on S.
1096, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating
portions of the Musconetcong River in New Jersey as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Department supports
enactment of S. 1096.
The Musconetcong River is the largest New Jersey tributary to the
Delaware River. The area of the river, nestled in the heart of the New
Jersey Highlands, contains a remarkably diverse array of natural and
cultural resources. The limestone geologic features present in the
Musconetcong River corridor are unique in the state, and the steep
slopes and forested ridges in the upper segments of the river corridor
contrast with the historic villages, pastures, and rolling agricultural
lands at the middle and lower end of the river valley.
The impetus for the designation of the Musconetcong began in 1991,
when residents in the Musconetcong River Valley organized a petition
drive in support of efforts to protect the river. The petitions called
for the protection of the Musconetcong River under both the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers
Program.
In 1992, Congress passed legislation authorizing the National Park
Service to study the eligibility and suitability of the Lower Delaware
River for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. In
1997, 18 of 19 Musconetcong River municipalities voted to have the
National Park Service determine the eligibility and suitability of the
Musconetcong River for designation into the National Wild and Scenic
River System. As a part of the study effort, a Musconetcong Advisory
Committee, comprised of residents representing each municipality, was
formed. This committee, with assistance from the National Park Service
through its authority to study the Lower Delaware River, completed a
Resource Assessment and Eligibility and Classification Report (1999) as
well as a Musconetcong River Management Plan (April, 2003). The report
found that approximately 24 miles of the river are eligible for
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System because of
their free-flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable recreational,
scenic, cultural, and wildlife and habitat values.
The Musconetcong River Management Plan was developed cooperatively
and calls for a management framework that acknowledges the importance
and preference for local leadership, and the additional protections
afforded by national wild and scenic river designation. A key principle
of the management framework as proposed in the plan is that existing
institutions will continue to play primary roles in the long-term
protection of the Musconetcong River. With respect to facilitating and
coordinating potentially diverse interests among residents, landowners,
municipalities, counties, states and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), the plan proposes the formation of a Musconetcong River
Management Committee.
The bill provides that the administration for the 24.2-mile
designated river segment is to be consistent with the cooperatively
developed Musconetcong River Management Plan (2003) and is to be
undertaken in cooperation with federal, state, county and municipal
governments. The bill also identifies an additional river segment that
would be suitable for designation by the Secretary of the Interior only
at such time as it can be demonstrated that adequate local support for
such designation exists within the affected local jurisdictions. The
costs associated with a designated wild and scenic river in the
Northeast Region of the National Park Service average $150,000 annually
(for cooperative agreements with river partner organizations), and we
would expect the costs to be similar for this river, although the
expenditures per river will likely decline as more designated rivers
have to share limited resources. The region will handle the work
associated with the newly designated river with existing staff. Any
funding for cooperative agreements with the river's partner
organizations will be dependent upon annual appropriations and
departmental funding priorities.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have regarding this bill.
ON S. 1310
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1310, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to allow the Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation to increase the diameter of a natural gas pipeline located
in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The Department
supports enactment of this legislation with one technical amendment.
This bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
an agreement with the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, for no
consideration, to grant an easement to permit the enlargement of an
existing natural gas pipeline from a diameter of 14 inches to no more
than 20 inches. It provides for the Corporation to submit resource
information and appropriate restoration and mitigation plans under
terms and conditions that assure the protection of the natural and
cultural resources of the national recreation area. In addition, the
Corporation will have to comply with other requirements for
certification set forth by the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission
to permit an increase in the diameter of the pipeline. Finally, the
bill states that the Secretary shall not grant any additional increases
in the pipeline's diameter and limits the pipeline's right-of-way to
its existing 50-feet width.
Pipeline 1278 is a part of the Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation's interstate pipeline network that delivers natural gas to
the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states from production areas in the
southwest and Appalachia, 3.5 miles of which runs through sections of
the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Pipeline 1278 was
constructed in the mid-1940's on easements purchased from landowners.
When land was acquired for the national recreation area, five parcels
of land were acquired subject to easements for pipeline 1278.
Pipeline 1278 underwent periodic testing in 2002. The inspection
showed that the pipeline was showing its age, and there were numerous
instances that the wall of the pipeline was thinning. The Corporation
was issued a Corrective Action Order by the Department of
Transportation. The order required the Corporation to reduce the
operating pressure in the pipeline until such time as all anomalies in
the pipeline could be repaired. A determination was made by the
Corporation that the best way to repair the current pipeline was to
replace the existing pipeline with a new, state of the art,
cathodically protected steel pipe. At the same time, the Corporation
decided to upgrade the diameter of the pipeline from 14 inches to 20
inches.
The National Park Service does not have legal authority to issue
rights-of-way for petroleum pipelines across parklands. The deeds for
the five parcels of land, subject to easements for the Corporation
pipeline, are very specific about the rights that the Corporation
purchased back in the 1940's. Congressional action is needed to allow
the increase in pipeline size on two of the parcels totaling 800 feet
of parkland. Congressional action is not required for the remaining
three parcels, since the deeds permit the increase in pipeline size.
This legislation simply permits the Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation to fully utilize an easement they purchased 50 years ago.
By order of the Department of Transportation, the pipeline must be
repaired or replaced, and the replacement of the current pipeline with
one of a larger diameter does not increase the impact to parklands of
the replacement project. The permit issued to the Corporation has
sufficient safeguards in it to insure the rehabilitation and
restoration of parklands disturbed by the replacement project.
The one technical amendment we suggest would be to correct the
right-of-way number on p. 2, line 9 by striking ``16414'' and inserting
``16413''.
This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the committee might have.
Proposed amendment to S. 1310, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area Natural Gas Pipeline Enlargement Act.
On page 2, line 9, strike ``16414'' and insert ``16413''.
ON S. 1378
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1378, a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to provide
appropriation authorization and improve the operations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation.
The Department supports S. 1378 with an amendment to extend the
authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund for ten years until
2015.
S. 1378 would extend the authorization of the Historic Preservation
Fund for an additional six years. The bill would also make a number of
changes to the authority for the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) by increasing the membership of the ACHP,
authorizing the governor appointed to the ACHP to have a designee serve
in his place, revising the number of members that constitute a quorum,
revising various financial and administrative authorities of the ACHP,
authorizing the ACHP to solicit donations, and authorizing the ACHP to
enter into cooperative agreements with other federal agencies to
improve the effectiveness of the administration of grant or assistance
programs to help meet the purposes of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
In addition, the bill also changes the authorization level for the
ACHP from $4 million per fiscal year to such sums as may be necessary.
It also makes the ACHP permanent instead of reauthorizing the ACHP for
the standard five-year period.
The Historic Preservation Fund grew out of the recommendations of
the 1966 Special Committee on Historic Preservation of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors. The Special Committee recommended the
establishment of a grant program to State and local governments to
carry out inventory and survey programs in coordination with the
National Park Service. In 1970, a historic preservation grant program
was established and administered by the National Park Service in
partnership with State governments on a cost-sharing basis. In 1976,
the Historic Preservation Fund was created with revenues from Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas production.
Over the years, the Historic Preservation Fund has provided
essential support to the State Historic Preservation Offices that
operate the national program at the State level. Through the work of
our partners in the States, we can cite significant achievements over
the past year:
The National Park Service approved 1,537 new listings, which
include 46,619 properties, in the National Register of Historic
Places. This brings the total number of National Register
properties to 79,617 listings that include over 1.4 million
properties.
Jointly administered by the National Park Service and the
Internal Revenue Service, and in partnership with the State
Historic Preservation Officers, the Historic Preservation Tax
Incentives resulted in the rehabilitation of over 1,200
historic properties listed in the National Register, creating
over 15,000 new housing units and generating $3.8 billion in
leveraged private investment--all during 2004. Since its
inception in 1976, this tax incentives program has generated
over $33 billion in historic preservation activity.
In FY 2005, the Save America's Treasures (SAT) grant program
awarded a total of 145 matching grants in 43 states and the
District of Columbia totaling $29.5 million. 337 applications
were received that totaled $134 million. The SAT program is
administered by the National Park Service, the National
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Over the years, the Historic Preservation Fund authority has been a
highly flexible authority for developing targeted grant programs that
address the broad purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act.
They include the grants to Indian Tribes to support Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices and project grants to preserve America's native
cultures; grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities to
preserve significant campus buildings; the Save America's Treasures
Grant Program for threatened nationally significant properties; and
more recently, the Preserve America grant program for heritage tourism,
including education, and economic revitalization. These grant programs
not only preserve historic resources, they attract new economic
investment.
Reauthorization of the ACHP also is an important objective as we
work with this critical governmental agency to help protect historic
resources while facilitating government-sponsored development. We are
working closely with the ACHP on a number of important initiatives,
including the Preserve America program and compliance tools.
We understand that the ACHP will discuss the specific provisions of
S. 1378 that affect the ACHP. We believe these changes will increase
the ACHP's effectiveness and strengthen the important role the ACHP has
played in preserving the historic resources of our country.
As recommended at the beginning of this testimony, the Department
believes that the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund
should be extended for ten years instead of six. The fund is now almost
40 years old. It has been highly successful in meeting the objectives
established by Congress in preserving the historic resources of this
country. We believe this success calls for a longer authorization than
previously has been provided, while allowing Congress the traditional
oversight role it has always maintained. The proposed amendment is
attached to the testimony.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may
have.
Proposed amendment to S. 1378, National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments Act of 2005.
On page 2, line 6 strike ``2011'' and insert ``2015''.
ON S. 1627
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1627, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a Special Resources Study along
the coastal region of the State of Delaware. The Department supports
enactment of the legislation with one amendment regarding the time
period provided for the study.
While the Department supports the authorization of this study, it
is important that future funding requests go towards completing
previously authorized studies. There are currently 25 studies in
progress, and we hope to complete and transmit 6 to Congress by the end
of 2005. Therefore, the Department will focus the funding provided
towards completing these studies.
The coastal region of the state of Delaware has a long and
distinguished history of Native American occupation, colonial
settlement and contributions to this nation's heritage. The region was
populated by the Lenni Lenape and Nanticoke tribes before the period of
European discovery. Early explorations of Delaware's coastline were
made by the Spaniards and Portuguese in the sixteenth century, by Henry
Hudson in 1609 under the auspices of the Dutch, by Samuel Argall in
1610, by Cornelius May in 1613, and by Cornelius Hendricksen in 1614.
During a storm, Argall was blown off course and sailed into a strange
bay, which he named in honor of his governor--Lord De La Wan.
In 1631, 11 years after the landing of the English pilgrims at
Plymouth, Massachusetts, the first white settlement was established by
the Dutch. This was followed in 1638 by the first Swedish settlement at
``The Rocks'' on the Christina River, where a fort was built called
``Fort Christina'' after the young queen of Sweden. Fort Christina in
Wilmington, with a monument created by the noted sculptor Carl Milles
and presented by the people of Sweden, perpetuates the memory of these
first settlers and preserves ``The Rocks'' where they first landed.
In the autumn of 1655, Peter Stuyvesant came from New Amsterdam
with a Dutch fleet, subjugated the Swedish settlements and established
the authority of the Colony of New Netherlands throughout the area. The
Dutch were eventually replaced by the English. In 1776 at the time of
the Declaration of Independence, Delaware not only declared itself free
from the British Empire, but also established a state government
entirely separate from Pennsylvania. The State became the first to
ratify the United States Constitution on December 7, 1787.
The importance of the Delaware Bay and River to coastal defense
during the American Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Civil War was
marked by the establishment of fortifications to thwart enemy ships
from traversing the Delaware River to Philadelphia. Many of these
resources remain to remind current generations of past struggles for
independence, early nationhood, and preservation of the Union. Delaware
became an important component of the Underground Railroad prior to the
elimination of slavery during the Civil War. The Delaware River was and
remains an important transportation link connecting Delaware and
portions of Pennsylvania and New Jersey to world markets.
The coastal region of Delaware also contains important natural
resources adjacent to and including Delaware Bay and the Delaware
River. It provides resource-based recreational opportunities for
fishing, boating, swimming and crabbing. Delaware Bay is a major
staging area for shorebird migration with truly spectacular numbers
visible during the peak of migration. The region is replete with state
parks and wildlife areas that protect resources and provide important
opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy Delaware's natural
treasures.
The region also has played an important role in industry, including
the exploitation of water power. The outbreak of the Civil War, for
example, found Wilmington with a strong industrial base, which
responded to meet the great demands of waging war. Wilmington products
included ships, railroad cars, gunpowder, shoes, tents, uniforms,
blankets and other war-related goods. By 1868, Wilmington was producing
more iron ships than the rest of the country combined and it rated
first in the production of gunpowder and second in carriages and
leather. Industries thrived along the Delaware, especially the
chemicals and materials company that was founded by the DuPont family
in the 19th century and continues to be one of the largest chemical-
related companies in the world.
The Department suggests one amendment to S. 1627. Section 4 of the
bill requires that a report on findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the study be submitted to the Senate and House
authorizing committees no later than one year after funds are made
available to carry out the Act. We believe it more feasible to provide
that this occur no later than three years after funds are made
available based on the number of Special Resource Studies currently
being conducted by the Department.
If this study is authorized, the Department expects to coordinate
this study with the recently authorized Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Watertrail study, which will be evaluating resources
along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries including portions in the
State of Delaware.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the Committee.
Proposed amendment to S. 1627, Delaware National Coastal Special
Resources Study Act.
On page 4, line 11, strike ``1 year'' and insert ``3 years''.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Thank you very much. With regard
to S. 1378, now this is called an advisory committee, and I
understand that there are some responsibilities there beyond
advisory; is that correct?
Dr. Matthews. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. That has changed then, really, the purpose
and the role of this council?
Dr. Matthews. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully
defer to Mr. Fowler, who is on the next panel, to deal with the
specific provisions of S. 1378.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Let's see now. What was your position
on S. 1310?
Dr. Matthews. On S. 1310, our position is to support, with
one technical amendment. We have the pipeline across the
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. When that property
was acquired for the National Recreation Area in the 1960's,
the pipeline easements were 20 years old, they had been entered
into with private owners in the 1940's, and of the five private
property title acquisitions, two of them came without
authorization, within the easement language to allow for
increasing the diameter of the pipe. Two of the parcels
remaining require congressional authorization for enlargement
and activity.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. I have no further
questions.
Dr. Matthews. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thomas. Senator Dodd, welcome. Senator Carper, you
were here first.
Senator Carper. I don't have any great time pressures. I
would be happy to yield.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka is in the next
room and will be here any minute. I really appreciate the
opportunity to come by and testify on behalf of S. 1627, which
is legislation Senator Biden and I have introduced in the
Senate. Congressman Mike Castle is introducing a companion bill
in the House. I also want to thank Dr. Matthews for the
comments she has just made in support of our proposal, and I
want to thank Jim Slavin, who is going to be here today, the
Director of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs
from my State, who will testify on behalf of the committee that
has worked on this project. I want to thank Dr. Jim Soles, a
legendary professor from the University of Delaware who led a
12-member committee in the deliberations over the last year or
so, as we contemplated what kind of park to create and ask for.
I really want to thank the hundreds of Delawarians who
participated from one end of Delaware to the other to give us
their ideas and their thoughts on a national park for our
State. I want to thank Senator Biden and Congressman Castle for
their support, and for the letters of support. And in fact, I
would ask, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to have entered into the
record statements of support from Senator Biden and Congressman
Castle, and a short statement here that kind of outlines the
actual proposal itself.
Senator Thomas. Without objection.
Senator Carper. Here in the audience are Brian Bushweller
and Latisha Omeruah, who are members of my staff who worked on
this, and Tom Weller, one of my legislative aides who has also
worked on this project, and we're grateful for that.
Two summers ago, my family was getting ready to go on
vacation and we wanted to go someplace that had great national
parks and we finally settled on Alaska. And I remember, we went
to a big park called Denali that some of you in this room have
probably heard of and maybe been to. Denali's several times the
size of my State. We had a chance to go all over Alaska and to
visit and to check it out.
And as we went through that website of the national parks,
we saw information not only on Alaska, but Alabama, and other
States, but we couldn't find anything about national parks in
Delaware. And the reason why there was information for 49
states with national parks, or units of national parks, and
there's nothing about Delaware is because we don't have one.
And it's not that we don't have useful, beautiful places to
see, or natural scenic beauty, we do. It's not that we don't
have a lot of history in our State, we have plenty of that. But
what we don't have is a unit of the national parks. And along
the way people say to me, why don't we do something about this.
And finally I got in a position where maybe we could do
something about it, and we brought this proposal to you in your
State in Wyoming, which is where we want to go on vacation next
year.
Senator Thomas. That's very good and thoughtful of you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Listen to this--there are 11 national park
units: Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Center, California
National Historic Trail, Devil's Tower National Monument, Fort
Laramie, and the list goes on down to Yellowstone National
Park. It's just a great venue. And I look at Hawaii, and
Senator Akaka is not here, but he has eight of them in Hawaii.
I can't say some of these names, but they've got historic
trails, national parks, and memorials and all kinds of places
to visit. And when you look through the membership of this
committee and all the States that are represented on this
committee, you've got folks who have their State's national
parks, they've got national monuments, they've got national
preserves, they've got national historic parks, they've got
national memorials, national battlefields, national cemeteries,
national recreation areas, national seashores, national
lakeshores, national rivers, national park plays, national
trails, but in Delaware, we don't have any of those, not a one.
And we would like to do something about that.
The legislation that we introduced--with the support of
Senator Biden and Congressman Castle--seems to end that
distinction for our State. And I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Akaka, and others on the committee, for your support of
our proposal.
I want to just briefly, if I could, describe the process
that we've been through. We actually put on the website the
idea that we wanted to solicit from Delawarians whether or not
they thought we ought to have a National Park, and if so, what
would be a good idea. We had hundreds of people who responded,
and gave us really some terrific ideas. We created a committee
for people throughout our State, led by Dr. Jim Soles, who's
just a great professor, just retired from the University of
Delaware. They went all over our State and they held hearings
and got all kinds of people involved in suggesting ideas and
invited the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreations to
participate in it with our committee. They invited the Division
of Historical and Cultural Affairs to participate, and they
did. And we invited the National Park Service themselves, from
the Philadelphia office, to participate, and they did.
