[Senate Hearing 107-829]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-829
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1865 S. 2595
S. 1943 H.R. 1925
S. 2571
__________
JULY 18, 2002
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-------
84-559 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BOB GRAHAM, Florida BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CONRAD BURNS, Montana
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 1
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia................... 25
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 3
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 2
Jones, Durand, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior................................................ 13
Mellon, Lori A., Executive Director, Mesa Verde Foundation....... 21
Schiff, Hon. Adam, U.S. Representative from California........... 10
Solis, Hon. Hilda L., U.S. Representative from California........ 6
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 2
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from Virginia................. 5
LETTER
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas and Edwards,
Hon. Chet, U.S. Representative from Texas...................... 30
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM
HAWAII
Senator Akaka. The hearing will come to order.
I welcome all of you witnesses, as well as those who have
interest in this. The purpose of this afternoon's hearing
before the Subcommittee on National Parks is to consider
several bills relating to existing or potential new units of
the National Parks System.
The bills include two bills authorizing studies of lands in
southern California for possible inclusion in the National Park
System: S. 1865, sponsored by Senator Boxer, to authorize the
study of the Lower Los Angeles River and the San Gabriel River
watersheds; and S. 2571, Senator Feinstein's bill, to evaluate
the feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor
as an addition to the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area; S. 1943, Senator Warner's bill, to authorize
an additional 100-acre parcel of land to the George Washington
Birthplace National Monument in Virginia; S. 2595, Senator
Campbell's bill, to authorize the construction of a cultural
center and related facilities on private land adjacent to Mesa
Verde National Park in Colorado; and H.R. 1925 authorizing a
study of the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, for
possible addition to the National Park System.
I understand that the Park System has concerns with the
proposed Mesa Verde Cultural Center. The other bills either
authorize studies for areas or provide for relatively minor
changes to existing park boundaries. Other than S. 2595, I do
not believe any of the bills will be particularly
controversial, although we may need to amend some of the study
bills to make them consistent with other studies the committee
has authorized.
After we hear from any committee members who wish to make
an opening statement, we will turn to our congressional
witnesses. And so at this time, I will call on my colleagues on
the committee.
Senator Thomas is here. He is the ranking member of the
subcommittee. And I call on Senator Thomas for his opening
statement.
Senator Thomas.
[A prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From
California
Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in support of
Senate Bill 2571, the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act. As the
author of the House version of the bill, I would like to express my
gratitude to Senator Feinstein for her leadership on behalf of all
Californians in introducing this legislation in the Senate.
S. 2571 would call for a study by the National Park Service of the
feasibility and suitability of more than doubling the size of the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the
Valley Corridor consisting of areas of rare Mediterranean ecosystem.
Since Congress set aside the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Areas in 1978, federal, state and local authorities have worked in
remarkable cooperation to manage what is the world's largest urban
park. Now, nearly a quarter-century later and in the face of tremendous
projected population growth and development pressures, Congress, by
passing this bill, again has the opportunity to help safeguard and
supplement the existing state and local parks, open space and
recreational opportunities in Southern California.
In addition to protected land, the Rim of the Valley Corridor
encompasses private property. However, within the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area, the Park Service is permitted to
acquire private property from voluntary sellers or donors only and is
prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain. Indeed,
private ownership need not be incompatible with open space preservation
efforts, and there are many good examples of private-public
partnerships in the Santa Monica Mountains which have served to
maintain the beauty of open space and preserve the rights of property
owners.
It is my hope that the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act will
embody a similar dream and vision--of a Southern California enhanced
not only by what was built, but also by what was preserved. This
legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support and the House version is
supported by every Republican and Democratic Member of Congress whose
district includes portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor, including
Representatives Howard Berman, David Dreier, Elton Gallegly, Howard
``Buck'' McKeon, Brad Sherman and Hilda Solis. I thank you for your
attention, and ask for your support for the Rim of the Valley Corridor
Study Act.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and be
brief so we can get to Senator Warner as soon as possible.
Thank you very much, and we welcome you here.
I just want to comment, while I have a chance, on a couple
of bills that are under consideration today that have to do
with studies in southern California. The Forest Service is
already going through a planning process there in the Los
Angeles area. I question the need for the Park Service to
restudy the lands under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
A bill to study the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel River
watersheds has merit, but I question making it a unit of the
National Park as the best way to protect these resources. There
are other ways, I think, to provide recreational opportunities
for the citizens of this area aside from establishing it as a
unit of the National Park System.
So I think a simple resource study would be more
appropriate than a park study in that instance. And it should
include the Corps of Engineers, as well as the Forest Service.
The Rim Valley Corridor for inclusion in the Santa Monica
Mountains brings similar concerns. The Rim of the Valley
consists of land within several forests, as a matter of fact.
And I think they should be very much involved in it.
So in any event, I guess, generally, again, I think we have
to have some criteria for what we do with parks and should be
able to say ``Here is something that is more appropriately
something else.'' I guess that is part of the reason for the
studies. But the Park Service ought not to, I think,
individually be making studies of areas of this kind.
So we can talk about that later, Mr. Chairman. But I
appreciate the opportunity to look at the bills today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your statement.
Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned
that S. 2595 may have a little controversy, but, frankly, bills
change. That is what this hearing process and the amendment
process is all about. It is not going to be controversial when
we get done with it. I can tell you that.
But I am very pleased that you called this hearing. And I
am very happy to see Ms. Lori Mellon here from the Mesa Verde
Park Foundation, who is going to testify.
Mr. Chairman, I live about 50 miles from Mesa Verde and
visit there very often. It is really a marvelous place. It
reflects more than 700 years of history. People lived there
from about 1400 A.D.--I mean, from before pre-Columbian times
through 1300 A.D. Eventually there, they built elaborate stone
villages, which are now called cliff dwellings. And if you ever
have an opportunity, you should visit them. They are one of the
great wonders of the world, I think, a manmade wonder.
They lived in those cliffs just about the last 100 to 125
years that they were in there before, for whatever unknown
reasons, they left. Some say they left because of the
successive droughts. Other people have different varying
opinions on why they left. But they left, and they left this
complete town. Much of it had fallen into disrepair and ruins
by the time it was rediscovered, so to speak. And the
discoveries are still going on.
We had a massive fire in Mesa Verde just a few years ago.
And that fire itself left hundreds, if not thousands, of new
things that had not been discovered because of the brush,
overgrowth, before that, to add to the treasure trove of
artifacts that were already there.
The park was established in 1906 to prevent the injury or
spoilation of the dwellings and artifacts where these
prehistoric people had lived. And that purpose has expanded to
aid the advancement of archeological science and to provide
education and certain enjoyment for the tens of thousands of
people who visit there every year.
Unfortunately, the mission has not been well served. I went
over there a few years ago. It has been about six, I guess,
now. And I was really rather alarmed to see that literally
millions of these priceless artifacts, some that can
deteriorate because they are made of vegetable matter, like
sandals made by straw or some grass, were housed in a tin
building, a big tin building; no climate control, infested with
mice and bugs, kept on shelves and kept in slide-out drawers.
Any museum in the world would have been delighted to get
their hands on part of that treasure trove that was being
housed on shelves and in slide-out drawers. But certainly, they
would have taken better care of it than we are, because it
should have been in a climate-controlled atmosphere. It is
deteriorating, some of it, no question about it. That shed is
no place to store 800-year-old corn, as an example, or
different foods that they had grown in those days.
So this bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with
the authority to collect and expend donated funds for the
design and construction and associated costs to build a
cultural center to address mission-critical needs to protect
artifacts and archives in support of the Mesa Verde National
Park.
This is not the first time that this has been done, by the
way. Rocky Mountain National Park did something very similar to
this just a few years ago. More recently, the general
management plan, a 1988 plan, also talked about upgrading and
doing this. The importance was documented in those plans.
However, like so many good intentions, when we have a crunch of
money; the Federal money is simply not available.
An environmental assessment was prepared for this project,
and a decision document was signed in June of this year. The
environmental assessment documents note that the archeological
resources, historic resources, and legislatively protected
scenery would impact the facilities, if they were built inside
the park. The whole place is just a marvelous study area within
the park itself.
Therefore, the assessment concluded that the preferable
decision would be to place the facility to store and warehouse
all these wonderful treasures, that it would be preferable to
have it be on land that is contiguous to the park, but outside
the park. And that is owned by the Mesa Verde Foundation, which
is a nonprofit foundation.
I understand the administration's concern, but I want to
assure my colleagues I want to avoid a time when we put a lot
of money into something like this. We have seen our surplus
disappear, and now we are at a deficit that I know all of us
have to be very concerned about. But I really do believe that
there are, there can be, checks and balances put in to ensure
the Department is not left holding a financial bag.
For example, under this bill, the Department can work out
milestones for enduring fiscal responsibility with the
foundations. It does not require the Secretary to expend any
money at all. It authorizes the Secretary to consider building
the curatorial facility on Mesa Verde Foundation land as an
option, rather than building it within the park.
So I believe it gives them some flexibility. And the
Secretary, who I know very well since she came to Colorado
since she has been in office, she has promoted creative funding
through partnerships with private entities.
In fact, in a speech on June 7, she said, ``With so many
challenges facing our national parks, we cannot do the work
alone. We need to form partnerships with individuals,
organizations, and corporations to appreciate, protect, and
enhance the park.'' And this bill gives her the authority to
develop that partnership, which she has already discussed.
