[Senate Hearing 113-27]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-27
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 59 S. 155
S. 156 S. 219
S. 225 S. 228
S. 285 S. 305
S. 349 S. 371
S. 476 S. 486
S. 507 S. 615
APRIL 23, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-301 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE LEE, Utah
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
Ron Wyden and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California................ 3
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico.............. 2
Kolb, Ingrid, Director, Office of Management, Department of
Energy......................................................... 26
Manchin, III, Hon. Joe, U.S. Senator From West Virginia.......... 3
O'Dell, Peggy, Deputy Director for Operations, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior............................ 5
Portman, Hon. Rob, U.S. Senator From Ohio........................ 32
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 35
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record.....................41++++
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order.
I have a short statement. I'll then turn to my colleagues
who are here for any opening statements they might have. We're
graced with the presence of Senator Boxer, and we look forward
to hearing her remarks.
This afternoon the subcommittee on National Parks is
holding a hearing to consider 14 bills. All but 1 of these
bills were considered by the subcommittee in the last Congress.
Because we already have a legislative record for these bills
the format for today's hearing is a little more compact than
usual as we only have witnesses representing the
administration, who will testify today.
Our goal is to update the hearing record and allow
committee members an opportunity to ask any questions they may
have. Because of the large number of bills on today's agenda, I
won't read through the list. But at this time I'll include a
complete list of bills in the hearing record.
Senator Udall. Before we begin, well, let me--I'm going to
set that aside. These are my comments about Senator Portman,
who is the new ranking member.
But I did want to say that our subcommittee historically
has one of the busier legislative workloads. The key to working
through the large number of bills is having a strong,
bipartisan, working relationship. I worked with Senator Portman
recently on his bill to establish a Peace Corps memorial in
Washington, which the committee reported last month. I look
forward to working with him on the many bills to come before
the subcommittee during this Congress.
If I could take a minute of personal privilege, Senator
Boxer, my mother enlisted in the Peace Corps at the age of 56.
She went to Nepal. She served for 4 years. She worked on
microloan projects for women.
Senator Boxer. Fabulous. Fabulous.
Senator Udall. It involved a 2-hour walk to a distant
village. She's, to this day, a heroine of mine for that public
service spirit.
At this point let me turn to my colleagues if they have
opening statements.
Senator Manchin or Senator Heinrich.
[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator From
Tennessee, on S. 507
The Manhattan Project is one of the most significant events in
American history. Today it is impossible to imagine that in September
1942, in a valley in East Tennessee, 3,000 farmers and their families
were told to leave their homes to make way for a ``secret city'' that
would bring 100,000 men and women together to help end World War II and
forever change the course of human history. The story of the Manhattan
Project is not only about World War II, it is about the people who
lived and worked at these sites, the scientific achievements they made,
and the impact of their work on our Nation's history. I have long
supported establishing a national historic park to protect the
Manhattan Project sites because of the project's important role in our
history, but also because of its importance to the history and people
of Tennessee. Oak Ridge, which was not listed on a map until 1949,
became the home for 100,000 scientists, engineers, machinists,
operators and construction workers. Very few of the scientists knew
what they were working on, and even fewer knew anything about uranium.
Many have asked how a valley in East Tennessee became the first
Manhattan Project site. As Ray Smith, Y-12's Historian, would tell it,
President Roosevelt needed to convince Congress to spend a large amount
of money without knowing what is was going to be used for. President
Roosevelt asked Senator Douglas McKellar, a Democrat from Tennessee, if
this could be done. Senator McKellar is said to have replied, ``Yes,
Mr. President, I can do that for you . . . now just where in Tennessee
are you going to put that thang?''
This is one of thousands of stories that tell a small part of a
full story that communicates the importance of this event in American
history. As Americans we have a special obligation to preserve and
protect our heritage, and the Manhattan Project National Historical
Park will ensure that all Americans learn about the significance of the
Manhattan Project and how it continues to shape our history.
In 2004, I joined Senator Bingaman as a cosponsor of the Manhattan
Project National Historical Park Study Act, which directed the
Department of Interior to conduct a study of the Manhattan Project
sites to determine the feasibility of including the sites in the
National Park System.
In 2011, following public meetings, extensive assessments of
potential park boundaries and assessments of the integrity of the
historical resources, the Department of the Interior found that the
park was feasible, that it met the suitability requirements for
establishing a new national park and that the park should be
established.
As part of the park's establishment the study recommended the
creation of a Manhattan Project National Historical Park with units at
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington.
According to Secretary Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, ``the
Manhattan Project ushered in the atomic age, changed the role of the
United States in the world community, and set the stage for the Cold
War.''
Support for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act is
bipartisan, bicameral, and has the strong support of the Energy
Communities Alliance and the National Parks Conservation Association.
I thank the committee for holding this hearing today and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation as it moves forward. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. I just want to say, I want to recognize
the work that Senator Bingaman did on the 2 bills relating to
New Mexico today, Valles Caldera National Preserve and then
obviously the Manhattan Projects relationship to Los Alamos. We
wouldn't be this far along if it weren't for all the good work
that he put in on these two pieces of legislation.
Senator Udall. Senator Manchin.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Manchin. I would just like to thank you for the
courtesy allowing me since I'm a co-sponsor of S. 486 with
Senator Burr and Senator Hagan, I appreciate very much you
allowing me to be here and also to be able to say a few words
on behalf of S. 486.
Senator Udall. We're glad to have you here, Senator
Manchin. You're a member of the full committee. It's only the
right thing to do to include you in today's hearing. So thank
you for being here.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to the Chairwoman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, my good friend, Senator
Boxer, for her remarks.
Senator Boxer, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Thank you for referencing your
mom in that amazing story. She's, well I could just say, you
certainly inherited that feeling of public spirit from so many
people in your family. Enough said on that.
To say, Senator Heinrich, it's so nice to hear you mention
Jeff because, you know, it's true that we're a government of
laws, not men, or people, as I like to say. But people make a
difference. That one over there just made a difference the
other day. So it's important to remember that we stand on the
shoulders of a lot of people, whether they're family or other
colleagues.
I don't have a long statement. You'll be happy about that.