Among the great ideas that we got are these. Fort
Christina--believe it or not, the first Swedes and Finns who
came to America came into America in what is Wilmington,
Delaware, and they proclaimed the colony of New Sweden. I think
the Finns wanted to proclaim it the colony of New Finland, but
the Swedes won out and so it became the colony of New Sweden.
They built the first fortification for settlers in Delaware
Valley, right there on the banks of the Christina River in what
is now Wilmington Delaware, so that was among the ideas that
was suggested.
We have a big fort right out in the middle of the Delaware
River, about halfway between Delaware and New Jersey, where we
held about 30,000 Confederate soldiers during the Civil War.
It's called Fort Delaware, on Pea Patch Island. It hooks up
with a couple of other forts, one on the New Jersey side and
one on the Delaware side. Some people thought that would be a
great national park idea. We have all kinds of fortifications.
Anybody who's ever been to Delaware in the summertime--Dewey
Beach--has seen these towers that were used during World War II
to spot submarines and coming up the Delaware Bay and the
Delaware River, and all kinds of really neat fortifications
that are still in largely good shape.
We have underground railroads. We're a big part of the
Underground Railroad in Delaware. We have the Golden Fleece
Tavern in Delaware, which was where the Constitution was first
ratified. We were the first State, on December 7, 1787, to
ratify the Constitution, right there in Dover, Delaware, the
John Dickinson plantation. It's fortuitous Senator Dodd is
sitting next to me. He'll recall the Connecticut Compromise
that was adopted. They had the Constitutional Convention, where
we were going to have a bicameral Congress. The Senate and
House were largely the work--not entirely, though largely the
work of a guy named John Dickinson, who grew up on the
Dickinson Plantation.
There's a whole lot more. All those ideas were suggested to
us, and any one of them alone would, frankly, I think, be a
pretty good idea for a national park. But you know what ended
up happening, the committee said we're not going to pick any
one of them, what we would like to do is to kind of thread them
all together. And the thread that kind of unites them all is
they are part of our coastal heritage, along with all the
Indians that used to live there--the Lenni Lenape Indians and
Nanticoke Indians--and all the early work of the DuPont Company
on the Brandywine River, creating mills and gun powder. All
this stuff just ties together, and we call it Personal Heritage
National Park. That unites them all.
Imagine, if you would, Mr. Chairman, four bicycle wheels.
Imagine a bicycle wheel with a hub in Wilmington, Delaware,
where the first Swedes and Finns came to shore. The hub would
be really the center if you will the park and really the
closest thing to a traditional park. Those spokes would come
out from the hub and connect to different attractions in other
parts of our State. Those attractions are held in some cases by
the State, the State parks, by non-profit organizations, and by
other owners. But the attractions would be on the perimeter of
the wheel, if you would. Put another hub just south of there,
about 30 to 40 miles south of Wilmington. And on the spokes
from that hub would be, among other places, Fort Delaware, that
I mentioned, where we had all these 30,000 Confederate troops
during the Civil War. Come on south a little bit further down
toward the central part of our State and you have another hub.
And the spokes would go out to, among other places, Primehook,
where we have literally hundreds of thousands of migratory
birds that are flying transcontinental across the world and
they stop for lunch in Delaware.
Senator Dodd. At the Golden Fleece Tavern?
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. And we pick up the tab.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. And the last hub would be down in the
southern part of our State, where we have all of our beaches.
And there would be a bunch of attractions and so forth that
would come out of that hub, as well. It's a different type of
national park, it's really sort of unique and it's also, I
might add, pretty inexpensive. And at a time when folks from
the National Park Service will tell you that they are pressed
for money, what we have come up with is an idea that we think
ties together a history, ties together a culture, provides for
a lot of beauty to share with people from around the country
and around the world, and does it in a way that shows the
sensitivity to the fact that we have a huge budget deficit.
And with that in mind, I will just close with this, Mr.
Chairman. Last Saturday was U.S. Constitution Day. And we
celebrate it in our State, because the Constitution is a big
deal for us, given the fact that we were the first State. And
Saturday, I think it was, September 17, 1787, the
Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution. About 3
months later, we became the first State to ratify it. Delaware
became the first State on December 7, 1787. We were the first
State for one whole week. For one whole week, we were the
entire United States of America, then we opened things up and
let in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Wyoming, Hawaii
and the others. And we were proud of being the first State. And
we're not happy about being the last state to get a unit of the
national park, but we think our time has come. We've got a
great project here and a great proposal. A lot of people worked
really hard on it, and I am pleased to present it on their
behalf.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator From Delaware
A Proposal: Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park
BACKGROUND
In 2002, U.S. Senator Tom Carper undertook a public process to
solicit ideas and assess support for the creation of a National Park
unit in Delaware. Delaware is the only state without a designated unit
of the National Park system. Using an internet survey of the general
public and a mail survey of various organizations along with
discussions with many individuals, Senator Carper found significant
interest in creating some kind of National Park unit. In 2003, he
established a committee of twelve Delawareans representing all three
counties and the City of Wilmington to look more closely at suggestions
that had been made for such a unit and to make recommendations to the
Senator with regard to which of the suggestions, if any, the Senator
might pursue. Among other activities, the Committee held public
workshop meetings in each county and the City of Wilmington to further
solicit input and ideas from interested citizens. The Committee's
ultimate recommendation was an amalgam of several individual
suggestions. Senator Carper accepted the recommendation and will
propose that Congress authorize a formal study of the feasibility of
the committee's proposal.
THE PROPOSAL
Senator Carper proposes the creation of a Delaware national coastal
heritage park. The park would be unique among national parks in both
its physical dimensions and its theme. Physically, the park would be
comprised of a series of connected interpretive centers and sites. The
centers would largely direct visitors to already existing attractions
related to the theme of the park. Thematically, the park recognizes
that Delaware's coastal region, as interpreted through the historic,
cultural, and natural environment, provides an experience of interwoven
threads that hold great significance in the history of the United
States. It also recognizes that the region offers outstanding
opportunities for resource protection, heritage education and
recreation.
THE CONCEPT
The concept of the Park has its roots in the notion that Delaware's
coastal region is a near-perfect microcosm of America's coastal
history. It acknowledges that coastal regions have always played a key
role in human activity and that they will continue to do so. From the
beginning of our nation's history, Delaware has been the location of
nationally important and emblematic themes of development. The
persistent rural character of the state situated in such an intensely
developed east coast corridor afforded the preservation of many sites,
buildings, structures and vistas to provide the visitor an unparalleled
opportunity to experience the coastal American landscape and understand
its role in the development of the nation. These themes include:
1. History of Indigenous Peoples. Delaware is rich with the
history of Native American tribes such as the Nanticoke and
Lenni Lenape.
2. Colonization and Establishment of the Frontier. Among the
most significant developments in this regard are the history of
the first European settlers in the Delaware Valley who built
fortifications for the protection of settlers like Fort
Christina in 1638 at the Rocks in Wilmington, which was
established to protect the Swedish and Finnish settlers, and
Fort Zwaanendael to protect the Dutch in Lewes. Also, Delaware
witnessed the increased influence of the English and Dutch that
accompanied the growth of European immigration.
3. Founding of a Nation. Delaware made significant
contributions to the development of our constitutional
republic. Historical sites such as the John Dickinson
Plantation, the boyhood home of the ``Penman of the
Revolution'', proliferate in the coastal region.
4. Industrial Development. Some of the earliest exploitation
of water power occurred in Delaware with the mill development
on the Brandywine River.
5. Transportation. Water served as the main transportation
link, connecting Colonial Delaware with England, Europe and
other colonies. Water transportation along Delaware's coastline
retained its importance through the 20th century and displays a
variety of aids to navigation. These aids address both river
travel, with the range light navigation system, and ocean-going
travel, with the National Harbor of Refuge at Lewes and Fenwick
Island lighthouse at the coastal border with Maryland.
6. Coastal Defense. Protection of this vital link was a
consistent concern from the Colonial Period through the 20th
century as evidenced by the superb collection of fortifications
spaced along the river and bay from Fort Delaware on Pea Patch
Island to Fort Miles near Lewes.
7. The Last Stop to Freedom. Delaware has an extensive and
well documented history of Underground Railroad activity. The
coastline was an embarkation point for many freedom-seekers, in
small craft or large steamers, to cross to the free territory
of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Many other escaping slaves
crossed the Christina River on their way to freedom at the site
of the current Tubman-Garret Park in downtown Wilmington.
8. The Coastal Environment. Much of the beautiful and
ecologically important natural area along the coast is already
preserved as federal and state wildlife areas and state parks.
Delaware's coastal environment provides outstanding resource
based recreational opportunities such as crabbing, fishing,
swimming and boating.
THE ``PARK''
These themes will be highlighted and showcased in a format unique
to the National Park system. The Park will be structured much like a
series of bicycle wheels, each with a hub and spokes. The hubs will be
interpretive centers located strategically along the coast line. These
hubs will provide the visitor with a comprehensive look at the themes
most prevalent in the surrounding area. The spokes will be the
connectors to the attractions and sites that make up the wheel.
The ``gateway'' or ``headquarters'' hub will be located on the 7th
Street Peninsula at the site of the Fort Christina monument. Within a
short walking distance of the existing Fort Christina State Park is the
Old Swedes Church, the oldest Episcopal Church in America in continuous
use; the Kalmar Nyckel, a replica of the ship that carried early Swedes
to our shores; Tubman-Garrett Park, located at a point in Wilmington
where escaping slaves crossed the Christina River as part of their
journey on the Underground Railroad, and other attractions. This area
would be developed as a specific destination point for the Park.
As a hub, it would also provide information, advice and directions
about other sites in the Wilmington area that relate to the themes of
the coastal region. These would include the Thomas Robinson House on
Philadelphia Pike in Claymont, associated with the Revolutionary War,
and the Brandywine Mills Historic District for the beginning of water-
powered milling history. It would include visitors' facilities,
interpretive programs, the park headquarters and other amenities.
A second hub would be located along the Delaware River in southern
New Castle County. It would provide information on attractions in that
area. Notable among those are the City of New Castle's renowned
National Landmark historic district including the early statehood and
Underground Railroad histories interpreted at the New Castle Court
House Museum. Other examples include the George Read II House and
Garden as well as related attractions in New Castle County such as Fort
Delaware State Park on Pea Patch Island and Fort DuPont near Delaware
City.
A third would be located in Kent County, along the coast of the
Delaware Bay. It would provide information on the existing preserved
natural areas such as Bombay Hook and on the myriad other attractions
in Kent County that are integral parts of the themes highlighted by the
Park. These would include the John Dickinson Plantation, the Octagonal
School Museum, the fishing villages of Leipsic, Little Creek and Bowers
Beach, and Barrett's Chapel.
A Sussex County hub would be located in the Lewes area and would
provide information on the numerous historic sites and natural areas
that have made Sussex County's coastal region so pivotal to Delaware.
These would include the Zwaanendael Museum, the National Harbor of
Refuge, Fort Miles (Cape Henlopen State Park), the Indian River
Lifesaving Station, the Nanticoke Indian Museum, and the aids to
navigation including the Fenwick Island Lighthouse, the Lightship
Overfalls, the Harbor of Refuge Light, and the Breakwater Light.
Together, these four interpretative hubs would provide the
necessary historical context and direct visitors to the many existing
attractions that help us understand and appreciate the entire breadth
of experiences available along Delaware's Coastal region. They would
disperse visitors to their destinations along existing roads, transit
lines, bikeways and land and water trails. Through southern New Castle
and Kent Counties, many visitors would traverse one of Delaware's most
scenic roads, Route 9, which was recently proposed to be designated a
scenic and historic highway.
THE PLAN FORWARD
Together with Senator Joe Biden and Congressman Mike Castle,
Senator Carper will be seeking authorization and funding from Congress
for a formal study to be conducted by the National Park Service in
cooperation with the State of Delaware, the coastal region communities
and the general public. The study will more fully explore the concept
outlined above and make recommendations to Congress. Upon receipt of
the study, the Delegation would then seek legislation to authorize and
fund the park itself.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Very impressive. There's
certainly very good reason for it. I hope you don't plan a
bicycle-type event. Bicycles won't stand alone, you know. They
are too tired.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Senator Dodd, we're glad to have you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. This is tough competition around here. We
could do what Vermont did, just declare the entire State a
historic site. I think that's what they did to keep all the
Wal-Marts out.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. Small States have unique interests, Mr.
Chairman, and having Delaware and Connecticut, we're just
missing Rhode Island here, I suppose, to complete the trifecta
of the small States. I constantly point out to my constituents
that my State is smaller than Yellowstone National Park, Mr.
Chairman and we now have a national park site, the Weir Farm,
which Senator Lieberman championed a number of years ago, which
I was strongly supportive of, and others. And so we finally
ended up with a site that is of some significance. I think it's
one of the smallest, if not the smallest, designations of a
national park maybe in the country. It is difficult when you
are a small State, there is no question about it obviously. We
think because there is a growing recognition of the importance
of these open spaces that we have, while they're shrinking all
the time with the expansion of suburbs and exurbs, I guess they
call them now, or words to that effect, but it's harder and
harder to preserve some heritage for the coming generations.
I am here, Mr. Chairman, once again, to make an appeal to
this committee, which has been tremendously generous in the
past to suggestions that have come from our State, particularly
with the request to conduct feasibility studies in the Wild and
Scenic River System Programs. The Lower Salmon River and the
Salmon Brook River is the appeal I want to make today.
I'm going to publicly thank a couple of individuals who are
here, who you're going to hear from, Eric Hammerling, who's
executive director of the Farmington River Water Shed
Association, and Skip Allemen, who's director of the Salmon
Brook Water Shed Association. You're going to hear from Eric in
a little while and Skip is submitting some testimony and will
be able to answer some specific questions about these
proposals. But we're very lucky to have both individuals who
have done so much to add already to protecting some of these
very, very fragile and wonderful open space in our small State
of Connecticut.
Like my colleague from Delaware, these become harder and
harder to do as time goes by. And so we try to do what we can
here. I think they have some photos, but I don't know if we
have them to put up to show. If we don't, we'll try to provide
some for you. But Mr. Chairman, just very briefly again, to get
the size of Connecticut, it's 110 miles plus 60 miles again,
and I'm not--you've got a good concept when you talk about
Yellowstone National Park. Then you get some sense of the size
of our small State here.
The Farmington River and the Salmon Brook flow between 10
small towns in central Connecticut, a region of great
historical and culture significance. These towns on the Salmon
and the Farmington Rivers have built a strong community going
back to the 18th Century, the early mills and so forth. They
thrived and prospered as a result of the activities that these
rivers provided. They were used extensively as a conduit for
commerce which provided the jobs and the opportunities that
created the great industries--the early industries of this
country that emerged from these communities. Biologists have
also stated that sections and stretches of these rivers have
both regional and possibly global significance for plant
communities, which makes the rivers one of the most thriving
and diverse ecosystems in our State, and in certain areas
unique not only to our State but to the country.
Besides environmental and historical benefits, the Lower
Farmington River provides excellent opportunity for recreation,
including canoeing, kayaking, and the like. In fact it's some
of the best kayaking in the region. They are class II through
IV whitewater kayaking, 12 months a year. In fact we hosted the
Olympic trials on these rivers, to give you some idea of the
water flow that exists in these small rivers that run through
our State.
S. 435 was introduced by Senator Lieberman and I, and
there's complimentary legislation completely supported by the
entire delegation on the House side, the Governor, and the
towns along the way. It's interesting, when I was at the river,
I think it was last July, if I recall, and it was interesting
that a couple of the local selectmen or mayors in the towns
that were being affected by the Lower Farmington River
expressed to me how they had actually been opposed to the
earlier designation of the Upper Farmington River at the time
it was moving through. Having the opportunity to watch over the
last 10 or so years what's happened to these smaller
communities in the Upper Farmington, today they were fully
prepared to say that they were wrong in that opposition, and
they totally support these efforts. So a lot of times you get
local communities, developers, and others who get anxious about
some of these decisions. I'm here to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we
have the kind of unanimity from the locals, the private people,
as well as the State and the delegation, in support of this
study, and ultimately, hopefully, this designation. And so we
have the kind of support I know the committee looks to.
As many of my colleagues may remember, and I'm going back
now 11 years, the Upper Farmington was so designated as I've
just mentioned. And as a result it has seen notable
improvement. Today representatives from the towns adjacent to
the river meet monthly with the National Park Service. The
State and local organizations do take action to preserve and to
improve that stretch of the river. We need to build, as we
suggested, on that success. The Lower Farmington is one of the
most fished rivers in our State, but its water quality is
declining again because of the encroaching population in a
small State like ours.
There is broad State and local support, as I mentioned, for
this designation. I know the committee will hear from the Park
Service about their views on this bill, and I wasn't here to
hear the exact testimony, but I'm told that they substantively
support this designation. There are obviously cost factors that
you and the Park Service have to take into consideration,
because we've been cutting back obviously in these areas. I
would note that in the past the committee and others have not
allowed that rationale to deny the study to go forward. We have
to work, obviously, to come up with the resources, and they are
strapped and I appreciate that, but I wouldn't want to see this
set aside on that basis alone, given the history of moving
forward with these feasibility studies while we determine
whether or not down the road we can provide the additional
resources.
In a small State like ours, where you're trying to hold on
to cultural, historical, and environmental benefits for people
to enjoy, it can--quite candidly, I would love to be able to
travel with my family from time to time, but given the cost of
things, gasoline prices and the like, the ability to travel to
your beautiful State--and I don't say that facetiously, it's an
incredible State. I've been to Jackson Hole many times and I
went on a camping trip to Grand Teton as a kid with my parents,
and I still remember the beauty of it all. I've been through
Yellowstone and enjoyed that immensely.
Most of my constituents, Mr. Chairman, may never able to do
that. They just don't have the resources to do it. But to spend
a day or a weekend, a father to take his son or daughter and
fish the Farmington, or the Salmon Brook, may be about as good
as it gets. And I would like to see my daughters and their
children, and the coming generations, be able to enjoy the back
yard in Connecticut. And I would like them to be able to go to
your State too, but if they can't do it, I don't want them to
feel as though they can't, in their own neighborhood, find
something they can enjoy.
