[Senate Hearing 117-450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-450
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 336 S. 1112 S. 2158
S. 378 S. 1224 S. 2296
S. 511 S. 1258 S. 2438
S. 635 S. 1284 S. 2441
S. 654 S. 1318 S. 2482
S. 787 S. 1329 S. 2490
S. 825 S. 1620 S. 2580
S. 972 S. 1643 S. 2648
S. 990 S. 1942 S. 2763
S. 1004 S. 1954
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2021
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-811 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Chairman
BERNARD SANDERS STEVE DAINES
MARTIN HEINRICH MIKE LEE
MAZIE K. HIRONO LISA MURKOWSKI
MARK KELLY JOHN HOEVEN
JAMES LANKFORD
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
David Brooks, General Counsel
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands
James Willson, Republican Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S.
Senator from Maine............................................. 1
Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
Senator from Montana........................................... 2
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............ 76
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, a U.S. Senator from Nevada......... 77
WITNESSES
Beasley, Joy, Associate Director of Cultural Resources,
Partnerships, and Science, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 78
Capen, Sara, Chairwoman, Alliance of National Heritage Areas; and
Executive Director, Niagara Falls National Heritage Area, Inc.. 99
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
African American Fire Fighters Historical Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 327
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center:
Letter for the Record........................................ 248
Alliance of National Heritage Areas:
List of letters submitted in support of S. 1942.............. 100
Amache Preservation Society:
Letter for the Record dated April 14, 2021................... 141
Letter for the Record dated September 1, 2021................ 143
Amache Preservation Society et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 148
Anchorage Park Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 249
Armstrong Air & Space Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 54
Asian and Pacific Islander Americans for Historic Preservation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 150
Assumption Parish Police Jury:
Letter for the Record........................................ 5
Baca, Kaitlin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 147
Baca County Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 152
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Background on Amache (H.R. 2497) for the Record.............. 153
Baughn, Harry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 286
Beasley, Joy:
Opening Statement............................................ 78
Written Testimony............................................ 80
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 138
Beauregard Tourist Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 36
Ben Johnson Educational Center:
Letter for the Record........................................ 34
Ben Johnson LLC:
Letter for the Record........................................ 44
Berks County (PA) Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 291
Bernard, Louie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 32
Bina, Randy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 332
Blackwell, Jack:
Letter for the Record........................................ 250
Bollwage, J. Christian:
Letter for the Record........................................ 333
Bona, Monte:
Letter for the Record........................................ 74
Boosinger, Laura:
Letter for the Record........................................ 271
Boulet, Monique B.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 6
Breedlove, Nick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 273
Butler, Rhonda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 7
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse:
Letter for the Record........................................ 156
Canyons & Plains:
Letter for the Record dated September 20, 2021............... 157
Letter for the Record dated November 23, 2021................ 159
Capen, Sara:
Opening Statement............................................ 99
Written Testimony............................................ 118
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 296
Central Iowa Tourism Region:
Letter for the Record........................................ 337
Chatham, MA (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 228
City of Natchitoches Planning and Zoning Department and
Natchitoches Historic Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 41
City of Wheeling Historic Landmarks Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 357
Clark, Bonnie J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 160
Cleary, Steve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 251
Cle Elum, WA (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 334
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks:
Letter for the Record dated April 14, 2021................... 161
Letter for the Record dated April 18, 2021................... 163
Coleman, Dominic:
Letter for the Record........................................ 145
Colorado Preservation, Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 165
Concordia Parish Police Jury:
Letter for the Record........................................ 8
Concord Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 214
Cook Inlet Historical Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 252
Cooper Landing Trails:
Letter for the Record........................................ 254
Corbett, Kathleen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 166
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
Opening Statement............................................ 77
Cortez, Patrick Page:
Letter for the Record........................................ 19
Coventry (CT) Planning and Zoning Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 362
Crawford County (PA) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 292
Cultice, Elton:
Letter for the Record........................................ 55
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Dayton Convention and Visitors Bureau:
Letter for the Record........................................ 56
Decatur Area Convention and Visitors Bureau:
Letter for the Record........................................ 335
Decker, Julie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 255
Delaney, Richard:
Letter for the Record........................................ 235
Destination Salem:
Letter for the Record........................................ 215
DeVillier, Phillip R.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 9
DeWine, Hon. Mike, Governor of Ohio:
Letter for the Record........................................ 57
Distl Public Relations:
Letter for the Record........................................ 274
Dollar, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 33
Dorgan, Darrell:
Letter for the Record........................................ 290
Eastham, MA (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 230
Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina:
Letter for the Record........................................ 276
Edmonston, Kathy:
Statement for the Record..................................... 10
Essex, Deb:
Letter for the Record........................................ 256
Eunice, LA (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 47
Farnum, Leslie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 11
Finkelstein, Lori:
Letter for the Record........................................ 345
First Parish Meetinghouse Preservation Society of Shirley:
Letter for the Record........................................ 217
Foret, Jonathan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 23
Fort Devens Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 218
Fort-Rouge Gateway Partnership:
Letter for the Record........................................ 348
Friends and Family of Nisei Veterans:
Letter for the Record........................................ 168
Gann Mahoney, Sylvia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 298
Girdwood Trails Committee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 258
Grantham, Anjuli:
Letter for the Record........................................ 260
Greater Hudson Heritage Network:
Letter for the Record........................................ 352
Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce:
Letter for the Record........................................ 340
Greenagers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 336
Green, Lilli-Ann:
Letter for the Record........................................ 219
Grimes Flying Lab Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 326
Groton Conservation Trust:
Letter for the Record........................................ 221
Grove, Jeff:
Letter for the Record........................................ 338
Grube, Donna:
Letter for the Record........................................ 58
Halsey, Barbara:
Letter for the Record........................................ 277
Harris, Annie C.:
Statement for the Record on S. 972........................... 241
Statement for the Record S. 1942............................. 243
Harrison, Kalie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 259
Hart, Lee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 261
Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 207
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
Opening Statement............................................ 76
Historical Museum of Fort Missoula:
Letter for the Record........................................ 173
History Colorado:
Letter for the Record........................................ 175
Hoagland, Jeffrey C.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 59