The Mesa Verde Foundation and others have really accepted
the Secretary's call and stepped forward to provide the funding
to construct what I think is a much-needed facility. And as I
mentioned, this is not the first time. In fact, one of our
people who will be testifying used to be at the national park
in Colorado, Rocky Mountain National Park. And there was a
facility, as you know, there developed off the park. That bill
was sponsored by Senator Allard, and I co-sponsored it. I am
introducing this one, and he is co-sponsoring it.
But I know this authorization is not exactly the same as
the construction authorized before, but I think the differences
can be ironed out.
So I look forward to the testimony and want to tell the
people from the administration and my colleagues that I intend
to try and make sure that we make our differences acceptable to
everybody who are dealing with this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Campbell, for
your statement.
Our first witness is Senator Warner, who is here to testify
on his bill to expand the boundaries of the George Washington
Birthplace National Monument.
Also, I know some of you may have scheduling conflicts. So
feel free to leave after your statement is made.
Senator Warner, I want to welcome you to the subcommittee,
and we look forward to your statement. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And out of
deference to the Chair and the distinguished members of the
committee, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Campbell, I will be very brief.
I will very quickly say the following: It is interesting,
and I never realized it, as many times as I have studied George
Washington, but it was 1656 that his forefathers settled on a
piece of land in Virginia. And in 1930, the Congress recognized
the historic importance of this site, of his boyhood home, to
the Nation and created the George Washington Birthplace
National Monument.
Now the purpose of the legislation which I and my
colleague, the other Senator from Virginia, Senator Allen, are
putting in is to increase the existing land, which is roughly
394 acres, by 115 acres. That 115 acres is within the 1930
creation of the national monument. So it has already been
recognized by Congress at one important juncture in 1930 as of
importance. And today the request to this legislation is to
provide the authorization whereby it can, as a purchase, take
its queue in the waiting place for hopeful financing in the
Park Service to achieve the actual transfer of title.
In the meantime, I am told by Mr. Botra, who I said is
present in the hearing room representing the parties that I
enunciated, this group is prepared to buy the property and hold
it until such time as the appropriations process hopefully
yields the funds with which to buy the required land.
So I will not go into the further interesting historical
perspective. But George Washington frequently went back to this
piece of land out of his great fondness for it throughout his
lifetime. It is unlike, interestingly, Robert E. Lee, whose
home also is but 10 miles or so from this area. And for reasons
which I am not sure, Robert E. Lee never got back to his
birthplace again, even though to this day it is a magnificent
structure, which was the home in which he was born. And it was
lived in by his family for many, many years. So it is just an
interesting twist of history.
I thank the Chair, I thank the members, and submit the
testimony. I am happy to respond to any question that might
come from the panel.
Senator Akaka. Are there any questions?
Senator Campbell. I have no questions, but certainly
support this bill and Senator Warner. All of his efforts are
well known here. He is a great friend, and I support his bill.
While you were talking about George Washington settling
there in 1666, though, I whispered to my colleague, Craig
Thomas, ``What Indian did he take away that land from?'' Craig,
however, he told me, ``Get over it.'' So I am going to get over
it and support your bill.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I am out of here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Warner.
Senator Thomas. After 400 years, he is still on it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Now we will hear from Congresswoman Hilda Solis with your
statement. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and also
ranking member Thomas and Congressman Campbell.
It is indeed an opportunity for me to be here today to
present my bill and the version that Senator Boxer has
presented, S. 1865, which deals with the Lower Los Angeles and
San Gabriel River watershed study, an act that we are looking
to provide assistance, Federal assistance, to an area, an urban
area, in Los Angeles that I happen to represent. Well over 2
million reside along this particular river and the Lower Los
Angeles area.
We are talking about individuals there that do not have the
luxury of open space because it is over-developed. And I am
fearful that in the next decade, because of overpopulation in
Los Angeles County and that basin, that fewer opportunities
will be available for working families. Our community has been
neglected. We currently have three Superfund sites there. Our
watershed is contaminated. We have high levels of smog. We are
trying to deal with those issues.
And one of the things that I believe my constituents and
others that have been supportive of this legislation on is that
they would like to see some intervention on the part of the
Federal Government. And I mean that in a way that they would be
able to provide recreation, restoration, and ability to enhance
what little open space is left there.
According to studies that I have seen, we should have at
least three acres or more for families in our area. Given that
number, it is very small for many of the residents that
represent the area that we are talking about. And I have a map
that I would like to show you.
And maybe if you can bring that up closer, staff.
The purple area, the large block that you see there, is
actually the Angeles National Forest. So the gentleman, Mr.
Thomas, makes a good point about the involvement of the Federal
Government and the Forest Service. Currently, they cover that
particular area.
The purple line that runs from below the foothill there all
the way to the ocean is the river that we are talking about.
And it kind of branches off. There is actually a fork there,
the Lower Los Angeles River. And we are talking about a very
densely populated area.
But the portion that is pretty open and still natural is
the area that I represent, the Upper San Gabriel River. I have
no intention of creating problems for the Army Corps of
Engineers or the flood basin that we currently know exists
there, because the Federal Government has been involved for
many, many years, 20 or 30 years now. I would be willing to
work with them and also with the Forest Service to see how we
can begin to address what habitat we have available so that
people can enjoy what limited space is there.
Of course, this is a study. I would hope that we could
involve all the stakeholders. I have attempted to work with all
of our cities and those at the lower part of both rivers. And I
know that some of them are very concerned because they feel
that the Federal Government may come in and require acquisition
of their lands.
I have worked in the past few years as a State Senator in
California to create a State conservancy that models that. We
currently have the Federal Government involved in that aspect.
So their presence is already there and felt.
However, the one part that is missing is the part where the
Federal Government actively can take a role and put resources
there. We need tourism dollars. We need rehabilitation dollars.
We need restoration. People want bike trails. People want areas
to recreate, to have picnics.
As a child, if I could explain to you, families like mine
and others were not able to go to Yosemite, to Sequoia and to
other places because of limited resources. I come from a large
immigrant family. What we would do was go up to our neighboring
creeks and the forests there. And we would spend our time there
and our vacation period being together and really being able to
appreciate the open space that we had.
Knowing that there is still some semblance of that, I think
it is a priority for the Federal Government to take a look at
this particular area. We have done it in other parts of the
country, in New York and in Minnesota, where we do have urban
parks.
Now I would just like to say that I realize that the survey
is done, that perhaps there might be a decision made that this
would be a historical trail or a heritage park, or it may just
be that the Forest Service is the better component or agency to
take over this kind of responsibility.
Lord knows we need more resources there. As it is now, our
Forest Service now in the Angeles National Forest is severely
underfunded. I would welcome any discussion on that manner.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be willing to answer
any questions, and you have my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Solis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hilda L. Solis, U.S. Representative
From California
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Thomas, and Members of the
Committee, I would like to thank you for holding this important hearing
today and giving me the opportunity to testify on this bill which means
so much to my community.
S. 1865, the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed
Study Act, would direct the National Park Service to study the Lower
Los Angeles River, the San Gabriel River and portions of the San
Gabriel Mountains for potential NPS designation. This bill could
provide the framework for the future of our regional rivers and could
eventually provide recreational and environmental opportunities for
more than two million residents.
Rivers and mountains have served as the lifeblood of the San
Gabriel Valley since the Gabrieleno Indian Tribe first settled there
many centuries ago. However, in the modern age, the area has been
threatened by development, industry and neglect. I am hopeful that this
bill will serve as the first step in redefining the San Gabriel Valley
and exploring ways that we can protect and revitalize our natural
resources.
My community is 60% Latino and 30% Asian. We have an extremely high
unemployment rate and most would assume that our main concern is
putting food on our tables. However, with three Superfund sites within
31 miles, 17 gravel pits that resemble moon craters, and a watershed
that is among the dirtiest in the nation, one of our priorities is the
environment. The Park Service designation would benefit some of the
poorest of our society who breathe polluted air and live next to
superhighways. This will allow our children to enjoy and learn about
our natural resources.
The city of New York sets aside nearly 26 percent of its area as
open space; Los Angeles residents have a meager 10 percent, according
to a 2001 study by the Trust for Public Land. According to the
University of Southern California's Sustainable Cities Program, three
to four acres of open or green space are needed per 1,000 people for a
healthy environment. Unfortunately, in the San Gabriel Valley, there is
less than one half acre of land per 1,000 people. I fear that this
statistic will become more alarming as the population of Los Angeles
dramatically increases in the coming years. Lack of open space doesn't
just mean decreased recreational opportunities. As you know, areas
without open or green space have greater incidences of cardiovascular
disease, asthma, diabetes, infant mortality, birth defects and cancer.
The National Park Service now operates several urban parks that are
similar to the area I am requesting to be studied, such as those in
Atlanta, GA, the heart of the New York Metropolitan area, San
Francisco, CA, and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in Minnesota. This
study could be the foundation for a park that will follow the lead of
these original urban parks and provide, working families in my
community with the environmental and recreational opportunities that
over-development often prevents.
Cities, county agencies, environmental organizations, neighborhood
associations and ordinary residents are going to the riverside to work
on parks, landscaping and bike paths. The dedication to revitalizing
our rivers has inspired the creation of nine local conservancies in the
Los Angeles area that are kept afloat by state, local and private
funds. These conservancies are charged with cleaning up abandoned
areas, buying and preserving what is left of our natural beauty,
revitalizing the area and providing recreational and educational
opportunities for residents.
Federal input and future potential designation by the National Park
Service will help these groups restore the San Gabriel Valley for both
the environment and recreation. In addition to providing funding,
preservation and recreational areas, it will also protect several
historically and nationally significant areas.
