    [Senate Hearing 111-645]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-645

                          CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                               S. 349                                S. 2976                           S. 1596                               S. 3159                           S. 1651                               S. 3168                           S. 1750                               S. 3303                           S. 1801                               H.R. 685                           S. 1802                               H.R. 3388                           S. 2953                               H.R. 4395

                                   __________

                                  MAY 19, 2010

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    61-612 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                      JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas         ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
    EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            BOB CORKER, Tennessee
    MARK UDALL, Colorado
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire

                        Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                   McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
                   Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                         MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman

    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
    EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   BOB CORKER, Tennessee
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

        Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
                                  Subcommittee

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                   STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Bennet, Hon. Michael F., U.S. Senator From Colorado..............    26
    Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina.............     4
    Burris, Hon. Roland W., U.S. Senator From Illinois...............     5
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator From Delaware...............     9
    Clay, Hon. William Lacy, U.S. Representative From Missouri.......     8
    Holtrop, Joel, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........    28
    Moomaw, Robert, County Commissioner, Archuleta County, CO........    35
    Platts, Mark N., President, Susquehanna Heritage Corporation,
      Wrightsville, PA...............................................    41
    Slavin, Timothy, Director, Division of Historical and Cultural
      Affairs, State of Delaware.....................................    38
    Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado.....................     1
    Whitesell, Stephen E., Associate Director, Park Planning,
      Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Department of the
      Interior.......................................................    12

                                   APPENDIXES
                                   Appendix I

    Responses to additional questions................................    53

                                  Appendix II

    Additional material submitted for the record.....................    87

                          CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010

                                   U.S. Senate,
                        Subcommittee on National Parks,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
    presiding.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                COLORADO

        Senator Udall. I call the subcommittee to order, and I'll
    turn on the mike so you can even better hear me. We have a host
    of bills this afternoon. We have a number of Senators scheduled
    to testify about their particular bills, but what I'd like to
    do is make my opening statement. We'll then start with the
    administration witnesses. As Senators are able to arrive, we'll
    fit them in, if that works for everybody here.
        So this afternoon the Subcommittee on National Parks has a
    lengthy list of bills to consider, reflecting a variety of
    conservation proposals on the National Park Service, Forest
    Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands throughout the
    country. The bills on today's agenda include:
        S. 349, which would establish the Susequehanna Gateway
    National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania;
        S. 1596, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    acquire the Gold Hill Ranch in California;
        S. 1651, to modify a land grant patent in Michigan issued
    by the Secretary of Interior;
        S. 1750, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct
    a special resource study of the George C. Marshall Home in
    Leesburg, Virginia;
        S. 1801, to establish the First State National Historical
    Park in Delaware, and I'd add I'm a co-sponsor of that
    particular legislative vehicle;
        S. 1802 and H.R. 685, to require a study of the feasibility
    of establishing a United States Civil Rights Trail System;
        S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, to modify the boundary of Petersburg
    National Battlefield in Virginia;
        S. 2976, to designate as wilderness certain land within the
    Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan;
        S. 3159 and H.R. 4395, to revise the boundaries of the
    Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg
    Train Station;
        S. 3168, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    acquire certain land in Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort
    Necessity National Battlefield; and
        Last but not least, S. 3303, a bill Senator Bennet of
    Colorado and I introduced, to establish the Chimney Rock
    National Monument in Colorado. The Chimney Rock bill will help
    protect a very unique Chacoan archaeological site in our home
    State. The Chimney Rock site includes 2 spectacular rock
    spires, as well as the remains of a great house and other
    buildings built by the ancestors of the Pueblo Indians over a
    thousand years ago.
        One of the many interesting facts about Chimney Rock is
    that every 18 years the moon is in a position that it appears
    to rise between the spires when viewed from the great house.
    Much remains unknown about the Chacoan people and the site
    itself, but clearly it was a site of astronomical and religious
    significance, and it's certainly a very important
    archaeological site.
        I wanted to note that I hope Senator Bennet will be able to
    be here. He'll speak in greater detail on his bill when he
    does. But I am very pleased to join him as a co-sponsor of the
    bill and I look forward to working with him to see that it's
    enacted into law.
        Let me now move to recognize the ranking member, my friend
    and a great North Carolinian, Senator Richard Burr.
        [The prepared statements of Senators Boxer and Levin
    follow:]
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California,
                                   on S. 1596
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to discuss S.
    1596, the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act.
        I am pleased to have worked with Representative Tom McClintock on
    this bill, which would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to
    acquire the Gold Hill Ranch in western El Dorado County--the location
    of the first Japanese settlement in the United States.
        In 1869, 22 Japanese expatriates fled the turmoil of Japan's Meiji
    restoration and made their way across the Pacific Ocean to California.
    There, they purchased land in the heart of gold rush country, and began
    producing traditional Japanese crops such as mulberry trees for silk,
    bamboo roots, tea seeds, grape seedlings, and short-grain rice.
        The Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony, as it was called, played an
    important role in bridging Japanese and American cultures. The
    colonists and surrounding community learned about each others' customs
    and agricultural techniques, and stories of the colony were reported in
    newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times.
    Unfortunately, drought and financial problems forced the colonists to
    disperse and settle throughout California beginning in 1871, and the
    272-acre property was purchased by the neighboring Veerkamp family.
        Despite the colony's short history, its contributions to American
    history have endured. The significance of this site for Japanese
    Americans has been compared to that of Plymouth Rock for European
    Americans. The successful migration and assimilation of these first
    Wakamatsu colonists established California as the gateway for waves of
    Japanese immigrants entering our nation in the late 19th and early 20th
    centuries. The new agricultural products they introduced contributed to
    California's eventual preeminence as an agricultural and economic
    leader.
        Many of the original structures on the site remain intact,
    including a farmhouse, the grave of a young girl named Okei, artifacts,
    and agricultural plantings. Japanese-Americans and other visitors come
    to see the site and place offerings on Okei's grave. Governor Reagan
    recognized the property as a state historic site in 1969, and the site
    was recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the
    national level of significance.
        Mr. Chairman, I have received numerous letters of support for this
    legislation and would like to ask that they be entered into the record.
    These supporters include the Japanese American Citizens League, the
    National Japanese American Historical Society, People-to-People
    International, the Consulate General of Japan, the American River
    Conservancy, the California Rice Commission, the El Dorado County Board
    of Supervisors, the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, and many
    local elected officials, businesses, and constituents.
        The remarkable history of the Wakamatsu colonists, and their
    lasting impact on the State of California and our nation of immigrants,
    is a story that must carry on for future generations. I look forward to
    working with my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation so that we
    can preserve this site for future visitors.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statements of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator From Michigan
                                    s. 1651
        Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for holding this
    hearing regarding the land patent modification bill for the Great Lakes
    Shipwreck Historical Society, a not-for-profit organization. A land
    patent involving about eight acres of land was originally issued in
    1998 to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society for the
    interpretation and preservation of maritime history at the United
    States Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station in the Upper Peninsula
    of Michigan. At that location, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum was
    established, where about 60,000 people visit each year. The museum
    tells the story of the sailors who braved the treacherous waters of
    Lake Superior and those in the U.S. Life Saving Service, the
    predecessor to the U.S. Coast Guard, who risked their own lives to save
    others.
        The current land patent allows for development consistent with the
    Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan of 1992 or for a gift shop. Pursuant
    to a court-ordered settlement agreement, a new plan, the Human Use/
    Natural Resource Management Plan for Whitefish Point of December 2002,
    was prepared for the land. The 2002 plan was developed by consensus of
    the parties to the litigation: the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical
    Society, Michigan Audubon Society, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. While the 2002 plan should guide development at the site, the
    land patent still references the 1992 plan. The bill under
    consideration by this committee would modify the land patent such that
    development of new facilities and the expansion of existing facilities
    and infrastructure would be consistent with the 2002 plan instead of
    the obsolete 1992 plan.
        In addition to the historic assets of Whitefish Point, the area is
    also an important birding area and a stopover for migratory birds. The
    2002 plan includes restrictions during bird migration as well as other
    restrictions on humans to protect sensitive shoreline habitats,
    including for the endangered piping plover. Recommended management
    practices are also included in the 2002 plan to protect environmentally
    sensitive habitat. The 2002 plan also specifies that implementation of
    the plan would be led by a ``Joint Committee,'' comprised of
    representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Great
    Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, and the Michigan Audubon Society.
    By having all of these entities involved with the plan implementation,
    protection of natural resources and management of human uses can be
    better ensured.
        I urge you to favorably report this bill so that hopefully the full
    Senate could promptly consider it and Michigan's rich maritime history
    at Whitefish Point can be preserved and interpreted for the public.
                                    s. 2976
        Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for holding this
    hearing on the Sleeping Bear Dunes Conservation and Recreation Act,
    which would designate 32,557 acres as wilderness, permanently
    protecting this land from harmful development and other impacts. I also
    want to thank Senator Stabenow for co-sponsoring this bill and for
    supporting this bill as a member of this subcommittee.
        This legislation reflects years of public outreach and input, and I
    am pleased there is broad public support for this bill, including by a
    local organization, Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore (CAL), that
    had initially organized to oppose a wilderness designation. Today CAL
    is submitting testimony in enthusiastic support of this bill.
        Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is located in the Northwest
    corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula on Lake Michigan, and encompasses
    over 70,000 acres. The Lakeshore, as reflected by its name, features
    ancient sand dunes that are the products of wind, wave, and ice action
    over thousands of years, and are truly one of nature's great
    masterworks. Nature lovers and photographers, serious hikers and
    children eager to roll down the sandy dunes, all enjoy this natural
    wonder. The Lakeshore also protects and interprets an extraordinary
    history of Native Americans, early pioneers, farmsteads, and maritime
    activities.
        This wilderness designation would allow the area's immense
    recreational opportunities and historic preservation efforts to
    continue to thrive, while providing important protections for natural
    areas. This wilderness designation would also revise the requirement
    included in a 1982 law (P.L. 97-361) that directed the National Park
    Service to manage areas included in a 1981 ``Wilderness
    Recommendation'' as wilderness, even though no official Wilderness
    designation had been made by Congress. The 1981 recommendation included
    county roads and other areas the local community did not believe should
    be managed as wilderness, and in fact, could endanger the preservation
    and interpretation of many historic assets in the Lakeshore. Our
    legislation excludes these features from the wilderness designation for
    Sleeping Bear Dunes to ensure that access, recreation, and historic
    preservation are provided at the Lakeshore, which reflects community
    input. The 1982 law specified that its directive apply ``until Congress
    determines otherwise.'' This bill provides the Congressional input the
    1982 law envisioned.
        The wilderness designation before you reflects a lengthy public
    process, and better identifies areas that should be managed as
    wilderness, which are undeveloped and possess significant and valuable
    natural characteristics. Developed county roads and state highways,
    boat launches and many historical structures have all been excluded
    from the wilderness designation to ensure that access and recreational
    opportunities are maintained, and preservation and interpretation of
    historical resources are ensured. Hunting and fishing, trail use, and
    camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore would continue.
    Importantly, motor boats would still be allowed offshore of the dunes,
    and allowed to beach in areas adjacent to the wilderness area.
        This Lakeshore epitomizes the rich natural and cultural history of
    Michigan. I ask the Committee to approve this legislation to protect
    these resources for current and future generations, and to enable
    thousands more to enjoy the scenic beauty and appreciate the
    generations of farmers, trappers, hunters, and mariners who came
    before.

        STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
                                CAROLINA

        Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we
    convene this hearing today before the National Parks
    Subcommittee hearing under unusual and unfortunate
    circumstances, with 11 Senate Democrat bills and zero
    Republican bills being considered. I understand that this
    hearing was scheduled despite the continued objections of the
    Republican staff, who lodged this objection as a result of no
    GOP bills being included in the hearing consideration today.
        Additionally, a separate hearing that was requested by the
    Republican staff on the remaining Republican bills was also
    refused. So unfortunately, we're left with no Republican bills
    in the hearing today and no separate hearing for bills which
    were left out.
        I might say, in my time as ranking member of the
    subcommittee never has a hearing been scheduled despite the
    objections of one side or the other, and I hope this
    regrettable incident does not set a precedent for the actions
    of this subcommittee or the committee as a whole. I certainly
    have great affection for my colleague and the chairman,
    Chairman Udall, and believe that we can work together.
        It's difficult for me at this time to imagine that it bodes
    well for these particular bills in front of us today making it
    through the committee process on any type of expedited basis.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you on
    the multitude of important issues that come before this
    Subcommittee on National Parks and I truly believe and hope
    that we can continue to work toward scheduling a separate
    hearing on the remaining Republican bills and move forward in a
    bipartisan way.
        I thank the chair.
        Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member. If I might, I'd
    like to share a response to Senator Burr's comments. There were
    hearing requests from the Republican side for 3 bills. One is a
    House-passed bill involving a park in Washington State. Both of
    our colleagues from Washington told us that they weren't ready
    for a hearing on the bill at this time. The other 2 bills would
    have provided for essentially limited repeal of the Antiquities
    Act in the States of Nevada and Utah. Chairman Bingaman--the
    full committee did not view Antiquities Act bills, which have
    national policy implications that would be and are extremely
    controversial, to be in the same category as the type of
    locally focused bills that are on today's agenda. He did tell
    me and I will underline to the ranking member that he's happy
    to talk more about these bills with the sponsors if they
    desire. I know I'll continue to work with the ranking member to
    meet his concerns in the future.
        I know we both are proud to serve on this subcommittee and
    know how important it is to our public lands and to our
    economies and all of our country.
        I would note before I call the administration witness, I
    think Congressman Clay is here. I appreciate you coming over. I
    don't know if you wanted to say anything, if you had a
    statement, Lacey. We'd be honored if you'd join us there at the
    dais.
        Senator Burris has arrived. Senator Burris, if you'd like
    to join one of my former House colleagues, Congressman Clay,
    who is a good friend. If you want to catch your breath for a
    minute, we're happy to have you here.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ROLAND W. BURRIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

        Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Udall. We're happy to have you here. We look
    forward to your testimony.
        Senator Burris. We were in--as you know, I found out from
    the chairman that there was a meeting, so I had to run from the
    caucus to come over here.
        Senator Udall. You have my proxy in the caucus when you go
    back, but not Senator Burr's.
        Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Burr, the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today to discuss my legislation, the
    United States Civil Rights Trail Special Resource Study Act.
    This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
    identify the places, resources, and historic themes associated
    with the struggle to secure equal rights for all African
    Americans and consider their addition into the National Trails
    System.
        The study will focus on the years of 1954 through 1968.
    Now, this is a time to identify and protect the memory of the
    people and places that chronicle the civil rights movement's
    watershed role in American history. Establishing this trail
    system will link sites with common signage, maps, and
    educational material to improve public awareness and amplify
    the study of their importance in history.
        Action on this bill this year will begin the process of
    deciding how we set apart the places where men and women fought
    and some gave their lives to provide future generations of
    African Americans and all Americans more freedom to achieve the
    American dream.
        This, Mr. Chairman, is our chance to remember and honor
    that sacrifice given so freely. I need to repeat that: This is
    an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, a chance to remember and to honor
    that sacrifice given so freely. This legislation joins its
    bipartisan companion measure, House Bill 685, sponsored by the
    distinguished Representative Clay from Missouri and
    Representative Wamp, which passed unanimously in the House of
    Representatives in September 2009. I want to especially thank
    our distinguished colleague, Representative Clay, for his
    vision and dedication to this legislation.
        Also the National Trust for Historic Preservation
    considered this bill, and I quote, ``of great importance'' in
    its legislative priorities for this year. The Trust Editor,
    Richard Moe, whom you know very well, has written a letter in
    support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
    this letter will be included in the record.
        Senator Udall. Without objection.
        Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        During the 1950s and 1960s, this country saw the
    development of a powerful nonviolent movement for civil rights
    under the rule of law, creating one of the most significant
    social and cultural changes in our Nation's history. Because
    hundreds of thousands of ordinary people with extraordinary
    vision participated in the civil rights movement, we've
    witnessed a revolution of values and ideas that changed this
    Nation forever.
        We must make certain that the next generation and the
    current generation learn and do not forget the story of the
    civil rights movement and the ideas that it strove to achieve.
    It is important that we highlight a period of common purpose
    that brought us together despite our differences in age, race,
    and positions in life, and that many here today are too young
    to remember.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman Udall and Ranking Member
    Burr, for your commitment to our National Park System and
    second for moving this legislation as quickly as possible. I
    know that, working together, we can add to the witness of the
    history for all Americans to see and understand the remarkable
    accomplishments of those whose struggle for equal rights still
    rings true today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Burris follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Hon. Roland W. Burris, U.S. Senator From
                              Illinois, on S. 1802
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss my
    legislation, The United States Civil Rights Trail Special Resource
    Study Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
    identify the places, resources, and historic themes associated with the
    struggle to secure equal rights for African-Americans, and consider
    their addition into the National Trails System. The Study will focus on
    the years 1954 through 1968.
        Now is the time to identify and protect the memory of the people
    and places that chronicle the Civil Rights Movement's watershed role in
    the American story. Establishing this trail system will link sites with
    common signage, maps, and educational materials to improve public
    awareness and amplify the study of their importance in history.
        Action on the bill this year will begin the process of deciding how
    we set apart the places where men and women fought, and some gave their
    lives, to provide future generations of African-Americans, and all
    Americans, more freedom to achieve the American dream. This is our
    chance to remember and honor that sacrifice given so freely.
        This legislation joins its bipartisan companion measure, H.R. 685,
    sponsored by Representatives Clay and Wamp, which passed unanimously in
    the House of Representatives in September 2009, and I want to
    especially thank my distinguished colleague Representative William
    Lacey Clay for his vision and dedication to this legislation. Also, The
    National Trust for Historic Preservation considers this bill ``of great
    importance'' and a legislative priority for this year. The Trust's
    director, Richard Moe, whom you know well, has written a letter in
    support of my bill. Mr. Chairman, I would request their letter be
    included in the record.
        During the 1950's and 1960's this country saw the development of a
    powerful nonviolent movement for civil rights, under the rule of law,
    creating one of the most significant social and cultural changes in our
    nation's history. Because of the hundreds and thousands of ordinary
    people with extraordinary vision who participated in the Civil Rights
    Movement, we witnessed a revolution of values and ideas that changed
    this nation forever. We must make certain that the next generation, and
    the current generation, learn and do not forget the story of the Civil
    Rights Movement and the ideals that it strove to achieve. It is
    important that we highlight a period of common purpose, that brought us
    together despite our differences in age, race, and position in life,
    and that many here today are too young to remember.
        I want to thank Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for their
    commitment to our National Parks system, and secondly for moving this
    legislation as quickly as possible. I know that, working together, we
    can add to the witness of history for all Americans to see and
    understand the remarkable accomplishments of those whose struggle for
    equal rights still rings true today.
                              attachment.--summary
        (1) The Secretary of the Interior will identify the resources and
    historic themes associated with the movement to secure racial equality
    in the United States which challenged the practice of racial
    segregation, focusing on the period from 1954 through 1968.
        (2) The Study will look at the feasibility of protecting
    historically significant landscapes, districts, sites, and structures,
    and evaluate a range of alternatives for protecting and interpreting
    sites associated with the struggle for civil rights in the United
    States, including alternatives for potential addition of some or all of
    the sites to the National Trails System.
        (3) The Secretary will make a review of existing studies and
    reports, such as the Civil Rights Framework Study, to complement and
    not duplicate other studies of the historical importance of the civil
    rights movements that may be underway or undertaken.
        (4) The Secretary will establish connections with agencies,
    organizations, and partnerships already engaged in the preservation and
    interpretation of various trails and sites dealing with the civil
    rights movement.
        (5) The Study will identifying alternatives for preservation and
    interpretation of the sites by the National Park Service, other
    Federal, State, or local governmental entities, or private and
    nonprofit organizations, resulting in the potential inclusion of some
    or all of the sites in a National Civil Rights Trail.
        (6) The Secretary will identify cost estimates for any acquisition,
    development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance associated with
    the alternatives developed under the special resource study.
        (7) National historic trails can only be authorized by Congress and
    are assigned to either the secretary of the interior or the secretary
    of agriculture with most of the same administrative authorities as for
    national scenic trails. To qualify as a national historic trail, a
    route must have been established by historic use. It must be nationally
    significant as a result of that use, i.e., it must have had a far-
    reaching effect on broad patterns of American culture. It must also
    have significant potential for public recreational use or historic
    interest based on historic interpretation and appreciation.
        (8) The Secretary shall conduct the study required under subsection
    (a) in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-
    5(c)) and section 5(b) of the National Trails System Act (16U.S.C.
    1244(b)), as appropriate.

        Senator Udall. Congressman Clay, if you'd like to make a
    statement that would be greatly appreciated. I want to
    apologize that we don't have a placard for you, but it's been
    said that when you're known far and wide you don't need a
    placard. I know you are known far and wide in your home
    district. Congressman Burr and I both served in the House.
    We're proud of that service, as did Senator Carper, who just
    joined us. We're always happy to have a member of the House
    come visit us.

     STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM LACY CLAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                MISSOURI

        Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and it's so good to
    see you, as well as my former colleague from North Carolina,
    Senator Burr. I also want to thank my distinguished Senator
    from Illinois for sponsoring the companion legislation.
        Also, I heard Senator Burr's comments in the beginning and
    I wanted to publicly thank my colleague Zach Wamp from
    Tennessee, who we all know, for sponsoring this bill with me.
    He thought it was important enough to be a main sponsor of the
    legislation, and I truly appreciate it.
        Throughout history many individuals have played a
    courageous role in strengthening racial equality in our Nation.
    It is important to honor these individuals and historic events
    by preserving their stories for future generations. H.R. 685 as
    well as S. 1802, the U.S. Civil Rights Trail System Act of
    2009, would recognize those individuals who fought for the
    creed, in the American Constitution every man is created equal.
        This bill would authorize a study by the Secretary of the
    Interior to determine the feasibility of establishing a
    National Trail System marking the geographic locations in the
    U.S. of historically significant events related to struggles
    for civil rights. The struggle for freedom and equality is one
    of the truly magnificent and heroic episodes in American and
    world history, from the institution of slavery that dominated
    the country's early years until a deadly Civil War that opened
    the door for the possibility of a new racial relationship
    between black and white people.
        In 1954 when the Supreme Court in the Brown v. Board of
    Education decision eliminated the constitutional justification
    for segregation, the battle was not won. Several more decades
    of struggle were required to achieve even minimal integration.
    Over the past 20 years, notable progress has been made in some
    areas of American race relations, which offers hope that the
    worst is behind us and that better days lie ahead. For example,
    today the President of the United States is an African
    American, and African Americans can be found not merely working
    at the highest levels of government, business, entertainment,
    and the professions, but excelling in those positions. At the
    same time, devastating setbacks have occurred in other areas,
    revealing that much remains to be done to make this country
    truly a land of liberty and justice for all people.
        The generation now coming of age has only scant knowledge
    of the history of the civil rights struggle. Young Americans
    find it difficult to believe that racial segregation was once
    considered normal and necessary in some parts of the United
    States. Ignorance of past racial tragedy, sadly, retards
    continued progress in race relations.
        These bills would educate current and future generations of
    the struggles for racial equality in America. I look forward to
    hearing from today's witnesses on this bill and getting the
    best suggestions to improve upon the legislation. So, Mr.
    Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
    committee.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Congressman Clay.
        Senator Burris, did you have any additional comments?
        Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to
    comment on one point that Representative Clay made mention of.
    That is that America has done something that I dreamed I would
    never see, and I'm 72 years old. On my next birthday I will be
    73. But for America to elect an African American President of
    these United States, it means that we have come a mighty long
    way. I am proud for my home State on top of that. It even makes
    me extra proud. But it brings tears to my eyes when I even talk
    about this.
        So I just want all Americans to know that there's a
    milestone, that little black kids now can say that: I can grow
    up to be President of the United States. That means so much to
    all of us. Recording this history, Mr. Chairman, is something
    for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren to be able to see.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burris. No one can
    improve on your words. What's so wonderful is that those tears
    are tears of joy. Thank you.
        I know Senator Carper has joined us. Senator, if you wanted
    to take a seat at the table, we're eager to hear about your
    legislative initiative, which I know is near and dear to your
    heart, and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of it.
        Senator Carper is also a former member of the House, former
    Governor of Delaware, and now one of the real movers and
    shakers in the U.S. Senate. Senator, thank you.

             STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR
                             FROM DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thank you to you. To Senator
    Burris, thanks very much. Thanks for holding the hearing today
    on a number of proposals, including S. 1801, the First State
    National Historical Park Act. I want to thank you especially,
    Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to co-sponsor the
    legislation and for allowing me to appear before your
    subcommittee here today with both of you.
        As you know, if this legislation is adopted--my hope is
    that it will--it would establish for the first time a national
    park in the State of Delaware. We're the only State in the
    Union, as you know, which is home to neither a national park or
    even a unit of a national park.
        Some of you may recall a series on public television last
    year which drew a lot of viewers. The name of the series was
    ``America's Best Idea: The National Parks.'' It was a
    documentary series of films that were told to a national
    television audience by a documentary film maker, quite a famous
    one, a fellow named Ken Burns, who coincidentally grew up in
    Delaware as a kid.
        Along with Ken Burns and many of the millions of people who
    viewed that documentary, I share the belief that our national
    parks are indeed one of America's very best ideas. National
    parks are invaluable resources for understanding our State's
    historical and our cultural heritage, as well as our natural
    environment.
        Every year millions of Americans plan their vacations
    around our Nation's National Park System. This may cause you to
    remember some adventures of your own with your own family, but
    I have a very fond memory of my family several summers ago when
    our boys were in high school, planning a trip to Denali
    National Park. I know our chairman is a mountain climber.
    Senator, I'm not. I don't know, maybe some of you are as well.
    But Denali, big mountain, big park up in Alaska.
        Our 2 sons will never forget, more recently, their cross-
    country road trip from Boston to San Francisco last summer,
    where they stopped along the way at places like Mount Rushmore
    and Yellowstone and Yosemite in an adventure neither they nor
    their parents will soon forget.
        In planning our family's summer vacation several years ago
    up to Alaska, we actually logged onto the National Park Service
    web site and we searched State by State for ideas, starting
    with I think Alabama all the way through I think Wyoming. We
    came to our own State as we went along, Delaware. We came up
    empty-handed because there really wasn't anything to offer in
    terms of a national park or a unit of the National Park System.
        You think about it, Delaware was the first State to
    ratify--we're all proud of our States, and justifiably so. But
    our State was the first State to ratify the Constitution. For 1
    whole week, Delaware was the entire United States of America.
    Then they kind of opened up and let Pennsylvania in and some
    others. I think it turned out pretty well, but we're the first
    State in the Union. We're the first State in which the Swedes
    and Finns came ashore in what is now known as Wilmington,
    Delaware, established the colony of New Sweden. We're the State
    where the Dutch came in, oh, gosh, over 400 years ago and built
    an ill-fated settlement down in the southern part of our State
    on the ocean, a place called Lewes. Yet Delaware remains the
    only State to have no national park.
        For almost a decade, hundreds of Delawareans have joined me
    in working to change that. One of those people is Tim Slavin,
    who's going to be testifying here I think in a little bit. I
    thank him for his presence today and for his great advocacy and
    terrific work on this project with us.
        But after 4 years of research and planning that involved
    Delaware State officials, community leaders, and citizen
    activists, we unveiled a proposal for a Delaware National Park
    6 years ago in 2004. In 2006, thanks in part to the work of the
    citizens committee, Congress authorized the National Park
    Service to study, to study, 4 years ago, the need for a park in
    our State. The National Park Service used our 2004 proposal as
    a starting point for their study.
        Then last year, in January of last year, 2009, the National
    Park Service finalized its study and agreed that, at long last,
    a park should be created in Delaware. In its study, the
    National Park Service recommended a national park that
    celebrated Delaware's early Dutch, early Swedish and English
    settlements and the events leading up to our State's role in
    founding our Nation.
        All that, Mr. Chairman and Senator Burr, that brings us to
    today's hearing and to the First State National Park Historic
    Act, which I'm pleased to report has been co-sponsored by each
    member of our State's tiny Congressional delegation.
        I'm also pleased to report that the First State National
    Historical Park Act uses a majority of suggestions from the
    2009 national park study to authorize a national park to be
    created within Delaware. So all that work that went in in terms
    of the study and the work by our citizens, we just really built
    on each of those in creating this legislation.
        If approved, our State's national park will be comprised of
    sites associated with early settlement and with the people and
    events leading up to Delaware's role as the first State to
    ratify the U.S. Constitution on December 7, 1787, a day that we
    treasure, called ``Delaware Day'' in our State. The park will
    tell the story of the birth of our Nation in a unique way, a
    way not found in any other national park.
        The park's central headquarters will be located along the
    Delaware River in the beautiful historic town of Newcastle,
    just a stone's throw from a statue of William Penn, who deeded
    that land to the inhabitants of the town of Newcastle in 1701.
    Once a national park unit is established in Delaware, families
    from throughout America and really all over the world will have
    the opportunity to learn from our National Park Service web
    site of the rich historical heritage of our State. Who knows,
    they just might decide to pack up and come and pay us a visit,
    much like my own family did when we spent close to 2 weeks
    visiting Denali and other parts of Alaska.
        In closing, I would note that the word ``Denali''
    translates loosely to mean ``the great one.'' For those who've
    seen that mountain, we know what it means. But that enormous
    park is several times the size of my State. In fact, it's
    several times the size of a number of States. While visitors to
    Delaware are not likely to remember us in future years as ``the
    great one,'' they may well end up returning to their own homes
    with lasting memories, I hope fond memories, of the Small
    Wonder along the eastern seaboard of our Nation that helped to
    launch the most enduring experiment in democracy that our world
    has ever known, the United States of America.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity and your
    support.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Carper. That was
    illuminating and enjoyable to hear.
        Senator Burr, do you have any questions or comments?
        Senator Burr. I might add one comment to what Senator
    Carper said. As his sons made their trek to that final park to
    visit, if you added together the annual visitor numbers for all
    the parks they visited, it would not equal the annual
    visitation of the Great Smokies National Park. So I hope
    they'll come to North Carolina.
        Senator Udall. As you can tell, Senator Burr has the spirit
    and the fortitude of a mountain climber, and he's also very
    proud of his home State of North Carolina.
        Senator Carper. I can tell, and justifiably so. So does my
    wife. She's from there, too.
        Senator Udall. As is mine. It's old home week.
        I like the contrast, the Great One and the Small Wonder.
    They're both important to what we have now seen and lived,
    which is America's best idea, and that's our National Park
    System.
        I look forward to working with you, Senator, as we move
    this through the process. Thanks for coming over.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Burr, thank you as well.
        Senator Udall. The administration witnesses, if you'd be
    willing to join us here at the table. I know we still have a
    couple of additional, actually 3, Senators who thought they
    might like to make an appearance. If one of them is able to
    troop over from the Capitol, we'll, with your understanding,
    quickly insert them in the queue here.
        We've been joined by 2 men who are not strangers to this
    subcommittee. Steve Whitesell is here. He's the Associate
    Director of Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, at the
    National Park Service; and then Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief,
    National Forest System.
        Mr. Whitesell, if you want to start with your testimony.
    You are familiar with the general rules of the committee. If
    you can keep your testimony to 5 minutes, we'd appreciate it.
    The floor is yours.

      STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. WHITESELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
        PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Whitesell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
    to appear before this subcommittee to present the Department of
    the Interior's views on ten of the bills on today's agenda,
    eight related to the National Park Service and 2 related to the
    Bureau of Land Management. Tim Spisak, Deputy Assistant
    Director for Minerals and Realty Management for the Bureau of
    Land Management, is accompanying me today and will be happy to
    answer any questions that you may have regarding S. 1596 and S.
    1651, the 2 BLM bills on the agenda.
        I would like to submit our full statements on each of these
    subjects for the record and summarize the Department's
    positions on these bills.
        Senator Udall. Without objection.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 349 would establish the Susquehanna
    Gateway National Heritage Area in an 1869 square mile area of
    Pennsylvania's Lancaster and York Counties. In 2008 the
    National Park Service found that the area meets our interim
    criteria for potential designation as a national heritage area.
    The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating
    the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area, but asks that
    the committee defer action on the bill until legislation is
    enacted that establishes criteria to evaluate potential
    qualified national heritage areas and a process for the
    designation and administration of these areas.
        Mr. Whitesell. On S. 1596, the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu
    Preservation Act, would authorize the Secretary, acting through
    the BLM, to acquire the 272-acre site of the 1869 Wakamatsu Tea
    and Silk Farm Colony. The Wakamatsu Colony is believed to have
    been the first Japanese-American colony in North America. The
    Department supports the goals of this bill and would like to
    work with its sponsors and the committee to clarify provisions
    of the legislation.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 1651, a bill to modify the patent of the
    Whitefish Point Lighthouse Station, would direct the Secretary,
    acting through the BLM, to modify the subject patent to require
    compliance with a new management plan. The Department supports
    this legislation.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 1750 would authorize a special resource
    study for General George C. Marshall's home, Dodona Manor. One
    of the options the study would consider is making the site an
    affiliated area of the National Park System. The bill would
    also consider other alternatives for preservation and
    protection of the home. The Department supports the enactment
    of S. 1750 with a minor amendment.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 1801 would establish the First State
    National Historical Park in the State of Delaware. The National
    Park Service's 2008 special resource study of the coastal area
    of Delaware identified a number of resources of national
    significance that were determined suitable and feasible to
    administer as a unit of the National Park System. These include
    historic resources that were instrumental in early Swedish,
    Dutch, and English settlement in the United States and other
    resources associated with Delaware's role as the Nation's first
    State.
        The Department strongly supports the establishment of a
    unit of the National Park System in Delaware as proposed by S.
    1801, but is concerned about the addition of certain resources
    in the bill that were not found to meet Congressionally
    established criteria for unit designation and the terms of the
    park-specific grant authorization. We would like to work with
    the committee on amendments to the bill.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 1802 and its companion, H.R. 685, would
    authorize the Secretary to conduct a special resource study in
    order to evaluate a range of alternatives for protecting and
    interpreting sites associated with the movement to secure
    racial equality for African Americans in the United States in
    the 1950s and 1960s, including alternatives for potential
    addition to the National Trail System. In 2009 the National
    Park Service completed a Congressionally authorized study of
    civil rights sites that identified both broad themes and sites
    within the civil rights story, but did not assess the
    feasibility or suitability of inclusion of particular sites in
    the National Trail System or the National Park System.
        The bills would allow the National Park Service to assess
    sites specifically for such designation, building upon existing
    studies and reports. The Department supports this legislation.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 2953 and its companion, H.R. 3388, would
    modify the boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield. The
    bills would expand the current authorized boundaries by an
    additional 7,238 acres to protect more core battlefield land,
    an expansion that is consistent with the park's 2002 general
    management plan. The bills also would authorize a transfer of
    administrative jurisdiction between the Secretary of the
    Interior and the Secretary of the Army of a 1.7 acre parcel of
    land to accommodate a security perimeter fence at Fort Lee
    Military Reservation.
        The Department supports this legislation.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 2976 would designate 32,557 acres, or 46
    percent, of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in
    Michigan's Lower Peninsula as federally protected wilderness.
    The Department strongly supports the legislation, but
    recommends that the area be designated as the ``Sleeping Bear
    Wilderness'' to be consistent with the names of the majority of
    wilderness areas in units of National Park System.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 3159 and its companion, H.R. 4395, would
    add the historic Lincoln Train Station in the Borough of
    Gettysburg and 45 acres at the base of Big Roundtop to
    Gettysburg National Military Park. The Lincoln Train Station,
    where President Abraham Lincoln disembarked to give the
    Gettysburg Address, would serve as a downtown visitor's center
    and information and orientation center. The Big Roundtop tract
    at the southern end of the battlefield includes historical
    resources from the battle and critical wetlands and wildlife
    habitat related to Plum Run. The Department supports enactment
    of this legislation with the minor amendment that was made to
    H.R. 4395 by the House.
        Mr. Whitesell. S. 3168 would authorize the acquisition of
    approximately 157 acres in Farmington, Pennsylvania, for
    addition to Fort Necessity National Battlefield, the site of
    the first battle of the French and Indian War in July 1754. The
    parcels contain both historical and landscape resources
    relating to the purpose of the park and would include
    approximately 500 feet of the historic Braddock Road Trace. The
    Department supports this legislation with amendments that would
    provide a more precise identification of the land that would be
    authorized for acquisition and would make some minor technical
    changes.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, albeit a bit
    longer than I know was required. But we would be pleased to
    answer any questions that you have.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Whitesell follow:]

