[Senate Hearing 110-158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-158
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 488 S. 617
S. 824 S. 955
S. 1148 H.R. 1182
S. 1380 S. 1728
H.R. 995 H.R. 1100
__________
JULY 12, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-107 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii.................. 1
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado................... 5
Baker-Sullivan, Heather, Executive Director, Hudson-Fulton-
Champlain Quadricentennial Commission, Katonah, NY............. 46
Burke, Judy M., Mayor, Grand Lake, CO............................ 36
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 3
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator From New York......... 35
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator From Connecticut......... 12
Dole, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator From North Carolina........... 6
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota............ 2
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois.............. 11
Harmon, Dennis, General Manager, Water Supply and Storage
Company, Fort Collins, CO...................................... 38
Martin, Tom, Chairman of the Board, Looking for Lincoln Heritage
Coalition, Springfield, IL..................................... 49
Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., U.S. Representative From Colorado..... 7
Perkins Cutler, Charlene, Executive Director, Quinebaug-Shetucket
Heritage Corridor, Inc......................................... 57
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 7
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator From Vermont................. 2
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator From Oregon.................. 9
Stevenson, Katherine H., Acting Assistant Director, Business
Services, National Park Service, Department of the Interior.... 13
Stoline, Dean, Assistant Director, Legislative Commission, The
American Legion................................................ 43
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota................. 10
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Representative From Colorado.............. 29
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 63
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 69
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:27 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM
HAWAII
Senator Akaka. The Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, will come to order.
We have a lengthy agenda this afternoon to consider the
following bills: S. 488 and a House-passed companion measure,
H.R. 1100, to expand the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home
National Historic Site; S. 617, to make the National Parks and
Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at a discount to
veterans; S. 824 and the House-passed companion measure, H.R.
995, to extend the legislative authorization to the Disabled
Veterans Memorial; S. 995, to establish the Abraham Lincoln
National Heritage Area in Illinois; S. 1148, to establish the
Champlain Quadricentennial Commemorative Commission and the
Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemorative Commission; S. 1380, to
designate certain lands as wilderness in Rocky Mountain
National Park; and S. 1728, to reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili O
Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission and the Na Hoa Pili O
Kaloko-Honokohau National Park.
While some of these bills have national policy
implications, they are all important locally or they're
important to specific constituencies, as evidenced by the
number of Senators who have asked to testify today. Several of
these bills have been introduced or considered in previous
Congresses and I will work with the bills' sponsors and the
Park Service to address any remaining concerns and try to have
these bills ready for full committee consideration as soon as
possible.
Two of the bills on the schedule today relate to veterans
and are of interest to me as chairman of the Veterans Affairs
Committee. Senator Smith's bill, S. 617, would give veterans a
discount in purchasing an annual Federal lands pass. While I
support the goal of making it easier for the men and women who
have served our country to use public lands, I have some
questions about how this would be implemented.
For example, the bill does not appear to cover those on
active duty and members of the National Guard or Reserve who
have also served our country. I would like to better understand
the revenue implications this bill will have on the National
Park Service and other Federal land agencies.
S. 824 and H.R. 995 would extend the legislative authority
for the Disabled Veterans Memorial. I support this extension,
which I believe is noncontroversial.
Finally, I have introduced a bill to reauthorize an
advisory commission for Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical
Park. This park was created specifically to help preserve and
interpret traditional Native Hawaiian activities and culture,
and the advisory commission has been very important in
involving local residents to help the Park Service with that
mandate. My bill simply extends the commission for an
additional 10 years.
This hearing marks the first time the subcommittee has met
since the loss of our ranking member and former chairman and
our good friend, Senator Craig Thomas. For the many years that
we have served together on this subcommittee, Senator Thomas
and I were able to consider and work through these bills in a
bipartisan manner. He was a strong supporter of our national
parks and he will be very much missed.
I understand that a new ranking member of the subcommittee
has not yet been appointed, but I want to assure my colleagues,
especially on the minority side, that I certainly intend to
continue the bipartisan tradition of this committee.
At this point I would like to recognize Senator Burr for
any statement he would care to make.
[The prepared statements of Senators Sanders and Dorgan
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders, U.S. Senator From Vermont
S.1148, the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration
Commission Act of 2007, of which I am proud to be an original sponsor,
will help us celebrate the 400th Birthday of the discovery of Lake
Champlain.
1609 was an historic year and it helped open the frontier to the
spread of trade and culture. It is only appropriate that we establish
and support a Champlain Commission. Henry Hudson was the first European
to sail up the Hudson River, but it was the Frenchman, Samuel de
Champlain, who was the first European to see what we know as Lake
Champlain.
Two hundred years later, Robert Fulton demonstrated steam power in
his steamboat, traveling from New York to Albany. That was a fitting
bicentennial celebration of Champlain's discovery, and it is up to us
to ensure a suitable national observance on the 400th anniversary.
This effort should be led by New York and Vermont, which have
established state Commissions and plan year long celebrations. The
province of Quebec has already established a commission to commemorate
the 1609 voyage of Champlain. We hope that, as happened one hundred
years ago, we may welcome the French and British ambassadors and the
President of the United States to join in the celebrations. It is
incumbent upon us to coordinate these activities, coordinate the
contributions of State governments, private parties and other
contributions like those from our good friends in Canada, to ensure
that this commemoration is superior. Favorable consideration of S.1148
is the first step in this voyage.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, U.S. Senator From
North Dakota
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for
the opportunity to testify before you on behalf of S. 824 and H.R. 995,
bills which will extend the authorization for establishing a memorial
in the District of Columbia to honor veterans who have become disabled.
This is a long overdue memorial to honor America's disabled veterans
which will be constructed just steps from the U.S. Capitol.
I am pleased to note that the House has already unanimously passed
H.R. 995 on March 5, 2007 It is now up to the Senate to move S. 824 to
give the Foundation the extra time they need to finish and build this
long overdue memorial to honor America's disabled veterans.
For much of the world, freedom is a luxury, the privilege of a few.
For Americans, however, our many freedoms are so integrally woven into
the fabric of our lives that many of us take them for granted. Freedom
to participate in our own governance, to worship as we please, to
disagree with those in power, to appear as equals before the law--the
list of our freedoms is long. Yet the value and the cost of those
freedoms are often overlooked. Out of twenty-six million American
veterans living across the world today, approximately three million
embody the physical cost of their service in permanent disability. For
their sake, it is precisely this value and cost we seek to honor and
uphold in the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.
The Memorial is anticipated to be dedicated in 2010. It will be the
first national military memorial to honor disabled veterans; the first
to transcend all service branches, conflicts and generations; and the
first to be specifically dedicated to living and future servicemen and
women.
Public Law 106-348, signed by President Clinton in 2000, authorized
the building of the Memorial. Founded by philanthropist Lois Pope,
Arthur Wilson, General Adjutant of Disabled American Veterans, and the
late Jesse Brown, former Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, the Disabled
Veterans' Life Memorial Foundation's sole objective is to privately
raise the funds needed to design, build and permanently maintain the
Memorial.
The Memorial will be located at Washington Avenue and Second Street
SW, adjacent to the National Mall and across from the U.S. Botanic
Garden. The site was chosen specifically to remind Members of our brave
veterans who in this, and in every war, have made sacrifices for our
Nation.
The Memorial will be designed by Michael Vergason Landscape
Architects. Their work includes the National Cathedral, the Normandy
American Cemetery at Omaha Beach, U.S. Supreme Court, Monticello,
Montpelier, Gannett Corporate Headquarters, Johns Hopkins University,
and the University of Virginia. The Memorial will be accessible to all
visitors, especially the handicapped, twenty-four hours a day.
``The Memorial will be a place for reflection and inspiration,''
said Army Captain Leslie Smith, a disabled veteran who works for the
Defense Department and has completed four marathons using a hand-cycle.
``For disabled veterans, this will be an important part of the healing
process and will represent closure for many of us.''
The Foundation has raised almost half of the needed funds and are
well on their way to building this beautiful tribute. The land for the
site has been transferred under the control of the National Park
Service in 2006 under Public Law 109-396. The design concept has been
approved by the National Capital Planning Commission on December 7,
2006. On November 16, 2006 the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts gave their
approval.
It is now time for our approval. I urge the Committee to expedite
their approval of S. 824 and move it promptly to the full Senate for
their approval. Let's work quickly to ensure this lasting tribute to
our nation's disabled veterans moves smoothly forward.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding the hearing, but thank you also for the gracious
opportunity to continue the relationship that Senator Thomas
and yourself had. We certainly see that as a very positive
thing and also share your loss of Senator Thomas to this
committee.
We have a full agenda today, so I'll keep my remarks very
brief. There are several bills under consideration today that I
believe are particularly relevant. The first, H.R. 995, extends
the authorization of the Disabled Veterans Memorial. I'm please
to learn that the organizers have made progress toward raising
the necessary funds for this project. It's my understanding
that the work can be completed within the timeframe of this
extension. The House has already passed the bill and I hope
this committee will act quickly to send this bill to the full
Senate floor.
The second bill, S. 617, will allow veterans to obtain a
public lands access pass called the Veterans Eagle Pass at a
reduced price of ten dollars. I realize that the Interior
Department believes that that's the loss of $70 to them. Mr.
Chairman, I would suggest that since it's 80 cents to process
that pass, that this is actually a windfall of $9.20 in new
revenue, because the likelihood is this will certainly
encourage veterans to use our national parks areas.
Military personnel have sacrificed a great deal over the
history of our Nation and many are risking their lives around
the world at this very moment. S. 617 is a small but
significant gesture to show our appreciation to the men and
women who have served this Nation. It's my hope that this bill
will be amended to expand eligibility for this pass to active
duty, guard, and reserve personnel as well as our Nation's
veterans.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the Carl Sandburg National Historic
Site legislation, S. 488, and H.R. 1100, is of special interest
to Senator Dole and myself, and I would like to thank Senator
Dole for being here today to show her support for this
legislation. This bill will allow the National Park Service to
acquire additional lands around a historic site from willing
sellers and donors. Additional land is needed to provide
adequate parking space and a visitors' center, as well as
maintain the integrity of what I believe is the original
Sandburg family property.
It's my hope that we can report the bill, the House bill,
out of the committee as soon as possible and allow the Park
Service to continue their efforts to protect and enhance a
national treasure of this country.
Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of knowledge, of the land
acquired, 115 acres, only 5 acres would be deemed available for
construction of a visitors center and the like. So clearly
there has been a tremendous amount of thought that's gone into
the aesthetic protection of this historic site.
I want to thank you, Senator Akaka, for convening the
subcommittee. I look forward to hearing the testimony from our
colleagues and our witnesses, and I urge the chair to act as
quickly on these legislations as we possibly can.
I would also like to thank the chairman for not making me
read the title of S. 1728 because I'm not sure I could have
gotten through it quite the way he did. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, my friend and
colleague, Senator Burr.
We have several Senators and House Members who have asked
to testify in support of bills today. I know these bills are
all very important in your respective States and districts and
we are happy to have you here this afternoon. Because we have a
very lengthy witness list this afternoon and only a limited
amount of time available for the hearing, I would like to ask
everyone to be brief. Each of your complete written statements
will be included in the record. I know everyone has multiple
hearing commitments right now, so please feel free to leave
after you have completed your statement.
Let me first call on Senator Allard from Colorado.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
appreciate you calling on me first because I do have another
committee meeting where I'm actually having votes. So I
appreciate you giving me an opportunity to go. Also, Senator
Burr, thank you for your opening comments.
Mr. Chairman, this is a great opportunity and it's a great
opportunity for Colorado, for the committee to be considering
the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act. Today I'm
pleased to discuss legislation that will designate the Rocky
Mountain National Park as a wilderness. It is the sixth busiest
visited park in the United States. Today this legislation is
the result of more than a year of negotiations between my
colleague Senator Salazar and other members of the Colorado
delegation. It is a carefully crafted bill involving thousands
of hours of work with citizens, local elected officials, and
the environmental community.
This legislation will provide further protection for an
area that was formed millions of years ago when massive
glaciers carved an impressive landscape. The Rocky Mountain
National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that it remains
unchanged in the years to come.
As a fifth generation Coloradan and someone who grew up in
the shadow of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is an honor to
have worked on this bill with Senator Salazar. Colorado and its
representatives have long played an important role in the
development of wilderness in our Nation. This dates back to the
original Wilderness Act. Congressman Wayne Aspinall, who
represented Colorado's Fourth Congressional District and
chaired the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, played a
pivotal role in creating the Nation's wilderness system with
the 1964 Wilderness Act.
From the inception of the original Wilderness Act through
the continued development of wilderness in Colorado, one thing
has remained the same: the commitment to working together to
find compromises and solutions that work for everyone. The
principle of compromise has held true from the Colorado
National Forest Wilderness Act of 1980 to the Spanish Peaks
Wilderness Act in 2000, and it is now true with the Rocky
Mountains National Wilderness Act of 2007.
This is reflected by the broad support this bill enjoys.
Every one from water users to the environmental community
support this bill. I'd like to submit one such letter of
support signed by numerous environmental groups, including the
Wilderness Society, as part of my testimony.
Senator Allard. I am especially proud of the legislation
that my colleagues and I worked on because it represents the
balance we strive for in the management of our public lands. It
will allow for recreation while preserving the natural elements
of the park, including water, the West's most valuable
resource. At a time when agricultural wells are being
threatened just east of the park in Weld and Morgan Counties,
the protection of water is more important than ever. Protection
of this water infrastructure is a key component of this
compromise legislation. If we do not recognize and protect the
water provided by the Grand Ditch, this bill cannot move
forward. Protecting this water is vital to preserving the
agricultural heritage and future of this area.
I'm extremely pleased that this bill as written will
protect wilderness and respect water rights. The Rocky Mountain
National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that Americans now and
in the future have the ability to enjoy the park.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
your consideration of the Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness Act. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator, and we
appreciate your testimony.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. May I call on Senator Dole.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Dole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Burr. Thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 488, which
has a rather long title: The ``Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007.'' Senator Burr, I
appreciate your support of this legislation, which I introduced
earlier this year after hearing from many of the site's
visitors, consulting with its superintendent, and reviewing the
site's management plan.
I welcome the opportunity today to express my strongest
support for the expansion of this treasured historic site, Mr.
Chairman. The Carl Sandburg home has enriched the lives of many
North Carolinians and thousands of other visitors through its
rich history, natural beauty, and abundant educational
opportunities. Many citizens, local government officials, and
Park Service officials have expressed concern that development
around the site could negatively impact the historic nature of
the park that was the home of the famed late poet. This bill
will help ensure that future generations can enjoy this site
for many years to come.
As the subcommittee is aware, my bill would add 115 acres
to the current site for boundary and scenic view protection.
The village of Flat Rock and Henderson County, where the Carl
Sandburg home is located, both support the site expansion. To
illustrate how important this is, a 22-acre parcel of land that
forms the scenic backdrop was purchased by the State of North
Carolina's Department of Cultural Resources from the
Conservation Trust of North Carolina. But in order for the site
to enter into an agreement with the State of North Carolina for
the management of the 22-acre parcel, the land must first be
within the site's authorized boundaries. This bill would allow
for that to occur.
Mr. Chairman, as you're well aware, North Carolina is home
to many national parks, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
the Blue Ridge Parkway, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape
Lookout National Seashore, and the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, to name just a few. As we approach the National
Park Service's centennial, we should take steps such as this
that will preserve our national parks and prepare them for the
next 100 years.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I encourage you to
support S. 488, and I thank you again for holding this hearing
and for the privilege of addressing this issue today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much and we appreciate your
testimony, Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Let me then call on the Honorable Marilyn Musgrave for your
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
COLORADO
Ms. Musgrave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be
before you today to testify in support of S. 1380, and I'd like
to thank Senator Burr and especially Senator Salazar. In the
Colorado delegation we worked very hard on legislation that
would make wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain National
Park. Most of the park is in my district. It's an area that as
a native Coloradoan I've enjoyed all of my life, and now with
our four children and young grandchildren.
This designation would protect one of the crown jewels of
America's national park system. It would protect approximately
260,000 acres of pristine Rocky Mountain landscape as
wilderness.
We found as we were going through these negotiations that
we had a very similar goal in mind, and we brought all the
parties to the table. The Grand River Ditch goes through the
Rocky Mountain National Park and this ditch, which supplies
over 20,000 acre-feet of irrigation water for Larimer and Weld
Counties, actually preceded the park. It was very important to
us to protect this very important water supply, irrigation
water, for these farmers that live in these outlying counties.
We were able to come together and protect the ditch company
from future liability unless the ditch company was negligent in
their care.
We worked out this compromise protecting the farmers. We
brought the environmentalists to the table and they're very
pleased with the legislation also. So we were able to come
together--Senator Allard, Senator Salazar, Congressman Udall,
and myself--to work toward our common goal of wilderness
designation, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today and I urge support of S. 1388.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
really appreciate that.
Now I'd like to call on Senator Salazar for any opening
statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. Thank you
particularly for your leadership and your vision for national
parks and for your great work on veterans and on so many other
issues. It's truly a pleasure to have you as chairman of this
committee.
Let me also welcome my colleague from Colorado,
Representative Musgrave. I know Senator Allard spoke earlier
and I saw him in the hallway on the way out, and I believe that
Congressman Mark Udall will also be here later.
This legislation is truly a coming together of the Colorado
Congressional delegation on a matter that has been up in the
air now for over 30 years. It was President Nixon who first
declared that the Rocky Mountain National Park, with all of its
splendor as the crown jewel for our Nation, should be
designated as a wilderness area, and it's taken us now more
than 30 years to get to the finish line, and I'm very hopeful
that as we move forward through this hearing and through this
Congress that we will be able to accomplish that task.
I also want to thank Judy Burke from the town of Grand Lake
and Dennis Harmon from the Water Supply and Storage Company in
Fort Collins, Colorado, for being here. They have traveled long
distances to testify and I appreciate their efforts, not only
today but also the efforts of their organizations and
communities in the past several years in trying to get this
done.
Congress established the Rocky Mountain National Park on
January 26, 1915, on a vision of a man named Enos Mills, one of
our Nation's most committed naturalists, whose love for the
wild Rockies began in 1884, when at the age of 14 he scaled
Long's Peak. He said back in those days, a quote that I used
when the Colorado Congressional delegation was up at Rocky
Mountain National Park just a few months ago, he said, and I
quote: ``In years to come when I am asleep beneath the pines,
thousands of families will find rest and hope in this park.''
He was right then and he is right today.
Thanks to the excellent work of the Park Service and its
employees over the past 90 years, the 3.2 million visitors a
year to Rocky Mountain National Park experience the same wild
lands and spectacular vistas that our ancestors enjoyed.
Our job of protecting the wild character of Rocky Mountain
National Park is not complete. That is why we need to designate
the nearly 250,000 acres within the world as wilderness.
Congress has up to this point failed to act on that
recommendation that President Nixon made a long time ago. Now
is our chance to act and move forward.
Today, thanks to the tireless efforts of local communities
and the dedicated protectors and partners of the park, we come
before the committee with a broadly supported bill that is
deserving of passage. Senator bill 1380 and its companion in
the House, H.R. 2334, add 249,339 acres or nearly 95 percent of
the Rocky Mountain National Park to the wilderness preservation
system.
The bill is almost identical to the bill I introduced last
year and which received a ringing endorsement from the Park
Service in a similar hearing before this committee. Senate 1380
does not affect private landowners, existing development, or
water rights. The boundaries for the wilderness area exclude
water projects, roads, and existing development. The bill
allows for a bicycle trail along the western edge of the park,
provided that the construction of the trail is consistent with
the park's mission. It also makes a small increase in the size
of the nearby Indian Peaks Wilderness Area.
The only modification to this bill from last year is a
provision that will clarify how the Grand River Ditch is to be
operated and maintained in the park. The Grand River Ditch has
been in existence since 1891, since 1891. That's almost 25
years before the creation of Rocky Mountain National Park. The
ditch diverts water from the Colorado River Basin over the
Continental Divide to farmers along the Front Range. I might
add, it's not only farmers; it's also municipalities that
depend on the water rights from that ditch.
The language we've added would make the liability standard
under which the ditch operates consistent with the standard
that applies to other water users under Colorado law. This
revised standard only applies, however, if the ditch is
operated in accordance with an updated operations and
maintenance plan approved by the Park Service. It is a sensible
provision.
As one who feels that it is critical that local communities
participate in and support these efforts, I am proud that this
bill has the endorsement of the local communities and
organizations, including Larimer County, Grand Lake, Grand
County, the Town of Estes Park, Winter Park, the Town of Grand
Lake, and the League of Women Voters.
I am proud that our bill is a win-win for economic
development, for conservation, and that it accumulates the
needs of a broad range of interests.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony on this bill
and I am hopeful that the committee can pass this legislation
on to the floor of the Senate as soon as possible.
I also like ought to thank Tom Moore of the Water Supply
and Storage Company, who is also here. He will not be
testifying, but I want to thank him for having made the trip
out here as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Salazar.
Now, in a timely fashion let me call on Senator Smith for
any remarks that you may have.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Akaka. I appreciate you
holding this hearing today and for including my legislation,
the Veterans Eagle Park Pass Act. Last November I received a
letter from a constituent who was also a marine from Corvallis,
Oregon, the same Corvallis, Oregon, that is home to the two-
time NCA world champion baseball team of Oregon State
University's Beavers.
I'd like to read the letter he sent to me: ``Dear Senator
Smith: I am writing to you today as a veteran and an avid
sportsman. Ever since I returned from Iraq, I've been trying to
partake in any outdoor activity that this country has to offer.
I would like to see a permanent national park and forest pass
be granted to veterans. This would not cost a lot to the
taxpayers and would be appreciated greatly by all veterans. I
am a very appreciative person and I thank God every day that I
was born here in the USA. I'm thankful that I had the
opportunity to serve this country and all I want is to be able
to take advantage of its natural beauty and bounty. Thank you,
and semper fi, Eric Kronold.''
I agree with my constituent and looked into whether or not
Federal land management agencies offer discounted passes to
veterans. While they do for senior citizens and permanently
disabled individuals, they do not offer discount passes for
veterans. I find that to be an oversight in our Federal policy.
I think it is, to say the least.
In the last Congress, Congressman Tom Reynolds of New York
introduced legislation to create the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass.
My legislation is a companion to his in the 110th Congress.
Both bills would create a new Federal access pass for the
honorably discharged veterans at an annual fee of $10. Without
this legislation, the pass would cost $80 for veterans.
On so many levels, the discount is the right thing to do
for veterans who have returned home, whether it be from Baghdad
this year or from Berlin a generation ago. This bill is one of
common sense and it is supported by the American Legion, who's
testifying today, AMVETS, and the VFW.
I'm frankly surprised that the administration testified in
opposition to this bill last Congress. The Department of the
Interior has begun offering free entrance for veterans to
Federal parks on Veterans Day in November. But at Trader Lake
in Oregon, no one is charged an entrance fee after October
because of heavy snow. So the gesture is appreciated, but in
reality no more than a gesture in many areas of the country.
The Senate is currently authorizing the military spending
for Iraq and Afghanistan. My bill here does not answer the
larger policy questions being asked about our military actions,
but my bill does coalesce around something we all support, the
treatment of our troops when they come home.
If a veteran wants to take his family to one of the crown
jewels of the Nation, the Nation he helped to protect, the
least we can do is offer a discount. To that extent, I
wholeheartedly agree with those, including Senator Craig, who
have suggested that this bill be expanded to include active
duty personnel.
I again thank the chair for holding today's hearing and
look forward to working toward the passage of this bill.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Smith.
Now let me call on Senator Thune for your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I want to express my appreciation
to you for holding this hearing to consider my bill that
extends the authorization for establishing a memorial in the
District of Columbia to honor veterans who become disabled
while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. I
appreciate very much the bipartisan support for this bill from
Senators Dorgan, Snow, and Johnson, and I want to thank you
again for the opportunity to briefly testify in support of the
bill.
Washington is home to many memorials and monuments honoring
the people who have made this country great. A memorial
honoring our disabled veterans would be an appropriate and
important addition. Recognizing the service and sacrifice of
our Nation's 3 million disabled veterans is particularly timely
as soldiers return home with injuries from the battles in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
One concern I often hear about establishing this memorial
is that funding the memorial would take money away from
veterans' benefits and programs. That's why I want to emphasize
that the establishment of this memorial will be paid for
strictly by private donations. No taxpayer funds will be
expended by the enactment of this bill or in the construction
of the memorial. Disabled Veterans Life Memorial Foundation is
doing good work in raising the necessary funds to construct the
memorial, but more time is needed to complete this important
work, as the current authorization for the memorial expires in
October of this year.
Passage of this bill would allow for more time to complete
the memorial by extending the authorization to October 24 in
the year 2015. The original bill authorizing the establishment
of this memorial passed the Senate by unanimous consent in
October 2000, and because any legislative authority for a
commemorative work expires at the end of a 7-year period, in
this case a few months from now, it is important that we pass
this bill as expeditiously as possible.
Establishing this memorial will demonstrate our Nation's
commitment to those veterans who have been disabled in battle.
As you know, the House has already passed an identical version
of this bill by a vote of 390 to nothing. I look forward to
working with you to advance this bill through the Senate and I
respectfully urge the subcommittee to quickly approve the bill.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing
and for the opportunity to appear before the committee in
support of it.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. I
certainly would be happy to sit with you and see how quickly we
can move it.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your testimony.
Senator Durbin wanted to be here today, but he has an
Appropriations Committee markup that is taking place at the
same time as this hearing. He has submitted a statement in
support of S. 995, the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area,
which will be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard J. Durbin, U.S. Senator From
Illinois
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on
S. 955, a bill to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area.
I would also like to thank Tom Martin, the Chairman of the Looking for
Lincoln Heritage Coalition, for coming to Washington, DC this afternoon
to testify on behalf of this bill.
I am proud to have introduced this bill on behalf of Senator Obama
and myself. I serve, along with Representative LaHood, as co-chair of
the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which is tasked with
planning the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth.