The El Monte Rurban Homesteads are one example of a historically
significant area. In 1933, many citizens of Los Angeles County had an
annual family income that was only between $600 and $1,000, even though
they were employed. President Franklin Roosevelt devised a program to
build simple homes on small plots of land that could be intensely
cultivated in order to supply the families with their major food
requirements. These were known as subsistence homesteads--also called
``rurban'' homes in recognition of their rural and urban nature. Some
of these homesteads still stand on the banks of the San Gabriel River
today. They were the beginning of the government's effort to help
families devastated by the Depression and also the inspiration for
modern public housing.
Another example of this region's significance is a natural
formation known as Eagle Rock in the San Gabriel Mountains. According
to geologists, the rock and its eagle-like indent were formed about 10
to 15 million years ago. This area was first inhabited by the
Gabrieleno Indian Tribe and has served as a site for church ceremonies,
educational hikes and community events for centuries. The famed bandit
Tiburcio Vasquez also occupied the rock in the days before his final
robbery and capture in 1874.
There are also some areas that are havens for hikers, bird
watchers, and other nature enthusiasts. The Whittier Narrows Recreation
Area along the San Gabriel River has 296 species of birds, 230 types of
plants and 24 kinds of animals. In the San Gabriel Mountains, the river
runs close to wild. Anglers can still catch trout, bass, bluegill,
carp, catfish and other varieties in the San Gabriel River or its
lakes.
The river will always be a flood-control channel, constrained by
concrete to protect more than 150,000 working-class households on the
flood plain. But we can start making better use of this area by
planning and prioritizing recreational opportunities. By protecting our
past, we can also help to preserve the future. The Lower Los Angeles
River, San Gabriel River and San Gabriel Mountains provide many
historically and nationally significant areas that deserve the
protection of the National Park Service.
I thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and the Committee for your
time and would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your testimony.
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Thomas. Just a couple, if you please.
As you have indicated, some of these resources are under
Federal jurisdiction now, managed by the Forest Service and the
Corps of Engineers. The area that you talk about, according to
the background here, is approximately 16 cities and several
unincorporated communities, private land, State land, municipal
land, Corps of Engineers. It does not sound like a park is the
appropriate assistance that might be needed there for small
pieces of open space.
Would it not make sense to perhaps use those agencies that
are there and let them study to work towards your goal? It is
not going to be a park, is it?
Representative Solis. I think that a study would help to
determine what it could be. As I said earlier, there is a
possibility that it could be designated as a heritage park,
because we have significant historical sites along this river
and different developments that have been going on for many,
many years.
I know that the Park Service would collaborate. My
understanding, as a member on the Resources Committee in the
House, we are often asking the National Park Service ``What
kind of input, what kind of outreach do you do to the
communities to assure that we have a balanced approach?'' And
whatever recommendation, I am sure, they come up with will be
appropriate.
And as I said earlier, I have no intention of disrupting
the current movement that is taking place now out in those
communities. It is more to help replenish, restore, and give
the cities and municipalities a chance to maybe go after some
of this assistance that the Federal Government can provide,
whether it be the Forest Service or the National Park----
Senator Thomas. I guess the principal purpose is to get the
assistance.
Representative Solis. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Would you be satisfied with a resource
study?
Representative Solis. I am sure we could work that out.
Yes.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Representative Solis. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Any further questions?
Senator Campbell. I have no question about the bill, Mr.
Chairman. I am just trying to get my bearings on the area
there, because I have been out in that area some.
I am sorry we did not get to serve there when I was on the
House side, Congresswoman Solis. But whose district was that
before you? Because I knew some of them by----
Representative Solis. Matthew Martinez.
Senator Campbell. Oh, is that right?
Representative Solis. And Estevan Torres.
Senator Campbell. And Estevan.
Representative Solis. Yes. And I currently have the support
of my colleague, Adam Schiff, on the bill and also Grace
Napolitano. And we are working with many of the stakeholders
and the local elected, the State Assembly representatives down
there. And I did attach some photos. So you can kind of see in
your packet of what it looks like in the area that is still
untouched.
And if I could just mention, centuries ago this area
belonged to the Gabrielino Indians. This is--and they are also
very much supportive of this legislation and have been very
helpful.
Senator Campbell. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Solis.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here.
I would like to call now on Congressman Adam Schiff for
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SCHIFF, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you today on S. 2571, the Rim
of the Valley Corridor Study Act. As the author of the House
version of the bill, I want to express my gratitude to Senator
Feinstein for her leadership on this issue in introducing the
bill here in the Senate and for Senator Boxer's strong support,
as well.
This bill calls for a study, as well, by the National Park
Service of the feasibility and suitability of expanding the
Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, a currently existing
large recreation area established in 1978, to include the Rim
of the Valley.
When the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area was
established in 1978, it was one of the largest urban parks in
the Nation. And it still is. Since 1978, however, the
population in Los Angeles has exploded. Now one out of every
ten Americans lives in southern California. It is quite an
astounding statistic.
This bill would take a currently State-designated area of
the Rim of the Valley and study whether all or some portion of
that Rim of the Valley should be added to the Santa Monica
Mountains Recreation Area. Since the population has grown so
dramatically since this area was originally established, we are
looking for ways to preserve open space in a ratio
proportionate to the growth in the population.
The southern California area now has the lowest ratio of
park and rec land per 1,000 in population. So we are very
underserved in terms of our open space needs in southern
California.
The Rim of the Valley includes, for those of you who are
familiar with this part of southern California, the Santa
Monica Mountains, Santa Susana Mountains, San Gabriel
Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and adjacent
connector areas in Los Padres and San Bernardino National
Forests.
The bill also covers areas within the Rim of the Valley
which are a very rare environmental treasure. In fact, one of,
if not the most, endangered habitat areas in the world,
Mediterranean Chaparral ecosystem, exists in this area. The
only other place you can find that, believe it or not, is in
South Africa. So it is an environmentally sensitive area. It is
an area with extraordinary human demand for open space and
recreation uses.
The bill has very strong bipartisan support in the House.
Every member in the region, Howard Berman, David Dreier, Elton
Gallegly, Buck McKeon, Brad Sherman, my colleague Hilda Solis,
as well as our two Senators, are all cosponsors of the bill. So
we have a strong bipartisan group of support to study the
concept.
And I think, Senator Thomas, you asked a very good
questions.
We undertook the same analysis. I know Representative Solis
did when we were drafting this bill, and that is, is this the
right designation? Should it be part of a recreation area?
Would it be more appropriate as a heritage area or a scenic
area or part of the Forest Service?
And we thought this was the best and most promising area to
study. But we do not know the answer. Part of what we are
hoping that the study will determine is, does this make sense?
And it may be that only some portion of this area should be
included in the Park Service and other areas properly excluded.
But we think that, given the strong support we have from the
local communities, as well as the congressional delegation, and
we have established an advisory committee that is made up of
representatives of the city councils, of the board of
supervisors, of all the communities affected that would all
give input on, ``Yes, this should be a part that affects us''
or ``No, it should not be a part.''
We hope that we can do a thoughtful study. The study
usually takes about 3 years. It is not a rush project. But we
hope in our generation to do what the generation did 25 years
ago in establishing this recreation area, and that is to think
ahead. We have an opportunity to maintain this resource. We may
not have that 25 years from now, if we do not act today.
So I appreciate the issues that you have raised and the
time that you have spent on the bill. And I would be delighted
to answer any questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions from the committee? Senator Thomas?
Senator Thomas. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your
comments on it. This is a very large recreation area now. It is
my understanding that that portion of it on the rim is largely
the Forest Service at this time.
Mr. Schiff. Senator, there is a significant portion within
the Rim of the Valley that is Forest Service. But one of the
things that the study may conclude is that all the areas
outside of the Forest Service are appropriately within the
recreation area, and the Forest Service should be kept separate
and distinct. We could have drafted it to conduct the study
that way. But that is certainly one very possible scenario.
Senator Thomas. Well, you know, we are just trying to find
the best way to move forward with what you are seeking to do.
And whether it is a park approach or whether--I mean, the
Forest Service already controls it and so on. But I think we
will take a look at it some more.
Mr. Schiff. And to be quite honest, Senator, the area that
is within the Forest Service is the area of least concern to
me, because it already does have the protection of the Forest
Service.
Senator Thomas. Exactly.
Mr. Schiff. And if it were of interest to the committee, I
would be happy to remove that portion from the study. It may be
that the Department of the Interior would remove it on their
own, or it might for reasons they conclude that it is properly
within that park area as well. But that is, I think, the least
needing of protection, because it already has a designation.
Senator Thomas. Sure. I guess that is my point. We are
going kind of back over the same thing, which is already there.
This is 150,000 acres in downtown Los Angeles.
Mr. Schiff. Well, Senator, it is not quite downtown. I
mean, it----
Senator Thomas. Between downtown and the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. Schiff. Not precisely, but the--it is basically north
and east of downtown Los Angeles. The ocean is more to our
west, although it does go to the west as you point out. The
main concern that we have is the areas that are within the Rim
of the Valley now that are largely public areas, not within the
Forest Service, and the adjacent private areas could be
preserved for future generations in a cooperative relationship
with the private sector, with the public sector. But it is a
window that is closing. The population growth has been
tremendous. And we feel a compulsion to act before that window
is shut.
Senator Thomas. I understand. And I support that. I just
want to make the point that, as we look at potential parks,
there are criteria. There are other methods of having land
protected. We now have a backlog of parks that we are not able
to take care of. You are asking for a half-million-dollar study
here, probably three years before there is any money available
for studies.