Hollenbeck, Jim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 339
Homma, Mitch:
Letter for the Record........................................ 177
Honda, Mike:
Letter for the Record dated April 15, 2021................... 178
Letter for the Record dated April 22, 2021................... 179
Hopkins, Johns W.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 347
Hubler, Erica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 60
Huval, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 12
Ihlenfeld II, William J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 358
Imhoff, Michael P.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 50
Inafuku, Les:
Letter for the Record........................................ 180
Jaffa, Bruce:
Letter for the Record........................................ 262
Japan-America Society of Southern Colorado:
Letter for the Record........................................ 182
Japanese American Citizens League-Mile High Chapter:
Letter for the Record........................................ 183
Japanese American Confinement Sites Consortium:
Letter for the Record dated April 14, 2021................... 209
Letter for the Record dated May 18, 2021..................... 211
Japanese American National Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 185
Johns, Ronnie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 13
Justice, Hon. Jim, Governor of West Virginia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 359
Kelley, Kyle:
Letter for the Record........................................ 264
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area:
Letter for the Record........................................ 265
Kenai Peninsula Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area:
Letter for the Record........................................ 267
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Kitajima, Kenneth et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 187
Knowles, Jerry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 293
Kraisinger, Gary and Margaret:
Letter for the Record........................................ 299
La Junta, CO (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 190
Lemoine, Justin K.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 14
Leong, Kirsten:
Letter for the Record........................................ 191
Lexington Historical Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 343
Lisonbee, Stephen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 363
Littleton Conservation Trust:
Letter for the Record........................................ 344
Louisiana Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus:
Letter for the Record........................................ 15
Louisiana Travel Association:
Letter for the Record dated February 10, 2021................ 16
Letter for the Record dated April 9, 2021.................... 31
Ludwig, Wayne et al.:
Graphic presentation entitled ``Proposed Chisholm National
Historic Trail v. Historic Maps''.......................... 301
Markey, Hon. Edward J. and Hon. Elizabeth Warren:
Letter for the Record........................................ 224
Meister, Pamela:
Letter for the Record........................................ 278
Miami County (OH) Historical Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 72
Miller, Timothy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 268
Mills, Jr., Fred H.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 17
Mississippi Humanities Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 350
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Statement for the Record..................................... 246
Nashua International Sculpture Symposium:
Letter for the Record........................................ 351
Natchitoches Area Chamber of Commerce:
Letter for the Record........................................ 39
Natchitoches Historic District Business Association and
Natchitoches Main Street:
Letter for the Record........................................ 38
Natchitoches, LA (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 46
Natchitoches, LA (Parish of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 45
Natchitoches Parish Convention and Visitors Bureau:
Letter for the Record........................................ 37
National Aviation Hall of Fame:
Letter for the Record........................................ 62
National Aviation Heritage Alliance Board of Trustees:
Letter for the Record........................................ 63
National Parks Conservation Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 193
National Park Service:
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Proposed
Boundary Revision and Disposal............................. 48
New River Gateway Convention and Visitors Bureau:
Letter for the Record........................................ 360
Niagara Falls, NY (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 353
Resolution No. 2021-48....................................... 354
Nicholls, Douglas J:
Letter for the Record........................................ 328
Northwestern State University:
Letter for the Record........................................ 40
Nungesser, Billy:
Letter for the Record dated September 24, 2021............... 18
Letter for the Record dated April 9, 2021.................... 42
Letter for the Record dated May 12, 2021..................... 49
Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 52
Ohio History Connection:
Letter for the Record........................................ 61
Olvera, Edgar D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 330
Orleans, MA (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 231
Otero County (CO) Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 195
Otero County (CO) Historic Preservation Board:
Letter for the Record........................................ 197
Park, Lisa Sun-Hee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 199
Perry, Tony:
Letter for the Record........................................ 294
Pierite, Marshall:
Letter for the Record........................................ 20
Polis, Hon. Jared, Governor of Colorado:
Letter for the Record........................................ 201
Princi, Patrick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 226
Provincetown, MA (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 233
Prowers County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 155
Roberts, Jessica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 280
Rogers, Julie A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 73
Russo, Vincent J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 65
Sabine Parish Tourist Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 35
Sakura Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 203
Salley, Thomas:
Letter for the Record........................................ 282
Sand Creek Massacre Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 204
Schexnayder, Clay:
Letter for the Record........................................ 21
Scott and Wesley Gerrish Library and Girdwood Community Center
Boosters:
Letter for the Record........................................ 257
Shiffer, Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 66
Shirley Historical Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 222
Smith, Jr., Gary L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 22
South Central Planning and Development Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 4
Stiassny, Ari:
Letter for the Record........................................ 269
Sullivan, Briana:
Letter for the Record........................................ 270
Tambellini, Marla:
Letter for the Record........................................ 284
Taro Hada, Calvin:
Letter for the Record dated April 12, 2021................... 170
Letter for the Record dated April 19, 2021................... 172
Tarver, Phillip E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 24
Terrebonne Parish Council:
Letter of transmittal and Resolution No. 21-050.............. 25
Thibaut, Major:
Letter for the Record........................................ 28
Truro, MA (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 237
Wei, William:
Letter for the Record........................................ 205
Weld, Ryan W.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 361
Wellfleet, MA (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 239
Westford Historical Society & Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 223
Westmoreland Museum of American Art:
Letter for the Record........................................ 295
Whaley, Nan:
Statement for the Record..................................... 67
Wheeling, WV (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 356
Wheeling Department of Economic and Community Development:
Letter for the Record........................................ 355
Wildermuth, Jane S.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 68
(The) Wilderness Society:
Statement for the Record..................................... 364
Wiley, Jamey:
Letter for the Record........................................ 29
Will and Deni McIntyre Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 288
Wright Image Group:
Letter for the Record........................................ 70
Wright, Kathleen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 69
Wright Lane, Amanda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 71
Wyandotte County Museum:
Letter for the Record........................................ 342
Yanez-Rojas, Ivan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 146
Yasui, Robin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 206
Zeringue, Jerome ``Zee'':
Letter for the Record........................................ 30
----------
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be found
on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/
2021/10/national-parks-subcommittee-legislative-hearing
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S.