You'll also be happy to know that S. 59, the Distinguished
Flying Cross National Memorial Act will not cost the Federal
Government one slim dime. So that's good.
You'll be happy to know that it passed the House twice. So
I'm here to kind of tug at your lapels a little bit and say,
Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a no-brainer. We've got to get it
done.
Let me tell you about this bill which I've introduced with
Senators Feinstein and Nelson.
The purpose is very simple. It would designate the
Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial at March Field Air Museum
in Riverside, California. We'd make it a national memorial, not
a national park, not a park, a national memorial to recognize
members of our Armed Forces, who have distinguished themselves
by heroism in aerial flight.
The Distinguished Flying Cross is America's oldest military
award. I didn't know that until I got into this. It's the
oldest military award for aviation. It's awarded to ``service
members and select civilians who perform acts of heroism'' I'm
quoting, ``or extraordinary achievement while participating in
aerial flight.''
But unfortunately, believe it or not, our Nation lacks a
national memorial to appropriately recognize these brave men
and women. Now March Field Air Museum in California is
currently the only memorial in the country that honors
recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross. It was
constructed entirely using private funds and was dedicated in
October 2010.
I brought a photograph of the memorial to show to you. It's
quite, quite, quite, beautiful.
My bill would simply designate this memorial as a national
memorial in order to honor the bravery and the sacrifice of the
thousands of Americans who've received this prestigious award.
Let me reiterate, there is no other site in the country
dedicated to these American heroes. Again this legislation
would not cost the government a single dime. The memorial would
not be a unit of the National Park System and no Federal funds
could be used for any purpose related to the memorial.
So it's really a designation. That designation means a lot
to the community and to the people who put this together. I'm
so proud this bill has wide support within the military and
veterans communities.
So I'll conclude by reading you some of those who support
this.
The Distinguished Flying Cross Society.
The Military Officers Association of America.
The Air Force Association.
The Air Force Sergeant's Association
The Association of Naval Aviation.
The Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association.
The China-Burma-India Veterans Association.
Again, the House of Representatives, overwhelmingly, passed
this legislation in the 111th and 112th. So it is really time
for the Senate to act. Unless someone comes up with some good
reason why we wouldn't, I would think we could get this done
via a hotline with your blessing and that of my colleagues who
are here and hopefully Senator Portman and the others.
So unless you have any questions, I will let you do the
rest of your work. I thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you for drawing attention, again, to
the importance of achieving this goal. It looks like a striking
sight.
Senator Boxer. Yup.
Senator Udall. A sight which would pay homage in honor of
those who've served us.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. It's beautiful. It's in Riverside,
California. I welcome you to come see it with me, anytime,
after we make it a national memorial.
Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
As Senator Boxer departs, we could call our administration
witnesses to the table. We will look forward to hearing your
testimony.
So we have been joined by Ms. Peggy O'Dell, who is the
Deputy Director of Operations for the National Park Service.
Ms. O'Dell, nice to see you. You're not a stranger to the
committee.
We've also been joined by Ms. Ingrid Kolb, Director of the
Office of Management at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Ms. O'Dell, why don't I turn to you and the floor is yours.
We operate generally within a 5 minute timeframe, but there
are 14 bills. If you need a little bit more time to express the
variety of points of view that are appropriate, please take the
time you need.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY O'DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you and the subcommittee to
present the Department of Interior's views on the 14 bills on
today's agenda.
I'd like to submit our full statements on each of these
bills for the record and summarize the Department's views.
It's a pleasure to appear on the same panel with the
Department of Energy's Office of Management, Director Ingrid
Kolb, who is testifying on S. 507, authorizing the
establishment of the Manhattan Project National Historical
Park. We worked with DOE on the study for this proposal and
look forward to continuing our partnership with DOE if this
legislation is enacted.
The Department supports the following 9 bills.
S. 156, which would allow for the harvest of gull eggs by
the Huna Tlingit people within Glacier Bay National Park in
Alaska.
S. 225, which would authorize a study to determine the most
effective ways to increase understanding and public awareness
of the critical role that the Buffalo Soldiers played in the
early years of the National Parks.
S. 285, which would designate the Valles Caldera National
Preserve in New Mexico as a unit of the National Park System.
S. 305, which would authorize the addition of 3 separate
battlefield sites to Vicksburg National Military Park to tell
the remarkable story of the Union Army's capture of the city of
Vicksburg during the Civil War.
S. 349, which would authorize a study of river segments in
the Wood Pawcatuck watershed in Connecticut and Rhode Island
for their potential for designation as National Wild and Scenic
Rivers.
S. 371, which would establish the Blackstone River Valley
National Historical Park in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
S. 476, which would extend the authority to operate the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission
until January 8, 2021.
S. 507, which would authorize the establishment of the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Los Alamos, New
Mexico, Hanford, Washington and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The park
would be administered in partnership with the Department of
Energy.
Last, S. 615, which would authorize the establishment of
the Coltsville National Historical Park in Hartford,
Connecticut.
The reasons for our support for these bills are explained
in our full statements. For several of the bills I just
mentioned we are requesting that the committee make minor
amendments to the bill language. Explanation of those are also
contained in the full statements. We request the opportunity to
work with the committee on those amendments.
The Department supports with--excuse me, the Department
supports the objectives of S. 219 and S. 228, which would
establish the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in
Pennsylvania and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National
Heritage Area in California, respectively. However, the
Department recommends Congress pass National Heritage Area
program legislation before designating any additional new
areas.
Regarding S. 155, which would designate a mountain the
State of Alaska as Denali, the department does not object to
this bill and appreciates the long history and public interest
for both the name Mount McKinley and the traditional Athabascan
name, Denali.
Regarding S. 486, which would reinstate the 2007 Interim
Strategy Governing Off-Road Vehicle Use at Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, the Department strongly opposes this
legislation. The ORV management plan that took effect in
February 2012 brought the Seashore into compliance with
applicable laws, policies and executive orders after many years
of non-compliance. This plan is accomplishing the objectives of
allowing appropriate use and access at the seashore to the
greatest extent possible while also ensuring protection for the
wildlife there.