So, I think it is one thing to just be here and approving
everything. It is another to take an overall look at where we
want to be over time and the kinds of things that we want to
set aside.
I do not mean to be argumentative about it, because this
may be a good place. But I am just saying I do not think we
just go into every place and suddenly make it a park. There
ought to be some conditions and criteria for what parks are.
And there are lots of other opportunities for preserving lands,
in addition to being parks or recreation areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Are there further questions?
Senator Campbell. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank the witnesses very much for
their testimony. And it certainly will be helpful to the
committee. Thank you.
I would like to call on our next two witnesses, Randy
Jones, the Deputy Director of the National Park Service, who
will testify on the administration's position on all of the
bills; and Lori Mellon, the executive director of the Mesa
Verde Foundation in Colorado.
Because there are only two of you testifying today, why do
you not both sit at the table?
I would like to remind both of you that the text of your
written statements will be included in its entirety in the
hearing record. So please feel free to summarize your remarks.
Mr. Jones, we will begin with your testimony. Please
proceed in whatever order you prefer. We will ask questions on
all of the bills after you and Ms. Mellon have completed your
statements.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will summarize
our position on all of these bills for you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on S. 2595. The bill would allow Mesa Verde
National Park to enter into a partnership with the Mesa Verde
Foundation to raise funds to construct and operate a Mesa Verde
cultural center on lands located outside the park on lands
owned by the Mesa Verde Foundation.
The Department recognizes the needs that the bill is
seeking to address. However, the Department cannot support this
bill, because it would circumvent our process for identifying
park priorities and eliminating the deferred maintenance
backlog in our national parks.
The park has had a very successful partnership with the
Mesa Verde Foundation. And they have been working together on
the cultural center concept for many years. However, there are
a number of unresolved issues remaining, including the location
of the center, the amount of funding that would be required
from the National Park Service, and the relationship of the
center to other Service-wide priorities. Given the proposed
cost of up to $50 million, at least a portion of which would
come from appropriated funds, we feel that more review is
necessary before we can recommend proceeding at this time.
S. 2595 would authorize the Secretary to collect and expend
donated funds and expend appropriated funds for the design,
construction, maintenance, and operation of a cultural center
and related facilities. While we recognize the deficiencies the
bill seeks to address, particularly concerning inadequacies
associated with the current curatorial facilities--and Senator
Campbell quite eloquently and correctly described our urgent
need for providing appropriate curatorial facilities--as we
continue to make progress on the maintenance backlog, we will
begin to identify additional high-priority needs for further
action. Addressing the curatorial needs at Mesa Verde will
likely emerge as a significant priority for the National Park
Service's ongoing review process. We look forward to working
with Senator Campbell and the committee in addressing this
deficiency.
Proceeding on to S. 1865, a bill to study the Lower Los
Angeles River and San Gabriel watersheds in the Los Angeles
Basin: The Department does not oppose this bill. However, the
Department did not request additional funding for this study in
fiscal year 2003. There are currently 34 studies pending in the
National Park Service, of which we expect to transmit 4 to
Congress by the end of 2002.
In addition to S. 1865, Senator Feinstein has introduced S.
2571, a bill to evaluate and study the suitability of
establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a unit of the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. These bills
affect nearly adjacent territories in the Los Angeles Basin and
affect nearly identical large constituencies. Combining the
planning effort to evaluate both areas at one time would not
only be less confusing to the public, but we feel also would be
much more cost effective for the Government.
Since the study of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Rivers is estimated to cost approximately $500,000, there could
be considerable efficiencies gained by combining and narrowing
the focus of these proposed studies. This study will address
habitat quality, access to urban open space, low impact
recreation and educational uses, wildlife and habitat
restoration, and protection of the watershed improvements along
the Los Angeles and San Gabriel watersheds, as well as the
Valley of the Rim corridor surrounding the San Fernando and La
Crescenta Valleys.
The watershed of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers
contains important natural and recreational resources, which
are disappearing in the county. We do feel, as Senator Thomas
has pointed out, that there is extensive Forest Service land in
this area. We feel the Forest Service is doing an excellent job
in managing their lands. And therefore, we think that the
nature and the extent of the study should be looked at to--we
think the National Park Service has expertise we can bring to
the table, but we also feel that the Forest Service needs to be
a key player, as do other agencies.
The Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River watershed is
adjacent to the Los Angeles National Forest and contains State,
county, and local parks within. The recreational experience
would be heightened by the establishment of trail connections
and linkages for the urban populations of Los Angeles, as well
as for visitors.
Moving on, S. 2571 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resources study to evaluate the suitability
and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor
as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area. The Department does not oppose this bill. But because the
study area includes a significant amount of U.S. Forest Service
lands, we believe the bill should be amended to authorize a
joint study with the Department of Agriculture.
A combined study would assess habitat quality, access to
urban open space, low impact recreation and educational uses,
wildlife and habitat restoration, and protection of watershed
improvements along the rivers. The study would outline public-
private partnerships. We feel that the scope of the study also
should not be just looking as to whether these should be units
of the National Park System but to, in fact, look at a variety
of private-public ways and partnerships that could be used to
accomplish what the study identifies as critical needs.
The Department feels that the provision of S. 2571 that
establishes a 17-member advisory commission is unnecessary. Any
special resource study undertaken by the National Park Service
automatically entails public outreach with members of the
public and local governments, extended comment periods, and
more complex analyses, because issues and options in a large
urban area with such a diverse and extensive group of
stakeholders at all levels of government would be considered.
S. 1943, a bill to expand the boundary of George Washington
Birthplace National Monument, the Department supports the
enactment of this bill. The bill would authorize the addition
of approximately 115 acres to the National Monument, the Muse
property. It also authorizes the Secretary to acquire lands or
interests in lands within the boundary from willing sellers by
donation, by purchase with donated money or appropriated funds
or by exchange.
The acquisition of the Muse property is essential to the
viability of this nationally significant resource. In the
truest sense, this piece of property is the hole in the
doughnut because park land already surrounds it. And it has
significant cultural attributes that complement the purposes of
the National Monument. We feel it would be an excellent
addition to the monument.
The proposed legislation would include within the park
boundary a privately owned parcel of land comprising 115 acres
known as the Muse tract, which is completely surrounded by the
park, the Potomac River, and Popes Creek. This tract has been
farmed by the Muse family since 1668, was contemporary with the
Washington family farm, and is historically significant since
it is directly connected with the plantation.
The Muse family has indicated their willingness to be
included within the park boundary for eventual acquisition by
the National Park Service or park partner. It is our
understanding that the Trust for Public Lands has an option on
the property at this time.
Finally, the last one, Mr. Chairman, is H.R. 1925. The bill
would require the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
national significance, suitability and feasibility of
designating the Waco Mammoth Site in Waco, Texas, as a unit of
the National Park System. H.R. 1925 passed the House of
Representatives on May 14, 2002. The Department supports this
bill.
H.R. 1925 calls for the completion of a special resources
study of the Waco Mammoth site that determines the national
significance, suitability and feasibility of designating the
site as a unit of the National Park System. Baylor University
has been investigating this site since 1978 after hearing about
bones emerging from eroding creek banks that led to the
uncovering of portions of five mammoths. Since then, several
additional mammoth remains have been uncovered, making this the
largest known concentration of mammoths dying from the same
event. The opportunity to provide important knowledge about
paleontological resources is significant. We feel this is an
important study to complete.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my formal statements on these
bills. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 1865
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on S. 1865, a bill to study the lower Los Angeles
River and San Gabriel watersheds in the Los Angeles Basin. On June 13,
2002, the Department testified before the Subcommittee of National
Park, Recreation and Public Lands, of the House Committee on Resources,
on an identical bill, H.R. 2534, which had been introduced by
Congresswoman Hilda Solis.
The Department does not oppose the bill. However, the Department
did not request additional funding for this study in Fiscal Year 2003.
We believe that any funding requested should be directed towards
completing previously authorized studies. Presently, there are 34
studies pending, of which we expect to transmit 4 to Congress by the
end of 2002. To meet the President's Initiative to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog, we must continue to focus our resources
on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. Thus, we have
concerns about adding new funding requirements for new park units,
national trails, wild and scenic rivers or heritage areas at the same
time that we are trying to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. As
such, the Department will identify all acquisition, one-time and
operational costs of the proposed site. At this time, those costs are
unknown.
In addition to S. 1865, Senator Feinstein has introduced S. 2571, a
bill to evaluate and study the suitability and feasibility of
establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a unit of Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area. These bills affect nearly adjacent
territories in the Los Angeles basin and affect nearly identical large
constituencies. As any study would include a public involvement
component, combining the planning effort to evaluate both areas would
not only be less confusing to the public but also more cost-effective
for the government. Since a study of the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers is estimated to cost approximately $500,000, there could
be considerable efficiencies gained by combining and narrowing the
focus of these two proposed studies.
While some familiar with the Lower Los Angeles River and San
Gabriel River watersheds may think of them as concrete-lined ditches,
the rivers provide an important opportunity for low-impact recreation
for many urban residents in adjacent communities. Several successful
efforts have already been undertaken to provide bikeways and hiking
areas along the river's banks. Additionally, small tracts of green
space have been acquired to provide outdoor recreation opportunities in
the form of playgrounds for children, picnic areas, benches for rest
and respite from the urban environment and for areas to walk and
bicycle. Many areas have been replanted with a variety of native
vegetation to enhance the local environment.