And so we would ask you to allow us to do this study--we're
prepared to answer any questions--and to be supportive. Again,
we understand the pressures you're under and others in the
National Park Service to deal with these questions, but we
think this is a worthy investment for America's future. I thank
you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir, and I appreciate both of
you being here. Let me just say that I understand the Tetons
are unique and they're different, but all of our parks and all
of our places are different. And the values that exist in your
river at that place are just as important as the others,
they're just different. So we want to recognize those. So we
thank both of you for being here, and we will look forward to
dealing with these bills.
Senator, do you have any comments?
Senator Talent. Just to say I always appreciate our two
colleagues and I think I will pass, so we can get to the next
panel.
Senator Thomas. Okay. We would like very much to have our
second panel please. Dr. Eric Hammerling, executive director of
the Farmington River Watershed Association; Mr. Michael
Roberts, manager of field services, Columbia Gas Transmission,
Chester Springs, Pennsylvania; Mr. Timothy Slavin, director of
the State Division of Historic and Cultural Affairs, Dover,
Delaware; Ms. Beth Styler Barry, executive director of the
Musconetcong Watershed Association in New Jersey; and John
Fowler, executive director of the advisory council on Historic
Preservation. We certainly want to thank you for being here.
And we have a 5-minute time limit, if you can do that on your
statements. If you have additional statements, we will put them
in the record, if you would like.
I'm going to try to work with Senator Talent. We're having
some votes that are likely to come up, and we may have to come
and go a little, but we will try to arrange it so we can go
ahead without being too interrupting. So let's begin now, and
why don't we start with Mr. Hammerling, if you please.
STATEMENT OF ERIC HAMMERLING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FARMINGTON
RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION, SIMSBURY, CT
Mr. Hammerling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got to say
it's an incredible pleasure to be here. I would like to thank
Senator Dodd for his kind remarks, as well as his staff person,
Sheila Duffy, who's done an amazing job in helping to work with
us on this bill. I'm here of course to talk in favor of S. 435,
the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic
Study Act of 2005. It's quite a mouthful, but it's not quite
Musconetcong. Let me state for the record that I would not
oppose the technical amendment proposed by the National Park
Service, and I appreciate the support of this legislation. That
being said, I hope you will encourage the Park Service to work
with congressional leaders from Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania--
those are the States that are represented with partnership Wild
and Scenic Rivers--to ensure that the Park Service has
sufficient funding for both its partnership Wild and Scenic
Rivers Study Program, as well as those that have already been
or may soon be designated. I will not attempt to speed read my
entire testimony that has been submitted for the record, but I
do want to emphasize a couple of points that are in there.
No. 1, and Senator Dodd mentioned this, Wild and Scenic in
the Farmington River Watershed is not a new concept. In fact, I
hope you have the maps of the lower scenic feasibility study
area and of the watershed. But in those I can point out that
two of the towns that are being considered for the study are
already Wild and Scenic towns as a part of the Upper Farmington
River that was designated in 1994. I also want to mention that
the partnership Wild and Scenic River model fits what we call
home rule in New England very well. In fact, the partnership
model supports local conservation planning, resource
stewardship, collaborative local, State and Federal resource
management, and local interests in preserving the special
character of our region's cultural, natural and recreational
assets. And I hope you will note that local is in every part of
the partnership Wild and Scenic River Program, or else it would
not fly in New England. And it's been flying quite well for 11
years on the Upper Farmington River.
Last, I will just mention, of course, we think that there
are considerable cultural, natural and recreational resources
in the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook, which make it a
very good candidate for consideration for Wild and Scenic.
There are a couple of things--and I put a lot of things in my
testimony that has been submitted, but there are a couple of
things I left out that I just want to mention. Windsor, which
is one of the 10 towns, and it's at the bottom of the
Farmington River where it meets the Connecticut River, is known
as Connecticut's first town. It was incorporated first. We
heard about Delaware being the first State; this was
Connecticut's first town, and it hosts tremendous historical
and archeological resources. In fact, it's very interesting as
a Native America historical site. There are five different
types of stone tools that were found in the Windsor area, which
really showed that even for the last 10,000 years it's been a
place of commerce.
I also forgot to mention that Simsbury, which is also one
of the towns that will be considered, has the Gifford Pinchot
sycamore tree which is the largest tree in Connecticut. In
fact, that tree happens to have benefited our organization
because when a bow of the tree fell this last year, we were
contacted by the local recreation department and we turned it
into a guitar, an Ovation Elite guitar, made from the largest
tree in Connecticut. It's been mentioned that the Lower
Farmington River is the greatest fresh water mussel diversity
in the State, from a natural resource perspective, and there's
kayaking that has hosted two Olympic qualifying trials, and on,
and on, and on. At the same time, it has these amazing
resources.
I also want to emphasize that we're starting to see some
declines in the quality of the Farmington River. In 2002 there
was a 20-mile section of the Lower Farmington that was added to
the State's impaired water list for elevated bacterial levels.
This was the first time ever that a section of the Farmington
River was added to the impaired waters lists.
I will just conclude by saying that even though we have
tremendous Wild and Scenic characteristics, we are seeing
evidence that these can be lost if we don't work together to
protect them. And with that, I will conclude my testimony and
welcome any question you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammerling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Hammerling, Executive Director,
Farmington River Watershed Association, on S.435
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Energy Committee, my name is Eric
Hammerling and I am the Executive Director of the Farmington River
Watershed Association (FRWA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
founded in 1953 with the ongoing mission to protect the Farmington
River Watershed and its amazing natural resources. I am extremely
pleased to be here to testify on behalf of S. 435, ``The Lower
Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild & Scenic River Study Act of
2005.'' At the onset, I'd like to recognize Skip Alleman, Director of
the Salmon Brook Watershed Association, who made the trip down from
Connecticut along with me and who represents a valued partner in
conserving natural resources in our shared watershed. The Salmon Brook
Watershed Association, Farmington River Coordinating Committee,
Farmington Valley Archaeology Project, and American Rivers have all
assembled testimony supporting this Act, and at this time, Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to submit their letters of support to be
incorporated into the Record of this hearing. Thank you.
This legislation would initiate a 3-year study of the Lower
Farmington River and Salmon Brook to ascertain whether they meet the
criteria for being potentially designated as Wild & Scenic. This bill
is a critical step that will inform our ongoing efforts to conserve the
most outstanding cultural, natural, and recreational resources of our
region, and we believe there is a substantial benefit of this Study
even if the final result of the Study is not the designation of the
Lower Farmington or Salmon Brook as Wild & Scenic.
That being said, we are confident that these two waterbodies
already merit strong consideration for gaining Wild & Scenic status
because of the outstanding cultural, natural, and recreational
resources that we have identified in preparation for this hearing. A
few examples of this follow and are included in greater detail in the
attached testimonies from other supporters:
Botanist William Moorhead III has identified several native,
rare plants in the floodplain of the Farmington River including
99% of the Starry campion found in New England, the only known
population of Dwarf bulrush in a river ecosystem, the largest
known population of Davis' sedge in New England, and the only
known population of Purple giant hyssop in Connecticut.
Mussel biologist Ethan Nedeau with BioDrawversity in the
summer of 2005, identified the Lower Farmington River as having
the largest cluster of the federally endangered dwarf wedge
mussel in Connecticut, as well as hosting the greatest
diversity of freshwater mussels (9 species) found in any River
in southern New England.
The Farmington River has been identified by the CT DEP as
one of the most important rivers in the Connecticut River
system for the restoration of Atlantic Salmon. To these
migrating fish heading upstream in the Connecticut River from
Long Island Sound, the Farmington River is the largest River in
Connecticut they migrate into. Salmon Brook is the most
important tributary to the Farmington for Atlantic salmon
restoration due to the few obstructions to their migration.
There are significant Tunxis and River Tribe native American
archaeological sites throughout the floodplain. Spear and arrow
points abound at Alsop Meadows in Avon, and Simsbury has
identified its entire floodplain as a sensitive archaeological
area. The town of Windsor, located at the confluence of the
Farmington and Connecticut Rivers, is Connecticut's first town
and it boasts a rich river history. Remnants of the historic
folly known as the Farmington River Canal still exist in
several areas throughout the floodplain of the Farmington and
Salmon Brook.
Churning through Bloomfield, East Granby, and Simsbury, the
combined waters of the Farmington and Salmon Brook course
through Tariffville Gorge to provide Class II-IV whitewater
kayaking 12 months a year. The Gorge is one of the only places
to consistently paddle in whitewater during the summer in
Southern New England. The Gorge has been the site for many
whitewater canoe and kayaking competitions, and twice has
included the U.S. Olympic Team whitewater slalom trials. Just
upstream, the flat water section of the Farmington provides a
training ground for local crew teams and for thousands of
canoeists and kayakers every year sustaining local water-
focused businesses like Huck Finn Adventures.
The Farmington Valley Greenway and a spur route, the
Farmington River Trail, are part of the Farmington Canal
Heritage Trail covering 60 miles along the abandoned rail
corridors from the Massachusetts border to New Haven. In the
Farmington Valley, 25 miles of these hiking, biking, and dog-
walking trails have the Farmington River as the central
attraction.
The East and West branches of Salmon Brook are both in the
top 12 in the State of Connecticut for the diversity of aquatic
insects that they host. Aquatic insect diversity is a good
indicator of high water quality, and this is further shown by
the presence of native brook trout and slimy sculpin--two fish
species that are only found in areas with high water quality
(source: Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by
Volunteer Monitors--2004 Summary Report, CT DEP Bureau of Water
Management).
Not only do we believe the requisite outstanding cultural, natural,
and historic resources exist, but also we know that our communities are
ready and eager to participate in the Partnership Wild & Scenic River
model because they have witnessed it working for 11 years along a 14-
mile stretch of the Upper Farmington that was designated as Wild &
Scenic in 1994. Management activities along this 14-mile stretch are
overseen by the Farmington River Coordinating Committee--a combination
of representatives from 5 river-adjacent towns, the National Park
Service, a large local water utility (the Metropolitan District
Commission which provides water from the Farmington Watershed to over
400,000 people in the Greater Hartford area), the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, FRWA, and the Farmington River
Anglers Association. The FRCC has demonstrated for 11 years that
collaborative river management works.
The management philosophy that underlies the Partnership Wild &
Scenic River model (as included in the Upper Farmington River
Management Plan) is worth reiterating here:
1. Resource conservation should be fully integrated with
traditional patterns of use, ownership, and jurisdiction;
2. River management should be accomplished through cooperation
amongst all public and private organizations with an interest in the
river;
3. Long-term resource protection should rely on existing programs
and authorities rather than on new layers of bureaucracy; and
4. Future management should be based on a cooperatively developed
plan which establishes resource protection standards and identifies key
actions.
This management philosophy is built on the assumption that, for the
most part, existing river protection mechanisms are adequate to protect
river resources. If a resource value has been protected by existing
management, and if existing management seems adequate to address issues
that can reasonably be expected to appear in the future, then the
existing mechanism should be left alone. If the existing mechanisms
could be improved or made more efficient by better coordination or
enforcement, then they should be pursued. New or stricter regulations,
or other actions, should only be undertaken when needed, not used as a
primary management tool.
The Study Committee is firm in its resolve that this management
plan must not preempt existing rights or management responsibilities.
Rather, the plan should create a common vision for the future and an
environment in which those concerned with the river can focus their
collective energies on making this vision a reality.''
As if it were not enough to appreciate ones local waterbodies and
witness a model of river conservation that works, there is also strong
evidence that Wild & Scenic protection provides communities with direct
economic benefits. A study on the Upper Farmington River conducted by
the Economics Department of North Carolina State University and funded
by the National Park Service and American Rivers, documented a total
annual economic benefit of $3.63 million to the 5 towns along the River
and a $9.5 million benefit to recreational users. Also, land values
within the river corridor have increased by an estimated $3.76 per
square foot (over $163,785/acre) beyond increases in other town lands
due to Wild & Scenic protection and recognition.
At the same time that the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook
are both unique, cherished, and valuable resources, we are concerned
that we are on the verge of losing the bounties that these waterbodies
provide. In 2002 a 19.6 mile section of the Lower Farmington River
(stretching from Farmington to Windsor) was included in the state's
303(d) ``impaired waters'' list for elevated bacteria levels for the
first time ever. The 303(d) listing will not affect the ability of the
River to be considered as Wild & Scenic; however, this serves as a
reminder that we must take action now to conserve these special
resources to stem further declines in their beauty and value to the
region. The Feasibility Study process that we are asking the Congress
to authorize would enable town representatives, the National Park
Service, FRWA, the State of Connecticut (DEP) and other interested
parties to assemble a River Management Plan to address resource
management issues impacting the River in the short- and long-term. This
management plan process--even if the River isn't recommended for Wild
and Scenic designation--can be a powerful way to address this bacteria
problem with all of the affected towns working collaboratively to find
a mutually beneficial solution.
We already know that the communities of the Farmington Valley in
Connecticut are highly interested in finding collaborative ways to
protect natural resources. Earlier this year, the book ``Nature
Friendly Communities: Habitat Protection and Land Use Planning'' (C.
Duerksen & C. Snyder, Island Press, 2005) tabbed the Farmington Valley
as one of the 19 most nature friendly communities in the United States
due to its efforts with FRWA and others to protect species diversity at
the local level. Towns like Farmington, Granby, and Simsbury have been
particularly strong in going above and beyond to foster interest and
conservation of local natural resources. The process initiated by S.
435 would complement the local interest and involvement.
Before concluding my testimony, I'd like to take a moment to thank
Senators Dodd and Lieberman, who not only are proponents of this bill,
but were original co-sponsors of the Wild & Scenic designation bill
that passed 11 years ago. Also, in the House, representatives Nancy
Johnson and John Larson have been incredibly supportive of this bill
moving forward, but the decision now rests with your Committee.
Quite simply, approval of S. 435 will help our region to leverage
the knowledge and collaborative will necessary to protect and restore
two of its crown jewels--the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook.
We thank you for your consideration of this bill.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Ms. Barry.
STATEMENT OF BETH ANNE STYLER BARRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MUSCONETCONG WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
Ms. Barry. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 1096. I'm Beth
Styler Barry, executive director of the Musconetcong Watershed
Association. I would like to thank Senators Corzine and
Lautenberg for their leadership and crucial support in this
effort. I would also ask that my entire written statement be
entered into the record.
Passage of the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by
this committee is critical to the future of the protection of
one of New Jersey's great rivers. This unique river is the only
river wholly contained in New Jersey's highlands region, and is
the largest New Jersey tributary to the Delaware River.
Without the support offered by this designation the
municipalities along the river lack financial and other
resources needed to adequately protect this exceptional natural
resource. Designating the eligible segments of the river will
promote preservation of farmland and open space within the
river corridor and the watershed. It will protect recharge
areas and aquifers that supply drinking water to citizens of
Hunterdon, Warren, Sussex, and Morris Counties and beyond, and
encourage recreational use that is compatible with the
preservation of natural and cultural qualities of the river
corridor, while respecting private property. It will also
promote ecotourism, in the form of fishing, boating, hiking,
and bird watching, et cetera, that will translate directly into
economic benefit for the region. It will also help to preserve,
restore or enhance the outstanding natural resources in the
river corridor and the watershed, including forests,
floodplains, headwaters, and wetlands. In short, designation
supports uses that are compatible with the river management
plan and that preserve the existing of the Musconetcong River
Valley.
Beginning in 1991, this 14-year-long effort to earn
designation has included citizens from 26 municipalities and 4
counties. Municipal governments, county and State officials,
the National Park Service, the Musconetcong Watershed
Association, local industry, the Heritage Conservancy, the
Highlands Coalition, Trout Unlimited and riverfront property
owners. Several alternatives were studied, and the Wild and
Scenic designation was chosen as the best mechanism to enhance
and support protection for the river while maintaining local
control.
In 1999, the eligibility and classification report was
complete. The study found that certain segments were indeed
eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. The
river management plan created as a part of the Wild and Scenic
study process encourages cooperation between all levels of
government, individual land owners and non-governmental
organizations and recognizes that local municipalities play a
key role in implementing the recommended management actions.
The river management plan will help maintain existing water
quality in the Musconetcong River and it's tributaries and
improve water quality where possible.
The Musconetcong is one of New Jersey's great rivers. The
Musconetcong River Valley is a primary source of drinking
water, provides critical wildlife habitat and abundant
recreational opportunities. Passage of this bill will protect
the remarkable diversity of farms, historic villages and
outstanding natural areas.
S. 1096 recognizes the exceptional value of the
Musconetcong River and the importance of its protection under
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I urge your favorable
consideration of this bill and would be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beth Anne Styler Barry, Executive Director,
Musconetcong Watershed Association
The Musconetcong Watershed Association wishes to express their
support for this bipartisan legislation that will designate segments of
the Musconetcong River as a federal Wild and Scenic River. Passage of
the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by this committee is
critical to the future protection of one of New Jersey's great rivers.
Specifically, this distinguished recognition of the river will:
Help maintain existing water quality in the Musconetcong
River and its tributaries, as well as improve water quality.
Protect the recharge area and aquifers that supply drinking
water to residents of Hunterdon, Warren, Sussex and Morris
counties and beyond.
Help to promote preservation of farmland and open space
within the river corridor and the watershed.
Encourage recreational use that is compatible with the
preservation of natural and cultural qualities of the river
corridor while respecting private property.
Promote eco-tourism in the form of fishing, boating, hiking
and bird watching etc. that will translate directly into an
economic benefit for the region.
Preserve, restore and enhance the outstanding natural
resources in the river corridor and the watershed, including
rare and endangered species, forests, floodplains, headwaters
and wetlands.
Support uses that are compatible with the River Management
Plan and that preserve the existing character of the
Musconetcong River Valley.
GEOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES
The Musconetcong River drains a 157.6 square mile watershed area in
northern New Jersey, and as a major tributary to the Delaware River, is
part of the 12,755 square mile Delaware River watershed. For its entire
length the Musconetcong River is a boundary water, first dividing
Morris and Sussex counties, then Hunterdon and Warren counties. All or
portions of 26 municipalities lie within the natural boundaries of the
Musconetcong watershed. Fourteen municipalities fall within the river
segments eligible for National Wild and Scenic Rivers designation.