Regarding S. 59, which would designate a Distinguished
Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in
Riverside, California, the Department defers to the Department
of Defense on a position since the purpose of the legislation
is to honor military personnel at a site that is not under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. We're happy to
take questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Dell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peggy O'Dell, Deputy Director for Operations,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 59
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
59, a bill to designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial
at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
The Department would defer to the Department of Defense for a
position on S. 59 since the purpose of the legislation is to honor
military personnel who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
at a site that is not under the jurisdiction of the Department.
The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to a member of the United
States armed forces who distinguishes himself or herself in support of
operations by ``heroism or extraordinary achievement while
participating in an aerial flight.'' It is the oldest military award in
the United States for achievements in aviation. We applaud the effort
of the March Field Air Museum to create a suitable memorial to the
honor, bravery, and sacrifice of members of our Armed Forces who have
earned this medal.
This legislation explicitly states that this memorial is not a unit
of the National Park System. As this language makes clear, the use of
the title ``national memorial'' creates a reasonable expectation among
the general public that it must have an affiliation with the National
Park Service, which currently administers 29 national memorials across
the country. This is not the first time this issue has arisen, nor is
it likely to be the last, and the Department respectfully encourages
only the most thoughtful and judicious designation of any future
``national'' memorials or other similar sites.
ON S. 155
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 155, a bill to designate a
mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.
The National Park Service appreciates the long history and public
interest for both the name Mount McKinley and the traditional
Athabascan name, Denali. The Department respects the choice made by
this legislation, and does not object to S. 155.
Located in what is now Denali National Park and Preserve, the
highest peak in North America has been known by many names. The
National Park Service's administrative history of the park notes that,
``The Koyukon called it Deenaalee, the Lower Tanana named it
Deenaadheet or Deennadhee, the Dena'ina called it Dghelay Ka'a, and at
least six other Native groups had their own names for it.
``In the late 18th century various Europeans came calling, and
virtually everyone who passed by was moved to comment on it. The
Russians called it Bulshaia or Tenada, and though explorers from other
nations were less specific, even the most hard-bitten adventurers were
in awe of its height and majesty.
``No American gave it a name until Densmore's Mountain appeared in
the late 1880s, and the name that eventually stuck--Mount McKinley--was
not applied until the waning days of the nineteenth century,'' a
gesture of support to then-President William McKinley.
In 1975, the State of Alaska officially recognized Denali as the
name of the peak, and requested action by the U.S. Board on Geographic
Names to do the same.
In 1980, Congress changed the name of Mount McKinley National Park
to Denali National Park and Preserve (P.L. 96-487, Section 202), but
did not act on the name change for the mountain.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members may have.
ON S. 156
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 156,
the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act.
This legislation provides for the restoration of an important
cultural connection to Glacier Bay by the Huna Tlingit, and provides
for the environmentally preferred action identified in our studies. As
such, the Department supports enactment of S. 156 with an amendment.
Glacier Bay National Park is the traditional homeland of the Huna
Tlingit who harvested eggs at gull rookeries in Glacier Bay prior to,
and after the park was established in 1925. Egg collection was
curtailed in the 1960s as Migratory Bird Treaty Act and National Park
Service (NPS) regulations prohibited the activity.
The Glacier Bay National Park Resource Management Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-455) directed the NPS to study whether gull egg collection could
resume without impairing the biological sustainability of the gull
population in the park. The NPS conducted the study, wrote an
environmental impact statement, and in August 2010 issued a record of
decision which found that collection under certain conditions would be
sustainable. Those conditions, addressing the frequency of harvest and
an annual harvest plan, are reflected in S. 156.
Section 2 (b) of the bill contains a condition for the Secretary of
the Interior to develop an annual harvest plan jointly with the Hoonah
Indian Association. To clarify that the Hoonah Indian Association's
role is purely advisory, we recommend the attached amendment.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to testify on this
matter. I will be glad to answer any questions.
AMENDMENT TO S.156
On p. 2, line 8, strike ``jointly by the Secretary and the Hoonah
Indian Association.'' and insert ``by the Secretary in consultation
with the Hoonah Indian Association.''.
ON S.219
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 219, a bill to establish the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania.
The Department supports the objectives of S. 219. The Susquehanna
Gateway area has been found to meet the National Park Service's interim
criteria for designation as a National Heritage Area. However, the
Department recommends that Congress pass program legislation that
establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified National
Heritage Areas and a process for the designation, funding, and
administration of these areas before designating any additional new
National Heritage Areas.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas.
Flowing for 441 miles, the Susquehanna River is the longest river
on the East Coast and the largest contributor of fresh water to the
Chesapeake Bay. The portions of the river flowing through Lancaster and
York Counties in Pennsylvania exhibit exceptional natural and
recreational value and traverse landscapes of historical importance to
our nation.
The region of the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage
Area was first inhabited by Native Americans who left evidence of their
occupation in a myriad of archeological sites, as well as rock art at
several petroglyph sites. When Captain John Smith journeyed up the
Susquehanna River in the summer of 1608, he sent emissaries to the
Susquehannock town located on the east side of the river near present
day Washington Boro in Lancaster County. Tribal leaders there entered a
trade alliance, opening to the English a trade network extending
hundreds of miles.
In 1668, William Penn set the tone for religious tolerance in
Pennsylvania and brought colonists who settled the great fertile valley
of the Susquehanna Gateway region, beginning its long history as an
abundant agricultural center. Serving as an important transportation
corridor, the river provided opportunities for commerce and invention.
It was here that John Elgar constructed the first iron steamboat in
America. The birthplace of Robert Fulton, the original inventor of
steam powered boats, is a National Historic Landmark in Lancaster
County. Here, too, Phineas Davis designed and built the first practical
coal burning steam locomotive, thereby revolutionizing railroad
transportation.
The region is the home ground of the ``Plain People''--the Amish
and Mennonites. Their religious values, simple way of life, and well-
tended farms speak to the deepest feelings that Americans have about
ourselves and our national experience.