King, Jr. presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM
MAINE
Senator King [presiding]. Good morning, and welcome to our
second National Parks Subcommittee legislative hearing of the
117th Congress. Our focus today will be on 29 bills, most of
which are related to national heritage areas. Four of these
bills would create new national heritage areas in Alabama,
Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia. Other bills we will consider
would establish national heritage sites, national historic
trails, national historical parks, and reauthorize existing
national heritage areas.
National heritage areas are designated by Congress as
places where natural, cultural, and historical resources come
together to create a nationally important landscape. These
areas tell a nationally important story and help us celebrate
our country's diverse heritage and history. These areas are
lived-in landscapes, and therefore require community
collaboration to make sure the heritage areas are relevant to
local interests and needs. Many of these areas start as
community-driven efforts, focused on conservation and economic
development. Just this week, a community-led feasibility study
on establishing a heritage area in Downeast, Maine was
published. I look forward to reviewing that study and hearing
input from the community about the possibility of creating a
heritage area there in the future.
There are currently 55 national heritage areas across the
country, and today we will consider legislation that would add
four more to their ranks. We will also consider reauthorization
of many of these existing heritage areas, which will ensure
that they will continue to receive federal support. While I
support the reauthorization efforts under consideration here
today, I think it is important to look at efforts to make
national heritage areas more self-sustaining. If we continue to
reauthorize all 55 of the existing areas while adding new ones,
the amount of available federal funds continues to get divided
by a larger number, leaving fewer resources available for the
newest heritage areas that may need additional support to get
off the ground.
Another bill we will consider today is S. 2580, the
Alexander Lofgren Veterans in Parks Act. This bill would make
passes to national parks and federal lands available to certain
members of the armed forces, including Gold Star Families and
military veterans. I was proud last year that a bill many of us
supported, the Gold Star Families Parks Pass Act, which
provided annual passes for Gold Star Families, passed in the
Annual National Defense Authorization Act and codified a
program that the Department of the Interior had implemented in
November 2020. S. 2580 would build on that legislation and give
these families lifetime passes and expand the free pass program
to all military veterans. I look forward to hearing more about
this legislation, particularly the Department's position.
Now, for a procedural note, I will first recognize Ranking
Member Daines--Vice Chair Daines--for his opening statement,
and then Senator Heinrich. Following these remarks, I will
recognize members of the Committee who wish to make other
statements about their bills, followed by any members not on
the Committee seeking to make a statement. After that, we will
go on to the rest of our witness panel before getting to
questions.
Without objection, all members may submit letters of
support or opposition or any additional materials regarding
measures on today's agenda for the record.
Now, Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Chairman King, thank you.
As the Chairman laid out, we will be examining 29 bills--in
fact, 22 of those deal with heritage areas. It is my
understanding that the heritage area designations all have
expired and this Subcommittee has the important job of
reviewing each designation and the associated legislation. I
very much look forward to working with the Chairman to get
these processed for our colleagues. I also want to learn more
about the process for the designation of new heritage areas,
including the role that local voices play in their
establishment. Senate bill 1942, by Senators Stabenow and
Blunt, would standardize heritage area designations. It is very
important that this process includes extensive local feedback.
So I am eager to hear more from the witnesses and explore this
legislation further.
Today's hearing also has a Veterans' bill I want to explore
more. Senate bill 2580--the Chairman talked about this--the
Veterans in Parks Act, or the VIP Act, sponsored by Senators
Sinema and Boozman, would make access to our parks for veterans
and Gold Star Families free. This is something that Chairman
King and I worked on together last Congress. Our Gold Star
Family Parks Pass Act was signed into law in 2020 as part of
the NDAA, which made access for Gold Star Families to our
national parks free. Last Congress, I also worked with Senator
Cortez Masto to get the Accelerating Veterans Recovery Outdoors
Act signed into law, which would help get more veterans into
our parks. I look forward to hearing how the VIP Act
complements the efforts we have worked so hard to get signed
into law.
Before I close, I do have a large stack of letters of
support for the following bills and ask that they be included
in the record, and that is in support of Senate bills 1329,
1942, 336, 2438, 787, 1004, and Senate bill 2490. Here's the
stack.
Senator King. Without objection.
[Letters of support follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And with that, I turn it back to you and look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
Senator King. Senator Heinrich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman King and Ranking
Member Daines, for today's important hearing and discussion on
national heritage areas and including my legislation to
reauthorize the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
through 2036.
Today, we will discuss numerous bills that would extend
federal funding for heritage areas across the country. For
Northern New Mexico, the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage
Area has become a key resource in preserving and celebrating
the region's unique cultures. Established back in 2006, the
area spans three counties and eight native pueblo communities.
It draws visitors from around the world telling the story of
New Mexico's complex and unique history while sharing our
state's unmatched art, culture, and natural resources. Over the
years, my constituents have shared with me the collaborative
on-the-ground work between the heritage area and local tribes,
schools, colleges, and grassroots community organizations.
Recent projects have included support for a tribal youth farm
at San Ildefonso Pueblo, community planning between the Village
of Chimayo in Santa Fe County, and grant funding to preserve
recreational buildings like La Sala de Galisteo community
center.
Ongoing projects include the heritage area's essential work
to preserve the region's expansive linguistic diversity, with
languages such as Tewa, Tiwa, Apache, and Spanish being spoken
and shared among residents today. Funding through the National
Park Service for the heritage area is set to expire at the end
of this year, and communities across Northern New Mexico are
still recovering from the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reauthorization would mean that important projects, jobs, and
economic initiatives that support our state can continue.
However, funding for heritage areas nationwide is also in
jeopardy. This year, 30 of our country's 55 national heritage
areas are set to expire, with an additional 15 expiring by
2024. National heritage areas are also consistently left in
limbo, as no common criteria for their funding, management, or
designation has been implemented since their creation back in
the 1980's. Every national heritage area offers irreplaceable
cultural and economic significance to local communities
attempting to rebound and rebuild from the past two years. That
is why I am proud to be an original
co-sponsor of Senator Stabenow's National Heritage Area Act,
which would authorize an annual $1 million for existing and
future national heritage areas, while streamlining their
designation process. In addition, S. 1942 would establish a
national heritage area system with oversight for national
heritage areas under the Department of the Interior. We know
just how beneficial heritage areas are to growing our local
economies while sharing our history and cross-cultural
traditions with one another. I am confident that today's
witnesses will drive home a point we already understand--
heritage areas are essential, cost-effective investments in our
communities, and federal spending must reflect that fact.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your inclusion of S. 990 and S.