CITIZENS UNITE IN RIVER PROTECTION EFFORT
The impetus for the Musconetcong National Wild and Scenic Rivers
study can be traced back to 1991 when petitions were circulated calling
for the protection of the Musconetcong River under both the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System and New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers
program. In 1992 Congress passed legislation authorizing the National
Park Service to study the eligibility and potential suitability of the
Lower Delaware River for addition to the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
The Musconetcong Watershed Association (MWA) was formed in 1992,
and in 1993 the MWA and the National Park Service (NPS) organized two
Roundtable Meetings to discuss the problems, amenities and
opportunities associated with the Musconetcong River. In 1995, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Office of Natural
Lands Management recommended to the NPS that the Musconetcong River be
included in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory of ``candidate'' rivers
that are considered to have the appropriate characteristics for wild
and scenic designation. Two years later, 18 of the 19 municipalities
along the river voted to request the NPS to study the Musconetcong
River to determine its eligibility and suitability for inclusion in the
National System. An initial meeting was held in July 1997 and included
representatives from eighteen river corridor municipal governments,
National Park Service, Musconetcong Watershed Association, county and
state officials, major industries, Heritage Conservancy, Highlands
Coalition, and Trout Unlimited, as well as interested citizens and
river front property owners.
STUDY APPROACH
A Musconetcong Advisory Committee, consisting of municipal
representatives was formed to work with the NPS and the Musconetcong
Watershed Association in completing the National Wild and Scenic study.
It was agreed by all parties that the Musconetcong Advisory Committee
and local municipalities would have the final say as to whether the
Musconetcong River is recommended for designation. Subcommittees were
formed to address public involvement needs and to conduct the resource
assessment for the Resource Assessment, Eligibility & Classification
Report. The study area included the main stem of the river and the
river corridor from the outlet at Lake Musconetcong to the Delaware
River, a distance of approximately 42 miles.
ELIGIBILITY AND CLASSIFICATION REPORT
The Eligibility & Classification Report, completed in August 1999,
recommended that three segments of the river, representing 28.5 miles
of river, were eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System based on flow characteristics and natural and cultural
resources. The committee then conducted an analysis of existing
resource protection in the river corridor and developed draft
management goals, objectives and key actions. The advisory committee
served as the coordinating body for the study, guiding all major study
activities. In order to facilitate the compilation of information about
the river's resources and suitability, the NPS established cooperative
agreements with the Musconetcong Watershed.
Segment A: Saxton Falls to the Rt. 46 Bridge (3.5 miles)
Classification: Scenic
Segment B: Kings Highway Bridge to the Railroad tunnels at
Musconetcong Gorge (20.7 miles) Classification: Recreational
OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES
The study documented an outstanding diversity of farms, historic
villages and outstanding natural areas. The Musconetcong River Valley
is a primary source of drinking water, clean air, critical wildlife
habitat and abundant recreational activities. Its protection is vital
to the environmental, social, and economic health of the country's most
densely populated region.
RECREATIONAL
The Musconetcong River Valley features a diversity of recreational
opportunities that are popular enough to attract visitors from
throughout the region. The river corridor provides a high-quality
environment for a wide variety of recreational activities which are
important to the local economy. State, county and local parklands
within the river corridor provide significant opportunities for hiking,
fishing, canoeing, camping nature study and other outdoor activities.
The Musconetcong River and its tributaries are regionally important
trout fishing streams. Approximately 20 of the tributary streams
support naturally reproducing trout populations. The river is also
eligible for designation to the State Trails System as a Waterways
Trail. The river-related recreational resources are considered to be
regionally exemplary.
HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC
The Musconetcong River Valley contains many river-related bridges,
mills and historic districts that are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. One river-related resource, the Morris Canal
Historic District, is a National Historic Landmark and was judged to be
nationally exemplary. The Plenge Paleo-Indian Archaeological site
within the river corridor is eligible for National Landmark designation
study. River-related historic resources were judged overall to be
regionally exemplary.
SCENIC
Several locations in the river corridor offer outstanding views of
the agricultural river valley, Highlands Ridges, Kittatinny Mountain
and Delaware Water Gap. These views of landforms and vegetation
throughout the seasons are only minimally interrupted by cultural
intrusions. River-related scenery was judged to be regionally
exemplary.
WILDLIFE AND CRITICAL HABITAT
Regionally important populations of wildlife and critical habitat
for state listed threatened, endangered or rare species are present
within the river corridor. The Musconetcong River watershed lies
entirely within the New Jersey Highlands Region, a landscape of
national importance as determined by the U.S. Forest Service and within
the Atlantic Flyway, one of four major migratory bird routes in North
America.
SEGMENT-BY-SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The following is a categorical description of outstanding resources
found within each study segment.
Segment A: Saxton Falls to Rt. 46 Bridge
Recreational: Allamuchy/Stephens State Park
Eligible State Waterway Trail
Historic: Morris Canal National Historic Landmark
Scenic: Largely primitive, undeveloped river corridor through state
and municipal parklands
Wildlife: Barred Owl: State threatened
Brook Floater: Critically imperiled in NJ
Segment B: Kings Highway Bridge to the railroad tunnels at Musconetcong
Gorge
Recreational: Musconetcong River Reservation
Eligible State Waterway Trail
Numerous state-owned access points for fishing, boating and hiking
Historic: Beattystown Historic District: National Register
Miller Farmstead and stone bridge: National Register
New Hampton Pony Pratt Truss Bridge: National Register
New Hampton Historic District: National Register
Imlaydale Historic District: National Register
Asbury Village Historic District: National Register
North Bloomsbury Historic District: National Register
Scenic: Outstanding views of agricultural river valley, Highland
Ridges, Kittatinny Mountain and Delaware Water Gap
Outstanding views of agricultural river valley from Highway 639,
Franklin Township
Wildlife: Wood Turtle: State threatened
Fleshy Hawthorn: State endangered
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Human habitation in the Musconetcong valley has been traced back to
as early as 12,000 years ago when Paleo-Indians occupied the region
during the final retreat of the Wisconsin glacier. Evidence of their
presence in the valley was documented at the Plenge Site, which is
located along the lower Musconetcong River in Warren County. The Plenge
Site was the first of only two major Paleo-Indian archaeological site
excavations in New Jersey, and it is considered to be one of the most
important in the northeastern United States.
Outstanding river-related historic features--many of which are
listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places--can
be found in Stanhope, Waterloo Village, Asbury, Finesville and several
other Musconetcong River communities. These features contribute greatly
to the scenic character and overall quality of life in the Musconetcong
valley, and are important to the local economy as key components of
regional tourism.
By the time European settlement came to the Musconetcong valley
during the early 18th century, the Lenape Indians were already in a
state of decline, and the several thousand-year-old aboriginal
occupation was coming to an end. While the Lenape Indians burned off
significant areas of forest to plant crops and attract game, their only
lasting imprint on the landscape were the major trails that European
colonists eventually adapted to roads. One of these was the Malayelick
Path which ran from the head of the tidal Delaware River to the
Musconetcong River ``gap'' between Musconetcong and Schooleys
Mountains. The path was the forerunner of State Highway 31, which
begins in Trenton and crosses the Musconetcong River at Hampton
Borough. Portions of State Highway 206 are part of the Minisink Trail,
which linked the New Jersey coast with Minisink Island in the Upper
Delaware River.
Subsistence agriculture took root in the lower Musconetcong valley
at the beginning of the 18th century. The fertile limestone valley was
rapidly cleared for croplands, and subsistence agriculture gradually
evolved into commercial grain and dairy farming. Villages sprang up
around the many gristmills and iron forges built along the Musconetcong
River from Finesville to Hackettstown. The charcoal iron industry was
also established during the early 18th century on the lower
Musconetcong River, and was supported by abundant supplies of ore from
the surrounding ridges. The iron industry faced a precipitous decline
when wood supplies were depleted by the early 19th century. However,
the industry was rescued when one of early America's truly amazing
engineering feats--the Morris Canal--was built to carry coal from the
Pennsylvania coalfields to fuel the iron furnaces. The Morris Canal was
a world-famous engineering marvel that required abundant supplies of
water. Lake Hopatcong, which was originally a small natural glacial
lake, was dammed to supply water to the entire canal system, but it was
found to be an inadequate source. To augment the flow of water to the
canal, several other dams were built on the Musconetcong River and
Lubbers Run, its largest tributary.
RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Next, an analysis of land ownership, land use regulation and
physical barriers to development in the river corridor was completed to
determine the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in management of the
river and its outstandingly remarkable values, and to identify gaps
which could be addressed by the implementation of a comprehensive
management plan. Development of a river management plan is a
requirement of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers study and becomes
the basis for protection of the river now and into the future.
This management plan was the result of cooperative efforts of the
Musconetcong Advisory Committee, Musconetcong Watershed Association,
Heritage Conservancy, the National Park Service, and a variety of
local, county and state representatives. The management plan sets forth
five major goals and recommends actions to maintain and improve the
Musconetcong River corridor, its tributaries and watershed, and
surrounding natural, cultural and recreational resources.
Goal 1. Encourage recreational use that is compatible with the
preservation of natural and cultural qualities of the river corridor
while respecting private property.
Goal 2. Preserve and protect the character of archaeological sites
and historic structures, districts, sites, and landscapes in the river
corridor.
Goal 3. Preserve farmland and open space within the river corridor
and the watershed.
Goal 4. Preserve, protect, restore and enhance the outstanding
natural resources in the river corridor and the watershed, including
rare and endangered species, forests, steep slopes, floodplains,
headwaters and wetlands.
Goal 5. Maintain existing water quality in the Musconetcong River
and its tributaries and improve where possible.
Successful implementation of the management plan will require
cooperation between all levels of government, individual landowners and
non-governmental organization. The plan recognizes that local
municipalities play a key role in implementing the recommended
management actions.
CONCLUSION
The Musconetcong is one of New Jersey's great rivers. The
Musconetcong River Valley is a primary source of drinking water,
critical wildlife habitat and abundant recreational activities. Passage
of this bill will protect an outstanding diversity of farms, historic
villages and outstanding natural areas. S. 1096 recognizes the
exceptional value of the Musconetcong River and the importance of its
protection under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I urge your
favorable consideration of this bill.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roberts.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. ROBERTS, OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSIONS CORPORATION
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike
Roberts and I am operations manager in the State of
Pennsylvania for Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. I have
been with Columbia's pipeline operations for 24 years, and for
16 of those years I have been located in Pennsylvania.
I am here today to testify on behalf of S. 1310, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation to increase the diameter of a natural
gas pipeline located in the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area.
Columbia Gas Transmission, a subsidiary of NiSource
Incorporated, is one of the largest interstate natural gas
pipelines operating in the United States today. Combined with
the network of a sister pipeline company, our system includes
nearly 17,000 miles of underground pipelines, delivering more
than one trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually to markets
in 10 Eastern States. We also operate one of the largest
natural gas storage systems in the country.
One of our pipelines, which we refer to as Line 1278, was
installed in 1948 in the then-rural northeast region of
Pennsylvania. This line, which runs north-south along the
State's eastern border, became and remains an important part of
our energy delivery system to key eastern markets.
Following an internal inspection of this pipeline, the U.S.
Department of Transportation directed Columbia Transmission in
2002 and 2003 to take actions going forward in its operation of
Line 1278, including additional testing, corrosion prevention
and replacement of portions of the pipeline. To further comply
with this directive, Columbia filed an application with the
FERC in December 2003 to replace about 43 miles of the line,
including a 3\1/2\-mile section that now lies within the
Delaware Water Gap Natural Recreation Area. This park was
created by the National Park Service in 1965 through the
acquisition of several parcels of property in the area.
The issue addressed by the legislation before you today
relates to the right-of-way agreements now held by the Park
Service. Columbia's existing line affects 14 of these tracts
under the terms of the agreements negotiated with private
property owners prior to the creation of the park. Of these, 12
agreements include language that allows Columbia to increase
the diameter of its pipeline. However, two of the agreements,
representing about 900 linear feet, do not include such
authorization.
Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior lacks
authorization to enter into modification agreements for the
existing rights-of-way to allow an increase in the diameter of
this line, as proposed and approved by the FERC, from 14 to 20
inches in diameter. To complete our project, we collaborated
with National Park Service staff to craft language that was
written into S. 1310, introduced jointly by Senators Specter
and Santorum of Pennsylvania.
Timely action on this legislation will result in several
beneficial outcomes.
First, the replacement will standardize the size of Line
1278 at 20 inches in diameter throughout the area, which will
in turn allow more efficient use of advanced internal
inspection devices to assure safety and reliability of the
pipeline and facilitate compliance with the directives of the
DOT Pipeline Integrity Management Rule. Consistency in size is
important for these devices, which transverse the inside of the
pipe and have the advantage of allowing us to test our
pipelines with the least disruption to our customers, to the
communities adjacent to the line, and to the surrounding
environment, while providing the most detailed information
regarding the pipeline's operations and current condition.
Second, it will allow Columbia to complete the upgrade of a 57-
year-old pipeline within the timeframe approved by the DOT.
Columbia is currently operating the pipeline at a reduced
pressure as part of our agreement with DOT and relying on
available capacity in other pipelines to meet market
obligations during periods of high demand. With the new,
upgraded line in place, Columbia will be less dependent on this
practice. The increase in diameter from 14 inches to 20 inches
will also increase the overall delivery reliability in the
region.
Third, the replacement offers the added benefit of less
intrusion in the future for maintenance and repair work in the
Delaware Water Gap. Through use of today's pipeline coatings
and other corrosion protection, regular inspections and
participation in the Pennsylvania One Call Program, we can
anticipate a useful life for the new pipeline that greatly
exceeds the nearly 60 years of service provided by the existing
pipeline.
A critical point to note about this project is the
replacement with the slightly larger diameter pipe will require
no additional construction impacts and will not change the
existing permanent right-of-way that currently exists with the
Delaware Water Gap. The construction footprint is the same for
the proposed 20-inch diameter pipe as it is for the existing
14-inch, which again we are under DOT mandate to replace.
Columbia has been working closely with the National Park
Service during the permitting process, including NEPA review
and the issuance of a special use permit from the Park. Park
Service staff have been very helpful and cooperative in working
toward a mutually agreeable solution in this matter.
In this regard, I want to bring to your attention a
typographical error in the bill. On page 2, line 9, the bill
refers to right-of-way number 16414. The number should be
16413. The Park Service is aware of this error and supports us
in our request to change the right-of-way number during
committee consideration of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ask that my
prepared statement be submitted for the record. Thank you for
your time and attention, and I will be happy to address any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael W. Roberts, Operations Manager,
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, on S. 1310
Good afternoon Chairman Thomas and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Mike Roberts and I am Operations Manager in the State of
Pennsylvania for Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. I have been
with Columbia's pipeline operations for 24 years, and for 16 of those
years I have been located in Pennsylvania.
I am here today to testify on behalf of S. 1310, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation to increase the diameter of a natural gas
pipeline located in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Columbia Gas Transmission is one of the largest interstate natural
gas pipelines operating in the United States today. Combined with the
network of a sister pipeline company, our system includes nearly 17,000
miles of underground pipelines, delivering more than one trillion cubic
feet of natural gas annually to markets in 10 eastern states. We also
operate one of the largest natural gas storage systems in the country.
The company, a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc., and its predecessors
have constructed and operated natural gas pipelines for more than 70
years. As part of our operating plan, each year we invest a significant
amount of capital in the process of upgrading and replacing portions of
pipelines throughout our system to assure ongoing safe and reliable
service to our customers. Columbia also incorporates best-practice
techniques into our operations and maintenance programs to minimize
disruption both to our customers and to property owners along the
pipeline.
One of these lines, which we refer to as Line 1278, was installed
in 1948 in the then-rural northeast region of Pennsylvania. This line,
which runs north-south along the state's eastern border, became and
remains an important part of our energy delivery system to key eastern
markets.
Following an internal inspection of this pipeline, the United
States Department of Transportation directed Columbia Transmission in
2002 and 2003 to take actions going forward in its operation of Line
1278, including additional testing, corrosion prevention and
replacement of portions of the pipeline. To further comply with this
directive, Columbia filed an application with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission in December 2003 to replace about 43 miles of
Line 1278, including a three and one-half mile section that now lies
within the Delaware Water Gap Natural Recreation Area. This park was
created by the National Park Service in 1965 through the acquisition of
several parcels of property in the area.
The issue addressed by the legislation before you today relates to
the right-of-way agreements now held by the Park Service. Columbia's
existing Line 1278 pipeline affects 14 of these tracts under the terms
of the agreements negotiated with private property owners prior to the
creation of the park. Of these, 12 agreements include language that
allows Columbia to increase the diameter of its pipeline. However, two
of the agreements, representing 892 linear feet, do not include such
authorization.
Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior lacks
authorization to enter into modification agreements for the existing
rights-of way to allow an increase in the diameter of Line 1278, as
proposed and approved by the FERC, from 14 inches to 20 inches in
diameter. To complete our project, we collaborated with National Park
Service staff to craft language that was written into S. 1310,
introduced jointly by Senators Specter and Santorum of Pennsylvania.
Timely action on this legislation will result in several beneficial
outcomes.
First, the replacement will standardize the size of Line 1278 at 20
inches in diameter throughout the area, which will in turn allow more
efficient use of advanced internal inspection devices to assure safety
and reliability of the pipeline and facilitate compliance with the
directives of the DOT Pipeline Integrity Management Rule. Consistency
in size is important for these devices, which transverse the inside of
the pipe and have the advantage of allowing us to test our pipelines
with the least disruption to our customers, to the communities adjacent
to the line, and to the surrounding environment, while providing the
most detailed information regarding the pipeline's operations and
current condition.
Second, it will allow Columbia to complete the upgrade of a 57-
year-old pipeline within the timeframe approved by the DOT. Columbia is
currently operating the pipeline at a reduced pressure as part of our
agreement with DOT and relying on available capacity in other pipelines
to meet market obligations during periods of high demand. With the new,
upgraded line in place, Columbia will be less dependent on this
practice. The increase in diameter from 14-inches to 20-inches will
also increase the overall delivery reliability in the region.