In this region, visitors also find evidence of our Revolutionary
War past. Lancaster and York Counties served as venues for the
Continental Congress when it left Philadelphia upon the British
occupation of that city. In the courthouse in York, the Congress
approved the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the
nation's ``first constitution,'' and sent it forth to the states for
ratification. In the summer of 1781, Continental Army General James
Wood established Camp Security, housing more than a thousand British
soldiers from General John Burgoyne's army, which had surrendered at
Saratoga.
The region also has an abundance of natural resources including
migratory bird nesting sites, remnants of old growth forests, and areas
of both ecological diversity and scenic quality. Ferncliff, known for
its wildflowers, and the Susquehanna Gorge are both designated National
Natural Landmarks. Recreational resources abound in the region,
including the Kelly's Run and Susquehanna River Water Trails, both
National Recreation Trails.
S. 219 designates the Susquehanna Heritage Corporation, a non-
profit organization, as the local coordinating entity for the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area. This organization has
served as the coordinator for the state heritage area covering this
region designated in 2001. The Susquehanna Heritage Corporation has
demonstrated success in coordinating diverse partners in Lancaster and
York Counties. Over the past nine years, the Corporation has been
effective in facilitating preservation, interpretative, and educational
projects and in leveraging community participation and funding. The
heritage area has strong support from the public and from a myriad of
state, local, federal, and non-governmental partners throughout the
area. In 2008, the Corporation prepared a national heritage area
feasibility study that was reviewed by the National Park Service and
found to meet the interim criteria for potential designation found in
the National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines.
If the committee decides to act on S. 219, we would like to
recommend language to make the bill more consistent with other National
Heritage Area legislation enacted most recently and also to simply the
criteria for approval of management plans.
ON S. 225
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S.225, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting
the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the national
parks, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 225. However, we feel that priority
should be given to the 31 previously authorized studies for potential
units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage
Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and
National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been
transmitted to Congress.
S. 225 would authorize a study to determine the most effective ways
to increase understanding and public awareness of the critical role
that the Buffalo Soldiers, segregated units composed of African-
American cavalrymen, played in the early years of the national parks.
It would evaluate the suitability and feasibility of a National
Historic Trail along the routes between their post at the Presidio of
San Francisco and the parks they protected, notably Yosemite and
Sequoia. The study would also identify properties that could meet the
criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or
designation as National Historic Landmarks. We estimate that this study
will cost approximately $400,000.
President Obama recognized the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers in
issuing a proclamation on March 25, 2013, designating the Charles Young
home in Wilberforce, Ohio, as a national monument. The Charles Young
Buffalo Soldiers National Monument is now the 401st unit of the
National Park System. The Presidential proclamation that established
this national monument authorizes the NPS to complete a management plan
that would include interpreting the struggles and achievements of the
Buffalo Soldiers in their service to the United States. We note that,
if S. 225 is enacted, there will be overlap with the Presidential
proclamation, as this bill directs the NPS to complete a study to
increase understanding and public awareness of the critical role that
the Buffalo Soldier played in the early years of the national parks.
However, this bill goes beyond the direction in the Presidential
Proclamation by additionally authorizing a study of the suitability and
feasibility of a national historic trail and identification of National
Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmarks properties
related to the Buffalo Soldiers. If enacted, the NPS will coordinate
the completion of the study and the management plan.
African-American 19th and 20th century Buffalo Soldiers were an
important, yet little known, part of the history of some of our first
national parks. These cavalry troops rode hundreds of miles from their
post at the Presidio of San Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite National
Parks in order to patrol and protect them. The journey across the state
took sixteen days of serious horseback riding averaging over twenty
miles a day. Once in the parks, they were assigned to patrol the
backcountry, build roads and trails, put a halt to poaching, suppress
fires, stop trespass grazing by large herds of unregulated cattle and
sheep, and otherwise establish roles later assumed by National Park
rangers.
The U.S. Army administered Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks from
1891 to 1914, when it was replaced by civilian management. The National
Park Service (NPS) was not created until 1916, 25 years after these
parks were established. Commanding officers became acting military
superintendents for these national parks with two troops of
approximately 60 cavalry men assigned to each. The troops essentially
created a roving economy-infusing money into parks and local
businesses-and thus their presence was generally welcomed. The presence
of these soldiers as official stewards of park lands prior to the NPS's
establishment brought a sense of law and order to the mountain
wilderness. Lesser known, however, is the participation of African-
American troops of the 24th Infantry and 9th Cavalry, the Buffalo
Soldiers, who protected both Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks in
1899, 1903, and 1904. These troops and their contributions should be
recognized and honored, and this bill does just that.
The most notable Buffalo Soldier was Colonel Charles Young, who
served as a captain in the cavalry commanding a segregated black
company at the Presidio of San Francisco. Born in Kentucky during the
Civil War, Charles Young had already set himself a course that took him
to places where a black man was not often welcome. He was the first
black to graduate from the white high school in Ripley, Ohio, and
through competitive examination he won an appointment to the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point in 1884. He went on to graduate with his
commission, only the third black man to do so. Colonel Young's story
and leadership are emblematic of the experience of the Buffalo Soldiers
during difficult and racially tense times. When the new military
superintendent arrived in Sequoia National Park in the summer of 1903,
he had already faced many challenges. Young and his troops arrived in
Sequoia after a 16-day ride from the Presidio of San Francisco to find
that one of their major assignments would be the extension of the wagon
road. Hoping to break the sluggish pattern of previous military
administrations, Young poured his considerable energies into the
project. Young and his troops built as much road as the combined
results of the three previous summers, as well as building a trail to
the top of Mt. Whitney-the highest point in the contiguous United
States.
The soldiers also protected the giant sequoias from illegal
logging, wildlife from poaching, and the watershed and wilderness from
unauthorized grazing by livestock. A difficult task under any
circumstances, the intensity was undoubtedly compounded by societal
prejudice common at the turn of the century. They also produced maps
and assisted tourists in the area.
Although Colonel Charles Young only served one season as an acting
superintendent of a national park, he and his men have not been
forgotten. The energy and dignity they brought to this national park
assignment left a strong imprint. The roads they built are still in use
today, having served millions of park visitors for more than eighty
years. The legacy they left extends far beyond Sequoia National Park,
as they helped lay the foundation for the National Park System, which
continues to inspire and connect people of all backgrounds to public
lands and natural treasures to this day.