1942 in today's hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto, would you like to make a statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Daines, for holding this hearing and including my bill
on the agenda for today.
My bill is the Great Basin National Heritage Area and
Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area Extension Act. It would
extend the authorization for the Great Basin and Mormon Pioneer
National Heritage areas for the next 15 years, ensuring their
continued ability to preserve and promote the cultural and
historic heritage of the Great Basin region. It would also
support our local businesses and expand recreation and
conservation opportunities.
National heritage areas help preserve our history and
traditions, while also promoting tourism and community
revitalization. The Great Basin National Heritage Area,
Nevada's sole national heritage area, is unique in the Silver
State, encompassing stunning western landscapes, historical and
archeological sites, state parks, tribal areas, and Great Basin
National Park. It was created by Congress in 2006. The Great
Basin National Heritage Area encompasses over 13,000 years of
human endeavors. The Great Basin National Heritage Area and the
neighboring Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area extend across
the Nevada/Utah state line, spanning an area as large as the
states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined, and are home
to 21,000 residents. My bipartisan legislation will help
safeguard this unique part of our nation's history, and I am
proud to work across the aisle with my colleagues in Utah and
Nevada to protect our region's rich cultural and environmental
resources for future generations.
Now, I know there are several other national heritage areas
across the country seeking to renew their authorization as
well, and I support quick Committee action to process these
bills and get this done for the sake of our communities. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Thank you, Senator.
Now we will turn to our witnesses, the first of whom is Ms.
Joy Beasley, Associate Director of Cultural Resources,
Partnerships, and Science at the National Park Service. Ms.
Beasley has more than 20 years of experience in historical
preservation, and her current role involves developing policy
guidance for more than 82,000 identified archeological sites,
850 cultural landscapes, 26,000 historic structures, 400
ethnographic resources, over 48.3 million museum objects, and
more than 85,000 linear feet of National Park Service archives.
Ms. Beasley, what do you do in your spare time is what I
want to know. Ms. Beasley also oversees the management of the
National Historic Landmarks, National Register of Historic
Places, which represents more than 1.8 million buildings,
structures, sites, and objects.
Ms. Beasley, your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOY BEASLEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CULTURAL
RESOURCES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Beasley. Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, thank
you for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's views on the 29 bills on today's agenda. I would
like to submit our full statements on each of these bills for
the record and summarize our views.
Senator King. So ordered.
Ms. Beasley. The Department supports the following bills:
S. 1112, which would establish the Chisholm National
Historic Trail and the Western National Historic Trail as part
of the National Trail System. We recommend technical amendments
for this bill.
S. 1620, which would convey the NPS-owned annex of the
Liberty Theater to the city of Eunice, Louisiana. The city is
the owner of the Liberty Theater.
S. 2158, which would reauthorize the Cape Cod National
Seashore Advisory Commission until September 26, 2029. We
recommend a technical change to this bill.
S. 2438, which would expand the legislative boundary of
Cane River Creole National Historical Park in Louisiana to
include additional portions of the Magnolia Plantation. We
recommend the development of a revised legislative map.
S. 2580, which would make an annual National Parks and
Federal Recreation Lands Pass available to members of the Armed
Forces and a lifetime pass to veterans and Gold Star Families,
free of charge. We recommend technical amendments to enhance
implementation.
The Department supports the goals of the following bills:
S. 1284 and H.R. 2497, which would establish the Amache
National Historic Site in Colorado as a unit of the National
Park Service. The Department recommends aligning the text of S.
1284 with the text of H.R. 2497 as amended.
S. 2490, which would establish the Blackwell School
National Historic Site in Marfa, Texas as a unit of the
National Park Service. We recommend amending the bill to
provide for a special resource study rather than the
establishment of a new unit.
Several bills on today's agenda relate to the National
Heritage Area system. The Department recognizes that every
national heritage area established by Congress serves an
important role in preserving, interpreting, and promoting the
unique characteristics of the area it encompasses.
S. 1942 would recognize national heritage areas as a system
rather than solely as individual entities, establishing a
statutory framework for the National Park Service's role in
administering the National Heritage Area program and explicitly
providing authority for the NPS's ongoing, important
responsibilities, as this bill would do. We recommend
clarifying amendments for this bill.
The Department supports S. 2296, which would designate the
Northern Neck National Heritage Area and S. 2441, which would
designate the Southern Campaign of the Revolution National
Heritage Corridor. These proposed areas have been found to meet
the National Park Service's criteria for establishment of a
national heritage area.
And while they may have merit, the Department recommends
Congress consider deferring action on S. 511, which would
establish the Bronzeville-Black Metropolis National Heritage
Area, S. 825, which would establish the Southern Maryland
National Heritage Area, and S. 1643, which would establish the
Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, while the NPS works
with the sponsoring organizations to ensure their feasibility
studies meet the criteria for National Heritage Area
designation.
For all five establishment bills, the Department recommends
conforming the bill language to that that is typically used in
other national heritage area legislation, and we also recommend
developing maps for the proposed national heritage areas where
needed.
Sixteen bills would extend authorities for existing
national heritage areas. The Department supports these bills'
provisions for reauthorization of federal funding for each
national heritage area. We recommend standardizing the approach
to federal funding limitations, as only some of the bills
eliminate the funding limitation.
Chairman King, this concludes my statement, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beasley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
attention to the variety and depth of the various bills.
Our next witness is Ms. Sara Capen, who is the Chair of the
Alliance of National Heritage Areas, and also the Executive
Director of Niagara Falls National Heritage Area. Ms. Capen has
worked with the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area since its
inception in 2011, when she worked to develop the management
plan and build community partnerships to protect and preserve
the natural, cultural, and historic resources along the Niagara
River corridor. She is also Chair, as I mentioned, of the
Alliance for National Heritage Areas, an organization of
national heritage areas and partnership organizations that
promote the benefits of the national heritage area program
through advocacy and education.