Third, the replacement offers the added benefit of less intrusion
in the future for maintenance and repair work in the Delaware Water
Gap. Through use of today's pipeline coatings and other corrosion
protection, regular inspections and participation in the Pennsylvania
One Call Program, we can anticipate a useful life for the new pipeline
that greatly exceeds the nearly 60 years of service provided by the
existing pipeline.
A critical point to note is that the replacement with the slightly
larger diameter pipe will require no additional construction impacts
and will not change the existing permanent right-of-way that currently
exists with the Delaware Water Gap. The construction footprint is the
same for the proposed 20-inch diameter pipe as it is for the existing
14-inch diameter line.
Columbia has been working closely with the National Park Service
during the permitting process, including NEPA review and the issuance
of a special use permit from the Park. Columbia has extensive plans in
place for mitigating impacts during construction and for restoration
following completion of our work. Park Service staff have been very
helpful and cooperative in working toward a mutually-agreeable solution
in this matter.
In this regard, I want to bring to your attention a typographical
error in the bill. On page 2, line 9 the bill refers to right-of-way
number 16414. The number should be 16413. The Park Service is aware of
this error and supports us in our request to change the right-of-way
number during Committee consideration of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I ask that my prepared
statement be submitted for the record. Thank you for your time and
attention, and I will be happy to address any questions you may have.
Senator Talent. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Fowler.
STATEMENT OF JOHN FOWLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY COUNCIL
ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Fowler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm the executive
director of the advisory council on Historic Preservation. It's
a pleasure to testify before the subcommittee today on S. 1378,
which would provide re-authorization for the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation and the Historic Preservation Fund.
Chairman John Nau of the council regrets that he could not be
here today; he is in Houston racing for Hurricane Rita. The
National Historic Preservation Act, which created the ACHP,
embodies the collective wisdom of the Congress in three
concepts: the importance of preserving America's heritage, the
need to build upon the foundation of our past to create a
better future for the Nation, and the strength of linking
Federal, State, tribal, and local efforts in partnership with
the private sector to accomplish these ends.
For nearly 40 years the ACHP has actively pursued the Act's
goals, on behalf of the Congress, the President, and the
American people. We have two primary roles under the Act: we
administer the nationwide Federal protective process for
historic properties, found in Section 106, and we promote
historic preservation policies and support within the Federal
Government. Details on our activities are included in a formal
statement for the record.
We are before you today because we need your assistance to
continue to carry out our mission. The ACHP membership examined
our current legislative authorities and determined that changes
were needed.
First, we need to replace the current time-limited
appropriations authorization with a permanent authorization.
Second, we would like to authorize the President to add the
heads of three additional Federal agencies to the ACHP
membership. Third, we would like the bill to authorize several
technical amendments that would allow us to function more
efficiently. And finally we would like an amendment to provide
us with the authority and direction to work cooperatively with
Federal funding agencies and to assist them in using the
existing grants programs to more effectively pursue the
purposes of the National and Historic Preservation Act.
These provisions are included in S. 1378 and we would like
to thank Senators Talent, and Wyden for their introduction of
this bill. This is virtually identical to S. 2469 that was
considered by the subcommittee in the last Congress. There is
one new and very important provision that is contained in S.
1378, extending the current authorization for the use of
proceeds from oil and gas leases and sales on the Outer
Continental Shelf to support the historic preservation fund
through 2011. This fund supports essential components of the
National Historic Preservation Program and the State and tribal
preservation offices. These partners carry out critical
missions for the Federal Government, and it's no overstatement
to say that the current national program would be doomed to
failure without their continued active involvement.
The Historic Preservation Fund is the source of matching
grants that are the lifeblood of these programs. We're pleased
to see the funds authorization included in S. 1378 and urge the
subcommittee's support.
I would also note that the National Park Service in its
testimony proposed to extend the authorization to 2015, and the
Council would certainly support that.
As a final note, I would like to draw the committee's
attention to changes that are being discussed in the House
Resources Committee that would drastically alter the current
protections of Federal law for historic properties. Amendments
to section 106 have been suggested that would severely restrict
its application with particular impact on archeological
resources and historic properties that are important to Native
Americans. I would like to stress to the committee that the
ACHP is formally opposed to such to changes of section 106.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the ACHP has reached true
maturity as an independent Federal agency and is a key partner
in the National Historic Preservation Program. As such, it
wants the support of the Congress for a re-authorization
proposal. We hope the subcommittee will favorably consider this
request. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John L. Nau, III follows:]
Prepared Statement of John L. Nau, III, Chairman, Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
SUMMARY STATEMENT
An independent Federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) promotes historic preservation nationally by
providing a forum for influencing Federal activities, programs, and
policies that impact historic properties. In furtherance of this
objective, S. 1378 provides reauthorization of its appropriations in
accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (NHPA). The bill also
offers amendments to the ACHP's authorities that we believe will
strengthen our ability to meet our responsibilities under NHPA, and to
provide leadership and coordination in the Federal historic
preservation program.
BACKGROUND
Title II of the NHPA established the ACHP. NHPA charges the ACHP
with advising the President and the Congress on historic preservation
matters and entrusts the ACHP with the unique mission of advancing
historic preservation within the Federal Government and the national
historic preservation program. In FY 2002, the ACHP adopted the
following mission statement:
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the
preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our Nation's historic
resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic
preservation policy.
The ACHP's authority and responsibilities are principally derived
from NHPA. General duties of the ACHP are detailed in Section 202 (16
U.S.0 470j) and include:
Advising the President and Congress on matters relating to
historic preservation;
Encouraging public interest and participation in historic
preservation;
Recommending policy and tax studies as they affect historic
preservation;
Advising State and local governments on historic
preservation legislation;
Encouraging training and education in historic preservation;
Reviewing Federal policies and programs and recommending
improvements; and
Informing and educating others about the ACHP's activities.
Under Section 106 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f), the ACHP reviews
Federal actions affecting historic properties to ensure that historic
preservation needs are considered and balanced with Federal project
requirements. It achieves this balance through the ``Section 106 review
process,'' which applies whenever a Federal action has the potential to
impact historic properties. As administered by the ACHP, the process
guarantees that State and local governments, Indian tribes, businesses
and organizations, and private citizens will have an effective
opportunity to participate in Federal project planning affecting
important historic properties.
Under Section 211 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470s) the ACHP is granted
rulemaking authority for Section 106. The ACHP also has consultative
and other responsibilities under Sections 101, 110, 111, 203, and 214
of NHPA, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is considered an agency with ``special
expertise'' to comment on environmental impacts involving historic
properties and other cultural resources.
The ACHP plays a pivotal role in the national historic preservation
program. Founded as a unique partnership among Federal, State, and
local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to advance the
preservation of America's heritage while recognizing contemporary
needs, the partnership has matured and expanded over time. The
Secretary of the Interior and the ACHP have distinct but complementary
responsibilities for managing the national historic preservation
program. The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service, maintains the national inventory of historic properties,
sets standards for historic preservation, administers financial
assistance and programs for tribal, State, and local participation, and
provides technical preservation assistance.
The ACHP also plays a key role in shaping historic preservation
policy and programs at the highest levels of the Administration. It
promotes consistency in Federal preservation efforts and assists
Federal agencies in meeting their preservation responsibilities.
Through its administration of Section 106, the ACHP works with Federal
agencies, States, tribes, local governments, applicants for Federal
assistance, and other affected parties to ensure that their interests
are considered in the process. It helps parties reach agreement on
measures to avoid or resolve conflicts that may arise between
development needs and preservation objectives, including mitigation of
harmful impacts.
The ACHP is uniquely suited to its task. As an independent agency,
it brings together through its membership Federal agency heads,
representatives of State and local governments, historic preservation
leaders and experts, Native American representatives, and private
citizens to shape national policies and programs dealing with historic
preservation. The ACHP's diverse membership is reflected in its efforts
to seek sensible, cost-effective ways to mesh preservation goals with
other public needs. Unlike other Federal agencies or private
preservation organizations, the ACHP incorporates a variety of
interests and viewpoints in fulfilling its statutory duties, broadly
reflecting the public interest. Recommended solutions are reached that
reflect both the impacts on irreplaceable historic properties and the
needs of today's society.
New Directions. Since assuming the chairmanship in November 2001, I
have taken steps to ensure that the ACHP fulfills the leadership role
envisioned for it in NHPA. In doing so, we have focused the ACHP on
pursuing the broader policy goals of the national historic preservation
program.
In creating the ACHP, Congress recognized the value of having an
independent entity to provide advice, coordination, and oversight of
NHPA's implementation by Federal agencies. The ACHP remains the only
Federal entity created solely to address historic preservation issues,
and helps to bridge differences in this area among Federal agencies,
and between the Federal Government and States, Indian tribes, local
governments, and citizens. While the administration of the historic
preservation review process established by Section 106 of NHPA is very
important and a significant ACHP responsibility, we believe that the
ACHP's mission is broader than simply managing that process.
NHPA established a national policy to ``foster conditions under
which our modem society and our prehistoric and historic resources can
exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and other
requirements of present and future generations.'' Among other things,
the statute directed Federal agencies to foster conditions that help
attain the national goal of historic preservation; to act as faithful
stewards of federally owned, administered, or controlled historic
resources for present and future generations; and to offer maximum
encouragement and assistance to other public and private preservation
efforts through a variety of means.
To promote this policy and to exercise its intended leadership, the
ACHP has taken the following steps, working through its membership and
with its partner Federal agencies:
Developed an Executive order to promote the benefits of
preservation, to improve Federal stewardship of historic
properties, and to foster recognition of such properties as
national assets to be used for economic, educational, and other
purposes. President Bush issued this as Executive Order 13287,
``Preserve America,'' on March 3, 2003.
Created an initiative for the White House to stimulate
creative partnerships among all levels of government and the
private sector to preserve and actively use historic resources
for a better appreciation of America's history and diversity.
The initiative is known as Preserve America and was announced
by First Lady Laura Bush on March 3, 2003.
Undertook a major new initiative to improve the
participation of Native Americans in the national historic
preservation program by establishing a Native American Advisory
Group.
The ACHP's 20 statutorily designated members address policy issues,
direct program initiatives, and make recommendations regarding historic
preservation to the President, Congress, and heads of other Federal
agencies. The Council members meet four times per year to conduct
business, holding two meetings in Washington, D.C., and two in other
communities where relevant preservation issues can be explored.
However, myself and other Council members are actively involved in
Council business on a continual basis, particularly since January 2004
when the Administration's Preserve America initiative began to rapidly
gain momentum.
The ACHP has a leading role in both the Preserve America Steering
Committee and the staff efforts to carry out specific Preserve America
activities. In coordination with the White House, the Preserve America
Steering Committee sets policy and oversees the initiative. At the
operational level, ACHP staff works with partner Federal agencies to
implement the Preserve America Communities and Preserve America
Presidential Awards programs. For FY 2006, we will work closely with
the National Park Service to operate the new Preserve America grants
program.
The ACHP also works with Federal agencies, including their senior
policy level officials designated in response to the Preserve America
Executive order. In February 2006, we will submit a report to the
President assessing the efforts of Federal agencies to manage their
historic properties in a manner that promotes historic preservation.
Our Native American Advisory Group works with the membership and
our staff-level Native American Program to improve relations and
coordination of efforts with the tribes and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers in regard to issues of historic preservation.
These issues are of particular and unique importance to tribes from
both economic and cultural perspectives.
The staff carries out the day-to-day work of the ACHP and provides
all support services for Council members programs. To reflect and
support the work of the committees, the Executive Director reorganized
the ACHP staff into three program offices to mirror the committee
structure. Staff components are under the supervision of the Executive
Director and are located at the ACHP's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
proposed amendments to the national historic preservation act
Background to Reauthorization. The ACHP traditionally has had its
appropriations authorized on a multi-year cycle in Title II of NHPA
(Section 212, 16 U.S.C. 470t). The current cycle expires at the end of
FY 2005 and authorizes $4 million annually. These funds are provided to
support the programs and operations of the ACHP. Title II of NHPA also
sets forth the general authorities and structure of the ACHP.
The ACHP seeks to amend its appropriation authorization for two
reasons. First, the authorization extends only through FY 2005 and must
be renewed for FY 2006 and beyond. Second, the ACHP is seeking certain
changes in its membership and operational authorities to better equip
it to meet its current mission. At its February and May 2003 meetings,
the ACHP endorsed an approach to the reauthorization issue that
addresses the immediate appropriations authority issue and also
contains the desired amendments to the ACHP's composition and
authorities. S.2469, ``A bill to amend the National Historic
Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improve the
operations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,'' was
introduced by the Honorable James M. Talent May 20, 2004. A hearing was
held before this subcommittee June 8, 2004. A companion bill, H.R.
3223, was introduced and referred to the House Resources Committee.
The legislation was not enacted in the 108th Congress and, on July
11, 2005, Senator Talent and Senator Wyden introduced S. 1378. This
bill is virtually identical to S. 2469, with the inclusion of a
provision to extend the authorization for the Historic Preservation
Fund. A companion bill has been introduced in the House of
Representatives as H.R. 3446.
The changes sought by the ACHP and contained in S. 1378 are
explained in this overview.
Appropriations Authorization. This provision (Section 1(g)) would
amend the current time-limited authorization and replace it with a
permanent appropriations authorization. When the ACHP was created in
1966, its functions were exclusively advisory and limited, and the
agency was lodged administratively in the Department of the Interior.
Since then, the Congress has amended the NHPA to establish the ACHP as
an independent Federal agency and provide it with a range of program
authorities crucial to the success of the national historic
preservation program.
Not unlike the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the National
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the ACHP now functions as a small
but important Federal agency, carrying out both advisory and
substantive program duties. Specific language creating a permanent
appropriations authorization would draw upon the similar statutory
authorities of the CFA and NCPC. No ceiling to the annual
appropriations authorization would be included in the authorizing
legislation, but rather the appropriate funding limits would be
established through the annual appropriations process.
Expansion of Membership. This provision (Section 1(d)) would expand
the membership of the ACHP by directing the President to designate the
heads of three additional Federal agencies as members of the ACHP. The
ACHP has been aggressively pursuing partnerships with Federal agencies
in recent years and has found the results to be greatly beneficial to
meeting both Federal agency historic preservation responsibilities and
the ACHP's own mission goals. Experience has shown that these
partnerships are fostered and enhanced by having the agency participate
as a full-fledged member of the ACHP, giving it both a voice and a
stake in the ACHP's actions. The amendment would bring the total number
of Federal ACHP members to nine and expand the ACHP membership to 23,
an administratively manageable number that preserves the current
majority of non-Federal members. A technical amendment to adjust quorum
requirements would also be included.
Authority and Direction to Improve Coordination with Federal
Funding Agencies. This provision (Section 1(h)) would give the ACHP the
authority and direction to work with Federal funding agencies to assist
them in determining appropriate uses of their existing grants programs
for advancing the purposes of NHPA.
The ACHP would work with agencies and grant recipients to examine
the effectiveness of existing grant programs, evaluate the adequacy of
funding levels, and help the agencies determine whether changes in the
programs would better meet preservation and other needs. Any
recommendations would be developed in close cooperation with the
Federal funding agencies themselves, many of whom sit as ACHP members,
and with the States. The proposed amendment also would allow the ACHP
to work cooperatively with Federal funding agencies in the
administration of their grant programs.
Technical Amendments. These provisions would provide four technical
changes that would improve ACHP operations:
1. Authorize the Governor, who is a presidentially appointed
member of the ACHP, to designate a voting representative to
participate in the ACHP activities in the Governor's absence.
Currently this authority is extended to Federal agencies and
other organizational members. The amendment would recognize
that the personal participation of a Governor cannot always be
assumed, much like that of a Cabinet secretary (Section
1(d)(2)).
2. Authorize the ACHP to engage administrative support
services from sources other than the Department of the
Interior. The current law requires the ACHP's administrative
services to be provided by the Department of the Interior on a
reimbursable basis. The amendment would authorize the ACHP to
obtain any or all of those services from other Federal agencies
or the private sector. The amendment would further the goals of
the FAIR Act and improve ACHP efficiency by allowing the ACHP
to obtain necessary services on the most beneficial terms
(Section 1(e)).
3. Clarify that the ACHP's donation authority (16 U.S.C.
470m(g)) includes the ability of the ACHP to actively solicit
such donations (Section 1(f)).
4. Adjust the quorum requirements to accommodate expanded
ACHP membership (Section 1(d)(3)).
Extension of Authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund. This
provision (Section 1(c)) would extend the existing authorization for
$150 million annually from the proceeds of oil and gas leases on the
Outer Continental Shelf to be made available for the Historic
Preservation Fund. We believe this concept of using part of the
proceeds from the depletion of the Nation's non-renewable resources to
preserve and enhance another non-renewable resource, our cultural
heritage, is sound and merits continuation. The fund supports the
valuable activities of the various State Historic Preservation Officers
and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, our principal partners in
carrying out the NHPA's authorities. In addition, the fund makes
possible the President's Preserve America grants program, which has
been funded by the Congress for FY 2006. Extending this authority
through FY 2011 is essential and is welcomed by the ACHP.
CONCLUSION
The ACHP has reached a level of maturity as an independent Federal
agency and as a key partner in the national historic preservation
program to warrant continued support from the Congress. As demonstrated
by its recent program accomplishments including the President's
Executive Order 13287, the Preserve America initiative, and the Native
American Program, the ACHP is a vital component of the Federal historic
preservation program. We believe that the legislation we seek, coupled
with periodic oversight by this Subcommittee and the annual review
provided by the Appropriations Committees, is fully justified by our
record of accomplishment. We hope that the Subcommittee will favorably
consider this request, including our recommended technical amendments
and the important extension of the Historic Preservation Fund
authorization.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in these issues, and
thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to present our
views.
Senator Talent. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Fowler.
Here's what I'm going to have to do--I'm sorry for all the
movement up here on the dais, we have two votes going on now.