     Prepared Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park
     Planning, Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Department of
                                  the Interior
                                     s. 349
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's views on S. 349, a bill to establish the
    Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania.
        The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the
    Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area, but recommends deferring
    action on S. 349 until program legislation is enacted that establishes
    criteria to evaluate potentially qualified national heritage areas and
    a process for the designation and administration of these areas. The
    Administration anticipates submitting such a legislative proposal to
    you in the near future, and we recommend that Congress enact national
    heritage area program legislation in this Congress.
        There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
    there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
    administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
    much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
    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 was
    introduced in the 109th and 110th Congresses, and we look forward to
    continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue.
        Flowing for 441 miles, the Susquehanna River is the longest river
    on the East Coast and the largest contributor of fresh water to
    Chesapeake Bay. The portions of the river flowing through Lancaster and
    York Counties in Pennsylvania exhibit exceptional natural and
    recreational value and traverse landscapes of historical importance to
    our nation.
        The region of the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage
    Area was first inhabited by Native Americans who left evidence of their
    occupation in a myriad of archeological sites, as well as rock art at
    several petroglyph sites. When Captain John Smith journeyed up the
    Susquehanna River in the summer of 1608, he sent emissaries to the
    Susquehannock town located on the east side of the river near present
    day Washington Boro in Lancaster County. Tribal leaders there entered a
    trade alliance, opening to the English a trade network extending
    hundreds of miles.
        In 1668, William Penn set the tone for religious tolerance in
    Pennsylvania and brought colonists who settled the great fertile valley
    of the Susquehanna Gateway region, beginning its long history as an
    abundant agricultural center. Serving as an important transportation
    corridor, the river provided opportunities for commerce and invention.
    It was here that John Elgar constructed the first iron steamboat in
    America. The birthplace of Robert Fulton, the original inventor of
    steam powered boats, is a National Historic Landmark in Lancaster
    County. Here, too, Phineas Davis designed and built the first practical
    coal burning steam locomotive, thereby revolutionizing railroad
    transportation.
        The region is the home ground of the ``Plain People''--the Amish
    and Mennonites. Their religious values, simple way of life, and well-
    tended farms speak to the deepest feelings that Americans have about
    ourselves and our national experience.
        In this region, visitors also find evidence of our Revolutionary
    War past. Lancaster and York Counties served as venues for the
    Continental Congress when it left Philadelphia upon the British
    occupation of that city. In the courthouse in York, the Congress
    approved the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the
    nation's ``first constitution,'' and sent it forth to the states for
    ratification. In the summer of 1781, Continental Army General James
    Wood established Camp Security, housing more than a thousand British
    soldiers from General John Burgoyne's army, which had surrendered at
    Saratoga.
        The region also has an abundance of natural resources including
    migratory bird nesting sites, remnants of old growth forests, and areas
    of both ecological diversity and scenic quality. Ferncliff, known for
    its wildflowers, and the Susquehanna Gorge are both designated National
    Natural Landmarks. Recreational resources abound in the region,
    including the Kelly's Run and Susquehanna River Water Trails, both
    National Recreation Trails.
        S. 349 designates the Lancaster-York Heritage Region, a non-profit
    organization, as the proposed management entity for the Susquehanna
    Gateway National Heritage Area. The area, designated as a state
    heritage area in 2001, recently changed its name from the Lancaster-
    York Heritage Region to the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, to
    reflect the area's expanded focus, which includes the cultural and
    economic value of the Susquehanna River. The management entity, now
    known as Susquehanna Heritage Corporation, has demonstrated success in
    coordinating among diverse partners in Lancaster and York counties.
    Over the past nine years, Susquehanna Heritage Corporation has been
    effective in facilitating preservation, interpretative, and educational
    projects and in leveraging community participation and funding. The
    heritage area has strong support from the public and from a myriad of
    state, local, federal, and non-governmental partners throughout the
    area. In 2008, this entity prepared a national heritage area
    feasibility study that was reviewed by the National Park Service and
    found to meet the interim criteria for potential designation.
        The bill, as introduced, contains provisions that have become
    standard for designating national heritage areas. However, if the
    Committee decides to act on this bill, we would request the opportunity
    to work with the Committee to amend the language in Section 5(a),
    designating the management entity, due to the management entity
    changing its name and to discuss some other provisions where
    clarifications or technical corrections may be needed.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
    answer any questions from members of the Committee.
                                    s. 1596
        Thank you for the invitation to present testimony on S. 1596, the
    Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act, which would authorize the
    Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Gold Hill Ranch from willing
    sellers using non-federal contributions and appropriated funds to
    preserve it as a site of historical and cultural value. Preservation of
    cultural and historical resources is a priority for the Department of
    the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We support the
    goals but note that BLM can make this acquisition under its existing
    authorities, and we would like to work with the sponsor and the
    Committee to clarify S. 1596.
    Background
        The Wakamatsu Colony is an early settlement site of great cultural
    significance to the Japanese-American community. It is the oldest known
    cultural site in North America associated with Japanese immigration.
    The colony was founded in 1869 by 20 immigrants from Aizu-Wakamatsu,
    Japan. These colonists fled Japan during the political upheaval that
    accompanied the Meiji Restoration. The colonists purchased land at Gold
    Hill in western El Dorado County, California, and established a tea and
    silk plantation. The colony operated for two years, after which the
    land--known as the Gold Hill Ranch--was acquired by its current owners,
    the Veerkamp family. The Veerkamps now desire to sell the property;
    however, they recognize its historic and cultural significance and hope
    to sell it to a governmental entity.
        The 272-acre site includes a home from the 1860s that was occupied
    by the colonists, the mulberry trees they planted, and the grave of
    Okei Ito. Her grave is thought to be the oldest Japanese immigrant
    grave in North America. Adjacent to the site is the Gold Trail
    Elementary School, which since 1980 has maintained a sister-school
    relationship with Higashiyama Elementary School in Aizu Wakamatsu. The
    school property hosts a monument dedicated by then-Governor Ronald
    Reagan that established the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony as
    California Registered Historical Landmark Number 815.
        Several Japanese-American civic and cultural groups and others have
    written to the BLM to express their support for preservation and
    restoration of the Wakamatsu Colony site. The Gold Hill region is an
    historic California gold rush landscape that is urbanizing rapidly, so
    preservation would prevent the loss of an important pioneering site.
    Members of that community, including the Japanese American Citizens
    League, Representative Doris Matsui and California State Assemblyman
    Alan Nakanishi, are working with the American River Conservancy (a
    local land trust) to raise the funds needed to purchase the site. Their
    goal is to establish an endowment that would fund future restoration,
    interpretive operations, and maintenance of the site. Citing the BLM's
    highly successful management of other nearby acquired lands, local
    Japanese-American community organizations and the American River
    Conservancy are advocating that the BLM take title to the property.
        Acquisition of the Gold Hill Ranch would be consistent with the
    goals of the BLM's Sierra Resource Management Plan. The BLM's nearby
    Mother Lode Field Office already manages several acquired properties
    for their historical and conservation values, including the historic
    Chung Wah Chinese cemetery about 15 miles to the west of the Ranch,
    which was donated to BLM by the Chinese-American community in 2007, and
    the Pine Hill Preserve, a rare plant preserve totaling 4,000 acres
    across dozens of parcels about 5 miles southwest of the Ranch.
    S. 1596
        S. 1596 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
    through the BLM, to acquire the Gold Hill Ranch from willing sellers
    using non-federal contributions and appropriated funds to preserve it
    as a site of historical and cultural value. The BLM supports the goals
    of the bill, and acknowledges the efforts to date by the private sector
    to raise funds for the acquisition. BLM notes that it can make the
    acquisition under its existing authorities, subject to budget
    priorities and the availability of appropriations. However, this
    project did not rank high enough in the BLM's annual national ranking
    process for inclusion in the land acquisition priority lists for the
    2010 and 2011 budgets. The legislation is also unclear as to the
    purposes for which the use of appropriated funds is authorized, and the
    BLM would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee to clarify
    this provision.
        The bill does not waive a fair market value determination.
    Therefore an appraisal by the Department of the Interior's Office of
    Valuation Services would be required before acquisition. Based on the
    experience of the BLM and American River Conservancy with land values
    in this area, the $3,290,000 limit identified in S. 1596 for the cost
    of acquisition appears to be reasonable. We would note, however, that
    it is BLM policy to engage in fair market valuations for its
    acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges.
        We appreciate provisions in section 4(d) that give the Secretary
    discretion regarding development of a visitor center and direct that
    private funds or State grants be used to the maximum extent practicable
    to leverage the cost of constructing the visitor center and conducting
    restoration activities. This provides an excellent opportunity for
    expression of community support for preservation and restoration of
    this site.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of
    the goals of S. 1596, and we look forward to working with the sponsor
    and the Committee to clarify the legislation.
                                    s. 1651
        Thank you for the invitation to present testimony on S. 1651,
    legislation to modify a land patent pertaining to the Whitefish Point
    Light Station (Michigan). Although the Bureau of Land Management's
    (BLM) role under the legislation is ministerial, preservation of
    historic lighthouses such as the Whitefish Point Light Station is a
    priority for the Department of the Interior. The BLM supports S. 1651.
    Background
        In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the United States built a
    series of lighthouses in and around Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake
    Superior to aid in navigation of the Great Lakes. The role played by
    these lighthouses in the westward expansion and economic growth of the
    United States is part of our national heritage, with ships and
    shipwrecks recalled in story and song. The Great Lakes lighthouses--
    including the Whitefish Point Light Station at issue in S. 1651--are
    listed on the National Register of Historic Properties.
        The U.S. Coast Guard retains responsibility for aid to navigation
    in the Great Lakes, as it (or its predecessor, the Revenue Marine) has
    since 1790. In the mid-1990s, concerns reached the Congress that the
    Coast Guard, in carrying out its mission in the Great Lakes, was unable
    to assure preservation of the historic lighthouses. Interest in
    preserving the Whitefish Point Light Station led the Congress, in 1996,
    to convey land adjacent to the Light Station to two non-profit
    organizations dedicated to conservation and historic preservation--an
    8.27 acre parcel to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society
    (Historical Society) and a 2.69 acre parcel to the Michigan Audubon
    Society (Audubon Society) of Chippewa County--and a 33 acre parcel to
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Public Law 104-208, Omnibus
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1997, Section 5505.)
        This law contains limitations on development at the historic
    lighthouse, and explicitly requires compliance with the ``Whitefish
    Point Comprehensive Plan of October 1992.'' The patents BLM issued
    under this authority (including the most recent, number 61-2000-0007,
    issued March 10, 2000, to the Historical Society) contain this
    reference.
        In 1999, the Audubon Society brought suit against the Historical
    Society and the FWS over plans to develop a museum at the site. The
    parties reached a settlement agreement under which the three groups
    developed the ``Human Use/Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point,
    December 2002,'' to supersede the Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan of
    1992.
    S. 1651
        S. 1651 directs the Secretary of the Interior to modify patent
    number 61-2000-0007 by striking reference to the Whitefish Point
    Comprehensive Plan of October 1992 and inserting the ``Human Use/
    Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point, dated December 2002.'' S.
    1651 affirms the applicability of the National Historic Preservation
    Act to the Whitefish Point Light Station. The BLM supports this
    legislation.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of S.
    1651.
                                    s. 1750
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
    provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1750, a bill to
    authorize a special resource study to determine the suitability and
    feasibility of designating the General of the Army George Catlett
    Marshall National Historic Site at Dodona Manor in Leesburg, Virginia
    and for other purposes.
        The Department supports enactment of S. 1750. However, we recommend
    that the title of the bill be amended to refer to the ``General George
    C. Marshall House (Dodona Manor)'' rather than the ``General of the
    Army George Catlett Marshal National Historic Site,'' as the former is
    consistent with the landmark's current listing on the National Register
    of Historic Places. We also believe that priority should be given to
    the 45 previously authorized studies for potential units of the
    National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and
    potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and
    Scenic River System that have not yet been transmitted to the Congress.
        S. 1750 authorizes a special resource study for General George C.
    Marshall's home, Dodona Manor. One of the options that the study would
    consider is making the site an affiliated area of the National Park
    System. The study would also consider other alternatives for
    preservation and protection of the home and interpretation of the life
    and accomplishments of George C. Marshall. The home was designated a
    National Historic Landmark in 1996. We estimate the cost of this study
    to range from $200,000 to $300,000, based on similar types of studies
    conducted in recent years.
        Born in 1880 in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, George Marshall attended
    the Virginia Military Institute to prepare for a military career. He
    rose steadily through the ranks, serving with distinction in various
    posts in the United States, the Philippines, and China, and in Europe
    during World War I. In World War II, General Marshall led the Allied
    forces to victory in the Atlantic Theatre. Following the war, as
    Secretary of State, Marshall designed a humanitarian program for
    rebuilding war-ravaged Europe. For his ambitious European Recovery
    Plan, more broadly known as the Marshall Plan, Marshall was awarded the
    1953 Nobel Peace Prize.
        General Marshall enjoyed living at Dodona Manor for 18 years from
    1941 until his death in 1959. At the time of the Civil War, the house
    was called Oak Hill. Marshall, who likened the sound of the white oak
    leaves rustling in the wind to the ancient Greek oracle of Zeus
    speaking through the oak forest of Dodona Grove in Epirus, renamed the
    house ``Dodona Manor.'' While living there, he rose from being an Army
    officer respected for his military contributions to one of the most
    important and respected world figures of the 20th Century. Winston
    Churchill, recalling the years of World War II, said that the only
    individual on whom all the leaders conferred unqualified praise and
    admiration was General Marshall.
        Many military post houses across the United States were occupied by
    General Marshall and his first and second wives, but never for long.
    Dodona Manor was his residence for the last 18 years of his life,
    coinciding with his years of national and international achievement.
    General Marshall brought his best possessions to Dodona Manor--oriental
    rugs purchased during duty in China, and books in large number, which
    he owned and read. He indulged his favorite pastime of tilling the
    earth and planting gardens. From there he commuted to Washington during
    his military service and later as Secretary of State and Secretary of
    Defense. Dodona Manor has survived almost entirely as he left it and no
    other site provides the opportunity for reflection on the years when
    Marshall rose to become one of the great figures of the 20th Century.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
    happy to answer any questions that you or other Committee members may
    have regarding this bill.
                                    s. 1801
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's views on S.1801, a bill to establish the
    First State National Historical Park in the State of Delaware.
        The Department strongly supports the establishment of a unit of the
    national park system in Delaware as proposed by S. 1801, but is
    concerned about the addition of certain resources in the bill that were
    found not to meet congressionally established criteria for unit
    designation, and the terms of the park-specific grant authorization.
        In 2008, pursuant to Public Law 109-338, the National Park Service
    completed a Special Resource Study of the coastal area of Delaware and
    identified a number of resources of national significance that were
    determined suitable and feasible to administer as a unit of the
    national park system. These included historic resources that were
    instrumental in early Swedish, Dutch, and English settlement in the
    United States, and others associated with Delaware's role as the
    nation's first state.
        In 1638, Peter Minuet led Swedish colonists to present day
    Wilmington, Delaware, and established New Sweden at a point known as
    ``the rocks'' on the Christina River. The settlers constructed Fort
    Christina at this location and this site is now a National Historic
    Landmark. In 1698, Swedish settlers established Holy Trinity (``Old
    Swedes'') Church near the fort, the oldest church building standing as
    originally built in the United States and also a National Historic
    Landmark.
        In 1651, Peter Stuyvesant led Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam and
    constructed Fort Casimir at a place he named ``New Amstel,'' in present
    day New Castle, Delaware. Conflicts between the Swedish and Dutch
    colonists resulted in changing occupations of the fort with the Dutch
    regaining control in 1655. Also in 1665, the English arrived at New
    Amstel and seized control of the settlement, renaming it ``New
    Castle.'' William Penn landed in New Castle in 1682 and took possession
    of the city. In 1704, Penn established Delaware's Assembly and New
    Castle remained the colonial capital of Delaware until 1776. The New
    Castle Historic District, which contains multiple resources from the
    time of earliest settlement through the Federal era, is a National
    Historic Landmark.
        Delaware's important role as the nation's first state is also
    exhibited in resources of national significance. Delaware's
    representatives to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional
    Convention played important parts in the adoption of the Declaration of
    Independence and crafting of the United States Constitution. On June
    15, 1776, the Delaware Assembly, meeting in New Castle, voted to sever
    its ties with the English Crown three weeks prior to the Declaration
    signed in Philadelphia on July 4th. National Historic Landmarks
    associated with these early revolutionary leaders include the homes of
    John Dickinson (the ``Penman of the Revolution''), Gunning Bedford,
    Jr., and George Read. The Dover Green witnessed Delaware's vote to
    become the first state to ratify the nation's new Constitution.
        S. 1801 would establish the First State National Historical Park to
    include the resources cited above that the Special Resource Study found
    meet the criteria for congressional designation of a unit of the
    national park system. The staff of the new park would be authorized to
    interpret related resources outside of the boundary, within the state
    of Delaware. The Special Resource Study estimated annual operating
    costs for the park at $450,000 to $550,000, which would fund 5-7 FTEs,
    and costs associated with a general management plan at $600,000. The
    bill provides for $3 million in one-time matching grants for
    rehabilitation of existing structures to serve as administrative and
    visitor services facilities for the park and $2.5 million in one-time
    matching grants for historic preservation, interpretive devices, and
    the design, construction, installation, and maintenance of exhibits.
    The latter may include matching grants for research and exhibits at the
    Zwaanendael Museum in Lewes, and the State Archives in Dover, Delaware.
    All funding would be subject to NPS priorities and the availability of
    appropriations. A study of additional resources related to the purpose
    of the park is also authorized to assess their potential eligibility
    for National Historic Landmark designation and options for maintaining
    the historic integrity of such resources.
        S.1801 also proposes to include within the park boundary the
    historic district in Lewes, Delaware. This district is listed on the
    National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance
    and the National Register nomination for the district indicates that
    today its significance is based primarily on its fine examples of
    Victorian architecture. The Department questions adding this historic
    district to the park boundary as identified in the Special Resource
    Study since it is not a National Historic Landmark, does not meet the
    required national significance criterion for unit designation, and is
    not consistent with the park's purpose as outlined in Section 4(b) of
    S. 1801.
        However, we note that Section 4(g) of S. 1801 permits
    interpretation of resources related to the purposes of the park located
    outside of its boundary. We would suggest that any extant resources in
    Lewes, within or outside of the historic district, relating to early
    Dutch, Swedish and English settlement, or Delaware's role as the first
    state, would be eligible for interpretation without including this
    district in the park boundary. Such resources would also be candidates
    for further analysis as to their National Historic Landmark potential
    under the bill's study provisions in Section 5.
        We also note that Section 6 would authorize one-time matching
    grants to State and local governments, private property owners and
    nonprofit organizations to pay for the historic preservation of non-
    Federal resources within the park boundaries. While some parks now
    provide limited financial assistance through cooperative agreements,
    the limited matching grant authorization proposed in Section 6 could
    raise expectations that the National Park Service would be asked to
    provide annual financial assistance for the operation and maintenance
    of these non-Federal sites within the park boundary.
        We would like work with the Committee to further clarify that the
    grants under Section 6 are one-time grants and not reoccurring grants.
    We would also like to work with the committee on a technical amendment
    regarding the appropriate wording for the New Castle Historic District
    in Section 2(a)(2)(B)(ii) and inclusion of a map reference in Section
    3.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may
    have.
                              s. 1802 and h.r. 685
        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. 1802 and H.R. 685, legislation to require a
    study of the feasibility of establishing the United States Civil Rights
    Trail System.
        The Department supports S. 1802 as introduced, and H.R. 685 as
    passed by the House, which are substantially identical. However, we
    feel that priority should be given to the 45 previously authorized
    studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new
    National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails
    System and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been
    transmitted to Congress.
        S. 1802 and H.R. 685 authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    conduct a special resource study in order to evaluate a range of
    alternatives for protecting and interpreting the sites associated with
    the movement to secure racial equality for African-Americans in the
    United States in the 1950s and 1960s, including alternatives for
    potential additions to the National Trails System. We estimate that the
    cost of this study will range from $500,000 to $750,000, given the
    large number of sites across multiple states which must be included in
    the study.
        The struggle for civil rights has been a hallmark in the
    development of the United States from its earliest fight for
    independence from Great Britain during the 1770s and 1780s through the
    passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing all
    Americans the right to vote and prohibiting discrimination based on
    race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The movement leading up
    to the passage of the Act was filled with violent confrontations that
    challenged the very foundation of our country, yet it also represented
    the highest aspirations of its citizens.
        The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the most comprehensive civil
    rights legislation in the history of the United States and its
    provisions serve as major themes of the civil rights story both before
    and after the Act's passage. The Department recognizes that events,
    places, and individuals important in the civil rights story should be
    celebrated and commemorated in a way that helps the public understand
    and appreciate the significance of the era. Many civil rights-related
    sites have been identified and are currently recognized within the
    National Park System, the National Trails System, and as National
    Historic Landmarks, such as those commemorating the life of Martin
    Luther King, Jr. and well-known events such as the desegregation of
    Little Rock Central High School and the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery Voting
    Rights March.
        In 1999, Congress authorized the Secretary to conduct a theme study
    related to civil rights sites on a multi-state level. The National Park
    Service, in partnership with the Organization of American Historians,
    prepared the civil rights framework study to assist the National Park
    Service in identifying and prioritizing those areas of history
    significant in illustrating the civil rights story. The study, Civil
    Rights In America: A Framework for Identifying Significant Sites, was
    transmitted to Congress on June 2, 2009.
        The study identified broad themes within the civil rights story, as
    well as the events, persons, and places that represent those themes,
    and assessed the degree to which related sites are represented and
    recognized. These themes include equal education, public accommodation,
    voting, housing, equal employment, criminal injustice, immigrant
    rights, and American Indian civil rights. The study did not assess the
    feasibility or suitability of inclusion of particular sites into the
    National Trails System, the National Park System, or as National
    Historic Landmarks. S. 1802 and H.R. 685 would allow the National Park
    Service to assess sites specifically associated with the struggle for
    African-American racial equality from 1954-1968, which touches on most,
    but not all, of these broad themes.
        The study also recommended that the National Park Service complete
    four National Historic Landmark theme studies to recognize, promote,
    and protect civil rights-related sites and their relationship to the
    civil rights story's chronology, historic themes, and how various
    minorities are represented. National Historic Landmark theme studies
    are an effective way of assessing whether or not places are nationally
    significant in American history. They provide a historic context within
    which to evaluate properties, and identify places that should be
    studied for national designation.
        S. 1802 and H.R. 685 both provide for the proposed study to build
    upon this and other existing studies and reports. If enacted, this
    legislation can serve as a keystone piece in the ongoing work of
    understanding the issues, preserving the place, and telling the stories
    of the struggle to ensure civil rights for all Americans.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
    answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
    have.
                             s. 2953 and h.r. 3388
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
    S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, bills that would modify the boundary of
    Petersburg National Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
        The Department supports S. 2953 and H.R. 3388. The Department
    previously testified in support of H.R. 3388, on November 5, 2009,
    before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
    Lands.
        S. 2953 and H.R. 3388 are identical bills that would authorize two
    modifications to the boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield in the
    Commonwealth of Virginia. First, the bills would expand the currently
    authorized boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield by an additional
    7,238 acres. The boundary expansion proposal results from an analysis
    of ``core battlefields'' and a subsequent boundary adjustment study
    conducted as part of Petersburg National Battlefield's General
    Management Plan completed in 2005. Second, the bill authorizes a
    transfer of administrative jurisdiction between the Secretary of the
    Interior and the Secretary of the Army for a 1.7 acre parcel of land to
    accommodate a security perimeter fence at Fort Lee Military
    Reservation.
        The City of Petersburg lies in the corridor of intensive growth
    from Washington, D.C., to south of Richmond, Virginia. The region
    surrounding Petersburg National Battlefield has been and is currently
    experiencing significant development pressures impacting areas
    immediately adjacent to the park and unprotected battlefield sites.
    This development not only threatens park resources and public
    enjoyment, but also the core portions of the battlefields. The park
    commemorates the Petersburg Campaign, the longest sustained combative
    military front on American soil, in both time and distance. When
    Congress created the park in 1926, only a fraction of the battlefield
    acreage associated with the 26 major battles of the Petersburg Campaign
    was included in the original boundary. These additional battlefields
    proposed to be added to the park will allow the public to better
    understand the size, complexity, and duration of the 9\1/2\ month
    Petersburg Campaign and siege while offering protection to existing
    park resources.
        In January 2002, in response to significant development pressures
    in the region surrounding the park and as part of its General
    Management Plan process, Petersburg National Battlefield undertook a
    detailed assessment of battlefields in the Petersburg Campaign cited in
    the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) report of 1993 entitled
    ``Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields.'' The CWSAC report
    identified 100,000 acres of the Petersburg battlefields as ``core
    battlefields'' encompassing all of the critical phases defined for a
    battle. Of the 100,000 acres cited, 23,000 acres were determined to
    retain historic integrity.
        During its more detailed analyses of the 23,000 acres, the park
    concentrated on those portions of the battlefields that were south of
    the Appomattox River and directly associated with the siege or defense
    of Petersburg, and that were identified as Class A (decisive) and Class
    B (major) by the CWSAC. Additionally, the park used historical maps and
    documentation to further refine the acreage to that constituting the
    portion of the battlefield on which both armies were engaged directly
    and that had a bearing on the outcome for each battle. Park staff
    further analyzed the integrity of these areas and their potential for
    public access and interpretation. The analyses disclosed that 7,238
    acres met the criteria for integrity and interpretability.
        The estimated time period for acquisition of the 7,238 acres of
    these nationally significant lands is 15-20 years. Virtually all of the
    land subject to the boundary adjustment represents a mixture of private
    and non-profit organization-owned parcels. Agricultural and
    conservation easements will be the preferred method of acquisition for
    most parcels, particularly for those owned by non-profit organizations.
    Easements enable protection of these battlefields from inappropriate
    development while retaining private ownership and compatible use of the
    land. Where easements are not possible, and there is interest by the
    landowners, a range of acquisition methods, such as donation, and fee
    simple acquisition from willing sellers based on available funding,
    will be utilized for battlefield preservation.
        If all the lands were acquired by the National Park Service through
    fee simple means, the total estimated cost would be $29.7 million.
    However, if the boundary expansion is enacted, the park will be
    pursuing partnership efforts through easements and donations that will
    likely significantly lower acquisition costs. The estimated costs for
    capital expenses (trails, wayside exhibits, rehabilitation of existing
    visitor contact station, etc.) and expansion-related costs (surveys,
    hazardous materials studies, etc.) are an additional $1.74 million.
    Development of visitor services and interpretation at these new
    battlefield locations would be minimal and include small parking areas,
    wayside exhibits, and trail and other enhancements to the sites. The
    annual increase in operations and management is estimated to be
    approximately $484,000. All numbers are in 2008 dollars. All funds are
    subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations.
        Public response to the General Management Plan and the proposed
    boundary expansion have been uniformly favorable among local
    governments, organizations, and individuals. The Dinwiddie County Board
    of Supervisors adopted a resolution supporting future legislation to
    expand the boundary of the park as outlined in the General Management
    Plan. Many civic organizations in the Petersburg region have also
    indicated support for the proposal.
        The second main provision of the bill would authorize a transfer of
    administrative jurisdiction between the Secretary of the Army and the
    Secretary of the Interior for a 1.7 acre parcel of land. Following
    September 11, 2001, the Army was required to erect a perimeter fence
    around Fort Lee Military Reservation, located adjacent to Petersburg
    National Battlefield. The fence intruded slightly into the boundary of
    the park. The land exchange would transfer to the Army the 1.7 acre of
    land where the perimeter fence is located, in return for a 1.7 acre of
    the military reservation to be added to the park. The Secretary of the
    Army is supportive of this provision. There is no cost associated with
    this authorization.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
    answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
    have regarding the proposed boundary expansions.
                                    s. 2976
        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. 2976, a bill to designate the Sleeping Bear
    Dunes National Lakeshore Wilderness at Sleeping Bear Dunes National
    Lakeshore in the State of Michigan.
        The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 2976. However, we
    recommend that the wilderness be designated as the ``Sleeping Bear
    Wilderness,'' rather than ``Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
    Wilderness,'' as the former is consistent with the style of the
    majority of wilderness areas in units of the national park system. This
    legislation would designate 32,557 acres, or 46 percent, of Sleeping
    Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan's Lower Peninsula as
    federally protected wilderness. It defines the boundary of the
    wilderness area as the line of demarcation--the general line formed by
    the lakeward extent of the first contiguous vegetation that is upland
    from the high water mark of Lake Michigan. Management of the wilderness
    area would be in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
    1131 et seq.).
        P.L. 91-479 established Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on
    October 21, 1970, in order ``. . .that certain outstanding natural
    features including forests, beaches, dune formations, and ancient
    (glacial) phenomena. . .be preserved in their natural setting and
    protected from developments and uses which would destroy the scenic
    beauty and natural character of the area. . .for the benefit,
    inspiration, education, recreation, and enjoyment of the public.'' This
    bill clearly supports the intent of that law.
        The park extends nearly 30 miles along the eastern shore of Lake
    Michigan, the most visited of our Great Lakes, and the only one
    entirely within the United States. It also includes two large Lake
    Michigan islands with an additional 35 miles of shoreline. The National
    Lakeshore protects and preserves superlative scenic and recreational
    resources including towering perched sand dunes that rise as high as
    450 feet above Lake Michigan; miles of beautiful sugar sand beaches;
    sparkling inland lakes and clear streams; important wetlands; and an
    upland beech-maple Northern Hardwood Forest. This landscape is home to
    black bear, deer, bobcat, trumpeter swans, raptors, and many species of
    songbirds. Federally threatened and endangered species include the
    Piping Plover, Pitcher's Thistle, and Michigan Monkeyflower as well as
    several state-listed species. The high, perched dunes afford
    spectacular views across Lake Michigan and over other glacially formed
    landscapes. The contrast between the open, sunny environment of the
    dunes and the adjacent lush beech-maple forests is striking.
        The park includes many historic features as well. Long before the
    area became a National Lakeshore, Native Americans, lumbermen, merchant
    sailors, and farmers visited or settled here. Today, a lighthouse and
    three U.S. Life-Saving Service Stations, coastal villages, and
    picturesque farmsteads reflect the National Lakeshore's rich maritime,
    agricultural, and recreational history and are open for public
    enjoyment. The region surrounding the National Lakeshore is a popular
    vacation and summer home destination. In recent times, the area has
    undergone considerable growth as homes and support services are built
    for expanding full-time and summer populations.
        The park receives nearly 1.2 million visitors each year who enjoy
    the beaches, hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, bird
    watching, paddling the lakes and streams, cross-country skiing,
    snowshoeing, ferry trips to the islands, touring historic areas, the
    spectacular views from the Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive, and the rite
    of passage of the famous Dune Climb. The park maintains over 100 miles
    of backcountry trails, two campgrounds accessible by vehicles, six
    backcountry campgrounds, and dispersed camping on North Manitou Island.
    The National Park Service estimates that the presence of the National
    Lakeshore brings nearly $30 million of economic benefit to the local
    community each year.* Native American use of the area extends some
    3,000 years into the past and is represented today primarily by the
    Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Nothing in S. 2976
    would modify, alter, or affect any treaty rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Stynes, Daniel J. ``National Park Visitor Spending and Payroll
    Impacts: 2008.'' National Park Service, 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The park encompasses a total of 71,291 acres; about 58,571 acres of
    land and 12,720 acres of water. Over 30,000 acres of the proposed
    32,557-acre wilderness area have been managed as wilderness since 1981,
    when a wilderness proposal produced under the park's first
    comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) was published. Since that
    time, the five areas of the park proposed as wilderness have provided
    outstanding recreational opportunities for hikers, backpackers,
    anglers, paddlers, and hunters with hunting being allowed in accordance
    with State regulations. A network of hiking trails and numerous camping
    opportunities will continue to be maintained in this portion of the
    park, even with the wilderness designation. The additional acres in the
    current proposal arise from the inclusion of the Sleeping Bear Plateau,
    an area unsuitable for anything but foot travel that continues to offer
    outstanding opportunities for solitude. Since formal wilderness
    designation would not change the way in which visitor use is currently
    managed in the area proposed as wilderness, there is no reason to
    believe it would have any detrimental impact on visitation or the local
    economy, and formal designation may actually have a beneficial impact.
        The proposed wilderness area does not include any existing county
    roads or areas managed primarily for historic resources. This is to
    ensure the continued availability of the county roads for visitors
    accessing remote trailheads, beaches, and the backcountry, and to
    promote visitor access to historic areas. Although the National
    Lakeshore boundary extends one-quarter mile out into Lake Michigan,
    none of the waters of Lake Michigan are proposed as wilderness. S. 2976
    would authorize the use of boat motors on the surface water of Lake
    Michigan adjacent to the wilderness and beaching of those boats below
    the line of demarcation, subject to applicable laws. This is to ensure
    continued access by boaters to the shoreline beach adjacent to the
    wilderness area. These have been areas of significant public concern.
    Designation of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Wilderness
    Area will not limit public access or change the way the area is
    currently being managed for public use and enjoyment. Permanent
    wilderness designation in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore will
    ensure protection of significant ecological resources and wilderness
    values along with solitude, quiet, and unconfined recreation for this
    and future generations in the areas proposed as wilderness within the
    National Lakeshore.
        Between 2006 and 2009, the NPS developed an updated GMP for the
    park. Because of public concern over the 1981 wilderness proposal, and
    its inclusion of county roads and historic sites, a formal Wilderness
    Study was conducted as part of this comprehensive planning effort.
    Approximately 36,000 acres within the Lakeshore were identified as
    being potentially eligible for wilderness designation in five areas of
    the park. After extensive public involvement, review, and comment,
    including overwhelming public support for wilderness designation, the
    preferred alternative in the final GMP/Wilderness Study was approved by
    the Midwest Regional Director on January 6, 2009. The area of proposed
    wilderness was mapped at 32,557 acres, with a portion in all five
    eligible areas, and is the same as the proposed wilderness designation
    in S. 2976. The final GMP/Wilderness Study does not propose wilderness
    in several eligible areas, including those areas fragmented by the road
    corridors near the Otter Creek area of the Lakeshore; the land within
    the Port Oneida Rural Historic District; the lands in the historic
    ``Cottage Row'' on North Manitou Island; the area in the South Manitou
    Island historic farm loop; an area near the historic Bufka Farm
    identified for a bicycle trail; and the congested area at the top of
    the Dune Climb.
        Passage of S. 2976 would support the overarching vision in the new
    GMP for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, which is to value the
    lakeshore primarily for preservation of its natural resources, and for
    the opportunities it provides for visitor enjoyment of natural,
    cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. The
    bill has very strong, broad-based public support. The overwhelming
    majority of local officials, the conservation community, and the
    Michigan delegation are united in their support for this bill as a
    winning resolution to an issue that has been debated since the park's
    establishment in 1970. Parties that had been bitterly polarized over
    earlier proposals have reached consensus that this bill strikes an
    appropriate balance between preserving access and guaranteeing
    outstanding primitive recreational opportunities.
        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. 3159 and h.r. 4395
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
    S. 3159 and H.R. 4395, bills that would add the historic Lincoln Train
    Station in the Borough of Gettysburg and 45 acres at the base of Big
    Round Top to Gettysburg National Military Park in the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania.
        The Department supports enactment of this legislation. The
    Department previously testified in support of H.R. 4395 on January 21,
    2010, before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
    Public Lands.
        Gettysburg National Military Park protects major portions of the
    site of the largest battle waged during this nation's Civil War. Fought
    in the first three days of July 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg resulted
    in a victory for Union forces and successfully ended the second
    invasion of the North by Confederate forces commanded by General Robert
    E. Lee. Historians have referred to the battle as a major turning point
    in the war--the ``High Water Mark of the Confederacy''. It was also the
    Civil War's bloodiest single battle, resulting in over 51,000 soldiers
    killed, wounded, captured or missing.
        The Soldiers' National Cemetery within the park was dedicated on
    November 19, 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln delivered his
    immortal Gettysburg Address. The cemetery contains more than 7,000
    interments including over 3,500 from the Civil War. The park currently
    includes nearly 6,000 acres, with 26 miles of park roads and over 1,400
    monuments, markers, and memorials.
        Gettysburg's Lincoln Train Station was built in 1858 and is listed
    on the National Register of Historic Places. The station served as a
    hospital during the Battle of Gettysburg, and the wounded and the dead
    were transported from Gettysburg through this station in the aftermath
    of battle. President Abraham Lincoln arrived at this station when he
    visited to give the Gettysburg Address.
        Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 General Management Plan
    called for expanding cooperative relationships and partnerships with
    the Borough of Gettysburg and other sites ``to ensure that resources
    closely linked to the park, the battle, and the non-combatant civilian
    involvement in the battle and its aftermath are appropriately protected
    and used.'' In particular, the plan stated that the National Park
    Service would initiate ``cooperation agreements with willing owners,
    and seek the assistance of the Borough of Gettysburg and other
    appropriate entities to preserve, operate and manage the Wills House
    and Lincoln Train Station.''
        The Borough of Gettysburg Interpretive Plan called for the Lincoln
    Train Station to be used as a downtown information and orientation
    center for visitors--where all park visitors would arrive after coming
    downtown--to receive information and orientation to downtown historic
    attractions, including the David Wills House. This is the house where
    Lincoln stayed the night before delivering the Gettysburg Address. The
    Interpretive Plan also called for rehabilitation of the Wills House,
    which was added to the park's boundary through Public Law 106-290 in
    October 2000, and is now a historic house museum in the borough and an
    official site within Gettysburg National Military Park. Through a
    Memorandum of Understanding, the David Wills House is operated by Main
    Street Gettysburg at no cost to the National Park Service.
        The Lincoln Train Station is next to the downtown terminus of
    Freedom Transit, Gettysburg's shuttle system, which started operations
    in July 2009 with a grant from the Federal Transit Administration in
    the Department of Transportation.
        In 2006, the Borough of Gettysburg completed rehabilitation of the
    Lincoln Train Station with funds from a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    grant. Due to a lack of funds, however, the borough has been unable to
    operate a visitor information and orientation center there. Through
    formal vote of the Borough Council, the Borough of Gettysburg has asked
    the National Park Service to take over the ownership and operations of
    the train station. The anticipated acquisition cost for the completely
    rehabilitated train station is approximately $772,000, subject to an
    appraisal by the federal government. Funding to acquire this land would
    be subject to the availability of appropriations and NPS priorities.
        The park has a preliminary commitment from the Gettysburg
    Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB) to provide all staffing
    requirements for operations of an information and orientation center in
    the train station, thereby alleviating the park of staff costs.
    Anticipated operating costs for the train station that will be the
    responsibility of the NPS are limited to utility costs, the rest will
    be paid by the Gettysburg CVB. In the event that the Gettysburg CVB is
    unable to provide staffing and funding for operations, the NPS would
    seek another park partner to cover these costs and requirements.
        S. 3159 and H.R. 4395 would also add 45 acres near Big Round Top
    along Plum Run in Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania to the boundary of
    the park. The 45-acre tract of land is adjacent to the Gettysburg
    National Military Park and is within the Battlefield Historic District.
    The land is at the southern base of Big Round Top at the southern end
    of the Gettysburg battlefield. There were cavalry skirmishers in this
    area during the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1863, but the real
    significance is environmental. The tract has critical wetlands and
    wildlife habitat related to Plum Run. Wayne and Susan Hill donated it
    to the Gettysburg Foundation in April 2009. The Gettysburg Foundation
    plans to donate ``fee title interest'' in the parcel to the National
    Park Service once it is within the park boundary. It abuts land already
    owned by the National Park Service.
        When H.R. 4395 was marked up by the House Committee on Natural
    Resources, the bill was amended to combine two map references into one
    map that shows both parcels. If S. 3159 moves forward we recommend that
    the bill be amended to reflect this newer map.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
    answer any questions that you or members of the committee may have.
                                    s. 3168
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's views on S. 3168, a bill to authorize the
    Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain non-Federal land in
    Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort Necessity National Battlefield.
        The Department supports the enactment of this legislation with
    amendments. Acquisition of the property, however, would be dependent on
    the results of an appraisal of its value, future availability of
    funding, and National Park Service acquisition priorities.
        S. 3168 authorizes the acquisition of approximately 157 acres in
    Farmington, Pennsylvania. Upon acquisition, it further authorizes a
    boundary adjustment for Fort Necessity National Battlefield. The
    property contains traces of the historic Braddock Road and other
    resources.
        Fort Necessity National Battlefield was the site of the first
    battle of the French and Indian War in July 1754. The war's outcome
    determined that the British, rather than the French, would control the
    Forks of the Ohio and, therefore, development of the colonies. Leading
    troops as a then-young lieutenant colonel in the Virginia Regiment,
    this battle was future General George Washington's first and only
    surrender.
        The existing authorized boundary of Fort Necessity National
    Battlefield contains traces of the Braddock Road, built in 1755 as part
    of British Major General Edward Braddock's unsuccessful and bloody
    campaign to take Fort Duquesne at the Forks of the Ohio, a campaign
    during which Washington served as a volunteer aide to General Braddock.
    Washington had originally blazed this road in his 1754 expedition.
        The property that is the subject of S. 3168 contains both
    historical and landscape resources relating to the purpose of Fort
    Necessity National Battlefield. If acquired, approximately 500 feet of
    the historic Braddock Road trace would be added to the park and would
    adjoin the existing portion of the trace within the current boundary.
        An archeological site, dating approximately from the period of the
    1770s to 1810s, is located on the subject property. Taverns were
    constructed along the Braddock Road following the American Revolution,
    but prior to the construction of the National Road. The property
    contains archeological remains of a former tavern structure and
    associated outbuildings and landscape. The property is contiguous to
    the park's current southeastern boundary and is becoming increasingly
    important as development pressures impact areas immediately adjacent to
    the park. The owner of the property is a willing seller.
        We would like to like to work with the Committee to develop
    amendments that would provide a more precise identification of the land
    that would be authorized for acquisition and to make some minor
    technical changes.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
    answer any questions from members of the Committee.