The purpose of this legislation is to create a National Heritage
Area in Illinois that formally ties together natural, historic,
cultural and recreational resources in Illinois that have been touched
by the life and influence of the Nation's greatest President--Abraham
Lincoln. Scattered throughout the central Illinois landscape are
countless places where Lincoln traveled, worked, and lived. The
creation of this Heritage Area will give all those who visit a deeper
understanding of the places and experiences that shaped Abraham Lincoln
into the man and he was and the President he became.
This legislation was developed through the efforts of the Looking
for Lincoln Coalition that has been working for over seven years to
establish a cohesive group of historic, natural and cultural resources
that tell the Lincoln story for the enrichment and education of current
and future generations. The coalition has worked diligently with all
stakeholders, including local citizens, community groups and all levels
of government to establish the Abraham Lincoln Heritage Area. They have
formed private public partnerships to aid local communities in
exploring their connections to Lincoln and restoring their cultural and
natural sites.
In 1858, the Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 7 locations
across Illinois. Both Lincoln and Douglas were noted for their
eloquence at these debates, which revolved almost exclusively around
slavery.
The Looking for Lincoln Coalition brought together the seven
communities in which these debates were held and facilitated an
integrated, yet individual, collection of sites for visitors to
explore. At the Charleston site, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Museum
offers interpretative exhibits about the debates.
The debates hold an important place in Illinois history, but also
in our nation's history. The great orators drew visitors from
neighboring states and received national press coverage.
Today, the world also benefits from the messages that are spread
with the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, his passion for and eloquence about
the ideas of equality, opportunity and freedom. As the people of
Illinois work to preserve Lincoln's history, we invite the world to
come to Illinois and learn not just about the history of this great
man, but also about what he can teach us today.
The impact of the life and works of Illinois's favorite son extends
far beyond the prairies of the Midwest. In a sense, the Land of Lincoln
is anywhere that people dream of freedom and equality and opportunity
for all.
By establishing a national heritage area in Illinois, we can share
our knowledge and interpretation of Lincoln's life and contributions
with all who visit our state.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify on behalf of S.
955.
Senator Akaka. We also have received a statement from
Senator Dodd in support of his bill, S. 1182, which will be
included in the record as well.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, U.S. Senator
From Connecticut
Chairman Akaka and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of S.1182, the Quinebaug and
Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Amendments Act of
2007. I would like first to acknowledge the absence of Senator Thomas;
this is the first hearing of the Subcommittee since his passing. Today
we remember his dedication and service to Wyoming and the country, not
least in his capacity here on the Subcommittee.
I am pleased to be the sponsor, along with cosponsors Senators
Lieberman, Kerry, and Kennedy, of this bill to extend the authorization
of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor
(QSHC). The QSHC was first established in 1994 as the fifth National
Heritage Corridor. It is commonly known as ``The Last Green Valley,'' a
rare rural landscape in the populous Northeast, and it stands out in
night images from space for its absence of lights. The corridor
contains aboriginal and colonial archaeological sites, mills and mill
villages that preserve the history of the early industrial revolution,
and traditional farming communities. The QSHC non-profit management
entity has restored architecturally and historically important
buildings, established interpretive projects, and developed
conservation and open space plans.
As one of the earliest Heritage Areas, the QSHC has been a pioneer.
In its first four years, it received federal funding of only $800,000.
Fortunately, the QSHC was able to match those funds with $7.38 million
from state, local, and private sources. That success is a long-running
trend and a testament to its deep-seated popularity: For every $1 of
federally appropriated funds, the QSHC has leveraged an average of $19
more.
In 1999, the QSHC expanded to include contiguous towns in
Massachusetts, and now consists of 35 municipalities dedicated to
preserving a unique slice of our American heritage. And in developing a
plan to become a self-sustaining entity by 2015, as laid out in ``The
Trail to 2015: A Sustainability Plan for the Last Green Valley,'' the
QSHC is a pioneer again. This plan calls for replacing Federal funds
with fees for services, private and corporate support, and income from
a permanent fund. But until sustainability is achieved, federal funds
are still necessary for capacity-building, awareness programs, and
ongoing education of land-use decision-makers.
Mr. Chairman, the QSHC is a unique and precious area, and with an
extension of its authorization, this Subcommittee has the chance to
protect its existence for perpetuity. I urge the members of the
Subcommittee to support this bill: to support the QSHC and the goal of
a self-sustaining Heritage Area. Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Akaka. Testifying on behalf of the administration
this afternoon, may I call on administration witnesses to come
forward: Kate Stevenson, the Acting Associate Director for
Business Services for the National Park Service. Kate has
testified before the subcommittee many times previously and
we're glad to have her back today.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Will you please proceed with your testimony
on all of the bills, summarizing as much as possible. We have
copies of your written statements and they will all be included
in the hearing record. After you have finished, we will turn to
a round of questions.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on the eight bills before you.
Let me start right off with Senate bill 488, the Carl
Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment. The
Department supports this bill and requests to work with the
committee to make minor changes to make the bill more
consistent with the general management plan and other recent
boundary expansion bills.
Senate 617, the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass. In 2005 the
Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
and established the America the Beautiful Pass. Sales of that
inter-agency pass have just begun in January of this year. As
part of the discussion leading to FLREA and the previous bills,
several worthy groups were considered for discounts. Ultimately
Congress decided to offer a discounted pass to senior citizens
and to disabled citizens, including veterans.
In 2006 the Department established a fee-free day for
veterans and their families on Veterans Day. We propose to
extend that fee-free day to all active duty military personnel
and to their families for Veterans Day.
S. 824, the Disabled Veterans Memorial. The Department
supports enactment of this bill to extend the time available to
the Disabled Veterans Life Foundation to establish the
memorial.
S. 955, the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area. The
Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition submitted to the
National Park Service a feasibility study to designate this
heritage area. The study concluded that the region met all of
the criteria for designation as a national heritage area.
Nevertheless, we recommend that the committee defer action on
this and all other heritage area designations until program
legislation for heritage areas is enacted.
In addition, we recommend that this and other heritage area
bills include the requirement that 3 years prior to the
cessation of Federal funding the Secretary conduct an
evaluation of the accomplishments, sustainability, and future
of the heritage areas.
S. 1148, the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial
Commemoration. The Department supports the bill, but has
concerns about certain appointment provisions and will transmit
to the committee language to address those concerns.
S. 1182, the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley Heritage
Area. The Department believes it is premature to consider this
bill as the heritage corridor has 2 years remaining on its
authorization. Also, the Department would like the time to
review and make recommendations on the evaluation by the
corridor that details its accomplishments and presents a plan
for the future.
S. 1380, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and
Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act. The Department cannot
support the bill unless it is amended to address our concerns
related to the Grand River Ditch. The provisions of the bill
related to the Grand Ditch go beyond ensuring that the ditch
operations are not affected by the designation of wilderness
and grant the owners of the ditch significant privileges,
exemptions from existing law, release from their own prior
agreements with the United States, which were reaffirmed as
recently as 2000, and authorize a potential windfall profit by
allowing a change in the use of the water.
The Department would like to continue to work with the
committee and the Water Supply and Storage Company to reach a
solution.
Finally, S. 1728, to reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-
Honokohau Advisory Commission. The Department supports
enactment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I'd be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Stevenson follow:]
Prepared Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Acting Assistant
Director, Business Services, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior
s. 1182
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1182, a bill to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley
National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994. S. 1182 would increase the
ceiling on appropriations to the heritage area from $10,000,000 to
$15,000,000 and extend the termination date of the Secretary of the
Interior's financial commitment from September 30, 2009 to September
30, 2015.
The Department believes it is premature to consider S. 1182 based
on the fact that the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National
Heritage Corridor has two years remaining on its authorization and the
Department also would like time to review and make recommendations on
the evaluation recently completed by the Corridor that details its
accomplishments and provides a plan for its future. Therefore, the
Department opposes S. 1182 at this time.
Less than a year ago, there were 27 heritage areas. Today, there
are 37. Our understanding is that national heritage areas are locally
driven grassroots efforts to preserve resources that were intended to
operate independent of Federal funding at the end of the authorization
period. While the National Park Service would continue to support the
heritage areas through technical assistance, the heritage areas were to
be largely self-sufficient after an initial period of financial
assistance from NPS. This was the understanding, particularly for those
heritage areas created or reauthorized since 1996.
The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage
Corridor, also known as The Last Green Valley, was authorized in 1994
and comprised 25 communities in northeastern Connecticut. It began
receiving federal funding in 1996 with appropriations through 2007
totaling $6,303,750. It became the first national heritage area to be
managed by a non-profit organization, the Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage
Corridor, Inc. Its first plan, Vision to Reality: A Management Plan,
was completed in 1997.
In 1999, the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National
Heritage Corridor (QSHC) was expanded to include 10 additional
communities in its watershed in Connecticut and Massachusetts, making
it the second bi-state national heritage area in the country. At the
same time, its original seven-year authorization was extended through
2009 and a new ceiling of $10,000,000 was authorized with an annual
amount not to exceed $1,000,000, in keeping with other similar national
heritage areas. At that time, Vision 2010: A Plan for the Next Ten
Years was completed, along with the Interpretive Initiative for the
Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor. With
the additional federal investment and larger regional focus, many
successful programs were initiated.
The National Park System Advisory Board in its report entitled
Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas recognized the important
role of national heritage areas in expanding conservation stewardship
and in identifying and preserving significant historic resources. The
report also recognized that national heritage areas need a legislative
foundation that establishes a clear process for designation,
administration, and evaluation to become self-sufficient.
The Administration's proposal for national heritage area program
legislation, which was transmitted to Congress in July 2006, would
provide such a framework. Bills were introduced in the 109th Congress
(S. 243, H.R. 760 and H.R. 6287) that incorporated the majority of the
provisions of the Administration's proposal, and S. 243 passed the
Senate. During the 110th Congress, a similar heritage area program
bill, S. 278, has been introduced.
The proposed legislative framework recommended that, three years
prior to the cessation of Federal funding, the Secretary conduct an
evaluation and prepare a report on the accomplishments, sustainability,
and recommendations, if any, for the future of a designated national
heritage area. This evaluation would examine the accomplishments of the
heritage area in meeting the goals of the management plan; analyze the
leveraging and impact of investments to the heritage area; identify the
critical components of the management structure and sustainability of
the heritage area; and recommend what future role, if any, the NPS
should have with respect to the heritage area.
Under its existing authorization, the QSHC will continue to receive
annual federal funding for two more years. During last year's hearing
on another reauthorization bill for the area, the Department
recommended that the area begin to evaluate how it will sustain its
efforts to protect resources when federal funding ends in 2009. To this
end, the QSHC has recently completed an evaluation on the heritage area
that included extensive public input during the process, but the NPS
has not had a chance to officially review the study.
The nearly 1,100-square miles of The Last Green Valley provide a
challenge to cohesive and engaging regional interpretation of natural
and historical resources. Over the past several years, QSHC has
developed a number of interpretive strategies to educate residents and
visitors alike, while providing an entertaining base from which to
generate tourism. For example, Last Green Valley Ventures is a program
that (1) circulates people and information throughout the region; (2)
provides adequate visitor services, orientation to The Last Green
Valley and interpretation of the many regional themes; (3) assures
quality, consistency and hospitality; and (4) collects important
statistical data to inform future marketing and programming. The
program combines current assets of The Last Green Valley, the
compendium of existing research and support brochures, the
complimenting businesses offering unique experiences, and partners from
public and private sectors into one cohesive product.
Last Green Valley Ventures also dovetails with an on-line
educational resources guide, Valley Quest, used by regional educators,
parents and youth group leaders to educate and inspire the future
stewards of the QSHC.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
s. 488 and h. r. 1100
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on s. 488 & H.R. 1100, bills that would
expand the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site
(site) in the State of North Carolina.
S. 488 and H.R. 1100 would authorize the acquisition, from willing
sellers, of interests in 115 acres of land for addition to the Carl
Sandburg Home National Historic Site. The bills would also authorize
the use of up to 5 of these 115 acres for a visitor center and parking
facilities.
The Department supports both of these bills, but would like to work
with the committee to amend S. 488 to make it identical to H.R. 1100.
At a hearing on April 17, 2007 in the House of Representatives, the
Department testified in support of H.R. 1100, and then worked with the
House subcommittee to make minor changes to make the bill more
consistent with the site's 2003 General Management Plan and other
recent boundary expansion bills. An amended version of H.R. 1100,
containing the changes the department had suggested, passed the House
of Representatives on May 23, 2007.
These bills would authorize acquiring lands or easements for the
park that are estimated to cost between $300,000 and $2.25 million.
Management of these new lands is estimated to cost less than $10,000
annually. These acquired lands could be used for a visitor center,
estimated to cost about $3 million, but that project, as well as the
costs for land acquisition, would be subject to the budget
prioritization process of the NPS. Annual operation of a visitor center
is expected to cost $345,000. The costs of operating a shuttle are not
known at this time. No funding has yet been identified for any of these
costs.
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site currently includes 264
acres of Connemura Farm, an estate purchased by Sandburg in 1945 near
the pre-Civil War resort town of Flat Rock, North Carolina. Following
Sandburg's death in 1967, his wife deeded the estate to the Federal
government. The National Historic Site was authorized one year later,
in 1968.
Sandburg, though perhaps best known for his poetry celebrating the
lives of common American people, was also a Pulitzer prize-winning
biographer of Abraham Lincoln, a children's author, and a collector of
folk music. Fellow author H.L. Mencken declared that Sandburg was
``indubitably an American in every pulse-beat.''
Acquisition of 110 of the 115 acres proposed in S. 488 and H.R.
1100 would protect the view that Carl Sandburg and his neighbors
enjoyed from Big Glassy Mountain. Big Glassy overlook is the highest
point at the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site and a popular
stop for visitors. Sandburg and his family often visited this granite
outcrop to enjoy its stunning views of surrounding mountains and
valleys. The majority of the overlook is within the authorized park
boundary. However, the overlook precipice as well as the view below it,
lies on private property outside the authorized boundary. Purchasing
conservation easements or fee simple property rights from willing
sellers would protect the overlook and views from the mountain in
perpetuity.
The National Park Service contacted each landowner that holds an
interest in the 110 acres proposed for acquisition during the planning
process for the site's 2003 General Management Plan. The State of North
Carolina purchased 22 acres within the proposed expansion to protect it
until the National Park Service can acquire it. All of the other owners
agreed to have their parcels included in the map and proposal to expand
the park.
The acquisition of 5 acres for a visitor center and parking lot
would help to solve traffic and safety problems along Little River
Road, the thoroughfare that forms the site's northern boundary and
provides excellent views of the site's pastures, barns, and Side Lake.
When the site's existing parking area is full, vehicles enter and exit
from Little River Road, searching for an open space. Some visitors park
on the shoulder of Little River Road and walk to the site. The presence
of park vehicles, pedestrians, and speeding traffic on Little River
Road is a hazard to all. The local community has expressed concern
about this issue, but there is no additional parking available in the
community.
To solve these problems, the site's 2003 General Management Plan
proposes acquiring up to 5 acres to build a visitor center and parking
facility. In order to protect the historic character of the site, the
National Park Service would like this facility to be located outside
both the existing boundary and the 110 acres that are proposed to
protect the overlook and views from Big Glassy Mountain. A more
appropriate location would be near, but not necessarily contiguous with
the park's boundary, perhaps fronting Little River Road or Highway 225.
The Village of Flat Rock, North Carolina supports the proposal for a
visitor center and parking facility.
H.R. 1100 has been amended to allow the National Park Service to
acquire 5 acres ``adjacent to or in the general vicinity of'' the
site's boundary. S. 488 requires that all lands required be
``contiguous to'' the park's boundary. We would like to work with the
committee to amend S. 488 to make it consistent with H.R. 1100 and the
park's 2003 General Management Plan.
S. 488 applies boundary expansion criteria from the 1978 National
Parks and Recreation Act. In the 29 years since that Act was signed
into law, Congressional committees and the National Park Service have
developed and refined these criteria. These refined criteria are used
in the version of H.R. 1100 that is being considered by the
subcommittee. We would like to work with the subcommittee to amend S.
488 to make it identical to H.R. 1100.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee
might have.
s. 824 and h.r. 995
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 824 and H.R. 995, bills to amend Public Law 106-
348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the
District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became
disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The
Department supports enactment of this legislation.
S. 824 and H.R. 995 would authorize an additional eight years for
the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation (Foundation) to
establish the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in the
District of Columbia. This memorial was authorized on October 24, 2000
and the extension would extend the authority to October 24, 2015. The
authority to establish the memorial will expire on October 24, 2007 if
the Foundation has not secured a permit to begin construction from the
National Park Service (NPS) before that date.
The Foundation has proceeded in a professional and responsible
manner in all aspects of the memorial process. The site was approved in
2001, the design concept was approved in 2004, and the Foundation
continues to seek the direction and advice of the NPS, the National
Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts in
developing the design of the memorial. We look forward to productive
meetings with both commissions as the design nears completion.
The Foundation proposes to build the memorial on two acres across
Washington Avenue from the U.S. Botanic Gardens and just east of the
Department of Health and Human Services headquarters building. The
triangular-shaped site is bounded by Second Street to the west,
Washington Avenue to the east, and the I-395 tunnel portals on the
south. The property was managed by the District of Columbia until
December 15, 2006. The site was then transferred to the National Park
Service under the terms of the Federal and District of Columbia
Government Real Property Act of 2006.
In 2004, the Foundation proceeded to the point of developing its
approved design concept but could move no further until the management
of the property was determined. Valuable planning time for the memorial
was lost while this legislation was under consideration in the 109th
Congress. Given the legislative delay as well as the unique aspects of
this site and the need to revise traffic patterns in order to achieve
both a site worthy of this memorial and the proper urban design in the
context of both the U.S. Capitol and the U.S. Botanic Gardens, we feel
it is fair to allow the Foundation additional time beyond the four
months that now remain available to the Foundation to continue
fundraising and complete the design development. We have every
expectation that groundbreaking for the memorial will occur within the
time period this proposed extension will allow.
There are four instances where similar extensions of time have been
granted for the completion of truly superior memorials that the
Department manages. They are the memorials to Women in Military Service
for America, George Mason, World War II, and Victims of Communism.
Extensions also have been granted for the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Memorial, and we are currently working with the Martin Luther King,
Jr., Memorial Foundation in the development of the design in
consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission and the
Commission of Fine Arts.
The Department has enjoyed an excellent working relationship with
the Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation and we are confident
that this extension is an appropriate action and worthy of your
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
s. 1728
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1728, a
bill to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to
reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili o Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1728. This legislation,
which would reestablish the advisory commission for Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park for ten years, would enable the National Park
Service to benefit from the advice and counsel of Hawaiian residents
who have expertise in Native Hawaiian language, history, and cultural
arts during a period when the park will be engaged in projects critical
to the interpretation of traditional Native Hawaiian activities and
culture.
``Na Hoa Pili o Kaloko-Honokohau,'' which means ``Friends of
Kaloko-Honokhau,'' is the name of the advisory commission that was
authorized for ten years as part of the original 1978 authorization for
the park (Public Law 95-625), and that was reestablished for ten years,
after a lapse, in 1996 (Public Law 104-333). S. 1728 would authorize
the reestablishment of the commission effective upon the date of
enactment, to last until December 31, 2017. The composition, purpose,
and responsibilities of the commission would remain as provided for
under existing law.
From the beginning, the law has provided for the commission to
advise the National Park Service with respect to the historical,
archeological, cultural, and interpretive programs of the park,
affording particular emphasis to the quality of traditional Native
Hawaiian culture demonstrated in the park. It was helpful to have the
commission's sound, pragmatic, and critical advice on these matters
during the initial stages of establishing the park. It will be equally
helpful to receive such advice over the next decade, particularly on
two major projects--design and construction of traditional structures
that will serve as a cultural center, and completion of the restoration
of the historic Kaloko fishpond.
The advisory commission would provide advice in the planning and
design of the thatched structures made of local natural materials that
will house traditional Native Hawaiian cultural activities. Once the
structures are built, the commission would provide guidance in the
interpretation of cultural activities, make recommendations on the
preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional Native
Hawaiian culture, and facilitate the participation of Native Hawaiians,
especially the kupuna, or elders, in activities.
The commission would also continue to provide advice concerning the
reconstruction and interpretation of the centuries-old fishpond, an
enclosure contained by 30-foot-wide stone seawalls, where restorers are
practicing the native traditional masonry work under the guidance of
some of the finest masons in Hawaii. This impressive reconstruction
represents both the general cultural significance of fishponds and the
uniqueness of engineering and management skills of Native Hawaiians.
The commission would help ensure that the significance of the fishpond
to Native Hawaiian culture and history is fully and accurately
interpreted.
The advisory commission has been instrumental in facilitating the
collaborative partnership that the National Park Service has developed
with the Native Hawaiian community. With enactment of S. 1728, we will
look forward to another decade of assistance from the commission in
fulfilling the mandate of the enabling legislation for the park--the
preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional Native
Hawaiian activities and culture, the demonstration of historic land use
patterns, and the provision of education, enjoyment, and appreciation
of such traditional Native Hawaiian activities and culture by local
residents and visitors.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
s. 617
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 617, the Veterans Eagle Parks
Pass Act. The legislation would require the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture to make the National Parks and Federal Recreational
Lands Pass available at a cost of $10 to any veteran separated from
military service under conditions other than dishonorable.
In the 108th Congress, Congress enacted the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (Public Law 108-447) (REA), a major overhaul
of the fee system that governs the National Park System, the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System, certain public
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and recreational
lands administered by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Our federal lands provide Americans and visitors from around the
world special places for recreation, education, reflection, and solace.
Public lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior
hosted over 470 million recreation visits. Ensuring that the federal
lands continue to play this important role in American life and culture
requires that we maintain visitor facilities and services and enhance
visitor opportunities. Such efforts require a source of funding with
which we can quickly respond to increases in visitor demand. Recreation
fee revenues are a critical source of such supplemental funding that
significantly enhance our efforts to address the deferred maintenance
backlog at our National Parks, better manage other federal lands, and
respond quickly to changes in visitation levels and service
requirements.
REA established a new multi-agency America the Beautiful-National
Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass (the new pass) to cover
entrance fees for NPS and FWS and standard amenity recreation fees for
BLM, Forest Service, and BOR, generally for a period of 12 months.
Sales of the new passes began in January 2007 after an extensive
interagency planning process. The new passes are more convenient to
purchase, are more durable, and are designed with a collectible image
of public lands. All new passes are now available to the public at
thousands of interagency field sites. Annual passes, brochures,
hangtags and decals also are available via the internet, by calling a
toll free phone number and through select third-party vendors. Revenue
from the sale of the new passes is used to improve visitor services and
protect resources.
As the Congress considered establishing the new pass, discussion
occurred about which groups of people might be eligible for discounted
passes. At one time, legislation was introduced to provide free passes
to all September 11, 2001 responders and their families. Other groups
have also been suggested as potential groups to be considered for
discounts. However, at that time, a decision was made ultimately by
Congress to offer a discounted pass to senior citizens and a free
lifetime pass to U.S. citizens or persons who permanently reside in the
United States and who have a medical determination and documentation of
blindness or permanent disability, including disabled veterans. We
agree with this approach.
Veterans have made tremendous contributions to this country, and we
honor their service. Many National Park System units, including all of
the memorials within the District of Columbia and the USS Arizona
Memorial in Hawaii do not charge fees as required by law. Many other
parks and National Wildlife Refuges, as well as most BLM and U.S.
Forest Service locations do not charge fees.
In 2006, in lieu of establishing a discount pass for Veterans, the
Department of the Interior established an entrance fee-free day for all
veterans and their accompanying family members on Veterans Day each
year. We would like to extend the entrance fee-free day to all active
duty military personnel and their family members, effective November
11, 2007, and on each subsequent Veterans Day as an additional way to
recognize them and thank them for their service. We understand the
Secretary of Agriculture supports adopting this same policy with regard
to standard amenity recreation fee sites managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. We believe this is an appropriate way to honor all those who
have served and are currently providing military service to our country
without creating a precedent for carving out exceptions to the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which was carefully developed to
provide a comprehensive approach to fee management.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
s. 955
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
955, a bill to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area in
the State of Illinois.
In 1998, the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Project, a grassroots
organization in central Illinois, coordinated a community effort to
promote tourism, using the various aspects of Abraham Lincoln's life.
It initially focused on single projects and strategic planning with a
variety of public and private resources to help local communities
research their connections to Lincoln and his times. However, as they
moved forward, the scope of the project broadened to identify and
promote the various natural, social, and cultural landscapes that made
up Lincoln's life. As a result, work toward developing a National
Heritage Area (NHA) began with the idea that the National Park
Service's Lincoln Home National Historic Site and the future Abraham
Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum would serve as the central
core.
The Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition submitted a feasibility
study to designate the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area to the
National Park Service for review. The study concluded that the region
met all of the criteria for designation as a NHA. Nevertheless, we
recommend that the committee defer action on S. 955 and all other
proposed heritage area designations until program legislation is
enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for the designation
of NHAs.
Last year, the Administration sent to Congress a legislative
proposal to establish guidelines and a process for designation. Bills
were introduced in the 109th Congress (S. 243, H.R. 760 and H.R. 6287)
that incorporated the majority of the provisions of the
Administration's proposal, and S. 243 passed the Senate. During the
110th Congress, a similar heritage area program bill, S. 278, has been
introduced, and we look forward to continuing to work with Congress on
this very important issue.
With 37 national heritage areas designated across 27 states, and
more heritage area legislative proposals in the pipeline, the
Administration believes it is critical at this juncture for Congress to
enact NHA program legislation. This legislation would provide a much-
needed framework for evaluating proposed NHAs, offering guidelines for
successful planning and management, clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes and
funding for designated areas. Program legislation also would clarify
the expectation that heritage areas work toward self-sufficiency by
outlining the necessary steps, including appropriate planning, to
achieve that shared goal.