In recent years the NPS has made an effort to chronicle the
achievements of these men. In the Presidio of San Francisco, Golden
Gate National Recreation Area and the Presidio Trust have developed an
education program using the historic stables that the Buffalo Soldiers
actually used to house their horses. In Yosemite National Park, a park
ranger portrays one of the U.S. Army's Buffalo Soldiers as part of his
interpretation of Yosemite's history. Sequoia National Park has a giant
sequoia named for Colonel Young in honor of his lasting legacy in that
park. These isolated, but important efforts to educate the public on
the important role of the Buffalo Soldiers could be heightened by this
consolidated study.
There is a growing concern that youth are becoming increasingly
disconnected with wild places and our national heritage. Additionally,
many people of color are not necessarily aware of national parks and
the role their ancestors may have played in shaping the national park
system. The NPS can help foster a stronger sense of awareness and
knowledge about the critical roles of African-American Buffalo Soldiers
in the protection and development of some of our nation's natural
treasures. As the 2016 centennial of the NPS approaches, it is an
especially appropriate time to conduct research and increase public
awareness of the stewardship role the Buffalo Soldiers played in the
early years of the national parks.
ON S. 228
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 228, a bill to establish the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area.
The Department supports the objectives of S. 228. The Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta (Delta) area has been found to meet the National Park
Service's interim criteria for designation as a National Heritage Area.
However, the Department recommends that Congress pass program
legislation that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified
National Heritage Areas and a process for the designation, funding, and
administration of these areas before designating any additional new
National Heritage Areas.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas.
S. 228 would establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National
Heritage Area within the counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo, in the State of California, with the Delta
Protection Commission designated as the Heritage Area's management
entity.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a rare inland/inverse delta at
the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, the largest
estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. Its vast size, unique shape,
and geographic location in the heart of California have produced a
heritage of habitat and community diversity, industry, innovation, and
unique infrastructure.
After the last ice age 10,000 years ago, a rapid rise in sea level
inundated the alluvial valley of the Sacramento River and formed the
Delta, an extensive system of freshwater and brackish marshes,
grassland, oak woodland, savannah, chaparral, and riparian habitat rich
with wildlife. Native Americans built villages and trading posts, and
early fur traders such as Jedediah Smith trekked into the region in
search of otter, mink and beaver.
Then, gold seekers on their way from San Francisco to the gold
fields in the Sierra Nevada recognized the fertility of the Delta's
soils. Beginning in the 1880s, with significant contributions from
Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, East Indian, Portuguese and Italian
immigrants, and the development of innovative equipment, one of the
largest scale reclamation projects in the United States converted the
vast marshes into the landscape that characterizes the Delta today.
The Delta is the lynchpin of a vast watershed, linking waterways
originating in the Cascade, Coastal and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges
with the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. While the Delta today
is predominantly agricultural, it also encompasses diverse habitats--
intertidal, non-tidal, and seasonal wetlands, rivers, sloughs, riparian
woodland, scrub, grasslands, floodplains--that support hundreds of
species of flora and fauna. The Delta is a key stopover on the Pacific
Flyway and an important anadromous fish corridor.
The Delta's heritage values are inextricably linked to its economic
activities. As one of the most productive agricultural regions in the
country, the Delta irrigates over seven million acres of the State's
farmland, contributes billions of dollars to the California economy,
and exports crops throughout the world. The Delta also supplies two-
thirds of California's residents with drinking water.
Recreation and tourism are also important economic drivers, and a
Delta National Heritage area has the potential to increase access to
many resource-based recreational opportunities, such as boating and
fishing, both for regional residents and large, nearby, urban
populations in the San Francisco Bay area and Great Central Valley.
Opportunities to watch wildlife are abundant on the Delta's quiet
waterways, and many influential artists reside in the Delta, attracted
by the slower pace of life. Planning for the Great Delta Trail is
underway, and agritourism projects and programs--local markets, farm
stays, and wineries--are springing up to showcase and share the
region's agricultural traditions.
A Feasibility Study for a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National
Heritage Area was completed and published by the Delta Protection
Commission in July 2012. The National Park Service conducted a review
of the Commission's study for consistency with the interim National
Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines, found that it meets these
criteria, and informed the Delta Protection Commission of this finding
in a letter dated July 11, 2012.
The mission for the Delta National Heritage Area would be to
recognize, enhance and promote ``Delta as Place'' to help cultivate and
retain appreciation and understanding of the Delta as an ecological,
agricultural, recreational, historical and cultural treasure. According
to the feasibility study, ``The center of the Delta's story is that of
a young nation encouraging the reclamation of swampland to create some
of the world's most productive farmlands in the center of California,
from which spawned innovations, technologies, and infrastructure unique
to the development of the State, as well as other parts of the nation
and world.''
The proposed National Heritage Area would promote a wide range of
partnerships among governments, organizations and individuals to
educate the public about ``Delta as Place'' and build more support for
its preservation, protection and enhancement. It would support economic
development by drawing visitors to designated partner sites and other
recreation and visitor facilities. It would promote heritage tourism,
ecotourism, and agri-tourism consistent with existing activities,
infrastructure, and land uses in the Delta. As the proposed management
entity for a Delta heritage area, the Delta Protection Commission is
already working to establish partnerships and to further projects in
the region compatible with a national heritage area, such as a
historical resources and recreation inventories, development of the
Great California Delta Trail, and a Delta narratives project. Through
partnerships and community engagement it has the 3 potential to connect
and unite citizens in the conservation and increased resilience of the
natural, historic, scenic and cultural resources of the Delta, while
sustaining the area's economic vitality.
If the committee decides to act on S. 228, we recommend that the
bill be amended to address the following matters: 1) to change the
bill's map reference to a map that is fully consistent with the
feasibility study boundary recommendation; 2) to change ``management
entity'' to ``local coordinating entity'' throughout the bill; and 3)
to make the bill language more consistent with other National Heritage
Area legislation enacted most recently.