I cannot help but point out, Ms. Capen, it looks like you
have your raincoat on. Are you at the Niagara Falls?
Ms. Capen. No, I am not.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. I couldn't resist when you had that yellow
sweater.
Ms. Capen, your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF SARA CAPEN, CHAIRWOMAN, ALLIANCE OF NATIONAL
HERITAGE AREAS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NIAGARA FALLS NATIONAL
HERITAGE AREA, INC.
Ms. Capen. Good morning, thank you, Chairman King, Ranking
Member Daines, and other distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. I am Sara Capen, the Executive Director of the
Niagara Falls National Heritage Area and Chairwoman of the
Alliance of National Heritage Areas. I am respectfully
requesting this Committee to support passage of the National
Heritage Area Act of 2021, introduced by Senator Debbie
Stabenow and Senator Roy Blunt, with strong bipartisan support
from 14 Senate co-sponsors. In just one week's time, national
heritage areas have collected over 650 letters of support for
this bill from a cross-section of stakeholders who recognize
the critical importance of NHAs. I respectfully request that
these letters be entered into the record. In addition, I would
also like to express my strong support for the other national
heritage area related bills the Committee is considering today.
[The Alliance of National Heritage Areas submitted more
than 600 letters of support for S. 1942, which are available
for inspection in the Committee's files. A complete list of
individuals and organizations who submitted letters through
ANHA follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Capen. While we are making progress, the fact remains
that 30 national heritage areas are presently experiencing an
unprecedented sunset crisis, a crisis that was merely delayed
until December, thanks to last week's continuing resolution.
For too long now, the lack of a long-term legislative solution
has led to a challenging two-year cycle of reauthorizations
that expends the time and energy of this Committee, Members of
Congress, the National Park Service, and National Heritage Area
boards and staff. Most significant though, this never-ending
cycle of funding uncertainty takes away from important work we
do in communities across the country. As an example of this,
there are currently 23 reauthorization bills in the House, and
another 16 in the Senate, all awaiting Committee action. The
National Heritage Area Act of 2021 would solve this problem. It
would establish a system of national heritage areas and confirm
their position as an integral part of the National Park
Service, ensuring uniform standards for the way NHAs are
funded, designated, managed, and assessed. The bill will also
provide Congress with an enhanced ability to conduct oversight
of the program.
The National Heritage Area program is one of the Department
of the Interior's most cost-effective initiatives, relying on a
public-private partnership in which every federal dollar is
matched with an average of $5.50 in non-federal funding. In
2020, NHAs leveraged $88.5 million in cash and in-kind support,
greatly increasing the impact of the $20.9 million in federal
funding received. More important than the return on federal
investment, national heritage areas are catalysts for economic
revitalization and job creation in their communities. They are
often located in places that have suffered economic setbacks
due to declining industries. Utilizing a grassroots and
community-driven approach, national heritage areas help these
communities build a new economic platform based on heritage
tourism, and outdoor recreation that revitalizes the economy
and instills a pride of place for the people who live there.
National heritage areas also bring the National Park Service
mission out from behind the enclaves of federal lands,
providing direct access to the people living across the
country.
Indeed, over the 35-plus years, national heritage areas
have lived up to President Reagan's vision of a new kind of
national park, which he expressed when he effectively created
the program by signing legislation for the Illinois and
Michigan Canal National Heritage Area in 1984. Furthermore,
national heritage areas have been and will continue to be
committed to the preservation of private property rights. The
program has always been entirely voluntary and cooperative, and
we are completely supportive of the protections written into
the proposed legislation--protections that strengthen and
affirm the existing regulations for all NHAs.
In closing, there are few federal programs that epitomize
the democratic principles on which our nation was built like
National Heritage Areas. National heritage areas truly are of
the people, by the people, and for the people, and celebrate
nearly every aspect of American history, culture, industry, and
landscape. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a
national heritage area that appeals and relates to every
American. Over the course of the last three years, the Alliance
has pursued every possible legislative pathway to ensure that
the National Heritage Area Program can continue to fulfill this
critical mission without concern about a funding lapse. It has
become increasingly clear that the most straightforward and
sensible way to achieve this goal and eliminate the uncertain
biennial reauthorization process is through a uniform system
for authorizing funding and reviewing both existing and
proposed national heritage areas. The National Heritage Area
Act of 2021 will achieve these important goals and set national
heritage areas on a firm foundation on which they can build and
thrive. Thank you for your support from this Committee. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Capen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Thank you.
Ms. Capen, you have worked with the Niagara Falls Heritage
Area since its inception. Give us a flavor of what it has meant
to the community. Has it had the kind of economic development
and tourism impacts that you hoped for back in 2011?
Ms. Capen. Most certainly. I think that the community would
testify to that. Our accomplishments in the last ten years
included creating a tourism infrastructure system that evolved
around transportation. They actually brought tourists out of
Niagara Falls State Park, which receives millions of tourists,
to other destinations, which extended their stay, which
generated more economic impact for small businesses, small
organizations, our historical sites, like Old Fort Niagara. We
created the Niagara Falls Underground Railroad Heritage Center,
which is an interpretive site that tells the story, shares the
story, and celebrates and honors the story of the Underground
Railroad. Again, that is outside of Niagara Falls State Park,
which brings people from that enclave of a state park into
other places. That specific site is located in an area of the
city that has seen really tough times over the last 30 years.
The city of Niagara Falls is presently just under 50
percent of the poverty rate. And so these small efforts with a
small amount of federal investment matched by a lot of non-
federal funding have begun to transform our region. And in
addition to that--and I think this is very important for
communities that have suffered economic setbacks like Niagara
Falls--it is beginning to instill a sense of pride in place for
the people who live here to really look at the history,
celebrate it, honor it, but also to create jobs surrounding it.
So through both of those programs, the Discover Niagara Shuttle
and the Niagara Falls Underground Railroad Heritage Center, we
have had significant economic impact, but we have also created
jobs around that.
Senator King. Has the five-to-one ratio that you suggested
in terms of funding borne out across the country at other
national heritage areas? This is mostly local support, is that
accurate?