Actually, one is about to end and another is about to pick up,
and the chairman asked me to take gavel so that we could get
more of the testimony in. He is coming back, so if the
witnesses will be patient with us, I'm going to recess the
hearing and the chairman should be back any moment. I will then
go and vote and the chairman can reopen the hearing and we can
get Mr. Slavin's testimony in. The hearing is recessed, until
the return of the chairman.
[Recess.]
Senator Thomas. Mr. Slavin.
STATEMENT OF TIM SLAVIN, DIRECTOR, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
AFFAIRS, STATE OF DELAWARE
Mr. Slavin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to discuss the possibility of a study to determine the
suitability and feasibility of a national park unit for
Delaware.
My name is Tim Slavin and I serve as the director of
historical and cultural affairs for the State of Delaware. I
oversee the management of more than thirty historic sites and
properties in Delaware, including museums, historic homes,
lighthouses, and at least two shipwrecks that we know of, off
Delaware's ocean and bay coast. I am one of many Delawareans
interested in this matter. We greatly appreciate the time and
effort of Senator Carper in forwarding this cause and thank you
for holding this hearing today.
This past Saturday, I was visiting my 10-year-old daughter
in Colorado. She lives there with her mother and for the past 7
years, I've made monthly visits to be with her. Our plans
called for an overnight camping trip to Rocky Mountain National
Park in Estes Park, Colorado. I explained to my daughter that
this was a national park, similar to the one at the Grand
Canyon which we had camped in during the summer of 2004.
Like a good 10-year-old, she was unfazed. When we arrived
at the gated entrance to the park and she saw the familiar
signage and the familiar hats of the National Park Service
rangers, she said something very insightful ``oh, yeah.''
Her simple recognition was evidence of something, I think,
far deeper. She was familiar with our national parks, and it
brought her an immediate sense of comfort and security.
As our day progressed, I found that the national parks had
taught her other things, as well. She became a very
conscientious steward of the land she was visiting, mindful of
not disturbing anything and making sure that every last
bubblegum wrapper was stuffed into my pocket. She left only
footprints, because the national parks had taught her that. She
was also amazed by how many different kinds of people were
using the park, and noted how many different States' license
plates were there.
And she became very proud. She was proud of her beautiful
adopted State, she was proud of her country, and she was proud
that such a beautiful and important place was cared for by so
many people.
I told her that I would be in Washington to testify on
behalf of a national park for Delaware and she said something
else which was very insightful: ``Just do it.''
So here I am today, on behalf of my daughter and many
Delawareans recommending that this bill be passed and Delaware
be afforded what every other State in our country has,
inclusion in the National Park System.
Why should Delaware have a national park? The answers are
simple. The first is that Delaware deserves it. We have a rich
history and heritage and a unique place in American history,
and likewise, the natural beauty and landscape of our coastline
is matched only by the important role we have played--the
coastline has played throughout our history. The second is that
our national heritage deserves it. The importance of Delaware's
history and heritage cannot, and should not, be left out of any
consideration of American history. And to think that our
National Park System would not address the importance of such
places as Fort Christina, the Delaware Bay and coastal towns
along the river and bays, and would realize that there's a void
in the telling of our natural and historical landscapes. And
the third is that our citizens deserve it. Every American
citizen deserves the right to access our history and heritage
in every State.
A significant amount of thought has been put into what a
National Park in Delaware should look like, and we look forward
to working with the National Park Service on this study. I
believe the study will demonstrate that the Senator's proposal
does in fact represent a historical and cultural concept that
is of National significance, suitable for inclusion in the
National Park System and very feasible to implement.
First, Senator Carper's proposal for a park unit that
embodies and highlights the critical and vital role that
Delaware's coastal regions have played in the history of our
State and the cultural development of our society is truly of
national significance. Delaware's coastal region is a microcosm
of America's coastal regions, and as such, the various threads
of development evident in our coastal region are representative
of the broader development of these same threads that make up
the fabric of our uniquely American society. Those threads
include the early history of the indigenous peoples with the
Lenni Lenape and the Nanticoke Indians, and the later valiant
efforts of the Underground Railroad with points along
Delaware's coastline being the ``last stop to freedom'' for
slaves escaping to the North.
These threads also include the colonization established on
the Frontier, with the European settlers building Fort
Christina, what is now Wilmington, in 1638. Along our coastline
can be found the home the John Dickinson, the ``Penman of the
Revolution'', along with examples of America's earliest
exploitation of water power along the Brandywine River, of
transportation systems that connected early settlers with other
colonies and Europe, and with coastal defenses that protected
Delaware and America from the earliest days, like Fort
Christina, right through to submarine watchtowers constructed
in World War II.
These contributions are undoubtedly significant to the
historical, cultural and commercial development of America and
I can think of no more suitable way for us to highlight these
contributions than as a national park.
Last, we believe that this will be among the least expense
park units to develop and to operate, yet it would preserve for
future generations the magnificent history and cultural
development that I've mentioned. Unfortunately, over the years,
neither the local nor State governments in Delaware have been
able to muster the resources to adequately preserve, recreate
or highlight these wonderful resources. That is why it is so
important to authorize this study--with each passing year, we
get further and further away and the task becomes more and more
difficult.
In 1903, in the midst of the movement to create a National
Park System, Theodore Roosevelt stated that ``above all, we
should recognize that the effort toward this end is essentially
a democratic movement.'' More than 100 years later, the
movement to create a national park in Delaware has respected
both Roosevelt's words and the long and important history of
national parks in our country.
A national park for Delaware is needed, necessary, and long
overdue. Let us create an opportunity in Delaware for all
citizens to share in their national heritage, to become
stewards of our natural and historical landscape, and to have
pride in a country which provides all of these things for its
citizens. The American experience exists in the stitching
together of all such national treasures in all of our States.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, and thanks to all of you. I
think these are all very interesting, you've done a very nice
job. On the Farmington River, you will be making our study--I'm
sure you will give some thought to the impact that it has on
private properties that surround it. That is always an issue
that we have with Wild and Scenic Rivers. But I can
understand--particularly in your areas, where the population is
pretty heavy--that it's very important to recognize these
special areas and set them aside.
Ms. Barry, I thank you very much. I think, from your
testimony, you indicated that, even though not formal, there
has been a study of this and lots of people involved in it, and
so this is not a study, but rather an effort to go ahead and
designate this.
One question on S. 310, Mr. Roberts. Why is this needed? I
mean it's my understanding that these pipelines are already
used in parts of it, and this is a segment, so how did it
happen that this wasn't allocated and provided for before?
Mr. Roberts. The authorization to upsize it?
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. Back in 1948, when the line was built,
apparently the rights that we entered into, the right-of-way
agreements with the private property owners at that time--
whether it was an oversight or they didn't realize that they
had missed it--to enter the right to upsize the pipe in the
future, it wasn't done.
Senator Thomas. But you're upsizing it in part of the
pipeline, right?
Mr. Roberts. We're upsizing the entire pipeline.
Senator Thomas. I know, but what part of it are you talking
about here?
Mr. Roberts. We're talking about two segments, totaling
about 900 feet.
Senator Thomas. That's why I'm saying, why did that have to
be done individually?
Mr. Roberts. Individually?
Senator Thomas. Well, the rest of it's there, all you're
doing is taking 900 feet out of miles of pipeline.
Mr. Roberts. Oh, I'm sorry. The project is actually 43
miles long that we're replacing and upsizing to 20-inch.
Senator Thomas. But this authorization to increase it is
not for the whole 40 miles, is it? It's just for this portion?
Mr. Roberts. Just for this 900-foot section, yes.
Senator Thomas. But it takes a special designation to do
that?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Is that the only portion that is the
recreation area?
Mr. Roberts. No, there are other portions, but the rights
that were taken back in 1948, they had the upsize rights
entered into the right-of-way agreements.
Senator Thomas. I got you. All right. Thank you. Mr.
Fowler, certainly things have changed in terms of the role of
the advisory council, and therefore, certainly, it makes sense
to take a look at changing the operational process under which
you live, so we appreciate your being here. And we will
certainly look at it, and we have heard quite a little bit
about your project now between you and Mr. Carper. And it will
be a study, and it sounds like it will be an interesting one,
so thank you for your information. Otherwise, I have no further
questions. We appreciate your being here, and we will seek to
move ahead. And Senator Corzine's statement will be put in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon S. Corzine, U.S. Senator From New
Jersey, on S. 1096
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today to hear
testimony on the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which I
introduced earlier this year.
I am especially pleased that Beth Styler Barry Executive Director
of the Musconetcong Watershed Association is here to testify on behalf
of this important bill. She has worked tirelessly on this issue for
years and I would like to thank her for all of the hard work she and
her colleagues have done to protect the river.
As you know, the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would
designate 24.2 miles of the Musconetcong River in New Jersey as part of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Stretching a full 43 miles from Lake Musconetcong to the Delaware
River, the Musconetcong River is one of the most scenic areas of
Northwestern New Jersey. The Musconetcong watershed offers 5,045 acres
of parks, some of the finest trout fishing streams in New Jersey, and
miles of hiking trails. Not only is the beauty of the Musconetcong
breathtaking and its recreational use remarkable, but the river holds
archaeological and historic significance as well. For example, Waterloo
Village is a National Historic Site that gained fame when its iron
works were used to supply the George Washington's Continental Army with
armaments. In addition, the Paleo-Indian archaeological site known as
the Plenge site sits in the Musconetcong river valley. The Plenge site
dates back 12,000 years and is considered to be one of the most
important Paleo-Indian archaeological site excavations in the
northeastern United States.
Even with all of these unique aspects, the river's banks are in
jeopardy. Its once pristine waters face deteriorating water quality due
to increased levels of bacteria, silt and runoff from roadways. This is
particularly disturbing since the river feeds aquifers that provide
many residents in Hunterdon and Warren counties with quality drinking
water. Unfortunately, while the municipalities that lie along the river
want to preserve this historic natural resource, they lack the
resources to do so, leaving the entire watershed vulnerable to further
development and damage.
Thirteen of these surrounding municipalities and three New Jersey
counties have expressed their support for the designation of the river
as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System and are also
supportive of the Musconetcong River Management Plan, which was
developed in April 2003 with the help of the National Parks Service.
The Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act calls on federal, state,
and local agencies to work in cooperation with environmental and public
interest groups to establish goals and actions to ensure long-term
protection of the outstanding values of the Musconetcong River and
proper management of land and water resources associated with the
river. The bill authorizes funds to facilitate the conservation of the
river segment with the purpose of promoting uses and development of the
river while maintaining its integrity as a natural resource.
Mr. Chairman, the recreational, ecological, historical and
geological benefits of the Musconetcong River are countless, and I urge
my Senate colleagues to approve the Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act so that generations of New Jerseyans can continue to enjoy its
magnificence for years to come.
Senator Thomas. Thank you again, we appreciate it very
much. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses to Questions by Michael W. Roberts
Question 1. (S. 1310, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Natural Gas Pipeline Enlargement Act): When was the pipeline first
installed and operational in the recreation area? Has Columbia Gas
Transmission been responsible for operating and maintaining the
pipeline the entire time?
Answer. The pipeline was installed in 1948. This installation
occurred before the property, which included Line 1278, was transferred
to the Department of the Interior for use as a recreation area. Our
company has been operating and maintaining this pipeline for the entire
time.
Question 2a. (S. 1310, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Natural Gas Pipeline Enlargement Act): The proposed legislation
authorizes the existing 14-inch pipeline to be replaced with a 20-inch
pipeline.
How many customers receive gas through the existing pipeline?
Answer. This pipeline provides natural gas to local distribution
companies in the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. These
companies, which receive service from Line 1278 as well as other
interstate pipelines serve more than a million customers.
This project, however, is not about serving more customers. Rather,
the primary purpose of this project is to replace facilities for
reasons of age and condition, and to restore normal operating
conditions on Columbia's pipeline system in this area, and not to
increase its available capacity. The 20-inch pipeline is necessary to
maintain consistency with the pipeline diameter installed in the rest
of the line 1278 replacement and to allow for more efficient internal
inspection, including pigging, consistent with Department of
Transportation safety objectives.
Question 2b. How many additional customers would the larger
pipeline be able to serve?
Answer. No additional customers will be served solely due to the
replacement project addressed by the legislation. Because the existing
14-inch pipeline will be replaced with 20-inch pipeline, the project
will create a minor increase in capacity. However, the increase is in a
very localized area of the system and cannot be used to serve
additional markets in the absence of further construction.
Question 3a. (S. 1310, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Natural Gas Pipeline Enlargement Act): The proposed bill authorizes a
50-foot right of way for the pipeline.
What is the width of the current right of way?
Answer. The existing permanent right of way width is 50 feet. Thus,
the proposed bill will not authorize an expanded permanent right of way
beyond what currently exists. However, the NPS, the FERC, and Columbia
have collaborated to develop an extensive plan, which includes various
mitigation aspects, as well as specific Best Management Practices for
use during construction within all areas of the Recreation Area. These
plans have been integrated into both the Environmental Assessment
issued by the FERC and the Special Use Permit issued to Columbia by the
NPS.
Question 3b. What type of mitigation, if any, does Columbia Gas
Transmission contemplate as an offset for clearing a 50-foot swath
through the recreation area?
Answer. In addition to the environmental mitigation measures
proposed by Columbia in its project application, the FERC's
Environmental Assessment proposed certain conditions, that were adopted
in the FERC Certificate Order and accepted by Columbia, to minimize the
effect of construction on cultural resources and the environment. The
FERC Certificate Order concluded that approval of the project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. (S. 1310, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Natural Gas Pipeline Enlargement Act): The proposed pipeline corridor
involves Federal land and for that reason the upgrade could be
considered a Federal undertaking. What type of compliance actions do
you anticipate prior to construction to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws?
Answer. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the Park
Service as a cooperating agency prepared an Environmental Assessment to
satisfy the requirements of NEPA. Among other things, the EA addressed
potential effects of the project on: geology, soils, water resources,
vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, cultural
resources, land use and recreation, visual resources, air quality and
noise, reliability and safety, environmental justice, and project
alternatives, including the ``no action alternative.'' The EA was
issued for public review and comment as part of the FERC certificate
process.
______
Responses of Eric Hammerling to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Are you aware of any groups or individuals that are
opposed to Wild & Scenic River designation for the Lower Farmington
River and Salmon Brook?
Answer. No.
Question 2. What type of restrictions does Wild & Scenic River
designation impose on land owners along the river?
Answer. S. 435 would impose no restrictions whatsoever on land
owners along the Lower Farmington River or Salmon Brook. Under the
Partnership Wild & Scenic River model, all land use decisions would
remain as the responsibility for local towns and their local land-use
commissions, not the federal government.
______
Responses of John Fowler to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1a. The Department of the Interior has been responsible
for managing finances for the Advisory Council under existing
legislation. S. 1378 gives the Council authority to use a private
accounting service at the discretion of the Council.
What sort of difficulty has the Advisory Council experienced under
current financial arrangements with the Department of the Interior?
Answer. Some specific areas of difficulty that we have had over the
years include financial accounting, procurement, and travel support.
When the Council underwent its first audit as required by the
Accountability for Tax Dollars Act in FY 2005, our independent auditors
were unable to get accurate financial reports for a protracted period.
Much time was spent attempting to verify records and reconcile numbers,
so that in the end our audit was submitted to us on September 15, 2005,
instead of November 15, 2004, its formal due date. Similarly, we find
ourselves confronted with charges, often significant, from prior fiscal
years, long after the fiscal year has ended. For FY 2004, for instance,
the ACHP made $110,556 in adjustments to our accounts after the fiscal
year ended when the auditors uncovered various problems. We believe
that we can do better.
Procurement has been a perennial problem, ranging from lengthy
delays in processing payments for contract services to impediments to
necessary acquisitions. The former has damaged our relations with some
of our vendors and the latter has caused us to lose desired services,
such as hotel bookings for Council meetings.
Travel support has also been a problem in the past. Ranging from
assistance in travel arrangements to processing of travel vouchers, our
experience in prior years has frustrated Council staff and
presidentially appointed members alike. Recent changes to a commercial
travel agent, made by the Department for all its travel needs, has
improved travel support and processing improvements by the National
Business Center have eased the reimbursement problems.
It is important to note that the Council is charged a substantial
fee for the administrative and financial services provided by the
Department. In FY 2005, it was $211,100 (4.7% of the Council budget)
and in FY 2006 it will rise to $231,182 (4.8%). The Council is assessed
a portion of the Department's Working Capital Fund and has virtually no
leeway in negotiating a better deal. This lack of negotiating ability
is the product of a monopoly held by the Department as to providing
services to the Council.
Question 1b. Which other Federal organizations, if any, have
authority to use a private entity for financial management services?
Answer. Note from the outset that the FAIR Act encourages Federal
agencies to outsource functions that are ``not inherently
governmental'', so there is a general policy that supports use of
private sector contractors to provide services, such as financial and
administrative support, to Federal agencies. Few agencies have a
specific authorization that enables them to contract for services.
Rather, this ability is part of their general authorities as a Federal
agency, augmented by the recent enactment of the FAIR Act. What sets
the Council apart is the limitation of the NI-IPA that directs the
Department to be the provider of services to the Council. We seek only
the flexibility that other agencies have to make sound business
decisions regarding essential support services.
Question 1c. Why is the Advisory Council interested in having the
option of obtaining financial management assistance from a private
entity?
Answer. For the reasons noted previously, we believe that having
the flexibility to obtain services from providers other than the
Department could improve our efficiency and save the Council money. It
is important to note that we are not seeking authority exclusively to
contract with the private sector; we are seeking the authority to find
the best service at the best possible price. Nor are we seeking to take
all of our business from the Department. The language proposed in S.
1378 would gives us the ability to go to other Federal agencies and
negotiate with them for services. In addition to the National Business
Center at the Department of the Interior, the Office of Management and
Budget has identified three agencies as ``centers of excellence'' to
provide financial services: the Administrative Resource Center at
Treasury; the Enterprise Service Center at Transportation; and the
Financial Management Line of the Business Center of Excellence at the
General Services Administration. Since we have not had the authority to
find this service elsewhere, we have not shopped and do not know if the
best service at the most reasonable price will lead us to a private
entity, another government provider or the Department of the Interior.