ON S. 285
1Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 285, to designate the Valles Caldera National
Preserve as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 285 with an amendment described later in
this statement. The Valles Caldera National Preserve (Preserve) has
been found to meet the National Park Service's criteria for inclusion
in the National Park System, and this legislation would provide a
feasible plan for transferring management responsibility for the
Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust (Trust) to the National Park
Service.
S. 285 would designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New
Mexico as a unit of the National Park System and would transfer
administrative jurisdiction of the Preserve to the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) for administration by the National Park Service
(NPS). The bill would terminate the Trust 180 days after enactment
unless the Secretary determines that the termination date should be
extended to facilitate the transitional management of the Preserve. All
assets and liabilities of the Trust would be transferred to the
Secretary. The bill would also authorize the Secretary to coordinate
management and operations of the Preserve with Bandelier National
Monument and produce a management plan no later than three fiscal years
after funds are made available. If S. 285 is enacted, we look forward
to working with the Trust, the Secretary of Agriculture, Indian Tribes
and Pueblos, State and local governments, and the public to develop a
management plan and capitalize on the proximity of Bandelier National
Monument for efficiency of operations, while applying Service First
principles of sharing resources as appropriate with the surrounding
Santa Fe National Forest.
S. 285 would authorize grazing, hunting, and fishing to continue
within the Preserve. It would also require the Secretary to ensure the
protection of traditional cultural and religious sites, including
providing tribal access to the sites and temporarily closing specific
areas of the Preserve to protect traditional uses, in accordance with
applicable law. The NPS has a long history of consultation with Native
Americans in the preservation and continuation of traditional
practices.
Finally, S. 285 would require that eligible Trust employees be
retained for at least 180 days from the date of enactment. The
Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture would be authorized to hire
Trust employees on a noncompetitive basis for comparable positions at
the Preserve or other areas or offices under the jurisdiction of the
two Secretaries.
The Valles Caldera National Preserve is an 88,900 acre unit of the
National Forest System located in the Jemez Mountains of north central
New Mexico. The Preserve was established by Public Law 106-248, the
Valles Caldera Preservation Act of 2000, and is managed by the Valles
Caldera Trust, a wholly owned government corporation established under
the Act. The Trust is charged with mixing elements of both private and
public administration while working to achieve resource protection,
public enjoyment, and financial self sufficiency goals. The Valles
Caldera is considered to be one of the world's best intact examples of
a resurgent caldera (the remains of a huge and ancient volcano with a
prominent uplift at its center, in this case present-day Redondo Peak)
and is of sufficient size and configuration to allow for long-term
sustainable resource protection and visitor enjoyment. The geologic
features of the Preserve retain a high degree of integrity and the
Preserve's unique setting of expansive grasslands and montane forests
provides outstanding scenic values and an array of opportunities for
public recreation, reflection, education, and scientific study. The
Preserve also would expand and enhance the diversity of volcanic sites
represented within the National Park System.
The national significance of the geological resources of the Valles
Caldera was formally recognized in 1975 when the area was designated a
National Natural Landmark. Moreover, Valles Caldera offers the
opportunity to illustrate the connection of human history in the region
that is showcased at Bandelier National Monument with the geologic
history that shaped the surrounding mesa and canyon landscape.
As early as 1899, the area around Valles Caldera was studied for
national park designation, and the resulting report proposed that
153,620 acres be set aside for ``Pajarito National Park.'' A portion of
this area later became Bandelier National Monument, established in
1906. Additionally, the Valles Caldera was the subject of site
investigations and new area studies that were completed by the NPS in
1939, 1964, 1977, and 1979. An Update Report on the NPS 1979 New Area
Study was completed by the NPS in December 2009, at the request of
Senator Tom Udall and former Senator Jeff Bingaman. All of these
studies found that the Valles Caldera was nationally significant,
suitable and feasible for designation as a unit of the National Park
System, and the 2009 Update Report reaffirmed the results of the prior
studies.
Under S. 285, Valles Caldera would be managed in accordance with
the 1916 Organic Act and other Acts that have guided the NPS for nearly
one hundred years ``to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations'', with recognition that the bill
allows for continued, sustainable grazing, hunting, and fishing. The
NPS has experience with these activities in our other nineteen
designated preserves.
Based on current expenses for Valles Caldera and the cost to
operate park units comparable in size and assets, we anticipate the
annual cost to operate and manage the park would be approximately $22
million for developmental costs and $4 million for annual operational
costs, although more complete cost estimates would be developed through
the general management plan. In addition, our 2009 Update Report
identifies five parcels of private property within the proposed park
boundaries, totaling 40 acres. Although appraisals have not been
completed, the expected costs to acquire this private property and any
transfer costs are not expected to be great. Funds would be subject to
the availability of appropriations and NPS priorities.
We recommend that the bill be amended to reference a map, which
would provide certainty about the boundary and make the bill consistent
with most other laws and pending bills designating new units of the
National Park System. The NPS would be pleased to provide the committee
with language for that amendment.
ON S. 305
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 305, a bill to authorize the acquisition of core battlefield land at
Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond for addition to Vicksburg
National Military Park.
The Department supports S. 305 with a technical amendment, which is
attached to this statement. This bill would enable the National Park
Service to add three separate battlefield sites to Vicksburg National
Military Park, which would each make significant contributions to
telling the story of the remarkable campaign that resulted in the Union
Army's capture of the city of Vicksburg during the Civil War.
The battlefields at Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond are
sites of military engagement associated with the 1863 Vicksburg
Campaign. The campaign was a major milestone on the road that led to
the final success of the Union army in the war and the ultimate
reunification of the nation. The strategies and tactics of Major
General Ulysses S. Grant during the campaign continue to be studied by
modern military leaders as examples of excellence in generalship.
The proposed addition of campaign battlefields to Vicksburg
National Military Park is based on the study authorized by Public Law
106-487, the Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act.
That law directed the Secretary of the Interior to complete a study to
determine what measures should be taken to preserve Civil War
battlefields along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail. The Vicksburg Campaign
Trail Feasibility Study, transmitted to Congress in 2006, identified
Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond as ``Tier 1'' sites, placing
them among the 19 highest-ranked resources out of the more than 500
Vicksburg Campaign-related resources evaluated by the study. The study
recommended Champion Hill and Port Gibson for addition to the National
Park System. Raymond was viewed as adequately protected by the Friends
of Raymond, a local non-profit group.