Ms. Capen. It is mostly local support, so I can speak to
Niagara Falls, you know, each year is a little bit different,
but we have gone up as far as nine-to-one matched to that
federal funding. We have never received more than $400,000 for
federal funding. So that is a significant amount of match when
you are matching at eight-to-one, nine-to-one. Other national
heritage areas are even higher than that, but every national
heritage area, at the very least, matches at one-to-one.
Senator King. Thank you.
Ms. Beasley, last year, the Department started providing
the park passes for Gold Star Families, and you testified, I
believe, in support of the bill that would extend this benefit
to veterans. I guess the first question is, do we have enough
data to know how the free pass program worked? And I am
particularly interested in whether there were problems at the
park gate in terms of identifying yourself with the group that
has the free pass. How do you anticipate handling that in the
future, and what do you anticipate would be the fiscal impact
of this free pass to all veterans? Thank you.
Ms. Beasley. Sure, thank you for your question.
We certainly know that there will be a revenue impact as a
result of the bill, but we do not have specific data on that at
this time. As you are aware, there were certain passes that
went into effect under Secretarial Order in 2020, but that was
all occurring at a time when a lot of parks were already
experiencing decreased visitation as a result of the pandemic.
So we just do not have a lot of clear data on what the revenue
impacts ultimately will be.
Senator King. But I take it that in your testimony where
you supported the bill, you believed that the revenue impact
will be manageable. Is that accurate?
Ms. Beasley. Yes, sir. We believe that veterans and members
of the armed forces and their families should have free access
to public lands. And in terms of part of your earlier question,
the amendments that we are recommending, we believe, would help
facilitate the implementation of the bill and would ensure that
folks who are accessing those benefits would have a great
customer service experience and kind of a seamless experience
being able to visit their public lands, irrespective of whether
it was a national park unit or not.
Senator King. Thank you, I appreciate the Administration's
support of this legislation.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Beasley, Ms. Capen, Montana currently does not have a
national heritage area, but recently, there has been interest
in a proposal to designate the Big Sky Heritage Area in Cascade
County. The City of Great Falls is the county seat there in
Cascade County. Can you explain to me the process that a
proposed heritage area must go through before it is designated,
and what role does local support or local opposition play in
that process?
We will start with Ms. Beasley.
Ms. Beasley. Thank you.
So we believe it is vitally important for us to have the
ability to assess whether the conditions exist to form and
implement a successful heritage area. And we access that
information through a feasibility study process, ideally prior
to Congress acting to designate a heritage area. Feasibility
studies can be undertaken by the National Park Service if we
are authorized to do so by Congress, or they can be undertaken
by a local entity, and then we review those feasibility
studies. And those studies help us gather information to
determine whether an area contains the kinds of resources that
tell a nationally significant story, whether there are
partnership opportunities, whether there is organizational
capacity to manage a heritage area, and so forth.
And one of the feasibility criteria that is considered is
community support, and those feasibility studies include a
substantive public engagement process. So there are many
opportunities for the community's voice to be heard during the
process of the feasibility study. And as you are well aware,
ultimately, it is up to Congress to determine whether a
heritage area will be designated.
Senator Daines. Great.
Ms. Capen.
Ms. Capen. So my experience with the national heritage
area, particularly in Niagara Falls, is that community support
is essential. It is essential for the development of the
management plan. This is my management plan [the witness holds
up a booklet]. You can see that it is well-loved, but that was
all developed--not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up.
That was developed by stakeholder groups in the community--
focus groups in the community--but most importantly, once you
get past that management plan, that's all community driven. The
implementation of the management plan for projects and for
programs depends on those community stakeholders. It is not a
prescription that comes from the Federal Government. The ideas
that are shared in the management plan for the preservation and
protection of the natural, cultural, and historic assets
actually are driven from the community, and then they are
implemented in partnership with community organizations.
So to answer your question directly, community is
essential, not only to the beginning on the feasibility stages
of a national heritage area, but also to the long-term success
of that national heritage area implementing the ideas that the
community wanted to have implemented when they created the
management plan.
Senator Daines. Ms. Capen, thank you.
Back to Ms. Beasley--what would happen if the Park Service
received a feasibility study for an area when there is a lot of
opposition to the creation of a new heritage area?
Ms. Beasley. Yes, sir. Well, as I mentioned, public support
is one of the ten criteria that are considered through the
feasibility study process. And as I mentioned, public
engagement is a big part of the feasibility study process, and
the study team can and should take into consideration the
public comments that they receive through that consultation
process. But again, ultimately, it is up to the Congress to
determine whether a heritage area should be designated.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Ms. Beasley, Senate bill 1942 seeks to standardize the
establishment of heritage areas. Does the bill have any
requirements for the park service or others to solicit feedback
from local community members or elected officials?
Ms. Beasley. S. 1942 would basically codify the existing
feasibility study process and the existing study requirements,
including the demonstration of public support. So the current
study process already includes that stakeholder engagement.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Ms. Beasley.
Finally, I have a question about Senate bill 2580, the
Veterans in Parks Act, allowing free access to our parks for
veterans and Gold Star Families. As I talked about earlier,
Chairman King and I were successful in enacting the Gold Star
Families Parks Pass Act last year, and this Committee has
worked on numerous veterans in parks bills before. How does
Senate bill 2580 differ, and how might it complement the work
we have already completed?
Ms. Beasley. Yes, sir, that's a great question.
So the bill would build on the important work that the
Congress has already done in this area. Some of the benefits in
the bill are already available, but under an administrative
authority. So if this bill were enacted, it would provide
certainty about the availability of those passes in the future.
Senator Daines. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Ms. Capen, independent studies have shown
that national heritage areas offer indisputable economic
benefits to their respective communities, and that revenue
consistently overmatches any federal funding that may be
applied to these NHAs. Can you just share some of the reasons
why national heritage areas seem to offer such rewarding
economic opportunities for local communities?
Ms. Capen. Certainly. So I think that the premise in the
model that is set forward as a public-private partnership is
part of it. That small amount of federal investment brings
other partners to the table and those partners do not just
commit their resources, but they commit their time and energy,
and this creates better synergy. It creates better partnerships
for communities, but is a direct impact to businesses. It is
such a great value, because what we do is, we just contribute a
small amount, and then others come in to match, which brings a
greater amount and often leads to the execution and
implementation of projects that simply would not otherwise
happen.