This study will assess habitat quality, access to urban open space,
low-impact recreation and educational uses, wildlife and habitat
restoration and protection and watershed improvements along the Los
Angeles and San Gabriel watersheds as well as the Valley of the Rim
corridor surrounding the San Fernando and La Crescenta Valleys. This
latter corridor consists of portions of the Santa Monica Mountains,
Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San
Rafael Hills and the connector to Los Padres and San Bernardino
National Forests.
The National Park Service has some familiarity with the region and
these watersheds. Our National Park Service Rivers and Trails
Conservation Assistance Program continues to have interaction with
communities along the Los Angeles River and has provided technical
assistance for outdoor recreation potential. Additionally, the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area protects for 153,750 acres
while providing recreational opportunities for approximately 530,000
visitors annually.
The watershed of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers contains
important natural resources, which are disappearing in Los Angeles
County. The continuous greenbelt corridors serve as habitat for
breeding, feeding, resting or migrating birds and mammals, while
allowing migration to take place around and amongst the urban areas.
The higher reaches of the watershed also contain significant examples
of rock outcroppings, as well as native vegetation.
This area has a rich cultural heritage, which is evident by the
approximately 9 properties within the boundaries of the study area on
the National List of Historic Places and 96 properties on the state
register of historic places. These properties weave a rich tapestry of
the cultural history of the area and include Mission San Gabriel
Archangel, the mission founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who
were moving up the coast of California; Mission San Fernando Rey de
Espana, founded in 1797; Merced Theatre, the first building built
expressly for theatrical purposes in Los Angeles, dating back to 1870;
Lummis House, constructed by Charles F. Lummis, an author, editor,
poet, athlete, librarian, historian and archeologist during his life
from 1859-1928; Los Encinos State Historic Park, used as a headquarters
by the Franciscan padres before they built Mission San Fernando;
Angeles Flight Railway, which was an incline railway built in 1901 to
carry residents up the hill from the downtown shopping district; and
Alvarado Terrace Historic District, which includes 12 buildings
displaying prime examples of architecture and social history from 1900-
1924.
The Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River watershed is adjacent
to the Angeles National Forest and contains state, county and local
parks within. The recreational experience would be heightened by the
establishment of trail connections and linkages for the urban
populations of Los Angeles, as well as for visitors. These connections
would also allow users to leave the populated areas and connect to the
prime natural areas in the region. These trails would be used for
hiking, mountain biking, nature study and bird watching.
A study will outline public-private partnerships, which are core to
preserving large tracts of open space such as are included in this
study. The San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains
Conservancy (RMC) was established as an independent State agency within
the Resources Agency of the State of California in 1999. It was
established to preserve urban space and habitats in order to provide
for low-impact recreation and educational uses, wildlife and habitat
restoration and protection and watershed improvements. The RMC has
brought diverse groups together to work in partnership to protect the
precious resources within these two watersheds.
Any study that is undertaken along the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers will involve extensive public meetings, extended comment
periods and more complex analyses because issues and options in a
large, urban area with such a diverse and extensive group of
stakeholders at all levels of government would be considered.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss this issue and I would be willing to answer any questions you
may have on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 1943
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the National Park Service to
present its views on S. 1943, a bill to expand the boundary of George
Washington Birthplace National Monument. The Department supports the
enactment of this bill.
This bill would authorize the addition of approximately 115 acres
to the National Monument (Muse property). It also authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands or interests in lands within
the boundary from willing sellers by donation, by purchase with donated
money or appropriated funds or by exchange. Finally, it directs the
Secretary to preserve and interpret the history and resources
associated with George Washington, and the generations of the
Washington family who lived in the vicinity, as well as their
contemporaries, along with 17th and 18th century plantation life and
society. Land acquisition costs are estimated to be $700,000.
Operational costs are estimated to be $20,000 per year.
The Department remains committed to the President's Initiative to
reduce the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service. While the
Department recognizes that this legislation may divert funds from this
effort, the acquisition of the Muse property is essential to the
viability of this nationally significant resource.
George Washington Birthplace National Monument was established as a
unit of the National Park System in 1930 to preserve the grounds and
structures associated with the birthplace of George Washington. It was
here, along the lower reaches of the Potomac River that the man who was
to become our Nation's first president was born in 1732. At that time,
this site was known as Popes Creek Plantation, owned and operated by
George Washington's father, Augustine Washington. The park is part of a
cultural landscape that has remained rural 270 years after George
Washington's birth. Located in Westmoreland County, Virginia, the
National Monument includes a memorial mansion with a kitchen, farm
buildings, various outbuildings, an 18th Century working farm, and a
visitor's center. The park also contains woodlands, wetlands, and
agricultural fields. Even today, descendants of the Washington family
continue to live in the area.
This proposed legislation would include within the park boundary a
privately owned parcel of land comprised of approximately 115 acres,
known as the Muse tract, which is completely surrounded by the park,
the Potomac River, and Popes Creek. Park roads provide the only access
to this neighbor's land. This tract has been farmed by the Muse family
since 1668, was contemporary with the Washington Family farm (Popes
Creek Plantation), and is historically significant since it is directly
connected with the plantation. Acquisition of this tract is vital to
the integrity of the park and would prevent development that could
degrade the park's pastoral setting and significant natural and
cultural resources. The park's 1968 Master Plan contained a land
acquisition plan showing fee acquisition of this privately owned tract
and indicated that the Muse property could be used for historic farming
or could be planted to retain the appearance of a cultural landscape.
The boundaries of the National Monument have been modified numerous
times since the first memorial was erected at the site in 1896. The
park presently contains about 550 acres. For generations, the
surrounding community has been a partner to the National Park Service
in the protection of George Washington's birthplace. Many of the
landowners, such as the Muse Family, come from families that have for
generations farmed the fertile soils of Virginia's Northern Neck. It is
only in the recent past that the area has started to change.
Recreational use, vacations homes, and commuters to Washington D.C. and
Richmond have increased the local population significantly creating
development pressure that is beginning to encroach on the park. If the
Muse tract is not acquired there is potential for commercial
development that would directly threaten park values since the tract is
surrounded by parklands. The Muse family has indicated their
willingness to be included within the park boundary for eventual
acquisition by the National Park Service or a park partner. The demand
for land in the surrounding area is so significant that there is little
doubt that the peaceful setting, the pastoral charm, and the quiet
dignity of the tombs of several generations of Washingtons would be
destroyed by the intrusion of modern development within the park
without this legislation. Recently, a one-acre parcel of land that was
proposed to be included within the park was sold.
The National Monument also contains significant natural resources.
The Muse tract includes half of the Digwood Swamp (a known bald eagle
habitat and nesting area), extensive grasslands, riparian and upland
forests, marshes, beaches, and cliffs (most likely with significant
archaeological artifacts from the Woodland and Colonial periods as well
as paleontological resources) and shares the shores of Popes Creek with
the park. All are relatively pristine in nature and intact
ecologically. These habitats are important to wildlife found within the
park that use surrounding areas as conveyances to and from feeding,
resting, and breeding areas. The preservation of this national treasure
can only be accomplished by including the Muse tract within the
boundary of the park.
The proposal to add the Muse property to the National Monument is
supported by the Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors, the
Chantilly Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, the
National Parks Mid-Atlantic Council, the George Washington Birthplace
National Memorial Association, and most importantly, the owners of the
property.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 2571
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on this bill to study the Rim of the Valley in the
Los Angeles region. S. 2571 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a Special Resource Study to evaluate the suitability and
feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a unit of
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
The Department does not oppose this bill. However, because the
study area includes a significant amount of U.S. Forest Service lands,
we believe that the bill should be amended to authorize a joint study
with the Department of Agriculture. The Department did not request
additional funding for this study in Fiscal Years 2003. We believe that
any funding requested should be directed towards completing previously
authorized studies. Presently, there are 34 studies pending, of which
we expect to transmit 4 to Congress by the end of 2002. To meet the
President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog,
we must continue to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in
the National Park System. Thus, we have concerns about adding new
funding requirements for new park units, national trails, wild and
scenic rivers or heritage areas at the same time that we are trying to
reduce the deferred maintenance backlog.
As such, the Department will identify all acquisition, one time and
operational costs of the proposed site. At this time, those costs are
unknown.
Senator Boxer also has introduced S. 1865, a bill to evaluate and
study the suitability and feasibility of nearby lower Los Angeles River
and San Gabriel River Watersheds. These bills affect nearly adjacent
territories in the Los Angeles Basin and affect nearly identical large
constituencies. As any study would include a public involvement
component, combining the planning effort to evaluate both areas would
not only be less confusing to the public but also more cost-effective
for the government. Since a study of the Rim of the Valley is estimated
to cost approximately $500,000 there could be considerable efficiencies
gained by combining and narrowing the focus of these two proposed
studies.
A combined study would assess habitat quality, access to urban open
space, low impact recreation and educational uses, wildlife and habitat
restoration and protection and watershed improvements along the rivers
and watersheds as well as the Rim of the Valley corridor surrounding
the San Fernando and La Crescenta Valleys. This latter corridor
consists of portions of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna
Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills
and the connector to Los Padres, Angeles, and San Bernardino National
Forests.
Properties on the National Register of Historic Places are found
within this area. Old stagecoach stops and images of the Wild West
still exist. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is located within
the Simi Hills. Amtrak's Coast Starlight line travels past many of
these rich cultural and natural motifs. The area supports a diverse
system of plants and animals, including 26 distinct plant communities
and over 400 vertebrate species.
The National Park Service has some familiarity with this region and
watersheds. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area provides
protection for 153,750 acres while providing recreational opportunities
for approximately 530,000 visitors annually.
A study would outline public-private partnerships, which are core
to preserving large tracts of open space such as are included in this
study and which have been successful in the protection of Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area since it was authorized 25 years
ago.