All three battlefields continue to exhibit a very high degree of
historical integrity. Most essential features remain intact, and modern
intrusions are limited. Acquisition of the battlefields would allow the
National Park Service to ensure long-term preservation of the cultural
landscape and other cultural resources, and to better interpret the
stories of the Vicksburg Campaign. The renewed public interest in the
need to protect Civil War battlefields that is being generated by Civil
War Sesquicentennial activities makes this legislation particularly
timely. In addition, this legislation would advance the vision of
safeguarding our historic and cultural heritage that the President
committed to through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
The battlefield at Port Gibson marks the first engagement of
Grant's operations against Vicksburg after his army landed on
Mississippi soil. After a day of battle, the Confederate army left the
field and Grant secured his beachhead. The proposed boundary at Port
Gibson encompasses about 3,810 acres. The State of Mississippi owns 14
acres in fee, and holds a preservation easement on 609 acres. The
historic Schaifer House, a Civil War-era home, is extant on the
property owned by the state. Many roads within the battlefield remain
very similar in appearance to the mid-19th century and provide a strong
sense of how Civil War troops moved.
Eleven days after the battle at Port Gibson, the Union and
Confederate armies met again on the field at Raymond. After a day of
heavy fighting, Federal forces again prevailed and General Pemberton's
troops withdrew to Jackson. The proposed boundary at Raymond
encompasses about 1,520 acres. The Friends of Raymond owns 140 acres of
this land in fee, and holds a preservation easement on an additional 6
acres. The battlefield remains largely pristine, and holds high
potential for interpretation.
Following the battle at Raymond and the subsequent occupation of
Jackson, General Grant turned his army towards the west. On May 16,
Union and Confederate forces met again, this time at Champion Hill. The
battle was the largest, bloodiest, and most decisive engagement of the
Vicksburg Campaign. By the end of the day, the Confederates were in
full retreat towards Vicksburg. The proposed boundary at Champion Hill
includes approximately 6,350 acres. The State owns 836 acres in fee,
and holds a preservation easement on an additional 558 acres. The Civil
War Trust also owns 60 acres in fee. The historic Coker House, a Civil
War-era home, is extant on the property owned by the State.
In total, S. 305 authorizes the addition of up to 11,680 acres to
Vicksburg National Military Park. The State of Mississippi, Civil War
Trust, and Friends of Raymond cumulatively own about 1,050 acres in
fee, and hold preservation easements on about 1,172 acres of land. Each
of these entities has expressed the desire to transfer its interests to
the National Park Service. Acquisition costs for these properties would
be nominal, since they would be donated. Based on current assessed
property values, the acquisition costs for other lands in these areas
are expected to average between $1,700 and $3,000 per acre (depending
on the presence, if any, of marketable timber), totaling approximately
$16 million to $28 million, for acquisition in fee. The National Park
Service would also seek to protect land through less costly means, such
as conservation easements. Additional management planning involving
public participation would be necessary to best determine the level of
facilities needed to serve the visiting public and to identify
important battlefield protection strategies for these new lands. The
capital investment needed to support infrastructure and recurring
operational costs, consequently, have not been defined in detail. In
gross terms, annual operational costs have been estimated at $1 million
to $1.5 million.
Under S. 305, the properties identified for potential acquisition
by the National Park Service would not be added to the boundary of, or
managed as part of, Vicksburg National Military Park unless and until
they are actually acquired.
S. 305 enjoys strong local and national support. Mississippi
Governor Phil Bryant and leadership at the Mississippi Department of
Archives and History are on record as supporting the transfer of state
lands to the National Park Service. The Civil War Trust and Friends of
Raymond have expressed support for the legislation, as have elected
officials and community leaders in Hinds and Claiborne Counties and the
communities of Raymond and Port Gibson. This bill would help guarantee
the preservation, protection, restoration, and interpretation of these
important lands for current and future generations.
Proposed amendment to S. 305, Vicksburg National Military Park
Battlefield Additions
On page 2, line 7: Strike ``October 2010'' and insert ``July
2012''.
Explanation.--This amendment substitutes a revised map of the three
battlefield areas that would be eligible for acquisition by the
National Park Service. The new map is substantively identical to the
map referenced in the bill as introduced, but it shows more detail
(i.e., more roads, public land survey lines) in order to provide more
certainty about the lands that could potentially be acquired under this
legislation.
ON S. 349
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 349,
a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment
of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in the
States of Connecticut and Rhode Island for study for potential addition
to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Department supports enactment of S. 349. The river segments and
tributary areas proposed for study, which comprise the Wood-Pawtucket
Watershed, exhibit the types of qualities and resource values that
would make it a worthy and important candidate for potential addition
to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, we feel that
priority should be given to the 31 previously authorized studies for
potential units of the National Park System, potential new National
Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System
and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been
transmitted to Congress.
S. 349 directs the Secretary of the Interior to study named
segments of the Pawcatuck, Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen and Wood Rivers. The
bill also specifies that the headwaters segments of the Wood and Queen
Rivers include all tributaries, ensuring that virtually the entire
Wood-Pawtucket Watershed is assessed. The bill requires the study to be
completed and transmitted to Congress within three years after funding
is made available for it.
Several segments of the Pawcatuck, Wood and Chipuxet Rivers are
listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) as potential candidates
for Wild and Scenic River designation. These NRI-listed segments were
the focus of a 1980s planning and conservation study undertaken through
the National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance
program, which concluded in part, ``The Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers
corridor is Rhode Island's least developed and most rural river system.
Its waters are the cleanest and purest and its recreational
opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the
state.'' The Queen and Beaver Rivers have been recognized for their
pristine headwaters nature, critical to the high water quality and
biological diversity of the upper Pawcatuck, and have been the focus of
significant conservation efforts by the Nature Conservancy and Rhode
Island Audubon Society, among others. In 2004, the legislatively-
established Rhode Island Rivers Council classified the Wood-Pawcatuck
watershed as ``Rhode Island's premier freshwater recreational
resource.''