And then there are the effects that come after the
implementation of the project. I certainly cited our Discover
Niagara Shuttle and its benefit. That shuttle brings people to
other places within our national heritage area that they would
not naturally have gone to, and that brings them to small
businesses, that brings them to those historical sites, and
those small ripple effects then lead to those businesses and
those historical sites maybe adding additional jobs, maybe
gaining additional revenue and gift shops, maybe giving people
a compelling reason to stay longer, whether it is in the
Northern Rio Grande Heritage Area, or Niagara Falls, or the
National Coal Heritage Area, but heritage tourism and outdoor
recreation are two of the largest growing sectors in the
tourism industry field, and this is what national heritage
areas do best. And it has also shown that cultural tourists
spent more money than just regular tourists.
And so, you know, national heritage areas fit into that
wheelhouse of tourism, but specifically generate a significant
amount of economic impact, especially in small rural
communities that might have been overlooked in larger industry
sectors.
Senator Heinrich. That has certainly been our experience in
the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area.
Ms. Beasley, I wanted to ask you a little bit about the
coordination between the Park Service and communities, state
and local governments, and that coordinated work that really
enhances and supports existing national heritage areas. Can you
talk a little bit about what that looks like? And if you have
any particular examples from the Northern Rio Grande Heritage
Area, please share those as well.
Ms. Beasley. Thank you. As Ms. Capen has already talked
about, that public-private partnership is really key and
foundational to the success of the programs, and because
heritage areas and their coordinating entities are grassroots
and on the ground, they are able to really connect with the
local communities and their stakeholders and identify the kinds
of projects and services and benefits that are important to
that community.
In your opening statement, you spoke about the La Sala de
San Jose preservation project in Galisteo, New Mexico, which
was a great partnership. The heritage area worked directly with
the state historic preservation office to ensure that the work
that was being done was appropriate to the building. I will
also share--in Dixon, New Mexico, the heritage area provided a
subgrant to the Embudo Valley Library and Community Center,
where they were able to fund student and community volunteer
projects to create a community mural. They also did a landscape
documentation project that identified some of the important
historic features of the area, and did some landscaping work to
beautify the grounds. The heritage area provided funding to the
Ohkay Owingeh Housing Authority to put together Adobe mud
plastering training that helped the members of the community
learn traditional preservation methods that they could apply to
the buildings that are important to them. And in Questa, New
Mexico, the heritage area partnered with the Park Service's
River Trails and Conservation Assistance Program to plan and
provide signage for an interpretive trail that goes around the
town and highlights significant properties, including the
historic acequias and other important landscape features. And
so the RTCA grant provided the planning dollars, and then the
heritage area provided the interpretive signage.
So these are very much examples of on-the-ground,
community-based activities.
Senator Heinrich. And Chairman, I know it sounds fairly
trivial, but something like training people how to do adobe mud
plastering, for example--it is very easy to really
inadvertently destroy some of our historic structures in the
Southwest by not knowing the proper methodologies for actually
protecting them. If you put concrete or stucco over adobe mud
plaster, you actually end up trapping moisture inside, and then
structures that have stood for hundreds and hundreds of years,
like older than the United States as a country, end up being
inadvertently destroyed. So the work that they are doing around
preservation is really, really critical to our history.
Senator King. Senator Kelly is on his way. I have a couple
of questions in the meantime.
Ms. Capen, how do people know about a heritage area? Is
there signage? Is there a national registry? Is there someplace
you can go and say, ``I am going through New England, and I
wonder where the heritage areas are?'' How do people find out
about what's going on in these special regions?
Ms. Capen. Well, I think one of the best ways, if you are
traveling through New England or other places, is to go to the
NPS.gov site, where national heritage areas have websites that
are not only maintained by the National Park Service, but also
direct you to our individual websites. Some heritage areas do
have signage. Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor is a
good example. They have signage all the way from Albany to
Buffalo. Again, what makes it individual is that the national
heritage area is based on the resources and based on what the
community feels that they want, and will utilize those
resources to tell their story.
So again, I know I am using examples of Niagara Falls. We
didn't focus on signage because we have Niagara Falls State
Park, which is the oldest state park in the country, and quite
frankly, we have too many signs, and so we focused on
connecting to people who might be traveling to Niagara Falls
through social media and through websites, but there are a lot
of ways. We also have the Alliance of National Heritage Areas
website, where people can learn more there, too.
Senator King. Ms. Beasley, a question about funding. Are
the national heritage areas funded en masse in one line, or are
they funded individually? How does the administration of the
support work?
Ms. Beasley. Each heritage area is individually designated.
It has its own legislation and its own specificity that comes
from that. So the funding levels for heritage areas are subject
to appropriations, but they vary based on the terms of when the
heritage area was authorized.
Senator King. So in the appropriations process, there is a
line for each area that could be different.
Ms. Beasley. Yes, well there is a total appropriated
amount, and then there is a series of tiered formulas that
identify the amount of funding from that overall appropriation
that individual heritage areas receive.
Senator King. And what is the overall appropriation this
year for national heritage areas?
Ms. Beasley. I believe it was $20.9 million.
Senator King. Thank you.
We are waiting for Senator Kelly. We will wait a few more
minutes.
Are there questions that we haven't addressed that you
would like to bring forward to the Committee?
[Laughter.]
Senator King. In other words, this is an opportunity to
make a statement that we haven't covered. We have asked all the
good questions.
[Laughter.]
We will wait a few minutes for Senator Kelly. Oh, Senator
Hickenlooper is here.
Senator Hickenlooper, are you ready to----
Senator Hickenlooper. I am.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Ms. Beasley, I will start with you,
and we were listening to your testimony. I apologize for being
late. Somehow, they have scheduled multiple hearings that are
all of importance to Colorado, but nothing more important than
this.
Ms. Beasley, I want to thank you for your work with the
National Parks. The Amache National Historic site, I think,
would provide an unparalleled opportunity for Coloradans and
Americans to learn about the horrors of Japanese internment,
and ensure that our collective memory of these atrocities does
not diminish with time. Survivors and descendants are engaged.