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Whitesell. I would note that
    to give you 5 minutes to talk about 10 different bills and
    combinations was probably unfair to start with. So thank you
    for being so succinct.
        I know we've been joined by Senator Bennet and, Mr.
    Holtrop, if you're willing to wait a little bit longer and
    suspend your testimony--I think Senator Bennet's fine if you
    stay up at the table. We want to hear Senator Bennet provide us
    with his thoughts on his bill, S. 3303, the Chimney Rock
    National Monument proposal.
        So welcome to the subcommittee, Senator. I'm proud to be a
    co-sponsor of your legislation and looking forward to hearing
    you testify.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Bennet. I'm proud to call you ``Mr. Chairman.''
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me
    here. Ranking Member Burr, thank you also, for the opportunity
    to testify at today's hearing on the Chimney Rock National
    Monument Act of 2010. I introduced this legislation earlier
    this month. Chairman Udall, I want to extend a special thanks
    to you, as you said, for joining me as an original co-sponsor
    on this important piece of legislation.
        I also want to recognize Commissioner Bob Moomaw, who's
    here today. He's sitting behind me and you'll hear from him
    later. Commissioner Moomaw is a county commissioner from
    Archuleta County, Colorado, where Chimney Rock is located. Bob,
    along with his 2 fellow Archuleta County commissioners, penned
    a letter to me earlier this year expressing strong support for
    this legislation to designate Chimney Rock a national monument.
        Bob, I know you're a busy guy and I want to express my
    sincere thanks for taking the time to testify in support of
    this legislation.
        I'm here today to testify in support of S. 3303, the
    Chimney Rock National Monument Act of 2010. Chimney Rock is
    located roughly 20 miles west of Pagosa Springs in the
    southwest part of our State of Colorado. This 4700-acre site is
    located on San Juan National Forest land and is recognized as
    perhaps the most significant historical site managed by the
    entire U.S. Forest Service.
        The Twin Spires of Chimney Rock depicted in the photo
    besides me attracted the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians
    to this area nearly a thousand years ago. This unique culture
    had their main settlement in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. It had a
    settlement at what is now Mesa Verde National Park near Cortez,
    Colorado. The Chaco people established a remote outpost at the
    base of Chimney Rock called the Great House Pueblo. The Great
    House is situated just south of the Twin Spires and also is
    shown beside me.
        The house was built from 6 million stones, 5,000 logs, and
    25,000 tons of earth and clay. All of these materials were
    arduously hauled 1,000 feet up from the valley floor.
        We think they established this outpost to observe a rare
    lunar event, a so-called major lunar landstill, which occurs
    once every 18.6 years when the moon appears to rise in the
    exact same spot 3 nights in a row. The Chaco people built the
    Great House Pueblo to observe this spectacular celestial event.
        There are only 2 other places in the world where
    archaeologists have found evidence that ancient people used
    stone structures to mark a lunar standstill. Stonehenge is one
    of them.
        Chimney Rock has incredible historical and cultural
    significance. Yet the site lacks a designation equal to that
    stature. This discrepancy is why countless preservation groups
    got involved with Chimney Rock. This constituency, coupled with
    a bipartisan group of local officials, local Colorado counties,
    municipalities, and tribes, have joined in an effort to give
    Chimney Rock its proper designation. They came together and
    asked me to carry legislation to designate Chimney Rock a
    national monument. I was happy to answer that call.
        This legislation will provide much-needed protection and
    much-deserved recognition for the site. Passage of this bill
    will also provide increased tourism and economic development in
    southwest Colorado, something I know Commissioner Moomaw plans
    to talk more about.
        The measure was drafted with the help of the U.S. Forest
    Service, the Archuleta County Commissioners, the Pagosa Springs
    Town Council, historic preservation groups, and Native American
    tribes in the region. Through this robust stakeholder process,
    we've written a commonsense piece of legislation for this
    important archaeological treasure.
        I would draw the committee's attention to a number of
    letters I brought with me today that support the overall
    effort. The letters come from a bipartisan group of Archuleta
    County Commissioners, where Commissioner Moomaw serves, the
    Mayor and Town Council of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, the town
    nearest Chimney Rock, and a wide variety of historical
    preservation groups from Colorado and all across the country.
    I'd like to submit these letters into the record to illustrate
    the broad level of local support for this popular legislation.
        Senator Udall. Without objection.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My staff and I stand ready to work with the members of the
    committee and the administration to address any concerns that
    arise with the legislation as drafted. It's my hope that we can
    work collaboratively to improve and strengthen the legislation.
    It's then my hope that the committee will support the bill and
    favorably report it out for consideration by the full Senate.
        Thank you again, Chairman Udall and Senator Burr, for
    allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of this
    measure.
        Senator Udall. Senator Burr, do you have any comments or
    questions?
        Senator Burr. No, thank you.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Bennet. I would note 2
    things briefly. One is that local involvement is wide, robust,
    and strong. Second, I've been informed that this 18.6-year
    cycle just began again, so I need to follow Senator Burr's
    exercise and nutrition protocols so that I'm around to see it
    in 16 years.
        Senator Bennet. That's a good idea.
        Senator Udall. I'm not worried about you.
        Senator Bennet. I was worried that my remarks were going to
    last 18.6 years, but they didn't.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you.
        Senator Udall. I know we have a cloture vote looming, so
    I'm going to turn to Mr. Holtrop, and we'll hopefully get some
    questions in before Senator Burr and I need to go to the floor,
    hopefully briefly, and then we'll, after we recess, we'll then
    hear from the final panel.
        The floor is yours, sir.

       STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Burr: Thank
    you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views on S.
    3303, which would establish the Chimney Rock National Monument
    in Colorado. As your opening statement and Senator Bennet's
    statement indicate, Chimney Rock is a very important
    archaeological and cultural site to the local community, to the
    tribes, to the public, and to the Forest Service.
        We believe the rich history, spectacular archaeological,
    cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resource values, as
    well as the community support, merits the designation of the
    area as a national monument. Chimney Rock is also a very
    special place to me personally.
        I have visited, enjoyed, and been inspired by the area and
    I am proud to testify today on behalf of the Department on
    legislation that would give this natural treasure the
    recognition it deserves.
        Designated as an archaeological area and national historic
    landmark in 1970, Chimney Rock lies on 4100 acres of the San
    Juan National Forest, surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian
    Reservation. The Forest Service values archaeological and
    cultural resources and is proud that part of the agency's
    mission is to preserve and interpret them for the public. We
    believe this bill is a win-win for all.
        While the Department supports S. 3303, in my written
    testimony which I have submitted for the record I offer a few
    specific modifications that would address some technical
    concerns we have with the bill and would improve our ability to
    manage resources in the area. Very briefly, I'll highlight some
    of the modifications we suggest.
        Regarding the requirement to designate an individual as
    manager of the national monument, we would like the opportunity
    to assess staffing and management needs during the early phases
    of our planning process to base our initial staffing and
    management decisions on identified resource management needs
    and issues and public concerns and demands.
        Regarding the authority in Section 6[c] to construct a
    visitor's center and related exhibit and curatorial facilities,
    the Anasazi Heritage Center, a BLM facility, is managed in a
    service-first arrangement by the San Juan National Forest
    supervisor and is one of the largest curation centers in the
    Southwest, and it should be used for this purpose.
        Regarding the mining and mineral withdrawal in Section
    6[d], we recommend inclusion of language in this section
    providing that the proposed withdrawal would be subject to
    valid existing rights or that some other appropriate language
    be added that addresses this concern.
        Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to talk
    about Chimney Rock today. The Forest Service looks forward to
    working with you and the subcommittee and sponsors to carry out
    the intent of the bill, and I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Forest Service, Department of
                            Agriculture, on S. 3303
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on S.
    3303, the Chimney Rock National Monument Act of 2010. While the
    Department supports S. 3303, I would like to offer modifications that
    would address some technical concerns with the bill and which would
    improve our ability to manage resources in the area.
        Designated as an Archaeological Area and National Historic Landmark
    in 1970, Chimney Rock lies on 4,100 acres of San Juan National Forest
    land surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Between A.D.
    900 and 1150, the ancestors of modern Pueblo Indians occupied the lands
    surrounding Chimney Rock, and the site remains of archaeological and
    cultural significance to many descendant tribes. At 7,600 feet, Chimney
    Rock is also the most northeasterly and highest Chacoan site known.
    Chacoan culture refers to the way of life of ancient ancestors of
    modern Pueblo Indians and continues to be important to the native
    people in the region.
        The Forest Service values archaeological and cultural resources and
    considers it part of the agency's mission to preserve and interpret
    them for the public. We believe the rich history, spectacular
    archaeological, cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resource
    values, as well as community support, merits the designation of the
    area as a National Monument.
        Section 4(a) of S. 3303 would establish the Chimney Rock National
    Monument in the State of Colorado by designating 4,726 acres
    surrounding the Chimney Rock Archaeological Area within the San Juan
    National Forest as a National Monument. The purpose of the monument
    would be to preserve, protect, and restore the nationally significant
    archaeological, cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resources
    in the area, as well as enable the public to fully utilize the
    resources in the area. Section 7(c) of the bill would also provide for
    continued access by Indian tribes to sites within the National Monument
    for traditional and cultural uses.
        Section 4(b)(2)(A) would authorize the Secretary to make minor
    boundary adjustments to the monument to include significant
    archeological resources discovered on adjacent public land. We
    recommend that the bill be amended to substitute ``National Forest
    System land'' for ``public land'' to make clear that the only public
    land adjacent to the proposed monument boundary is Forest Service land.
    Section 4(c) would require the Secretary to designate an individual as
    manager of the National Monument. To implement this provision, the
    organizational structure of the San Juan National Forest would have to
    be amended to accommodate the new position. We would prefer to be
    provided the opportunity to assess staffing and management needs during
    the early phases of our planning process, allowing us to base our
    initial staffing and management decisions on identified resource
    management needs and issues, and public concerns and demands.
        Section 6(a) would require the monument to be managed as a unit of
    the San Juan National Forest. We recommend making a technical amendment
    to this section to add language that would require the Secretary to
    manage the monument in accordance with any other applicable provisions
    of law. This change would make it clear that laws applicable to
    management of the forest would also apply to management of the
    monument.
        Under section 6(b) and (c), the Secretary would be authorized to
    allow uses of the monument consistent with the purposes of its
    establishment including the following uses: vegetative management
    treatments; timber harvest and the use of prescribed fire only if the
    Secretary deems it necessary to address the risk of wildfire, insects,
    or diseases; the construction of a visitor's center and related exhibit
    and curatorial facilities; scientific research; acquisition
    consolidation, and display of artifacts found within the monument; the
    recreational and administrative use of mountain bikes and motorized
    vehicles; installation, construction and maintenance of a public
    utility right of way under certain circumstances; and grazing uses
    through permits.
        We believe that an interpretation and educational center, instead
    of a visitor's center, would be more in line with the bill's purposes
    of providing educational and interpretive programs to communities, and
    allowing for academic scientific investigation of Chimney Rock.
    Although the bill would authorize construction of a curatorial
    facility, the Anasazi Heritage Center, a BLM facility, is one of the
    largest curation centers in the Southwest and should be used for this
    purpose. In fact, many materials from Chimney Rock are already curated
    at this facility.
        Section 6(d) of the bill would withdraw the affected lands from
    location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws; and
    would withdraw those areas from the laws governing mineral leasing,
    geothermal resource leasing and mineral materials. A problematic aspect
    of section 6(d) is it does not preserve valid existing rights to the
    land that the bill would designate as the Chimney Rock National
    Monument. There are currently mining claims, mineral leases, and
    mineral material contracts which encumber the lands to be included in
    the monument. The bill, as written, would prohibit the exercise of
    rights which may be associated with these existing mining claims and
    are associated with these mineral leases and mineral materials
    contracts. For these reasons, we recommend inclusion of language in
    this section providing that the proposed withdrawal would be subject to
    valid existing rights, or that some other appropriate language be added
    that addresses this concern.
        Section 7 would require the development of a management plan, not
    later than 3 years after the date of enactment, and in consultation
    with Indian Tribes with a cultural or historic connection to the
    monument. The management plan must identify the authorized uses for the
    monument. In developing the management plan, the Secretary would
    provide an opportunity for comment to the public and such entities as
    State, Tribal government, local, and national organizations with an
    interest in the management and use of the monument. The San Juan
    National Forest land management plan would have to be amended to
    incorporate the management plan for the monument. Because of the
    importance of creating a successful management plan in collaboration
    with the community, Tribes, and the public, and the time needed to
    achieve this, the Department recommends the bill language be changed to
    state that the management plan shall be completed no later than five
    (5) years after the date of enactment.
        In conclusion Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service looks forward to
    working with you and the subcommittee to carry out the intent of the
    bill. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. Let me turn to
    Senator Burr for any questions he might have of either of you.
        Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Steve, the National Park Service currently reports a
    maintenance backlog of over $9 billion. Yet 6 of the bills in
    front of the subcommittee today establish either new national
    park units or increase the amount of land in current units. I
    guess the obvious question: Do you believe the National Park
    Service should pay down the maintenance backlog before it
    considers more land or more obligations?
        Mr. Whitesell. You know, I think these always have to be
    balanced as one looks at that potential addition to the
    National Park System. The feeling I think among most of us is
    that the addition of these lands are appropriate to the system.
    Hence the administration's willingness to go forward with their
    addition.
        Senator Burr. In the case of those bills that you support,
    is the Secretary willing for that to come out of the annual
    budget?
        Mr. Whitesell. For land acquisition?
        Senator Burr. Yes.
        Mr. Whitesell. I believe that we've pointed out in most of
    those cases that we would be using available funds.
        Senator Burr. So the answer is no.
        Mr. Whitesell. I don't think we're asking for any
    additional dollars for that acquisition, no, sir.
        Senator Burr. So the agency's not willing to take it out of
    its annual budget. It would require additional appropriations
    from the Congress?
        Mr. Whitesell. That's correct.
        Senator Burr. OK.
        How much will each of the pieces of legislation cost, 3 of
    them, S. 349, the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area?
        Mr. Whitesell. I believe the costs are relatively small in
    terms of what's required in order to get that site off the
    ground, that heritage area.
        Senator Burr. My calculation was it authorized $10 million
    over a period of time.
        Mr. Whitesell. Right.
        Senator Burr. Is that $10 million just the initial phase,
    the initial investment?
        Mr. Whitesell. I think that's part of the question that
    comes forward with our request to Congress for consideration
    for----
        Senator Burr. You defer to opinion, and I hope we get a
    fixed cost on that.
        How about acquiring the Gold Hill Ranch in Coloma,
    California? I sense a cost of $3.3 million to acquire.
        Mr. Whitesell. I'd have to defer to Mr. Spisak on that
    question.
        Mr. Spisak. The authorization is about $3.4 million.
        There are at this point $2 million that have been collected
    from private funds that would go toward the acquisition of that
    property.
        Senator Burr. That wouldn't have anything to do with the
    ongoing management of that property, the cost of it?
        Mr. Spisak. That would be the acquisition portion.
        Senator Burr. OK.
        Senator Udall. Sir, if I could interrupt, Senator Burr.
    Would you just provide us with your name and position for the
    record?
        Mr. Spisak. Tim Spisak, Deputy Director for Minerals and
    Realty Management within the Bureau of Land Management.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Burr. First State National Historic Park?
        Mr. Whitesell. You were interested in what the costs are on
    that?
        Senator Burr. Correct.
        Mr. Whitesell. I believe the expectation for annual
    operating costs are someplace in the order of about $450 to
    $500,000 a year for staffing of that facility, plus there's a
    portion of money that we are looking to for potential grants
    for historic preservation activities.
        Senator Burr. Three million in acquisition and $2.5 million
    additional dollars in potential grants.
        Mr. Whitesell. Yes, sir.
        Senator Burr. Thank you.
        May I ask you on S. 2953, S. 3159, S. 3168, they seek to
    expand a national park unit. How much of the land involved in
    the proposed expansion do we know is under current private
    ownership?
        Mr. Whitesell. I don't know. I know specific locations
    which are under private ownership. For instance, the piece at
    Fort Necessity is privately owned, and has a willing seller
    that has actually approached the National Park Service about
    sale of that particular property.
        Senator Burr. Would the Park Service consider using eminent
    domain in any of the acquisitions?
        Mr. Whitesell. We always try to go forward with a willing
    seller arrangement.
        Senator Burr. Let me ask it one more time: Would the Park
    Service consider on either one of those pieces of legislation
    using eminent domain to acquire the land?
        Mr. Whitesell. We would if we could not in any other way
    find an ability to acquire property. We seek that very seldom,
    though, as I think you know.
        Senator Burr. I do.
        Steve, do we know if hunting is currently allowed on any of
    the land that's being proposed in those 3 acquisitions?
        Mr. Whitesell. That includes, I believe, a piece at
    Sleeping Bear Dunes. My understanding is that the change in the
    wilderness proposals in that particular area have no impact on
    current hunting or fishing activities in those areas. In fact,
    the wilderness area was actually very carefully worked out with
    the local community to make sure that their concerns about
    access were in fact represented in how the lines were drawn for
    the Wilderness Act.
        Senator Burr. But in the case of private land that was
    purchased for expansion of a park, it's safe to say that
    private land is land that can be hunted today. Would it remain
    with the Park Service as accessible for hunting?
        Mr. Whitesell. It would be only to the extent that hunting
    is currently allowed within those existing parks. Where we're
    expanding the boundary, we would expand the same, whatever the
    current management practices are.
        Senator Burr. So if it did not extend hunting, then hunting
    would be lost on the acquired lands?
        Mr. Whitesell. That is correct.
        Senator Burr. I thank the chair. I think that's good
    enough. Thank you.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
        I might as a follow-up, as I recognize myself. On the 2
    battlefield bills, there are sections that make it clear that
    the Secretary may acquire only by purchase from a willing
    seller publicly owned property that's located within the
    property designated in this section. Similar language is--that
    is the legislation dealing with Gettysburg, and then there's
    similar language in the Petersburg National Battlefield
    legislation as well.
        Mr. Whitesell. Right. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Udall. That may answer further Senator Burr's
    important questions.
        Mr. Holtrop, let me turn to you first and I've got a
    question about Chimney Rock. You've identified a couple of
    technical management issues you'd like to see changed and we're
    more than happy to work with you on those proposed
    modifications, including the clarification that the monument
    designation would not affect any existing valid rights.
        Apart from those changes, I just want to make it clear for
    the record that the Forest Service agrees that national
    monument designation for Chimney Rock--let me say, for the
    Chimney Rock site--I want to be appropriate and careful here--
    is appropriate; is that correct?
        Mr. Holtrop. That is correct, we do believe it's
    appropriate.
        Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification and clear
    answer.
        Let me turn back to Mr. Whitesell. On the Susequehanna
    Gateway National Heritage Area, you're recommending the
    committee defer action on the bill until the administration
    submits heritage program legislation in the near future.
        Mr. Whitesell. Right.
        Senator Udall. Can you provide us with more detail on when
    you expect to have that legislation ready?
        Mr. Whitesell. We've worked on that proposed legislation
    within the National Park Service, but we are awaiting further
    discussions with the Office of Management and Budget for their
    clarifications on it.
        Senator Udall. You'll keep us apprised, I assume?
        Mr. Whitesell. We certainly will.
        Senator Udall. Apart from the recommendation to defer
    action, does the Park Service consider the proposed heritage
    area for the Susquehanna appropriate for national heritage
    designation?
        Mr. Whitesell. It does.
        Senator Udall. Let me turn to First State National
    Historical Park, Delaware, S. 1801. The proposed First State
    Park would include several sites in different parts of the
    State. Are you aware of other National Park System areas that
    have multiple noncontiguous site areas and can you tell us how
    the management of those sites is handled?
        Mr. Whitesell. I think probably the one that's the closest
    that I can think of off the top of my head would be Boston
    National Historical Park, where in Boston you have a series of
    separate sites owned in many cases by entities other than the
    Federal Government. They have many of the similar colonial
    resources that we're looking here at the potential national
    park in Delaware.
        So they're owned by private entities, not-for-profit
    organizations who work with the National Park Service toward
    the preservation of those particular properties. The Park
    Service provides some degree of oversight and general direction
    for the entire park and particularly supports the interpretive
    programs in those locations.
        Senator Udall. So there is at least a precedent or a
    parallel of some sort?
        Mr. Whitesell. I believe so, yes.
        Senator Udall. I'm tempted to ask if those are sites where
    the first tea party was created. But we'll leave that for
    another discussion.
        My understanding is that none of the sites within the park
    are federally owned. If there is any Federal land in the park,
    what would you envision the National Park Service's management
    role to be? Again, this is on the First State National
    Historical Park.
        Mr. Whitesell. Yes. Again, I think this would be
    acquisition only to the extent that it would be necessary to
    establish a particular presence. I think very limited
    acquisition, if any acquisition at all, is anticipated in the
    development of that park.
        Senator Udall. Then your management role would be what? How
    would you define that?
        Mr. Whitesell. Much of it is a coordinative role, working
    with the partner organizations, with the State and local
    governments to make sure that the interpretive programs are
    well thought out, that they're coordinated, and that the
    visitor walks away with a thorough understanding of the
    importance of the particular units that would make up that
    park.
        Senator Udall. I would assume when Mr. Slavin testifies he
    will speak to this and we can also ask him additional
    questions.
        Let me turn finally to the Fort Necessity National
    Battlefield addition, S. 3168. It authorizes the Park Service
    to acquire 157 acres for addition to the Fort Necessity
    National Battlefield. Following on Senator Burr's important
    questions about cost, do you have any estimate of the potential
    land acquisition costs?
        Mr. Whitesell. No, we don't. For that particular property,
    as I say, we've got a willing seller that's approached us with
    an interest in selling those properties. But we haven't had a
    chance to do an appraisal on those lands, and that would be
    necessary before we ever arrived at a fair price.
        Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification.
        Senator Burr, do you have more?
        Senator Burr. No, thank you.
        Senator Udall. Gentlemen, thank you again. I always
    appreciate the fact that you come up here, share your point of
    view with us, and answer our questions in a straightforward and
    direct manner. Thank you.
        We'll call the third and final panel to the table. We at
    this point--have we heard anything from the floor? We've heard
    nothing from the floor, so perhaps we can hear from our third
    panel and direct some questions their way before the cloture
    vote is actually called, if it's called at all. I should have
    asked Senator Bennet for an update from the caucus.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Udall. Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for joining us
    today. I know that you've come from 3 different States, so I'll
    just introduce each of you in turn, and then I'll turn back to
    Commissioner Moomaw for his testimony. It's a delight for me to
    see Commissioner Robert Moomaw, the Honorable Robert Moomaw.
    He's a Commissioner of Archuleta County, as Senator Bennet
    mentioned, based in Pagosa Springs. This is a slice of heaven
    every time of year, but particularly as the spring looms I know
    it's just gorgeous at home. We've got a lot of moisture. It's
    great to have you here, Commissioner.
        Next to you, Tim Slavin, the Director of the Division of
    Historic and Cultural Affairs for the State of Delaware, based
    in Dover. If I think I heard Senator Carper correctly, you were
    a key part in this study and the work that was done to design
    this important proposal that is in front of us today.
        Then Mr. Platts is President of the Susequehanna Gateway
    Heritage Area, based in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania.
        Before I do turn to Commissioner Moomaw, I did also want to
    acknowledge that I think you've been traveling with Roy Jones.
    I don't know if Roy was able to stay, but I have known Roy for
    many years. He worked with my father, Congressman Mo Udall, on
    the House side on many a natural resource issue, and I want to
    just acknowledge Roy's friendship and wisdom and support. I
    know you're in good hands, Commissioner, when you're with Mr.
    Roy Jones. He's a graduate of West Point, a patriot, and just
    all in all a wonderful man.
        Thank you for being here. The floor is yours. I look
    forward with real interest to your testimony. You have, give or
    take, 5 minutes to share with us your thoughts. If you'd turn
    your mike on, that would be great.

      STATEMENT OF ROBERT MOOMAW, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, ARCHULETA
                               COUNTY, CO

        Mr. Moomaw. I'm sure as you know, Mr. Jones and I were
    roommates at West Point.
        Senator Udall. I want that for the record, of course, yes.
        Mr. Moomaw. Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr: Thank you
    for the opportunity to speak in favor of the Chimney Rock
    National Monument Act of 2010. My name is Bob Moomaw. I am a
    Commissioner from Archuleta County, Colorado. I have been
    tasked by my fellow commissioners and the citizens of Archuleta
    County to testify in support of this important legislation.
        As Senator Bennet, mentioned, Chimney Rock is located in
    Archuleta County in the Four Corners Region of southwest
    Colorado. The site is located just 20 minutes west of the town
    of Pagosa Springs and represents a unique archaeological
    experience.
        Senator Bennet has already covered the historic and
    archaeological significance of Chimney Rock, so I will focus my
    comments on the positive economic impacts the national monument
    designation would have on Archuleta County and the surrounding
    region. Archuleta County is blessed with some of the most
    beautiful scenario God has given to the State of Colorado and
    the Nation. We have also been blessed with excellent
    representation from our Federal elected officials: you, Senator
    Udall, and Senator Bennet, and in the past Senator Ken Salazar,
    who is now Secretary of the Interior, and Senator Ben
    Nighthorse Campbell.
        A little about where I hale from. Archuleta County
    encompasses roughly 900,000 acres, of which 66 percent is
    Federal land, comprised of BLM, Forest Service, and the
    Southern Ute Nation. In addition, we are surrounded by
    approximately 2.8 million acres of Forest Service land.
        Despite our overwhelming beauty, Archuleta County is a
    county of stark extremes. On the one hand we have great wealth
    and on the other we also, unfortunately, have widespread
    poverty, particularly among our indigenous long-term residents.
    Our per capita income is only $21,683. Continued sustainable
    growth is essential to the future prosperity of Archuleta
    County. That is why the Chimney Rock National Monument bill of
    2010 is so important. The legislation would not only protect a
    nationally significant site, but it would bring prominence to
    our small community.
        Our economy is mostly based around tourism, construction,
    and real estate. 26 percent of our homes are second homes. 47
    percent of the property is owned by nonresidents. Regrettably,
    the national downturn has hit our area very hard, with the
    construction and real estate segments of our economy
    essentially disappearing.
        Prior to the downturn, Archuleta County was one of the
    fastest growing counties in the country. We were listed I a
    host of magazines and books as one of the most desirable places
    to move nationwide. Since the downturn, we have unfortunately
    lost approximately 10 percent of our population and still have
    a 10.6 percent unemployment rate.
        Now, I don't want to give you the impression that we're
    coming to the Federal Government to solve our problems. We've
    already moved aggressively to stimulate our economy and to pull
    ourselves out of this recession. We've formed a new economic
    development corporation that is already bringing new businesses
    to Archuleta County to diversify our economy. Yet struggles in
    our county continue. While there is no silver bullet to fix our
    region's economic woes, the Board of County Commissioners feels
    this new national monument would be a tremendous help.
        As Senator Bennet illustrated, the site certainly warrants
    monument status, both for giving--as a Commission, we support
    the legislation, both for giving Chimney Rock the recognition
    it deserves and for the new visitors it will bring to our
    county.
        As briefly discussed earlier, the remnants of the unique
    Chacoan culture consist primarily of Chaco Canyon, a world
    heritage site, Mesa Verde, a national park, and the currently
    little known Chimney Rock archaeological site. Many tourists,
    including folks from as far away as Europe and Asia, travel to
    the Chaco Canyon, from Chaco Canyon to Mesa Verde, to get what
    is perceived to be the complete picture of Chaco culture.
        Sadly for Archuleta County, these tourists are often
    unaware of nearby Chimney Rock and its significance to the
    ancestral Pueblo people. It is our hope that a national
    monument designation would change that. Tourists from across
    the world will come to see the monument, stay in our hotels,
    eat in our restaurants, and hopefully even visit our world-
    famous hot springs.
        A similar change occurred with Canyon of the Ancients,
    located in a neighboring community. After Canyon of the
    Ancients received monument status, tourism went up
    dramatically.
        Chairman Udall, members of the committee, it is for the
    aforementioned reasons that Archuleta County, surrounding
    counties, and the Southern Ute Nation are in support of this
    legislation. Archuleta County respectfully asks that you
    favorably report the Chimney Rock National Monument Act of 2010
    out of your committee for consideration by the full Senate.
    Passage of this legislation would protect a vulnerable national
    treasure and bring important sustainable economic development
    to our tourism-based economy.
        Thank you for your time and the invitation to testify. I
    appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on Chimney Rock
    and its importance to our region. I'm happy to answer any
    questions should you have them.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moomaw follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Robert Moomaw, County Commissioner, Archuleta
                             County, CO, on S. 3303
        Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr, members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the Chimney Rock
    National Monument Act of 2010, S.3303. My name is Bob Moomaw and I am a
    County Commissioner from Archuleta County, Colorado. I've been tasked
    by my fellow Commissioners, and the citizens of Archuleta County, to
    testify in support of this important legislation.
        Chimney Rock is located in Archuleta County, in the Four Corners
    region of Southwest Colorado. The site is located just 20 minutes west
    of the town of Pagosa Springs and represents a unique archaeological
    experience. I will focus my comments on the positive economic impacts
    the National Monument designation would have on Archuleta County and
    the surrounding region.
        Archuleta County is blessed with some of the most beautiful scenery
    God has given to the state of Colorado and the nation. We have also
    been blessed with excellent representation from our Federal elected
    officials, you--Senator Udall and Senator Bennet; and in the past,
    Senator Ken Salazar, now Secretary of the Interior, and Senator Ben
    Nighthorse Campbell.
        A little about where I hail from--Archuleta County encompasses
    roughly 900,000 acres of which 66% is Federal land, including Forest
    Service, BLM and the Southern Ute Nation. In addition, Archuleta County
    is bordered by 2.8 million acres of Forest Service land. Despite our
    overwhelming natural beauty, Archuleta County is also a county of stark
    extremes.
        On one hand we have great wealth--with one of our trophy ranches
    having just sold for $47 million dollars. On the other we also
    unfortunately have widespread poverty, particularly among our
    indigenous long-term residents. Our per capita income is only
    $21,683.00. Continued sustainable economic growth is essential to the
    future prosperity of Archuleta County. That is why the Chimney Rock
    National Monument Bill of 2010 is so important.
        The legislation would not only protect a nationally-significant
    site, but it would bring prominence to our small community. Our economy
    is mostly based around tourism, construction, and real estate. 26% of
    our homes are second homes, with 47% of the property owned by non-
    residents. Regrettably, the national economic downturn has hit our area
    very hard, with the construction and real estate segments of our
    economy essentially disappearing.
        Prior to the downturn, Archuleta County was one of the fastest
    growing counties in the country. We were listed in a host of magazines
    and books as one of the most desirable places to move nationwide. Since
    the downturn we have unfortunately lost approximately 10% of our
    population and currently have a 10.6% unemployment rate.
        Now I don't want to give you the impression we are coming to the
    federal government to solve our problems. We have already moved
    aggressively to stimulate our economy and pull ourselves out of this
    recession. We have formed a new economic development corporation that
    is already bringing new business to Archuleta County to diversify our
    economy. Yet struggles in our County continue. While there is no silver
    bullet to fix our region's economic woes; the Commission feels that
    this new National Monument would be a tremendous help.
        The site certainly warrants Monument status. As a Commission we
    support the legislation--both for giving Chimney Rock the recognition
    it deserves and for the new visitors it will bring to our County. As
    briefly discussed earlier, the remnants of the unique Chacoan culture
    consist primarily of Chaco Canyon, a World Heritage site; Mesa Verde
    National Park; and what is currently the little-known Chimney Rock
    Archeological Area.
        Many tourists--including folks from as far away as Europe and
    Asia--travel from Chaco Canyon to Mesa Verde to get what is perceived
    to be the complete picture of the Chaco culture. Sadly for Archuleta
    County, these tourists are often unaware of nearby Chimney Rock and its
    significance to the Ancestral Pueblo people.
        It is our hope that a National Monument designation would change
    that. Tourists from across the world will come to see the Monument, and
    then stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, and hopefully even
    visit our world-famous hot springs.
        A similar change occurred with Canyon of the Ancients--located in a
    neighboring community in Colorado. After Canyon of the Ancients
    received Monument status, tourism went up dramatically.
        Chairman Udall, members of the committee, it is for the
    aforementioned reasons that Archuleta County, surrounding counties, and
    the Southern Ute Nation are in support of this designation. Archuleta
    County respectfully asks that you favorably report the Chimney Rock
    National Monument Act of 2010 out of your committee for consideration
    by the full Senate.
        Passage of this legislation would protect a vulnerable national
    treasure and bring important sustainable economic development to our
    tourism-based economy. Thank you for your time and the invitation to
    testify. I appreciated the opportunity to share my thoughts on Chimney
    Rock and its importance to our region. I am happy to answer any
    questions should you have them.

        Senator Udall. Thank you. Commissioner Moomaw, you made my
    homesick.
        Mr. Slavin, the floor is yours.

     STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SLAVIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HISTORICAL
                AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF DELAWARE

        Mr. Slavin. Thank you, Chairman Udall, for allowing me to
    submit this brief testimony on S. 1801, which would establish
    the First State National Historic Park in the State of
    Delaware. My name is Tim Slavin and I currently serve as the
    Director of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for
    the State of Delaware. In this capacity I oversee the
    management and stewardship of 34 historic properties comprising
    119 structures and more than 600 acres of cultural landscapes.
    In addition, I also serve as the State Historic Preservation
    Officer and oversee the cultural resources review of all
    Federal projects undertaken in our State as well as other
    historic preservation-related activities.
        I strongly support the passage of this bill. This bill is a
    result of an untold number of hours of public consultations,
    meetings with State and private agencies, and conversations
    with local residents. This has been a deliberate, arduous, and
    productive task and the outcome could not have been more
    beneficial or useful.
        The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park
    is something which is valid for Delaware and should be
    implemented by the National Park Service. The theme of early
    settlement through birth of a Nation in Delaware is considered
    by many historians to be pivotal in conveying an understanding
    of Delaware's unique role in American history. The National
    Park Service cited this in its special resource study, stating
    that Delaware, quote, ``provides an important lens on the
    subject of how early colonial leaders struggled with the notion
    of breaking free from England,'' and that Delaware
    ``exemplifies the character of an entirely new Nation as a
    result of that quest for freedom and independence.''
        The multi-site design for the park likewise reflects that
    history. Delaware's waves of settlement included the Swedish,
    the Dutch, and the English, all in different venues, across a
    beautiful and sweeping coastal area. Under the proposed design,
    the hub of the park would be situated in Newcastle, which
    includes one of the richest historical districts on the East
    Coast, as well as a community of preservation-minded residents
    and property owners who are unparalleled in Delaware.
        The spokes of the park would allow for important stories
    that contribute to an understanding of the early settlement and
    birth of the Nation theme to be told in Dover and in Lewes as
    well.
        The public acceptance of this proposed project and the
    amount of public input and enthusiasm for the bill should not
    go unnoticed. There has been a wellspring of sentiment and
    support from across Delaware, with citizens participating in
    hearings and discussions and offering many of the ideas that we
    see outlined in the bill. The city of Newcastle has not only
    accepted its new role as the site for the park's hub, but has
    embraced this new role. As someone who manages historical
    properties and museums in Newcastle, I can tell you that the
    specter of a national park in Newcastle has brought with it a
    whole new level of public support for history and historic
    preservation there.
        If the park is implemented as designed--and I sure hope it
    is--you will find a conscientious and welcoming community in
    Newcastle.
        Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be
    met. Delaware's history is our Nation's history and we need to
    tell that story in ways that all Americans can access it. The
    fact that we currently do not have a national park in Delaware
    would in my opinion not be reason enough to simply create one.
    The fact that we have historical resources which the citizens
    of our Nation need to see and experience in order to understand
    and appreciate our Nation's great history is something we can
    no longer ignore. The need for this park is based on the need
    to tell our American history thoroughly and completely and to
    include Delaware in that enterprise.
        I'm a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works
    hand in glove with the National Park Service on an almost daily
    basis through our work in carrying out the provisions of the
    National Historic Preservation Act and through their joint
    efforts we have raised the quality of life for all Delawareans.
    We consider the NPS to be an exemplary steward of our Nation's
    heritage and we are unblinking in saying that they are partners
    that we are proud to do business with.
        But my admiration for the National Park Service is at its
    roots deeply personal. My 16-year-old daughter lives in
    Boulder, Colorado, and on my monthly visits to her we have
    claimed Rocky Mountain National Park as one of our own little
    places. It's a place we visit regularly, sometimes returning to
    the same footprints we left on previous trips. These visits
    have not only resulted in the 2 of us visiting other national
    parks, but more importantly have shown her the value of
    conscientious stewardship and the role that each person can
    play in preserving our Nation's heritage.
        We need to show the children of Delaware the importance of
    these values and the passage of S. 1801 gives us that
    opportunity.
        In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its
    passage and implementation and stand ready to assist the
    National Park Service in any manner possible. Thank you very
    much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Slavin follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Timothy Slavin, Director, Division of Historical
              and Cultural Affairs, State of Delaware, on S. 1801
        Chairman Udall and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks of
    the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, thank you for allowing
    me to submit this brief testimony on S. 1801, which would establish the
    First State National Historical Park in the State of Delaware.
        My name is Timothy A. Slavin, and I currently serve as the Director
    of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for the State of
    Delaware. In this capacity, I oversee the management and stewardship of
    thirty-four historic properties, comprising 119 structures and more
    than 600 acres of cultural landscapes. In addition, I also serve as the
    State Historic Preservation Officer and oversee the cultural resources
    review of all federal projects undertaken in our state, as well as
    other preservation related activities.
        I strongly support the passage of S. 1801. This bill is the result
    of untold number of hours of public consultations, meetings with state
    and private agencies, and conversations with local residents. This has
    been a deliberate, arduous, and productive task, and the outcome could
    not have been more beneficial or useful.
        The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park is
    something which is valid for Delaware and should be implemented by the
    National Park Service (with passage of this bill). The theme of ``early
    settlement'' through ``birth of a nation'' in Delaware is considered by
    many historians to be pivotal in conveying an understanding of
    Delaware's unique role in American history. The National Park Service
    cited this in its special resource study, stating that Delaware
    ``provides an important lens on the subject of how early colonial
    leaders struggled with the notion of breaking free from England'' and
    that ``Delaware exemplifies the character of an entirely new nation as
    the result of that quest for freedom and independence.'' (National Park
    Service, Delaware National Coastal Special Resource Study and
    Environmental Assessment, November 2008.)
        The multi-site design for the park, likewise, reflects that
    history. Delaware's waves of settlement included the Swedish, Dutch and
    English, all in different venues across a beautiful and sweeping
    coastal area. Under the proposed design, the ``hub'' of the park would
    be situated in New Castle, which includes one of the richest historical
    districts on the east coast, as well as a community of preservation-
    minded residents and property owners who are unparalleled in Delaware.
    The ``spokes'' of the park would allow for the important stories that
    contribute to an understanding of the early settlement and birth of a
    nation theme to be told in Dover and Lewes, as well.
        The public acceptance of this proposed project and the amount of
    public input and enthusiasm for this bill should not go unnoticed.
    There has been a well-spring of sentiment and support from across
    Delaware, with citizens participating in hearings and discussions, and
    offering many of the ideas that we see outlined in the bill. The City
    of New Castle has not only accepted its new role as the site for the
    park's hub, but has embraced that new role. As someone who manages
    historical properties and museums in New Castle, I can tell you that
    the specter of a national park in New Castle has brought with it a
    whole new level of public support for history and historic preservation
    in New Castle. If the park is implemented as designed--and I hope that
    it is--you will find a conscientious and welcoming community in New
    Castle.
        Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be met.
    Delaware's history is our nation's history, and we need to tell that
    story in ways that all Americans can access it. The fact that we
    currently do not have a national park in Delaware would, in my opinion,
    not be reason enough to simply create one. The fact that we have
    historical resources which the citizens of our nation need to see and
    experience in order to understand and appreciate our nation's great
    history is something which we can no longer ignore. The need for this
    park is based on a need to tell our American history thoroughly and
    completely, and to include Delaware in that enterprise.
        I am a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works hand-
    in-glove with the NPS on an almost-daily basis through our work in
    carrying out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act,
    and through their joint efforts, we have raised the quality-of-life for
    all Delawareans. We consider the NPS to be an exemplary steward of our
    nation's heritage, and we are unblinking in saying that they are
    partners that we are proud to do business with.
        But my admiration for the National Park Service is, at its roots,
    personal. My 16-year-old daughter lives in Boulder, Colorado, and on my
    monthly visits to her, we have claimed Rocky Mountain National Park in
    Estes Park as our own place. It's a place that we visit regularly,
    returning to some of the same footprints we left on previous trips.
    These visits have not only resulted in the two of us visiting other
    national parks, but, more importantly, have shown her the value of
    conscientious stewardship and the role that each person can play in
    preserving our nation's heritage.
        We need to show the children of Delaware the importance of these
    values, and the passage of S. 1801 gives us that opportunity.
        In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its passage
    and implementation and stand ready to assist the National Park Service
    in any manner possible.
        Thank you.

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Slavin. You've obviously done
    your homework. You've also made me homesick, given Boulder,
    Colorado, is a short distance from where I live. My
    grandfather, if I could reminisce for 5 seconds, was the first
    concessionaire in Rocky Mountain National Park. My mother spent
    many a summer there. So you've further sealed the deal when it
    comes to my support for this important legislation.
        Thank you for your hard work and the passion you clearly
    brought to this.
        Mr. Platts, the floor is yours.

     STATEMENT OF MARK N. PLATTS, PRESIDENT, SUSQUEHANNA HERITAGE
                     CORPORATION, WRIGHTSVILLE, PA

        Mr. Platts. Chairman Udall, thank you for the opportunity
    to testify today in support of S. 349, an Act to establish the
    Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania's
    Lancaster and York Counties and along the scenic and historic
    Susquehanna River, which we consider our own slice of heaven,
    and I hope you'll be homesick for after you hear this. A
    special thanks to Pennsylvania Senators Bob Casey and Arlen
    Specter for their sponsorship of this legislation.
        I'm Mark Platts, President of the Susquehanna Heritage
    Corporation, a nonprofit organization and management entity for
    the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Region, one of Pennsylvania's
    12 State-designated heritage areas. I'm especially proud to be
    testifying today with my 1-year-old son Timothy in the audience
    to check on how dad does today. We also got him in a tie, which
    is pretty cool.
        Mr. Chairman, I have submitted written testimony for the
    record on the outstanding merits of our region to be designated
    by Congress as a national heritage area. With your permission,
    I'd like to highlight that testimony.
        Senator Udall. Please do and, without objection, it will be
    included, your full statement, in the testimony.
        Mr. Platts. Thank you.
        The Susquehanna River was recently named by National
    Geographic as ``the mightiest river on the Atlantic Seaboard''
    and ``mother of the Chesapeake Bay.'' As a native York Countian
    now living in Lancaster County and going to work every day on
    the shores of the Susquehanna, I'm proud to share why this
    special corner of America merits national designation.
        Throughout American history, the Susquehanna Gateway region
    and its fertile and scenic landscape have played a starring
    role in the story of America. As you learned earlier today, in
    2008 the National Park Service reviewed our national heritage
    area feasibility study report and agreed with this assessment,
    determining that the region meets the criteria for
    Congressional designation as a national heritage area. It
    clearly has national important resources and stories to share.
    We're pleased to have this important endorsement of our
    region's place in America's story and we think it's quite a
    story. Our region's history reflects events and movements that
    truly represent the American experience, many flowing from the
    central historical role of the Susquehanna River, one of the
    oldest river systems in the world and the longest on America's
    East Coast. This majestic waterway flows through the heart of
    our region before it enters the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and
    has been a corridor of culture and commerce for centuries. It
    hosts traces of Native American life in its rock art
    petroglyphs, the largest collection of those petroglyphs on the
    East Coast, and the archeological remains of their settlements.
    It served early colonists as a commercial highway and was once
    the gateway to America's ever-moving frontier. It also almost
    became the site of the Nation's capital and missed by one vote
    in Congress or we'd be meeting in our region now.
        The region has been a great source of American ingenuity.
    The Conestoga wagon and Pennsylvania long rifle originated
    here. Robert Fulton, inventor of the first successful
    steamboat, was born here and today his statue stands across the
    street in the Capitol in Statuary Hall with a model of the
    famous rivercraft, which we'll be showing to the kids when we
    go over there after this. The first iron steamboat and the
    first coal-burning steam locomotive were invented here, too,
    further revolutionizing transportation.
        Hydroelectric dams were built on the river to provide
    power, but they also created major recreation areas that have
    made the Susquehanna a valued place for outdoor recreation of
    all types.
        Our region's Plain People, commonly known as the Amish, are
    nationally recognized for their religious values, simple way of
    life, and well-tended farms. Their unique customs and the
    cultural landscape they have created in our region is of a
    scale that is rare, if not entirely unknown, anywhere else in
    America, and they attract millions of visitors each year.
        A less well known story is our region's role as the seat of
    national government at a critical time during the Revolutionary
    War. The Continental Congress fled to York in September 1777 to
    use the Susquehanna River as a natural barrier to the British
    Army, who had occupied Philadelphia. While in York for 9
    months, Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and
    Perpetual Union, America's first constitution. I love the
    ``perpetual union.'' That's really a cool part of that title.
        Later our region played a key part in the Underground
    Railroad story and local resident James Buchanan, who became
    President, and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens emerged as national
    leaders in the debate over African American freedom.
        The Susquehanna Gateway region is now poised to play a new
    role in the national story. In May 2009, President Obama issued
    an executive order on the Chesapeake Bay calling the bay a
    national treasurer and proposing a substantial Federal role to
    protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources,
    and social and economic value of the Nation's largest estuary.
        Just last week, the Federal leadership committee created to
    implement the executive order released its strategy for
    protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a
    nationally coordinated effort to enhance the environment and
    landscapes of the bay, including the Susquehanna River, which
    is the bay's largest tributary. Importantly for our region, the
    strategy proposes a new initiative to conserve treasured
    landscapes of the bay water through broad collaborative
    conservation efforts. We believe the national heritage area
    model is a proven approach for doing just that and S. 349
    provides Congress with ready-made legislation for jump-starting
    this initiative in one of the bay's most treasured and
    significant landscapes.
        Launching this Chesapeake strategy with designation of
    America's newest national heritage area along the bay's
    greatest river, the Susquehanna, will demonstrate a strong
    Congressional commitment to advancing this visionary
    conservation initiative.
        In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to share
    our region's national significance and for the great help of
    Senators Casey and Specter in getting us to this important
    milestone. Those of us in the region know that our home and our
    people have played a special place in America's story and we're
    ready to join Congress and the National Park Service in sharing
    our stories with the Nation. We ask your support for this bill
    and I thank you and welcome any questions or comments.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Platts follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Mark N. Platts, President, Susquehanna Heritage
                         Corporation, Wrightsville, PA
        Chairman Udall, Senator Burr, and distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support
    of S. 349, an act to establish the Susquehanna Gateway National
    Heritage Area in Pennsylvania's Lancaster and York Counties, along the
    scenic and historic Susquehanna River. I am Mark Platts, President of
    the Susquehanna Heritage Corporation, a non-profit organization and
    management entity for the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, one of
    Pennsylvania's twelve state-designated heritage areas. The Susquehanna
    River was recently named by National Geographic as the mightiest river
    on the Atlantic seaboard and Mother of the Chesapeake Bay. As a native
    son of York County, now residing with my family in Lancaster County and
    working everyday on the shores of the Susquehanna, I am proud to come
    before you today to highlight the Susquehanna Gateway region's unique
    and important place in our nation's history and share why this special
    corner of America merits designation as a National Heritage Area.
                     a place with a national story to share
        According to the National Park Service, ``a National Heritage Area
    is a place designated by the United States Congress where natural,
    cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a
    cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape arising from patterns of
    human activity shaped by geography. These areas tell nationally
    important stories about our nation and are representative of the
    national experience through both the physical features that remain and
    the traditions that have evolved within in them.''
        Throughout two centuries of American history, the Susquehanna
    Gateway region has played a starring role in the development of our
    nation's political, cultural and economic identity. Our people have
    advanced the cause of freedom and shared their agricultural bounty and
    industrial ingenuity with the world. Our town and country landscapes
    and natural wonders are visited and treasured by people from across the
    globe. The Susquehanna River has served the nation as a major fishery,
    transportation corridor, power generator and, most recently, as an
    outdoor recreation venue. Our people, land and waterways are essential
    parts of the national story--qualities that exemplify the National Park
    Service's definition of a National Heritage Area.
        The Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area, originally known as the
    Lancaster-York Heritage Region, has been designated as a Pennsylvania
    Heritage Area since 2001. The Susquehanna Heritage Corporation serves
    as the heritage area's Management Entity and has a nine-year track
    record of successful heritage development activities, particularly
    along the historic Susquehanna River corridor, located at the center of
    the region. We have attracted substantial state and local public and
    private funding support that will more than match potential federal
    funding and we have developed a Strategic Plan with a primary focus on
    creating an economically vital heritage and outdoor tourism asset based
    on the Susquehanna River.
        Designation as a National Heritage Area is an important step in
    advancing heritage development initiatives for the region. National
    recognition will boost visibility and visitation, bring critical
    technical assistance and support to the region, and further highlight
    and promote the majestic Susquehanna River--its scenic and fragile
    river lands, its historic and vibrant river towns, and its special
    significance to the heritage and health of the Chesapeake Bay.
    national park service endorsement of our region's national significance
        In 2008, our organization conducted a public involvement and
    planning process that resulted in submittal of a National Heritage Area
    Feasibility Study Report to the National Park Service (NPS) documenting
    our region's qualifications for national designation.
        After NPS staff review of the report, in September 2008 NPS
    Northeast Region Director Dennis E. Reidenbach determined that our
    region ``meets the criteria contained in the National Heritage Area
    Feasibility Study Guidelines for potential Congressional designation as
    the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area,`` and further stated
    that the region, ``with its strategic location along the Susquehanna
    River, colonial history, rich Amish cultural traditions, and
    agricultural heritage, clearly has nationally important resources and
    stories to share.''
        Commenting on our organization's qualifications to manage the
    proposed National Heritage Area, Mr. Reidenbach said ``as a valued NPS
    partner through the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network and partner in a
    new National Recreation Trail, you have demonstrated your ability to
    build partnerships, attract visitors and bring new recognition to the
    region. Increasing your focus on the lower Susquehanna River presents
    new opportunities to strengthen the unity, vibrancy and identity of the
    region and the Chesapeake watershed.''
        As recognized by the Park Service, our organization is ready to
    serve as the Management Entity for the Susquehanna Gateway National
    Heritage Area. We operate from The John and Kathryn Zimmerman Center
    for Heritage at Historic Pleasant Garden, an 18th century dwelling on
    the shores of the Susquehanna River, right at the heart of the region.
    We are governed by a regional civic leadership Board of Directors that
    provides strategic policy direction and oversight to our work. Our
    Advisory Council includes almost thirty regional agencies,
    organizations, associations, institutions and businesses that also
    provide support and guidance. Our programs and projects have included
    partnerships with many other regional organizations, as well as local,
    state and national agencies. National designation will further enhance
    our ability to preserve, protect and celebrate our area's significant
    heritage resources and stories.
        We are pleased to have National Park Service endorsement of our
    region's qualifications for National Heritage Area designation and our
    place in America's story--and it is quite a story.
               an overview of our region's rich national heritage
        The proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area is a rich
    showcase for Pennsylvania's long and distinguished role in the
    development of the United States, and possesses a nationally
    distinctive landscape that contributes to our national heritage.
        The identity of our region, particularly Lancaster County, is
    strongly associated with the Plain People, more commonly known as the
    Amish and Mennonite communities. We are home to America's oldest and
    most densely populated Amish settlement. Their aversion to modern
    conveniences and ability to continue traditional ways in the face of
    tremendous external change and pressure has piqued national and
    international interest for much of the past century.
        Our region is a striking example of William Penn's doctrine of
    religious freedom, upon which Pennsylvania was founded. Attracted by
    the prospect of a life without religious persecution, European
    immigrants--English, Irish, Germans, Scots--settled in the region,
    bringing an assortment of faiths. By the time of the American
    Revolution, Pennsylvania was one of the largest colonies, with highly
    cosmopolitan communities. Some call our region the first American
    melting pot. At one time the edge of the frontier, the region was also
    a major outpost for those moving west.
        The area's prominent role during the Revolutionary War also
    exemplifies its contribution to American freedom. Fleeing Philadelphia
    in 1777, the Second Continental Congress convened in York for nine
    months, using the river as a barrier from the British. In York, the
    revolutionary government debated and adopted the Articles of
    Confederation--``America's first Constitution.''
        The region's story of freedom extends to that of African-Americans
    fleeing slavery. A predominance of anti-slavery sentiment and proximity
    to the Mason-Dixon Line helped make the area a significant part of the
    national Underground Railroad network and home to national leaders in
    the debate over African American Freedom.
        Agriculture is among the most distinct aspects of the Susquehanna
    Gateway region. For centuries the area has been a breadbasket for the
    nation, and its patchwork of cropland is a defining feature of the
    landscape. The region's farms are also a backbone of the state's
    economy. From subsistence farming by Native Americans, to traditional
    cultivation by the Plain People, to modern food production, the region
    possesses rich stories of agriculture's past, present and future.
        In addition to agri-business, for centuries the region has been a
    center for a large and highly diverse collection of manufacturing
    businesses--local and international, small and large, new and old. This
    tradition of design, production and innovation continues. Some examples
    of the goods currently produced in the region are: motorcycles,
    barbells, coffins, paper, pottery, tanks, furniture, wallpaper,
    violins, tapestries, dental prosthetics, hydraulic turbines, and
    cigars. The transporting of goods, which was critical to the growth of
    agriculture and manufacturing, also made the region a center for
    innovation. From the Conestoga wagon to the first iron steamboat to the
    first coal-burning steam locomotive, the area has a rich history of
    transportation ingenuity.
         why the susquehanna gateway region merits national designation
        The research and planning process for development of a Statement of
    National Significance for the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National
    Heritage Area produced major themes that document the region's
    significant place in the national story. These themes reflect events
    and movements that truly represent the American experience. The
    region's significance is also reflected in its many natural and
    historic resources, including one National Natural Landmark, five
    National Historic Landmarks, and 329 sites listed on the National
    Register of Historic Places.
        The region's national heritage themes derive from the central role
    that the Susquehanna River, one of the oldest river systems in the
    world, has played in the history of the area. The four-hundred-and-
    fifty-mile-long river, the longest on the East Coast, flows southeast
    through the heart of the Susquehanna Gateway region before it enters
    the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. Throughout the region's history, the
    Susquehanna has been a unifying element. The natural abundance of
    animal and plant life here long attracted Native Americans, followed by
    European settlers who transformed the landscape from woodlands into
    farms and small towns. The later discovery of coal in the river's
    higher reaches, as well as an industrial boom in Lancaster and York
    Counties, increased commercial traffic on the river. Ever since the
    eighteenth century, both industry and agriculture have coexisted here.
        In the American mind, the area is synonymous with Amish culture,
    and the beautiful rural landscape they created that still exists in
    large parts of the region. Today, those scenic qualities attract
    visitors from throughout the United States and around the world.
        Although agriculture still represents a significant part of the
    area's economy, the industrial base has declined while recreation and
    natural areas have grown. The proposed Susquehanna Gateway National
    Heritage Area, then, has experienced a cycle in which local values
    regarding the uses of the landscape have changed from predominantly
    agricultural to markedly industrial, and more recently to a focus on
    the natural and historical environment. National Heritage Area
    designation will help preserve this nationally important and unique
    landscape.
        The four major interpretive themes developed for the Susquehanna
    Gateway region are therefore focused on the Susquehanna River as a
    national corridor of culture and commerce, the area's roles as a
    gateway to settlement of America's frontier and capital of the new
    nation during the Revolutionary War, the Amish, and the region's place
    in the cause of African American freedom.
          the susquehanna river as a corridor of culture and commerce
        Long before European settlers first explored the Susquehanna River,
    Native Americans lived here. They left traces of their lives in rock
    art at several petroglyph sites as well as in archaeological remains at
    town sites and other locations. Almost 2,900 archaeological sites have
    been recorded in the Lower Susquehanna River basin, about half of which
    lie within the Susquehanna Gateway region with several listed on the
    National Register of Historic Places. When Captain John Smith explored
    the Chesapeake Bay in 1608, he journeyed up the Susquehanna and formed
    a trading alliance with Native Americans, opening a trade network
    extending from the bay to the Great Lakes.
        The natural abundance and richness of the Susquehanna that was so
    attractive to native peoples eventually drew European settlers as well.
    After William Penn received his grant in 1681 and began settling his
    colony, the Susquehanna's fertile valley lured European farmers,
    hunters, and merchants. The first of these settlers arrived in the
    region--at that time America's frontier--about 1710.
        Under Penn's leadership, the region was the locus of a unique
    relationship with the area's original residents. About 1684, Penn
    reserved land on the east bank of the Susquehanna as a refuge for the
    Susquehannock and other native peoples who had been displaced. Known as
    Conestoga Indian Town, the site became an important place for treaty
    making between 1696 and 1762. Benjamin Franklin printed transcripts of
    treaty sessions and a pamphlet denouncing the infamous massacre of the
    Conestoga Indians in 1763.
        The Susquehanna River served the colonists from the beginning as an
    important commercial highway to the Chesapeake Bay. Indian paths here
    were transformed into roads, one of the most important being the Great
    Wagon Road from Philadelphia westward to the frontier. In the 19th
    century, canals and railroads enabled farmers and entrepreneurs in the
    area to ship agricultural and industrial products east and west to
    remote markets. Robert Fulton, inventor of the first commercially
    successful steamboat, was born in Lancaster County in 1765 and his
    birthplace is a National Historic Landmark. York County's John Elgar
    constructed the first iron steamboat in America and launched it on the
    Susquehanna in 1825. In 1831, York Countian Phineas Davis designed and
    built the first practical coal-burning steam locomotive,
    revolutionizing railroad transportation. A York foundry constructed
    both Elgar's steamboat and Davis's locomotive.
        Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century, rafts and
    canal boats floated down the river to the Chesapeake, transporting
    lumber, iron, and other products to the wider world. In the river's
    towns and hamlets, craftsmen and industrialists established workshops
    and factories that made many of these products. In the 20th century, as
    both industry and river shipping declined, hydroelectric dams were
    constructed to provide power. The dams also created recreation areas
    that made the river a place for diverse outdoor activities, especially
    boating and fishing.
        From a wilderness area to a rural landscape to an industrial
    environment to a recreational haven, the river has undergone
    significant changes over the centuries that are representative of
    similar trends on rivers across the nation. The story of the
    Susquehanna River therefore reflects the American experience, including
    Native American culture, European settlement, the alteration of the
    landscape to rural farmland, the construction of towns, the rise and
    decline of industries, and changes in the use of the river from
    exploitation and commerce to recreation and conservation.
                    the amish identity in the american mind
        Because Pennsylvania was established as a refuge for immigrants of
    all religious persuasions, other denominations quickly followed the
    founding Quakers to the colony. Among early settlers were Germans that
    included ancestors of what are today called Amish, Mennonites, and
    others--the ``Plain People.'' Pacifistic and spurning modern technology
    and most worldly things, the Plain People are generally lumped together
    as ``The Amish'' in the popular American imagination. Their religious
    values, ``simple'' way of life, and well-tended farms speak to the
    deepest feelings that Americans have about ourselves and our national
    experience: that virtuous, hardworking, humble people can carve from
    the wilderness a way of life that is respectful of the natural world
    and of their fellow human beings. The Amish seem to personify the
    virtues of faith, honesty, community, and stewardship--perceptions that
    may be based more on myth than reality but still constitute the heart
    of our national image and how we see ourselves when we are at our best.
        The German settlers arriving along the Susquehanna in the 1710s
    cleared farmsteads and made a landscape that today appears to have been
    little altered. In reality, the area is vastly different now in many
    ways, from paved roads to electric lighting to the residential and
    commercial development. Within the rural areas, however, the hand-built
    houses, barns, and other structures, the sizes and patterns of fields
    and woodlots, the varieties of crops achievable with horse-drawn plows,
    and the farming methods used have created a landscape that is unique in
    America.
        Elsewhere in America, commercial farming and mechanization
    epitomize the term ``agribusiness.'' In the Susquehanna Gateway region,
    however, the ancient ideal of the family farm of manageable size seems
    to have been achieved and sustained. Whether or not the landscape
    created and maintained by the Plain People can accurately be regarded
    as typical of the 18th or 19th centuries, it clearly is not of the
    present. To most Americans, it looks like the rural landscape of our
    dreams: farmland as it ought to be, the Jeffersonian ideal brought to
    life.
        Today, the Amish and other Plain People of the region are also
    frequently the subject of considerable sentimentalism, commercial
    exploitation, and intrusive curiosity. Nostalgic longing for an
    imagined ``simpler'' past, ignorance of the dangerous and often
    backbreaking labor associated with farming, willingness on the part of
    some to substitute the imitation for the authentic for the sake of
    profit, and the environmental impact of countless gawkers threaten the
    very thing that people come to see. Commercialism especially endangers
    the landscape.
        A balance must be maintained between sustaining the rural
    environment that visitors want to experience and the fact that the
    community of Plain People is a living, changing one. Some of the people
    are moving from Lancaster County across the river into York and other
    parts of Pennsylvania, pressured to do so because their population is
    growing and farms can only be subdivided to a certain point before they
    become too small to be economically feasible.
        Many Amish are involved in enterprises other than agriculture:
    operating or working in restaurants, baking and canning foods for sale,
    engaging in quilting and other crafts, and constructing wooden garden
    furniture and playhouses. Although these ``nontraditional'' and
    unromantic occupations may disillusion some visitors, such activities
    help offset the economic uncertainty of farming and enable the Plain
    People to sustain their more traditional ways of life, preserving the
    rural landscape for which they have become known throughout the world.
        The Plain People are not unique to this region, but the landscape
    they have created here is of a scale and scope that is rare if not
    entirely unknown elsewhere in America. The people and their landscape
    well represent the national story of American agriculture and the way
    it has transformed the natural environment.
                            gateway to the frontier
        Close on the heels of Pennsylvania's early English and German
    settlers came Scots-Irish immigrants who moved west to the backcountry
    in the 1720s. Many settled in western Lancaster County, where they
    buffered the eastern settlements from the Indians farther west. The
    Great Wagon Road, on which the Scots-Irish and other immigrants
    journeyed west from Philadelphia, passed through Lancaster and York,
    then turned south at the Appalachian Mountains and led to the
    backcountry of Virginia and the Carolinas. By the mid-18th century, it
    was one of the busiest highways in the colonies as immigrants from the
    Susquehanna Gateway region trekked south through the Shenandoah Valley
    of Virginia. They and their descendants populated not only the frontier
    farther south in the Carolinas but also the Appalachian Mountains to
    the west.
        These emigrants from the Susquehanna Gateway region took with them
    two local innovations that attained national renown: the Conestoga
    wagon and the Pennsylvania-Kentucky rifle. The origins of both are
    murky, but the wagon was developed as early as 1716 and was named for
    the Lancaster County area where it was created. Built like a small
    boat, it could transport large cargoes without shifting, thanks to the
    wagon's sloping sides and ends. At first the wagons were used to
    transport produce and goods locally, but they soon were adopted for
    long-range freight shipping and proved vital to the transport of
    supplies into the backcountry well into the 19th century.
        The long rifle was developed by Pennsylvania German gunsmiths in
    the Susquehanna Gateway region by the 1740s. Gunsmiths from
    Pennsylvania through Virginia to North Carolina were soon producing
    them as settlers migrated south. Because of their widespread popularity
    in Kentucky, the firearms later became commonly known as Kentucky
    rifles.
        The emigrants also took with them the vernacular architecture that
    was their common heritage--especially the log dwelling, the stone
    house, and the bank barn--and transformed the backcountry as they had
    the Susquehanna region. Their influence is obvious in Virginia's
    Shenandoah Valley, which owes them much of its built environment and
    landscape, and spread into the backcountry of the Carolinas, the
    Appalachians, and beyond, eventually carrying their cultural influence
    and independent spirit throughout America.
        The Susquehanna Gateway region was a nationally significant gateway
    to the settlement of the ever-moving frontier. In the early 18th
    century, the people developed a vernacular architecture, a host of
    useful and innovative tools for survival and growth, and a sustainable
    system of farming that transformed the landscape here. When subsequent
    generations emigrated to the west and south, they took with them their
    methods of construction, their wagons and rifles, and their
    agricultural techniques to likewise transform much of the rest of the
    country.
                          revolutionary turning point
        During the Revolutionary War, the Susquehanna Gateway region became
    the seat of government for the Continental Congress, the new nation's
    executive body, at a crucial time in the conflict. After meeting first
    in Philadelphia, then Baltimore, and then Philadelphia again, the
    Continental Congress fled to the Pennsylvania frontier in September
    1777, where the Susquehanna River provided a natural barrier to the
    British Army. The British compelled Congress to flee when their army
    occupied Philadelphia after defeating George Washington's troops in the
    Battle of Brandywine. Congress convened for a day in Lancaster, then
    moved west across the river to York, where it remained until June 1778
    when it returned to Philadelphia. While in York, Congress achieved a
    major objective of national significance--adoption of the Articles of
    Confederation and Perpetual Union, the ``first constitution'' of the
    United States of America. Originally presented to Congress for
    consideration in 1776, Congress approved the Articles in November 1777
    while holding its sessions in the York County courthouse and sent
    copies to the states for ratification, which was completed in 1781.
        While Congress concluded debate on the Articles at York,
    Washington's army suffered defeat at Germantown and American general
    Horatio Gates forced General John Burgoyne's British army to surrender
    at Saratoga. Washington and his army huddled for the winter of 1777-
    1778 at Valley Forge. In February 1778, France and America signed
    treaties of alliance that the Congress at York ratified in May. Thomas
    Paine buoyed American spirits when he published The American Crisis,
    Number V, in March 1778, in Lancaster, and his letter ``To the People
    of America,'' appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette in June when the
    newspaper was published in York. With the British evacuation of
    Philadelphia in June, Washington fought them to a draw at Monmouth, New
    Jersey and Congress moved back to Philadelphia.
        Later, in 1781, as the colonies neared success in the struggle for
    independence, an American prisoner-of-war camp was established near
    York in 1781. Known as Camp Security, the facility operated until 1783
    and housed British soldiers who had surrendered at Saratoga. One of the
    few remaining revolutionary prisoner-of-war sites surviving in the
    United States, Camp Security is threatened by development. The American
    Battlefield Protection Program, in its 2007 Report to Congress on the
    Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the
    United States, listed Camp Security as a highly threatened and
    important site.
        The Susquehanna Gateway region is one of only four locations to
    serve as the capital of the United States during the struggle for
    independence. There, during its meetings in York, the Continental
    Congress completed its debates on the Articles of Confederation and
    disseminated it to the states for ratification. The region is therefore
    nationally significant as the birth site of the new nation's first
    governing document. In addition, it was while Congress was in York that
    the victory at Saratoga occurred, the Continental Army matured at
    Valley Forge, and France entered the war as an American ally. This
    often-overlooked moment of American history at York was when the young
    nation turned a critical corner on the road to independence.
                     the cause of african american freedom
        Two additional Susquehanna Gateway stories contribute to the
    region's national significance: the area's part in the Underground
    Railroad and the role that two local residents played as national
    leaders--James Buchanan and Thaddeus Stevens.
        Pennsylvanians, especially Quakers and Plain People, were
    instrumental in development of the Underground Railroad. Those escaping
    slavery arrived by boat, traveling secretly up the Susquehanna River,
    or on foot. They found many residents, both black and white, eager to
    help. Fugitive slave laws passed by Congress in 1793 and with the
    Compromise of 1850 enraged Northerners who opposed slavery. They saw
    the act as a violation of states' rights and the principles of liberty.
    When legislative appeals and litigation failed, some antislavery
    advocates resorted to direct action, hiding fugitives, breaking into
    jails to free them, and even resisting with violence.
        An episode in eastern Lancaster County in September 1851, was one
    of the deadliest instances of violent resistance to slavery and
    provoked a national outcry. It began when ``slave-catchers'' surrounded
    the house of a black man near Christiana. The group included a Maryland
    slaveholder who failed to identify the man as the fugitive being
    sought. Armed local residents soon surrounded the group, shots were
    fired, the slaveholder was killed and his son and several others were
    wounded. More than two dozen black and white men and women were later
    arrested, charged with treason for interfering with the application of
    the law, tried in Christiana, and acquitted. The Christiana resistance
    became a national cause celebre.
        Two national leaders in the Slavery debates of the 1850s-1860s were
    Lancaster residents James Buchanan and Thaddeus Stevens. Buchanan,
    United States President from 1857 to 1861, was regarded as a Northern
    man with Southern sympathies who supported slaveholders' rights and
    despised abolitionists. He also thought secession was illegal, along
    with using military power to stop it. Although most historians conclude
    that his presidency was a failure for not stopping the slide toward
    secession, it is unclear what he could have done to prevent it. After
    Buchanan left office, he returned to Wheatland, his home in Lancaster,
    where he became the first former president to write his memoirs.
    Wheatland is now a designated National Historic Landmark.
        Thaddeus Stevens, born in Vermont, settled in Lancaster in 1815. He
    served in Congress from 1849 to 1853 and from 1859 until his 1868
    death. Ardently antislavery in his convictions, Stevens was active in
    the Underground Railroad and became a leader of the ``Radical
    Republicans'' during the Civil War. He advocated total war against the
    south, was an architect of Reconstruction and the Constitution's 14th
    Amendment, and helped lead the impeachment movement against President
    Andrew Johnson in 1868. After Stevens died in 1868, his body lay in
    state in the Capitol and was buried in a Lancaster cemetery chosen
    because it was not ``limited as to race.'' His house and law office in
    Lancaster are being restored as a museum complex.
        community support for sharing our nationally-significant stories
        Beyond our region's compelling stories of national significance, to
    be considered as a National Heritage Area the National Park Service
    also says that ``...a strong base of local, grassroots support is
    essential...with the visible involvement and commitment of key
    constituencies.'' Public participation has been crucial to the success
    of the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area. We have demonstrated that
    strategic engagement of the public is the most effective means of
    raising awareness about the heritage area's mission and goals and
    building a broad base of support.
        Our successful record of public involvement is reflected in strong
    community support for designation of the region as a National Heritage
    Area, with a broad cross-section of regional constituencies providing
    statements of support for national designation in our Feasibility Study
    Report. These include: our Board of Directors, made up of regional
    business, government and civic leaders; the Lancaster and York County
    Boards of Commissioners, representing bi-partisan regional political
    leadership; and our Advisory Council, representing historical societies
    and museums, historic preservation and land conservation trusts,
    downtown revitalization groups, convention and visitors bureaus,
    planning commissions, parks departments, chambers of commerce and
    hospitality businesses. These endorsements reach beyond those signing
    the statements, bridging to thousands of residents and hundreds of
    businesses that their organizations represent across the heritage area.
        We also planned and conducted community meetings to garner input
    about national designation from our strong regional partnership
    network, including residents, government, community groups, non-profits
    and private businesses. These well-attended gatherings helped us look
    at the heritage area through the lens of national significance, define
    the region's unique national stories, identify significant assets and
    demonstrate local support for national designation. The contributions
    received at the meetings proved to be of tremendous value to the
    overall process and produced a clear consensus that National Heritage
    Area designation has strong public support and is the right approach
    for our region.
        The boundaries of the proposed National Heritage Area, which
    include all of Lancaster and York Counties with the Susquehanna River
    corridor at the center, also received strong support from participants
    at the community meetings conducted to discuss the region's potential
    national designation.
       why national heritage area designation is important for our region
        Building on our success as a state heritage area, national
    designation will help expand our activities to a larger, national
    audience and make our stories and resources part of the National Park
    Service interpretive and marketing network. Support for heritage area
    programs--and the recognition that comes with national designation--
    will elevate the status of our region and identify the area as a place
    for visitors to experience rich and authentic national history.
        As a National Heritage Area, the many cultural, historic and
    natural resource organizations in the region will also be eligible for
    additional technical assistance and grants, providing much-needed
    support for historic resource conservation, interpretation, education,
    planning and recreational development. Such support will help regional
    partners invest in new interpretive initiatives focused on our
    nationally significant stories, ensuring that the region's impact and
    influence on the nation is shared with residents and visitors more
    effectively. Most significantly, these new resources will help reduce
    the risk of nationally significant resources being degraded or lost.
        National designation will also help create an economically vital
    heritage and outdoor tourism asset based on the Susquehanna River by
    boosting visibility and visitation and bringing new technical
    assistance and support to the area through the National Park Service.
    This will enhance economic development activity centered on heritage
    and outdoor tourism and help the river corridor reach its true
    potential as a place for national learning and recreation.
        As a National Heritage Area, the region will also have greater
    ability to strengthen its powerful network of partnerships, raise and
    distribute funds, and otherwise work to implement heritage development
    goals. For its part, the National Park Service will receive extensive
    leverage for its investment in our work by embracing and incorporating
    into its national system an established, successful heritage area with
    nationally significant stories and resources that will enhance the
    offerings currently available in existing national parks and heritage
    areas.
     our newest place in the american story--a treasured landscape of the
                                 chesapeake bay
        The Susquehanna Gateway region is poised to play a new role in the
    national story. In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order
    13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. This first-ever
    presidential directive on the bay called the Chesapeake a ``national
    treasure'' and proposed an enhanced federal role ``to protect and
    restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and
    economic value of the nation's largest estuarine ecosystem.'' The
    Executive Order established a Federal Leadership Committee for the
    Chesapeake Bay that just last week, on May 12, 2010, released its
    Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, a
    nationally coordinated effort to save the environment and landscapes of
    the bay and its watershed.
        The Chesapeake Bay Strategy proposes a new initiative by the
    National Park Service to conserve treasured landscapes of the bay
    watershed through partnership areas--broad, collaborative conservation
    efforts in priority landscapes. The National Heritage Area model
    provides a proven approach for doing just that, and the Susquehanna
    Gateway National Heritage Area Act provides ready-made legislation for
    jump-starting this important initiative in one of the bay watershed's
    most historically and environmentally significant landscapes.
        National Heritage Area designation of the Susquehanna Gateway
    region--including our reach of the bay's largest tributary--will
    significantly enhance recognition of the Susquehanna's important
    relationship to the Chesapeake. National recognition of our region--
    much of it the scenic, recreational and historical equivalent of a
    National Park only 90 minutes from where we sit today--will provide new
    resources for protecting the river's natural and cultural landscape. It
    will help raise public awareness of the need to improve river and bay
    environmental quality and preserve their natural and cultural heritage
    for the benefit of current and future generations.
        Launching the Chesapeake Strategy with designation of America's
    newest National Heritage Area along the bay's greatest river will
    signal a commitment to this new national initiative.
                                   in closing
        Thank you again for this opportunity to share our region's national
    significance with the Subcommittee. We ask for your support and
    advocacy for the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act. Those
    of us in the region know that our home and our people have played a
    special place in America's story, and we are ready to join Congress,
    the National Park Service, and the rest of the National Heritage Area
    Network in sharing our stories with the nation. I welcome any questions
    that you and your colleagues may have.