S. 955 establishes the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area in a
core area defined by 42 counties in central Illinois. We expect that
the final boundary may be a more manageable size. The area includes
rich opportunities where visitors may experience the physical
environment of rivers, woodlands, and prairies familiar to Abraham
Lincoln and his generation. There are many cultural and historic sites,
including the Lincoln Tomb State Historic Site, the Lincoln Home
National Historic Site, the Lincoln Douglas Debate Museum, the Abraham
Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum, and a broad diversity of
folklife throughout the ``Land of Lincoln.''
S. 955 designates the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition as the
management entity and outlines its duties. The bill also authorizes the
development of a management plan within three years of enactment and
authorizes the use of federal funds to develop and implement that plan.
If the plan is not submitted within three years of enactment of this
Act, the NHA becomes ineligible for federal funding until a plan is
submitted to the Secretary. Additionally, the Secretary may, at the
request of the management entity, provide technical assistance and
enter into cooperative agreements with other public and private
entities.
S. 955 also contains safeguards to protect private property,
including a prohibition on the use of federal funds to acquire real
property. The bill proposes no new restrictions with regard to public
use and access to private property.
Abraham Lincoln was an itinerate lawyer who traveled extensively
through a large region in central Illinois. Hours spent riding through
the area, mostly by horseback, bonded the man and the landscape
together. The region tells the comprehensive story of this important
man, lawyer, husband, father, and our nation's 16th President. It is
here that Abraham Lincoln pondered this nation, formed his convictions,
and even created his debate platform for the now famous Lincoln-Douglas
debates still resounding across this region through continued dialog of
the same themes.
Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd, owned only one home in the
heart of Illinois, and it is here that he returned for his permanent
rest. The home itself and the neighborhood describe an emotional
Abraham Lincoln, who opened his farewell remarks to the citizens of
Springfield, Illinois on February 11, 1861 with these words: ``My
friends--No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of
sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these
people, I owe everything.'' He might very well have been speaking to
friends and neighbors he had met with and represented as their lawyer
throughout the 24 years he had ridden throughout the region. Lincoln
left the home he and his family had lived in for 17 years to serve as
president of a nation on the verge of a civil war.
While the proposed Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area contains
significant natural, historical, and cultural resources, we would again
request that the committee defer action until national heritage area
program legislation is enacted.
If the Committee chooses to move forward with this bill, the
Department would recommend that the bill be amended to include an
additional requirement for an evaluation to be conducted by the
Secretary, three years prior to the cessation of federal funding under
this act. The evaluation would examine the accomplishments of the
heritage area in meeting the goals of the management plan; analyze the
leveraging and impact of investments to the heritage area; identify the
critical components of the management structure and sustainability of
the heritage area; and recommend what future role, if any, the National
Park Service should have with respect to the heritage area.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
s. 1148
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 1148, a bill to provide for the
establishment of the Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration
Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission.
The Department supports this bill. The Department of Justice has
advised us that it has constitutional concerns about certain
appointment provisions in sections 102(b) and 202(b) of the bill and
will transmit amendments at a later date to resolve these concerns.
S. 1148 provides for the establishment of two separate commissions
to undertake activities celebrating the contributions of Samuel de
Champlain, and those of Henry Hudson and Robert Fulton to the history
of our nation. The French explorer, Samuel de Champlain, was the first
European to discover and explore what is now called Lake Champlain in
1609. Henry Hudson, as the master of the vessel Half Moon, was the
first European to sail up the river that now bears his name, also in
1609. In 1807, Robert Fulton navigated up the same river between New
York City and Albany in the steamboat Claremont, revolutionizing the
method of waterborne transportation and influencing forever commerce,
the world's navies, and transoceanic travel and trade.
Title I would establish the Champlain Quadricentennial
Commemoration Commission, composed of 11 members, who would be
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Four of the members would
be from among individuals serving on the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain
Commission of the State of New York and residents of the Champlain
Valley, and four members would be from among individuals serving on the
Champlain Quadricentennial Commission of the State of Vermont and
residents of Vermont.
Title II would establish the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration
Commission, composed of 16 members, would be appointed by the
Secretary, six of whom would be after consideration of nominations from
members of the House of Representatives whose districts encompass the
Hudson River Valley, two after consideration of nominations submitted
by members of the U.S. Senate from the State of New York, and two after
consideration of the recommendations of the Mayor of the City of New
York and consultation with members of the House of Representatives
whose districts encompass the City of New York.
The duties of the respective Commissions are to plan, develop, and
execute appropriate commemorative actions, coordinate with federal and
state entities, promote scholarly research, and encourage a wide range
of organizations to participate in activities and expand understanding
and appreciation of the significance of the voyages of these three men.
They are granted broad powers to accomplish these tasks. Both are also
to coordinate their respective efforts with each other to ensure that
the commemorations conducted pursuant to the legislation are consistent
with the plans of the commemorative commissions established by the
States of New York and Vermont.
The bill provides annual funding authorizations of $500,000 for
each commission to be available until expended. Specific allocations of
funds to be expended by the commissions are also included. The
Champlain Commission's authorized appropriations between fiscal years
2008 and 2011 shall be expended with 45% going to activities in New
York; 45% for activities in Vermont; and 10% for other activities in
accordance with purposes of the legislation. The Commission will
terminate on December 31, 2010. The Hudson-Fulton Commission's
authorized appropriations, also between fiscal year 2008 and 2011,
shall be expended with 80% for activities in the Hudson River Valley;
10% for activities in the City of New York; and 10% for other
activities in accordance with the purposes of the legislation. This
Commission will also terminate on December 31, 2010.
Both commissions are authorized to solicit, accept, use, and
dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of real money or other real or
personal property for use in aiding or facilitating their work. Both
are also authorized to appoint advisory committees as they determine
necessary for carrying out the purposes of the legislation.
Back in the 108th Congress, the Department testified on a similar
bill to establish the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Commission. During that
hearing, the Department raised three concerns we had with the bill.
First, we were concerned about size of the commission that numbered 31
members. Second, we recommended that the bill clearly state that the
commission was authorized to accept monetary donations to accomplish
its purposes. And third, we recommended that the authorization of
appropriations to the commission be capped. S. 1148 integrates all
three of our recommended amendments.
The persons and events associated with the explorations of Lake
Champlain and the Hudson River, and the inauguration of steam powered
water-borne transportation form significant elements in our nation's
history. As we commemorate the contributions of Samuel de Champlain,
Henry Hudson and Robert Fulton, citizens of the United States and those
abroad will come to have a better understanding of their impacts on
early exploration, navigation, our national heritage, and the
development of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
s. 1380
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Administration's views on S. 1380, a bill to
designate as wilderness certain land within the Rocky Mountain National
Park and to adjust the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and
the Arapaho National Recreation Area of the Arapaho National Forest in
the State of Colorado.
The Administration cannot support S. 1380 unless amended to address
our concerns regarding the provisions related to the Grand River Ditch
as described in this testimony. The Department of the Interior
testified in support of a similar bill, S. 1510, at a hearing held
before this subcommittee on April 6, 2006. That bill did not contain
the Grand River Ditch provisions.
S. 1380 would designate approximately 249,339 acres of Rocky
Mountain National Park's back country in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. This represents approximately 95% of the park's
total acreage, lands that currently are managed as wilderness. In
addition, S. 1380 would exclude lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch
from wilderness, change the liability standard for future damage to
park resources resulting from operation and maintenance of the ditch,
enable the Water Supply and Storage Company to convert its Grand River
Ditch water rights to other uses, make adjustments to the Indian Peaks
Wilderness and Arapaho National Recreation Area, both administered by
the U.S. Forest Service, and give the National Park Service (NPS) the
authority to lease the Lieffer tract.
In 1964, Congress designated Rocky Mountain National Park as a
wilderness study area. In 1974, President Nixon recommended to Congress
239,835 acres for immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential
designation as wilderness in the park. The increased acreage amount
included in S. 1380 is based on modifications brought about by land
acquisition and boundary adjustments since 1974.
Present road, water, and utility corridors, and all developed
areas, are excluded from recommended wilderness. Wilderness designation
would not alter any current visitor activities or access within the
park, and would allow visitors to utilize the park in the same ways and
locations that they presently enjoy.
Federal reserved water rights for park purposes are not an issue
related to wilderness designation as water rights for the park have
been adjudicated through the State of Colorado water courts.
Consequently, no water rights claims for wilderness purposes are needed
or desired by the NPS.
After holding public meetings on the proposed designation in June
2005, the gateway communities of Estes Park and Grand Lake, and the
counties of Grand and Larimer, endorsed wilderness designation for
Rocky Mountain National Park, subject to specific boundary
modifications on the west boundary of the park. These modifications,
which have been incorporated in S. 1380, would provide an area of non-
wilderness around the Town of Grand Lake in order to ensure that the
park could continue to actively manage hazardous fuels and other uses
that might affect the Town. The proposed modifications would also
reserve a corridor along the east shore of Shadow Mountain and Granby
reservoirs for the possible construction of a non-motorized hike/bike
trail, which would be subject to normal NPS planning processes
including analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
In addition to excluding lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch
from wilderness, S. 1380 would allow for a change in the liability
standard for future damage to park resources resulting from operation
and maintenance of the ditch, as long as the ditch is operated and
maintained in accordance with an operations and maintenance agreement
between the NPS and the ditch's owners. This provision would alter the
protections to park resources under the Park System Resource Protection
Act (16 U.S.C 19jj) which holds any person who causes injury to park
resources liable to the United States for response costs and damages,
except in certain circumstances such as an act of God or actions by a
third party.
In 1907, and again in 2000, the owners of the ditch, the Water
Supply and Storage Company, agreed to a stipulation, in return for a
valuable right-of-way across public land and a stipulated water rights
agreement, that requires them to pay the United States for any and all
damage sustained by use of the right-of-way regardless of the cause and
circumstances.
Altering these protections to a more lenient negligence standard
for the Grand River Ditch, as proposed by S. 1310, could have serious
implications for future damage causing events resulting from the
operation of the Grand Ditch within park boundaries. Changing that
standard to a general liability standard would require the NPS to
expend scarce financial resources to prove negligence. In cases where
negligence could not be proven, the United States would pay for
response and repair costs associated with damage caused by operation of
the ditch. This could set a dangerous precedent for all national parks
and other public lands with implications far beyond the boundaries of
Rocky Mountain National Park. Also, to retroactively change the 1907
stipulation would negate a century-old agreement that the ditch's
owners have twice agreed to in exchange for valuable consideration it
has received, the right-of-way itself and the 2000 stipulated water
rights agreement.
As proposed in S. 1380, an operations and maintenance plan for the
ditch is clearly needed. However, it must be comprehensive in scope and
enforceable and should not be tied to a change in the liability
standard for the ditch. We believe that an effective plan must contain
provisions that reduce the risk of catastrophic failure of the ditch
(as occurred in 2003) that could injure park visitors and staff and
harm critical park resources. The plan should also establish clear
expectations regarding maintenance and operational issues that impact
park operations. Such a plan, if fully implemented by the operators of
the ditch, should reduce the likelihood of future breaches or damage
causing events, which we believe is in the interest of all parties and
should negate the perceived need for a change in liability protection
for the park.
S. 1380 also proposes to grant an exemption to the Water Supply and
Storage Company from the requirement in its original right-of-way grant
that the primary purpose of the ditch is for irrigation or drainage.
This proposed change would enable the Company to convert its Grand
River Ditch water rights to other uses, such as municipal use, without
risking forfeiture of the ditch right-of-way, which could represent a
significant increase in the value of the water rights for the
shareholders of the Water Supply and Storage Company.
The provisions of S. 1380 related to the Grand Ditch go beyond
ensuring that ditch operations are not affected by the designation of
wilderness and grant the owners of the ditch significant privileges and
exemptions from existing law and prior agreements with the United
States and a potential windfall by allowing a change in use of the
water. We would be happy to work with the Committee on amendments to
the bill to address our concerns related to the operations of the Grand
Ditch.
The legislation would also remove 1,000 acres of the Arapaho
National Recreation Area in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and
designate the land as an addition to the existing Indian Peaks
Wilderness Area. The Administration supports the designation of the
1,000 acre addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness.
Finally, S. 1380 would give the NPS the authority to lease the
Lieffer tract. This 12 acre tract is located outside the boundary of
Rocky Mountain National Park, was donated to the park, and lends itself
to leasing to educational institutions or other similar entities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
might have.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very, very much for your
testimony.
We'll begin with questioning. We'll have a first round of
questioning. I'd like to begin by thanking you for the Park
Service's support of S. 1728, the reauthorization of the
advisory commission at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park.
I think the extension of the commission will serve both the
local community and the Park Service as well and I appreciate
your support.
S. 617, a veterans discount for Federal lands pass. My
first question is on S. 617, which would provide for a veterans
discount for the annual Federal lands pass. Do you have any
estimate as to whether this pass would have a significant
effect on current fee revenues?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir. We anticipate that a pass such as
this would require a brand new pass. We couldn't use the
existing America the Beautiful Pass because we couldn't have
adequate controls in order to ensure that we wouldn't have
accountability problems. The production costs for a new pass
would cost someplace between $950,000 and $1.9 million.
In terms of revenue impact, of course it's impossible to
have a definite number because we'd have to know how many
passes would be bought and how many veterans would use them.
But a general guess is in the $10 to $40 million revenue impact
range. Of course, the money that comes from the passes goes
directly to the parks in which they are purchased. Eighty
percent of the revenue from each of the passes goes back to the
park.
Senator Akaka. As introduced, the bill only applies to
veterans who received--and I'm quoting--an ``other than
dishonorable discharge,'' unquote. If the committee decides to
move this bill, does the administration have an opinion whether
it should be modified to include those on active duty and if
members of the National Guard and Reserves should also be
included?
Ms. Stevenson. I think in the interest of fairness we would
agree that the Reserve and that the National Guard and active
duty personnel should be included in any such pass. Saying
that, also we recognize that it would substantially impact the
revenue that the Park Service would receive, negatively impact
it.
Senator Akaka. Your testimony includes the following
statement, and I quote: ``As Congress considered establishing
the new pass, discussion occurred about which groups of people
might be eligible for a discounted pass,'' and that ultimately
it was decided only senior citizens and those with permanent
disabilities should receive the discount.
As I recall, the new fee law was inserted in December 2004
at the urging of the administration as a late addition to the
omnibus appropriation conference report. The current law is a
successor to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Act, which also
was included as a rider to an earlier appropriations bill.
Since this is in your statement, I'm curious as to where the
discussion occurred about who should be entitled to receive a
discount.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, you are correct. However, the previous
authorizing legislation both in the fee demonstration program
and the Land and Water Conservation Fund included the two
exceptions in those bills. H.R. 3282 from the 108th Congress
had a legislative hearing before the Subcommittee on National
Parks and was marked up in the House Resources Committee. So
both the markup and the hearing provided the opportunity for
that discussion and were available to various sections of the
population.
After the discussion in the hearings, the language included
in the appropriations bill only included provisions for
disabled and senior citizens.
Senator Akaka. We'll have another round. May I call on
Senator Burr for his questions.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stevenson, thank you for your testimony. Let me ask,
how many veterans use our national parks today?
Ms. Stevenson. I don't know the direct answer to that, sir.
Senator Burr. Do you know how many veterans currently
purchase the America the Beautiful Pass?
Ms. Stevenson. No, sir.
Senator Burr. So it's actually impossible to project what
the revenue loss might be. Would you agree that if veterans
don't use the national parks today this could actually be a
revenue increase if in fact we got a large pool of veterans who
found those treasures around the country something that they
integrated into their vacation schedule?
Ms. Stevenson. I agree with you that it's impossible for us
to give you an accurate number for how many people would buy
the pass.
Senator Burr. But you're basing your opposition to this
effort based upon a cost. You started with the fact that there
would be an accountability problem. Well, you know we have no
accountability of this subgroup, which might tell us--I asked
you how many veterans use it. We don't know. I take for granted
the accountability problem is that you would have a pass out
there with no way to verify; is that what it is?
Ms. Stevenson. If we sold the America the Beautiful Pass,
which is currently an $80 pass, for $10, which is what the bill
calls for, we would have no way to tell from the people who
sold the pass whether they had sold the $80 pass for $10 with
documentation or without documentation, because we wouldn't
collect the documentation from the veterans. We rely on the fee
collectors to collect the documentation. That's what I meant in
terms of accountability.
Senator Burr. I understand.
Ms. Stevenson. That's why we'd need a separate pass.
Senator Burr. But do you agree that it's impossible to say
to the committee that this would be a loss of $10 to $40
million worth of revenue?
Ms. Stevenson. It's an estimate only, sir.
Senator Burr. I mean, it's an estimate to facilitate
further that this ought to be a 1-day free thing, a day that
you pick, versus a day that necessarily fits into what their
vacation schedule is.
Mr. Chairman, I know you have tremendous interest in
veterans issues. You weren't with us when we visited some of
our cemeteries abroad that are truly historic sites for our
country. One of the things I found as I went around is that we
don't sell them to the American people. I think to some degree
we sort of forget about our national parks, too.
Here's an excellent opportunity to take a well designated
group and to sell our parks, to sell visiting those parks, to
sell using the parks, and to do it with a group that I
personally believe deserve a discount, I might even say, even
though my dad is a senior citizen, probably more than he does,
because I can see a veteran that would use it more often than
my dad, who's 86 years old.
But somewhere we determined that that group should have a
blanket discount and they do. I would only urge the Department
of the Interior, I think that there's a way to make this happen
and there's a way to make it happen that incorporates the
ability to provide them a discount that's on their terms and
not under some terms that we pull out of the sky as far as
which day it is or how long that stay would be.
So I urge you to work with us to find a way to make this
work. There's no person in the U.S. Senate more than I that
wants to do it in a way that doesn't cost us anything, where we
don't lose revenue. But I think to hide behind the fact that
there's a revenue loss that we project when we really don't
know, versus to look at it as a $9.20 opportunity over and
above whatever we need to create for the new card so
accountability is not a problem--I dare say there would be a
lot of people in North Carolina who might do it for a lot less
than a million dollars, come up with a card that the Park
Service could sell.
I thank the chair.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka.
Thank you also, Ms. Stevenson, for testifying today. Let me
ask you some questions concerning the Rocky Mountain National
Wilderness Park legislation. Let me say that I thank the Park
Service for working closely with us as we try to move forward
with the vision that President Nixon and many since then have
shared with respect to the creation of a wilderness designation
for Rocky Mountain National Park.
Would it be fair to say, Ms. Stevenson that the National
Park Service supports the designation of Rocky Mountain
National Park as wilderness and supports the legislation,
including the Indian Peaks Wilderness addition, except for the
water issue which you raised in your testimony?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. So the only outstanding issue in terms of
the Park Service has to do with the water issue?
Ms. Stevenson. That's correct, sir.
Senator Salazar. Now let me ask you, how aware are you or
is the Park Service in terms of the dates relating to the
creation of the ditch, the Grand Ditch, and the creation of
Rocky Mountain National Park? Are you aware that the Grand
Ditch was in existence 25 years before Rocky Mountain National
Park was created, with a water right that dates back to 1891?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. So you're aware of those dates?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, and we don't have an argument about the
ditch or about the water rights. It has to do with the
liability issue.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask you some questions then on the
liability issue. I appreciate very much that you're aware of
the history of the water right, because for all of us who come
from the West and come from the arid States, we know the
importance of water. We know that water is in fact the
lifeblood of our communities of agriculture, and we know that
our water rights system is not sometimes the water rights
system that you would find in the East or you would find in
other States. So it's important to know that chronology in
terms of the water rights and the property rights that were
established way back a quarter century before Rocky Mountain
National Park was established.
In your testimony you said that one of the reasons that the
parks had concerns about this water language is that it gave
the ditch owners some kind of a windfall, of a windfall profit,
I think is what you called it. In my view, having practiced
water for many years in Colorado, I recognize that we have many
cases in our water courts where we often take water, water
rights that are property rights which have been used for
agriculture, and those are transferred over for municipal uses
or industrial uses or other kinds of uses. That happens all the
time in my State.
So I don't understand, frankly, where the Park Service is
coming from in terms of raising that issue of windfall profits.
It seems to me to make no sense.
Ms. Stevenson. I think that was more an issue of calling it
to the attention of the committee rather than it being the
major objection to the legislation. Our concern is for the
protection of the resources in Rocky Mountain National Park.
That's our highest and most significant concern.
Senator Salazar. I want to narrow down the issues with you
just a little bit here. So then the objection that you raise
where you talk about windfall profits is not a major concern of
the Park Service, because it would seem to me that you would
understand that over 110, 115 years of the existence of the
ditch that what has happened is that some of the stock in this
mutual ditch company has been acquired by some cities, such as
the city of Portland and others, and they are using that water
for municipal purposes. That's a recognized use in a transfer
of water that typically occurs in water rights cases in our
State.
So just to narrow down the issues, that's an issue which
you bring to the attention of the committee, but it's not an
issue that is of concern to the Park Service? You're just
raising it to the concern of the committee?
Ms. Stevenson. To the extent that it doesn't affect the
resources of the national park, it's not a major concern of
ours. To the extent that it might affect the resources, natural
or cultural, of Rocky Mountain National Park, it would remain a
concern.
Senator Salazar. I would just tell you that I would frankly
be very surprised if you could find anything that would ever
say that, with respect to the change of water use under those
water rights, that it's going to have any effect. It's still
the same amount of water, the same decrees that are being used,
and it's simply used for another purpose other than for
agriculture.
Chairman Akaka, I will continue with my round of questions
in my next 5-minute round.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stevenson, I'm wondering if the Interior Department has
consulted with the Veterans Department or the Department of
Defense with regard to its concerns or opposition--I don't know
which at this point--to establishment of the veterans pass?
Ms. Stevenson. Actually, just last week we had a discussion
within Interior about working with the veterans hospitals to
promulgate information about the disabled pass for veterans,
and we talked about discussing other aspects of this with the
Department of Defense and talked about setting up some of those
discussions, sir. We have not done that as yet.
Senator Smith. If you have not done it as yet, obviously I
think it's a good idea and would encourage it. I thank you for
being on that course.
I wonder, because it has just been a policy of the Interior
Department, do you have any knowledge of the position of the
White House as to such a thing at this point?
Ms. Stevenson. I don't, sir.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Smith.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for running late,
but I was over on the floor backing you up.
Under another role, Chairman Akaka plays chairman of the
Veterans Affairs Committee, and he and I are introducing a
comprehensive bill over on the floor dealing with veterans and
traumatic brain injury and transitional benefits. So you had
spoke earlier. I just came from the floor speaking in behalf of
that amendment, Mr. Chairman.
But I am also here in support of S. 617, which is something
of an extension of those kinds of benefits that we think our
brave young men and women and those who served honorably in our
armed services should be eligible for. So I want to thank you.
I want to thank Senator Smith for introducing this legislation
and building a strong bipartisan path for it. I'm disappointed
in the opposition that I hear expressed from the Park Service
at this moment. We'll work with you to make sure that we change
that around, because this is a bill that we think provides a
benefit that is important to our veterans.
I think the chief of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, General Thomas D. White, almost 50 years ago put
it best when he said: ``The mission of the Department of
Defense is more than aircraft, guns, and missiles. Part of the
Defense job is protecting land, water, timber, wildlife, and
priceless natural resources to make this great Nation worth
defending.''
Part of the growth of the Park Service was a spinoff of
those who had been veterans before, who found an opportunity to
use their expertise in the field to protect America's national
treasures. Oftentimes--well, they came from the battlefields
that were Saratoga and Yorktown and Fort Sumter, Antietam. They
were the original expressers of America's independence. They
are our icons, and I think offering and encouraging them to
enjoy America's beauty today in a discounted way which is
reflective of their interests and what they have done for us is
an important expression. That's why I strongly support S. 617
as a co-sponsor.
You've got a lot of other issues in front of you, Mr.
Chairman, but I want to thank the Park Service for being here.
We'll work with them on it to make sure that we get it right,
but also to make sure they get it right. OK?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
At this time, before I call on the second round I'd like to
call on Congressman Udall, Mark Udall, for your statement.
Senator Salazar. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Yes, Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. May I just take a second to welcome
Congressman Udall here to this hearing this afternoon. He has
been a champion of fighting for Colorado's land and water for a
very, very long time, and comes from a treasured tradition of
Udalls who have stood up for fighting for a way of life in the
West and who have done a lot to make sure that the beauty and
special heritage of the West remains alive.
So welcome to the Parks Subcommittee of the Energy
Committee of the U.S. Senate.
Senator Smith. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. May I make it bipartisan and welcome my
cousin, Mark Udall.
Senator Akaka. Certainly. Thank you for that.
Congressman Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's not often that I
have a chance to testify in the United States Senate and
testify in front of two family members, my brother Ken Salazar
and my cousin Senator Gordon Smith. We'd like to include you,
Senator.
Senator Akaka. Why not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Udall. I will be brief. I don't want to try the
patience of the committee. I know you have a full docket today
and I appreciate the chance to come over and express my support
for this very important piece of legislation that would
designate over 95 percent of Rocky Mountain National Park as
wilderness.
If I might, Senator, I'd ask--in the House we would ask for
unanimous consent--to include my entire statement in the record
at this point in time.
Senator Akaka. Without objection, it will be included in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Representative
From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to
testify in support of S. 1380, Senator Salazar and Allard's bill to
designate as wilderness most of the lands within the Rocky Mountain
National Park and to expand the Indian Peaks Wilderness.
I have introduced an identical House bill that is cosponsored by my
Colorado colleague, Representative Musgrave.
Over a period of months, the four of us have worked together to
develop this bipartisan legislation that will provide important
protection and management direction for some truly remarkable country,
adding well over 200,000 acres in the park to the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
The wilderness designation for the park will cover some 94 percent
of the park, including Longs Peaks and other major mountains along the
Great Continental Divide, glacial cirques and snow fields, broad
expanses of alpine tundra and wet meadows, old-growth forests, and
hundreds of lakes and streams, all untrammeled by human structures or
passage. Indeed, examples of all the natural ecosystems that make up
the splendor of the Park are included in the wilderness that would be
designated by our bills.