They are watching closely. In many cases, they have been
waiting their whole lives for this designation.
So can you speak a little bit about the cultural benefits
of passing this legislation now, while we still have the
ability to hear their stories and make sure those stories are
preserved and passed along?
Ms. Beasley. Yes, sir, thank you for your question.
As you are probably aware, there is currently a special
resource study focused on Amache that is currently underway
that was authorized under the Dingell Act. You know, Amache
tells the story of the Granada Relocation Center, which was one
of ten relocation centers that were built during World War II
to detain Japanese Americans, who were forcibly removed from
the West Coast under the terms of an executive order. And over
10,000 people passed through Amache, which, at its peak, housed
over 7,300 incarcerees, about two-thirds of whom were U.S.
citizens. So without question, Amache tells the story of a
painful and shameful time in our nation's history.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, thank you very much. I
appreciate that. I think it's important to make sure that we
are all on that same page.
Ms. Capen, thank you for joining us, even if by Zoom. We
have all become so accustomed to Zoom. It is almost as good as
being in person.
You mentioned in your testimony that the national historic
sites can often revitalize communities economically. And I know
firsthand--I opened one of the first brewpubs in the country
back in 1988, and got a historic designation for our building
and then eventually our neighborhood, and then did the same
thing in Omaha and Des Moines and Rapid City, South Dakota. And
we saw a great benefit from taking history and making sure that
it was preserved and available, and I think the Amache National
Historic Site, the cultural benefits there are so numerous, and
I think even when our history is shameful, we need to make sure
we preserve it.
So I thought I would ask you about the economic benefits of
establishing a national historic site in a place like Grenada,
Colorado, which is an agricultural community. It has a
population of little over 500. There are some smaller
communities around it, but it is a place still trying to grow
and trying to add businesses.
Ms. Capen. National heritage areas span a lot of different
landscapes. They span urban to rural communities. So when you
add a historical site, not only is it--and this is the most
important part--it is deeply meaningful to preserving our
history and sharing it, as you said, so that we do not lose
that collective memory. And oftentimes in places like that,
people pause and reflect and they need to pause and reflect,
but they often stay in a place and that can create new small
businesses whether it is a cafe, whether it is a small
restaurant, whether it is, you know, additional interpretations
that just keep people to stay a little bit longer there, to
think more deeply about that story.
That's what we see throughout national heritage areas and
that's part of the significance of historic preservation, is
that it should be deeply reflective and it should be
meaningful. It is very different than an amusement park, where
you can go through and get out and you know, it is exciting.
History is exciting as well, but it is also reflective, and
economic benefits to communities often surround that. So if you
go to Old Fort Niagara here in Niagara Falls National Heritage
Area, it makes you really think about the layers of history
that were shaped there, and you are more likely to stay. You
are more likely to have a meal in the nearby community. You are
more likely to say, ``next time when I want to schedule a trip,
maybe I'll go back there.''
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, I couldn't agree more. While I
was Governor, in Colorado, we moved our cultural affairs into
the Office of Economic Development for many of those same
reasons.
I yield back, Mr. Chair, thank you.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
take a moment to thank you and the Subcommittee for adding to
the agenda, S. 2580, the Alexander Lofgren Veterans in Parks
Act. This bill has a special place in the hearts of Arizonans,
including myself, Senator Sinema, and especially Congressman
Grijalva in the House. The bill honors a Congressional case
worker and an Army veteran, Alex Lofgren, who lost his life in
April of this year. Alex was deeply passionate about serving
veterans and serving Arizonans, but he also had a great love
for the outdoors. Passage of this bill is important for
memorializing Alex's service to Arizona, to our veterans, and
to our nation. I hope that we can move quickly to send this
bill to the President. So thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to the Subcommittee.
Ms. Beasley, good morning. Thank you for being here today.
I want to ask you about S. 1318. It is my bill to reauthorize
grant funding for the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, and
thank you for supporting this bill. Yuma Crossing played an
important role in the history of the West. It is a natural
granite outcrop used by indigenous people, Spanish explorers,
and tens of thousands of gold rush pioneers, as it is the
narrowest point across the Colorado River into California from
Arizona, and the crossing made Yuma a center for interstate
commerce in the late 1800's and later supported a vital bridge
for locomotives and motor vehicles.
Yuma's NHA is funded primarily through donations from local
and tribal governments and private individuals. According to a
2015 Park Service review of the Yuma NHA, only one-fifth of the
Yuma NHA budget is funded by the Park Service. In fact, Yuma
NHA only receives one-third of the full $1 million that is
authorized from the Park Service each year. Even with so few
resources, the return on investment for the Federal Government
is quite remarkable. The Yuma NHA has an estimated economic
impact of about $22.7 million annually.
So Ms. Beasley, how successful would you rate Yuma's
leveraging of Park Service funding to that of most other
national heritage areas?
Ms. Beasley. Thank you, sir.
So Yuma Crossing, at least since 2015, has continued to
meet its non-federal match requirement, and as you point out,
has leveraged other sources of funding and grown their
partnerships. They are doing great. And we always encourage
heritage areas that are having success in seeking other funding
sources--those best practices are great examples that they can
share with other national heritage areas. And you know, Yuma
Crossing is an on-the-ground example of the leverage that the
$20.9 million in federal funding that we provided in 2020
translates into $85.5 million in cash and in-kind donations
that are coming from other sources. So keep up the good work,
Yuma Crossing. Yes, sir.
Senator Kelly. Well, thank you for that, Ms. Beasley. Our
national heritage areas and our national parks in Arizona are
so important, not only to the folks that like to enjoy them,
but also to the economy. So thank you.
And I yield back the remainder of my time.
Senator King. No further questions?
If there are no further questions, I would like to thank
our witnesses for their testimony today. Members of the
Committee may submit additional questions in writing, and if so
we would ask you to submit answers for the record. Committee
members will have until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow to submit any
additional questions for the record. We will keep the hearing
record open for two weeks to receive any additional comments.
I want to thank our witnesses once again for your excellent
and illuminating testimony. We appreciate your work on behalf
of your communities and the country.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]