The Department feels that the provision in S. 2571 that establishes
a 17-member advisory commission is unnecessary. Any Special Resource
Study undertaken by the National Park Service will entail extensive
public outreach with members of the public and local governments,
extended comment periods, and more complex analyses because issues and
options in a large, urban area with such a diverse and extensive group
of stakeholders at all levels of government would be considered.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss this issue and I would be willing to answer any questions you
may have on the issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 2595
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2595. This bill would allow
Mesa Verde National Park to enter into a partnership with the Mesa
Verde Foundation, associated tribes and others, to raise funds to
construct and operate the Mesa Verde Cultural Center on lands outside
the park owned by the Mesa Verde Foundation.
The Department recognizes the needs that S. 2595 is seeking to
address. However, the Department cannot support the bill because it
would circumvent our process for identifying park priorities and
eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks. The
Department is committed to supporting the President's Initiative to
eliminate the park maintenance backlog, and we believe funds are more
appropriately directed at this time to reducing the long list of
necessary but deferred construction projects.
The Park has had a very successful partnership with the Mesa Verde
Foundation, and they have been working together on the Cultural Center
concept for many years. However, there are a number of unresolved
issues remaining, including the location of the center, the amount of
funding that would be required from the National Park Service and the
relationship of the center to other service-wide priorities. Even
though the proposed center has been analyzed in an environmental
assessment, it has not been subject to the internal review and
priority-setting process used for line-item construction projects.
Given the proposed cost of $50,000,000, at least a portion of which
could come from appropriated funds, review by the Service-wide
Development Advisory Board would be valuable in ensuring that the
proposed center is designed in a sustainable and cost-efficient manner.
These issues need to be resolved before this proposal is ready for
authorization.
S. 2595 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to collect
and expend donated funds and expend appropriated funds for the design,
construction, maintenance, and operation of a cultural center and
related facilities. The purpose of the cultural center and facilities
would be to accommodate visitors, to protect artifacts and archival
materials, and for the administration of Mesa Verde National Park. The
bill provides that the cultural center and facilities would be built on
privately owned lands located outside and adjacent to the boundary of
the park.
In the environmental assessment referenced earlier, the Park also
analyzed a new visitor center, which would serve as the educational
link connecting visitors to the park, regional resources and the
modern-day tribes. Park visitors have long complained, especially
during the winter months, about the 15-mile drive into the park, up a
long, steep, narrow winding road to get to the Far View Visitor Center.
The environmental assessment also analyzed having a small component of
the cultural center to be dedicated to park administrative functions.
This would locate the staff in close proximity to the associated
communities and partners.
The Department recognizes the deficiencies S. 2595 seeks to
address, particularly concerning inadequacies associated with the
current curatorial facilities. As we continue to make progress on the
maintenance backlog, we will begin to identify additional high priority
needs for future action. Addressing the curatorial needs at Mesa Verde
National Park will likely emerge as a significant priority from the
National Park Service's ongoing review process. We look forward to
working with Senator Campbell and the Committee in addressing this
deficiency.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1925
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1925. This bill would
require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine
the national significance, suitability and feasibility of designating
the Waco Mammoth Site in Waco, Texas as a unit of the National Park
System. H.R. 1925 passed the House of Representatives on May 14, 2002.
The Department supports this bill. However, the Department did not
request additional funding for this study in Fiscal Year 2003. We
believe that any funding requested should be directed towards
completing previously authorized studies. Presently, there are 34
studies pending, of which we expect to transmit four to Congress by the
end of 2002. To meet the President's Initiative to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog, we must continue to focus our resources
on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. Thus, we have
concerns about adding new funding requirements for new park units,
national trails, wild and scenic rivers or heritage areas at the same
time that we are trying to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. As
such, the Department will identify all acquisition, one-time and
operational costs of the proposed site. At this time, those costs are
unknown.
H.R. 1925 calls for the completion of a special resource study of
the Waco Mammoth Site that determines the national significance,
suitability and feasibility of designating the site as a unit of the
National Park System. The bill calls for the study to be completed
under the guidelines in P.L. 91-383 and submission of the study results
to Congress not later than three years after funds are first made
available for the Act.
The Waco Mammoth Site area is located near the confluence of the
Brazos and the Bosque rivers in Central Texas, not far from the city of
Waco. Baylor University has been investigating the site since 1978
after hearing about bones emerging from eroding creek banks that led to
the uncovering of portions of five mammoths. Since then several
additional mammoth remains have been uncovered--making this the largest
known concentration of mammoths dying from the same event.
The discoveries have received international attention, with
archeologists and paleontologists from Sweden and Great Britain
visiting the site. Many of the remains have been excavated and are in
storage or still being researched. The University and the city of Waco
have been working together to protect the site, as well as develop
further research and educational opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Akaka. Now we will hear from Ms. Mellon. Your
statement, please.
STATEMENT OF LORI A. MELLON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MESA VERDE
FOUNDATION
Ms. Mellon. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Park
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today. It is an
honor to come before you and tell you about this marvelous and
urgently needed project to create a cultural center for Mesa
Verde National Park and the thousands of visitors who come to
the park each year.
My name is Lori Mellon, and I am representing Mesa Verde
Foundation. We are here to ask your help in making possible
this unique public-private partnership and move it forward
expediently.
S. 2595 will enable private lands, which are those owned by
the Mesa Verde Foundation, and donated funds to be used to help
design and construct a facility to welcome park visitors and to
care for, store, research, and display roughly 3 million
artifacts from Mesa Verde.
The passage of this bill will give the imprimatur to the
partnership, thereby endorsing our mission and allowing us, in
partnership with the park, to go forward with planning,
fundraising, designing, and building the cultural center.
Without its passage, we can do none of this.
To accomplish our objective requires relationships between
the Government and various partners. Notable precedents exist,
including Rocky Mountain National Park and Rocky Mountain
National Park Associates, Inc. They are a nonprofit
organization. Deputy Director Jones was personally involved
with this project.
Mesa Verde Foundation is Mesa Verde National Park's primary
partner. We were founded in 1997 as a nonprofit organization
with a mission to promote an understanding of the cultural and
natural resources connected with, and to fund charitable and
educational endeavors for, Mesa Verde National Park. Our
current efforts and activities are directed to establishing a
cultural and visitor center complex at the entrance to the
park.
In anticipation of building a cultural center, the
foundation, more than 2 years ago, purchased a 37\1/2\ acre
tract of land adjoining the entrance to the park. The approved
environmental assessment, which Senator Campbell mentioned,
identify the foundation's property as the ideal site for the
proposed center. The successful completion of the environmental
assessment and its approval with a signed finding of no
significant impact have allowed the park and the foundation to
take the next critical step: that is, to seek the support of
Congress to enact legislation essential to permitting the
construction of the proposed cultural center on property owned
by the foundation.
To date, we have made significant progress on our mission.
In addition to the land acquisition, we have established a
professional office and staff to begin planning for the next
phase of the project. We are in the process of identifying
other partners who will include the 24 associated Tribes and
Pueblos of Mesa Verde and the park's museum association. We
must codify their roles and responsibilities. And I can tell
you that is in process and in draft and discussion as I speak.
I would like to take a moment to share our vision of the
cultural center, to discuss why it is critical to the operation
and continued success of Mesa Verde National Park and help you
understand why its making would so engage ordinary citizens to
the point of giving of their own time, goodwill, and personal
funds.
In its public functions, the cultural center will welcome
visitors and offer amenities, such as ticketing, eliminating
the need to drive 20 miles into the park just to learn if they
will be able to see the spectacular cliff dwellings during
their visit. They will be able to preview the architectural
wonders and works of the ancestral Pueblo people. They will be
introduced to the spiritual and sacred beliefs of the 24
associated Pueblos and Tribes who, for the first time, will be
able to share their culture, heritage, and history on the site
where their ancestors lived.
The cultural center will have ample space to exhibit more
of the priceless historical and prehistoric artifacts from the
park's collection, as well as contemporary works by associated
Tribe members. Finally, researchers, Tribes, and the public
will have access to the collection and archives for
examination, education, and inspiration.
Behind the scenes, the cultural center will serve to
overcome serious inadequacies in the existing storage structure
through a purposely built, state of the art collections storage
and study facility. The cultural center will also provide
employees with safe and adequate working conditions, which do
not exist at present.
Current value analysis planning calls for a complex of
96,000 square feet to house curation, exhibition, visitor, and
administrative services. It will also include an additional
36,000 square feet for outdoor interpretive plazas and a large
amphitheater. The cultural center's design will reflect
environmental responsibility and energy efficiency. It will be
visually compatible with the natural surroundings and relate to
other historic architecture in the park. Over time, the
cultural center will take on historic value to our Nation.
The history of our Nation's commitment to Mesa Verde
encompasses nearly 100 years. The act of June 29, 1906, created
Mesa Verde National Park to preserve from injury or spoilation
the magnificent cliff dwellings and other archeological sites
and artifacts of the prehistoric people that once lived there.
Subsequent park planning has long identified the need to better
serve visitors and provide improved storage, access, and
display of the collections.
The service has outgrown the small historic structures on
the Mesa and, to function effectively, requires space that is
just not available within park boundaries. The foundation site
for the cultural center will not impact the integrity of the
park or its archeological sites. Yet it will preserve the
historic approach to the park.
The cultural center will directly fulfill essential aspects
of the park's mission to advance archeological science, provide
for the education and enjoyment of the park's resources by
future generations, and recognize and respect the values and
traditions of the associated Native American Tribes.