        Senator Udall. Thank you. Your enthusiasm's contagious and
    the history of the Susquehanna region is important and very,
    very significant. As a casual--well, I'd say more than a casual
    student of American history; your recitation of the important
    events reminded me again of the crucial role that the people of
    Pennsylvania played and the region itself did. So I look
    forward to working with you.
        I know Senator Casey would have liked to have been here and
    I know Senator Boxer as well, who had a bill on the agenda.
        The cloture vote's under way. I think I have--I don't
    necessarily want to pick between 3 important testifiers here,
    but I might ask Commissioner Moomaw. You talked about how you
    believe a national monument would increase tourism. How
    significant is tourism to the economy of Archuleta County?
        Mr. Moomaw. Tourism really, tourism is our economic
    priority. The other 2 legs of the economic thing, construction
    and real estate, are also tourism-driven. So we are a total
    tourism-driven economy and we are trying to diversify that, but
    that will still remain our primary economic driver.
        Senator Udall. I would note for the record that Chaco
    Canyon is well known, Mesa Verde is well known. I would
    anticipate that Chimney Rock would become well known. You're
    right, it's a trifecta that once the national monument
    designation is attached I think we'll see even greater travel
    to those 3 sites and greater understanding and knowledge, and
    then the support to the local economy that would result. I look
    very much forward to this becoming a reality.
        I wanted to do something quite unusual. Roy Jones, who was
    not present when I made some comments about him earlier, has
    returned, and he does have a great reach. David Brooks, the
    staff director of the subcommittee, served with Roy over on the
    House side when Roy was the deputy staff director, and
    everything he knows he attributes to Roy. So I want to again
    thank Roy for his public service and his passion for America's
    public lands and special places.
        At some risk, I want to just--Mr. Slavin, I asked Mr.
    Whitesell about the fact that none of the sites in the park
    would be owned by the Federal Government. What do you see as
    the Park Service's role, given that's the plan?
        Mr. Slavin. I would echo what the gentleman said from the
    National Park Service. We're looking to them to be the kind of
    primary sponsor of the park, to guide us with the
    interpretation themes, with some of the standards for
    interpretation. But there are a ready number of volunteer
    organizations and not-for-profit organizations and my own
    division standing at the ready to pick up those interpretive
    programs and put them in place.
        Senator Udall. Mr. Platts, I probably should go, but what
    I'd like to ask you to do for the record is provide some
    examples of the types of activities that your organization's
    been involved in to help care for the historic areas. If you
    would submit those for the record, I'd really appreciate it,
    and I will make a point of learning even more from what you
    submit in addition to your testimony.
        Let me thank you each again for making the trip down to
    your Nation's capital. Some members of the committee may submit
    additional questions in writing, and if so we may ask you to
    submit questions for the record. I know you have no problem
    with that. We'll keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to
    receive any additional comments.
        With that, again thank you very, very much for taking the
    time, and the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                                   APPENDIXES

                                  ----------

                                   Appendix I

                       Responses to Additional Questions

                                  ----------

         Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Murkowski
                                    s. 3303
    Findings
        Question 1. Please provide the committee with a list of the
    archeological resources and values that will be protected if this
    legislation is signed into law.
        Answer. The proposed monument features archaeological resources
    showing occupation by the late A.D. 800s, with most intensive
    occupation occurring during the Chaco florescence during the Pueblo II
    period (A.D. 900-1150). The Chimney Rock community was on the
    northeastern edge of the larger Chaco world that began to coalesce in
    the late A.D. 900s, and most sites within the proposed Chimney Rock
    National Monument date to the Pueblo II period. Chimney Rock has been
    called the ``ultimate outlier'' as it provides an excellent example of
    a Chacoan outlier; and can provide information on a broad range of
    issues ranging from prehistoric economics to astronomy and their
    interrelationships.
        The Chimney Rock complex is composed of clusters of residential
    structures or ``villages'' and smaller sites which cover the time range
    of 850--1125 A.D. during the Ancestral Puebloan cultural development
    periods defined as Pueblo I and Pueblo II. Eight large villages are
    within the proposed national monument boundary; these are East Slope,
    Stollsteimer, Pyramid Mountain, Ravine, North Piedra, South Piedra,
    High Mesa, and Peterson Gulch.
        The people at Chimney Rock grew corn and beans, hunted animals in
    the region including deer and elk, and gathered wild plants for food
    and medicines. Far away from the river, the high mesa dwellers utilized
    check dams, reservoirs, and diversion ditches to farm and provide
    drinking water. The many resources of Chimney Rock eventually attracted
    the attention of the major Ancestral Puebloan center at Chaco Canyon,
    93 miles to the southwest.
        The population of Chimney Rock seems to have expanded during the
    time when the Ancestral Puebloans built Great House Pueblo on the high
    mesa top. It is believed that Chimney Rock became part of the larger
    Chacoan regional community as an outlier or satellite community during
    the time when Chaco Canyon became a ceremonial center to unify a
    dispersed population through pilgrimage festivals and ceremonial
    rituals. The festivals would have been related to the re-distribution
    of goods (corn, timber, pottery, meat, etc.) and ceremonial rituals
    related to cycles of the Sun and Moon. Chimney Rock itself could have
    been an occasional host to these festivals with its Chacoan Great House
    Pueblo serving as focus. Ancestral Puebloans probably used Chimney
    Rock's pinnacles in the observation of astronomical events called
    ``lunar standstills.''
        The Ancestral Puebloans moved away from the Chimney Rock villages
    and the valleys in the 1100's. No later buildings or artifacts have
    been found. Maybe the weather at this location became too cold and dry,
    enemies became too persistent, or resources and farming areas became
    depleted. For whatever reason or combination of reasons, it was time to
    move on.
        Many sites within the proposed national monument have experienced
    virtually no research. The relatively untouched area has many mysteries
    to be unlocked by current and future generations of archaeologists.
    Research questions include the relationship between local peoples and
    the larger Chacoan world; the role(s) of Chacoan outliers; economic
    strategies of the Chimney Rock community; the use of the site by
    Ancestral Puebloan astronomers; how and why the site was abandoned.
    Please see the list of resources within the proposed monument
    boundaries below.
        Question 2. Please provide the committee with a list of the
    geologic resources and values that will be protected if this
    legislation is signed into law.
        Answer. Geologically Chimney Rock and Companion Rock attract
    visitors, and may have been a factor contributing to prehistoric
    settlement in the area.
        Long before humans found the mesas and spires of Chimney Rock, this
    impressive landmark was created by the forces of nature: millions of
    years of slow settling of mud in a shallow sea; gradual drying of the
    sea and migration of beaches and rivers across the ancient basin;
    thick, humid swamps dominated by dinosaurs and giant insects; the
    catastrophic birth of mighty volcanoes and their scouring, deadly
    eruptions; slow but constant uplift and tilting of the land; millenia
    of glaciers and vast floods as the glaciers melted away; erosion of the
    exposed beach sands and ocean-bottom muds (now solidly cemented into
    rock). Chimney Rock's twin spires are entirely natural in origin, the
    erosional remnant of a thick sequence of sedimentary rock laid down in
    the late Cretaceous Period, from about 100-70 million years ago. The
    oldest rocks exposed in the area (to the north of Chimney Rock) are the
    terrestrial and marine-shoreline sandstones and siltstones of the Mesa
    Verde Group; above these beds lies the shallow sea-bottom Lewis Shale,
    which forms the slopes and canyons of the Chimney Rock area. The shales
    are capped by the tidal, beachfront, and river sand layers of the
    Pictured Cliffs Sandstone. It is this unit that forms the mesa tops and
    dramatic stone pillars of the Chimney Rock formation. Erosion proceeded
    to remove the rock layers as they were uplifted. The rising mountains
    to the north and other worldwide climate factors altered weather
    patterns. From the early Pleistocene Epoch (about 2 million years ago),
    glacial periods also affected the climate. It is likely that the
    Pictured Cliffs Sandstone was exposed as a narrow ridge during the
    latest Pleistocene or earliest Holocene, about 100,000 years ago,
    probably as a series of spires and walls and possibly arches. After the
    most recent retreat of the Wisconsin Glaciation (about 15,000 years
    ago), the most active erosion ended, leaving the twin formation we call
    Chimney Rock, standing free of the softer shales and weaker sandstones
    that once surrounded and covered it. Fossils of extinct plant and
    animal communities exposed within the formation reflect biological
    evolution.
        The geologic history of Chimney Rock is not complex, and therein is
    its strength. It is natural history laid bare, easy to comprehend. The
    rock layers are clearly displayed, the sequence of geologic change is
    there for all to see. Chimney Rock's geologic value is the simple,
    beautiful record of one of the most significant and awe-inspiring
    periods of geologic time: the last retreat of the Cretaceous Inland
    Seaway, the end of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals, the rise of
    the Rocky Mountains, the unfathomable power of the Ice Age glaciers,
    the floods of their fading, and finally the arrival of humans, who
    would lift in their hands a stone 70 million years old, cement it with
    mud from an ocean floor 90 million years old, to build a great pueblo
    beside stone towers carved by nature 50,000 years ago, for a culture
    that came to Chimney Rock 1,000 years ago, to be excavated 80 years
    ago, and admired and studied and pondered today. Such is the span and
    reach of the geology of these spectacular pinnacles, and the story it
    tells.
        Question 3. Is there any potential for the mining of any mineral or
    mineral materials to be developed within the boundaries of the area
    recommended to be made a National Monument?
        Answer. There is potential for: gravel (Andrew G. Raby & John S.
    Dersch, 1997), coal, tight gas sands (Dakota), oil and gas in Dakota,
    and oil and gas in Fractured Mancos Shale Play (Richard E. Van Loenen
    and Anthony B. Gibbson, eds., USGS Bulletin, 2127, 1997). There is also
    deep wildcat potential in Entrada (pers. Comm.., 2001, P. Leschak). The
    Chimney Rock Archaeological Area is currently withdrawn from oil and
    gas leasing; other portions of the proposed monument are already
    predominately classified as NSO (no surface occupancy) in the San Juan
    Public Lands Management Plan Revision and Leasing Analysis released as
    a Draft in 2007 and to be finalized next year. The many significant
    archaeological resources would make large-scale development requiring
    surface disturbance unlikely, as these resources would need to be
    avoided or mitigated.
        Question 4. Are there any mining deposits known to exist within the
    boundaries of the proposed monument that could be utilized in the
    manufacturing of any renewable energy equipment such as solar panels,
    batteries, wind mills, or machinery that could be used to convert
    biomass into heat, electricity, or biogases?
        Answer. No mining deposits that could be utilized in the
    manufacturing of any renewable energy equipment are known to exist.
        Question 5. What is the potential for solar development in the
    proposed monument if the designation is not applied?
        Answer. The area currently has one solar powered restroom facility,
    an indication that solar power can be effectively used on a limited
    basis within the area. Potential for commercial solar development
    within the proposed monument boundaries is limited. The area includes
    many steep slopes which would make development difficult; there is no
    large area flat enough to establish an array of solar receptors. The
    many significant archaeological resources would also make large-scale
    development unlikely, as these resources would need to be avoided or
    mitigated.
        Question 6. Please provide a list of all flora and fauna known to
    exist within the boundaries of the proposed national monument and
    indicate which, if any, are either listed as threatened, endangered, or
    candidate species by either the Federal or State government?
        Answer. The vegetative community around the cuesta is somewhat
    unusual, with some southern desert species located on or near the
    archaeological sites. A species of cholla cactus has been identified at
    the High Mesa site which does not occur naturally outside of the Sonora
    Desert and is suspected to be associated with deliberate cultivation
    practices of the Ancestral Puebloan culture. The long narrow slope (45
    degrees or steeper) flanking the northern edge of the cuesta hosts a
    regenerating forest cover of warm-dry mixed conifer (Colorado blue
    spruce, Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce) typical of the forest cover
    known from soil studies to have been ubiquitous in the area before
    human settlement some 1,000 years ago, but now totally replaced by
    ponderosa pine, juniper, Gambel oak and pinon except for this narrow
    relict vegetation zone. The pinon forest cover itself is of interest:
    it is almost certainly a result of the human occupation, covering a
    small zone on the High Mesa coincident with the High Mesa Village site
    at about 7,200 feet elevation. Dendrochronology studies by the Arizona
    Tree-Ring Laboratory in the early 1990's showed that the mature pinon
    pine trees began growing on the site between 400 and 600 years ago,
    close to halfway back to the Ancestral Puebloan occupation period
    (about A.D. 950 to 1125).
        Broad- and narrow-leaf yucca and other ``desert'' species occur
    across the upper mesa and cuesta. Ponderosa pine with an understory of
    Gambel oak and other shrubs dominates the gentler terrain of the
    rolling foothills surrounding the mesas. Open meadows dominated by a
    mixture of native and non-native grasses are found throughout the area.
    Shrubs such as big sagebrush and rabbitbrush are commonly found in
    these open meadows. Aztec milkvetch, a Forest Service sensitive
    species, is found within the proposed national monument. Other
    sensitive species include Philadelphis fleabane, New Mexico butterfly-
    weed, Gray's Townsend daisy, and Violet milkvetch. Areas of high
    biodiversity significance are also located within the proposed national
    monument or nearby areas.
        The area provides habitat for many wildlife species of conservation
    concern and species that are economically and socially important on the
    SJNF. There are 10 Forest Service sensitive species with habitat
    present in the area. Sensitive species with habitat present and season
    of use include American peregrine falcon (spring through summer), bald
    eagle (fall through winter), flammulated owl (spring through summer),
    Lewis' woodpecker (spring through fall), northern goshawk (year-round),
    olive-sided flycatcher (spring through summer), fringed myotis (spring
    through summer), spotted bat (spring through summer), Townsend's big-
    eared bat (spring through summer), and Gunnison's prairie dog (year-
    round). Peregrine falcons have occupied the area for over 20 years,
    nesting on Companion Rock; the Peregrine falcons can often be seen from
    the Great House area. Bald eagles occupy the area from fall through
    winter feeding largely on big game carrion and fish from the Piedra
    River. Flammulated owls and olive-sided flycatchers are migratory birds
    that breed in the area during summer. The Lewis' woodpecker is a
    primary cavity nester that nests in dead or live trees along forest
    edges. The fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend's big-eared bat
    may utilize the areas rock spires, outcrops, or canyons for roosting,
    while foraging in adjacent grasslands and conifer forests. Gunnison's
    prairie dog is mostly associated with grassland openings on generally
    flat or very gentle terrain. Steep canyons within the area provide
    marginally suitable habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO), a
    federally listed species. MSO surveys have been conducted in the area,
    but there have been no detections to date. State listed threatened
    species include: MSO, bald eagle, and river otter. River otters are
    present in the Piedra River.
        Additional species of interest which could be identified include:
    band-tailed pigeon, black-throated gray warbler, Brewer's sparrow,
    broad-tailed hummingbird, golden eagle, Grace's warbler, gray vireo,
    green-tailed towhee, Lazuli bunting, pinyon jay, prairie falcon,
    Virginia's warbler, and violet green swallow. Four species listed as
    management indicator species and economically important within the area
    are: Black bear, elk, Merriam's turkey and mule deer.
        Question 7. Please provide a five year report on the number of game
    animals taken by hunters within the game management unit(s) within the
    boundaries of the proposed monument?
        Answer. The proposed monument lies within Game Management Unit
    (GMU) 771. GMU 771 encompasses public, private and Tribal lands.
    Hunting on public and private lands is through regulated harvest
    managed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Hunting on Tribal
    lands is managed by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe via coordination with
    the CDOW. GMU 771 provides year-round habitat for many game animals,
    but is most known for providing winter range for elk and mule deer. The
    most commonly hunted big game animals in the Unit include black bear,
    elk, mule deer, and mountain lion. Merriam's turkey is commonly hunted
    during spring and to lesser extent during fall. Small game species
    present in the Unit include Abert's squirrel, badger, red fox, raccoon,
    ring-tailed cat, striped skunk, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed
    weasel, muskrat, band-tailed pigeon, beaver, bobcat, cottontail rabbit,
    white-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, crow, mourning dove, and marmot.
        The following table illustrates the number of big game animals
    taken by hunters in GMU 771, for all manners of take on public and
    private lands. The data was collected by CDOW and is an estimate of the
    total harvest for the GMU. The table also includes harvest of Merriam's
    turkey across Archuleta County. Although no quantitative data is
    available, GMU 771 likely accounts for at least one third of the total
    turkey harvest in Archuleta County due the large amount of hunting
    occurring in the Unit. Harvest data is unavailable for most small game
    species. Data relevant to small game species is generally limited and
    provided across much larger geographic scales (beyond the GMU
    boundary). Small game hunting across the GMU occurs at a smaller level
    than big game and turkey hunting.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         YEAR
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAME ANIMAL                                             2005         2006         2007         2008         2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Black bear                                                 *            1            1            3            3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Elk                                                      154          210          174          141          148
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mule deer                                                322          362          467          369          368
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Merriam's turkey (Spring Turkey Harvest)               **244        **230        **239        **141        **188
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mountain lion                                              1            2            *            3            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     *No data available
     **Information reported for Archuleta County.

        Question 8. Please provide a list of any streams or lakes within
    the boundaries of the proposed monument area as well as an assessment
    of fishing opportunities within the area?
        Answer. No streams or lakes are located within the proposed
    monument boundary.
        Question 9. Please provide a list of each of the cultural resources
    found within the boundaries of the proposed monument?
        Answer. The following table shows archaeological resources that
    have been recorded within the boundaries of the proposed monument. Over
    150 sites have been identified within the proposed monument boundary.
    Many areas within the proposed boundaries have no or limited survey and
    additional resources could be found within the proposed monument.
        Archaeologists generally use two determinations of eligibility,
    ``eligible'' and ``not eligible,'' as laid out in the National Historic
    Preservation Act. However, for a variety of reasons, some sites are
    considered ``unevaluated'' or ``needs data.'' In some cases these sites
    were recorded prior to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or
    were not documented adequately to support a recommendation of
    eligibility. The Forest Service as a whole is trying to re-evaluate all
    ``unevaluated'' or ``needs data'' sites in our system. As projects
    occur within the Chimney Rock Area, we have been re-evaluating
    ``unevaluated'' resources. Within the last five years, approximately 20
    sites within the area have been re-evaluated. There is clearly more
    work to do. We expect to continue working on evaluating the backlog of
    unevaluated resources as projects occur within the area and as time
    permits. At this time, there is no plan to address the remaining
    ``unevaluated'' sites in a single project.

        Question 10. Please provide a list of existing or planned
    educational opportunities found within the boundaries of the proposed
    monument?
        Answer. The Chimney Rock Interpretive Program (CRIP) is managed and
    staffed by the National Forest Service and volunteers of the Chimney
    Rock Interpretive Association (CRIA). CRIA is a pan-tribal non-profit
    group whose volunteers offer education and interpretation. CRIA
    conducts daily guided walking tours and operates the Visitor Center
    during the primary use season, May 15 to September 30. There are four
    walking tours daily; these tours last 2 to 2.5 hours and focus on the
    sites located on Chimney Rock Mesa. In addition to the four daily
    walking tours, there are special evening programs twice per month, a
    ``full moon'' program featuring Native American musicians and a
    discussion of the archaeo-astronomy of Chimney Rock and a ``night
    skies'' program which discusses archaeo-astronomy, and planetary and
    stellar astronomy. An early morning tour is also held at the summer
    solstice to provide the opportunity to view summer solstice alignments.
    Additional tours are conducted for larger groups, particularly school
    groups; CRIA has an outreach program to local schools where CRIA
    volunteers help prepare students for their fieldtrip to Chimney Rock by
    visiting the schools and conducting educational programs. An annual
    program, ``Life at Chimney Rock,'' is designed to allow visitors
    (particularly families) to experience aspects of Puebloan life by
    providing opportunities to grind corn, make ceramics, process yucca,
    and throw an atlatl. Monthly meetings featuring speakers discussing
    local archaeology are also held. Currently preparations for a (2011)
    symposium on Chimney Rock and Chacoan Archaeology are underway. The
    possibility of CRIA hosting online educational materials on Chimney
    Rock is being investigated. Geology tours occur at Chimney Rock
    annually. Special tours were offered during the lunar standstill (2004-
    2008) so that visitors could view the moon rising between the
    pinnacles. Native American dances, organized by Friends of Native
    Culture, have been held at the site annually for the last 16 years.
    Research at the site (e.g., multiple surveys, fill reduction
    excavations conducted by the University of Colorado, architectural
    documentation at the site, and geophysical survey conducted by Colorado
    School of Mines) also provides educational opportunities to university
    students.
        The management plan in the bill would address the issue of
    educational programs and opportunities.
        Question 11. Please provide a list of each of the recreational
    activities that currently occurs within the proposed monument and an
    assessment of whether recreational uses will increase of decrease for
    each activity if the monument is designated?
        Answer. (see table).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Recreational Use if
                  Current Activity                    National Monument
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Archaeological Visitation/Interpretation     Increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Astronomical Interpretation                  Increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Geological Interpretation                    Increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hiking                                       Increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bicycling                                    Same to minor increase*
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hunting                                      Same to minor decrease*
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Horseback Riding                             Same to minor increase*
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cross Country Skiing                         Same**
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Snowshoeing                                  Same**
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     *predominately local visitors
     **predominately local visitors; could decrease if road was kept open
      year-round

        Question 12. Please provide a list of new recreational activities
    that could occur within the national monument (if designated) and
    whether or not the new uses would reduce similar recreational
    activities on non-monument lands in the area?
        Answer. None anticipated. The management plan in the bill would
    address the issue of recreational opportunities.
        Question 13. Please describe each of the visual resources that can
    be seen within the monument (if designated) and whether similar visual
    resources exist within the county or counties where the proposed
    monument is located?
        Answer. See questions/answers 1, 2, 6, 9, 20, and 21. There are no
    similar visual resources within the county that exists.
        Question 14. What exactly are the scenic values within the proposed
    national monument?
        Answer. See questions/answers 1, 2, 6, 9, 20, and 21.
        Question 15. Does the forest have a scenic value rating system, and
    if so, how do the scenic values within the proposed monument compare to
    those within the surrounding National Forest?
        Answer. Yes. On lands administered by the Forest Service, the Draft
    Land Management Plan identifies five Scenic Integrity Levels (SIL)
    through the Forest Service Scenery Management Plan: (Very High SIL,
    High SIL, Moderate SIL, Low SIL, and Very Low SIL). Scenic classes and
    constituent information about landscape values are used to determine
    the extent, quality, and location of desired scenery conditions.
    Generally, Very High or High Scenic Integrity levels are assigned to
    Wilderness and other congressionally designated areas. Other
    surrounding management areas will be assigned a scenic integrity level
    that is consistent with the desired condition. Scenic integrity is used
    as a measure of existing scenic condition. The existing Chimney Rock
    Archeological Area is rated as ``High.'' This refers to landscape where
    the valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be
    present; however, they must repeat form, line, color, texture, and
    pattern common to the landscape character so completely, and at such
    scale, that they are not evident. The majority of the remaining area
    within the proposed National Monument boundary is also rated as
    ``High.'' The area to the west referred to as Peterson Mesa is rated as
    ``Moderate''--this refers to landscapes where the valued landscape
    character appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain
    visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.
        Question 16. What existing expertise does the Forest Service have
    to interpret this resource of this proposed monument for the public?
        Answer. The Forest Service together with local volunteers has been
    interpreting the site for the last 16 years. The Forest Service has
    many professionals on staff with experience in interpretive programs
    and archaeology. For example, the current District Archaeologist holds
    a Ph.D. in Anthropological Archaeology, has worked in archaeology for
    over 25 years, has served as a college professor, has been certified as
    a teacher at the primary and secondary level, and has helped develop
    educational programs (as part of this and previous jobs). The San Juan
    National Forest and Southwestern Colorado BLM units (including Canyons
    of the Ancients National Monument) are managed jointly out of the
    Public Lands Center (Durango). Personnel managing the site already meet
    with other professionals managing Chacoan Sites (e.g., from Chaco
    National Park the BLM) annually as part of the Chacoan Interagency
    Management Group. These meetings discuss interpretation and other
    issues of site management.
        The Forest Service and CRIA have worked together to develop a
    handbook for interpreters and conduct a two-day annual orientation for
    all volunteers at the site. Many volunteer tour guides have been
    working at the site for many years (some since interpretation at the
    site began 16 years ago). Mentoring and monitoring programs are in
    place to assure that visitors are offered quality interpretation.
    Visitor comments at Chimney Rock indicate that many visitors feel the
    interpretive program at this site compares favorably to those at other
    local sites (e.g., Mesa Verde and Aztec Ruins).
        Question 17. How many and what would the cost of hiring the
    additional interpreters to provide the 7 days a week interpretive
    services proposed for this monument?
        Answer. Up to this point, the interpretive program at Chimney Rock
    has been largely staffed with volunteers. Tours at the site are
    currently provided by the CRIA, a non-profit organization with over 70
    active volunteers. CRIA conducts interpretive activities at the site
    under a Special Use Permit for Campground and Related Granger-Thye
    Concessions. CRIA works very closely with the Forest Service in
    providing services and training interpreters. They collect minimal fees
    and sell some items (e.g., t-shirts and books) to help meet their
    costs. The services provided by the volunteers at Chimney Rock last
    year are valued at over $250,000. The San Juan National Forest made
    this valuation, based on the number of hours that volunteers put in at
    the site and the approximate pay-grades that would have been required
    to accomplish the same tasks (GS 03 to GS 09).
        Although some staffing needs might develop were the site to become
    a National Monument, the Forest Service would anticipate continuing to
    work with our dedicated volunteers to provide services at Chimney Rock
    into the future. Ultimately, management and staffing decisions would be
    addressed in the management plan required by the bill, but will be
    limited to existing resources upon enaction
        Question 18. Will this proposed monument need additional facilities
    such as an interpretive center or upgrades to existing facilities, if
    so, what will be the cost to build these new or improved facilities?
        Answer. The CRIA has developed a long-term wish list of site
    facilities. The wish-list includes: an interpretive center capable of
    displaying artifacts, a parking lot (near the lower parking area) with
    additional RV parking, improvements to the lower restrooms including
    running water, shuttle service from the lower parking lot area to the
    sites, hiking trails near the lower parking area, construction of a
    pithouse near the lower parking area, hiking trail from lower parking
    to the site, upgraded signage, some shade and/or benches on the upper
    trail, hand rails on a difficult portion of the upper trail. While the
    local interpretive association has put together a logical set of needed
    improvements, the management plan to be prepared by the Forest Service
    would ultimately address which (if any) of these site improvements
    within the confine of existing resources, if enacted would be pursued.
        Question 19. Given the archeological resources sited in the
    findings of this bill; why shouldn't this monument be turned over to
    the Park Service for inclusion in the National Park System?
        Answer. Managing cultural resources falls within the Forest Service
    mandate and is well within our capabilities. Our management of Chimney
    Rock, particularly our collaboration with the non-profit Chimney Rock
    Interpretive Association and volunteers, has helped the site gain the
    recognition and the reputation it currently has as an interpretive area
    and demonstrates our ability to manage the archeological resource. The
    Forest Service currently manages six national monuments (one jointly
    with the BLM). The proposed Chimney Rock National Monument falls within
    our San Juan Public Lands offices where the San Juan National Forest is
    jointly managed with Bureau of Land Management-administered lands under
    the authority of Service First. The San Juan Public Lands offices
    include BLM's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, meaning that
    this particular administrative unit already has a great deal of
    experience in managing world-class archaeological resources. The San
    Juan National Forest would continue to manage lands adjacent to the
    proposed Chimney Rock monument. Many visitors to the site provide
    comments expressing their appreciation for a management and
    interpretive approach that provides an alternative to regional National
    Park Service units.
        Question 20. Please provide the Committee with a detailed
    description of the specific geological and astronomical time resources
    within the proposed monument and describe how the Forest Service would
    interpret the astronomical time resources to the public?
        Answer. Geological features, astronomy, and archaeology intersect
    at Chimney Rock. The dramatic pinnacles of Chimney Rock and Companion
    Rock probably were a draw for prehistoric people. These geologic
    features are visible from all puebloan site groups (villages)
    identified within the proposed monument. It has been suggested that the
    proximity to the pinnacles and alignments viewed through them is one
    reason for the Chacoan influence at Chimney Rock.
        The importance of astronomical alignments, and thus views, within
    the Chimney Rock Archaeological District (5AA985) has been explored by
    many researchers. Important alignments recognized by the Ancestral
    Puebloans are expressed in the built environment. The best known
    archaeo-astronomical alignment at Chimney Rock is the (northern) lunar
    standstill, during which the moon rise can be seen between the
    pinnacles (Chimney and Companion Rocks) from the Great House Pueblo;
    the lunar standstill would have occurred at 18.6 year cycles and the
    two recognized construction phases at the Great House Pueblo (5AA83),
    in AD1076 and AD1093, coincide with lunar standstills. Other recognized
    alignments include alignments marking the summer and winter solstice
    and the fall and spring equinox. The ``sun tower'' was probably a solar
    observatory marking the winter solstice over the east slope. From the
    stone basin, the Ancestral Puebloans could watch the sun rise over the
    north wall of the Great House (5AA83) on the summer solstice. Viewed
    from across the Piedra River, at the C-Block Pueblo on Peterson Mesa,
    the sun would have risen between Chimney Rock and Companion Rock on
    both the spring and fall equinoxes. Another recognized alignment is the
    south wall of the Great House (5AA83) with the Crab Nebula (1054 A.D.),
    as viewed from the stone basin.
        The archaeo-astronomy of Chimney Rock is currently discussed during
    standard site tours. Special tours are offered during alignments when
    the site is accessible. Special tours are offered at the summer
    solstice. Special tours were also held during the northern lunar
    standstill (2004-2008). The archaeo-astronomy of the site is also
    discussed during ``Full Moon'' and ``Night Skies'' events (offered
    monthly during the operating season). Astronomy, in a more general
    sense, is the focus of the ``Night Skies'' event; telescopes are
    positioned in and near the upper parking lot during this event. Chimney
    Rock continues to be in an area with comparatively low light pollution,
    rendering the site a prime location for star gazing.
        Although specific management of the site would be addressed in the
    management plan, these types of interpretive opportunities would
    continue. Additional events (e.g., winter solstice and fall and spring
    equinox events) could be added.
        Question 21. Please describe in detail the geology, ecology, and
    prehistoric archeology within this proposed monument, how they relate
    and differ to the same resources in the surrounding area?
        Answer. The Chimney Rock area is unique within the surrounding
    area. The Pueblo II sites within the proposed monument don't occur
    across a large surrounding area; the visually striking geologic
    pinnacles are within the proposed monument; the ecology, while
    generally similar to the larger area, has been culturally modified.
        There is a concentration of Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1150) sites within
    the proposed monument (and immediately adjacent private and tribal
    lands). This concentration, mostly within a mile of Chimney Rock Mesa
    and within view of the geologic pinnacles, is unique. This
    concentration of Pueblo II sites is the largest concentration of such
    sites located in the Upper San Juan Basin. The Pueblo II occupation is
    considered a Chacoan outlier and is located 150 km from the rim of
    Chaco Canyon and 72 km from Aztec Ruins. The area is the northeastern
    most and most isolated Chacoan settlement, and appears to have been
    among the earliest outliers constructed. The site differs from other
    Chacoan settlements in that it is located in a montane setting, rather
    than in the more typical desert environment.
        The geologic resources within the proposed monument includes the
    pinnacles (Chimney Rock and Companion Rock); while the geologic
    processes which formed these features are not particularly complicated
    and are similar to those experienced across the larger area, the
    features themselves are a spectacular marker on the landscape. The
    exposure of these features lays bare the processes which formed them.
    It is these geologic resources which probably attracted ancient
    settlers into the area.
        At its peak, well over 1000 people could have lived within the
    Chimney Rock village groups. These people engaged in agriculture,
    producing crops of corn, beans, and squash. Agriculture required the
    construction of check dams to help provide water. The people also
    hunted wild game and seem to have harvested timber during the spring
    and summer (most timbers used by Ancestral Puebloans was cut during the
    winter). It has been proposed that some of the resources produced at
    Chimney Rock were exported to Chaco Canyon, although research needs to
    continue in this area. It is possible that game meat, agricultural
    products, and/or timber (a key research question given the lack of
    large sources of timber near Chaco) would have been exported.
        Part of what makes Chimney Rock interesting is that the
    archaeological resources are grouped in such a compact area and that
    interrelationships between culture, geology and the natural world can
    be studied in a setting which has not been substantially re-settled
    since the Pueblo II period, leaving appreciable evidence available to
    researchers.
        Question 22. What studies have occurred within the area that has
    not been carried out at other archeological sites in Southern Colorado
    and Northern New Mexico?
        Answer. The proposed Chimney Rock National Monument contains the
    ``Ultimate Outlier'' of Chaco Culture - the Chimney Rock Great House
    and associated sites. These sites which were part of the Chaco Culture
    from 1076 to 1125 CE contain all the architectural and material culture
    hallmarks which characterized Chaco Culture, yet incorporated unique
    and outstanding landscape and archaeo-astronomical features which are
    representative of a wider-Chacoan ``world view.'' Among those sites
    identified as Chacoan outliers, the Chimney Rock Pueblo is
    distinguished by being the most isolated, the highest, and the most
    remote from arable land. (Malville and Putnam, 1993).
        In addition to these distinctions, Chimney Rock is uniquely tied to
    the essence of Chaco Culture. ``Because of its geographic and
    astronomical uniqueness, Chimney Rock may have developed into a  . .
    .ceremonial center within the Chacoan regional system to which people
    periodically traveled to conduct ceremonies and reaffirm social
    solidarity.'' (Malville, 2004 p. 17). As stated in the Chaco Culture
    National Historical Park World Heritage Nomination, ``Complex religious
    ceremony permeated the Chacoan's daily lives, thus reinforcing the
    system's effectiveness. Religious features were integral components of
    all Chacoan communities'' (1987). Chimney Rock Great House with its
    twin spires and astronomical alignments integrated these religious
    features in the most dramatic fashion.
        Chimney Rock may be the key to providing greater insights into the
    Chaco Culture. Questions are still unanswered as to the organization of
    Chacoan society and source of its apparent power which created
    monumental architecture and a remarkable regional system. Judge and
    Malville (2004) have hypothesized that some of the power possessed by
    leaders living in Chaco Canyon may have come from their possession of
    ``esoteric'' astronomical knowledge, some of which may have been
    acquired at Chimney Rock. The spectacular sunrises and moonrises
    visible from the Chimney Rock Great House may have established Chimney
    Rock as a source of calendrical information.
        If regularly scheduled regional festivals were held in Chaco
    Canyon, at which a dispersed population gathered on specified days, a
    regional calendar with an accuracy of one or two days was necessary.
    Calendrical information could have been visually communicated from the
    Chimney Rock Pueblo to Pueblo Alto via Huerfano Mountain, as has been
    demonstrated by Freeman et. al. The observation methodology of the
    astronomical calendar and the communication capabilities between
    Chimney Rock and Pueblo Alto may have been important elements in the
    management of the regional system. (Judge and Malville, 2004 p. 17)
        Chimney Rock shares many of the same architectural and cultural
    attributes as other Chacoan Outliers. However, in many respects it is
    more exciting than other Outliers, because its integration with the
    spectacular landscape, archaeo-astronomy features, and what it speaks
    to us of the Chacoan World. Lekson (2004) makes a compelling argument
    as to why Chimney Rock is the ``Ultimate Outlier,'' and how
    understanding Chimney Rock enriches and clarifies our understanding of
    the Chaco Culture:
        Chimney Rock is at the edge, on the periphery of the Chaco world.
    What does the periphery tell us about Chaco as a center? There were
    other Chaco style sites, but Chaco was many times larger and
    incomparably grander that any 11th century outlier. Chaco alone is
    simply an anomaly, a pathology, an aberration. Within a region, Chaco
    becomes something like a capital. With the rise and fall of roads,
    outliers define the region. But close, in-lying outliers lack
    descriptive clarity and rhetorical force. Many Great Houses, surrounded
    by a murky sea of smaller unit pueblos, escaped detections through
    decades of archaeological scrutiny. It takes a blatant ringer way out
    on the edge like Chimney Rock to validate all the humdrum, cookie-
    cutter outliers that fill our maps with dots.Patterns show clearest
    against contrasting backgrounds. Perched on the far periphery, where
    backgrounds contrast the most, Chimney Rock validates the center.
        Chimney Rock is one of the strongest patterns in a robust Chacoan
    pattern, and the research possibilities are the more promising for it.
    This dramatic and isolated place invites some interesting thinking
    about design, semiotics, and cognition, because its configuration and
    relationships are so strong. (Lekson, 2004 p.viii).
        Chimney Rock, unlike many Southwestern prehistoric sites, is unique
    in that it was not occupied before the Chacoan Phase, and it was not
    occupied after abandonment. Nor has it been vandalized. Therefore, it
    is a well defined and preserved ``time capsule,'' presenting an
    ``uncontaminated'' snapshot of Chacoan culture at its height, without
    the obscuring layers of earlier or later habitation found at so many
    other sites.
        A clear vision and appreciation of Chaco Culture is not possible
    without Chimney Rock. The Chimney Rock Great House, Great Kiva, Stone
    Basin site, and the Chimney Rock Pinnacles are as equally or better
    preserved than most Chacoan Outliers and the complex of sites around
    Chimney Rock represents an unparalleled opportunity for exploring the
    complex dynamics of an outlier complex.
    Referenced Materials
              Judge, W. J., and J, M. Malville
                      2004.--Calenderical Knowledge and Ritual Power. In
                    Chimney Rock.- The Ultimate Outlier. J. M. Malville,
                    editor, pp. 151-162. Lexington Books, Rowan and
                    Littlefield Publishers, Boulder Co.