Question 2. The Advisory Council was established to serve in an
advisory capacity to the Executive Branch on matters concerning
historic preservation. S. 1378 appears to expand the role of the
Advisory Council into program management. Why should Congress expand
the role of your organization and add to the Federal bureaucracy at
this time?
Answer. Since its inception in 1966, the Council, along with the
national historic preservation program, has constantly evolved. When
the Council was set up in 1966, it was a simple advisory body, staffed
by the National Park Service. Over the years it assumed and was given
an increasingly substantive role in the program. In 1976, the Congress
recognized the key role of the Council in the Section 106 process and
authorized the Council to issue regulations to implement that part of
the NHPA. The Congress also made the Council an independent agency,
with an administrative structure that reflected its growth from a
purely advisory group to one with important day-to-day duties.
Likewise, the Council's administration of the Section106 process
has led to the development of a well-received training program and
specific authority from the Congress to sue in Federal Court to enforce
the act's protective provisions.
The executive branch has also acknowledged the critical role of the
Council, beyond that of providing advice. Executive Order 13287,
Preserve America, has spawned the first comprehensive White House
historic preservation initiative. The Council has been given a
prominent role in the oversight of that initiative, co-chairing the
Preserve America Steering Committee and managing certain of the program
functions for the White House.
The evolution of the Council's role is the story of a small but
capable agency overseeing the needs presented by the National Historic
Preservation Program. Working closely with the Congress and the
Administration, the Council has been charged with new authorities and
duties that have become essential to the success of the program. S.
1378 recognizes that history and adds one more area, cooperating with
Federal agencies in shaping their grant programs, where the
preservation expertise of the Council, properly coordinated with
Federal agency partners, can be a key element in a growing historic
preservation program.
Question 3a. The existing legislation has a budget ceiling of $4
million and S. 1378 authorizes an open-ended budget.
What is the current budget of the Advisory Council and how much is
the Council requesting for FY06?
Answer. The Council's FY 2005 budget was $4.536 million. The
President's budget request for FY 2006 was $4.988 million and the
Congress appropriated $4.837 million.
Question 3b. Why should it be open-ended; why not raise it to $5
million?
Answer. First, the rationale for having permanent appropriations
authority is based on the role that the Council now has in the historic
preservation program. Its responsibilities for administering the
Section 106 process alone make the Council a vital permanent part of
the Federal establishment. Other responsibilities have been enumerated
in previous answers. Second, raising the authorization to a fixed
number presents the same challenge we are confronting now. When that
number is reached, the Council must go through a formal legislative
process to raise the ceiling. In the present case, $5 million will be
insufficient to support the likely requests for FY 2007 and beyond.
Even assuming no program growth, simply maintaining current level of
operations will become impossible with a $5 million cap, given the
annual rate of fixed cost escalation.
Question 4. The Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council
both require reauthorization every five years to continue to operate.
S. 1378 reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund for five years, but
gives permanent authorization to the Council. What has the Council done
to justify permanent authorization and why is permanent authorization
needed?
Answer. The Historic Preservation Fund operates on a five-year
authorization cycle because the authorization is for the transfer of
revenues from Federal offshore oil and gas leases into the Fund. It is
appropriate for the Congress to review at reasonable intervals, such as
five years (or ten as the National Park Service has proposed in its
testimony), whether the proceeds from the leases and sales are
sufficient to be the basis for the Fund and whether the Fund continues
to need this level of support.
The Council, on the other hand, is a permanent independent Federal
agency with program responsibilities that are established in the NHPA
and critical to the Federal government's historic preservation program.
The Council should be viewed as a formal member of the Federal
establishment, like the Commission of Fine Arts or the National Capital
Planning Commission, which all share the common trait of being
essential components of congressionally-created programs that promote
defined national interests. The Council needs a permanent authorization
so that it can determine its program and budget needs based on the
normal process of executive branch request and legislative branch
decision through the annual appropriations and oversight system.
Furthermore, in the last four years the relationship between
Federal asset preservation and heritage tourism has become inextricably
linked and will provide an economic development tool that will continue
for years to come. Now that the Council has firmly established the
relationship between economic development, heritage tourism, and
Federal asset management, authorization for the Council is not
something that could logically terminate at an arbitrary date.
Question 5a. S. 1378 does not address private property issues in
the same way the House Resources Committee did in their Discussion
Draft Document.
Do you believe that 3rd parties should continue to be able to
nominate or request eligibility for listing against the wishes of the
property owner?
Answer. The current NHPA prevents the Secretary of the Interior
from listing a property in the National Register if the owner objects.
This provision was enacted in 1980 at a time when Federal tax laws
imposed a penalty on the owner of a historic commercial property who
demolished his structure for redevelopment. That tax provision was
subsequently eliminated, taking with it the rationale for allowing an
owner to object to National Register listing. As the National Register
is intended to be a comprehensive list of properties that are
significant to the Nation's history, that significance is not a factor
of an owner's desire to do as he wishes with his property.
The only remaining linkage between the National Register and
Federal law is through the Section 106 review process. All Section 106
requires is that Federal agencies consider historic preservation
factors when deciding whether to support or approve an activity. That
decision can affect an owner's ability to use Federal assistance for a
project that will harm historic properties. That was the original
intent of Congress and remains true today.
What we have learned is that some local jurisdictions impose strict
controls through local regulation based on the Federal National
Register designation. This process circumvents the normal strict due
process protections for property owners that are found in almost all
local preservation ordinances. We have a concern about this ``linkage''
and believe it is improper. However, this does not mean that Federal
law should require an owner's consent before a National Register
listing occurs. Rather, to the extent that Federal law can address the
issue, it should discourage or bar the use of Federal listing in the
National Register as an automatic trigger for the imposition of local
regulations, which are far stricter than any Federal protective
provision. We have conveyed that view to the House Resources Committee.
We think that any remedy in this area should address the real
issue, that of linkage of the National Register decision to the
application of local preservation ordinances. Barring the listing of a
worthy property on the National Register due to an owner's objection
frustrates the original intent of Congress behind the National
Register. There are better ways to address the problem: discourage or
prohibit local jurisdictions from using National Register designation
as the basis for the application of their local controls without
adequate local due process.
Question 5b. In light of the Supreme Court's Kelo Decision
concerning a city's use of eminent domain authority, would it be
appropriate for the Committee to take steps to address the shortcomings
in the National Historic Preservation Act when it comes to protecting
private property rights? After all, if we object to a city's use of
eminent domain authority for third party development, then how can we
stand by and allow third parties to prevent property owners from
renovating their homes?
Answer. As noted previously, the NHPA does not operate to impede a
private property owner from taking any action with regard to private
property through any inherent provision of the Act. Section 106
requires only that a Federal agency that might financially assist or
license an action that would affect the property take into account the
effect of the action on the historic property. After doing so as
prescribed by the Section 106 regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800), the
agency may choose to assist or allow the alteration or demolition of
the property, regardless of its historic significance. Therefore, no
change in the NHPA is needed in that regard. What does seem warranted
is to prevent National Register designation from being used (or
misused) to impose the stringent restrictions of local historic
preservation ordinances. We have addressed that in the previous answer.
Question 6. As you may be aware, Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act requires any Federal or federally assisted
undertaking to determine its effect on ``. . . any district, site,
building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register.'' To me, that language along with
the accompanying regulations means that an applicant must seek out and
evaluate the effect of its project on every site, building, etc., both
known and unknown. That just does not seem to be rational public
policy. Would you agree that we should take a serious look at modifying
the existing language in the Act?
Answer. The implementation of this provision is actually quite
reasonable and reflects almost 40 years of experience under the NHPA.
In 1976, the Congress recognized that the National Register was far
from complete and that limited Federal funding to support State surveys
would leave that situation unchanged for years to come. It accordingly
amended Section 106 to expand its scope from properties formally listed
on the National Register to include those that might be eligible for
listing. To implement this provision, the Council established a
regulatory standard that requires Federal agencies to make a
``reasonable and good faith effort'' to identify properties that may
meet the criteria for listing. In consultation with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), agencies determine what
constitutes such an effort, which often includes a survey of the
project impact area, and then consults further with the SHPO to apply
the National Register criteria of eligibility.
This process is not unlike other kinds of resource assessments that
Federal laws require an agency to conduct to determine the nature of a
project's environmental impact. It has been incorporated into the
planning processes of virtually all Federal agencies and functions
smoothly and effectively. As a result, Federal agencies routinely
participate in an orderly process that results in the necessary
understanding of the nature and location of historic properties within
project impact areas, providing a sound basis for planning and
decisionmaking.
It is important to recognize the results of this provision as
currently implemented. Numerous historic properties of exceptional
significance were not listed on the National Register at the time they
were threatened by a Federal project and were factored into the
planning process only because of the current requirement that Federal
agencies identify properties that are eligible for but not yet listed
on the National Register. The World Trade Center site in New York City,
the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, the Selma to Montgomery Voting
Rights March Route in Alabama, and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center
in Leavenworth, Kansas, are but a few of the important properties whose
historic character would have not been considered in Federal project
planning had the scope of Section 106 been limited to properties
actually listed on the National Register. There are thousands more
examples across the country.
It should be pointed out that two classes of historic properties
would suffer inordinately from a narrowing of Section 106. Sites
important to Native Americans are rarely already listed on the National
Register when Federal projects threaten their integrity. Lack of survey
data, a reluctance by Indian tribes to reveal the location of sites for
religious purposes, and fear of looting leave these important elements
of Native American culture and history mostly outside the current
National Register listings. Likewise, archeological sites are rarely
identified before a Section 106 survey, until driven by the threat of
destruction by a Federal project, their location is revealed. These
properties would be essentially written out of Section 106
consideration if the scope of the law were narrowed to listed
properties.
There is a legitimate concern where this Federal burden has been
shifted to private applicants for Federal permits. Certain agencies,
such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Corps of
Engineers, have abdicated their obligations under Section 106 and
imposed requirements on applicants for Federal permits or licenses to
undertake the identification and evaluation steps of Section 106. Years
of practice have entrenched this distortion of the intent of Congress
and have made it difficult to alter. However, the Council appreciates
the problem and has taken steps to modify the requirements of Section
106 when the only Federal involvement is the permitting of a project
that is funded and carried out by a private entity.
Working with the SHPOs, the FCC, the telecommunications industry
and Indian tribes, the Council fashioned a Programmatic Agreement that
limits the responsibility of private cell tower constructors, who are
subject to FCC permits, to considering only those historic properties
that can be found listed on the National Register, that have already
been formally determined eligible, and that are on a supplementary list
provided by the SHPO within a defined 30-day period. In sum, the
applicant is presented with a defined universe of recognized historic
properties and is exempted from any further duty to survey or identify
historic properties.
The Council believes that it has the authority and the capability
to modify the application of the Section 106 process to address the
concerns underlying the question. Using administrative tools, the
Council can ensure the reasonable application of Section 106 without
need for a statutory narrowing of the law that would have disastrous
consequences for important historic resources. The tools that the
Council can and has used include memorandums of agreement, programmatic
agreements, program comments, and administrative exemptions.
Question 7. What is the current role of the Council in
administration of grants?
Answer. The Council has no formal role in Federal grants
administration with one exception. The recently enacted Preserve
America grants program for FY 2006 directs the National Park Service to
consult with the Council on the administration of the program. In that
role, we have worked closely with the NPS on the development of the
criteria and application for the grants. We will also jointly screen
the applicants and make recommendations for grant awards. The actual
administration of the program will be conducted by the NPS, using its
existing Historic Preservation Fund system.
We see this as a model for cooperating with other Federal agencies
if S. 1378 is enacted. The Council brings a perspective and
preservation expertise that can help shape the administration of a
Federal grants program to better carry out the purposes of the NHPA
while meeting the primary goals of the program.
Responses of John Fowler to Questions From Senator Ken Salazar
Question 1. I understand that the Advisory Council decided to close
a small field office (with four staff) in Colorado. Why?
Answer. As part of our ongoing assessment of Council organization
and management, we looked at the changing role of the Council in the
Section 106 process, resulting from regulation changes in 2001, and the
impact of the new emphasis on Federal policy and program development.
This led to an evaluation of the current arrangement of a headquarters
office in Washington, D.C., and a sole field office in Colorado. We
examined program needs, customer service, and cost implications,
including travel, space, and personnel factors. We also looked closely
at whether the premises that were the basis for the original 1973
decision to create the field office were still valid.
This examination was enlightening. While we agreed that having a
presence in the West was beneficial to servicing agencies and SHPOs
located in the West, we also realized that much has changed in the way
our customers and we do business since 1973. Increasingly, our business
is conducted by e-mail, fax, teleconference, and videoconference.
Section 106 case review materials move electronically and decisions are
more often made without the need for face-to-face meetings. Somewhat to
our surprise, travel costs when such meetings are necessary proved to
be only marginally higher if field staff were dispatched to western
locations from Washington instead of Denver, due to significant changes
in government contract airfares. In the end, we posed the question of
whether we would create a western field office today if we did not have
one and found the answer to be ``No''.
Also influencing our assessment was the realization that
redirecting the personnel costs of the existing field staff to support
new positions at Council headquarters would allow us to fund six
positions with the resources currently supporting the four western
office positions. This would help us address concerns recently raised
about the adequacy of staff resources to meet the Council's
increasingly diverse workload.
Question 2. With this office closing, there will be no field
offices and the ACHP will be entirely out of Washington, DC. How will
the ACHP insure that the historic preservation needs of Colorado and
the Western U.S. will be heard and met?
Answer. There is always much concern and anxiety when established
relationships are changed. We are sensitive to the uncertainties and
apprehension that may ripple through the ranks of SHPOs, Federal
agencies, and others who have worked with our western office. We are
all committed to making this transition as smooth and efficient as
possible and are working with our western customers to determine how we
can better serve them with our realigned organization over the long
run. We have met several times with western SHPOs, as a group and
individually, and the National Conference of SHPOs has established a
task force to work with us on the transition. We will be making similar
efforts to reach out to our other partners and customers in the near
future.
We have already committed to certain steps to accommodate service
to the West: adjusting work hours for some staff in Washington so that
they are more accessible to western constituents; filling new positions
with employees experienced with western issues, such as public lands
management; scheduling more training sessions in western States; and
participating regularly in meetings of western SHPOs, Federal agencies,
and tribal organizations. We will continue to develop and refine ways
to improve the delivery of Council services to the West.
The program needs of the Western U.S., Federal agencies, and the
Council have changed greatly since the Lakewood office was established
in 1973. In the intervening years, the work of the ACHP staff changed
from one largely focused on overseeing an emerging regulatory program
and establishing the role of the Council, other stakeholders, and the
public to one focused on fewer, high-profile cases and pursuing broader
changes to agency programs and policies. The ACHP created partnership
agreements with Federal agencies that are program-specific, rather than
being geographically based. ACHP staff needs to be able to offer
assistance to stakeholders and the public nationwide that focuses on
agency programs and the effects of these programs on historic
properties. With its staff split between Washington and Lakewood, the
ACHP found that it did not have the staff flexibility to meet these
needs; with its entire staff located in Washington, the ACHP will be
better able to respond to changing priorities and deliver a broad range
of assistance to stakeholders and the public nationwide.
Question 3. Will you provide my office with more information on the
Colorado office closing? Please describe the impacts this closing will
have on Colorado and our country's preservation goals? How will ACHP
mitigate these impacts?
Answer. We would be pleased to keep you apprised of further
developments as we complete the transition. While Colorado will lose
its local Council office (a unique circumstance) and the unquestionable
benefits that proximity provides, the Council believes that it will be
able to maintain a high level of service to the State and those
involved in preservation issues. On the national level, the realignment
of Council staff to a consolidated office in Washington will greatly
improve our ability to fulfill our duties in the national historic
preservation program. It will augment our resources, position our staff
where they can better interact with Federal agencies and national
preservation organizations to deal with national program and policy
issues, and will enable us to pursue more effectively the mission that
the Congress has entrusted with the Council. These positive impacts do
not require mitigation.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, U.S. Representative
From Delaware
Dear Mr. Chairman: Today I wish to join my colleagues, Senator
Carper and Senator Biden, in offering my support for the Delaware
National Coastal Special Resources Study Act and in asking this
Subcommittee to support our efforts to consider establishing a national
park in the State of Delaware. As the only State without a national
park, Delaware's time has surely arrived. I join with my colleagues
today to ask that the Secretary of the Interior consider studying the
potential for a national park in Delaware.
A unit of the National Park Service in the State of Delaware would
not only boost tourism, but would also highlight Delaware's history and
sense of community. Whether it's recreation, exploring the history and
culture, or discovering the natural resources, the benefits of working
within the National Parks Service are many. The National Parks Service
collaborates directly with communities to preserve and care for
neighborhood treasures and to educate visitors about science, nature,
history, and culture.
Delaware is already home to many unique treasures, from its beaches
to historical landmarks to wildlife refuges. National parks are a
wonderful way to protect irreplaceable public assets and to secure them
for future generations. Providing for their protection and preservation
as well as their use, enjoyment and understanding, are some of the many
benefits national parks provide.
I commend my colleague, Senator Carper, for pursuing legislation to
begin to explore the potential for a unit of the National Park Service
in the great State of Delaware. A national park in Delaware would
greatly enhance the public's understanding of all the First State has
to offer--putting the First State firmly on the ``park'' map once and
for all.
I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting this legislation.
______
Statement of Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, U.S. Representative
From Connecticut
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today on S.435, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Farmington River and Salmon
Brook in the state of Connecticut for study for potential addition to
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I have introduced identical
legislation in the House with my colleague Congressman Larson and wish
to focus on the substantial impact a designation will have on my
constituents and the region.
The bill commissions a feasibility study to evaluate whether the
lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook qualify as a Wild and Scenic
Partnership River within the National Park Service's Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. The lower Farmington River is defined as the 40 mile
stretch between the lower Collinsville Dam in Burlington and the
Rainbow Dam in Windsor in the First and Fifth congressional districts.
The Farmington River and Salmon Brook's recreational and
environmental contributions to our state are well-known, and we must
protect them for future generations. The 14 miles of the Farmington
River's West Branch, designated as a Wild and Scenic Partnership River
in 1994, is a resounding environmental and economic success story.
Partnership designation for the West Branch has fostered public-private
partnerships to preserve the area's environment and heritage while
yielding economic benefits to river towns.