At the same time, the wilderness boundaries have been drawn so as
to allow continued access for use of existing roadways, buildings and
developed areas, privately owned land, and areas where additional
facilities and roadwork will improve park management and visitor
services. In addition, specific provisions are included to assure that
there will be no adverse effects on continued use of existing water
facilities.
The lands designated as wilderness will become part of the National
Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the Wilderness
Act and will be managed in accordance with that Act and the provisions
of our bills. The legislation's provisions amplify this by specifying
that--1) no new reclamation projects will be allowed in the wilderness
area; 2) nothing in the bill will create a ``buffer zone'' around the
wilderness and that non-wilderness activities visible or audible from
within the wilderness will not be prohibited; 3) the National Park
Service can act to control fire, insects, and diseases, including use
of mechanical tools within the wilderness; and 4) nothing in the bill
will reduce or restrict the current authority of the National Park
Service to manage the Park's lands and resources.
The bills are similar to measures introduced in previous
Congresses, but they do include a number of adjustments and refinements
that reflect discussion within the Colorado delegation in Congress and
with interested parties in Colorado.
The bills include designation of wilderness designation of more
than 700 acres in the Twin Sisters area south of Estes Park. These
lands were acquired by the United States and made part of the park
after submission to Congress of the original wilderness recommendation
for the park in the 1970s, and so were not included in that
recommendation. They are lands of a wilderness character and their
designation will not conflict with any current uses. On the west side,
the Town of Grand Lake and Grand County requested that about 650 acres
inward from the Park boundary around the Town be omitted from the
wilderness designation in order to allow the Park to respond to
potential forest fire threats. Our bills accommodate that request.
Also, the bills respond to the request of the Town of Grand Lake,
Grand County, the Headwaters Trails Alliance (a group composed of local
communities in Grand County that seeks to establish opportunities for
mountain biking), and the International Mountain Bicycling Association
to omit from wilderness an area along the western park boundary,
running south along Lake Granby from the Town to the park's southern
boundary. This will allow the National Park Service to retain the
option of authorizing construction of a possible future mountain bike
route within this part of the park. Similarly, our bills would expand
the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area by 1,000 acres in the area south of
the park and north of Lake Granby. The lands involved are currently
managed as part of the Arapaho National Recreation Area, which would
accordingly be reduced by about 1,000 acres.
The bills include a section authorizing the National Park Service
to lease an 11-acre property (the Leiffer tract) donated to the
National Park Service in 1977. Located outside the park's boundaries,
it has two buildings, including a house that is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The Park Service would like to have the
option of leasing it, but current law allows that only for ``property
administered . . . as part of the National Park System,'' and this
property does not qualify. The bills would allow the Park Service to
lease the property as if it were located inside or contiguous to the
park.
Also like previous measures, the bills address the question of
possible impacts on water rights--something that can be a primary point
of contention in Congressional debates over designating wilderness
areas. They reflect the legal reality that it has long been recognized
under the laws of the United States and Colorado, including a decision
of the Colorado Supreme Court, that Rocky Mountain National Park
already has extensive federal reserved water rights arising from the
creation of the national park itself. And they reflect the geographic
reality that the park sits astride the continental divide, meaning
there's no higher land around from which streams flow into the park,
and thus there is no possibility of any diversion of water occurring
upstream from the park. In recognition of these legal and practical
realities, the bills include a finding that because the park already
has these extensive reserved rights to water, there is no need for any
additional reservation or appropriation of such right, and explicit
disclaimers that the bills effect any such reservation.
New provisions in these bills deal with the Grand River Ditch,
created before Rocky Mountain National Park was established and partly
located within the park.
The owners of the ditch are currently working to conclude an
agreement with the National Park Service with respect to operation and
maintenance of the portion of the ditch within the park, and our bills
provide that after conclusion of this agreement the strict liability
standard of the Park Resources Protection Act (which now applies to any
damage to park resources) will not apply so long as the ditch is
operated and maintained in accordance with the agreement. The owners of
the ditch would remain liable for damage to park resources caused by
negligence or intentional acts, and our bills specify that it will not
limit or otherwise affect the liability of any individual or entity for
damages to, loss of, or injury to any park resource resulting from any
cause of event occurring before the date of enactment. In addition, the
bills specify that enactment will not restrict or otherwise affect any
activity relating to the monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, or use of the ditch that was authorized or approved by the
National Park Service as of the date of enactment. And the bills also
provide that use of water transported by the ditch for a main purpose
(or main purposes) other than irrigation will not terminate or
adversely affect the ditch's right-of-way.
In her testimony, the Administration's witness says they fear this
provision ``could have serious implications for future damage-causing
events'' in the Park and ``could set a dangerous precedent'' for other
parks.
I must say I think those fears are exaggerated.
The key point here is that this provision is not automatic. It
would take effect only if and when the National Park Service reaches an
agreement with the owners of the ditch.
We do nothing to dictate the terms of any such agreement or to tie
the hands of the Park Service in its negotiations. And I am sure the
Park Service would never agree to anything against the best interests
of the park or restricting their ability to manage the park properly.
The Administration's testimony says they want an agreement to
``reduce the risk of catastrophic failure of the ditch'' and to
``establish clear expectations regarding maintenance and operational
issues that impact park resources.'' We want that too--and the purpose
of the liability provision is to give the ditch's owners an incentive
to agree to exactly such an agreement and to comply with it once it is
concluded.
In other words, our purpose is to make it in their interest to
operate and maintain the ditch the way the Park Service thinks is
needed to protect the park's resources.
So, I respectfully disagree with the Administration on this point
and think this provision needs to remain in the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the matters dealt with in our bills have a long
history.
The wilderness designations are based on National Park Service
recommendations presented to Congress by President Richard Nixon. That
they have not been acted on before this reflects the difficult history
of wilderness legislation.
One Colorado statewide wilderness bill was enacted in 1980, but it
took more than a decade before the Colorado delegation and the Congress
were finally able, in 1993, to pass a second statewide national forest
wilderness bill. Since then, action has been completed on bills
designating wilderness in the Spanish Peaks area of the San Isabel
National Forest as well as in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park, the Gunnison Gorge, the Black Ridge portion of the Colorado
Canyons National Conservation Area, and the James Peak area of the
Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.
We now need to continue making progress by providing wilderness
designations for other deserving lands in Colorado, including lands
that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And the time is ripe
for finally resolving the status of the lands within Rocky Mountain
National Park that are dealt with in our bills.
Lands covered by our bills are currently being managed protect
their wilderness character. Formal wilderness designation will no
longer leave this question to the discretion of the Park Service, but
will make it clear that within the designated areas there will never be
roads, visitor facilities, or other manmade features that interfere
with the spectacular natural beauty and wildness of the mountains. This
is especially important for a park like Rocky Mountain, which is
relatively small by western standards. As nearby land development and
alteration has accelerated in recent years, the pristine nature of the
park's backcountry becomes an increasingly rare feature of Colorado's
landscape.
Further, the park's popularity demands definitive and permanent
protection for wild areas against possible pressures for development
within the park. While only about one tenth the size of Yellowstone
National Park, Rocky Mountain sees nearly the same number of visitors
each year as does our first national park. At the same time,
designating these carefully selected portions of Rocky Mountain as
wilderness will make other areas, now restricted under interim
wilderness protection management, available for overdue improvements to
park roads and visitor facilities.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, our bills will protect some of our
nation's finest wild lands. They will protect existing rights. They
will not limit any existing opportunity for new water development. They
are bipartisan and will affirm the commitment of all Coloradans to
preserving the features that make our State such a remarkable place to
live. So, I think they deserve prompt enactment.
Mr. Udall. I appreciate that.
The delegation, our delegation, House and Senate
delegations, come together. We're in full support of this
measure. We know there's work to be done, but we're also
intending to celebrate. But I think it's most important to
acknowledge the work of the stakeholders and the local
communities to make this a reality.
I know two of those members of the local communities will
testify later, Mayor Burke from the little and beautiful town
of Grand Lake, which is much like Baker or Union. It's a
beautiful mountain town where people really care about not only
the community, Senator Smith, but the resources around that
community.
Then I know we have Dennis Harmon, who's the General
Manager of the Water Supply and Storage Company from Fort
Collins. They're a key part of this effort.
I did want to in particular before I close talk briefly
about the ditch. I know Senator Salazar talked about the ditch.
There are negotiations under way that, if and when an agreement
is reached, Mr. Chairman, that the strict liability standard of
the Park Resources Protection Act will not apply as long as the
ditch is operated and maintained in accordance with the
agreement.
Now, I know the administration has concerns about this set
of provisions, but I think their fears are exaggerated, quite
frankly. The key point that I would like to make is the
provision isn't automatic. It would take effect only if and
when the National Park Service reaches an agreement with the
owners of the ditch. We do nothing in the proposed legislation
to tie the hands for the Park Service in these negotiations. I
know, given my long connection through my family, that the Park
Service would never agree to anything that's against the best
interests of the park or restricts their ability to manage the
park properly.
So in other words, our purpose is to make it in the
interest of the ditch company to operate and maintain the
facility in the way the Park Service thinks is needed to
protect the parks' resources.
So again I want to respectfully disagree with the
administration and I think this provision needs to remain in
the legislation.
The history of this effort is long, rooted back in the
Nixon era, Mr. Chairman. Action has been repeatedly delayed for
a number of reasons. But I'm not looking backward. None of the
delegation is or the people in Colorado. We think this is the
right thing to do to preserve this marvelous landscape that
really is the heart of our State of Colorado, and I thank you
again for considering this important piece of legislation.
I'd be happy to answer any questions and, if not, let the
committee continue to work its will.
Senator Akaka. Do you have any questions? Senator Salazar,
do you have any questions?
Senator Salazar. No questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. We really appreciate
your statement and testimony and look forward to continuing to
work with you on this.
Mr. Udall. If the chairman is so inclined, I will send over
a Udall family certificate in the near future and we welcome
you to the broad and diverse family that is the Udall family.
So thank you again for welcoming me.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. I'd like to share in the beauty
of your State.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
So we will return with a second round of questions here to
the administration. Your testimony on S. 955 establishing the
Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area is essentially the same
as the Department's testimony on previous heritage area
proposals in this Congress. As I understand your testimony, the
proposed management group has submitted a study to the Park
Service which finds that the area is appropriate for heritage
area designation.
Can you tell me if the Park Service has reviewed the study,
and if so whether it complies with your standards for studies?
Ms. Stevenson. I'm pleased to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that
we have reviewed it and that it does meet the standards.
Senator Akaka. I see. I understand that the Department
supports S. 1148, which would establish two commemorative
commissions in Vermont and New York. As I understand this bill,
a significant number of the commission members are to be
appointed from members of the State commemorative commissions.
The bill also authorizes the commission to make grants to
various groups and specifically lists the State commemorative
commissions as a possible recipient.
Does this provision raise any potential conflict of
interest concerns?
Ms. Stevenson. In reviewing the membership of the two
commissions, I think it's only the Champlain commission that
has that issue. The other commission only has one member
required from the existing commissions. The Department of
Justice has some concerns about the appointment authority
anyway. So we'd be happy to work with the committee to resolve
both things at the same time.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
My next and final question to you is on S. 1182, which
extends the authority for the Quinebaug and Shetucket National
Heritage Corridor. The question is is the Department opposed to
any extension for this heritage area or is the concern
approving this before you've had a chance to review their
recently submitted evaluation?
Ms. Stevenson. We're not opposed to an extension, but we
think it's premature because they have 2 years left in their
authorization. We would like a chance to review the plan that
they've developed.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for those responses.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Akaka.
Ms. Stevenson, I want to just say that I look forward to
working with the ditch company and the Park Service to
resolving the issues that remain. It seems to me that a 3
decade-plus dream that's been alive now has a chance to become
a reality with the creation of the wilderness designation. I
know there are the issues related to liability in the ditch
company, but I believe that the unique circumstances of the
dates in which the ditch was constructed and put into
operation, the 25 years that passed before the Rocky Mountain
National Park was created, the fact that this is so high up in
the Rocky Mountains on the Continental Divide, allows us to
fashion a unique and specific relationship here that will
protect the national park resource, which I think--which in
fact I know is what you and the Park Service are trying to
advocate for--and at the same time recognize that these
existing operations were in place prior to the park's creation.
I will say this with respect to the liability standard.
Today in 2007, if you look at the liability standards that
apply to the ditch, you're looking at a strict liability
standard. So if you have an act of God, for example, that ends
up creating a problem for the ditch and you have an overrun of
the ditch that creates some damage to the resource that's not
in the control at all of the ditch company, the ditch company
is still liable.
So if you have a lightning strike that comes in and creates
some kind of a rockslide or other kind of action that creates
that kind of a problem, then the ditch is liable. So under all
circumstances the ditch company is liable for everything, even
though the ditch company predated the existence of the park by
25 years.
So what we have tried to do in working very hard on this
issue of liability over the last year is to try to come up with
an accommodation that will recognize the goal that the Park
Service has in mind, which is the protection of the resource,
and at the same time allow the ditch company to exercise its
historic water rights within the constraints of the
legislation.
I won't get into the specific detail of what we included in
the legislation, but we have required in the legislation that
there be an agreement that the Park Service and the Grand Ditch
Company have to put together on the maintenance of the ditch.
The ditch company, once that maintenance agreement is in place,
the ditch company would only be liable, as it should be liable,
for intentional acts, intentional acts, and second of all if
the ditch company is negligent, if the ditch company is
negligent.
So the acts of God that are essentially now a reason for
liability to the ditch company, that's the only thing that
would be removed. But it seems to me that if we are looking at
how we manage the national park and how we preserve the
wilderness character of the national park, that the best thing
that could happen is that we have this agreement in place that
essentially recognizes what standards of operation are going to
be required as the ditch flows through the park.
So I just want to ask of you and the National Park Service
for your cooperation with the Colorado Congressional
delegation, and we're united here, Democrats and Republicans
alike, and the ditch company to further this specific unique
circumstance along so that we can ultimately achieve the vision
and goal that we all have and that's the preservation of Rocky
Mountain National Park.
I will tell you this, that I would never be a participant
in any kind of legislation that would in any way whatsoever
endanger the crown jewel of the Nation in my State, Rocky
Mountain National Park. I believe that the language that we
have put together in this legislation, which is related to the
unique facts of this ditch and Rocky Mountain National Park,
will help us achieve the goals that we all want.
So I would ask of you that you take another look at the
language. I know Juan Baker and others have been working
closely with us on coming up with a maintenance agreement. I
hope we're able to get that done very, very soon. So I look
forward to working with you, and I appreciate your testimony
today.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you very much for your
responses. We really appreciate it and look forward to working
with you on this.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Clinton was not able to be here this afternoon, so
we will include her written statement in the hearing record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator From
New York
Chairman Akaka and members of the Committee, it gives me pride and
pleasure to introduce revised legislation to establish the Champlain
Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th
Commemoration Commission to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
I would like to express my gratitude to Heather Baker-Sullivan,
Executive Director of the Hudson Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial
Commission of New York, for testifying before the Committee today.
Five years ago, I introduced the Champlain Quadricentennial
Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton Quadricentennial
Commemoration Commission effort with legislation during the 107th
Congress. Consequently, the bill did not pass and revised legislation
was introduced in subsequent Congresses. The current bill, the Hudson-
Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Act of 2007, S.1148,
incorporates welcomed input and reflects a consensus reached among key
leaders who share the goal of honoring important events in our nation's
and New York State's history. This is a culmination of a lot of hard
work, and I am hopeful that we can pass this bill.
I have long believed that understanding our history is important to
protecting our future. That is why as First Lady I helped create ``Save
America's Treasures'' to preserve and promote historic artifacts and
sites across our country at the turn of the millennium. That is why I
have worked hard in New York to help promote heritage and nostalgia
tourism that not only helps the local community, but educates and
inspires children and adults. The Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls,
the home of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt and Eleanor
Roosevelt and all places throughout New York that helped shape our
history.
We are here today to call on Congress to commemorate three historic
moments in the history of our country. In 1609, Englishman Henry
Hudson, aboard his ship the Half Moon, in service of the Dutch East
India Company, became the first European to sail along the river later
named in his honor. That very same year, in 1609, French explorer
Samuel de Champlain became the first European to reach that lake--and
its shores in Northern New York and Vermont--that would later be named
for him.
These two moments in exploration would change history. In the years
that followed, these explorations along what would become the Hudson
River and Lake Champlain would lead to the establishment of Fort
Orange, a Dutch--and later English--settlement located in what is now
Albany. The establishment of trading posts and settlements. Greater
commerce, trade, and cultural impact deep into the Mohawk Valley, as
far west as Lake Erie--which would later lead to the Erie Canal--and
beyond.
Almost 200 years later, in 1807, Robert Fulton navigated the Hudson
River from New York City to Albany in the steamboat Clermont. Just as
Hudson's voyage would change history, so too would Fulton's. It would
help revolutionize commerce on the great rivers of the United States
and foster international relations through greater international travel
and trade.
In 1909, Americans celebrated the 300th anniversaries of Hudson's
and Champlain's explorations with maritime celebrations and art
exhibitions. The Dutch built the first replica of Hudson's ship and
sailed it along the Hudson River.
In 1959, Congress recognized the 350th anniversary by establishing
a similar commission to coordinate federal participation in the
celebrations.
We are approaching the 400th anniversary of the voyages of Hudson
and Champlain, and marking the 200th anniversary of Fulton's steamboat
ride.
America has long been the home of new frontiers. What began with
the explorers we seek to commemorate continues with the 21st century
explores in biotechnology, information technology, nanotechnology and
more.
It is important to commemorate our shared history, to understand
the contributions and achievements that helped build this country. It
is important to best understand the lessons of our past so we can build
a brighter future.
That is why it is so vital that we pass, in this Congress, The
Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-
Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission. This is a unique opportunity to
celebrate the history and rich heritage of New York, Vermont, and our
country.
Senator Akaka. I'd like to now call on our panel: the
Honorable Judy Burke, Mayor of Grand Lake, Colorado; Dennis
Harmon, General Manager, Water Supply and Storage Company, Fort
Collins, Colorado; Dean Stoline, Assistant Director, National
Legislative Committee, The American Legion, from Washington,
D.C.; Heather Baker-Sullivan, Executive Director, Hudson-
Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commission, from New York;
and Tom Martin, Chair of the Board, Looking for Lincoln
Heritage Coalition of Mount Pulaski, Illinois; and Charlene
Perkins Cutler, Executive Director from Quinebaug-Shetucket
Heritage Corridor, Inc., from Connecticut.
So thank you so much for being here, for your testimony.
Just to be sure you know, for the panel we will include your
written statement in the hearing record and I'd ask each of you
to please summarize your statements and limit your remarks to
not more than 5 minutes.
So may I begin by calling on the Honorable Judy Burke,
Mayor of Grand Lake, Colorado.
STATEMENT OF JUDY M. BURKE, MAYOR, GRAND LAKE, CO
Ms. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today
to discuss S. 1380, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness
and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, and to convey the
town of Grand Lake's full support of this act.
The Town of Grand Lake adjoins the boundary of the Rocky
Mountain National Park, one of our Nation's most visited parks.
We are just one of the many communities along with local and
national organizations who have worked with Senator Salazar,
Senator Wayne Allard, and Congressman Mark Udall to shape
legislation that will forever protect our national park lands
and the recreational opportunities and economic livelihood of
our community.
S. 1380 accomplishes this goal. Formal wilderness
designation of nearly 250,000 acres under S. 1380 will provide
permanent protection to the park's natural resources, provide
consistent park management, and preserve opportunities for
scientific study. I am hopeful this legislation can be enacted
this year. As a result of rapid growth in Colorado and
corresponding commercial and residential development, the value
of a preserved landscape inside the park becomes an even more
crucial matter.
The process to produce a consensus Rocky Mountain National
Park bill started in the 1990's. I was a member of the board of
trustees at that time and worked through that process as well.
But the result is a product that addresses the needs of the
diverse stakeholders, all of us who worked on that bill.
In addition to Grand Lake, the broad array of groups
working on this legislative initiative include: the Grand
County Board of Commissioners, the Larimer County Board of
Commissioners, the Boulder County Board of Commissioners, the
Towns of Winter Park and Estes Park, the Colorado Trout
Unlimited Organization, Colorado Wildlife Federation, the
League of Women Voters of Estes Park, the Headwaters Trails
Alliance, the International Bicycling Association, the Colorado
Mountain Clubs of Estes Park and Fort Collins, the Colorado
Wilderness Network, and the Southern Rockies Conservation
Alliance.
The lasting protection of these places and the beauty of
Rocky Mountain National Park is critical. As the Mayor of a
local community, I believe the passage of S. 1380 is equally
critical for my town's long-term economic viability. The
revenue that the park's wildlife, wilderness, and recreation
generates is almost 70 percent of our local business revenue.
So ensuring that its resources, scenic vistas, and recreation
opportunities are sustainable for generations to come makes
good business sense to our community.
The recreational opportunities that draw tourists to Rocky
Mountain National Park are also enjoyed by our year-round
residents who are privileged to call the park their backyard.
Grand Lake has a particular interest in the negotiations
that culminated last year in an agreement to provide a one-
eighth mile buffer along the border of Grand Lake, for two
reasons. This buffer was requested for fire mitigation and to
suppress what we consider to be the eventual wildfire danger
with whatever tools may be required; and second, for the
potential for construction of a bike trail. The trail would be
managed for wilderness characteristics until the Department of
the Interior authorizes construction.
The town sincerely appreciates all of the efforts that have
been made by our congressional district on behalf of the
citizens of Colorado.
The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian
Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act is a chance to preserve a piece
of our natural history while also protecting local economies.
It has been a pleasure working with the Colorado delegation and
the other groups actively involved in moving S. 1384 forward.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judy Burke, Mayor, Grand Lake, CO
Honorable Members of Congress, this letter is being written to
demonstrate the Town of and Lake's full support of S. 1380, the Rocky
Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion
Act. The passage of legislation will provide nearly 250,000 acres of
new wilderness to Colorado and finally complete a thirty year effort to
designate the area as wilderness. This designation has tremendous
opportunities for the 3 million plus annual visitors that visit Rocky
Mountain National Park and the Arapaho National Recreation Area, as
well as to the Grand County residents who consider the area our
backyard and personal playground.
A Wilderness designation makes sense for Rocky Mountain National
Park for numerous reasons. First and foremost, it is one of this
country's most precious resources, and should be preserved for future
generations to enjoy. As Enos Mills, a true champion of the creation of
this national treasure so succinctly put it ``In years to come when I
am asleep beneath the pines, thousands of families wi11 find rest and
hope in this park''. Mr. Mills would have had no idea at the time what
an understatement he truly made; millions have found rest and hope and
so much more in Rocky Mountain National Park, and with your help,
millions more will continue to enjoy what has been set aside for all.
Secondly, this bill will help to secure the future financial
success of the gateway communities; Grand Lake and Estes Park. With a
wilderness designation, commercial applications will continue to locate
in the gateway communities because they would not be allowed in the
National Park. From our perspective, this is a win-win proposition.
Visitors will be allowed continued unfettered view corridors, pristine
wilderness and unmatched access to majestic wildlife, while the
communities that struggle with a short tourist season won't have to
worry about business competition from their National Park.
Furthermore, the preservation of the Park itself helps to ensure
our future economic stability. Many of the 3 million tourists that
visit the Park each year find their way into Grand Lake, and help to
contribute nearly 70% of the Town's sales tax revenues in the four
short months between the Memorial Day and Labor Day Holidays. What is
true for the Town is equally true for our small business owners, who
are almost completely dependent upon the visitor's of Rocky Mountain
National Park for their continued success.
Third, this bill deserves your support because it represents
cooperation at its finest; both in the sense of a non-partisan effort,
as well as a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional one. In addition to
Grand Lake, the broad array of groups working on this legislative
initiative include: Grand County Board of County Commissioners, Larimer
County Board of County Commissioners, Boulder County Board of County
Commissioners, Town of Winter Park, Town of Estes Park, Colorado Trout
Unlimited, Colorado Wildlife Federation, League of Women Voters of
Estes Park, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Headwaters
Trails Alliance, Colorado Mountain Club-Shining Mountains Group (Estes
Park), Colorado Mountain Club-Fort Collins Group, Colorado Wilderness
Network, and the Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance. The reason
that this support is evidenced everywhere is because the foresight of
the Congress and President Woodrow Wilson in 1915 continues to be
apparent. Let fixture generations look into the history books to see
the wisdom of this Congress, in preserving 250,000 acres of new
Wilderness for them to enjoy and treasure.
Finally, this bill should be adopted because it is well written and
brilliantly conceived, with members of the Congressional Delegation
having solicited and accepted input from interested parties. The Town
supports the creation of the East Shore Trail Area. Within a year of
the passage of the bill, the Town and Grand County in cooperation with
Headwaters Trails Alliance, will work with the Secretary of the
Interior to establish the alignment line and the boundaries of the
trail. We support the use of motorized vehicles and machinery for the
construction and maintenance of the frail and fully encourage the use
of the trail by non-motorized bicycles.
Private property rights are strongly valued in Grand Lake, and
these rights are respected in this bill. Specifically, wilderness
designation will not lead to increased fire danger to homes because a
buffer has been excluded from the designation around the border of
Grand Lake. The buffer was requested for fire mitigation and future
development possibilities that are unknown at the time with the private
property that borders the Park. It is our understanding that this will
be reflected on the ``Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado Wilderness
Boundaries'' Map.
The Town supports the expansion of the Indian Peaks Wilderness.
This expansion will increase the acreage of the wilderness by nearly
four thousand acres and, also, allow for the proposed East Shore Trail
to be located along the shore of Lake Granby outside the wilderness
boundary.
The Town sincerely appreciates all of the efforts that have been
made by our Congressional Delegation on behalf of the citizens of
Colorado. We are confident that all members will support this
legislation to ensure that all visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park
will continue to enjoy this pristine natural environment as it is
today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mayor.