              Lekson, Stephen H.
                      2004.--Chimney Rock: The Ultimate Outlier. In Chimney
                    Rock: The Ultimate Outlier. J. M. Malville, editor, pp.
                    vi-viii. Lexington Books, Rowan and Littlefield
                    Publishers, Boulder Co.

              Malville, J. McKim
                      2004.--The Ultimate Outlier. J. M. Malville, editor,
                    Lexington Books, Rowan and Littlefield Publishers,
                    Boulder Co.

              Malville, J. McKim and Claudia Putnam
                      1993.--Prehistoric Astronomy in the Southwest.
                    Johnson Books, Boulder.

        Question 23. Please provide the Committee with a detailed
    description of what opportunities are available at this site to
    ``enhance the understanding ...Ancestral Puebloans'' that is not
    available at other similar already protected areas like Mesa Verde or
    Chaco Canyon?
        Answer. Chimney Rock is a Pueblo II site dating to (AD 950 - 1150);
    this is contemporaneous with Chaco Canyon. Mesa Verde, while also
    linked to Ancestral Puebloans, is not part of the Chacoan phenomenon
    and was inhabited after Chimney Rock and Chaco Canyon were abandoned;
    Mesa Verde was at its peak during the 13th Century. Chimney Rock is the
    northeastern-most Chacoan outlier; it was recognized as a Chacoan
    Outlier in the Chacoan Sites Protection Act (1992). Aztec Ruins,
    another Chacoan site located nearby, is interpreted as having been
    built by social elites moving out of Chaco and reflects migration. The
    Chimney Rock area reflects how a local population was drawn into the
    Chacoan phenomenon. The complex offers us an opportunity to study how
    and why Chacoan influence extended into outlying areas and how, in
    turn, this community was integrated into the Chacoan world. The
    economic relationship between the resource-rich Chimney Rock area and
    resource-poor Chaco Canyon is one interesting avenue of study; the
    astronomical (and possibly religious) significance of Chimney Rock
    within the larger Chacoan world is also worthy of further study.
    Establishment provision
        Question 24. Please provide the Committee with a description of how
    and why the proposed designation will preserve the existing
    anthropological, geologic, hydrologic, biological, visual and scenic
    resource more than the current land management designation for the area
    does?
        Answer. The Forest Service may change the administrative
    designations. A National Monument designation can only be changed by an
    Act of Congress. As currently proposed, the national monument would
    also encompass a larger area, bringing Peterson Mesa, where the
    important Peterson Gulch site group is located, into the area managed
    for its cultural resources. The Chimney Rock Archaeological Area
    (CRAA), encompassing a portion of the proposed monument, was initially
    defined as a Special Interest Area with archaeological resources under
    regulation U3 (regulation/designation since revoked). The CRAA is
    currently managed as a 10C area, a revocable Forest Service
    Administrative Designation, and is recognized within the Forest Plan.
    Although the Forest Service has recognized and managed the Chimney Rock
    area for its archaeological resources since the 1970s, changes in
    management direction in the future could modify our ability to protect
    the resources within the proposed monument boundaries from development
    (e.g., mineral development). A portion of the proposed monument area is
    currently protected using our management designation; these
    designations have helped set the area aside from development, allowing
    us to manage it as the special area that it is. The entire area is
    subject to current federal law (e.g., National Historic Preservation
    Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, National Environmental
    Policy Act, etc.). Designation as a monument would recognize the
    importance of the Chimney Rock area and facilitate cohesive long term
    management/protection of the entire area.
        Question 25. Please provide the Committee with a description of how
    and why the preservation of the existing anthropological, geologic,
    hydrologic, biological, visual and scenic resource will help the public
    more fully realize the resources listed above?
        Answer. The resources at Chimney Rock are interconnected.
    Preserving the associations of these resources helps maintain the
    integrity of setting and feeling of the archaeological resources. How
    can a visitor fully realize the archaeo-astronomical alignments within
    the area without maintaining the geologic (and scenic) values? Other
    aspects of setting (e.g., our forested slopes) help visitors understand
    the differences between this area and other parts of the Chacoan world;
    helping them identify with why this area could have been important
    economically. Our wildlife also enhances visitor experience at the
    site; a pair of peregrine falcons nest on Companion Rock; watching
    these birds teach their fledglings how to fly and hunt has become a
    visitor (and interpreter) favorite. The interconnections between the
    resources at Chimney Rock enrich visitors' ability to understand the
    archaeological resources and enhance visitors' experience with
    beautiful scenery and entertaining wildlife. Please see questions 1, 2,
    6, 20 & 21.
        Question 26. If not designated, what would be the impacts on each
    of the listed resources (please be as specific as possible).
        Answer. See Question #24.
        National Monument status would provide enduring protection.
    Designation might also serve to focus management, public, and
    scientific interests on the area, furthering our knowledge of and
    ability to protect the resources listed. Specific impacts are unknown;
    threats are ever-changing.
        Question 27. What will be the cost to the Forest Service of the
    preservation, restoration, and protection of the existing
    anthropological, geologic, hydrologic, biological, visual and scenic
    resources within the proposed monument, if it is designated by
    Congress? Please provide an estimate of the cost for each five year
    increment of the next 25 years.
        Answer. Until a management plan is developed, no specific costs for
    preserving, restoring, and protecting the resources within the proposed
    national monument can be estimated. Current costs associated with the
    facility average $485,000 per year; this figure does not include
    volunteer time valued at approximately $250,000 per year. Current costs
    for running the area include maintenance of facilities (e.g.,
    restrooms, roads, and parking lots), site stabilization (including
    architectural documentation, moisture monitoring, and wall
    stabilization), management and archaeological support, and other costs
    associated with managing the area (e.g., fuels reduction projects).
    Vegetation Management
        Question 28. The bill restricts vegetative management to those
    other than timber harvest; is there any commercial timber within the
    proposed monument?
        Answer. There is commercial timber within the proposed monument but
    it is not within the timber management emphasis area as defined in the
    current San Juan National Forest Resource Management Plan (1992). Given
    the terrain of the area, only a small portion of the proposed monument
    has road access that would allow harvesting of timber.
        Question 29. As the Forest Service reads this bill will it be
    allowed to use chaining or other mechanical means such as disking, to
    reduce fuels?
        Answer. Section 6(b) allows ``vegetative management treatments
    within the National Monument, except that timber harvest and prescribed
    fire may only be used to address the risk of wildfire, insects, or
    diseases that would endanger the National Monument or imperil public
    safety.'' The Forest Service interprets this to mean that mechanical
    means of managing vegetation would be allowed.
        In order to manage for healthy forests and reduce the risk of
    severe fire and/or insect-caused mortality, it will be necessary to
    conduct thinning with some periodic removal of timber or biomass.
    Reducing the risk of severe wildfire is a critical factor in protecting
    the area's cultural resources. The Forest Service will continue to use
    all measures to facilitate fuels reduction that are consistent with
    current law. Some form of mechanical fuels reduction will be necessary
    given that prescribed fire is not an option in portions of the proposed
    monument, due to unsuitable terrain and the density of sensitive
    archaeological resources.
        Question 30. Given past fires at Mesa Verde, what is the likelihood
    of the Forest Service using prescribed burns to manage vegetation at
    the monument, if it is designated?
        Answer. It is highly likely that the Forest Service will use
    prescribed fire to manage vegetation in the monument. We are currently
    preparing two burn plans in the Chimney Rock Archeological Area. One of
    those is a multi-agency burn with the Southern Ute Agency of the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs. These burns are part of a comprehensive fuels and
    forest health management plan for the area.
        Question 31. What is the fuel loading and fuel conditions within
    the bounds of the proposed monument at this time?
        Answer. Fuel loading within the boundaries of the proposed monument
    is moderate to high at this time. Vegetation types within the proposed
    monument include grassland, mountain shrublands, pinon-juniper
    woodlands, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Most of this
    vegetation (with the exception of pinon-juniper) is classified in Fire
    Regime I or II, that is, historically fires burned through it
    frequently (generally less than 30 years). In the ponderosa pine
    forests, historical fires were low intensity understory burns that
    occurred every 5 to 30 years. No fires larger than a few acres have
    occurred in the CR area in over 100 years. As a result surface fuels
    are very high, especially in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
    forests. In addition, Rocky Mountain and Utah juniper, two woodland
    species that are highly flammable, have been encroaching into the
    ponderosa pine forests as a result of fire exclusion and have added to
    the fire hazard and fuels load. Mixed conifer forests are becoming more
    dominated by low-fire resistant Douglas-fir while the more-fire
    resistant ponderosa pine is declining. Shrublands are dense with large
    amounts of dead and decadent fuel. Grasslands have low fuel loading as
    a result of past overgrazing, but invasive species (in particular
    cheatgrass) are present in the grasslands and increase the fire hazard.
    Recent vegetation management treatments have mitigated some of the fuel
    loads and fire hazard (see the next item), however much remains to be
    done to restore health to the plant communities and reduce the risk of
    uncharacteristic fire.
        Question 32. Has the agency done any vegetation management or fuels
    management within the proposed boundaries of the monument in the last
    20 years? If so how much, where, and at what cost?
        Answer. Prior to 2000, very little vegetation management was done
    within the boundary of the proposed monument. In 2003 the Forest
    Service began preventative spraying of pinon pine trees to protect them
    from pinon ips, a bark beetle that killed pinon trees on millions of
    acres in the Four Corners area from 2003 through 2006. Spraying
    occurred on high value trees along the access road, adjacent to
    archeological sites and near the visitor center in 2003 and 2005 at a
    total cost of approximately $30,000. In 2004 Forest Service crews
    thinned 28 acres near the visitor center and along the access road.
    Slash from the thinning was piled and later burned at an estimated cost
    of $14,000. In 2008 a total of 414 acres were mechanically treated with
    mastication equipment to thin the forest and remove understory shrubs
    and ladder fuels. Treatments occurred primarily in ponderosa pine
    forests on the north and east sides of the Chimney Rock Archeological
    Area at a total cost of $210,024. In 2009, 15 acres of pinon-juniper
    woodland adjacent to the upper parking lot and numerous ruins were
    thinned and piled by the San Juan Hotshot Crew. Most of the piles were
    burned in the winter of 2009-2010. In fall 2009 and spring 2010,
    Veteran's Green Corps, managed by the Southwest Conservation Corps
    under a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service, thinned and
    piled 105 acres in ponderosa pine forests on the west side of the
    Archeological Area at a total cost of approximately $25,000.
        Question 33. Have any of the trees been impacted by insects or
    diseases in the past, if so, by what pathogen and how severely where
    they infected?
        Answer. In the past 7 years bark beetles have killed numerous pinon
    pine, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees. The worst mortality has
    occurred in Douglas-fir trees on the steep slopes north of the rock.
    Beetles have killed pinon pine and ponderosa pine in small pockets,
    especially on the drier, south aspects. These pests are currently
    present in the area at endemic levels and continue to kill trees every
    year.
    Authorized Uses
        S. 3303 authorizes the construction of a visitor's center.

        Question 34. Please provide the Committee an estimate of the cost
    of constructing an all weather road to the site as well as the cost of
    a visitor center for the monument (based on the cost of other similarly
    sized monuments in 2012 and 2020 dollars)?
        Answer. An all weather road (gravel surfaced) is estimated at
    $300,000 per mile (2010 dollars). The current road system is closed to
    motorized vehicles from December 1 through May 15, as conditions
    permit. Given heavy snow pack within the proposed monument boundaries,
    it is unlikely year-round operations would be practical. The existing
    visitor contact area is approximately \3/4\ of a mile from Highway 151
    and the entire length of the existing road is approximately 3.5 miles.
        Until a management plan is developed, no specific details on size,
    staffing or cost of a visitor center or interpretive center can be
    estimated. In addition, a management plan would address the road
    system.
        Question 35. Please also provide the Committee with an estimate of
    the annual costs of operating such a visitor center for the same amount
    of days per year as the Mesa Verde National Park facilities?
        Answer. It is doubtful that any visitor center at Chimney Rock
    would operate year round, given snow conditions on the site; it could
    be anticipated that the facility would operate fewer days than that at
    Mesa Verde National Park, where some facilities are operated year-round
    (i.e., Chapin Mesa Archaeological Museum) and others have comparatively
    short operating seasons (e.g., Far View Visitor Center, open mid-April
    to mid-October). The current season at Chimney Rock is May 15 to
    September 30. The cost of staffing the visitors' center at Far View
    currently runs $144,000 for a staff of eight (during the summer
    season). It would probably cost at least $259,000 annually to run a
    year-round facility at Chimney Rock (this would include a full-time GS-
    11 interpreter - $90,000; two GS-05 staff - $70,000; utilities -
    $50,000; brochures/exhibit maintenance/educational supplies - $40,000;
    office & janitorial supplies - $30,000; and vehicle - $5,000). The
    management plan would address specifics such as operating season,
    facilities, and staffing, which would be contingent on existing and
    available resources.
        Question 36. Please provide the Committee with an estimate of the
    annual and decadal maintenance budget for such a facility?
        Answer. The management plan called for in the bill would address
    issues such as potential construction of an interpretive center. No
    decisions regarding the construction of this facility or design have
    been made at this time.
        Question 37. If the monument is designated, please help us
    understand where on the construction priority list for Region Two of
    the Forest Service such a visitor center might fall and in what year it
    might rise to a level that the Forest Service would recommend funding
    such a project?
        Answer. The management plan called for in the bill would address
    issues such as potential construction of an interpretive center.
        Question 38. Are the facilities currently located at Chimney Rock
    currently within the Recreation Fee program? If so, how much revenue
    (gross and net) did those facilities take in during FY 2009 and 2010?
        Answer. The facilities located at Chimney Rock are currently
    managed under a Special Use permit for Campground and Related Granger-
    Thye Concessions. The Chimney Rock Interpretive Association, a non-
    profit organization operates the facility and provides tours of the
    Chimney Rock Mesa sites. The organization relies on volunteers to
    provide services and has used portions of its (net) income as matching
    funds for grants for archaeological work at the site. In FY2008, gross
    income was $114,520; net income was $20,051. In FY2009, gross income
    was $109,390; net income was $33,677. Figures for FY2010 are not
    available as the season is in progress.
        Question 39. How many visitors per year does the Chimney Rocks area
    currently enjoy?
        Answer. Approximately 11,000 visitors visit Chimney Rock annually.
        Question 40. If designated, does the Forest Service plan on
    stationing any research personnel at the site? If so, what is the
    annual total cost per employee including, but not limited to, salary,
    benefits, retirement, and overtime?
        Answer. The bill calls for a management plan to be developed for
    the resource. These decisions would be addressed within that document.
    No research personnel are currently stationed at the site on a full-
    time basis.
        Question 41. S. 3303 authorizes the acquisition, consolidation and
    display of artifacts. Do federal agencies have to adhere to the same
    provisions of the Antiquities Act that the public does? If so, wouldn't
    collecting artifacts within the monument run afoul of the provisions of
    the Antiquities Act?
        Answer. The provision in S. 3303 would allow the acquisition,
    consolidation and display of artifacts found within the proposed
    national monument. The artifacts would include previously excavated
    materials from Chimney Rock. We understand that the intent is not to
    authorize the Forest Service to collect currently unexcavated
    artifacts, although there may be some additional discovery and
    collection of artifacts as a result of necessary maintenance or
    construction activities. Federal agencies are subject to a number of
    laws regarding archaeological collection, excavation, and curation.
        There are many regulations which discuss excavation, collection,
    and curation. The Federal Government began to address collection of
    archaeological materials with the Antiquities Act (1906); the
    Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA, 1979) clarified and
    strengthened regulations. ARPA included strengthened law enforcement
    provisions to prevent looting and sale of archaeological resources by
    the general public. Additional legislation, such as the National
    Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 1966) and Native American Graves
    Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1992) also address aspects of
    how and under what circumstances archaeological resources are collected
    and how they are curated. Federal agencies are required to meet and
    enforce the provisions of these laws. Federal agencies issue research
    permits for excavation and removal of artifacts (under ARPA).
        In the event that the Chimney Rock Collections were consolidated
    the curation facility would not necessarily be located within the
    monument boundaries and could be an existing facility, such as the
    Anasazi Heritage Center. Materials from Chimney Rock are currently
    curated at many facilities (including the Anasazi Heritage Center,
    Denver University, and Colorado Historical Society); having materials
    from the site spread through many facilities makes it harder to analyze
    the collection. Any facility housing federal artifacts has to meet
    specific standards (as per the National Historic Preservation Act).
        Question 42. S. 3303 allows for the recreational and administrative
    use of mountain bikes and motorized vehicles. Given ``The unique,
    thousand-year-old Ancestral Puebloan community located beneath the
    prominent Chimney Rock Pinnacles.'' Wouldn't such uses put the
    archeological resources at risk?
        Answer. This provision would continue to allow visitors to ride or
    drive up the existing road to reach the site and would maintain the
    existing prohibition of off-road travel within the unit. Off-road use
    of any vehicles has the potential to damage archeological and natural
    resources. However, it is anticipated there may be times administrative
    off-road access would be appropriate in limited circumstances (e.g.,
    fire management).
        Question 43. One of the authorized uses within the proposed
    monument is grazing. Are there currently any grazing permits within the
    proposed monument? If so, how many and how many AUMs are permitted and
    how many are allowed under the existing annual grazing plan?
        Answer. The Peterson Gulch/Mesa area is included in the Turkey
    Allotment, which is active. The rest of the proposed monument is not
    within a current grazing allotment. The Turkey allotment is permitted
    for 127 cow-calf pairs from June 1 to June 30 annually; this equals 168
    AUMs. It is fully stocked at this level. The Peterson Mesa area
    represents less than 25 percent of the Turkey Allotment.
        Question 44. S. 3303 restricts mineral entry, patents, leasing, and
    geothermal; please provide the Committee a detailed list of the known
    and potential mineral and geothermal resources within the boundaries of
    the proposed monument, including but not limited to oil and gas, hard
    rock minerals and rare earth minerals, as well as the solar and
    geothermal potential of the lands?
        Answer. Please see answer to Question #3 regarding mineral
    potential. There may be some geothermal potential. However, the thermal
    gradient is low and there are no markets nearby. The regional area is
    indicated to have good potential for solar. However, within the
    proposed boundaries, there is no flat area that is large enough to
    establish an array of solar receptors.
        Question 45. I see that there are a number of power lines and gas
    pipelines that would be encumbered by the National Monument. Would it
    make Forest Service management of the area less complicated if we
    either: 1) created the monument so those permitted rights-of-way were
    remained within the boundary of the monument, or 2) pulled the
    boundaries back away from that infrastructure?
        Answer. There is a right of way for a gas line (along State Highway
    151) that was granted before the Forest Service acquired the property.
    There is also a buried electrical line that services the visitor's
    cabin. Having these utilities within the proposed monument would not
    pose a problem
        Question 46. I see in your testimony that you do not think a
    visitor center is the correct facility to put in the area if it is
    designated. What would the correct facility be and how much will that
    cost to construct? And what will it cost to maintain and staff each
    year after that?
        Answer. A Visitor Center suggests that its primary focus is to
    provide tourist information to the visitors who tour a location. An
    Interpretive/Education Center has a goal of disseminating knowledge and
    providing education. Interpretive Centers do not have the goal of
    collecting, conserving and studying objects rather; they focus on
    communicating the significance and meaning of heritage. They work to
    educate and raise awareness. We believe that an Interpretation/
    Education Center is the appropriate facility to meet the goals of the
    legislation.
        Until a management plan is developed, no specific details on size,
    staffing or cost of a facility can be estimated.
                                     ______

     Responses of Stephen E. Whitesell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
                              maintenance backlog
        Question 1a. Mr. Whitesell, you stated during the Subcommittee
    Hearing that the National Park Service takes a number of factors into
    consideration when determining if the NPS should acquire new land
    despite the $9 billion maintenance backlog. Can you please provide a
    list of those factors in order of importance?
        Answer. For the FY 2011 budget, the Department of the Interior
    looked at criteria to target landscape-level conservation, especially
    river and riparian conservation and restoration, and conservation of
    wildlife and their habitat, as well as recreational opportunities in
    urban landscapes and cultural and historical preservation of
    significant events. In addition, the Departmental criteria included
    consideration of leveraging nonfederal funds, partnerships, involvement
    of other bureaus, and urgency. NPS criteria to prioritize which parcels
    of land to seek funding for are based on: threat to the resource;
    preservation of the resource; visitor use facility accommodation;
    involvement of partners, non-profit groups or availability of matching
    funds; continuation of an ongoing effort; recreational opportunities;
    and local support for a project.
        Question 1b. How will the new acquisitions proposed in this
    Subcommittee Hearing affect the maintenance backlog?
        Answer. It is not possible to determine the impact that acquiring
    land for new units will have on the maintenance backlog until a NPS
    completes a comprehensive condition assessment of the newly acquired
    land and attendant facilities.
        However, we note that some of the parcels under consideration for
    addition to existing national park units are vacant and/or contain
    significant open space. These cquisitions would capitalize on the
    operation and maintenance already in place on adjacent land, which
    would reduce maintenance costs and needs. In addition, it is DOI's
    policy that the bureaus identify the operation and maintenance costs
    associated with the purchase of the land and request that funding in
    the budget cycle following the completed purchase.
        Question 1c. Will new National Park Units immediately add to the
    maintenance backlog if they include structures upon acquisition?
        Answer. If the NPS acquires land for a new unit that contains
    structures that have deferred maintenance needs and the NPS determines
    that the structures should be repaired rather than demolished, those
    structures would contribute to the NPS maintenance backlog.
        We note that it is DOI's policy that the bureaus identify the
    operation and maintenance costs associated with the purchase of the
    land and request that funding in the budget cycle following the
    completed purchase.
        Question 1d. Will land additions to existing parks immediately add
    to the maintenance backlog? If so, wouldn't it be wise to pay down the
    existing backlog before taking on new obligations?
        Answer. If the NPS acquires land for an existing park that contains
    structures that have deferred maintenance needs and the NPS determines
    that the structures should be repaired rather than demolished, those
    structures would contribute to the NPS maintenance backlog. Most of the
    land NPS acquires for existing parks is undeveloped, so there is
    relatively little contribution to the maintenance backlog from these
    new acquisitions.
                                    hunting
        Question 2a. Please list the current units of the National Park
    Service which allow hunting.
        Answer. Hunting is allowed in the following units of the national
    park system:

                      Alagnak Wild River
                      Amistad National Recreation Area
                      Aniakchak National Preserve
                      Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
                      Assateague National Seashore
                      Bering Land Bridge National Preserve
                      Big Cypress National Preserve
                      Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
                      Big Thicket National Preserve
                      Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
                      Bluestone National Scenic Riverway
                      Buffalo National River
                      Canaveral National Seashore
                      Cape Cod National Seashore
                      Cape Hatteras National Seashore
                      Cape Lookout National Seashore
                      Chickasaw National Recreation Area
                      City of Rocks National Reserve
                      Craters of the Moon National Preserve
                      Cumberland Island National Seashore
                      Curecanti National Recreation Area
                      Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
                      Denali National Preserve
                      Fire Island National Seashore
                      Gates of the Arctic National Preserve
                      Gateway National Recreation Area
                      Gauley River National Recreation Area
                      Glacier Bay National Preserve
                      Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
                      Grand Teton National Park
                      Great Sand Dunes National Preserve
                      Gulf Islands National Seashore
                      Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument
                      Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
                      John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
                      Kalaupapa National Historical Park
                      Katmai National Preserve
                      Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
                      Lake Clark National Preserve
                      Lake Mead National Recreation Area
                      Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
                      Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area
                      Little River Canyon National Preserve
                      Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
                      Missouri National Recreation River
                      Mojave National Preserve
                      New River Gorge National River
                      Niobrara National Scenic Riverway
                      Noatak National Preserve
                      Obed Wild and Scenic River
                      Ozark National Scenic Riverway
                      Padre Island National Seashore
                      Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
                      Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River
                      Ross Lake National Recreation Area
                      Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
                      St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
                      Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve
                      Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
                      Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area
                      Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve
                      Yukon-Charley National Preserve

        Question 2b. Is hunting allowed on any of the land that is being
    proposed for new National Park Units? If so, will the NPS continue to
    allow hunting?
        Answer. First State National Historical Park is the only proposed
    new park unit discussed at the hearing. The NPS is not proposing to
    acquire any land as part of this park, and so would not regulate
    hunting. Hunting, if any, would be subject to State law and local
    ordinances.
        Question 2c. Is hunting allowed on any of the land that is being
    proposed as additions to existing parks? If so, will the NPS continue
    to allow hunting?
        Answer. Hunting may be allowed on the property proposed for
    addition in accordance with State or local laws and with the permission
    of the current land owner. The parks whose boundaries are proposed for
    expansion, such as Petersburg National Battlefield (S. 2953),
    Gettysburg National Military Park (S. 3159), and Fort Necessity
    National Battlefield (S. 3168), do not allow hunting, so once acquired,
    hunting would not be allowed on lands proposed as additions.
        Question 2d. Will the National Park Service pledge not to extend
    the temporary hunting closures in Yukon-Charley NPP and Denali NPP?
        Answer. A temporary closure to the taking of wolves under the
    state's general/sport hunting regulations within Yukon-Charley Rivers
    National Preserve expired on May 31, 2010. Any consideration of
    temporary closures in the future would be based on facts and conditions
    at that time.
        The closure to the taking of black bear cubs and sows with cubs in
    a portion of Denali National Preserve (and Gates of the Arctic National
    Preserve) will continue to December 31, 2010. That practice had been
    authorized by the State of Alaska in Game Management Units 19 and 24,
    which includes areas within the national preserves. Any consideration
    of temporary closures after December 31, 2010, would be based on the
    facts and conditions at that time.
        Question 2e. Can you please provide a detailed list of formal
    complaints received by the National Park Service regarding air
    transport service for sport hunters to Noatak National Preserve?
        Answer. In January 2010, the NPS issued a competitive solicitation
    for big game hunter transport services in Noatak National Preserve.
    Five air transport companies applied and received commercial use
    authorizations in March 2010. The NPS has limited the total number of
    sport hunt clients transported by these businesses to limit conflicts
    with subsistence hunters pending completion of a public planning
    process to find long-term solutions to those conflicts. Client numbers
    were also allocated through the competitive process.
        Three companies (Ram Aviation, Golden Eagle Outfitters and
    Northwestern Aviation) made formal appeals to the NPS Alaska Regional
    Office concerning their client allocations. Those appeals were
    considered by three NPS employees who were not involved with the
    initial authorizations and who have experience in the areas of sport
    hunting, subsistence and commercial visitor services. This panel
    recommended, and the regional director concurred, that allocations were
    made in a reasonable manner. All of the operators were also asked to
    provide suggestions to the Superintendent of Noatak National Preserve
    regarding the manner in which the 2011 client allocations would be
    distributed.
                                 eminent domain
        Question 3a. Would the National Park Service use Eminent Domain to
    obtain private land from unwilling sellers?
        Answer. Acquisition by condemnation is sometimes necessary to
    establish just compensation, to clear title, or to prevent imminent
    damage or unacceptable threats to park resources and values. The NPS
    would only use condemnation in a manner consistent with any applicable
    law and policy. The Department of the Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 directs that,
    unless otherwise provided, no funds appropriated in the Act for the
    acquisition of lands or interests in lands may be expended for the
    filing of declarations of taking or complaints in condemnation.
        Question 3b. Please list the occasions in which the National Park
    Service has used Eminent Domain to:

              1) Establish new parks?

        Answer. There are no such occasions. Unless otherwise specified by
    law, the NPS can use eminent domain only within previously authorized
    boundaries of the National Park System. National Park System units are
    established by Presidential proclamation or by act of Congress.

              2) Expand boundaries of existing parks?

        Answer. There are no such occasions. The NPS can use eminent domain
    only within previously authorized boundaries of the National Park
    System.
              susquehanna gateway national heritage area (s. 349)
        Question 4a. Has there ever been a previous attempt to place the
    land in the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area within
    a National Park System unit?
        Answer. There have been no legislative proposals to place the land
    in the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage area within a
    unit of the national park system.
        Question 4b. Of the 49 National Heritage Areas that currently exist
    how many contain land of another land management agency?
        Answer. Of the 49 existing national heritage areas, the following
    28 areas contain federally-owned land or resources:

        Question 4c. When will the Administration submit a legislative
    proposal with the criteria needed to evaluate potentially qualified
    national heritage areas and the process for designation and
    administration of those areas?
        Answer. The Administration intends to submit a legislative proposal
    that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified national
    heritage areas and a process for the designation and administration of
    these areas in the near future.
        Question 4d. Please outline each specific cost that the creation of
    the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area will involve.
        Answer. The bill provides for an authorization of appropriations of
    $10 million over a fifteen-year period with a maximum of $1 million in
    any given year.
        Question 4e. Would the National Park Service prefer for the
    proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area to become another
    type of National Park Unit? If so, what type of unit?
        Answer. National heritage areas are not units of the national park
    system. Susquehanna Gateway was evaluated under NPS criteria for
    designation as a national heritage area. Units for inclusion within the
    national park system are evaluated with a different set of criteria,
    and the process is separate from a national heritage area designation.
        Question 4f. Is it possible for a feasibility study of the proposed
    heritage area to be completed by a local entity and submitted to the
    Administration for approval thereby avoiding the need for legislation
    to authorize a study?
        Answer. Yes. In fact, in most cases, supporters of a proposed NHA
    work within the region to develop the study, with the NPS serving in an
    advisory capacity. If the study is prepared by a local entity, the NPS
    evaluates the study to determine whether it meets the ten interim
    criteria for designation as a national heritage area.
        Question 4g. Are you aware of any other National Heritage Areas
    that are proposed for association with the Department of Agriculture?
        Answer. The Department of Agriculture was initially the lead agency
    for the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership; the NPS assumed
    the role as lead agency by a subsequent enactment by Congress.
    Additionally, some early bills to designate the Kenai-Mountains-
    Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area had the Department of Agriculture
    as the lead agency.
        Question 4h. Has the National Park Service or anyone else conducted
    a study to determine the feasibility of establishing the Susquehanna
    Gateway National Heritage Area?
        Answer. In 2008, a local entity, the Susquehanna Gateway
    Corporation, prepared and submitted the feasibility study for the
    Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area to the NPS for evaluation.
    The NPS reviewed the study and found that the area met the ten interim
    criteria for designation as a national heritage area.
        Question 4i. How many other National Heritage Areas are there in
    Pennsylvania?
        Answer. There are six existing national heritage areas in
    Pennsylvania, including the Lackawanna Heritage Valley, Oil Region,
    Rivers of Steel, and Schuylkill River national heritage areas, as well
    as the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and the Path of
    Progress National Heritage Tour Route.
        Question 4j. Will this designation as a National Heritage Area
    place any new restrictions on property owners' regarding use or
    development of their property?
        Answer. No, a national heritage area designation does not prohibit,
    under Federal law or regulations, any actions which may otherwise be
    taken by the property owner with respect to the property. A national
    heritage area is not a unit of the National Park System, nor is any
    land owned or managed by the NPS.
        Question 4k. Have National Heritage Area designations in any state
    had any adverse impact on private property?
        Answer. In a 2004 report (GAO-04-593T), the Government
    Accountability Office concluded that national heritage areas do not
    appear to have affected property owners' rights. The designating
    legislation and the management plans of some areas explicitly place
    limits on the areas' ability to affect private property rights and
    uses. Designation legislation for eight areas prohibited the federal
    government from imposing zoning or land-use controls on properties
    within these areas, and legislation for thirteen areas explicitly state
    that the area's managing entity cannot interfere with any person's
    rights with respect to private property or have authority over local
    zoning ordinances or land-use planning.
                    acquisition of gold hill ranch (s. 1596)
        Question 5a. What is the estimated value of the Gold Hill Ranch?
        Answer. No formal appraisal has been conducted by the BLM, but the
    American River Conservancy (which is working closely with local
    community groups to raise funds for acquisition) has estimated the
    value of the property to be approximately $3.3 million.
        Question 5b. Please provide a list of all costs associated with S.
    1596.
        Answer. The Department of the Interior's known, direct costs for
    appraisal, staff processing time, and environmental site assessment are
    estimated at approximately $30,000. As for the acquisition of land as
    well as construction of any potential visitor center, we expect, and
    have discussed with the Conservancy and the sponsor, that funds needed
    would come from donations already being raised by the private sector.
        Question 5c. How much would it costs to build a visitor center at
    the Gold Hill Ranch? When would the BLM plan to develop such a visitor
    center?
        Answer. No estimate has been given, and the BLM has no plans to
    develop a visitor center. If the visitor center authorized in the bill
    were to be built, we expect, and have discussed with the Conservancy
    and the sponsor, that funds needed would come from donations already
    being raised by the private sector.
        Question 5d. Please describe how the land and property involved is
    currently being used.
        Answer. Currently the land and facilities (including a historic
    house, a barn, and a small inoperative dairy) are part of a privately-
    owned ranch.
        Question 5e. If the BLM acquires the Gold Hill Ranch, how will the
    use of the land change? How will access by the general public be
    affected?
        Answer. Acquisition by BLM would change the land use from a
    privately owned ranch to a publicly-owned restored historic site. At
    present, the private owners do not allow public access to the ranch.
    Following acquisition, public access to all portions of the property
    would be allowed as a managed use. We expect that most public use will
    be in the form of tours of the historic buildings.
       special resource study of the general of the army george catlett
                   marshall national historic site (s. 1750)
        Question 6a. When does the National Park Service anticipate
    completing the suitability and feasibility study for the General of the
    Army George Catlett Marshall National Historic Site?
        Answer. The NPS will make every effort to complete the study within
    the three years of the date on which funds are first made available, as
    the legislation requires.
        Question 6b. How common is it to designate a new unit of the
    National Park System with[out] first completing a study?
        Answer. The majority of areas that have been authorized by Congress
    as new units or that were designated new units in the last 15 years
    (since the 104th Congress) have been the subject of an NPS study prior
    to designation. Units that have been authorized without a study
    completed first include: presidential monuments in the Nation's capital
    (the Eisenhower memorial and John Adams memorial will be units after
    they are completed), presidential home sites (the Ronald Reagan Boyhood
    Home and the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace will be units after
    they are acquired), special memorials (Oklahoma City, Flight 93), and a
    few other sites in exceptional circumstances. For example, Port Chicago
    Naval Magazine National Memorial, which was designated a unit of the
    National Park System by this Congress, was a congressionally designated
    national memorial that the NPS was interpreting and managing under an
    agreement with the Department of Defense prior to its designation as a
    unit.
        Question 6c. Does the NPS ever recommend creating a new unit
    without first completing a study? If yes, please list the instances.
        Answer. We are unable to find an example in the last 15 years of a
    unit of the National Park System that the NPS recommended to Congress
    for designation as a unit without it first being studied. In recent
    years, the NPS supported through Departmental testimony the
    establishment of Port Chicago as a unit of the National Park System, as
    well as the establishment of the Flight 93 memorial and the
    authorization of the Adams Memorial Monument, all of which, as noted
    above, were not studied.
        Question 6d. Does the National Park Service foresee any issues in
    the course of the study that might lead to a negative recommendation
    for designation?
        Answer. Until the study is authorized and the NPS begins the
    scoping phase, it is premature to identify any issues that might lead
    to a specific recommendation.
        Question 6e. What percentage of National Park Service Resource
    Studies regarding new units result in the NPS recommending not to
    establish the new Park Unit?
        Answer. In the past decade, about three out of four studies of
    potential new units of the National Park System have determined that
    the subject area did not meet the NPS criteria for new units and have
    recommended not establishing a new unit. Some of those studies have
    found that an area might meet the criteria in the future if
    circumstances affecting the feasibility of the site change.
        Question 6f. Has the National Park Service ever found a compelling
    reason in the course of a study to justify designation before a study
    has been completed? Please provide a list.
        Answer. We cannot identify any situation where the NPS has
    conducted a study of an area and has urged designation of a new unit
    prior to completion of a study. Under this Administration and previous
    Administrations, it has been a longstanding practice for the NPS to
    urge Congress to defer action on the establishment of a new unit until
    the study for it has been completed.
        establishment of first state national historical park (s. 1801)
        Question 7a. Is creating the First State National Historical Park a
    greater priority than the over $9 billion maintenance backlog? If not,
    should we then wait until the backlog is paid down before this new unit
    is established?
        Answer. The proposed First State National Historical Park, which
    has been found to meet the NPS criteria for new units, would be an
    important addition to the National Park System. Its designation should
    not have to be postponed because there is a maintenance backlog within
    existing units of the National Park System.
        Question 7b. Please list all the costs associated with the
    establishment of this First State National Historical Park?
        Answer. The Special Resource Study estimated annual operating costs
    for the park at $450,000 to $550,000, which would fund from five to
    seven FTEs, and costs associated with completing the general management
    plan at $600,000. S. 1801 also authorizes $3 million in one-time
    matching grants for rehabilitation of existing structures to serve as
    administrative and visitor services facilities for the park and $2.5
    million in one-time matching grants for historic preservation,
    interpretive devices, and the design, construction, installation, and
    maintenance of exhibits.
        Question 7c. Please describe how the National Park Service would
    interpret resources related to the purposes of the park but which are
    located outside the boundary of the Historical Park.
        Answer. Interpretation could occur through scheduled activities
    conducted by Park Rangers or volunteers at the location of the
    resources, wayside exhibits, publications, or audio-visual
    presentations.
        Question 7d. Can you please list all other parks which have had
    one-time matching grants to State and local governments, private
    property owners and nonprofit organizations to pay for the historic
    preservation of non-Federal resources within the park boundaries?
        Answer. Individual park units do not provide grants to other
    entities, however, the Save America's Treasures (SAT) grant program has
    awarded grants for the preservation of nationally significant historic
    properties and museum collections in park units and other entities.
    From 1999 to 2010, NPS awarded a total of 1,132 SAT grants totaling
    $293.7 million. Eligible applicants include State, Tribal, and local
    governments, nonprofit organizations, and federal agencies funded
    through the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act.
        The NPS has awarded 46 SAT grants to NPS units, totaling $18.2
    million. Additionally, the NPS has awarded several SAT grants to
    nonfederally-owned properties within the boundaries of national park
    system units. These include:

       Central High School in Little Rock, AR
       Ellis Island in Jersey City, NJ
       Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA (Martin Luther King,
            Jr., NHS)
       Sewall-Belmont NHS, in Washington, DC
       Shipyard 3 Riggers Loft in Richmond, CA (Rosie the Riveter
            World War II Homefront NHP)
       Alcatraz Island Gardens, in San Francisco CA

        Question 7e. Please discuss what new construction will be necessary
    as a result of the establishment of the First State National Historical
    Park.
        Answer. We do not anticipate any new construction associated with
    the establishment of the park. Existing facilities that would serve as
    administrative and visitor services facilities would be rehabilitated
    with the grants that are proposed in S. 1801.
        Question 7f. When the First State National Historical Park is
    established will any resources be immediately added to the maintenance
    backlog?
        Answer. An assessment has not been completed on the resources
    within the proposed park so their status is unknown.
      united states civil rights trail system feasibility study (s. 1802)
        Question 8a. How much of the land associated with the trail would
    be owned by the National Park Service?
        Answer. We cannot determine how much, if any, land the study would
    recommend for NPS ownership until the study has been completed and the
    alternatives have been fully analyzed. We note, however, that the
    legislation appears to intend for the NPS to consider a commemorative
    trail with little or no NPS land ownership outside of existing units
    related to the theme.
        Question 8b. How much of the trail is in private ownership and does
    the National Park Service plan on someday plan on owning the entire
    trail in fee?
        Answer. We cannot answer the question of current land ownership
    (private vs. public) until the study has been completed and the
    alternatives fully analyzed.
        Question 8c. When will the feasibility study be completed?
        Answer. The NPS will make every effort to complete the study within
    the three years of the date on which funds are first made available, as
    the legislation requires.
        Question 8d. Please list all the feasibility studies currently
    pending to be completed by the National Park Service.
        Answer. The following table lists the status of the 44 currently
    pending studies, as of August 30, 2010:

      modification of the boundary of petersburg national battlefield (s.
                                     2953)
        Question 9a. How much would S. 2953 increase the size of the
    Petersburg National Battlefield? What percentage of the National
    Battlefield would this increase represent?
        Answer. The boundary of the park would be authorized to increase by
    7,238 acres. The current authorized boundary of the park is
    approximately 2,739 acres. If enacted the park boundary would become
    approximately 9,977 acres. The newly authorized lands would make up
    approximately 72.5% of the new boundary.
        Question 9b. Will the changes in size of the National Battlefield
    require any additions in the number of personnel?
        Answer. The park estimates that an additional seven FTE would be
    required, based on the park's revised General Management Plan: one for
    resource management, two for interpretation, and four for maintenance.
        Question 9c. What will the total cost of expansion be?
        Answer. If all the lands to be added to the boundary are purchased
    in fee simple the cost is estimated at approximately $29.7 million.
    However, more than half of the land proposed for addition is currently
    held by foundations or non-profit organizations and a large amount of
    the land is expected to be donated. Estimated costs for capital
    expenses (trails, wayside exhibits, rehabilitation of existing visitor
    contact station,) and expansion-related costs (surveys, hazardous
    materials studies) are an additional $1.74 million. Development of
    visitor services and interpretation at these new battlefield locations
    would be minimal and would include small parking areas, wayside
    exhibits, and trail and other enhancements to the sites. The annual
    increase in operations and management is estimated to be approximately
    $484,000. These costs are all in 2008 dollars.
        Question 9d. How much of the land in this proposed expansion is in
    private ownership and have any of the owners objected to this proposal?
        Answer. Of the 7,239 acres proposed in the expansion, approximately
    2,714 acres are held by non-profit groups and the City of Petersburg.
    Approximately 4,524 acres are privately owned by approximately 192
    individual owners. At this time we are unaware of any objections by the
    private property owners.
        Question 9e. Have any property owners within the proposed expansion
    area objected to being included within the boundary?
        Answer. Please see the response to question 9d.
        Question 9f. How will the National Park Service use the property
    that is proposed for acquisition?
        Answer. When Congress created the park in 1926, only a fraction of
    the battlefield acreage associated with the 26 major battles of the
    Petersburg Campaign was included in the original boundary. The
    battlefields proposed for addition to the park will allow the public to
    better understand the size, complexity, and duration of the 9+ month
    Petersburg Campaign and siege while offering protection to existing
    park resources.
      designate wilderness in sleeping bear dunes national lakeshore (s.
                                     2976)
        Question 10a. Approximately how many property owners have in-
    holdings within the boundaries of the land designated as wilderness by
    S. 2976?
        Answer. There are five private tracts that are within the proposed
    wilderness, and all are shown on Sheet 4 of the map referenced by S.
    2976. None are developed and none have development potential. They are
    either remnant linear holdings that originally were very narrow rights-
    of-way to parcels long ago purchased by the Lakeshore (three tracts),
    or they are a portion of long rectilinear tracts already residentially
    developed, where the house lies outside the wilderness boundary, but a
    portion of the tract, at a distance from the house, lies within
    wilderness (two tracts). We plan to initiate title searches on the
    three rights-of-way, as similar tracts elsewhere in the park have been
    found to be owned in full by the NPS because we purchased all the
    properties they formerly accessed. To our knowledge, no individuals
    claim ownership of these rights-of-way. The other two tracts are
    accessed regularly by their owners via roadways to their homes lying
    outside of the proposed wilderness. Regardless of the likely ownership
    of the rights-of-way, we have depicted all five properties as private,
    and they retain any and all private rights associated with them.
        Question 10b. Are property owners currently allowed to use
    motorized vehicles to access their property and will these changes as a
    result of the designation?
        Answer. Four of the five private tracts are currently accessible by
    motor vehicle. Only one of the five private tracts is ``landlocked'' by
    the proposed wilderness, and it is not accessible by motor vehicle. It
    is a remnant linear holding that originally was a very narrow right-of-
    way to parcels long ago purchased by the Lakeshore. Title searches on
    similar tracts elsewhere in the park have been found to be owned in
    full by the NPS because we purchased all the properties they formerly
    accessed. To our knowledge, no individual claims ownership of this
    right-of-way. The designation would not change how any of these tracts
    may be accessed.
        Question 10c. Has the existing general management plan for Sleeping
    Bear Dunes National Lakeshore treated the land as wilderness for
    management purposes or will this designation constitute a major change
    in land use?
        Answer. The park's 2009 General Management Plan calls for the area
    proposed as wilderness in this bill to be managed as wilderness. Formal
    wilderness designation will not change the way in which land use is
    currently managed in the area proposed as wilderness.
        Question 10d. Will there be a net loss in hunting acreage? Can you
    please provide in detail the agreements that were reached to ensure
    that hunting activities in this area will not be affected by this
    wilderness designation?
        Answer. There will be no loss whatsoever in hunting acreage. The
    act that established Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, P.L. 91-
    479, specifically allows hunting in the park, and states that it will
    be governed by applicable State and Federal law. The language of S.
    2976 affirms that hunting will continue by stating in Section 4(a)(3)
    that ``Nothing in this Act affects hunting under applicable Federal and
    State laws (including regulations) within the Wilderness.''
        Question 10e. Please list all activities that will be allowed in
    the proposed wilderness area. Please list all activities in the
    proposed wilderness area that will not be allowed.
        Answer. A variety of recreational uses, management actions, and
    certain facilities are permitted in wilderness areas under the
    Wilderness Act of 1964 and NPS policies. Among the uses, management
    actions, and facilities permitted in wilderness are the following:

       The NPS honors legal obligations to make available equal
            opportunities for people with disabilities in all programs and
            activities. This requirement includes opportunities to
            participate in wilderness experiences. While the NPS does not
            modify wilderness environments specifically for accessibility,
            allowances are made for appropriate mobility devices within
            wilderness, and for use of service animals.
       Non-motorized recreational uses (e.g., hiking, picnicking,
            camping, canoeing) hunting and fishing.
       Trails, campsites, toilets, and signs necessary for visitor
            safety or to protect wilderness resources.
       Emergency actions and equipment necessary to ensure life-
            safety, fire-management activities (including fire
            suppression).
       Preservation of historic properties eligible for the
            National Register of Historic Places.
       Use of facilities for landowners with valid property rights
            in a wilderness area.
       Scientific activities, research, and monitoring natural
            resource management actions such as restoration of extirpated
            species, controlling invasive exotic species, endangered
            species management, and protection of air and water quality.
       Certain administrative facilities, if necessary, to carry
            out wilderness management objectives (e.g., storage or support
            structures, ranger station).
       Native American religious activities and other actions
            recognized under treaty-reserved rights.

        The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and
    developments. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the following uses are not
    permitted in a wilderness:

       Permanent improvements or human habitation structures
            (historic structures are excluded).
       Permanent and temporary roads.
       Use of motor vehicles and motorized equipment (except for
            emergency purposes).
       Landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes).
       Other forms of mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles).
       Commercial enterprises (except for those that are necessary
            for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of
            the area, such as guiding and outfitting).

        With the exception of permanent roads, the Act does recognize that
    the above uses may be permitted if necessary to meet the minimum
    requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or for
    emergency purposes.
        In addition to the above prohibitions, NPS policies also prohibit
    some developments such as new utility lines, permanent equipment
    caches, site markings or improvements for non-emergency aircraft,
    borrow pits (except for small-quantity use of borrow material for
    trails), and new shelters for public-use picnic tables. Listed are the
    most frequent considerations regarding wilderness, but this is not a
    comprehensive list as it would be impossible to list all potential
    activities upon which decisions to allow or prohibit might have to be
    made, according to applicable law and policy.
        Question 10f. How unusual is it to allow motorized transportation
    within a wilderness area? Please list all wilderness areas within the
    National Park System that allow motorized transportation.
        Answer. NPS policies allow for limited use of motorized
    transportation within wilderness. That limited use applies to all 60
    wilderness areas in 49 units of the National Park System that the NPS
    manages. Examples of this limited use include the use of helicopters
    for search & rescue, access for individuals to their private in-
    holdings, and fire control activities.
        revise boundaries of gettysburg national military park (s. 3159)
        Question 11a. When will the federal government appraisal of the
    Lincoln Train Station be completed? Do you anticipate the costs to
    increase as a result of the federal government appraisal of the Lincoln
    Station acquisition and rehabilitation?
        Answer. A timetable for the appraisal cannot be completed until the
    NPS has been given the authority to acquire the train station. The
    costs will be determined by the appraisal. The anticipated acquisition
    cost for the complete rehabilitation of the train station is
    approximately $772,000, subject to an appraisal by the federal
    government.
        Question 11b. How will the acquisitions affect personnel and
    staffing at Gettysburg National Military Park? Will additional NPS
    staff be needed? If so, how much will that increase the operating
    budget?
        Answer. The park has a preliminary commitment from the Gettysburg
    Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB) to provide all staffing
    requirements for operations of an information and orientation center in
    the train station, thereby alleviating the park of staff costs.
    Anticipated operating costs for the train station that will be the
    responsibility of the NPS are limited to utility costs; the remaining
    costs will be paid by the Gettysburg CVB. In the event that the
    Gettysburg CVB is unable to provide staffing and funding for
    operations, the NPS would seek another park partner to cover these
    costs and requirements.
        Question 11c. S. 3159 would add 45 acres of land near Big Round Top
    along Plum Run in Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania to the boundary of
    the Park. How does the National Park service plan to use this land?
        Answer. The land abuts a portion of the current park boundary and
    will be undeveloped.
        Question 11d. Does the land near Big Round Top along Plum Run have
    any specific interpretive value or is it needed to protect the park
    from encroachment?
        Answer. There were cavalry skirmishers in this area during the
    Battle of Gettysburg, July 1863, but the real significance is
    environmental. The tract has critical wetlands and wildlife habitat
    related to Plum Run.
     acquire land for inclusion in fort necessity national battlefield (s.
                                     3168)
        Question 12a. Upon acquisition of 157 acres in Farmington, PA, S.
    3168 further authorizes a boundary adjustment for Fort Necessity
    National Battlefield. What is the total amount of land that could be
    added to Fort Necessity National Battlefield?
        Answer. The 157 acres of ``non-Federal land'' to be acquired is
    identical to the land to be included in the boundary adjustment to Fort
    Necessity National Battlefield. The land is comprised of an 18.84-acre
    parcel, at the southeastern boundary of the park's main unit, along
    Scott Hollow Road, and a 137.78-acre parcel, at the southern boundary
    of the park's main unit, along Rankin Road.
        Question 12b. Is all the land being proposed to addition to Fort
    Necessity National Battlefield privately owned? Are all owners willing
    sellers?
        Answer. The owner of the two parcels in question is a willing
    seller.
        Question 12c. How will the National Park Service use the property
    that is proposed for acquisition?
        Answer. The property contains historical and landscape resources
    relating to the purpose of Fort Necessity National Battlefield,
    including traces of the Braddock Road that was built in 1755 as part of
    British Major General Edward Braddock's unsuccessful and bloody
    campaign to take Fort Duquesne at the Forks of the Ohio. A trailhead
    for a park trail, linking traces of the Braddock Road within the parcel
    to those within the current boundary of the park, will be located on
    the property. The NPS also intends to interpret archeological resources
    along the road trace, and may expand the park trail system through the
    remainder of the property.
        Question 12d. Please provide a list of all the costs associated
    with the land acquisitions and boundary adjustments in S. 3168.
        Answer. The property has not been appraised, and actual acquisition
    costs would be dependent upon an appraisal.
        Question 12e. How is the proposed land currently being utilized?
    How will the acquisition of the land by the NPS change the use of the
    land?
        Answer. The current land owner uses the property for recreational
    purposes. Acquisition of the land by the NPS will maintain recreational
    use, although hunting will no longer be permitted.
        Question 12f. Will there be a net loss of hunting land as a result
    of this land acquisition by the National Park Service?
        Answer. Hunting, which is permitted on private land by the
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and regulated by the Pennsylvania Game
    Commission, with the permission of the owner, will no longer be
    permitted on the acquired property.
        Question 12g. What is the estimated value of the land identified
    for addition to Fort Necessity National Battlefield?
        Answer. The property has not been appraised yet.
                                  Appendix II

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                                  ----------

                                                        April 26, 2010.
    Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
    Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
            Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Bingaman: The Northern California-Western Nevada-
    Pacific (NCWNP) District of the Japanese American Citizens League
    (JACL) supports S. 1596, the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act of
    2009.
        The Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act would authorize the Bureau
    of Land Management acquisition of the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm
    Colony near Gold Hill, California. This site marks the destination of
    more than 20 colonists who, in 1869, fled Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan for
    California and established the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony. This
    is widely believed by prominent historians to be the first Japanese
    ``Jamestown'' settlement in North America. It is here where Okei, a 19-
    year-old-girl who was the first Japanese to die in America, is buried.
    Our community members know it as ``Okei's Grave,'' and each year,
    Japanese Americans visit the site to remember and pay tribute to this
    adventurous and pioneering spirit.
        Today the property is up for sale and its history, along with its
    open space, hiking trails and pastureland could be lost. We hope you
    will co-sponsor and actively support this legislation. Further, as
    chair of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, your efforts
    are critical to helping the Wakamatsu Foundation and the American River
    Conservancy preserve this marvelous site so that future generations can
    learn more of our nation's immigrant history and enjoy another rich
    example of what makes America great.
        The JACL is the largest and oldest civil rights and educational
    organization in the country that serves the Asian Pacific Islander
    population. We have 113 chapters and 15,000 members nationwide, with
    over 60 of those chapters located in the State of California. We
    support S. 1596 and request for your assistance in its passage.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Patty Wada,
                                Regional Director, JACL NCWNP District.
                                     ______

                     Japanese American Citizens League,
                                              San Jose Chapter,
                                          San Jose, CA, April 21, 2010.
    Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
    Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
            Building, Washington, DC.
    Re: Gold Hill--Wakamatsu Colony SB 1596 Support

        Dear Chairman Bingham: The Gold Hill Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm
    Colony site is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places
    at a ``level of national significance''. We need your support to help
    orient the American people to the Gold Hill site so that it can become
    recognized as its own ``Plymouth Rock'' for Japanese Americans. Your
    leadership is critical to the preservation of this First Colony site.
        Senator Barbara Boxer has requested a hearing on Senate Bill 1596,
    the Gold Hill Wakamatsu Preservation Act, before the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee and expects this hearing will be held in early May.
        The San Jose JACL, as part of the Nation's oldest and largest Asian
    American Civil and Human Rights organization, asks for your aid in
    preserving Japanese American heritage by supporting SB 1596!
                Sincerely,
                                                   Leon Kimura,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                 National Japanese American Historical Society,
                                     San Francisco, CA, April 20, 2010.
    Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
    Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
            Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Bingaman, On behalf of the National Japanese American
    Historical Society, I wish to convey my strongest support for S. 1596,
    the Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act of 2009 and ask that you
    support it as well. This legislation holds historic significance not
    only to Japanese Americans, Californians, but for Americans nation-
    wide, and our partners internationally.
        The Gold Hill-Wakamatsu Preservation Act authorizes the Bureau of
    Land Management acquisition of the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony
    near Gold Hill, California. This site marks the destination of more
    than 20 colonists who in 1869 fled Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan for California
    and established the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony widely believed
    by prominent historians to be the first Japanese ``Jamestown''
    settlement in North America. This cultural landmark still holds the
    gravesite of Okei, a 19-year-old girl who was the first Japanese to die
    in America along with the original house used by the Japanese
    colonists.
        This year, the National Japanese American Historical Society is
    participating in the Kanrin Maru Commemoration which is celebrating the
    150th anniversary of the arrival of the first official Japanese escort
    and delegation to the United States of 1860 (Edo to San Francisco to
    Washington DC). Wakamatsu was established only 9 years after the
    signing of Treaty of Amity and Commerce, and is recognized as the first
    settlement from Japan. Today, bilateral relations between the US and
    Japan remains as strong as ever with sister-city programs blossoming.
        Today the property is up for sale and its history along with its
    open space, hiking trails, and pasturelands could be lost. The story of
    these first pioneers to the Pacific Coast must be preserved. Your
    sponsorship of this legislation would take a significantly important
    step toward preserving this landmark site so that future generations
    can learn from and enjoy.
                Very sincerely yours,
                                                 Rosalyn Tonai,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

    Statement of Shigeki J. Sugiyama, MPA, MJS, Lt. Colonel, United States
    Army (Retired), and Past President, Japanese American Citizens League,
                                  Richmond, CA
        I am writing to thank you for your support of the Gold Hill-
    Wakamatsu Colony Project and to encourage your efforts to obtain
    federal funding for preserving the historically significant Wakamatsu
    Colony site at Gold Hill.
        Although I learned about of the existence of the Wakamatsu Colony
    years ago when I was still active in the Japanese American Citizens
    League, the historical significance of the so-called Wakamatsu Colony
    did not occur to me until I learned more about the immigrant group that
    came from Aizu-Wakamatsu when I visited Okei's grave site at Gold Hill
    earlier this year. While it is important for the descendants of the
    early Japanese settlers such as myself to have the site of the first
    settlers that came before our parents and grandparents marked for
    posterity's remembrance, I believe there is an even more important
    reason to mark the site.
        While I do not know what motivated Sir Matsudaira Katamori, the
    lord of the Aizu clan, to allow his vassals to emigrate to America, it
    appears that he did so at a time when his government, the Tokugawa
    Shogunate that he had so loyally served, was disintegrating. Katamori's
    Matsudaira family descended from Tokugawa Iyeyasu, the founder of the
    Tokugawa dynasty. Moreover, Katamori had been charged with protecting
    the shogunate's interests in Kyoto, the Imperial Capital, against the
    insurgents that were bent on bringing down the shogunate However, he
    was driven out of Kyoto by the insurgents shortly before his clansmen
    emigrated to America. In the final struggle to preserve the Tokugawa
    shogunate, many of Katamori's vassals fought to the bitter end, finally
    committing seppuku rather than submitting to the insurgents.
        The so-called Meiji Restoration is usually credited with Japan's
    opening to the West following the initial cracks opened by Commodore
    Perry and Ambassador Townsend Harris. However, that Katamori allowed
    and supported his vassals' emigration to the United States at a most
    critical time in Japan's history suggests to me that he and others
    closely associated with the Tokugawa shogunate looked to the United
    States as the one nation that could best help Japan maintain its
    integrity against the encroaching European powers (England, France,
    Russia.) Thus, Katamori allowing his vassals to come to America seems
    to be evidence of his effort to help assure the future of Japan.
        My thought that insiders of the Tokugawa shogunate looked to the
    United States to gain the knowledge and skills needed to defend itself
    against European encroachment is further supported by there being a
    number of headstones (seven or more) for Japanese samurai in a grave
    yard in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The samurai died in 1871 and the
    early 1870s in New York City or its vicinity. My understanding is that
    the Japanese samurai whose tombstones are in New Jersey were sent to
    America by Sir Matsudaira Shungaku, the lord of Echizen (now Fukui) at
    about the same time as the Aizu clansmen were sent to the California.
    As the Matsudaira name suggests, Shungaku was also of the Tokugawa
    family line and was a prominent member of the inner circle of the
    Tokugawa regime. There are also indications that the vassals Shungaku
    sent to America from Echizen-Fukui were routed through Satsuma, one of
    the clans that led the effort to topple the Tokugawa regime, thus
    suggesting that even the insurgents looked favorably toward the United
    States
        I am not aware of any scholarly studies into the background of the
    Wakamatsu Tea Colony or of members of the Tokugawa regime's inner
    circle looking to the United States as the source of the knowledge and
    skills needed to preserve Japan's national integrity. However, the loss
    of the Gold Hill site to development would erase the only tangible
    evidence that elements of the Japanese government under the Tokugawa
    shogunate were reaching to the United States to develop the human
    resources needed to move Japan into the modern world and to defend
    against European encroachment.
        I am not a scholar and do not have time left to pursue my own study
    into this aspect of the history of the friendly relations between Japan
    and the United States. In a way, the story of the Wakamatsu Colony may
    be somewhat akin the Jamestown and Roanoke Colony stories. So I
    earnestly hope that the Graner House and the Gold Hill site of Okei's
    grave be preserved so that they may someday peak someone's interest
    into looking into what I believe is a significant aspect of the
    historical relationship between Japan and the United States.
                                     ______

                                    American River Conservancy,
                                            Coloma, CA, April 20, 2010.
    Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
    Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
            Building, Washington DC.
     RE: Support for S. 1596--Gold Hill Wakamatsu Colony Preservation Act

        Dear Senator Bingaman: Over the past three years the American River
    Conservancy, a non-profit conservation organization, has assisted the
    Japanese-American community, local historians, businesses and farmers
    achieve national recognition for the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm
    Colony. To the best of our research, the Wakamatsu Colony site is:

       the first Japanese colony in North America;
       contains the gravesite of Okei Ito, the first Japanese woman
            buried on American soil;
       the birthplace of the first naturalized Japanese-American;
            and
       the site where many traditional Japanese crops were first
            grown and introduced to California and the United States.

        Recently, the National Park Service placed this site on the
    National Register of Historic Places at a level of national
    significance. Now, the property is up for sale and its history along
    with its open space, hiking trails and productive agricultural soils
    could be lost. To date, we have raised $2 million of the $3.3 million
    necessary to acquire the property as well as $480,000 to restore the
    original farmhouse occupied by the Wakamatsu Colonists beginning in
    1869.
        We believe that the Bureau of Land Management, with its strong
    local presence and management of thousands of acres of public lands
    nearby is best positioned to acquire the property and work with the
    local community to preserve and interpret the story of these first
    pioneers. There is no opposition to this project. To date, we have
    received over $530,000 in private donations from over one thousand
    local residents, local businesses, Japanese-Americans and Japanese
    supporters overseas towards the acquisition and protection of the
    property. We believe this project will attract international attention
    and help sustain the strong bilateral relations that exist between the
    United States and Japan.
        On behalf of the American River Conservancy and the project's many
    supporters, I respectfully request your support for S. 1596, the Gold
    Hill Wakamatsu Preservation Act of 2009. This legislation is a vital
    step in preserving this first colony site for the enjoyment and
    education of future generations.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Alan Ehrgott,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                                     California State Assembly,
                                          Sacramento, CA, July 9, 2009.
    Hon. Tom McClintock,
    U.S. House of Representatives, 508 Cannon House Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Representative McClintock: I support federal legislation
    authorizing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acquisition of the
    Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony site located in my district near
    Gold Hill, California. l support it because I believe firmly that it is
    a cultural and historic site of national significance to the United
    States, the Japanese community and to the state of California.
        Then-Governor Ronald Reagan designated the site as a state historic
    site in 1969; an event that was memorialized by Representative Harold
    Johnson in a floor statement to the U.S. House of Representatives on
    May 7, 1969. Like many of his decisions, Governor Reagan was right to
    bestow such a commemoration of the sacrifices made by more than 20
    colonists who fled war in Japan to start a new life of promise and
    freedom, like so many others, in the United States.
        I have visited the site and am amazed at the preservation of the
    original 1854 Graner House occupied by the colonists and the gravesite
    and memorial of Okei Ito, the first Japanese person buried on American
    soil. Along with countless Samurai artifacts brought by the colonists,
    these treasured historical artifacts should not be lost permanently at
    the expense of development pressure. The current owners, the Veerkamp
    family, have willingly and patiently worked with the Wakamatsu Colony
    Foundation to ensure the land is protected. I believe we should do
    everything we can do to help and I ask that you sponsor legislation
    authorizing this BLM project.
        With kind regards, I hope you will consider my views.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Ted Gaines,
                                             Assemblyman, 4th District.
                                     ______

                                    California Rice Commission,
                                        Sacramento, CA, April 20, 2010.
    Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
    U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
    RE: Support for S. 1596--Gold Hill--Wakamatsu Preservation Act

        Dear Senator Bingaman: The California Rice Commission, representing
    the state's 2,500 rice farmers and over 40 milling and marketing
    organizations, unanimously supports S. 1596. Our industry owes its
    start to early Japanese immigration into California. For over 50 years
    following the Gold Rush, farmers attempted to grow rice across
    California's fertile valleys and delta to no avail. It was not until
    the first Japanese variety Kiushu was planted that our industry took
    root. Today these ricelands provide reliable food for a nation,
    thousands of jobs for rural communities and unparalleled habitat for
    230 species of wildlife.
        There is no doubt that word of the successes of the early Wakamatsu
    settlers sparked interest in the agricultural riches that could be
    found in California. S. 1596 would authorize the Bureau of Land
    Management to acquire and manage the site of the first Japanese colony
    in North America, the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony. These 22 settlers
    planted many important crops, including rice in the Sierra Foothills
    community of Gold Hill, just above the site where James Marshall first
    discovered gold in California. The 270 acre ranch where the Wakamatsu
    Colony settled is now available for the first time since its purchase
    by the Veercamp Family over 100 years ago.
        This legislation is vital to ensure that an important piece of
    history is not lost. We respectfully and with the greatest emphasis
    request your support of S. 1596.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Tim Johnson,
                                                       President & CEO.
                                     ______

                                People to People International,
                                       Kansas City, MO, April 20, 2010.
    Hon. Barbara Boxer,
    U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Suite 112, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Boxer: It is mypleasure to lend support to you and the
    many individuals dedicated to S. 1596, the Gold Hal-Wakamatsu
    Preservation Act. Your efforts are critical to this important site and
    will mean so much to Japanese-Americans, as well as Japanese culture
    worldwide.
        As the President and CEO of People to People International (PTPI),
    an organization established by my grandfather, U.S. President Dwight D.
    Eisenhower, to enhance Peace through Understanding, I believe it is
    essential to retain the historical significance of this site. People to
    People International celebrates diverse cultures at the grassroots
    level. Our dedicated members work to enhance friendship and
    understanding locally and globally. We recognize the importance of
    preserving this cultural gem.
        Many thanks, Senator Boxer, for your dedication to this important
    issue. I believe it is culturally, educationally and environmentally
    prudent to ensure the passage of S. 1596 and wish you every continuing
    success. California's rich history of welcoming immigrants to the
    United States is uniquely represented through this historic site, and I
    believe it would be such a tragedy for all if this were lost for future
    generations.
                Best regards,
                                          Mary Jean Eisenhower,
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                     ______

                      National Trust for Historic Preservation,
                                       Washington, DC, January 8, 2010.
    Hon. Mark Udall,
    Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
            National Parks, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mark: I am writing in support of a bill that is of great
    importance to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and I urge
    you to schedule a hearing on it as early as possible when the Senate
    returns for the second session.
        The United States Civil Rights Trail bill--S. 1802 introduced by
    Senator Burris--would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
    special resource study for the protection and interpretation of
    American civil rights sites across the county. These sites are of
    tremendous value to our history as a nation, and the first step in
    assessing this inventory's importance as a collection is for the
    National Park Service to conduct this study. The National Trust is
    particularly interested in the potential addition of some or all of the
    sites to a National Civil Right Trail System and the study would
    provide Congress with recommendations regarding the route.
        There are a large number of places associated with historic events
    of the civil rights movement in the United States scattered across many
    states. At least 49 of these sites have been nominated for listing in
    the National Register of Historic Places. Many are already managed by
    state or local agencies and organizations committed to their
    preservation and interpretation.
        The bill would direct the Secretary to identify the resources and
    historic themes associated with the fight to secure equal rights for
    African-Americans and focus on the period from 1954 through 1968. The
    Interior Department would review existing studies and reports, such as
    the Civil Rights Framework Study, to produce a report to complement,
    not duplicate, other research in this field. The Secretary would also
    make alternative recommendations, with cost estimates, for their
    preservation by the National Park Service, other federal, state, or
    local governmental entities, or private and nonprofit organizations.
    This bill would help establish needed connections with agencies,
    organizations, and partnerships already engaged in civil rights site
    preservation and the protection of historically significant landscapes,
    districts and structures.
        In addition to Senator Burris' legislation, a companion measure,
    H.R. 685, sponsored by Rep. Clay from Missouri passed the House on
    September 29th and has been received in the Senate as well. It was
    referred to your full committee.
        Establishing a National Civil Rights Trail System to link sites
    with common signage, maps, and educational materials; improve public
    awareness; and facilitate the study of their importance in history
    would be an invaluable asset in chronicling the movement's watershed
    role in the American story. I urge your support for S. 1802 and ask
    that you begin to move this measure by scheduling a hearing when the
    Senate reconvenes.
                Warmest regards,
                                                   Richard Moe,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                                 The Conservation Fund,
                                          Government Relations,
                                           Arlington, VA, May 19, 2010.
    Hon. Mark Udall,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on Energy
            and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
    Hon. Richard Burr,
    Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on
            Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office
            Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Udall and Senator Burr: As the Subcommittee meets
    today to receive testimony on national parks legislation, we write in
    strong support of S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, the Petersburg National
    Battlefield Boundary Modification Act.
        The 292-day siege of Petersburg took its toll on soldiers and
    civilians alike as 70,000 combatants became casualties while some
    civilians were driven from their homes. Almost a quarter of the entire
    Civil War was fought around the city of Petersburg as Generals Ulysses
    S. Grant and Robert E. Lee came head-to-head in their effort to control
    the rails and other supply lines which the Confederacy so desperately
    needed for its survival. Over the course of the nine-and-a-half months
    and 108 separate engagements covering more than 176 square miles, the
    conflicts at Petersburg were the most extensive and complex battles of
    the entire war. The outcome of the longest siege in American history
    proved pivotal as well and set the stage for the surrender of the
    Confederacy only seven days after the fall of Petersburg.
        The Petersburg National Battlefield has experienced threats to
    physical resources and to the visitor experience from incompatible
    residential, commercial and industrial development along park borders
    due to the impact of high growth in its surrounding counties. Several
    important portions of nationally significant battlefields related to
    the Petersburg Campaign have already been lost with development of an
    industrial park, a steel recycling plant and residential housing.
    Concerned about these losses, National Park Service staff developed an
    Assessment of Integrity Report that identified nationally significant
    battlefield lands critical to the park's mission that lie outside its
    boundaries. Twelve nationally significant battlefields totaling
    approximately 7,238 acres met National Park Service criteria for
    integrity, interpretability, suitability and feasibility for
    protection. These battlefield areas were included in the Final General
    Management Plan and within the recommended boundary expansion for the
    park.
        If enacted, S. 2953 and H.R. 3388 would further the Petersburg
    National Battlefield General Management Plan by:

       Providing Congressional authority to the National Park
            Service for a 7,238-acre boundary expansion of Petersburg
            National Battlefield as recommended by the National Park
            Service's 2005 Final General Management Plan.
       Authorizing the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
            the Army to move forward with a small exchange of land
            (approximately 1. 17 acres/each) between the Petersburg
            National Battlefield and the Fort Lee Military Reservation
            adjacent to the Park to be managed in accordance with all
            department and agency laws.
       Providing authority to the Secretary of Interior to acquire
            and receive donations of land from willing sellers as
            authorized by the new 7,238-acre boundary expansion.