The West Branch of the river is home to trout, river otter and bald
eagle populations, and historic structures still grace its banks.
Fishermen, hikers, canoeists and kayakers enjoy the river and its banks
year-round. In addition, a 2003 study by North Carolina State
University found that partnership designation resulted in millions in
economic activity and increased property values in the river towns of
Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, Hartland, and New Hartford.
I hope to see the rest of the Farmington River, as well as Salmon
Brook, enjoy similar success. This new initiative is an ideal way to
extend that protection and showcase the rivers unique cultural and
recreational resources.
This legislation has broad bipartisan support, I would like to
thank the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for bringing it
forward and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
Statement of Hon. John B. Larson, U.S. Representative
From Connecticut
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka and members of the
Subcommittee on National Parks, thank you for this opportunity to
express my strong support for S. 435, the Lower Farmington River and
Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act. As a cosponsor of the
companion legislation in the House, I join the entire Connecticut
delegation in supporting the federal designation and protection of the
lower section of the Farmington River. I would also like to commend and
thank my two delegation colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman,
for their leadership on this issue.
Since 1968, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has
protected the Nation's most valuable rivers. Through this system,
rivers that possess remarkable scenic, recreational, natural, and
cultural values are preserved in their free-flowing condition and are
protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations. Designated rivers are afforded the federal protection
necessary to maintain their resources and character.
Connecticut is fortunate to be the home of the Farmington River,
which hosts a wealth of natural beauty, a variety of wildlife, and a
cultural past important to our state, region, and nation. In 1994,
Congress recognized the upper section of the Farmington--a 14-mile-long
stretch that runs from the base of the Goodwin Dam in Hartland to the
downstream border of Canton and New Hartford, as Wild and Scenic. As a
federally protected river segment, the natural splendor and resources
of the Upper Farmington have been managed cooperatively on the local,
state and federal level for over a decade. Regrettably, Salmon Brook--a
major tributary and the Lower Farmington running 40 miles from Canton
to its confluence with the Connecticut River in Windsor does not share
the same federal protection. Continued threats to the River's water
quality reinforces the urgent need for a collaborative effort to
preserve the unique character of both the Upper and Lower Farmington,
as well as Salmon Brook, for present and future generations.
The Lower Farmington is a rare natural, cultural and recreational
area for the people of the First District and throughout the entire
state of Connecticut. The River's free-flowing waters support a rich
ecological system and serves as the habitat for diverse fish species,
including the American shad and the Atlantic salmon. The River is also
home to trout, river otter and bald eagle populations. Since the 1600s,
the River has prominently been featured in our state history, from the
Tunxis Native American tribes who settled on its shores to the mills
and dams that sprung-up as part of the Industrial Revolution. Today,
people from across Connecticut can enjoy the majestic views of the
River along the Farmington River Trail--a former railroad line that
when completed will run 26 miles along the shores of the Farmington.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and giving me
the opportunity to submit testimony in support of S. 435 and H.R. 1344.
I am confident that the Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook are essential
additions to the Wild and Scenic River System and I look forward to the
support of the Committee on this important issue.
______
Central Connecticut State University,
Department of Anthropology,
New Britain, CT, September 19, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: Thank you very much for the opportunity to
submit testimony in support of Senate Bill 435, The Lower Farmington
River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005.
The lower Farmington River has been a vital resource for
inhabitants of its valley for more than 10,000 years. This fact is
amply demonstrated by the evidence we have recovered in an ongoing
archaeological survey, The Farmington River Archaeological Project
(FRAP). The more than 200 archaeological sites that we have
investigated represent the remnants of ancient villages, quarries,
burial grounds, fishing grounds, and hunting territories--in essence,
the communities and work places of the past inhabitants of the valley.
These archaeological sites are historical resources worthy of the
consideration and protection that may be afforded by Wild and Scenic
designation of the river.
For example, the Alsop Meadow site is located along the Farmington
River in the town of Avon, Connecticut. Standard practice in
archaeological research is to excavate only a small fraction of a site,
providing for future excavation when new technologies and methods will
allow for more complete recovery and analysis. In just the 25% of the
site excavated, we recovered more than 16,000 artifacts, most
reflecting the production of stone tools--spear points, drills, knives,
scraping tools, and axes.
The Alsop Meadow site is particularly important because, until its
excavation, it had been assumed that the ancient inhabitants of the
valley largely were interlopers, people who actually lived in the
Connecticut River Valley and who visited the Farmington only
seasonally. However, virtually every one of the artifacts recovered at
this site was made from a stone type available only in the Farmington
Valley. Connecticut Valley residents visiting the Farmington might have
been expected to bring some of their Connecticut Valley tools with
them, but we found no such thing at Alsop. The site is nearly 5,000
years old and presents future archaeologists with a treasure trove of
data, but only if the site is protected from destruction. Wild and
Scenic designation of the Lower Farmington River can contribute to that
protection.
In Windsor, Connecticut, just south of the confluence of the
Farmington and Connecticut Rivers, people lived 2,000 years ago in a
site we call Loomis II. The two rivers coming together served much in
the manner of a modern highway interchange and the inhabitants of the
Loomis II site, took advantage of their location. We see direct
evidence of this in the diversity of resources the inhabitants used to
make their tools, and the distance and direction from which those
resources came: quartz and basalt from western Connecticut, flint from
the northwest in New York State, and jasper from the southwest, all the
way from Pennsylvania. The Loomis II site provides a wealth of
information about ancient trading networks and, as such, is a valuable
historical resource that deserves the measure of protection that Wild
and Scenic designation might provide.
The Avon Old Farms Brook site, also in Avon, is located at the
confluence of a spring-fed stream and the Farmington River. There, deep
in the loam bordering the Farmington, we found a remarkably intact,
4,250-year-old roasting platform--a stone cobble surface on which the
ancient inhabitants of the valley roasted deer meat.
I tell my students that archaeological research is the equivalent
of detective work, but, unlike detectives, we don't examine the scene
of a crime; we investigate the scene of a life. This can clearly be
seen at Old Farms Brook. Burned wood from the cooking fire and bits and
pieces of deer bone reveal the function of the platform. Immediately
adjacent to the stone grilling surface we recovered an almost perfectly
formed spear point that had been intentionally jabbed into the ground.
Only its delicately flaked tip was missing, almost certainly broken off
inside the animal it had killed. In other words, we detectives of the
past were able to uncover the ``smoking gun,'' the bones of the
deceased, and the platform on which it was cooked. This level of
preservation which, in turn, supports a remarkable degree of precision
in our interpretation, is stunning. Protecting a historical resource
like the Avon Old Farms Brook site is enormously important and, again,
Wild and Scenic designation for the lower Farmington River would be a
significant step toward that protection.
Certainly, I recognize that many will submit testimony in support
of this bill emphasizing the importance of Wild and Scenic designation
in terms of very practical and undoubtedly significant issues including
clean water, property values, pollution, and recreation. Some might
consider the additional benefit of affording protection to resources of
historical or cultural meaning a less important contribution of Wild
and Scenic designation. I suppose, as an archaeologist whose focus has
tong been on investigating the lives of the ancient inhabitants of the
Farmington River Valley, I take a longer view than most on the proposed
legislation. You will frequently hear people today talk about the
obligation of our generation as ``stewards'' of the environment. I am
here to tell you that the Farmington Valley has provided a way of life
for more than five hundred generations of such stewards. I respectfully
suggest that we owe it to the next five hundred to carefully consider
the important role played by the Farmington River in the lives of the
residents of Connecticut and afford it the protection that Wild and
Scenic designation along its tower reaches will provide.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to my testimony. I
genuinely appreciate your consideration of a Wild and Scenic
designation study for the lower reaches of the Farmington River and
Salmon Brook.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Feder, Ph.D.
______
Farmington River Coordinating Committee,
Pleasant Valley, CT, September 20, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Testimony of the Farmington River Coordinating Committee in Support
of S. 435
Honorable Chairman Thomas and Members of the Committee: After a
unanimous vote of the 10 member organizations of the Farmington River
Coordinating Committee (FRCC), I write this letter to support S. 435,
``The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild & Scenic Study Act
of 2005.'' The FRCC was established in 1994 when 14 miles of the Upper
Farmington River were added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. The Committee is made up of representatives of the towns
bordering the designated stretch (Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook,
Hartland, New Hartford) and other organizations and agencies with a
stake in the river (CT Department of Environmental Protection,
Farmington River Anglers Association, Farmington River Watershed
Association, Metropolitan District Commission, and the National Park
Service). The coordinating committee implements the Upper Farmington
River Management Plan and continues to build the relationships and
resources needed to protect and enhance the outstanding resources of
the Upper Farmington River: historic buildings and areas (including the
Hitchcock Chair Company), cold-water fisheries (particularly for
trout), recreational opportunities (kayaking, canoeing, hiking), and
wildlife habitat (including bald eagles).
It has been eleven years since the FRCC was established and it has
accomplished a great deal to preserve and protect the Farmington
River's outstanding resources. Based on a Partnership Wild & Scenic
model, the FRCC strongly represents and carries forward a true
partnership between local, state and federal interests. This
partnership has been able to leverage dollars and expertise for many
projects that otherwise would not have been possible. As an example of
the many things we've accomplished, I am including information from
this year's Annual Report. Of course, this is a small portion of the
many things that we've accomplished over the past decade:
Membership
The addition of the Farmington River Anglers Association to FRCC
was a major event of the year--this association links FRCC to many
people who enjoy and care for the Farmington River. FRAA's mission is
to ``Preserve, Protect and Enhance the Farmington River Fishery.''
Outreach and Education
10 Years of Wild and Scenic Designation Anniversary Celebration--
August 26, 2004--FRCC held a celebration with about 100 attendees.
Entertainment was provided by David Paton and the Magic River Band and
catering by Blue Sky Foods.
FRCC Website Improvements and Website training--The FRCC website
has been maintained by two FRCC volunteers--Mario Santoro and Chris
Bailey. Mario and Chris received training on Dreamweaver early in the
year.
FRCC Newsletter--FRCC produced and distributed a spring newsletter
to over 300 riverfront landowners and town officials.
Kiosks Improvements--Two back sides of our kiosks were produced
this year. One at Mathies Grove parking area and one at the Church Pool
at the MDC parking area.
Resource Stewardship
Farmington River Riverbank Assessment--Milone and MacBroom
completed a draft report of the riverbank assessment.
Upper Farmington River Water Quality Monitoring--FRWA completed
streamwalk trainings and its first round of streamwalks. FRWA also
conducted water quality testing at various locations on the river. A
database is being developed in cooperation with Farmington Valley
Health District and CT DEP.
Land Protection--Along with FRAA, FRCC contributed to FRWA's effort
to protect Sugar Meadow Island in Barkhamsted which is now held by the
Barkhamsted Land Trust.
Aerial Photos--FRCC had aerial photos taken of the towns along the
14-mile Wild and Scenic stretch of river. The photos will be helpful in
land protection efforts and monitoring the health of the river over
time.
Plans of Conservation and Development--FRCC provided comments on
both New Hartford's and Barkhamsted's updates of their Plans of
Conservation and Development.
Policy and Administration
FRCC Grants Program--FRCC revamped its grants program to allow
larger amounts and fewer deadlines. Grants were given to the
Barkhamsted Conservation Commission for publicizing a public meeting on
the possible ridgeline zoning; the New Hartford Land Trust for the
Riverwalk project; Colebrook Land Conservancy for closing costs
associated with protecting the Corliss 100 property.
Ongoing Support to the Squires Restoration (FRCC Headquarters)--
FRCC continues to support the efforts to restore and enhance the
Squires Tavern.
New Project Tracking system--FRCC established a new tracking system
to keep track of projects and finances.
River Rally and Professional Development trainings--Several members
of FRCC attended the National River Rally. Pat Keener and Mario Santoro
attended a series of sessions by the Center for Watershed Protection
and accrued 12 hours of free technical assistance from CWP to share.
Cooperative Projects
New Hartford Riverwalk--FRCC continued to work with New Hartford to
help plan and implement the town's riverwalk project.
Enhanced Fish Habitat--FRCC helped coordinate a cooperative effort
between CT DEP, ConnDOT, and USGS that enhanced the fish habitat below
the Riverton bridge. Two large trees had fallen and one was cabled to
the bank for some much needed ``large woody debris'' that will not
interfere with boaters.
The Farmington River Coordinating Committee would like to encourage
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to support Senate
Bill #S435 and to authorize the study for the Lower Farmington River
and Salmon Brook. As you might suspect, our work on the Upper
Farmington River is related to the future successes of conservation
efforts on the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook. The entire
Farmington River is a valuable natural resource for the State of
Connecticut, it is important to preserve and protect it, and it is
logical to consider conservation efforts on the entire River together.
Sincerely,
S. Patricia Keener,
Chair.
______
Statement of Quinn McKew, Associate Director,
American Rivers, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on S.435, the Lower Farmington River and Salmon
Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005. My name is Quinn McKew,
and I am the Associate Director for the Wild Rivers program for
American Rivers. Since its founding in 1973, American Rivers has worked
with our grassroots partners to protect rivers under the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act and has actively assisted federal agencies, states
and local groups with river conservation efforts. American Rivers is a
45,000-member organization committed to the protection and restoration
of the nation's outstanding rivers.
I would like to thank Senator Dodd for introducing S. 435, which
would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of
the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for
study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. The Farmington is truly a national treasure, providing a home
to the only nesting bald eagles in the state of Connecticut. In
recognition of its outstanding fish, wildlife and scenic values and
importance to the citizens of Connecticut, the Upper Farmington River
was designated a Partnership Wild and Scenic river in 1994. This study
bill for the Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook will help advance the
protection of the entire river system and has strong local and state
support.
The Lower Farmington reflects the beauty and character of
Connecticut. Every year, thousands of people canoe, kayak, and fish the
waters of the Farmington. They come to visit the state parks, forests
and historic mills that dot the river's edge. The river is an historic
Atlantic Salmon Fishery, and efforts are underway by the state to
restore these important fish. All these factors--recreational value,
rare wildlife, outstanding fisheries, and a rich history--make the
Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook a natural for inclusion in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Farmington River is also a significant economic asset to the
surrounding communities. By studying the Lower Farmington, and
ultimately including it in the National Wild and Scenic River System,
Congress will protect the economies of the communities that border the
river. In 2003, North Carolina State University and American Rivers
completed an economic study of the designated Farmington Wild and
Scenic River. The study shows how the river's pristine character is one
of the main attractions that draw visitors to the region. It also shows
how deteriorating river conditions could lead to significant revenue
loss in the surrounding communities. According to the study, river-
based tourism brings nearly $4 million into communities around the
Farmington River each year, and recreational activities on and around
the river bring nearly $9.5 million of economic benefit annually. The
study also demonstrated that the river's wild condition significantly
increased the value of adjacent lands.
The community-based process that preceded the introduction of S.435
is truly a model of outreach and consensus building. Stakeholders and
local governments were consulted every step along the way, leading to
strong community support for S. 435. This high level of existing local
commitment to protecting the river is a good indicator that long-term
protection of the river, through a federal-state-local partnership
model of wild and scenic river designation, will be successful. This
model is gaining momentum throughout the Northeast and resulted in
passage of bills in the 107th Congress to designate the Eightmile River
and the Wekiva, Lower Delaware and White Clay Creek in the 106th
Congress. Unplanned growth is a threat to the unique, scenic qualities
that are the basis for recreation tourism in the area. The wild and
scenic river designation process will ensure a long-term plan for the
river that recognizes its significance as a natural resource, and can
help nearby towns effectively manage growth.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the
Subcommittee today.
______
Statement of Neil W. Kraner, Past President, and Dudley W. Alleman,
President, Salmon Brook Watershed Association
The Salmon Brook Watershed Association is a non-profit organization
dedicated to the preservation, use and enhancement of the Salmon Brook.
We are pleased to partner with the Farmington River Watershed
Association and other sister organizations in support of the Senate
Bill to initiate the feasibility study for the Wild and Scenic
designation of the Salmon Brook.
The East Branch, West Branch and main stem of the Salmon Brook are
together a major tributary to the Farmington River. Salmon Brook lies
within a 160 square mile watershed, primarily in a rural setting.
The brook has many cultural, natural and recreational features. It
has played an important role in the settlement and formation of the
Town of Granby. People moved north to settle a place called ``Sammon
Brooke''. The community was later known as ``Salmon Brook
Ecclesiastical Society'' and incorporated as Granby in 1786. The
Farmington Canal followed along a portion of the brook and was Granby's
link to the sea and the western frontier. Mills a long the brook
provided power for the local manufacturing enterprises.
The East and West Branch have spectacular gorges and waterfalls.
The town's first health officer, Dr. Alfred Weed, wrote in 1898, ``. .
. Our sparkling brooks . . . born of springs far up on the
mountainsides, where water in its virgin purity exists.'' Over 100
years later the brook still enjoys high water quality and is one of the
few brooks in Connecticut with a self-supporting native brook trout
population. It is also a significant habitat for Atlantic Salmon and is
used for salmon stocking programs. The brook is home to a wide
diversity of animal and plant life, including at least one species of
rare wildflower. The Slimy Sculpin is a small fish that only lives in
clear, cold streams and it is frequently caught (and released) within
the nets of the volunteers participating in the annual
macroinvertebrate survey. Salmon Brook consistently ranks among the top
streams in the state of Connecticut for water quality through the
surveys.
The brook at Holcomb Farm Learning Center is a significant natural
resource for educational opportunities for local and inner city youth.
This past summer the Salmon Brook Watershed Association published a
stream guide to educate streamside owners and others who enjoy the
brook the importance of its protection.
Numerous activities including swimming, kayaking and picnicking are
all available and enjoyed throughout the Salmon Brook. Fishing is
popular in all portions of the brook. It is renowned among anglers as a
prime destination for fly fishing, especially for native trout as well
as stocked fish. Bryan's Landing is a handicapped accessible area built
by volunteers near the center of town. Eagles, ospreys and waterfowl
are often seen near the brook. Visitors to the McLean Game Refuge,
established by the late Senator George P. McLean and now consisting of
over 4000 acres, may hike the many trails along the West Branch.