Mesa Verde contains some of the most extraordinary and
best-preserved archeological sites in the Nation and the world.
Mesa Verde was among the original 12 locations chosen by UNESCO
in 1978 as a world heritage site. In 1999, the White House
Millennium Council and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation honored Mesa Verde as an American treasure.
S. 2595 is the next benchmark in the development of the
cultural center. Similar legislation has been introduced in the
House. With your support and endorsement by means of this
legislation, Mesa Verde National Park and Mesa Verde
Foundation, as well as all other partners, interested parties
and friends, can go forward in bringing closer to realization
the cultural center at Mesa Verde National Park.
To Senator Campbell, we proffer our thanks and gratitude
for his interest and support of both our partnership and the
development of the center.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to talk
with you and the subcommittee. And with this, I conclude my
prepared remarks. I would be pleased to take any questions you
may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We have questions for both of you. And I will begin with
Mr. Jones.
My first question involves S. 2595, the Mesa Verde cultural
center. I understand the administration's general policy to
focus resources on deferred maintenance projects, the backlog.
But apart from this issue, is a primary concern with this bill
the use of Federal funds to build a center on private lands, or
is this a project that, in your opinion, is not ready for
authorization at this point in time?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we hope we are very close. We feel
a major concern we have in the bill as currently drafted is the
authorization to expend Federal construction dollars on
privately owned lands, because we are very concerned about how
we can ensure the protection of the taxpayers' investment on
those privately owned lands.
There is no doubt, for example, of the tremendous need for
curatorial storage protection. The remainder of the scope of
the project, to my knowledge, has not gone through a National
Park Service review to agree upon how much at the facility is
needed and what are the priorities for implementing the
program.
We are also concerned, and I contrast this with two other
examples, Gettysburg National Military Park and Rocky Mountain
National Park, that before we began the process, we had very
clearly agreed upon, written and signed documents that outlined
the scope of who was providing what funding and what is the
future obligation of the United States in the completion of
this project. And at this point, especially given the scale of
the project, we are concerned about the potential liability of
the United States.
Senator Akaka. I understand that one of the primary
purposes of the center is to provide proper storage for many of
Mesa Verde's artifacts. If construction of the cultural center
is deferred, what is the cost to the Park Service in terms of
potential damage to these artifacts? Is there a threat that
some of them could be damaged by remaining in inadequate
storage conditions?
Mr. Jones. Yes, Senator, there is that concern. A lot of
the artifacts have recently been moved into temporary storage
on a short-term basis. And we do have an urgent need of finding
a long-term solution as quickly as possible.
Senator Akaka. With respect to the L.A. River study, S.
1865, the intent is clearly to assess a variety of options for
recreational use and open space protection of the L.A. River,
not to study the potential for a traditional national park,
such as Yosemite or Yellowstone. Are there any existing units
of the National Park System that might serve as appropriate
models for this study?
Mr. Jones. We have had some expertise in places like
Mississippi River and places like the Chattahoochee River
outside of Atlanta that could serve as models. Our agency has
extensive experience with the relatively new concept of
heritage areas, which are public-private partnerships, not as
units of the National Park System, where we offer expertise to
the local communities on how to protect resources.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Jones, in your testimony about the Waco
Mammoth site study bill, H.R. 1925, you indicate that this is
the largest known concentration of mammoths dying from the same
event. I am curious. What killed the mammoths at this site? And
what can the fossils at this site tell us about the events that
took place?
Mr. Jones. The event appears to have been a heavy rainstorm
that resulted in a flood that trapped and drowned the mammoths
into the mud, which is also what helped preserve the remains.
As the paleontologists have looked at the remains, there are
some behavioral characteristics of the animals that can be
learned, as one animal apparently from its position and action
was trying to save a younger member of the herd. So both animal
behavior and just a great deal of public information about the
biology of the mammoths can be learned from this site.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Let me ask for questions from Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. I have several. I will do
it very quickly. And if you can answer quickly, that will be
fine.
How many studies did the Park Service do in 2002, or will
you do?
Mr. Jones. We will complete another 4 by the end of the
year. And I am not current--and I know you always ask, and I
apologize. I do not have the current number for this year. But
we still have a tremendous backlog.
Senator Thomas. You have 34 pending now.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. You will do 4 more.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. I guess I--we put studies in the bill in
1998, of course, and I am pleased with that. But if you are
going to do studies in a timely way, it looks like you are
going to have ask for some money to do it more quickly.
Mr. Jones. And at this point, we are not asking for an
increase in the funding for studies. And your earlier statement
is correct, it would be a few years before we would be able to
initiate this study. Our approach has been not to try and
prioritize one study versus another, but match the needed
funding with what we have and try to do them in the order in
which they were approved by the Congress.
Senator Thomas. I just think that a 3-year wait or 4-year
wait is going to be a little--people are going to be a little
impatient, if that is the case, over time.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. May I just digress a second and ask that
the statement from Senator Allen from Virginia be included in
the record? He was unable to be here today.
Senator Akaka. His statement will be included in the
record.
Senator Jones. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Allen, U.S. Senator From Virginia
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding a hearing in your
Subcommittee on the subject of the George Washington Birthplace
National Monument. This historically significant landmark is located in
Westmoreland County, Virginia on the Potomac River side of the
``Northern Neck.'' I strongly believe the birthplace of our nation's
first President and a key Founding Father should be preserved as a
hallowed ground for all who wish to visit, enjoy and learn.
The bill, which is currently before the Subcommittee, S. 1943, will
modify the boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace National
Monument to include an additional 115 acres in Westmoreland County. The
prospective 115 acres are currently owned by the Muse Family, who are
presently ``willing sellers'' of the land. The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to acquire land from willing sellers by
donation, purchase with donated money or appropriated funds or
exchange.
The George Washington Birthplace National Monument currently
encompasses approximately 550 acres of land. The purpose of acquiring
this additional land is to preserve the pastoral, bucolic setting and
prevent development of proposed condominiums on the adjoining land.
Scholars, historians and common citizens have made the pilgrimage
to the birthplace of George Washington since 1815. Visitors from all
over the world have journeyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia to see
the place where the first President of the United States was born.
Today, this 550-acre park memorializes the life of George Washington
and the place of his birth. The park now includes a Visitors Center
that coordinates activities and houses exhibitions. There is also an
oyster shell outline, which is the brick foundation of the house where
George Washington was born. The Washington family cemetery where George
Washington's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather are buried are
also on the grounds.
The National Park Service now maintains the Memorial House,
kitchen, and typical plantation surroundings on the property. There is
also a picnic grounds area with a nature trail for hikers and other
outdoors enthusiasts, along with the Potomac Riverbeach area.
George Washington Birthplace National Monument calls to mind the
spirit and feel of the typical 18th century Virginia tobacco farm. The
historic buildings in the area, groves of trees, various herds of
livestock, beautiful gardens, as well as peaceful rivers and creeks
were the earliest scenes of George Washington's childhood. The setting
at George Washington Birthplace National Monument interprets the
childhood setting which greatly influenced the formative years of
George Washington and later the man and leader that he became.
It is interesting to note that George Washington later lived as a
child at Ferry Farm on the Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg. And
then, as an adult, we know he created and operated the several farms
adjoining Mount Vernon, up river on the Potomac in Fairfax County.
As you know, George Washington was Commander-in-Chief of the
Continental Army, President of the Constitutional Convention, and the
first President of the United States of America. George Washington was
the one man who possessed the skills that would defeat the greatest
military power on earth at the time, unite thirteen diverse colonies
into the first successful republic since Rome, and lend his character
to the newly created Office of President. His leadership in this
country's infant stages cannot be overstated.
The commemoration of Washington's many significant contributions to
the United States has overshadowed much of his early, formative years.
The humble beginnings of George Washington influenced his character and
ambition as he attempted to distinguish his efforts in Colonial
Virginia society.
This bill has been favorably reviewed by the National Park Service,
which also includes the salient preconditional fact that the current
landowners are willing sellers. Also, importantly to me, the
Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors are honored and privileged to
have George Washington Birthplace National Monument in their county and
also strongly support the expansion of the park. This is a positive
opportunity for all parties involved.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation, along with my
distinguished colleague from Virginia, and hope to soon see the bill on
the floor of the U.S. Senate. Thank you once again for holding this
hearing to expand the George Washington Birthplace National Monument
and I respectfully request its favorable passage.
Senator Thomas. Let me see.
The combined study, then, I understand that in this Rim of
the Valley corridor that you would promote the idea of having
it jointly with the Forest Service and see if you can work out
something that way.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. From what we know, we have a good
relationship with the Forest Service, especially from our unit
at the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. And our
experience has been that we think they are doing an excellent
job.
Senator Thomas. Good. It looks like it is some combination
there.
In Waco with the mammoth study site, the city of Waco and
Baylor University have been handling this now for 23 or 24
years.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Jones. It is my understanding that they have been
endorsing this particular study.
Senator Thomas. Oh, I am sure they have.
Mr. Jones. Well, as we complete--the proper answer to your
question, I mean, certainly is we would conduct the study. It
needs to look at and explore all the options for protection of
the resource.
Senator Thomas. But it is being protected, is my point. Do
you consider that when you do the study, or do you think that
everything that anyone sends up should obligate the Park
Service to do it? I think we are going to have to start making
some decisions. You do not have enough money. We hear that from
you five times a year. And yet this is likely--most of this is
to get the financing over to the Federal Government, rather
than for them.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Well, I think you ought to just take a look
at it and see if it--I mean, it is something that needs to be
saved. But whether it needs to be in the park units, I think,
is really an issue.