Now we will hear from Dennis Harmon.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS HARMON, GENERAL MANAGER, WATER SUPPLY AND
STORAGE COMPANY, FORT COLLINS, CO
Mr. Harmon. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Senator
Salazar. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to
the subcommittee today concerning Senate bill 1380, the Rocky
Mountain National Park Wilderness Act. My name is Dennis Harmon
and I'm the General Manager of Water Supply and Storage. Also
here today, as Senator Salazar told you, is Tom Moore. Tom's a
fourth generation farmer and Water Supply shareholder. His
great-grandfather was president of Water Supply early in the
20th century. We have a number of families that are
shareholders in the company that have similar length of tenure
with the company.
Water Supply is a 116-year-old nonprofit mutual ditch
company. It collects and distributes about 60,000 acre-feet of
water annually to roughly 40,000 acres of farmland in northern
Colorado. Company facilities include the Grand River Ditch,
most of which lies within the park. The ditch provides about a
third of our total water supply each year. The ditch
construction began in 1890. The company was formed in 1891. The
first water was appropriated in September of 1890. At that time
Coloradoans, like others in other western States, were being
encouraged to develop water to put it to beneficial use in the
State. Farmers in northern Colorado knew that naturally
occurring rainfall there was providing only about half what was
needed for crop production. They had to look to the mountains
to find additional water.
In accordance with Federal and State law at the time, they
filed for a ditch water right and right of way. The water right
was adjudicated on August 3, 1906. The following year in 1907,
after the water right was adjudicated, Federal regulations were
issued which required Water Supply to sign a stipulation
accepting strict liability or, we presume, forfeit the ditch
and their investment and the water that they had produced
testimony.
In 1915, Rocky Mountain National Park was established.
However, the park boundary did not include the ditch at that
time. The boundary was to the east of the ditch. It didn't
include any land west of the divide in any event. In fact, not
until 1930, 40 years after the first appropriation of water in
the ditch, did the majority of the Grand River Ditch in effect
move within the park. The park boundary was moved by
congressional action.
With the 1907 stipulation and the 1930 park expansion, the
enactment of the Park Service Resource Protection Act in 1990,
and the wilderness legislation that we're talking about today,
we've become alarmed by the pattern of increasing Federal
regulation. So we went to Senator Salazar and Senator Allard
and the other members of the Colorado delegation and asked them
for some help in drafting some language that would protect this
historic Colorado agricultural heritage.
Section 4[d][1] of the bill excludes the Grand Ditch from
the wilderness designation. It doesn't appear to be
controversial. The type of exclusion that overlays there is
identical to what the park has done for their own roads in the
maps referred to in sections 3 and 4.
Section 4[e][4][A] would modify the company's liability
from strict liability to a negligence standard. That new
negligence standard language, as you heard from Senator Salazar
earlier, was modeled on the Colorado law for ditches.
The company's position is that we ought to be responsible
for the damages we cause in the park. We're not trying to shirk
that responsibility. But we don't think it's fair that we are
obligated to this unlimited liability for actions which cause
problems related to the ditch which are outside our control.
Section 4[e][4][C] protects the possible future use of the
Grand River Ditch and the water transported therein for the
benefit of municipal shareholders. I'm not very long a veteran
in the water business in Colorado, but I'm pretty certain that
for more than 30 years ditch companies' shares have been
acquired by municipalities with an eye to future use of water,
and certainly I think that's the case in our situation as well.
We would like to clear up any possibility of future
disputes about that and that's why we've included some language
here with the support of all the parties.
We would also like to conclude by expressing our thanks to
Senator Salazar and Senator Allard, Representatives Udall and
Musgrave in particular, for working through some very difficult
issues to arrive at a compromise solution which resolves this
longstanding issue of wilderness designation for the park, but
still protects the Grand Ditch, an important part of our
company's agricultural heritage and northern Colorado's
agricultural heritage.
If possible, I'd like to have the opportunity to add
comments to respond to some of the things we heard today at a
later date. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harmon follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Dennis Harmon, General Manager, and Tom
Moore, President, Water Supply and Storage Company
Good afternoon Chairman Akaka and members of the Subcommittee. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee
concerning S. 1380, which would designate as wilderness portions of
Rocky Mountain National Park (``RMNP'') administered by the National
Park Service (``NPS'').
background of wssc and the grand river ditch
The Water Supply and Storage Company (``WSSC'') owns and operates
the Grand River Ditch, which is a water supply ditch located in the
Never Summer Range in RMNP. The Grand River Ditch provides irrigation
water to approximately 40,000 acres of land located in Larimer and Weld
Counties in northern Colorado. WSSC owns, operates and maintains eleven
reservoirs and seven ditch systems, including the Grand River Ditch.
WSSC's system of ditches, canals and laterals is more than 100 miles in
total length and provides approximately 60,000 acre-feet of water
annually to 173 shareholders.
The Grand River Ditch is an integral component of the Water Supply
and Storage Company system. The Ditch is located in the headwaters of
the Colorado River on the West Slope of Colorado (i.e., west of the
Continental Divide). The north segment or branch of the Grand River
Ditch (sometimes referred to as the North Ditch) is approximately 17
miles long and traverses a variety of creeks. Water from these creeks
can either be diverted into the Ditch or can be released so that it
continues to flow down these creeks to the Colorado River. A measuring
weir and recorder for the Grand River Ditch is located near La Poudre
Pass. A shorter branch of the Grand River Ditch (sometimes known as the
Specimen Ditch or the Southern Ditch) also captures various waters and
transports them to La Poudre Pass.
At La Poudre Pass, water diverted by the Grand River Ditch crosses
to the East Slope of Colorado (i.e., east of the Continental Divide)
and flows to Long Draw Reservoir, which is located in Roosevelt
National Forest. From Long Draw Reservoir, water is delivered down the
Cache La Poudre River to WSSC's system of canals, ditches and laterals
for agricultural purposes. Although a number of WSSC's shares are owned
by municipalities, and water ultimately will be used by them for
municipal purposes, water diverted by the Grand River Ditch is used
exclusively to irrigate crops and water livestock at this time. The
primary water right for the Grand River Ditch is decreed to divert
waters from the Colorado River basin with an adjudication date of
August 3, 1906 and an appropriation date of September 1, 1890 in the
amount of 524.6 cfs (cubic feet per second of time).
WSSC was incorporated as a Colorado mutual ditch company in 1891.
Under Colorado law, the shareholders of a mutual ditch company own pro
rata interests in the company's water rights and other facilities;
therefore, a mutual ditch company is essentially a water distribution
organization owned and operated by its shareholders and is not a
profit-generating enterprise.
WSSC holds a right-of-way for the Grand River Ditch under the
Irrigation or General Right of Way Act of March 3, 1891 (``1891 Act'')
codified at 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 946-49. Construction on the Grand River
Ditch began in 1891. The federal lands around the Grand River Ditch
were included in the Medicine Bow Forest Reserve around the turn of the
century, at which time they were administered by the fledging United
States Forest Service. The Forest Service and WSSC entered into a
stipulation concerning the operation and maintenance of the Grand River
Ditch on March 21, 1907, which was required by a 1906 federal
``amendatory regulation'' applicable to rights-of-way.
RMNP was created in 1915, but did not include most of the land
surrounding the Grand River Ditch at that time. In fact, the portions
of Medicine Bow Forest Reserve that included the Never Summer Range and
the land through which the Grand River Ditch flows were not included in
RMNP until 1930. Thus, WSSC and the Grand River Ditch had existed for
some 35 years prior to becoming part of RMNP.
the wilderness proposal in s. 1380
S. 1380 proposes to designate significant portions of RMNP,
including the area in which the Grand River Ditch is located, for
inclusion as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964. The bill was introduced by
Senator Salazar and cosponsored by Senator Allard. A corresponding bill
in the House of Representatives (H. 2334) also enjoys bipartisan
sponsorship having been introduced by Representative Udall and being
cosponsored by Representatives Musgrave, Salazar and Perlmutter. Two
provisions of S. 1380 directly affect WSSC:
Section 4(d)(1) specifically excludes from the boundaries
of the wilderness designation: ``[t]he Grand River Ditch
(including the main canal of the Grand River Ditch and a branch
of the main canal known as ``Specimen Ditch''), the right-of-
way for the Grand River Ditch, land 200 feet on each side of
the marginal limits of the Ditch and any associated
appurtenances, structures, buildings, camps, and work sites in
existence as of June 1, 1998.
Section 4(e)(4)(A)-(D) state:
(A) Liability--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any
stipulation or applicable agreement, during any period in
which the Water Supply and Storage Company (or any
successor in interest to the Water Supply and Storage
Company with respect to the Grand River Ditch) operates and
maintains the portion of the Grand River Ditch within the
Park in compliance with an operations and maintenance
agreement between the Water Supply and Storage Company and
the National Park Service entered into on __, no individual
or entity who owns, controls, or operates the Grand River
Ditch shall be liable for any response costs or for any
damages to, loss of, or injury to the resources of the Park
resulting from any cause or event (including, but not
limited to, water escaping from any part of the Grand River
ditch by overflow or as a result of a breach, failure, or
partial failure of any portion of the Grand River Ditch,
including the portion of the ditch located outside the
Park), unless the damages to, loss of, or injury to the
resources are proximately caused by the negligence or an
intentional act of the individual or entity.
(B) Limitation--Nothing in this section limits or otherwise affects
any liability of any individual or entity for damages to,
loss of, or injury to any resource of the Park resulting
from any cause or event that occurred before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(C) Existing Activities--Nothing in this Act, including the
designation of the Wilderness under this section, shall
restrict or otherwise affect any activity (including an
activity carried out in response to an emergency or
catastrophic event) on, under, or affecting the Wilderness
or land excluded under subsection (d)(1) relating to the
monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or
use of the Grand River Ditch that was authorized or
approved by the Secretary as of the date of enactment of
this Act.
(D) No Effect--Notwithstanding any other provision of any previous
or existing law, any stipulation, or any agreement, or
interpretation thereof, use of water transported by the
Grand River Ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other
than irrigation shall not terminate or adversely affect the
right-of-way of the Grand River Ditch, and such right-of-
way shall not be deemed relinquished, forfeited, or lost,
solely because such water is used for a main purpose or
main purposes other than irrigation.
explanation of the provisions affecting wssc
WSSC has worked closely with Senators Salazar and Allard and
Representatives Udall and Musgrave to draft language for the
legislation that accomplishes the wilderness objectives of the bill and
protects the interests of WSSC and its shareholders. WSSC is pleased to
have this opportunity to explain the rationale of these particular
sections to the Subcommittee.
Excluding the Grand River Ditch and an area on either side of the
Ditch allows WSSC to properly operate and maintain the Ditch including
conduct of activities, such as operation of motorized mechanical
equipment, otherwise not permitted in wilderness areas. Exclusion of
200 feet on either side of the Ditch is the same as the land excluded
to either side of RMNP roads.
The liability provisions of Section 4(e)(4)(A)-(D) require
additional background information. In 1990, Congress enacted the Park
System Resource Protection Act (``PSRPA''), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 19jj. That
Act imposes liability for damage caused to any park system resource:
(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any person who
destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any park system
resource is liable to the United States for response costs and
damages resulting from such destruction, loss, or injury.
(b) Liability in rem. Any instrumentality, including but not
limited to a vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other equipment that
destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any park system
resource or any marine or aquatic park resource shall be liable
in rem to the United States for response costs and damages
resulting from such destruction, loss, or injury to the same
extent as a person is liable under subsection (a).
Thus, the PSRPA purports to create a new standard of strict
liability applicable to the Grand River Ditch notwithstanding that the
Ditch had been in existence for nearly 100 years before enactment of
the PSRPA.
The 1907 Stipulation between the WSSC and the Forest Service (to
which the NPS has succeeded) states that the Company shall ``pay the
United States for any and all damages sustained by reason or use and
occupation of said forest reserve by the Company, its successors and
assigns, regardless of the cause and circumstances under which such
damages shall occur.'' WSSC was required to execute this Stipulation by
a federal regulation enacted in 1906, years after construction of the
Grand River Ditch had commenced. Even after the Stipulation had been
executed, it was essentially ineffective. Notwithstanding various
breaches of the Grand River Ditch over the years, neither the Forest
Service nor the NPS had ever sought to enforce the liability provision
of the 1907 Stipulation set forth above until the NPS commenced an
action under the PSRPA in response to a breach of the Ditch in May
2003, which is discussed below.
Imposition of a strict liability standard clearly may have the
unintended consequence of severely and adversely affecting agricultural
interests in northern Colorado. It is difficult to imagine that either
the PSRPA or 1907 Stipulation intended to put farming interests in
economic jeopardy, or potentially out of business, by making them
liable for millions of dollars in damages for a harm that was not
caused by their actions. WSSC certainly does not take lightly the
potential for damage to RMNP resources; however, a fair balancing of
the affected interests compels the conclusion that neither the PSPRA
nor the 1907 Stipulation should impose liability without fault.
Section 4(e)(4)(A) of S. 1380 rectifies the fundamental unfairness
of a strict liability standard of relief, particularly when it is
imposed on WSSC literally 100 years after construction of the Grand
River Ditch commenced. Strict liability is an inappropriate standard of
liability because it potentially makes WSSC liable for damages caused
by events beyond its control such as naturally occurring landslides
into the Ditch that, in turn, cause a breach event. WSSC, like other
owners of private property potentially affecting federal property
interests, should be subject to a negligence standard of liability or,
in other words, liability for damages caused by the negligent conduct
of WSSC. Negligence is the standard of liability imposed on ditch
owners in under Colorado law, which is the reason it was proposed in S.
1380.
Section 4(e)(4)(A) includes an additional safeguard by requiring
that the negligence standard of liability will apply only in the event
that WSSC is in compliance with an Operating and Maintenance Plan
(``O&MP'') to be entered into between it and the NPS. The parties have
already exchanged drafts of the O&MP and are planning to meet in the
next few weeks to discuss the drafts further. While some significant
differences of opinion are evident in the documents exchanged to date
(mostly related to the scope of the O&MP and the extent to which it
should incorporate other legal regulations and standards by reference),
WSSC continues to proceed on the basis that both parties will apply
their best efforts to the negotiations and that a mutually acceptable
document can be completed. WSSC, however, wishes to be clear that it
does not support the wilderness legislation and does not believe the
bill should become law in the absence of Section 4(e)(4)(A) and the
negligence standard of liability permitted by it. Successful completion
of the O&MP negotiations, therefore, is imperative and should be
completed at the earliest possible date.
WSSC believes that Section 4(e)(4)(B) was requested by the NPS to
explicitly preserve its legal action against WSSC related to a breach
of the Grand River Ditch in May 2003. Litigation related to this breach
is pending presently in the U.S. District Court in Colorado. WSSC
understands that this case is unaffected by S. 1380.
Section 4(e)(4)(C) is similar in the sense of preserving and
protecting ``existing activities'' related to the Grand River Ditch. In
particular, this section recognizes and incorporates as an ``existing
activity'' the fact that a significant number of the WSSC's shares are
owned currently by Colorado municipalities and that water diverted by
the Grand River Ditch will be used by them for municipal purposes. The
inevitability of municipal use of a portion of the Grand River Ditch is
clearly an ``existing activity'' within the scope of Section
4(e)(4)(C). This section is very important to the municipal
shareholders in WSSC and is also fundamental to WSSC's support for the
wilderness legislation.
Finally, Section 4(e)(4)(D) is intended to ensure, notwithstanding
any case law arguably to the contrary, that the use of water
transported in the Grand River Ditch will not be adversely affected,
and that the right-of-way for the Ditch shall not be relinquished,
forfeited or lost, because water diverted to the Ditch will be used for
municipal purposes as opposed to agricultural irrigation. As noted
above, the fact that shares of WSSC are owned by various municipalities
is well known, and Congress should explicitly ensure that use of the
Grand River Ditch water and right-of-way will be preserved at the time
they are used for municipal purposes.
Section 4(e)(4)(D) begins ``[n]otwithstanding any other provision
of any previous or existing law'' because the 1891 Act under which
WSSC's right-of-way was granted was repealed by the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (``FLPMA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 to 1785, but the 1891
Act remained in effect with respect to rights acquired prior to October
21, 1976, the effective date of FLPMA. See 43 U.S.C.A. Sections 1701,
1769.'' Overland Ditch and Reservoir Co. v. United States Forest
Service, No. Civ. A. 96 N 797, 1996 WL 33484927 (D. CO., Dec. 16, 1996)
at *9, footnote 2. The reference to ``previous law'' expressly picks-up
this legislative history and expressly preserves the integrity of
WSSC's right-of-way.
conclusion
The provisions of the S. 1380 discussed above directly and
significantly affect WSSC and the Grand River Ditch and are critical to
WSSC's support of the legislation. Each of these provisions has been
discussed in detail and at length with the offices of Senators Salazar
and Allard and Representatives Udall and Musgrave, all of whom
contributed to the language of these sections prior to introduction of
S. 1380 and H. 2334.
Throughout its more than 100 years of existence, WSSC has worked
diligently to be a good neighbor and property owner in RMNP. We believe
that our working relationship with RMNP and the NPS has been good and
productive over the years, and we anticipate that relationship will
continue in the years to come.
WSSC thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our
views on S. 1380, and we would be pleased to respond to any questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon.
Now we'll hear from Dean Stoline.
STATEMENT OF DEAN STOLINE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE
COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Stoline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
present on behalf of the 2.8 million members of the American
Legion our views on S. 617. We commend the subcommittee for
holding a hearing to discuss this important issue.
The American Legion fully supports S. 617, a bill that
provides that the fee for the purchase of an America the
Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass be
available at the annual cost of ten dollars to honorably
discharged veterans with proper identification. America's
military and its national parks have a shared history. In 1916
the Department of the Interior asked the Army to detail troops
to Yellowstone and the California parks to help manage them.
Army military engineers and cavalrymen developed park roads and
buildings, they enforced park regulations against hunting,
grazing, timber cutting and vandalism, and these soldiers did
their best to serve the people visiting those parks.
The national park system has grown to 391 areas in nearly
every State and U.S. possession. The National Park Service has
a mission to support the preservation of natural and historic
places and promote outdoor recreation through a range of
programs. Included in its mission, the service has the honor of
preserving many battlefields, military parks and historic sites
that commemorate and honor the service of America's veterans.
America recently honored its veterans by allowing them and
their families free access to its national parks on Veterans
Day. The American Legion feels it is now appropriate to create
this new pass so that veterans and their families can enjoy
these parks at a reduced annual fee during the other days of
the year. This fee would honor our American veterans by
allowing them to see these historical sites and enjoy these
areas with their families and thus reaffirm the importance of
our Nation's history of celebrating and remembering the past
sacrifices and achievements of our men and women who put
themselves in harm's way and fought in America's wars.
The American Legion notes that the Park Service currently
shares another link with our armed forces and veterans. In
April of this year, the National Park Service hosted three
representatives of Afghanistan's Ministry of Information,
Culture, and Tourism. They are charged with the preservation
and protection of their country's historic and cultural
artifacts. The fact that the new government of Afghanistan
could turn to the National Park Service for training on how to
preserve their historical heritage was only made possible by
America's Armed Forces and its veterans.
America's national parks are one of the Nation's most
precious treasures. They represent the vastness, biodiversity,
beauty and strength of this great land. America asks her young
people to serve in the Armed Forces to guard and defend freedom
and our way of life. The selfless service of America's veterans
provides millions of Americans the opportunity to pursue their
recreational endeavors in peace and safety in our Nation's
parks. Therefore, the American Legion fully supports the
reduced fee for veterans as a fitting honor for these veterans
who selflessly risked life and limb, not only in defense of the
Constitution, but for the very land in which we live.
The American Legion would recommend the Veterans Eagle Park
Pass include the current discounts on use fees charged for
facilities and services that is the same discount currently
included in the Senior Pass.
We further recommend that the law make clear that only a
certified copy of the veterans' DD-214 needs to be provided to
purchase this pass. The reason for this recommendation is that
the DD-214 is an extremely important document that a veteran
must not lose. It is the only document that entitles a veteran
many rights, privileges, and benefits for the rest of the
veterans life. Should a DD-214 be lost or compromised, it may
cause irreparable harm to a veteran seeking benefits, or at
least a long delay as the veteran's DD-214 is reconstructed and
a new document is provided.
We do not want a veteran to be required to carry an
original DD-214 in order to purchase a pass because the
original DD-214 rightfully belongs in safekeeping.
The American Legion further recommends that the
subcommittee consider amending this legislation to include this
reduced annual fee be offered to current members of our Armed
Forces in both the active and reserve components. The American
Legion commends those Senators, including Senator Smith,
Senator Burr, and Senator Craig, who spoke on that amendment
today.
The American Legion is happy to fully support S. 617 and
all legislation that honors America's heroes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee that concludes
my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
American Legion's views on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stoline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dean Stoline, Assistant Director, Legislative
Commission, The American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to submit The American Legion's views on S. 617. The
American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing to
discuss this important issue.
The American Legion fully supports S. 617, a bill that provides
that the fee for the annual purchase of an America the Beautiful--
National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass be available, upon
proper identification, to honorably discharged veterans at the cost of
ten dollars.
America's military and its National Parks have a shared history. In
1916, the Department of the Interior was responsible for 14 national
parks and 21 national monuments but had no organization to manage them.
Department of Interior Secretaries asked the Army to detail troops to
Yellowstone and the California parks for this purpose. Army military
engineers and cavalrymen developed park roads and buildings. They
enforced park regulations against hunting, grazing, timber cutting and
vandalism. And these soldiers did their best to serve the people
visiting these parks.
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated an executive
transfer order. Under the order, effective August 10, 1933, the Park
Service received the War Department's parks and monuments, the fifteen
national monuments then held by the Forest Service and the national
capital parks, including the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and
the White House. The addition of nearly 50 historical areas in the East
made the park system and Park Service truly national and deeply
involved with historic, as well as, natural preservation.
The national park system has grown to 391 areas in nearly every
state and U.S. possession. In addition to managing these parks--as
diverse and far-flung as Volcanoes National Park in Hawaii and the
Statue of Liberty National Monument--the National Park Service supports
the preservation of natural and historic places and promotes outdoor
recreation outside the system through a range of grant and technical
assistance programs. Included in this preservation mission are
significant historic battlefields associated with wars on American soil
that is part of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP).
The ABPP promotes the preservation of significant American historic
battlefields. The goals of the program are 1) to protect battlefields
and sites associated with armed conflicts that influenced the course of
our history, 2) to encourage and assist all Americans in planning for
the preservation, management, and interpretation of these sites, and 3)
to raise awareness of the importance of preserving battlefields and
related sites for future generations. The ABPP focuses primarily on
land use, cultural resource and site management planning, and public
education.
The National Park Service has the honor of preserving many
battlefields, military parks and historic sites that commemorate and
honor the service of America's veterans. The National Park Service
currently honors American veterans by allowing all veterans free access
on Veterans Day. Consequently, The American Legion feels the National
Park Service should not resist allowing a reduced fee for the rest of
the year. This reduced fee would honor our American veterans by
allowing them to see these historical sites, enjoy these sites with
their families and thus reaffirm the importance of our Nation's history
of celebrating the past sacrifices and achievements of our men and
women who put themselves in harm's way and fought in America's wars.
The American Legion notes another link that the National Park
Service currently shares with our armed forces and veterans. In April
of this year the National Park Service hosted three representatives of
Afghanistan's Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism. They are
charged with preservation and protection of their country's historic
and cultural artifacts. The fact that the new government of Afghanistan
could turn to the National Park Service for training on how to preserve
their historical heritage was only made possible by America's armed
forces and its veterans.
America's National Parks are one of the nation's most precious
treasures. They represent the vastness, biodiversity, beauty and
strength of this great land. America asks her young people to serve in
the armed forces to guard and defend freedom and its way of life. Their
selfless service provides millions of their fellow citizens the
opportunity to pursue their recreational endeavors in peace and safety
in our nation's parks. Therefore, The American Legion fully supports
the reduced fee for veterans as a fitting honor for these veterans who
selflessly risked life and limb, not only in defense of the
Constitution, but for the very land in which we live.
The American Legion would recommend the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass
include the current fifty percent discount on Federal use fees charged
for facilities and services such as camping, swimming, parking, boat
launching and specialized interpretive services. This provision is the
same discount that is included in the America the Beautiful--National
Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Senior Pass.
We further recommend that the act make clear that only a certified
copy of the veteran's DD-214 needs to be provided to purchase this
pass. The reason for this recommendation is that the DD-214 is an
extremely important document that a veteran must not lose. It is the
only document that entitles a veteran many rights, privileges and
benefits for the rest of the veteran's life. Should a DD-214 be lost it
may cause irreparable harm to a veteran seeking benefits or at least a
long delay as the veteran's DD-214 is reconstructed and a new document
is provided. We do not want a veteran to be required to carry an
original DD-214 in order to purchase a pass because the original DD-214
rightfully belongs in safekeeping.
The American Legion further recommends this Subcommittee consider
amending this legislation to include that this reduced annual fee also
be offered to current members of our armed forces in both the active
and Reserve components.
The American Legion is glad to support S. 617 and all legislation
that honors America's heroes.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to present The American
Legion's view on this bill.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Stoline.
Now we'll hear from Heather Baker-Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER BAKER-SULLIVAN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUDSON-FULTON-CHAMPLAIN QUADRICENTENNIAL
COMMISSION, KATONAH, NY
Ms. Baker-Sullivan. Mr. Chairman and Senator Salazar, thank
you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1148, to
establish the Champlain Quadricentennial Commemorative
Commission and the Hudson-Fulton Quadricentennial Commission,
also known as the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial
Commemorative Commission Act of 2007.
I am Heather Baker-Sullivan, Executive Director of the
Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commission of New
York. I would like to express my particular thanks to Senator
Clinton for introducing the bill. Co-sponsors Senators Schumer,
Lee, and Sanders also lent significant support to the
legislation.
I would like to begin my remarks with an explanation of the
State commission and its mission and activities and then
address the establishment of the Federal commissions and the
helpful role they will play in assisting the State's efforts.
New York State's Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial
Commission was established in 2002 to plan and develop the
400th anniversary celebrations of the voyages of discovery made
by Henry Hudson and Samuel du Champlain, as well as the 200th
anniversary of Robert Fulton's maiden steamship voyage on the
Hudson River and the launch of a commercial steamship
enterprise on the Hudson River.