        We wish to commend Senator Jim Webb and Senator Mark Warner for
    their outstanding leadership in the preservation of unprotected
    hallowed ground on the battlefields in the Petersburg, Virginia, area
    by introducing this legislation to expand the boundary of the
    Petersburg National Battlefield. Our organizations strongly support the
    recommendations listed above, and we urge the Subcommittee and full
    Committee to create a positive, long-term legacy of the
    sesquicentennial of the Civil War by approving S. 2953 and H.R. 3388
    this Congress. In addition to honoring those brave men who fought and
    died on these fields, this legislation would increase heritage tourism
    in Virginia and would enable Americans to learn more about Virginia's
    critical role in the final year of the Civil War.
        With the Civil War's sesquicentennial in 2011, Congressional
    approval and enactment of this boundary expansion legislation during
    the 111th Congress would appropriately commemorate this chapter of
    America's history. Thank you for your leadership on this important
    initiative.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Dan Sakura,
                                                        Vice President.
                                     ______

         Statement of the Society for American Archaeology, on S. 3303
        The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) appreciates this
    opportunity to testify in support of S. 3303, the Chimney Rock National
    Monument Act of 2010. This legislation would provide enhanced
    protections for the unique and priceless Chimney Rock Archaeological
    Area in the San Juan National Forest, Colorado.
        SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in
    1934, has been dedicated to the research about and interpretation and
    protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more
    than 7,000 members, SAA represents professional archaeologists in
    colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the
    private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other
    nations around the world.
        Chimney Rock Archaeological Area is a 4,726-acre plot in
    southwestern Colorado's San Juan National Forest, and it was designated
    a National Historic Landmark in 1970. The archaeological resources of
    this area are the physical record of the ancestors of modern Pueblo
    Indian tribes. The ancient peoples who occupied Chimney Rock and the
    surrounding area left behind significant architecture as well as
    hundreds of smaller archaeological sites. The importance of these
    resources in our efforts to understand the past and the peoples who
    came before us cannot be overstated.
        Though the Forest Service works hard to protect Chimney Rock and
    other cultural heritage sites located on its land for present and
    future generations, the current level of oversight afforded to the area
    through its present designation is inadequate. Chimney Rock needs a
    clearer, more concise cultural resource protection mandate, one that
    will enable more staff and financial resources to be dedicated to
    surveying, inventorying, maintaining, and interpreting the site.
    Designation of the Chimney Rock Archaeological Area as a National
    Monument under S. 3303 will allow the federal government to provide
    support needed for the public to enjoy and learn about the significant
    natural, cultural, and scientific resources of this area.
        The legislation would also set forth a number of other steps to
    support the designation and future viability of the Monument. The
    Department of Agriculture, in consultation with Indian tribes and other
    stakeholders, would develop a management plan setting forth uses of the
    Monument as authorized by the Act, including use of the land by Indian
    tribes for cultural and religious purposes, scientific and
    archaeological research, and the construction of a visitor's center and
    curatorial facilities. Lands contained in the Monument would be
    withdrawn from mining and mineral leasing activities. Importantly, S.
    3303 would also authorize the Department to include public lands
    adjacent to the park in the Monument if those lands contained
    significant archaeological resources.
        Chimney Rock is one of the most significant archaeological sites in
    the nation. It's designation as a National Monument will expand our
    knowledge of the continent's past and ensure the preservation of its
    cultural resources for future generations of Americans. SAA strongly
    urges that the committee and full Senate consider and pass this
    important legislation as quickly as possible.
                                     ______

       Statement of David J. Brown, Acting President, National Trust for
                       Historic Preservation, on S. 3303
        On behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (National
    Trust), I applaud the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources'
    leadership in considering S. 3303, the Chimney Rock National Monument
    Act of 2010. Chimney Rock, located in southwestern Colorado, is
    possibly the most important cultural site managed by the U.S. Forest
    Service. It is the northernmost and highest Chacoan site known to
    exist, and yet it lacks a designation equal to its cultural
    significance. The National Trust believes that a national monument
    designation would bring Chimney Rock the recognition and permanent
    protection it so clearly deserves.
        Chartered by Congress in 1949, the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation is the largest nonprofit, membership organization
    dedicated to helping people protect, enhance and enjoy the places that
    matter to them. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., eight regional
    and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50
    states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust
    provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national
    network of people, organizations and local communities committed to
    saving places, connecting people to our history and collectively
    shaping the future of America's stories. For over 20 years, the
    National Trust has advocated for the preservation and enhancement of
    historic and cultural resources on federal public lands.
        Chimney Rock exhibits many of the features that earned Chaco Canyon
    a World Heritage Site designation. Between A.D. 925 and 1125, the
    ancestors of modern Puebloan Indians occupied Chimney Rock, and the
    site remains of cultural significance to many descendant tribes.
    Hundreds of cultural elements surround Chimney Rock's soaring twin rock
    spires, including the Great House Pueblo, which archaeologists believe
    may have contained as many as thirty-five rooms. Located on a steeply
    sloped rock mesa approximately 1,000 feet above the Piedra River,
    Chimney Rock has a commanding view of the valley below and the nearby
    San Juan Mountains.
        The first excavations of Chimney Rock were led by Jean Allard
    Jeancon, the curator of archaeology and ethnology at the Colorado
    Historical Society in 1920. In 1970, archaeologist Frank Eddy, now an
    emeritus professor at University of Colorado-Boulder, first documented
    the stylistic connection between the architecture of Chaco Canyon and
    Chimney Rock. That same year, Chimney Rock was also listed in the
    National Register of Historic Places. In 1988, Dr. J. McKim Malville,
    now professor emeritus of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences at the
    University of Colorado-Boulder, discovered that every 18.6 years, the
    moon, as seen from the Great House Pueblo, rises between the twin rock
    spires during an event known as the Major Lunar Standstill. The dates
    of Major Lunar Standstill cycles appear to match the construction
    chronology of the Great House. The last Major Lunar Standstill was in
    2006, and the next time Standstill will occur in the years 2024 and
    2025.
        In recognition of the foregoing cultural and archaeological values,
    S. 3303 would designate Chimney Rock as a national monument. The 4,726-
    acre monument would consist of two units, the main unit surrounding the
    Great House and a second, smaller unit called Peterson Mesa to the
    west. All of the lands in the proposed monument are owned and managed
    by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the San Juan National Forest. If
    approved by Congress, Chimney Rock would become the U.S. Forest
    Service's seventh national monument, but the first designated chiefly
    for the recognition and protection of cultural and archaeological
    values.
        A national monument designation would be a win-win for this
    nationally important cultural site, the community, tribes and the
    public. A designation would attract public attention and increase
    heritage tourism to Archuleta County and the Four Corners area.
    Historically, national monument designations also have brought
    increased federal funding and resources, thereby providing for higher
    quality visitor facilities, more interpretation, better public
    education and improved site stabilization. Finally, the designation
    would provide the Forest Service with a clear mandate to identify and
    protect Chimney Rock's archaeological and cultural values.
        The National Trust supports the intent of S. 3303 and many of the
    provisions currently in the bill. In particular, we support the
    language requiring the development of a management plan within three
    years of the enactment of the bill and provisions allowing for the
    continued use of the monument by Native American tribes for traditional
    ceremonies and plant gathering activities. We also support the bill's
    provisions for the designation of a monument manager as soon as
    practicable after development of the management plan. The designation
    would not require additional staff to be hired, as a line manager could
    be designated for this role. The Forest Service assessment of staffing
    levels in the San Juan National Forest and any necessary amendments to
    the organizational structure can be completed as part of monument
    planning process.
        However, we believe that the bill should be amended by modifying
    the provision authorizing the creation of a public utility right of way
    within the monument. Specifically, we believe that the legislation
    should require that any transmission line, pipeline or any other
    legitimate use of the right of way should avoid negative effects on
    Chimney Rock's view shed. The small size of this designation and the
    importance of protecting the monument's view shed, which is largely
    free of modern-day intrusions, make it an inappropriate location for
    additional large scale transmission lines and pipelines. This minor
    change to the bill is narrow in scope, would not in any way limit the
    development of existing rights of way in the monument, and is, in our
    opinion, necessary in order to ensure that the Forest Service manages
    Chimney Rock in a manner consistent with its national monument
    designation.
        Additionally, the National Trust supports the Forest Service's
    position for a small-scale interpretation and educational center at the
    national monument instead of a full-fledged visitor's center. The
    National Trust also supports the Forest Service's recommendation to
    provide for the curation and exhibition of scientific and cultural
    resources from Chimney Rock at the nearby BLM Anasazi Heritage Center.
        Americans are fortunate to have so many of the nation's historic
    and cultural treasures under federal stewardship. The National Trust
    strongly supports the designation of Chimney Rock as a national
    monument, but recommend the amendments discussed above.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony to the
    Subcommittee on National Parks, and would welcome the opportunity to
    further assist the Committee should it have any questions about our
    testimony.
                                     ______

     Statement of Jeannette A. Feeheley, President, Citizens for Access to
                the Lakeshore (CAL), Citizen, Benzie County, MI
        Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
    Subcommittee,
        Thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony to express our
    organization's support of S. 2976. Its introduction represents the
    result of over eight years of work by the National Park Service (NPS)
    and input by us and hundreds of other organizations and individuals
    into NPS proceedings to establish a new General Management Plan and
    Wilderness Study for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SLBE),
    which runs for seventy gorgeous miles along prime Lake Michigan
    shoreline in Benzie and Leelanau Counties in Northwest Michigan. The
    NPS in 2009 finalized and adopted its new General Management Plan for
    this Lakeshore, but significant parts of it cannot be implemented
    unless and until its accompanying Wilderness proposal is adopted by
    Congress and signed into law.
        We are extremely grateful to the Senate sponsor of this bill, the
    Honorable Carl Levin, who has been of immense aid to us and others in
    our negotiations over the years with the NPS, and to the Senate co-
    sponsor, the Honorable Debbie Stabenow. We are likewise grateful to our
    Congressmen for Benzie and Leelanau Counties, who also have long been
    highly engaged in this bi-chamber, bipartisan effort. A similar bill to
    S. 2976 has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by the
    Honorable Pete Hoekstra and co-sponsored by nine Michigan House
    Members, including the Honorable Dave Camp, whose district includes a
    portion of SLBE.
        In 2002, a public outcry erupted in Benzie and Leelanau Counties
    where the Lakeshore is located over the then current General Management
    Plan (GMP) proposals that were nearing their final stage and well on
    their way to adoption by the NPS. Until the 2002 NPS Newsletter had
    been released that gave details of Four Alternatives the NPS was
    considering at that time, along with their Preferred Alternative, most
    of the general public in the area were unaware of its implications. A
    few members of the public began publicizing those implications, and
    many in the area became incensed. After studying the matter and
    attending NPS hearings on such, some of my neighbors and I realized
    that there was no public nor local governmental body nor volunteer
    organization sufficiently manned to mount the sustained effort it would
    take to get the NPS to listen and respond to our concerns, so we formed
    Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore (CAL) as a nonprofit, citizen
    advocacy group to do so. We recruited membership, elected a Board of
    Directors and collected dues and donations sufficient to support our
    newsletters, public presentations, educational outreach and the
    development and maintenance of a CAL Web Site.
        At our founding, CAL never expected it would take eight years for
    the issues to get addressed, nor had we any idea that it would require
    new legislation to be passed by Congress, but the tedious and
    painstaking efforts by all concerned will be worth it if the
    legislation before you is passed. The bill is needed in order to allow
    the Park Service to implement the 2009 outcome of NPS proceedings and
    negotiations with the public which became, over eight years time, a
    true collaboration, in our view, among the Park Service and all its
    stakeholders.
        We are very grateful to SLBE Superintendent Dusty Shultz for the
    new GMP and Wilderness Study subsequently developed and approved at the
    agency level in 2009. Superintendent Shultz had not been a part of the
    development of the former GMP proposals in the early 2000's, having
    arrived at the Park as its new Superintendent after they had already
    reached their final stage. When the Secretary of Interior, in response
    to public outrage, requested withdrawal in October 2002 of that
    previous GMP, Superintendent Shultz responded by thenceforth devoting
    much staff time and resources to learning why the community was so
    alarmed and why the NPS had been so taken by surprise by the outrage.
        Those early years also saw the appointment of a new Director of the
    NPS Midwest Region, Mr. Ernie Quintana, who came to SLBE to view the
    Lakeshore, which had become one of his new responsibilities. During
    that visit, he was kind enough to meet with CAL Board members in the
    presence of Superintendent Shultz. After listening to us, he expressed
    his view that we seemed to have legitimate concerns, that the NPS could
    address them, and that he would be supportive in that effort. He has,
    indeed, been supportive at all crucial, NPS/internal review and
    approval stages over the many years on these efforts, and we are very
    grateful to Director Quintana and his Midwest Region Staff in Omaha.
        One of the first steps taken by the NPS during that contentious
    time was to send new personnel to SLBE who had expertise in public
    relations. CAL and others wondered at the time if Mr. Tom Ulrich had
    been sent simply to tell the local population that we didn't know or
    understand anything and to admonish us for having dared to question the
    federal bureaucracy. However, we soon learned that Mr. Ulrich was not
    sent for window dressing or simply to smooth ruffled feathers. Instead,
    we found him to be a dedicated public servant who was committed to
    listening to the concerns of the agency's stakeholders and who adeptly
    helped establish a working relationship among what had become, by that
    time, two distinct adversaries: the National Park Service vs. the
    SLBE's surrounding local communities.
        CAL strongly believes that, from 2002-2009, these two sides learned
    to listen and talk with each other as never before, and that the NPS
    adopted a new view that it is better to aggressively publicize its
    processes and actively and genuinely solicit input up front rather than
    assume all is well only to learn late in the game that its stakeholders
    had not understood the implications of what it planned to do. The
    materials developed by the NPS in this particular effort are a vast
    improvement over what was available to the public before. For instance,
    after the GMP process was resumed in 2006, inter-active communication
    tools were newly available to the public on an improved NPS Web Site
    that made it much easier for the general public to access, read and
    submit formal comment on each NPS proposal. It also appeared that the
    NPS liberalized, or, at least, publicized better, that any citizen who
    so desired could be put onto their mailing list to receive NPS
    proposals each step along the way where there was opportunity for
    public input.
        In addition, ever since 2002, CAL had been speaking at local and
    county government meetings, road commission hearings, Chamber of
    Commerce meetings, Rotary Clubs, etc., in an attempt to inform as many
    people as possible about our discoveries of the implications of the NPS
    proposals. So the NPS spent the time and resources necessary to do the
    same and more: Superintendent Shultz and Deputy Superintendent Ulrich
    and other NPS staff began to attend meetings of their stakeholders/
    customers' organizations to make themselves available for questioning
    at their stakeholders' convenience and on their stakeholders' own
    territory. And, once the new GMP process was restarted in 2006, the NPS
    developed a Power Point Presentation they took ``on the road'' rather
    than relying on the few standard NPS Open Hearing dates which the
    public may or may not be able to attend.
        As for the substance of the problem, it was, in a nutshell, that in
    1981 the NPS had concluded a Wilderness Study and made a wilderness
    recommendation at a very young Park still deep in a contentious
    acquisition phase, its enabling legislation having only been passed in
    1970. The full impact of that Study would not become apparent to the
    public until much later, after most of the land had come under Park
    Service ownership. Two and a half decades passed with issues simmering
    in seemingly piecemeal NPS actions that the public only saw as
    separate, isolated irritants. However, the full implications of the
    1981 Wilderness Study and its inherent incompatibility with reality
    surfaced explosively in the 2002 GMP.
        Complicating matters was that this Park had not originated with
    vast amounts of never-used or never-privately-owned land, but of land
    that had been mostly held and used by small, private landowners for two
    centuries, along with two small areas of state park land. In order for
    the Park to become a reality, most of those private owners had to be
    removed from their land after the 1970 enabling legislation was passed.
    Many of the land parcels had been in the owners' families' possession
    for generations. Some were very willing to sell, some were not, and
    some were taken by eminent domain or its perceived threat. Another
    acquisition method was a sale in which the owners were allowed to
    reside for a specified time, usually through a twenty-five year lease.
        Although generally beloved by the most of the local populace now,
    the Park's very creation had been wrenching and painful. Indeed, it had
    taken the whole decade of the nineteen sixties for proponents of a new
    federalized Park to win sufficient support inside the State of Michigan
    for the 1970 enabling legislation to pass. The promise held out to all
    at the time was that, by taking the land and making it a federal
    Lakeshore, its woods and dunes and beautiful beaches would forever more
    be saved for the recreational uses of the general public rather than
    swallowed up and transformed by large-scale private developers.
        So, in 1981, the general public had little idea that
    ``wilderness'', if applied where roads already existed, would require
    the removal of those roads. The Wilderness acreage recommended in 1981
    did, indeed, include many county roads in both Benzie and Leelanau
    Counties, roads which have provided the historical access to the
    beaches. The general public also had little idea that the 1981
    ``wilderness'' would be interpreted by the NPS as a call for the
    destruction of many historical features throughout the Park. Indeed, it
    took two other citizens' groups, with the help of Senator Levin, to get
    the NPS to recognize that there were historical resources and cultural
    viewscapes worth saving within a Park where acquisition and a return-
    to-nature agenda were on full throttle. Never-the-less, enough was
    understood about the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation that it was
    politically highly contentious from its inception: the Secretary of
    Interior would not approve it nor move it along for further approval.
    The Congress at that time reacted to the Secretary's inaction by
    inserting a few sentences about the 1981 Wilderness Study in a 1982
    amendment to the Park's 1970 enabling legislation. The purposes of the
    1982 amendment had mostly to do with making the acquisition process
    fairer to all property owners and with removing certain areas of land
    around Glen Lake from the Park boundaries. Even though the 1982
    legislation's intent and purposes had nothing to do with wilderness,
    Congress inserted language into that bill that instructed the NPS to
    manage all the land within the 1981 Wilderness Study as if it was
    ``wilderness'' unless and until Congress said otherwise. The effect, as
    noted in the Congressional Record at the time, was a wilderness
    designation imposed by the back door, a de facto wilderness where none
    had been formally designated by Congress according to the procedures of
    the Wilderness Act.
        Over the years, the NPS attempted, from time to time, to acquire
    the county roads within those de facto wilderness areas, per the 1982
    Congressional action. However, for thirty years, the Counties have
    adamantly resisted federal acquisition of their roads, having no wish
    for their residents and tourists to lose public access to the beaches.
    The Park Service was never successful in eliminating the historical
    vehicular access on the mainland, but was successful on the Park's two
    islands, North and South Manitou, by disallowing use of the landing
    piers by cars and by a 1987 letter to South Manitou residents.
        The building tension over the NPS's repeated attempts to acquire
    the counties' roads came to a head in the 2002 GMP proposals. Having
    little familiarity with the long forgotten 1981 Wilderness Study and
    having little acquaintance with the fact that the Study's effects had
    become federal law in 1982, most local people were completely
    dumbfounded in 2002 on a number of levels:

       Why did the 2002 GMP call for the acquisition and
            demolishment of the county roads, which provide the only
            vehicular access of the general public to the beaches?
       Why did the 2002 GMP propose ``mouldering'' many of the
            area's historical resources?
       Why did the 2002 GMP proposals portray half the Lakeshore as
            a place where the human foot had left no mark and where only
            ``wilderness'' had existed?

        In this aspect, the GMP's tone, as well as the content, was highly
            offensive to local people who themselves or their parents had
            been uprooted from the very land now called a ``wilderness''
            where, allegedly, no one had ever settled. In reality, the
            local populace had first hand knowledge that said lands had
            been farmed, settled and lumbered for generations, and that
            Native Americans and lumbering companies had worn trails that
            still exist and are used to this day. South Manitou Island,
            with its great natural harbor and nautical refuge in Lake
            Michigan, had been settled, farmed and lumbered even before the
            City of Detroit was developed. The 2002 GMP proposals were not
            only offensive for proposing that the general public lose its
            access to the beaches, the very purpose of the enabling
            legislation, but added insult to injury by attempting to wipe
            out the magnificent human history of the area's forebears.

       And why did Park Service staff, in attempting to explain
            these matters to an outraged citizenry, keep saying that it had
            all been ``mandated'' by Congress?

        It took CAL much study of past legislation and NPS documents to
    track down all the historical events leading to the disastrous 2002
    collision between the Park Service and SLBE's local communities.
        Once CAL identified the 1981 Wilderness Study and the 1982 law as
    the cause of much of the problem, CAL sought to have the offending
    lines in the 1982 legislation removed, which would have freed the Park
    Service from any wilderness ``mandate'' and would have allowed them to
    begin afresh a new GMP unencumbered with de facto wilderness. However,
    we ascertained, to our initial disappointment, that there was no
    Congressional, political or agency will for such. It appeared that
    doing so might be interpreted and maybe contested by wilderness
    proponents as a removal of ``wilderness'' from the Lakeshore, even
    though such had never been officially designated.
        However, our Senators and Congressmen actively supported the
    public's desire to be heard, and, at the same time, they actively
    supported the Park Service's desire to allow for a cooling off period
    and to give the NPS time to look anew at the problems and situation.
    Our Senators and Congressmen supported the NPS' entering into a long,
    multi-year, continuing dialogue with the local communities. Our elected
    officials also supported CAL whenever it appeared to us that the NPS
    was not listening nor understanding us. Thanks to our Senators and
    Congressmen, we learned to read and speak Park Service-ese, and the NPS
    learned to understand us, even though we weren't always conversant or
    familiar with the multitudinous NPS procedures, policies and technical
    terms.
        It worked! The 2009 GMP/Wilderness Study addresses and corrects all
    the unresolved issues of the previous Wilderness Study. Now the areas
    proposed for wilderness make sense, and will provide that the
    primitive, natural areas can remain as much of the local population
    wishes--in their natural state--without cutting off public access where
    it is needed.
        The bill before you, if adopted, will finally, finally throw out
    the flawed 1981 Wilderness Study that has had our Lakeshore tied up for
    so long in administratively applied wilderness sanctions where they
    were inappropriate and unenforceable, and will replace it with the new
    2009 Wilderness recommendation that puts the Lakeshore's counties'
    roads, beaches, fundamental historical resources and all remaining
    private inholdings outside wilderness jurisdiction. At the same time,
    the bill would give a true, Congressionally approved wilderness
    designation to those areas of the Park, a good half of its acreage,
    where a wilderness designation is appropriate and can be easily
    enforced by the Park Service and supported by its stakeholders.
        The bill is a win/win for proponents of wilderness and conservation
    as well as proponents of public access and varied recreation usage. It
    is not a bill where the proponents give grudging, reluctant support,
    feeling compromised and unhappy about something. Rather, this is a bill
    wherein almost everyone involved has emerged quite satisfied.
        CAL highly supports this bill and respectfully asks your
    consideration for its passage.
                                     ______

         Statement of James E. Spurr, President, Great Lakes Shipwreck
                         Historical Society, on S. 1651
                                   background
        Senate Bill 1651 amends a land Patent (deed) granted the United
    States 1n 1996 to a non-profit corporation, the Great Lakes Shipwreck
    Historical Society (``GLSHS'').
        The land is located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, at Whitefish
    Point, on Lake Superior.
        The 8.2 acres of land is a former United States Coast Guard
    (``USCG'') and U.S. Lifesaving Service Station and contains historic
    buildings on the National Register. In fact, the 1861 lighthouse was
    enabled by Abraham Lincoln and was important at the time so to assist
    in delivering northern ore to foundries in support of the war effort.
        Whitefish Point is also an important migratory bird way. Each
    spring and fall, many migratory birds use Whitefish Point so to rest,
    feed and minimize the distance in crossing Lake Superior. The historic
    buildings and now a shipwreck museum are by and large visited in the
    summer and the thus do not much or directly conflict with the needs of
    migratory birds, when properly managed.
        Senate Bill 1651 updates the restrictions upon the 8.2 acres of
    GLSHS property, reflecting conditions more restrictive than those
    Congress first imposed in 1998 and in keeping with an agreement reached
    between the landowners at Whitefish Point with respect to the manner in
    which development should be limited and the surrounding land utilized
    in the future.
                                  introduction
        Whitefish Point, Michigan, on Lake Superior, is occupied by three
    parties:

              a.) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (``USFWS'')--
            33 acres
              b.) The Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society
            (``GLSHS'')--8.2 acres
              c.) The Michigan Audubon Society (``MAS'')--2.6 acres

        GLSHS and MAS hold title by 1998 Congressional Patents, which for
    MAS has been amended in the past, in particular to update the grant and
    address inconsistencies as circumstances change. (Ex.1) Thus, Amending
    land Patents with respect to Whitefish Point, such as would S.B. 1651
    accomplish and as supported by GLSHS, is not without precedent.
    Modifying land patents on this particular site has been done before.
        In 1998, when Congress conveyed 8.2 acres to GLSHS, it conditioned
    the conveyance upon the continued use and ``interpretation and
    preservation of maritime history.'' (Ex. 2)
        Congress further conditioned the 1996 Patent by allowing that no
    development, with the exception of a gift shop and museum wings, should
    occur. A 1992 plan, depicting the museum wings that Congress allowed,
    is specifically referenced in the 1996 Patent. The reference to the
    1992 plan now needs to be modified and updated to reflect changing
    circumstances.
        The museum wings were intended to allow GLSHS to offer a mariner's
    memorial, video theatre and changing exhibit gallery. (Ex. 3, Page 23)
    That goal remains, but the landowners and neighbors have agreed and
    signed a thorough land use plan reducing the size of the museum wings
    and requiring further improvements to the site.
        In 2002, GLSHS, the USFWS and MAS negotiated, drafted and signed
    the Human Use and Natural Resource Management Plan (``2002 Plan''),
    allowing for habitat restoration and improvement, limited development
    and controlled human use in accordance with its terms and provisions.
    (Ex. 4)
        The problem is the Patent continues to reference what is now by the
    agreement of the parties an outmoded plan and model. Senate Bill 1651
    simply inserts the 2002 Plan, replete with additional conditions for
    the use and management of the surrounding land, for the less
    restrictive plan of the decade before. The 2002 Plan is far more
    comprehensive and improves Whitefish Point in many respects not
    addressed by the earlier 1992 plan.
                                    timeline
        1983--The USCG executed a 25 year lease with the GLSHS for its land
    at Whitefish Point.

        1985--GLSHS opened a museum on site and began to restore historic
    buildings on the National Register, interpret maritime history and
    expand underwater archeology programs.

        1998--Congress transferred title to 8.2 acres to GLSHS. At the same
    time, MAS was granted 2.6 adjacent acres by a similar patent.

        2001--MAS filed suit against GLSHS over concern for the popularity
    of the museum and the resulting use of the land.

        2002--MLUI served as the consultant and its efforts led to the
    parties signing and agreeing to implement the 2002 Plan. (Ex. 5,
    highlighted pages taken from the 2002 Plan) The case was settled, in
    part allowing for that which is highlighted on Ex. 6. The highlighted
    page is taken from the 2002 Plan, agreed to by all parties.

        2003--GLSHS seeks to resolve the inconsistency in its Patent, which
    still references the 1992 plan, an earlier document that the 2002 Plan
    later replaced, with the agreement of all Whitefish Point landowners.
                        reason for the patent amendment
        S.B. 1651 would substitute the 2002 Plan for the 1992 plan
    currently referenced in the 1996 Patent.
        The 2002 Plan reflects the agreement of the surrounding landowners.
    The 2002 Plan was approved by a Federal Court as the resolution of then
    pending issues between the parties. Amending the GLSHS Patent removes
    the risk of it violating the current Patent, containing a reversionary
    clause, the conditions of which are outdated and which by the agreement
    among the parties, can be improved for a unique site of historical and
    ecological significance.
        Should S.B. 1651 be enacted (the mirror image of S.B. 1651, H.B.
    2121 has already passed the House unanimously), GLSHS would do nothing
    more than continue to fulfill the conditions and purposes of its Patent
    and implement the numerous improvements to the site agreed to by all in
    the 2002 Plan.
              comparisons between the 1992 plan and the 2002 plan
        Presently, the GLSHS Patent, due to its reference to the 1992 plan,
    allows for larger museum wings than are agreed to and found within the
    2002 Plan. (Ex. 7) Thus, S.B. 1651 would, by the inclusion of the 2002
    Plan, scale back the size of the museum wings.
        The parking lot, shared by GLSHS, MAS and Whitefish Township
    residents, will also be reduced in size and cars will park further from
    the historic site. (Ex. 8)
        Habitat would be created so to improve the property and make a more
    hospitable environment for migratory birds. (Ex. 9)
        The video theatre and changing exhibit gallery would enhance
    education and GLSHS would share the theatre with environmental groups
    such as MAS and others so to assist in educating about the natural
    history and significance of Whitefish Point.
                                   conclusion
        If S.B. 1651 is passed the GLSHS land patent would be amended to
    replace the outdated 1992 plan, by way of restrictive conditions, with
    the more thorough, more restrictive, more recent 2002 Plan, agreed to
    by all surrounding landowners.
        The Amended Patent, referencing the 2002 Plan, will:

              A. Create natural habitat beneficial and important to
            migratory birds,
              B. Restrict human activities on site that would benefit
            migratory birds and native vegetation,
              C. Reduce the size of the museum wings,
              D. Reduce the size of the parking lot closest to historic
            buildings,
              E. Allow for the continued healthy operation of a non-profit
            corporation which maintains historic buildings and researches
            and documents off shore archeological shipwreck sites,
              F. Protect existing jobs in tough economic climate in a
            remote location,
              G. Allow, by the video theatre and changing exhibit gallery,
            for more effective education of our maritime past and natural
            resources.

        Senate Bill 1651 does not spend a dime of taxpayer money. Rather,
    it allows a private non-profit to continue to do good work, as was
    agreed as acceptable and beneficial in several respects by its adjacent
    landowners.
        The above testimony is sworn to be true and accurate.
                                     ______

                                  Civil War Preservation Trust,
                                          Washington, DC, May 18, 2010.
    Hon. Mark Udall,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural
            Resources Committee, 304 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of
    the national nonprofit Civil War Preservation Trust, I am writing in
    strong support of H.R. 3388 and S. 2953, to modify the boundary of the
    Petersburg National Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
    for other purposes. The Civil War Preservation Trust has preserved more
    than 29,000 acres of hallowed ground throughout the United States,
    including more than 1,858 acres at Petersburg National Battlefield and
    the associated battlefields.
        Almost a quarter of the entire Civil War was fought around the city
    of Petersburg, as Generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee came
    head-to-head in their effort to control the vital but vulnerable supply
    lines into the Confederate capital at Richmond. Over the course of
    nine-and-a-half months from June 1864 to April 1865, 108 separate
    engagements covering more than 176 square miles were fought in and
    around Petersburg. The outcome of the longest siege in American history
    proved pivotal as well and set the stage for the surrender of the
    Confederacy's largest and most successful army only seven days after
    the fall of Petersburg.
        The Petersburg National Battlefield has experienced threats to
    physical resources and to the visitor experience from incompatible
    residential, commercial and industrial development along park
    boundaries due to the impact of high growth in surrounding counties.
    Significant battlefield lands related to the Petersburg Campaign have
    already been lost through development of an industrial park, a steel
    recycling plant and residential housing.
        Concerned about these losses, National Park Service staff developed
    an Assessment of Integrity Report that identified nationally
    significant battlefield lands critical to the park's mission that lie
    outside its current boundaries. Twelve nationally significant
    battlefields totaling approximately 7,238 acres met National Park
    Service criteria for integrity, interpretability, suitability and
    feasibility for protection. These battlefield areas were included in
    the Final General Management Plan (GMP) and within the recommended
    boundary expansion for the park. The twelve associated battlefields
    are: Boydton Plank Road, the Crater, Five Forks, Fort Stedman/Picket
    Line Attack, Globe Tavern, Hatcher's Run, Jerusalem Plank Road,
    Peebles' Farm, Petersburg-Assault, Petersburg-Breakthrough, Reams'
    Station and White Oak Road. Please note that the Civil War Preservation
    Trust has itself protected land outside park boundaries at six of these
    sites.
        H.R. 3388 and S. 2953 would further the Petersburg National
    Battlefield GMP by providing authority to the Secretary of Interior to
    acquire and receive donations of land from willing sellers within the
    7,238-acre expanded boundary, allowing for the preservation and
    interpretation of vulnerable and unprotected hallowed ground.
    Incorporation of the twelve battlefields associated with the Petersburg
    Campaign into the Petersburg National Battlefield will create
    opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War
    landscapes and resources, allowing the Park to convey a more
    comprehensive Civil War story.
        It is also worth noting that the Petersburg Battlefield, as well as
    each of the battlefields associated with the siege of Petersburg, was
    recognized as a nationally significant historic resource in a 1993
    Congressional study on the status of the nation's Civil War
    battlefields conducted by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission.
        In conclusion, the Civil War Preservation Trust fully supports the
    passage of H.R. 3388 and S. 2953 to modify the boundary of the
    Petersburg National Battlefield. With the Civil War's sesquicentennial
    beginning in 2011, Congressional approval and enactment of this
    boundary expansion legislation during the 111th Congress would
    appropriately commemorate this chapter of America's history.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on these
    important pieces of legislation.
                Sincerely,
                                           O. James Lighthizer,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                                   Civil War Preservation Trust
                                          Washington, DC, May 18, 2010.
    Hon. Mark Udall,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural
            Resources Committee, 304 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of
    the national nonprofit Civil War Preservation Trust, I am writing in
    strong support of H.R. 4395 and S. 3159, to revise the boundaries of
    the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train
    Station, and for other purposes. The Civil War Preservation Trust has
    protected more than 29,000 acres of hallowed ground throughout the
    United States, including nearly 700 acres at Gettysburg.
        The Battle of Gettysburg, the largest battle ever fought on
    American soil, has become enshrined as part of our nation's history.
    For three days in July 1863, Confederate General Robert E. Lee
    concentrated his full strength against Union Major General George G.
    Meade's Army of the Potomac at the crossroads county seat of
    Gettysburg. Approximately 1/3 of the 158,000 soldiers in blue and gray
    who fought at Gettysburg became casualties of the titanic battle.
        H.R. 4395 and S. 3159 would allow for the incorporation of two
    historically significant properties into the boundary of the Gettysburg
    National Military Park. The two properties include the Lincoln Train
    Station, the site at which President Abraham Lincoln arrived before
    delivering the Gettysburg Address, and 45 acres of land at the southern
    end of the battlefield adjacent to current NPS-owned property, the site
    of cavalry skirmishes during the battle. Incorporation of these sites
    into the Gettysburg National Military Park will create opportunities
    for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and
    resources, allowing the Park to convey a more comprehensive story of
    the Battle of Gettysburg. In addition, this boundary expansion is
    consistent with the Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 General
    Management Plan (GMP).
        It is also worth noting that the Gettysburg Battlefield was
    recognized as a nationally significant historic resource in a 1993
    Congressional study on the status of the nation's Civil War
    battlefields conducted by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. In
    that report, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission identified
    Gettysburg as a Priority I site, its highest designation.
        In conclusion, the Civil War Preservation Trust fully supports the
    passage of H.R. 4395 and S. 3159 to modify the boundary of the
    Gettysburg National Military Park. With the Civil War's
    sesquicentennial beginning in 2011, Congressional approval and
    enactment of this boundary expansion legislation during the 111th
    Congress would appropriately commemorate this chapter of America's
    history.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on these
    important pieces of legislation.
                Sincerely,
                                           O. James Lighthizer,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                                          Dodona Manor,
                   The George C. Marshall International Center,
                                            Leesburg, VA, May 17, 2010.
    Hon. Mark Udall,
    Senator,
    Hon. Richard Burr,
    Senator, National Parks Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources
            Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Re: S.1750

        Dear Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr: I am pleased that you
    included S.1750 as you consider a comprehensive National Parks bill for
    the 111th Congress. Today's agenda is full, so I will be concise.
        My name is Stephen C. Price. I am President of the George C.
    Marshall International Center Board of Directors. We own and operate
    General Marshall's home in Leesburg, Virginia.
        Marshall's home--known as ``Dodona Manor''--is fully restored and
    financially viable. Built in the 1820's it was designated a National
    Historic Landmark in 1996. We opened our doors to the public in 2005
    after a multi-million dollar restoration funded by private donations,
    federal aid, including a prestigious ``Save America's Treasures'' grant
    from the Department of the Interior, and appropriations from The
    Commonwealth of Virginia and local government. Recognizing the
    significance of the Marshall home, Senator Webb and Congressman Wolf
    have introduced bills--S.1750 and HR.3757--in their respective chambers
    that direct the National Park Service to study the fitness of Dodona
    Manor to be granted Affiliate Status within the NPS system.
        As you know, conferring Affiliate Status on an historic property
    does not mean that the Department of Interior will either acquire or
    operate the property. Affiliate Status is a prime example of a public-
    private partnership that allows a privately owned and operated historic
    property of international significance to benefit from the power of the
    media umbrella and promotional actions of the National Park Service.
    Should such a study conclude that Dodona Manor is a fit property to be
    granted Affiliate Status, and Congress concurs, Marshall's home would
    benefit from an association with the National Park Service that would
    include its placement on the NPS website and the installation of
    special NPS road directional signs.
        Senator Webb's bill ( S.1750) which is before you is
    straightforward: it merely directs the NPS study the appropriateness of
    Affiliate Status for General Marshall's home. I hope that you and the
    rest of the National Parks Subcommittee will support this legislative
    action.
        General Marshall was Army Chief of Staff and President Roosevelt's
    principal military adviser during World War II. Retiring at the end of
    the war, President Truman immediately appointed him as his special
    envoy to China to attempt the negotiation of a ceasefire between the
    Nationalists and Communists. Upon return, Truman turned to him again
    and selected him in 1947 to be Secretary of State. Confronted with a
    devastated Europe that augured poorly for the creation of a peaceful
    continent, he was responsible for the Marshall Plan that stimulated
    economic recovery. It is not an exaggeration to credit this program
    with the creation of the prosperous and peaceful Europe that has
    evolved into the European Union.
        Recognizing his immense achievement he was awarded the Nobel Peace
    Prize in 1953. It was most appropriate that President Obama, in his
    acceptance speech for the same prize, noted the lasting contributions
    of the Marshall Plan.
        When the Korean War erupted and began going badly for the United
    States and its allies, President Truman turned to Marshall once again
    and appointed him as Secretary of Defense. To this job he brought his
    immense organizational skills to bear in the ongoing work of
    consolidation of what had formerly been the War and Navy Departments.
        After stepping down from this second cabinet position, retirement
    eluded him as he served as president of the American Red Cross.
        In describing Marshall, Winston Churchill said:

              In war he was as wise and understanding in counsel as he was
            resolute in action. In peace he was the architect who planned
            the restoration of our battered European economy and, at the
            same time, laboured tirelessly to establish a system of Western
            Defence. He has always fought victoriously against defeatism,
            discouragement and disillusion. Succeeding generations must not
            be allowed to forget his achievements and his example.

        His Leesburg, Virginia home, Dodona Manor, stands as a monument to
    this great American to insure that he is not forgotten.
        Thank you Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr for the
    opportunity to ask your support for our effort to tell the story of
    General Marshall. Please know that you and any members of the
    subcommittee, including their staff, would be most welcome to come for
    a visit--Leesburg is just an hour away.
                Yours sincerely,
                                              Stephen C. Price,
                                                             President.