Mr. Jones. And I would agree with you completely on that.
Senator Thomas. And you mentioned the heritage systems. We
do not have any definition or criteria for what they are. How
far do we go with national park facilities, as opposed to local
and State? So, you know, at any rate, I hope you will project
some of that in the studies, as they come by.
Mr. Jones. It certainly is an issue that we share your
concern about because, as the Senator knows, we are having a
great deal of difficulty taking care of what we have now.
Senator Thomas. Yes. Well, and there should be some
criteria for what falls in more likely to be a national park or
a national responsibility. And, gosh, a lot of the good things
we have in this country are local and State. The State park
system is excellent.
So, in any event, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to
report that S. 2595 does not need any further studies, at least
to my knowledge.
Ms. Mellon and I are on the same side of this issue. So I
do not have any questions for her, except perhaps one, because
it keeps coming up. I am sure you have noticed that. And that
is the responsibility of the Federal Government from the
standpoint of money. Does the foundation intend to have the
Federal Government pay for part of this facility? If so, what?
And what percent?
Ms. Mellon. The foundation needs to conduct a feasibility
study to see if the money is out there to support the cost of
the proposed cultural center. We feel very strongly that a
public-private partnership will be required to reach the goal
of funding the entire cultural center.
Senator Campbell. Well, you said it would be 96,000 square
feet. So what would be----
Ms. Mellon. Of internal space.
Senator Campbell. What would be the estimated cost of a
building?
Ms. Mellon. The entire complex is estimated at about $50
million.
Senator Campbell. $50 million. Okay.
Ms. Mellon. Yes.
Senator Campbell. I have some questions for Randy Jones,
but I do not want to make him mad, because we have a lot of
work to do on this bill together. But let me ask you a couple
anyway.
Senator Akaka. You had better stop now.
Senator Campbell. Stop right now?
[Laughter.]
Senator Campbell. Have you visited this facility, this
literal tin shed, this great big barn of a building where they
house all this stuff, Randy?
Mr. Jones. No, sir, I have not.
Senator Campbell. Well, I would encourage you----
Mr. Jones. I have been to the park, but I have not----
Senator Campbell [continuing]. If you are in that area to
drop by and see it. I was amazed that they would keep such
priceless things in a building that was, in my view, rather
dilapidated.
As I read the language, let me just say this provision in
the bill says, ``The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
collect and expend donated funds and expend appropriated
funds.'' Authorized, but it does not require her to do
anything. But you still have some problems with that provision,
apparently.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, we do.
Senator Campbell. Okay. We can work on that.
I understood, also, that there was a line item of $6
million in the President's budget for phase one construction in
2006, but it was taken out. Is that correct?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, because it was--in the review
process that went through, at this point we felt it was not
ready for actually putting into the President's budget. And
some of the questions that need to be answered, for example,
are where it would go and on whose land it would go. There is
no doubt in my mind, from the studies that have been identified
to date, that for the curatorial storage facility aspects that
have been the most extensively studied, the various needs
there, that it would rank as a very high priority, if it was
being proposed to be put on Federal lands.
Senator Campbell. You were at Rocky Mountain National Park.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. Just in a quick capsule, what is the
difference between the facility we built at Rocky Mountain
National Park, or was built, as a visitor center that was, as I
understood, outside the park gate and this one?
Mr. Jones. The difference was the one at Rocky Mountain
National Park had no Federal funds in the design or the
construction of the facility. And we also had, before we came
to you, a signed written agreement that outlined exactly what
we were doing and whose obligation every component of the
project was going to be.
Senator Campbell. Okay.
Mr. Jones. So we had knowledge going in, essentially.
Senator Campbell. Yes. Well, we can work on that.
Under the Secretary's current authority, what if somebody
won a bunch of money, and they wanted to donate it, $100
million to build a storage facility on foundation land, but
they gave it to the Secretary? Can the Secretary use those
funds or accept it without congressional approval?
Mr. Jones. To actually construct the facility outside the
park we could not expend those funds.
Senator Campbell. You could not. Even if somebody wanted to
give you the money, you could not accept it or use it?
Mr. Jones. We could not use it. Well, if we cannot use it,
we cannot accept it.
Senator Campbell. You could with congressional approval.
Mr. Jones. With congressional approval. And that gets back,
Senator, to your distinction with Rocky Mountain National Park.
There, the authorization was very simple, authorizing us to
expend operating funds, maintenance funds in the operation of
the facility, and authorizing us to accept the donations.
Senator Campbell. Good. See, Lori is taking notes there?
That is good.
[Laughter.]
Senator Campbell. What about if they built a facility on
their land, could the Park Service have a ranger staff that
facility?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. It could?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. With your budget?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. Well, I think I understand where we need
to go, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jones. And, Senator, one----
Senator Campbell. Oh, maybe one--excuse me.
Mr. Jones. We definitely want to work with you to make this
work.
Senator Campbell. Well, we will. Maybe one other question,
too: This old building, that current facility was targeted for
replacement 20 years ago, as I understand.
Mr. Jones. Twenty years ago.
Senator Campbell. So it is way past overdue. Why was it not
on the deferred maintenance list? Why has it been waiting so
long to be upgraded?
Mr. Jones. I do not know that it is not on the maintenance
list. But as far as why it has not been upgraded to date is, it
gets back to the current $4.6 billion backlog of deferred
maintenance we have.
Senator Campbell. Okay. But are there things in worse shape
than that that are in a higher priority?
Mr. Jones. That would be a higher priority? Yes, sir, there
would be.
Senator Campbell. I think that is all the questions I need
to be able to work with, Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your questions.
Mr. Jones. But we definitely want to work with you,
Senator.
Senator Campbell. Looking forward to it. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your questions, Senator
Campbell. I think it appears that you have plans as to how you
are going to work this out.
Senator Campbell. Got plans.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. Ms. Mellon, I have one question for you. And
maybe this will resolve the problems. But one of the issues
with this bill is a concern over using Federal funds for a
facility on private lands. To address this concern, and since
the foundation owns the land currently, and this is just a
question that might resolve the situation, has the foundation
ever considered donating the land to the National Park Service
to allow for its addition to Mesa Verde?
Ms. Mellon. Certainly that is under discussion, and we are
talking about it again, as I sit here in Washington. There are
many opinions as to ways this can be accomplished. And we want
to obviously make it happen and make it work the right way. I
know that in similar instances donations of land that have been
non-Federal have been written into the agreements for 20 years
hence, or could be extended another 20 or another 20.
There have been discussions about outright donation,
rental, purchase. The point being: the reason that we are
thinking about it the way that we have approached you is
because that allows us to go after the philanthropic dollar. If
this is Federal land, Federal property, Federal employees,
Federal collections, there is no chance of raising outside
private funds. And this way there is.
And since we are talking about such a huge amount of money
here, and $50 million is nothing to sneeze at, we want to
approach every possible source. So that is why we have
approached it in the way that we have, sir.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Jones, would you like to comment?
Mr. Jones. The transfer of the property to the National
Park Service would solve most of the problems that have been
identified in the discussion today from our opinion. I also
respectfully have a different view on the ability of
fundraising, based on my own experience.
I mean, on the Rocky Mountain National Park we were raising
anywhere from $1 million to $3 million a year in donated funds
for construction projects on Federal lands within the national
park. On a nationwide basis, we are raising hundreds of
millions of dollars for projects on Federal lands in national
parks.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your responses.
Are there any further questions?
Well, I want to thank my witnesses today. And what you have
done is you have been very helpful to our making our decisions
on this committee.
So this concludes our hearing. We will keep the record open
for 2 weeks, if anyone wishes to submit additional comments on
any of these bills.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following letter was received for the record:]
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 18, 2002.
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Thomas, and Members of the
Subcommittee: We are sending this letter to express our strong support
of H.R. 1925, the Waco Mammoth Area Study Act, and to ask for yours.
The Waco Mammoth Site has local, national and international
significance as the world's largest known concentration of prehistoric
mammoths that died from the same event.
The Waco Mammoth Site Study Act authorizes a study by the National
Park Service to consider including the Waco Mammoth Site as a unit in
the National Park System. This bill was passed by the House of
Representatives on May 14, 2002, and now awaits consideration by your
Subcommittee. Because there are numerous different categories in the
National Park System, such as a national monument or a cultural
historical site, this study will determine the appropriate designation,
if any, for the Waco Mammoth Site.
Over 28,000 years ago, a mud flood overcame a herd of mammoths.
While not able to move to safety, the mammoths were able to form a
protective stance over their young. In fact, the mud engulfed one 55-
year old male and 45 year-old female mammoth as they tried to use their
tusks to lift their young calves to safety. This parental instinct is
the first known recording in history. So far, the bones of twenty-four
mammoths have been found.
The site was discovered in 1978, and Baylor University's Calvin
Smith has led the research effort since 1984. This site and Smith's
research have received worldwide attention. Experts such as Dr. Gary
Haynes of the University of Nevada at Reno have said that the Waco
Mammoth Site is a valuable and unique treasure that should not be lost.
Dr. Haynes states that the mammoth site ``is a part of America's rich
heritage from the far past, when a much more diverse animal community
populated the continent.'' In fact, the Department of Interior hopes
that the Waco Mammoth site will be an example of a ``living
laboratory'' for which we can continue to learn about life before us.
The Mammoth Site can also be a valued learning tool for school children
of various grade levels throughout much of Texas, as well as a site of
study for professional paleontologists.
We appreciate your time and consideration of this important bill,
and hope you will support its passage.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Chet Edwards.