These individuals and events are exceptionally important to
New York State history and are a focus of our 2009 anniversary
commemoration. In addition to planning to anniversary, the
State's Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commission
will highlight the history and beauty of the Hudson River and
Lake Champlain and the opportunities for cultural, community,
and tourism enhancements along these waterways.
Commission activities have included and will continue to
entail making existing cultural institutions, museums, and
libraries the focus of the commemoration, coordinating
roundtable forums to seek public input for the commemoration,
coordinating civic, educational, cultural, and heritage
organizations to generate public interest and involvement,
promoting and encouraging educational outreach programs, media
and technology, including electronic communications, to draw
national and international attention, coordinating the planning
of commemorative events for all communities along the Hudson
River, Lake Champlain, and other interested communities around
the State, inviting other States and nations to participate in
the commemoration, coordinating and promoting high-profile
nongovernmental meetings, conferences, seminars, and
conventions in the Hudson River and Lake Champlain communities
using the Quadricentennial as a theme, seeking funding from
private individuals, foundations, and corporations to help
support capital improvements, preservation and conservation
needs associated with events commemorating the
Quadricentennial, coordinating and cooperating with State
entities and tourism promotion agencies, coordinating and
cooperating with local, State, and Federal entities, including
those linked to heritage area promotion, and any Federal
commission created to participate in the planning.
The goals of the Federal legislation are consistent with
the State commission and will help to establish our aims before
a national audience. The purpose of establishing the Federal
commissions may be summarized as to promote a suitable national
observance, ensure an excellent visitor experience, assure that
observances are inclusive, facilitate international
involvement, assist in marketing efforts, specifically
commemorative coins, stamps, etcetera, and coordinate with the
Lake Champlain Basin Program and the Quebec 2008 Commission.
S. 1148 explicitly states that, quote, ``Each commission
established under this Act shall coordinate with the other
respective commission established under this Act to ensure that
commemorations of Henry Hudson, Robert Fulton, and Samuel du
Champlain are consistent with the plans and programs of the
commemorative commissions established by the States of New York
and Vermont and are well organized and successful.''
We look forward to collaborating with our Federal partners
in delivering a commemoration which will highlight New York's
and, by extension, the Nation's achievements before the world.
The successful collaboration between State and Federal agencies
we now witness in the Jamestown 2007 commemoration is a model
we hope to emulate here. Clearly, the success in bringing
Jamestown and the State of Virginia's story to the Nation has
energized that State's citizens and brought about tangible
improvements and achievements on a local, regional, and
statewide level. That energy is already manifest in New York
and here in the presence of David Vaco, a citizen of New York
who is in passionate support of the legislation.
Our commemoration also constitutes a rare and precious
opportunity for our citizens to tell New York's stories beyond
the State's border, to establish our pride of place in the
Nation's history to a national and indeed international
audience, and to spur us on to achievements of our own at home.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baker-Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Heather Baker-Sullivan, Executive Director,
Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Commission, Katonah, NY
I am Heather Baker-Sullivan, Executive Director of the Hudson
Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission of New York. I am thankful
to the committee for the opportunity to testify in support of S.1148 to
establish the Champlain Quadricentennial Commemorative Commission and
the Hudson-Fulton Quadricentennial Commission, also known as the Hudson
Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commemorative Commission Act of 2007.
I would like to express my particular thanks to Senator Clinton for
introducing the bill. Cosponsors Senators Schumer, Leahy and Sanders
have also leant significant support to the legislation.
I would like to begin my remarks with an explanation of the state
Commission and its mission and activities, and then address the
establishment of the federal commissions and the helpful role they will
play in assisting the State's efforts.
New York State's Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial
Commission was established in 2002, to plan and develop the 400th
anniversary celebrations of the voyages of discovery made by Henry
Hudson and Samuel de Champlain, as well as the 200th anniversary of
Robert Fulton's maiden steamship voyage along the Hudson River and the
launch of the commercial steamship enterprise on the Hudson River.
These individuals and events are exceptionally important in New York
State history, and are the focus of the 2009 anniversary
commemorations.
In addition to planning the anniversary, the state's Hudson-Fulton-
Champlain Quadricentennial Commission will highlight the history and
beauty of the Hudson River and Lake Champlain, and the opportunities
for cultural, community, and tourism enhancements along these
waterways.
Commission activities have included, and will continue to entail:
Making existing cultural institutions, museums, and
libraries the focus of the commemoration.
Coordinating round table forums to seek public input for the
commemoration.
Coordinating civic, educational, cultural, and heritage
organizations to generate public interest and involvement in
developing the commemorative initiative.
Promoting and encouraging educational outreach programs,
media, and technology including electronic communications to
draw national and international attention to the
Quadricentennial.
Coordinating the planning of commemorative events for all
communities along the Hudson River, Lake Champlain, and other
interested communities around the state.
Inviting other states and nations to participate in the
commemoration.
Coordinating and promoting high profile, non-governmental
meetings, conferences, seminars, and conventions in Hudson
River and Lake Champlain communities using the Quadricentennial
as the theme.
Seeking funding from private individuals, foundations, and
corporations to help support capital improvements,
preservation, and conservation needs associated with events
commemorating the Quadricentennial.
Coordinating and cooperating with state entities and tourism
promotion agencies.
Coordinating and cooperating with local, state, and federal
entities including those linked to heritage area promotion and
any federal commission created to participate in the planning
of the Quadricentennial anniversary.
The goals of the federal legislation are consistent with the state
commission, and will help to establish our aims before a national
audience. The purpose of establishing the federal commissions may be
summarized as: to promote a suitable national observance; ensure an
excellent visitor experience; assure that observances are inclusive;
facilitate international involvement; assist in marketing efforts,
specifically commemorative coins, stamp, etc. and coordinate with the
Lake Champlain Basin Program and the Quebec 2008 commission. S. 1148
explicitly states that ``Each commission established under this Act
shall coordinate with the other respective commission established under
this Act to ensure that commemorations of Henry Hudson, Robert Fulton,
and Samuel de Champlain are--consistent with the plans and programs of
the commemorative commissions established by the States of New York and
Vermont, and are well-organized and successful.''
We look forward to collaborating with our federal partners in
delivering a commemoration which will highlight New York's, and by
extension, the nation's achievements before the world.
The successful collaboration between state and federal entities we
now witness in the Jamestown 2007 commemoration is a model we hope to
emulate here. Clearly, the success in bringing Jamestown and the State
of Virginia's story to the nation has energized that state's citizens
and brought about tangible improvements and achievements on the local,
regional and statewide level. Our commemoration also constitutes a rare
and precious opportunity for our citizens to tell New York's story
beyond the state's borders, to establish our pride of place in the
nation's story to a national and indeed, international audience and to
spur us on to achievements of our own at home.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak in support of
the legislation.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Now we'll hear from Tom Martin.
STATEMENT OF TOM MARTIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, LOOKING FOR
LINCOLN HERITAGE COALITION, SPRINGFIELD, IL
Mr. Martin. Chairman Akaka, thank you for this opportunity.
My name is Tom Martin. I am chairman of the board of the
Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, which is designated in
S. 955 as the management entity for the Abraham Lincoln
National Heritage Area. I'm a founding member of this
organization and currently serve as the chairman of the board.
My family operates a farming business comprised of over 6,000
acres of grain production, conservation, wildlife habitat, and
pasture acres. We are the sixth and seventh generation to farm
this land, settled in 1815. This allows me to speak directly to
the formation of this heritage area and its impact on private
property.
The Looking for Lincoln Heritage Area started in 1998 when
the State of Illinois Department of Economic Development began
a program to create Illinois heritage areas. We are a not-for-
profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of community
and historic site representatives. In the year 2002, members of
our board came to Washington to meet with the staff of the
National Park Service to determine how our project could be
recognized as a national heritage area. The information that we
gathered during that visit was extremely helpful and provided
valuable insights.
The National Park Service challenged us to find a way to
use the Lincoln story to create a much bigger canvas to
interpret Lincoln's 19th century world, in other words to tell
a bigger story. They also challenged us to complete a
feasibility study. It was a very important and revealing
exercise. In the process we looked at our resources, historic,
natural, and cultural. We developed significant partners, both
public and private.
At the same time, we traveled throughout central Illinois
talking to our constituents to understand how they could
interact with the project. The list of resources we compiled is
quite extraordinary. Our heritage area includes well over 30
fully interpreted Lincoln-related historic sites and museums
that are now open to the public on a regular schedule. In
addition, we have over 100 sites on the National Register of
Historic Places.
The proposed 42-county area includes 6 rivers, 13
significantly large parks, and more than 50 parks total. We
also have a site on UNESCO's World Heritage List and a growing
Illinois heritage program that is exploring the Underground
Railroad.
Once those resources were identified, we went back to the
first challenge from the National Park Service and developed
themes that touched on the major issues of Lincoln's America,
themes that could be told effectively by using this assembly of
resources. In other words, we learned to tell a much bigger
story, one that interprets Lincoln's 19th century world.
Our feasibility study also offers a list of partners in
this effort that includes the Illinois Department of Economic
Opportunity, the Illinois Bureau of Tourism, the Illinois
Historic Preservation Agency, the Lieutenant Governor's Office
of Rural Affairs, and 20-plus organizations, both public and
private, that not only support us in the effort to become a
national heritage area, but are currently working with us on a
number of other projects.
As for public participation, we are a grassroots program.
Our success depends on the active participation of each and
every community and its members, who are encouraged to tell
their own unique story. Our job is to support these communities
and to help them with whatever they need to tell their stories
and help develop their programs.
We have community support because they see results. We are
working with communities and historic sites to build projects,
assist with interpretive programs and develop coalitions and
partnerships. We are helping create visitor experiences from
wonderful stories that weren't being interpreted and then
linking all of them together, which enables us to create a more
complete picture of Lincoln's 30 years in central Illinois.
We identified partners and brought them to the table. We
are the facilitator for several collaborative projects based on
the themes that we have identified. Plus we are marketing those
places that are ready for visitors, including the Lincoln Home
National Historic Site, 14 Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency Lincoln sites, and 17 private sites, all open to the
public and providing crucial pieces of the Lincoln era story.
In conclusion, we have completed the National Park Service
four critical steps. We have written a feasibility study that
successfully addresses all of the 10 National Park Service
criteria for assessing a potential national heritage area. We
have actively and aggressively involved the public so we can
demonstrate widespread public support. We have an impressive
list of key constituents, including governments, private and
nonprofit organizations that not only support the creating of a
national heritage area, but actively are participating in
current heritage area projects.
Finally, I am not here today asking you to help us start a
heritage area. We have worked very hard for 9 years to become a
heritage area. However, I am asking you to take us to the next
step and designate us as the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage
Area.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Martin, Chairman of the Board, Looking for
Lincoln Heritage Coalition, Springfield, IL
Good Afternoon. My name is Tom Martin and I am the Chairman of the
Board of the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, which has been
designated in S. 955 as the management entity for the Abraham Lincoln
National Heritage Area. Since I am actively involved in this Looking
for Lincoln Heritage Project, I would like to share a little of our
history as well as provide the justification for creating the Abraham
Lincoln National Heritage Area. Before I start I would like to thank
Senator Durbin and the entire Illinois delegation for their support of
this project.
The Looking for Lincoln Heritage Area started in 1998 when the
State of Illinois Department of Economic Development began a program to
create Illinois heritage areas. We are a not-for-profit corporation
governed by a volunteer board of community and site representatives.
This heritage area has no impact on public property. We are not
interested in managing, owning or influencing the use of public or
private lands. All participation is voluntary.
In 2002, members of our board came to Washington to meet with staff
from the National Park Service to determine how our project could be
recognized as a national heritage area. The information that we
gathered during that visit was extremely helpful and provided valuable
insights.
The National Park Service challenged us to find a way to use the
Lincoln story to create a much broader canvas to interpret Lincoln's
nineteenth-century world--in other words, to tell a bigger story.
They also challenged us to complete a Feasibility Study. It was a
very important and revealing exercise. In the process we looked at our
resources--historic, natural and cultural. We developed significant
partners--both public and private. At the same time we traveled
throughout central Illinois talking to our constituents to understand
how they could interact with the project.
The list of resources we compiled is quite extraordinary. Our
heritage area includes well over 30 fully interpreted Lincoln-related
historic sites and museums that are open to the public on a regular
schedule. In addition, we have over 100 sites on the National Register
of Historic Places. The proposed 42 county area includes 6 rivers, 13
significantly large parks, and more than 50 parks total. We also have a
site on UNESCO's World Heritage List and a growing Illinois heritage
program that is exploring the Underground Railroad.
Once those resources were identified, we went back to the first
challenge from the National Park Service and developed themes that
touched on the major issues of Lincoln's America--themes that could be
told effectively by using this assemblage of resources. In other words
we learned to tell a bigger story--one that interprets Lincoln's
nineteenth-century world.
Our Feasibility Study also offers a list of partners in this effort
that includes the Illinois Department of Economic Opportunity, the
Illinois Bureau of Tourism, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency,
the Lieutenant Governor's Office of Rural Affairs and twenty plus
organizations, both public and private, that not only support us in the
effort to become a national heritage area, but are currently working
with us on a number of projects.
As for public participation, we are a grass-roots program. Ask all
of the many government officials, chamber of commerce members,
historical society committees and individuals that we have worked with
over the last nine years. They will tell you that we have their
support.
We have community support because they see results. We are working
with communities and historic sites to build projects, assist with
interpretive programs and develop coalitions and partnerships. We are
helping create visitor experiences from wonderful stories that weren't
being interpreted. We identified partners and brought them to the
table. We are the facilitator for several collaborative projects based
on the themes that we have identified. Plus we are marketing those
places that are ready for visitors including the Lincoln Home National
Historic Site, 14 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Lincoln Sites
and 17 private sites--all open to the public and providing crucial
pieces of the Lincoln-era story.
In conclusion, we have completed the National Park Service ``Four
Critical Steps.'' We have written a Feasibility Study that successfully
addresses all of the ten National Park Service criteria for assessing a
potential national heritage area. We have actively and aggressively
involved the public, so we can demonstrate widespread public support.
We have an impressive list of key constituents including governments,
private and non-profit organizations that not only support the creating
of a national heritage area, but are actively participating in current
heritage area projects.
Finally, I am not here today asking you to help us start a heritage
area. We've worked hard to become a heritage area. However, I am asking
you to take us to the next step and designate us as the Abraham Lincoln
National Heritage Area.
The proposed Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area had its origins
in 1998 when the project was officially designated as one of seven
Heritage Tourism programs funded by the Illinois Department of Commerce
and Community Affairs (DCCA). The Looking for Lincoln Heritage Project
set out immediately to identify resources and involve communities in
central Illinois where Abraham Lincoln left his traces on the
``physical and imaginative landscape.'' Among the sites identified were
the Lincoln Home National Historic Site, and many State Historic Sites
(managed by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency), numerous sites
connected with Lincoln's work as a lawyer and politician, places and
scenes familiar to Lincoln's family and associates, and a variety of
other natural, historic, and cultural resources.
Representatives from the participating Looking for Lincoln
communities and sites met to initiate the public planning process and
formed Executive and Steering Committees to guide their work. Committee
members hired a part-time staff person to help coordinate the planning
process. County and municipal governments became involved with the
project. A key participant was the Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency (IHPA), which provided the project with two professional
historians and additional leadership through an executive appointed to
the planning committee.
Public involvement was a significant part of the planning process,
which began to shape the initiative. Following a series of local
meetings, a vision and goal statement was developed: to provide new
insights into Lincoln's life, work, friends, and family; to preserve
and enhance each community's history and culture; and, to enhance the
educational and economic benefit to the public.'' It became clear from
these initial meetings that the scope of the project should be
broadened to emphasize the preservation and interpretation of the
natural landscape and the region's cultural traditions as a natural
context for the story of Lincoln and his generation of Americans. This
prompted project leaders to begin to explore the concept of National
Heritage Areas.
A National Heritage Area was envisioned initially for the central
Illinois region, with the National Park Service's Lincoln Home National
Historic Site and the future Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and
Museum serving as a central hub for the area. The concept began to
present a picture of what the region and each community and site within
the region could accomplish through a coordinated program focused on
telling the Lincoln story and preserving remnants of the physical and
cultural landscapes of Lincoln's America for the education and
enrichment of future generations.
Looking for Lincoln, as it was now called, compiled an inventory of
related resources . . . natural, historic, and cultural, created a
regional map identifying the proposed boundary for the project,
commissioned a graphic artist to design a logo, and produced an
informational brochure.
During the first year of the public planning process, IHPA
historians helped local communities research their connections to
Lincoln and his times and to create a database of natural, historical,
and cultural resources to be preserved, enhanced, and interpreted. The
project also hired the planning and design firm of Peckham, Guyton,
Albers and Viets, Inc., from St. Louis to create an Interpretive
Standards Manual and Implementation Plan containing historical criteria
and design and construction specifications for a variety of exhibits
and wayside signage. As new communities expressed a desire to
participate in the Looking for Lincoln project, the manual became an
important tool in outlining the criteria and standards for
participation.
The Looking for Lincoln Illinois heritage area was begun eight
years ago with an assemblage of Lincoln-related historic sites and
resources that allowed the project to make a strong start. Those sites
along with the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and
Museum and the creation of new sites and collaborative programs assure
that this project will continue to grow. Looking for Lincoln has been
supported during the eight years of its existence by a variety of
public and private resources. The Illinois Department of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity provides administrative funding and the Illinois
Historic Preservation agency contributes crucial in-kind services
including some overhead and significant consulting services. In
addition, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum has
partnered with Looking for Lincoln on a number of projects. Other
public and private institutions have also contributed. The
relationships have developed over the last eight years and Looking for
Lincoln has become an interregnal part of their outreach efforts. This
significant level of support has allowed Looking for Lincoln to
concentrate on working directly with key constituents and to develop
and enhance new tourism product, establish collaborative programs and
assure the continuing quality standards that has made the effort
successful so far. All signs indicated that the support we have been
receiving will continue. As Looking for Lincoln creates more sites and
projects, future stability will be reinforced as the potential for
membership and fee for service programs increases.
Over the past eight years Looking for Lincoln has continued to
refine and extend its public planning process through outreach and
participation with local citizens, community leaders, and local
governments throughout the central Illinois area, conducting a series
of introductory and follow-up planning meetings. The purpose has been
to help initiate local public planning process, to share information
about the project, and to assure that communities and sites interested
in participating will have the tools and information necessary to begin
their planning. In some cases the gatherings have been simply
informational; in at least three instances Looking for Lincoln provided
strategic planning assistance; and in other cases, Looking for Lincoln
representatives presented information to elected officials. In all of
these meetings, the importance of understanding and conforming to the
standards and criteria developed for the program has been stressed to
local leaders so that they can incorporate the standards and criteria
in their local detailed planning from the beginning. These outreach and
strategic planning meetings with local community leaders continue to be
a fundamental aspect of the Looking for Lincoln program.
In the early stages, Looking for Lincoln, tended to focus on single
projects and strategic planning for individual communities. While this
approach benefited each participant it tended to isolate the progress
to individual areas and consumed a great deal of time. In addition,
other communities were not aware of successes because Looking for
Lincoln was not doing an effective job of communicating that
information. And because the effort was not collaborative our partners
were not seeing results from the work that was being done. When we
tackled the challenge of bringing the Lincoln Douglas Debate
communities together we began a successful process that has become a
model for future endeavors.
With the Sesquicentennial of the Lincoln Douglas Debates
approaching in 2008, Looking for Lincoln volunteered to bring the seven
debate communities together to discuss the potential of a cooperative
effort. Looking for Lincoln's role became that of a facilitator
bringing the right players to the table, both public and private,
managing the meetings and offering suggestions without dictating the
program. It has been an extremely successful effort for everyone
concerned. The communities developed their own project and took
responsibility for it, and Looking for Lincoln learned a great deal
from the experience. This collaborative approach has also encouraged
constructive competition among the communities involved which means
that ideas tend to be pushed to an even higher level. The result is a
plan for achievable and realistic commemoration events that include an
analysis of how the arguments were framed during the debates and how
the debates influenced thinking on major issues of the time. Finally,
each community is planning a legacy project which will improve and
enhance their sites to ultimately provide visitors with an educational
and informative experience far beyond the current commemorative statues
that exist now.
Based on the success of the Lincoln-Douglas debate project, Looking
for Lincoln has adopted a new approach by focusing on several wide-
scale inclusive projects. For example, plans are in process for a
program which will include all of the communities within the 8th
Judicial Circuit. The Circuit changed during Lincoln's years as a
lawyer, encompassing 17 counties in all. The geographic area covers a
large part of the proposed National Heritage Area. Communities range in
size from urban environments like Springfield and Bloomington to rural
settings like Havana and Paris. While Lincoln the lawyer is the
unifying theme of this project, the real opportunity is using this
journey to present a much wider story encompassing the culture,
environment, landscapes and issues that influenced the people of
Illinois in the 19th Century and certainly influenced Lincoln as he
traveled throughout Illinois and matured as a political leader.
Another project taking a new approach involves wayside exhibits. A
major part of the original Interpretive Standards Manual and
Implementation Plan provides specifications and criteria for creating
wayside exhibits. The City of Springfield, using additional federal
funds, created 41 interpretive storyboards throughout the downtown area
to demonstrate to other communities the potential of wayside projects.
The concept is to link Illinois' many Lincoln-related historic sites
with a graphic identity that helps visitors visually connect the
stories. While these wayside exhibits have a common graphic look, each
community can maintain the integrity of their own history. The graphic
panels are designed to tell two stories--one specific to Lincoln and
one that puts Lincoln into a bigger context and tells a larger story.
Through another federal grant and by leveraging local dollars, we have
been able to offer the opportunity to install these wayside exhibits in
all of the communities in our project for a significantly reduced cost.
It is yet another way of fostering important community relationships.
The goal of the Looking for Lincoln project is to help communities
recognize, develop and respect their history and to help them find ways
to share that history with others. When the story is told affectively
and the interpretation becomes an experience for visitors, then Looking
for Lincoln begins the marketing process. In the first year Looking for
Lincoln started with a simple map, but have now graduated to a visitor
guide. The web is also an important component as well as joint
marketing efforts with the Illinois Bureau of Tourism. Looking for
Lincoln relies on cross promoting among sites and particularly with the
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and the state sponsored visitor
centers. The Illinois Bureau of Tourism has also included us in their
public relations activities. We anticipate that this effort will be
ramped up as the Bicentennial approaches.
As the Looking for Lincoln program has gained experience and
momentum, its planning and accomplishments to date have already served
to demonstrate the value of this comprehensive project to the entire
nation--and indeed the world. This study documents the feasibility of
establishing an Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area. Included are
inventories documenting many of the region's natural, historic, and
cultural resources, and an analysis of their potential to preserve and
interpret a by-gone era and way of life significant in the development
of the United States. The study also identifies a local coordinating
entity (Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, a not-for-profit
501(c)3 corporation), defines the area to be included, and documents
the support of the project's partners.
Central Illinois, the heart of the ``Land of Lincoln,'' still
echoes with historic themes from Lincoln's America. Portions of the
natural landscape remain to be preserved or restored. Inherited
folkways and cultural traditions are still practiced and transmitted to
younger generations. And the burning issues of Lincoln's day--race
relations and national unity amidst social and cultural diversity--
remain to be addressed. In short, much of Lincoln's nineteenth-century
world remains to be preserved, interpreted, and transmitted to future
generations in an Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area.
major themes
A. The major issues of Lincoln's America.
The major issues of Lincoln's America--equality and race relations, and
national unity and the capacity of democratic governments to deal with
the centrifugal forces of social and cultural diversity--still define
the challenges facing our nation today.
Equality and Race Relations Equality and race relations were
at the heart of the moral, economic, and social turmoil caused
by slavery in Lincoln's America. The inability of democratic
government and the political culture of the time to mediate
between conflicting moral visions was at the heart of the Civil
War. The historic resources that visitors encounter throughout
the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area provide a forum for
today's Americans to reconsider these vital contemporary issues
in a historical context, allowing perhaps for new perspectives
and fresh approaches.
National unity and the capacity of democratic government and
ideals to deal with the centrifugal forces of social and
cultural diversity. In many ways, the Civil War resulted from a
failure by Americans of that day to overcome the divisive
forces of diversity in their culture. Americans today,
challenged anew with sustaining a workable political, social,
and cultural consensus despite the countervailing forces of
diversity, may have much to learn from the attitudes and
actions of the Civil War generation. Americans today may
contemplate this challenge as they encounter the life
experiences of people from Lincoln's era at sites throughout
the proposed National Heritage area.
B. Lincoln's life experience reflects many important themes in the
social, cultural, economic, and political history of America.
Historic resources related to these themes are found throughout the
entire proposed National Heritage area. But various Looking for Lincoln
communities, originally designated in the state heritage program,
provide examples of how communities can be loosely identified with
certain historical themes:
Decatur Area--Immigrant Beginnings
New Salem and Petersburg Area--Market Revolution and
Economic Transformations
Coles County Area--Importance of Extended Family and Kinship
Network
Vandalia Area--Expansion of American Participatory Democracy
Bloomington Area--Frontier Aspirations for Middle-Class
Respectability
Logan County Area--The Evolution of American Legal Culture
Springfield Area--Individual Self-Transformation and the
``Self-Made'' Ethos
major resources
The proposed Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area is replete with
significant natural, historic, and cultural resources.
Cutting across the physical landscape of the region are three
National Scenic By-Ways--the Great River Road, the Meeting of the Great
Rivers, and the National Road; a National Scenic River--The Middle Fork
in Vermilion County; two National Natural Landmarks and over fifty
other state parks, wildlife preserves, conservation areas, and
wilderness county park districts. All of these places preserve portions
of the Illinois landscape and afford visitors an opportunity to
experience the physical environment of rivers, woodlands, and prairies
that were familiar to Abraham Lincoln and his generation of Americans.
Over a quarter of the 426 sites on the National Register of
Historic Places scattered throughout the 42 counties making up the
proposed National Heritage Area are related to historical themes from
Lincoln's nineteenth-century America, including a unit of the National
Park System--Lincoln Home National Historic Site, eleven National
Historic Landmarks, sixteen State Historic Sites, and a site on the
UNESCO World Heritage List. The burning issues of Lincoln's day--race
relations and national unity amidst social and cultural diversity-still
remain, and are confronted in a number of different venues.
Various sites give visitors insight into important themes relating
to nineteenth-century social, cultural, economic and political history-
immigration, economic transformation, kinship networks, political
democratization, the rise of middle-class gentility in the American
West, the evolution of legal culture, and the American ethos of
individual self-transformation. Today's cultural landscape still
reflects nineteenth-century antecedents as people throughout the area
continue to celebrate their inherited cultural traditions in religious
settings, living history farms and villages, annual commemorative
events, celebrations of itinerant lawyer life, recognition of
indigenous American Indian cultures, and in sculpture, art, and drama.
The rich assemblage of resources provides outstanding opportunities
to preserve, interpret, and commemorate distinctive historic
traditions, customs, beliefs, and folkways that present valuable
aspects of American heritage. They provide outstanding recreational and
educational opportunities to the people of the nation and beyond. The
people, communities, events, and landscapes of the region reflect
continuing ties to Abraham Lincoln's life and times. Together they
bring an immediacy and tangible quality to the powerful Lincoln legacy.
Individually and collectively they constitute the Abraham Lincoln
National Heritage Area, celebrating the land and people Lincoln knew.
It is therefore recommended that Looking for Lincoln pursue National
Heritage Area designation.
The proposed Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area:
Is undeniably a story with national and international
significance
Offers many Lincoln-related thematic connections that can
support a multitude of interpretive and educational programs.
Is made up of communities that represent distinctive aspects
of Lincoln heritage, worthy of recognition and interpretation
Provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural,
historic and cultural resources.
Provides the framework of interpreting the American
experience of the 19th century at a time that was significant
in the development of our Nation.
Looking for Lincoln has:
Based on the guidance provided by the National Park Service,
taken a Lincoln-focused tourism project and shaped a heritage
area by expanding that focus to include the forces of the 19th
century on Lincoln and his influence on the political, cultural
and economic history of America.
Been supported by Illinois State Agencies including the
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and the Illinois
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, as well as the
Lincoln Home National Historic Site. Other supporting public
and private agencies can be found in the Addendum to this
report.
Obtained demonstrations of support for national designation
from local and state partners and indications of willingness to
maintain a working relationship and continue support for
Looking for Lincoln in the development of a National Heritage
Area.
Through a series of community meetings, local strategic
planning exercises and collaborative projects has involved
residents, business interests, non-profit organizations, and
various levels of government in programs and in the planning
process.
Created a conceptual boundary map which has been shared with
and supported by the Public.
Agreed to continue as the management entity for the proposed
National Heritage Area and to manage the process for creating a
long-range Management Plan as the first step of designation.
looking for lincoln participating communities and sites
The following communities and historic sites are currently
participating in Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition promotional
programs:
City of Beardstown--Cass County, Lincoln Court House
Cities of Bloomington Normal--McLean County, David Davis
Mansion State Historic Site, McLean County History Museum
Walking Tour
Cities of Charleston and Lerna--Coles County, Charleston
Debate Museum, Lincoln Log Cabin State Historic Site, Reuben
Moore State Historic Site, Shiloh Cemetery State Historic Site
City of Danville--Vermilion County, Dr. Fithian Home,
Vermilion County Historical Museum
City of Decatur--Macon County, Macon County Historical
Museum Complex
City of Elkhart--Logan County, Under the Prairie
ArcheologicalMuseum
City of Galesburg--Knox County, Carl Sandburg State Historic
Site, Knox College Old Main
City of Lincoln--Logan County, Postville Courthouse State
Historic Site, Lincoln College and Museum
City of Mahomet--Champaign County, Early American Museum
City of Metamora--Woodford, Metamora Courthouse State
HistoricSite
City of Mt. Pulaski--Logan County, Mt. Pulaski Courthouse
State Historic Site, Mt. Pulaski Historical Society Museumand
Welcome Center
City of Petersburg--Menard County, New Salem State Historic
Site, Menard County Historical Society Museum and exhibit
Pittsfield--Pike County, The Talking Houses of Pittsfield,
Shasdid House
City of Springfield--Sangamon County, Abraham Lincoln
Presidential Library and Museum, Old State Capitol State
Historic Site, Lincoln Law Offices State Historic Site, Lincoln
Tomb State Historic Site, Lincoln Depot (Great Western Depot),
Lincoln Home National Historic Site, Here I have lived walking
tour
City of Taylorville--Christian County, Christian County
Historical Museum
City of Vandalia--Fayette County, Vandalia Statehouse State
Historic Site
The following sites are part of a special LFL Debate Project:
Lincoln Douglas Debate Sites, City of Alton--Madison County,
City of Quincy--Adams County, City of Jonesboro Union County,
City of Freeport--Stephenson County, City of Ottawa--LaSalle
County, City of Galesburg--Knox County, City of Charleston--
Coles County
City of Chicago--Cook County, Chicago Museum of History
public and private partners currently involved in looking for lincoln
heritage area projects
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity,
Jack Lavin, Director
Illinois Bureau of Tourism, Jan Kostner, Deputy Director,
Jan Kemmerling, Assistant Deputy Director
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Robert Coomer,
Director, Paula Cross, Superintendent of Historic Sites, Thomas
Schwartz, State Historian
Lieu. Governor's Rural Affairs Council, Carolyn Brown Hodge,
Director of Rural Affairs
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Rick Beard,
Executive Director and Director Library Foundation, Jennifer
Tirey, Deputy Director, Bryon Andreasen, Presidential Library
Historian
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation, Susan
Mogerman, Chief Operating Officer
Illinois Bicentennial Commission, Kay Smith, Director
National Park Service Lincoln Home National Historic Site,
James Sanders, Superintendent
Illinois Association of Museums, Mary Turner, Executive
Director
Illinois Department of Conservation--Illinois State Museum,
Karen Witter, Associate Museum Director
Illinois Mainstreet, Wendy Bell, Director
Knox College Lincoln Study Center, Rodney O. Davis and
Douglas L. Wilson, Co-directors
Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Stowell, Director
Illinois Department of Transportation, Terry Fountain,
District Engineer
Illinois Elderhostel--Lincoln Land Community College Senior
Outreach, John Allen
Illinois Tourism Alliance, Nina Winston, Executive Director
Lincoln Douglas Society, Edward Finch, President
Stephen A. Douglas Association, George Buss, President
The Abraham Lincoln Association, Dick Hart, President
Illinois High School Association, Mary Hickman, Ed.D.,
Executive Director
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.
Now we'll hear from Charlene Cutler, Perkins Cutler.
STATEMENT OF CHARLENE PERKINS CUTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
CEO, QUINEBAUG-SHETUCKET HERITAGE CORRIDOR, INC.
Ms. Perkins Cutler. Mr. Chairman, Senator Salazar, thank
you for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S.
1182, to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket River Valley
National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994. For the record, we call
it the last green valley.
I ask that our document, ``The Trail to 2015: A
Sustainability Study,'' be entered in its entirety into the
record of the committee.
Senator Akaka. It will be included in the record.
Ms. Perkins Cutler. Thank you.
I will not reiterate my written testimony because I know
you are very short on time, but I want to emphasize that it is
our intent to be self-sustaining and not needing Federal
funding by the year 2015. I believe we're the first national
heritage corridor to express that intent.
You may recall, Mr. Chairman and Senator Salazar, that I
did testify to virtually the same bill last year and entered
this sustainability plan into the record at that time.
If I might speak to the two points brought up by Ms.
Stevenson from the Park Service, I realize that this is
preempting our sunset by 2 years--3 years, last year, and the
reason for that is very simple. We are in a very rural area.
Part of our sustainability plan is the development of a
permanent fund to sustain our work. We need to launch a major
and a very lengthy capital campaign.
The success of that campaign will depend on us having the
continued faith shown by the authorization as a national
heritage area through that period of time. So we're anxious to
get that under way, but we don't want it to be short-circuited
in 2 years with the sunset of our authorization.
Also, we have had this plan done now for a year and a half.
It has been in various offices of the National Park Service for
that period of time. We welcome their evaluation and their
comments on it absolutely. I haven't had any comments. I didn't
realize they were going to make an evaluation until just last
Friday. I would hate to have that hold up our reauthorization
at this point because it's really critical that we get on to
this next level to become self-sustaining.
I am very thankful to Senator Dodd for introducing the
amendment, and for the support of Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and
Lieberman in this piece of legislation, and for their support
of our work.
I am pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Perkins Cutler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charlene Perkins Cutler, Executive Director and
CEO, Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to offer testimony on S. 1182, to amend the Quinebaug and
Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994. I am
the executive director and CEO of Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage
Corridor, Inc., the grassroots nonprofit designated as management
entity for the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage
Corridor.
I ask that our document, The Trail to 2015, a Sustainability Plan,*
be entered in its entirety into the record of this Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize that document, I am pleased to say that Quinebaug-
Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc. has been very successful in its work
to date in fulfilling the intent of Public Law 103-449, the
responsibility given to us by the Congress, and the visions and goals
of our Management Plan. It is our intent to be self-sustaining and not
need federal funding by the year 2015.
Our Heritage Corridor has been diligent and has completed a
Management Plan, an Implementation and Action Plan, an
Interpretive Plan, a Ten-Year Plan that extended the vision of
the original management goals, and now a Sustainability Plan.
Those guiding documents were completed in a timely and
efficient manner, and have been truly useful documents.
We have shown a consistent ability to maximize scarce
resources by developing and fostering partnerships with
federal, state and municipal governments, and regional
corporate and private entities. We have acted as an educator
and facilitator to motivate other organizations to take
independent actions in line with our mission. When the Heritage
Corridor was the only or most appropriate entity, we have taken
action through specific projects or programs to do critical
work.
Our Heritage Corridor has received numerous state and
national awards recognizing the excellence of our work,
including the 2005 Public Education Award from the American
Planning Association for our Green Valley Institute.
We have consistently met and exceeded the required match on
our federal appropriation. The third page of my written
testimony includes an analysis of our funding and non-federal
leverage since 1996.** The cumulative ratio is $19 of match
from our partners for each federal dollar invested in the
Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct grants to more than 200 local projects have funded
work in trail development, historic preservation, economic
development, heritage tourism infrastructure, natural resource
conservation and community planning. The Sustainability Plan
offers many examples of these projects.
Hundreds of volunteers gave more than ten thousand hours of
service last year to our mission-related projects and programs,
and thousands of participants benefited from our FY06 education
programs.
According to our FY06 audit, 89% of the Heritage Corridor's
expenditures, regardless of source, go directly into
programming.
Our communities and residents increasingly look to our Heritage
Corridor as a source for guidance and assistance, and as an advocate
for resource conservation in The Last Green Valley. We have developed
credibility at the local, regional, state and federal levels. The need
to continue the work to fulfill the mission will be present for several
decades. That is why we adopted the Sustainability Plan last January
and why we are committed to achieving its goals.
There are two key elements to meeting those goals:
In order to maintain credible programming that will attract
significant, long-term, non-federal resources, it is critical
to retain the federal investment over the next eight years.
Reauthorization to 2015 would leverage significant, multi-
year, non-federal commitments that are essential to our self-
sustainability.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the Quinebaug and Shetucket
Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Reauthorization Act of 1994 be
amended to extend the period of authorization from 2009 to 2015, and to
extend the total appropriation from $10 million to $15 million, to
coincide with our timetable to be self-sustaining by the year 2015. We
also request that we retain the designation of ``National Heritage
Corridor'' after authorization ceases, as our region will remain one of
significant national resources.
I thank Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry and Lieberman for their
support of our work and this amendment.
I am pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
This concludes my prepared testimony.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Cutler.
I want to say thank you for all of your testimonies. I have
a few questions here.
Mayor Burke, you've testified on the broad local support
for this wilderness designation. The Park Service has testified
that these areas already are being managed as wilderness and
that this bill will not change the on-the-ground management of
the park. Why then is the formal designation as wilderness so
important to the local community?
Ms. Burke. Mr. Chairman, the reason that this is so
important to the local community is, as I'm sure you
understand, none of us lasts forever. So this is something that
would be put into the public record and therefore would be a
permanent management system for the Park Service. It is
important for our local community because the park is our back
yard and it is our way of making the tourist dollars that we
need to survive.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Harmon, the National Park Service has testified that
your company agreed in 1907 and again in 2000 to a stipulation
that established a strict liability standard in return for the
right of way and the stipulated water rights agreement. If this
standard has been agreed to by your company, why is there a
change needed now?
Mr. Harmon. As we mentioned earlier, reading the record
back in 1907, I don't believe that the company had any
alternative to signing the agreement except to walk away from
the ditch, and they had already invested considerable
resources, including in the early days of the ditch the annual
dues consisted of sending a man and two mules for the summer up
to work on it. So it was a significant investment at that point
in time.
The question why does it need to be changed? We don't think
it's patently fair to expect that we be responsible for
expenses, costs, for damages to the resource which are not the
result of our actions; they're created by acts of God and so
on. We're simply looking for some relief there. We do believe
we should be responsible if we cause damage to the park through
our own negligence or through our own intentional acts. I can't
imagine we'd do that. So we're not trying to avoid
responsibility for our actions. But we think that the standard
established back in 1907 was egregious.
Senator Akaka. As I understand Senator Salazar's bill, the
Grand River Ditch and 200 feet on either side are excluded from
the wilderness. In that case, why should this liability issue
be included as part of the bill, since the wilderness
designation isn't affecting your operation?
Mr. Harmon. We raised this issue because there has been a
pattern of legislation and stipulation starting in 1907 which
has gradually been accumulating on the ditch and around the
ditch, and we're fearful that, even though we have a 200-foot
exclusion on either side of the ditch, that there could be
impacts to our operations from the ditch. So we thought the
time was appropriate to raise our concerns.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Stoline, your testimony indicates that The American
Legion supports expanding the discount to include those on
active duty and in the reserve. In your opinion should it
include members of the National Guard as well?
Mr. Stoline. Yes, sir. The National Guard is a part of the
reserve component, the Army Reserve, and we would include all
of them as they are in active service.
Senator Akaka. The bill would provide the discount to
anyone who separated from military service, quote, ``under
conditions other than dishonorable,'' unquote. Is this the
appropriate standard or should it be limited to those with
honorable discharges?
Mr. Stoline. I don't know the genesis of that part of the
legislation, but VA regulations, veterans who have that type of
discharge, that is the way it's phrased in the VA regulations.
I assume that's the intent and we would go along with that.
Obviously, if a veteran has a less than honorable discharge
they still have administrative review rights, so it may not be
in fact a permanent bar.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ms. Baker-Sullivan, earlier I asked the Park Service about
the appropriateness of having a Federal commission composed
partly of State commission members and then be able to make
grants to the same commission. Since you are the Executive
Director of one of the State commissions, can you help explain
why it's appropriate for Federal funds to be used as grants for
the State commissions?
Ms. Baker-Sullivan. I would have to review that more
carefully. I think I do have to review that more carefully. The
grants are capped at $20,000 for commemorative commissions, and
I could apply to local commissions, I believe. Some local
entities are establishing their own commemorative commissions
and nonprofits. So I don't know if that sheds a little bit of
light on the thinking there. But I think the intent is
certainly to support the local efforts, I believe, to enhance
the commemoration.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Martin, I have one question about your bill. Earlier
this year the committee began requiring other proposed heritage
areas to conduct an evaluation 3 years before the end of the
authorized funding period to assess whether the heritage area
had been successful in meeting its original goals and have the
Secretary review that evaluation. The Park Service has
supported this new evaluation.
Do you have concerns if a similar requirement is added to
your bill?
Mr. Martin. At this time, this is the first I've heard of
it is today. As a businessman and volunteer, I believe we've
got to be responsive to when the government steps forward and
helps us establish an economic area, which that's the purpose I
am here for, is looking at the economic interests of our area.
I think it's critical that we have the ability to be able to
come back and report to the government and to our
representatives how good a job we did.
I know my colleague here talked about sustainability. I
think that's the purpose of this, to have sustainability over a
long period of time. This is an economic engine that helps us
get going. But at this time I would agree that that would be a
wise way to proceed.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ms. Cutler, my next question concerns S. 1182, the bill
extending the authorization for the Quinebaug and Shetucket
National Heritage Corridor. As I understand, the authority for
this corridor was previously amended in 1999----
Ms. Perkins Cutler. Correct.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. To give it the same
authorization level as other heritage areas. Since Congress has
already extended the authority and increased the
appropriations, why is another increase necessary now?
Ms. Perkins Cutler. We were authorized originally in 1994.
We did not receive any funding until 1996. Between 1996 and
2000 we received a total of $800,000. While we used the money
very wisely, we were unable to produce huge impacts with that
small amount of money.
Extending our authorization on the forward end allows us to
maintain the quality of the programs that we've established,
which will in fact attract additional resources that we need to
become self-sustaining.
Senator Akaka. Finally, can you tell me how much of your
current $10 million authorization is still available?
Ms. Perkins Cutler. We have received through this year $6.2
million in total from 1996 through Fiscal Year 2007.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Mr. Salazar, do you have any comments or questions?
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.
First, Mr. Stoline, I appreciate your testimony here today
and I'm proud to become a co-sponsor of your legislation, S.
617, and we'll move forward with that.
Mr. Stoline. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Salazar. Also, to the entire panel, I want to thank
you all for coming from your places to Washington and testify
before our committee. I, in particular, want to thank Mayor
Burke for her leadership. I know the beauty of Grand Lake. I
know the beauty of Rocky Mountain National Park. You know it
like the back of your hand. I appreciate the great advocacy
that you, Grand County, Larimer County, Estes Park, and all the
rest of the communities involved have brought to this issue.
Dennis Harmon, to you and the Water Supply and Storage
Company, and especially to those who have for generations, like
Tom Moore and his family, stood with this ditch from the last
century until--actually, 2 centuries ago--until now, I
appreciate your working with us as we try to get to a
resolution that addresses the concerns of the national park as
well as the concerns of the ditch company. I look forward to
concluding that agreement that you're working on in as rapid a
fashion as we possibly can.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to include for the record in
support of Senate 1380 on the Rocky Mountain National Park
letters that have been written in support, which include
letters from the Wilderness Society, the Back Country Snow
Sports Alliance, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the
Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition, the Colorado
Environmental Coalition, the Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado
Wild, Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance, the Upper
Arkansas and South Platte Project.
I also would like to include for the record a letter from
the Conservation Alliance in support of the legislation, and
the League of Women Voters of Estes Park; letters also in
support of the legislation from the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners, the International Mountain Bicycling
Association, as well as a number of other letters that we'll
submit for the record.
I appreciate your patience and your support also for this
legislation. I thank again the witnesses for coming here today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Salazar. All of those
will be included in the record.
I want to also add my thanks to the witnesses for
testifying this afternoon. We appreciate your willingness to
come all this way to Washington on fairly short notice. Some of
the members of the committee who were not able to attend this
afternoon may submit additional questions in writing, and if we
receive any we'll forward them to you and ask you to respond,
so that we may include both the questions and answers in the
official hearing record.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, I will be
working with the minority members and the bill's sponsors to
see if we can get these bills ready for full committee
consideration as soon as possible. We will try to do that.
Again, I want to thank all of you. This has been a great
hearing. It will help us in making our decisions.
Thank you very much. This subcommittee hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Charlene Perkins Cutler to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. (S. 574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization):
Ms. Cutler, you stated that your heritage area will be self-sustaining
without any need for Federal funds in 2015. Have you always intended to
become self-sustaining or is this a new approach to doing business?
Answer. Senator Thomas, early on our Heritage Corridor anticipated
becoming self-sufficient, and our planning documents bear that out. We
were one of the earlier NHAs designated and received a smaller
appropriation for the first five years ($200,000/year). In a region of
nearly 1,100 square miles, it is understandable that under that level
of funding our impacts were small. In the past five years we have
accomplished significant work with the increased federal investment and
been able to coalesce many partners and, most importantly, residents
around our joint mission.
In 2000, we wrote Vision 2010: A Ten-Year Plan, that expanded on
the vision of our original management plan. The overall goal of that
plan was ``to accomplish the mission of our National Heritage Corridor
by perceiving and reflecting the priorities of residents and
translating these into programs and services for the next ten years and
beyond.'' That plan also foresaw the need to think past federal funding
and stated that if the overall goal was to carry the work forward, an
endowment or some other type of permanent fund would need to be
established to generate income for the work.
In preparation for that eventuality, our organization conducted a
Fundraising Feasibility Study in 2002. That study recognized that there
was no example of a National Heritage Corridor developing a permanent
fund, and therefore, we were in uncharted waters. The document also
recognized the rural nature of our region. It laid out a conservative
and realistic plan to developing sustaining resources. Extrapolating
out to our $10 million goal, we plan to have the fund capitalized in
2015.
Our experience has also shown us that there is a required critical
mass of successful programming that must be attained in order to
attract significant, non-federal resources. We feel that we have
reached that threshold and will be able to begin a capital campaign to
develop a permanent fund. However, in our National Heritage Corridor,
that is very rural and has a relatively low population, we also know
that we need the time to 2015 to be successful in accumulating the
funds.
In 2004, we began working on Trail to 2015, A Sustainability Plan.
The permanent fund is one leg of our three-legged stool plan; the other
two are for-profit activities and foundation support.
With private funds, we have just hired a well-respected and very
successful development professional to shepherd the organization
through the next ten years to the point of self-sustainability. The
only element left to be in place is continued authorization through
2015 to maintain credible programming until other resources take over.
We are committed to becoming self-sustaining and this is not a new idea
for us.
Question 2. (S.574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization):
Do you think all National Heritage Areas should become self-sustaining
and free of Federal Funding at some point?
Answer. Every NHA is distinctive, although they all have
commonality in resource protection, resource interpretation and
economic development. If each NHA is truly grassroots in origin, that
is, its focus is driven internally as opposed to externally, then there
must be some point at which the stewards take complete ownership for
the fulfillment of the mission. I think self-sustainability is
inevitable if the work is to be carried forward to the next group of
stewards--our children and grandchildren.
Question 3. (S.574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization):
What do you see as the Federal government's role in National Heritage
Areas?
Answer. I think the Federal government best serves National
Heritage Areas by first recognizing regions of significant national
resources, designating them as such, and providing seed money for the
work the residents of that area determines is important. National
Heritage Areas are impressive in their ability to put responsive
programming in place very quickly. That ability is what attracts non-
federal match to the process.
Many layers of federal requirements would seriously impede that
process and put a damper on the ability of a NHA to become self-
sustaining. For example, if instead of appropriations funding was
allocated as grants for particular projects, the accomplishments of
heritage areas would be significantly less, and the time to put
essential programs on the ground would become so slow that the programs
would lose credibility with residents.
Question 4. (S.574, Quinebaug and Shetucket NHA Reauthorization):
What do you see as the best use of Federal funds that are made
available to National Heritage Areas?
Answer. The best use of Federal funds is to support necessary
planning documents and invest in programming until a critical mass is
reached that measures impacts, identifies work no other entity can do,
and points the way to self-sustainability.
Responses of Charlene Perkins Cutler to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. Quinebaug and Shetucket National Heritage Area
Reauthorization (S. 1182): S. 1182 would extend the termination date
for Federal support for your Heritage Corridor another 6 years and
increase the funding level an additional 5 million dollars. Are you
prepared to be self-sufficient by October of 2015?
Answer. Yes, we are committed to being self-sufficient and are
actively pursuing that end.
Question 2. Quinebaug and Shetucket National Heritage Area
Reauthorization (S. 1182): Does your organization use any Federal funds
for employee salaries, travel, or other administrative purposes?
Answer. We do use Federal funds for salaries and mileage costs
directly related to specific programs and projects within the 1,086-
square miles of our NHC. Administrative costs are paid with non-federal
dollars. All of our expenditures of Federal funds are made with strict
adherence to Federal Circulars A-110, A-122, and A-133, and under the
close scrutiny of our auditor. For example, in FY2006, $788,230 was
received in Federal funding and all of it was used to support program
services. Administrative and fund raising costs were paid with private
funds.
______
Responses of Heather Baker-Sullivan to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. Hudson Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission (S.
1148): Will the Hudson Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission be
responsible for any fundraising? If so, how much funds are they
expected to raise for the Quadricentennial to be a success?
Answer. The federal Commissions will be responsible for pursuing
the drawdown of funds as specified in the legislation, and may
additionally, seek funding from federal agencies for the Commemoration.
They will not be raising funds, however, from the private sector or
other sources. If the federal Commissions are successful at securing
the appropriations as specified in the legislation, that alone will be
extremely helpful and contribute greatly toward the success of the
Commemoration.
Question 2. Hudson Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission (S.
1148): How long do you expect the Hudson Fulton Champlain
Quadricentennial Commission to exist?
Answer. I expect the federal Commissions to exist through 2010.
Question 3. Hudson Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission (S.
1148): Will any Federal funds be used to pay salaries, travel, per
diem, or administrative services for the Hudson Fulton Champlain
Quadricentennial Commission?
Answer. No funding from the federal Commissions will be used to pay
salaries, travel, per diem or administrative services for the Hudson
Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission (i.e. the New York State
Commission). According to the legislation, some federal funds will be
used to pay for staff and other administrative costs of the federal
Commissions.
Question 4. Hudson Fulton Champlain Quadricentennial Commission (S.
1148): Will any Federal funds be used by the Hudson Fulton Champlain
Quadricentennial Commission to acquire land or any interest in property
in support of the Quadricentennial?
Answer. No federal funds will be used to by the federal Commissions
to acquire land or any interest in property in support of the
Quadricentennial.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Kate Stevenson From Senator Burr
Question 1. Carl Sandburg National Historic Site Addition (S. 488/
H.R. 1100):
a. Approximately how many people visit the Carl Sandburg
National Historic Site each year?
b. How much land does the National Park Service plan to
acquire as a result of this legislation and what is the
estimated cost of the property?
c. How many landowners are involved?
d. How will the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site and the
American public benefit from the acquisition of this property?
Question 2. Veterans Eagle Pass (S. 617):
a. How much revenue do the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture currently generate from sales of the America The
Beautiful Pass?
b. Excluding the sales of annual passes, how much revenue do
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture generate annually
from entrance fees? Please provide a breakdown by bureau within
each department.
c. How much revenue do the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture generate from visitor programs other than entrance
fees and annual passes (e.g., campgrounds, concessions,
lodging, etc.)? Please provide a breakdown by bureau within
each department.
d. How much does it currently cost the Administration to
print and distribute each America the Beautiful Pass?
e. How many veterans currently purchase the America the
Beautiful Pass?
f. Which states currently allow active duty military
personnel and veterans to obtain a state or county parks' pass
at a reduced rate?
Question 3. Disabled Veterans Memorial Extension (S. 824/H.R. 995):
a. What is the role of the National Park Service in
establishing the Disabled Veterans Memorial?
b. Has the site and design for the Disabled Veterans Memorial
been approved by the Commission on Fine Arts, the National
Capital Planning Commission, and the National Park Service?
c. Approximately when will the organizers of the Disabled
Veterans Memorial have sufficient funds to begin construction?
Question 4. Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area (S. 955):
a. When was the study for the Abraham Lincoln National
Heritage Area completed, who performed the study, and what were
the major findings of the study?
b. Have members of the management entity for the Abraham
Lincoln National Heritage Area been informed that the
authorization for appropriations would be limited to 15 years?
Are they prepared to be self-sufficient after that time?
Question 5. Champlain Quadricentennial Commission (S. 1148):
a. The proposed Champlain Quadricentennial Commission would
be established to support the 400-year anniversary of Hudson's
exploration and the 200-year anniversary of Fulton's
development of commercially viable steam-powered travel. When
are the ceremonies scheduled to occur?
b. How long will the commission remain in existence?
Question 6. Quinebaug and Shetucket National Heritage Area
Reauthorization (S. 1182):
a. Which other National Heritage Areas are within 5 years of
their term of authorization or within one million dollars of
their funding limit?
b. The number of National Heritage Areas has grown from zero
in the early 1980's to 37 in 29 states in 2007. The National
Park Service has one program manager and a staff assistant to
oversee the program. Does the Park Service have any plans to
add new personnel to the National Heritage Area office to keep
pace with this growth?
Question 7. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380):
a. Will S. 1380 result in any change in land use or land
management within Rocky Mountain National Park?
b. Will the proposed wilderness designation change any
existing water rights?
c. A breach in Grand Ditch occurred in 2003. What type of
damage occurred to Park property as a result of the breach and
what type of compensation has the National Park Service
received from the operators?
Question 8. Kaloka-Honokohua Advisory Commission (S. 1728):
a. Regarding S. 1728, how has the park benefited from the
services of the Advisory Commission?
b. Has the Commission been instrumental in raising funds for
use toward park projects?
______
Questions for Judy Burke From Senator Burr
Question 1. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380):
Mayor Burke, do you anticipate any change in land use, land management,
or water rights as a result of S. 1380?
Question 2. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): Are
you aware of any opposition to S. 1380 from your constituents or
surrounding communities?
Question 3. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): How
will surrounding communities benefit from the passage of S. 1380?
______
Questions for Dean Stoline From Senator Burr
Question 1. Veterans Eagle Pass (S. 617): Approximately how many
veterans are under the age of 62?
Question 2. Veterans Eagle Pass (S. 617): Critics of S. 671 have
said that, as currently worded, the bill would allow individuals with a
``Bad Conduct Discharge'' to receive the Veterans Eagle Pass. Is that
correct?
Question 3. Veterans Eagle Pass (S. 617): Are you aware of any
states that allow veterans to obtain a state or county parks' pass at a
reduced rate?
______
Questions for Dennis Harmon From Senator Burr
Question 1. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): A
breach in Grand River Ditch in 2003 damaged resources in Rocky Mountain
National Park. What was the cause of that breach, what was the extent
of the damage, and what steps have been taken to prevent future
incidents of this type?
Question 2. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): S.
1380 contains liability language specific to Grand Ditch. Why is the
liability language necessary and how will it change your company's
relationship with the National Park Service?
Question 3. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): Do
you anticipate any change in land use, land management, or water rights
as a result of S. 1380?
______
Questions for Tom Martin From Senator Burr
Question 1. Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area (S. 955): The
legislation authorizes the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area to
receive support from the National Park Service for 15 years and the
amount of Federal funding is limited to 10 million dollars. Are you
aware of these limitations and is the management entity prepared to be
self-sufficient after Federal support ceases?
Question 2. Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area (S. 955): How
many people live within the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln National
Heritage Area?
Question 3. Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area (S. 955): Have
you received any opposition to Federal designation from people living
within the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area?
______
Questions for Tom Moore From Senator Burr
Question 1. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): A
breach in Grand River Ditch in 2003 damaged resources in Rocky Mountain
National Park. What was the cause of that breach, what was the extent
of the damage, and what steps have been taken to prevent future
incidents of this type?
Question 2. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): S.
1380 contains liability language specific to Grand Ditch. Why is the
liability language necessary and how will it change your company's
relationship with the National Park Service?
Question 3. Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (S. 1380): Do
you anticipate any change in land use, land management, or water rights
as a result of S. 1380?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
The Wilderness Society; Backcountry Snowsports Alliance;
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance; Central Colorado
Wilderness Coalition; Colorado Environmental Coalition;
Colorado Mountain Club; Colorado Wild; Southern Rockies
Conservation Alliance; Upper Arkansas & South Platte
Project.
July 11, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: Thank you very much for the opportunity to
comment on S. 1380, the proposed Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, introduced by
Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar.
We appreciate and endorse the senators' vision in introducing this
important legislation, their diligent work in refining its details, and
their diplomacy in gathering widespread support for it.
We enthusiastically support this legislation and urge its prompt
approval. We offer this support because the lands in question are so
eminently qualified for inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System, both in their inherent untrammeled wonder and
beauty and in the National Park Service's long-standing recommendation
for their designation as wilderness.
We offer this support also because of the extensive and diverse
range of groups, governments, and individuals who cherish the national
park and want its wilderness values protected forever. The wilderness
proposal is endorsed by every town and county near the park, by every
newspaper publishing near the park and in Colorado's capital, and by a
surprisingly diverse array of citizen organizations that include
environmental advocates, civic and service groups, recreation leaders,
and businesses.
The extent and diversity of this support is hardly surprising since
the park and its preservation are of interest and value in so many
different ways.
Wilderness is the essence of Rocky Mountain National Park and the
point of focus for every visitor's experience. Whether hiking deep in
the park's untracked backcountry or viewing its peaks, cliffs, cirques,
valleys, and meadows from the edge of Trail Ridge Road's pavement, each
visitor comes to see, and is inspired by, the wilderness that seems to
surround.
Rocky Mountain National Park's wilderness is the central anchor of
a long chain of complementing wildlands along the Great Continental
Divide in Colorado, including Never Summer Wilderness to the west,
Comanche Peak Wilderness to the north and east, Neota Wilderness to the
northwest, and Indian Peaks Wilderness and James Peak Wilderness to the
south.
In a related component of the proposed legislation, the boundaries
of that adjacent Indian Peaks Wilderness will be adjusted and expanded
slightly in order to allow easier management and better protection of
that area's values. This adjustment is an essential component of the
wilderness proposal for Rocky Mountain National Park.
Another important feature of this wilderness proposal, and another
reason for its universal support, is that all details of potential
conflict with the wilderness designation have been discussed and
resolved. The natural flow of water in the park's streams is protected
in a way that ensures continued water supplies to farms, towns, and
homes downstream. The ability to reduce the threat of wildfire and to
respond to fires when they do start is assured, especially near
adjacent communities. All existing roads, trails, campgrounds, and
buildings in the park will remain open for visitors' enjoyment and for
safety. The economies of the park's gateway communities will endure,
specifically because the wilderness designation will ensure that the
features that draw visitors to the park--and, thus, to those
communities--are preserved for all time.
We understand that one issue related to this legislation remains
outstanding--the resolution of continued access and activities related
to certain water conveyance facilities in the national park. It is very
important the negotiations over these provisions not delay action on
the essential feature of the legislation--the wilderness designations.
It also is important that any language included in the final
legislation related to these facilities not compromise the effect or
enforceability of those wilderness designations or of The Wilderness
Act.
This park and its wildlands are treasures to all who visit the park
or who even know about it. Their formal protection as wilderness will
honor the stewardship of the past, recognize support of the present,
and pass on an unparalleled legacy to the future.
Thank you again for your careful review of this legislation and of
the remarkable place that is its object. Please join us in recommending
prompt approval of the wilderness designation.
Sincerely,
Steve, Smith, Assistant Regional Director, Central
Rockies Region; Clare Bastable,
Conservation Director, Colorado Mountain
Club (8,000 members in Colorado); Erik
Molvar, Executive Director, Biodiversity
Conservation Alliance; Ryan Demmy Bidwell,
Executive Director, Colorado Wild (600
members in Colorado); John Stansfield,
Coordinator, Central Colorado Wilderness
Coalition (225 members in Colorado);
Michelle Zimmerman, Executive Director,
Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (100
members in Colorado); Brian Holcombe,
Executive Director, Backcountry Snowsports
Alliance (500 members in Colorado); Michael
Rogers, Executive Director, Upper Arkansas
& South Platte Project (400 members in
Colorado); Elise Jones, Executive Director,
Colorado Environmental Coalition (4,200
individual members in Colorado; 95
organizations, total 15,000 members).
______
The Conservation Alliance,
Bend, OR, July 10, 2007.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
US Senate, 702 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Wayne Allard,
US Senate, 521 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Salazar and Allard: On behalf of the 140 members of
the Outdoor Industry Conservation Alliance, we want to thank you for
working together to secure wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain
National Park's backcountry. We represent outdoor businesses and retail
stores based in Colorado.
The outdoor industry and our member companies rely on protected
public lands as destinations for our customers to use the products they
make and sell. Because wilderness designation preserves federal lands
for non-motorized uses, such designations directly benefit businesses
that make clothing and gear for active use in the outdoors. They are
essential to our growing $33 billion industry.
Few places are as worthy of wilderness designation as the wild
backcountry areas of Rocky Mountain National Park. This icon of our
national park system is a world class destination for backpackers,
mountaineers, climbers, anglers, skiers, wildlife viewers and other
outdoor enthusiasts. Wilderness protection for the park will ensure
that these pristine areas maintain their wilderness qualities, and
remain attractive destinations for outdoor customers. As motorized
recreation continues its rise in popularity, it is important that we
preserve places like Rocky Mountain National Park for their wilderness
values.
We are encouraged by your efforts to bring all stakeholders
together on this proposal. Rarely does wilderness enjoy the broad
support of gateway communities, elected officials, conservation
organizations, businesses, sportsmen, and recreation groups. We applaud
your efforts, and hope you will continue to work constructively to pass
legislation this year.
Thank you for considering our thoughts.
Sincerely,
Paul Gagner, President, Sierra Designs, Louisville,
CO; Casey Sheahan, CEO, Patagonia, Inc.,
Denver, CO (retail store), Ventura, CA
(headquarters); Kenny Ballard, President,
Kelty, Inc. Boulder, CO; Gareth Martins,
Osprey Packs, Cortez, CO; Dave Knutson,
Chaco, Inc. Paonia, CO; Len Zanni, Big
Agnes, Steamboat Springs, CO; Patricia
Smith, On Target Public Relations, Denver,
CO; Jeffrey Mazer, Mazer Advisors, Boulder,
CO; Kristin Carpenter-Ogden, Owner, Verde
PR, Durango, CO; Mark Bryden, President,
Smartwool, Steamboat Springs, CO; Paige
Boucher, Mountain Hardwear, Steamboat
Springs, CO; Frank Hugelmeyer, Outdoor
Industry Association, Boulder, CO; Rodney
Smith, President, Backpacker's Pantry,
Boulder, CO; Greg Thomsen, President,
Mountainsmith, Golden, CO; Keith Reis,
Sanitas Sales Group, Boulder, CO; Michael
Brown, President, Serac Adventure Films,
Boulder, CO; Joe Hoey, Boulder Incentives,
Erie, CO; John Sterling, Executive
Director, Outdoor Industry Conservation
Alliance, Bend, OR; Kim Coupounas, GoLite,
Boulder, CO.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, July 9, 2007.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National
Parks, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Memmber, Senate Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Murkowski: On behalf of the
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and our member
Colorado bicycle clubs, I thank you for the opportunity to submit
testimony in support of S. 1380, the Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness Act.
IMBA was founded in 1988 and leads the national and worldwide
mountain bicycling communities through a network of 80,000 individual
supporters and 750 affiliated clubs. More than 39 million Americans
participated in singletrack bicycling and 7.6 million were
``enthusiasts'' of the sport in 2004, according to the Outdoor Industry
Association.
IMBA teaches sustainable trailbuilding techniques and has become a
leader in trail design, construction, and maintenance. We promote
responsible riding, volunteer trail work and cooperation among trail
user groups and land managers. IMBA members and affiliated clubs
perform close to one million hours of volunteer trail work and advocacy
annually, and are outstanding partners for federal, state and local
land managers.
IMBA has formal partnership agreements with the USDA Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management and US Army Corps of Engineers. Just
last year, we signed an official agreement with the National Park
Service (NP S) to develop more mountain biking opportunities at NPS
units across the country. Currently more than 40 national parks have
mountain biking on dirt roads and trails.
In Colorado, IMBA has approximately 10,000 supporters through our
2,500 individual members and 50 affiliated bike clubs. More than 30
bicycle retailers are also affiliated with IMBA. Colorado is a hub of
the bicycle industry, with leaders such as Pearl Izumi, Catalyst
Communications, Yeti Bicycles, Moots Bicycles, Bicycle Village,
Criterion Cycles, Koobi Saddles, SRAM/Rock Shox, USA Cycling, Colorado
Cyclist, Peak Bar, Carmichael Training Systems, Velo News, and many
others residing in the state.
Bicycling is a billion-dollar industry in the state, according to
the Colorado Department of Transportation. Thousands of tourists travel
to Colorado each year to ride their mountain bikes and experience
trails that have become world famous. Tourists flock to Durango,
Crested Butte, Telluride, Steamboat Springs, Fruita, Grand Junction and
many other Colorado communities to explore the outdoors by bicycle.
Colorado tourism communities take trail access seriously, as they know
that cyclists spend money on lodging, gas, restaurants, and in local
stores. In 2004, Colorado ranked sixth in the nation for singletrack
bicycling participants, with 22 percent of the population--730,940
people--involved in the sport (Outdoor Industry Association).
As you know, federal agency interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness
Act bans bicycle access. Every time a congressional Wilderness bill is
proposed, cyclists risk losing access to trails they have ridden for
years. Further, they lose the potential to build new trails or expand
bicycling access in these lands in perpetuity. IMBA members take
Wilderness bills very seriously and want to be at the table to help
craft land protection legislation. For this reason, bicyclists seek
modifications of Wilderness proposals that will protect the land while
continuing to allow this quiet, low-impact, muscle-powered recreation
on existing trails. When conflict exists, IMBA suggests boundary
adjustments, non-Wilderness trail corridors, grandfathering in our
existing use, or other land protections such as National Protection
Areas or National Conservation areas.
Senator Salazar has been very inclusive of IMBA and mountain
bicyclists in the discussions of the proposed Wilderness boundaries, as
has Congressman Udall in the House. We are pleased that the bill
includes a boundary that allows for the possible inclusion of bicycles
on the East Shore Trail. This trail will provide a critical connector
for the Headwaters Trail Alliance (HTA) in their master trails plan to
connect Grand County with 70 miles of shared-use, non-motorized trails.
The Granby to Grand Lake trail is the next leg of their master plan and
the best alignment is on the western edge of Rocky Mountain National
Park, which provide spectacular views of Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain
Reservoir, and Lake Granby. This trail will be a beautiful community
amenity allowing non-motorized trail users to travel near the shore. We
are confident that the East Shore Trail will be a draw for trails-based
tourism and give families, community members and tourists a resource
that will be highly valued for many years to come.
There are 359 miles of dirt trails open to hikers in the National
Park but only paved roads open to cyclists. These paved roads have very
narrow shoulders and park officials encourage cycling early in the
morning to avoid conflict with vehicles. IMBA encourages the committee
to do more to get visitors out of their cars and experience the park by
bicycle. The 16-20 mile East Shore Trail would do just that and only
remove about 500 acres of land from the approximately 250,000 acre
proposal.
In 1974, the National Park Service determined many of these areas
to be appropriate for Wilderness and classified them as Wilderness
Study Areas (WSA). NPS management will not allow the consideration of
bicycles in these areas until Congress acts to decide the fate of these
lands. Enacting S. 1380 would allow the community and the federal land
agencies to begin the environmental process to consider opening the
East Shore Trail to bicycles. We look forward to working with the
National Park Service and the USDA Forest Service on starting this
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this important
legislation. IMBA looks forward to working with the committee and
Senator Salazar and urges your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Jenn Dice,
Government Affairs Director.
______
The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It is my distinct honor
to again testify in support of The Americans Disabled For LIFE
Memorial, to be constructed a short distance away for the United States
Capitol building. I am Lois Pope, the Co-founder of the Disabled
Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation, an organization created by an Act
of Congress in 2000 (Public Law 106-348) and tasked with establishing a
national memorial honoring veterans who became disabled while serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Memorial will celebrate
these men and women who may be broken in body--but never in spirit.
I ask that my prior testimony on October 26, 1999 before the United
States House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Subcommittee
on National Parks and Public Lands and Statement of May 25, 2006 be
entered in the record.
Since my prior testimony, The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial
Foundation has made tremendous progress in fulfilling mission: in late
2006, the Memorial site was approved and the Memorial design concept
was unanimously approved by the National Capital Planning Commission
and Commission on Fine Arts. Further, the Foundation has secured
funding and commitments totaling over two-thirds of the construction
costs. We are planning to break ground on Veterans' Day 2008 and
formally dedicate the Memorial to all Americans on Veterans' Day 2010.
And sadly, since my last testimony, the constituency we honor--men and
women disabled in service to their country--has increased by over
25,000.
The Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation urges the Committee
to approve the extended authorization. We further urge the full Senate
to join the House of Representatives in prompt passage of H.R. 995/
S.824. This bill is critical for completion of our fundraising
initiatives and to build the Memorial in Washington, DC.
Lois Pope,
Co-founder.
______
League of Women Voters of Estes Park,
Estes Park, CO, July 11, 2007.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
702 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar: The League of Women Voters of Estes Park
thanks you for initiating the Rocky Mountain Wilderness and Indian
Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act (S1380) that will designate
approximately 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park's back
country area as wilderness.
Preserving and protecting Rocky Mountain National Park as a
wilderness area for future generations is of great importance, not only
aesthetically, but also economically for all Coloradoans. Visitors from
all over the United States and from countries throughout the world are
drawn to the timeless, pristine beauty of RMNP. Their willingness to
travel to Colorado to see this wonder and beauty contributes greatly to
the economy and welfare of our state. We, the League of Women Voters of
Estes Park, appreciate your support in seeking this important
protection for our treasured resource. However, The League of Women
Voters of Estes Park does not support any action that would lessen the
protection of Rocky Mountain National Park.
In 1974 President Nixon recommended to Congress that Rocky Mountain
National Park be given a wilderness designation. Since that time, the
backcountry of Rocky Mountain National Park has been administered as a
wilderness area. To ensure that the backcountry will be protected
forever from man-made intrusions that detract from the spectacular
beauty and wildness of the Park, immediate wilderness legislation for
the Park is essential.
Now is the time to pass a wilderness bill for Rocky Mountain
National Park. During 2005, the gateway communities of Estes Park and
Grand Lake, and the Larimer County Commissioners passed resolutions
supporting the wilderness status of Rocky Mountain National Park. On
March 9, 2006, legislation was reintroduced that would protect
permanently about 95% of Rocky Mountain National Park (its backcountry)
from development. Your Senate bill, SB 1380, would ensure that the
Park's beautiful vistas, its many hiking trails and wildlife habitat
would be preserved for its 3 million annual visitors and for the
enjoyment and appreciation of generations to come.
After 32 years it is time for official wilderness designation for
Rocky Mountain National Park to become a reality.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Susan T. Pinkham,
President.
______
Larimer County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Fort Collins, CO, July 11, 2007.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
702 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar: We are contacting you to voice our unanimous
support for the wilderness designation of nearly 250,000 acres of Rocky
Mountain National Park. On July 12, 2006 the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners adopted a resolution in support of the designation
legislation sponsored by Representative Udall and Senator Salazar.
This legislation will provide important protection and management
direction for some truly remarkable country in Larimer County, while
the proposed boundaries will assure continued access for use of
existing roadways, buildings and developed areas. As proposed we
support the appropriate provisions to address the East Shore Trail in
Grand County and the proposal for the 1/4 mile buffer surrounding the
Town of Grand Lake.
The designation has been in works since President Nixon first
proposed the designation in 1974. We are looking forward to this
protection becoming a reality for this important national gem. Rocky
Mountain National Park is an important part of Larimer County and this
legislation will protect some of the finest wild land in the nation,
while protecting existing rights.
The Larimer County board of County Commissioners asks that you
support this bill and allow this important step to become a reality.
Kathay C. Rennels,
Chair, District I,
Glenn W. Gibson,
Commissioner, District III.
______
Statement of Mike Matz, Executive Director, Campaign for
America's Wilderness
The Campaign for America's Wilderness applauds the leadership and
commitment of Sens. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) and
Reps. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) in working with
local stakeholders and national organizations to craft a proposal that
will forever protect the wildlands of Rocky Mountain National Park.
This legislation is long overdue.
Rocky Mountain National Park was established in 1915 and, in 1974,
President Richard Nixon recommended 239,835 park acres for wilderness
designation. The area has been managed as wilderness since the 1960's.
But this protection is merely an administrative protection, guided by
paper not law.
The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act (S. 1380) would formally designate nearly
250,000 acres of the park as wilderness, providing permanent protection
to the park's natural resources, providing consistent park management
procedures, and preserving opportunities for scientific study.
By protecting the landscape in perpetuity, the bill would also help
sustain recreation and tourism opportunities, ensuring the continued
economic vitality of gateway communities. In fact, surrounding
communities and local officials have been a key part of the
collaborative process that was undertaken to shape an agreement that
eventually resulted in S. 1380. They are keenly aware of the local
revenue that the park's wildlife, wilderness and recreation generate,
and that ensuring its resources, scenic vistas, and recreation
opportunities are sustainable for generations to come makes good
business sense.
Other stakeholders include: the Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners, Boulder County Board of County Commissioners, Town of
Winter Park, Town of Estes Park, Town of Grand Lake, Colorado Trout
Unlimited, Colorado Wildlife Federation, League of Women Voters of
Estes Park, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Headwaters
Trails Alliance, Colorado Mountain Club--Shining Mountains Group (Estes
Park), Colorado Mountain Club--Fort Collins Group, Colorado Wilderness
Network, Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance.
The congressional sponsors worked diligently with stakeholders and
communities to address their various concerns. The Campaign for
America's Wilderness recognizes and appreciates these efforts.
Nevertheless, there are sections of the bill we hope can be improved to
better protect the park land and integrity of the Wilderness Act, while
still addressing valid concerns of stakeholders.
In particular, we would like to see Section 4(e)(5)(A) language
modified such that any existing activities relating to the monitoring,
operation, maintenance, repair or use of the Colorado-Big Thompson
Project tunnel and all other facilities be conducted only under the
surface of the proposed wilderness area.
Section 4(e)(4), relating to the Grand River Ditch, is another
provision we would like to see improved. We believe the proposed strict
liability agreement between the ditch company and the National Park
Service goes too far to absolve the company of liability responsibility
for response costs or any damages to or loss of park resources. We
recognize and appreciate that the Grand River Ditch existed prior to
the establishment of the park. However, we seek a balance more in line
with the Park System Resources Protection Act (16 USC 19(j)(j)), so
that park resources and interdependent wilderness ecosystems are not
inadvertently harmed.
The beauty of Rocky Mountain National Park is unsurpassed in the
intermountain state region. It offers soaring mountain peaks, beautiful
fall colors, scenic meadows and streams, and wildlife at every turn.
Lasting protection for these places, so that they remain as enjoyable
and as inviting to future generations as they are today, is crucial.
With slight improvements, we feel S. 1380 will achieve this lasting
protection. We look forward to continue working with the Colorado
delegation to improve this bill and move it through the legislative
process.
______
Statement of John Gilroy, Associate Director, Campaign for
America's Wilderness
The Campaign for America's Wilderness applauds the hard work and
collaboration that has gone into the creation of the Rocky Mountain
National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act (S.
1380). The development of this legislation was a years-long process
between the congressional sponsors, the scores of hikers, anglers and
other recreational users, and many local communities and businesses.
Permanently protecting nearly 250,000 acres of pristine backcountry in
Rocky Mountain National Park is a worthy gift for future generations,
and engaging the broad and diverse groups who use and appreciate the
wild places in the Rocky Mountains is the key to long-term success.
Passage of S.1380 will ensure economic sustainability for local
communities and will guarantee that the park will be as beautiful and
inviting to future generations as it is today.
However, we hope to work with the sponsors and the Committee to
improve specific parts of the legislation to better protect the park
land and the integrity of the Wilderness Act, while still addressing
the valid concerns of stakeholders. Language affecting the Colorado-Big
Thompson tunnel should be modified to only permit activities under the
surface of the proposed wilderness area, and the legislation should be
modified to include a more balanced liability agreement between the
ditch company and the National Park Service in the event of damages to
or loss of park resources.
The initiative to protect this special place began in 1974 when
President Nixon formally recommended designating Rocky Mountain
National Park as wilderness. With slight improvements to this
legislation, we hope to finally see this American treasure protected
for all time.
The Campaign for America's Wilderness works to protect the nation's
last great wild places for future generations.