If enacted, the National Park Service intends to undertake the
study in close cooperation with the affected communities, the relevant
agencies of the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, and interest
groups such the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association through a
partnership-based study approach. This is the approach that has been
used since the 1980s for studies of rivers located in New England and
other parts of the Northeast Region. The partnership-based approach is
recognized in Section 10(e) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a
means of encouraging state and local governmental participation in the
administration of a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a
proposed river management plan as part of the study, which helps
landowners and local jurisdictions understand their potential future
roles in river management should Congress decide to designate part or
all of the rivers being studied.
ON S. 371
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 371, a bill to establish the Blackstone River Valley National
Historical Park, to dedicate the Park to John H. Chafee, and for other
purposes.
The Department supports S. 371.
S. 371 would establish a new unit of the National Park System, the
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park (Park) within the
existing, bi-state, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
(Corridor) that extends from Worcester, Massachusetts, to Providence,
Rhode Island. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to establish a park boundary after acquiring a sufficient
amount of land or interests in land containing the historic resources
to constitute a manageable park unit. The bill allows the Secretary to
include in the boundary resources that are subject to a cooperative
agreement with either of the two states or their political
subdivisions. It authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative
agreements with nonprofit organizations, including the coordinating
entity for the Corridor, as well as state and local governments, for
the purpose of collaborating on programs, projects, and activities that
further the purposes of the Park. It also permits the acquisition of up
to 10 acres in Woonsocket, Rhode Island for the development of
facilities for the Park.
The bill directs the Secretary to complete a General Management
Plan for the Park within three years after funds are made available.
Among other things, the plan must seek to make maximum practicable use
of certain named visitor facilities in the Corridor that are operated
by Corridor partners, many of which were developed with significant
investment of federal funds. The bill also allows the Secretary to
provide technical assistance, visitor services, interpretive tours and
educational programs to sites outside the boundary of the Park that are
within the Corridor. And, the bill dedicates the Park to former Senator
John H. Chafee and requires the Secretary to display an appropriate
memorial to him.
Finally, the bill amends the authorization for the John H. Chafee
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor to provide for a
non-profit organization, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor, Inc., to be the local coordinating entity for the Corridor.
This entity would assume the responsibility for coordinating activities
for the Corridor that have rested with the Blackstone River Valley
Heritage Corridor Commission since the National Heritage Area was first
established. The new coordinating entity would be eligible to receive
National Heritage Area funding for through the end of fiscal 2016.
S. 371 reflects the findings of the special resource study that the
National Park Service (NPS) completed in accordance with Public Law
109-338, which directed the NPS to conduct the study to ``evaluate the
possibility of (A) designating one or more sites or landscape features
as a unit of the National Park System; and (B) coordinating and
complementing actions by the [Corridor] Commission, local governments,
and State and Federal agencies, in the preservation and interpretation
of significant resources within the Corridor.'' The NPS consulted with
Native American tribes associated with the Blackstone River Valley in
the preparation of the study.
The study evaluated a broad range of sites, features and resources
throughout the Blackstone River Valley and concluded that the following
meet the criteria for designation as a unit of the National Park
System: Old Slater Mill National Historic Landmark district in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, the historic mill villages of Ashton and
Slatersville in Rhode Island, and Hopedale and Whitinsville in
Massachusetts; the Blackstone River and its tributaries; and the
Blackstone Canal. The study also evaluated various management
alternatives with different scopes and levels of NPS involvement. The
preferred alternative was a new unit of the National Park System that
consists of these sites and features, and that would partner with the
coordinating entity for the Corridor and others to undertake the
protection and interpretation of these resources.
If established based upon the management alternative recommended in
the study, we estimate that the cost to create the Park would be $6.1
million in one-time expenditures on research, planning, construction
and/or rehabilitation, and exhibits. When the Park is fully
established, operational costs are estimated to be $3.5 million
annually for salaries, supplies and equipment. All funds would be
subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations.
We would like to thank the sponsor, Senator Reed, and the committee
for working with us in making changes to last Congress' version of this
legislation. We appreciate that this legislation now includes a
matching requirement for the expenditure of Federal funds under
cooperative agreements, authority to acquire land for administrative
purposes in Woonsocket, where the NPS currently has office space, and
an appropriate recognition for Senator John H. Chafee's role in
preserving the resources of the Blackstone River Valley that does not
set a precedent in naming the park for a congressional sponsor, as the
previous version would have done.
ON S. 476
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 476, a bill that would amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Development Act to extend the authority of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal National Historical Park Commission.
The Department supports S. 476. The establishment of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission (Commission) on
January 8, 1971, stemmed in part from the unique nature of the canal.
It is unlike most areas administered by the National Park Service as it
is a linear park running along a 185-mile stretch of river shoreline
and is flanked by the nation's capital, suburban communities, and
numerous small towns.
S. 476 would change the termination date of the Commission from 40
years to 50 years after the effective date of January 8, 1971. The
Commission's authority to operate terminated on January 8, 2011. S. 476
would extend the authority to operate to January 8, 2021.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, begun in 1828 and completed in 1850,
runs continuously 185 miles from Georgetown in the District of Columbia
through Maryland and West Virginia to Cumberland in Maryland.
Originally planned to link Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, as part of this nation's canal-building era, the canal
was constructed to be a major commercial route. While the canal
operated until 1924 when it was abandoned, competition from the newly
constructed railroad and the National Road resulted in much less
commercial success than its builders had hoped. In 1938, the United
States purchased the narrow canal right-of-way from Georgetown to
Cumberland, Maryland, and partially restored the lower end of the
canal.
In 1961, the C & O Canal Monument was created by Presidential
Proclamation No. 3391 but no funding was provided to develop the area
or acquire adjacent lands. A proposal to construct a highway along the
canal's route met considerable public opposition led by U.S. Supreme
Court Justice William O. Douglas. His support for preserving the canal
ultimately led to the establishment of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Historical Park, running the length of the original canal.
When the park was established in 1971, the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal National Historical Park Commission was created. The 19-member
Commission served to link the various jurisdictions along the length of
the park. Under the 1971 legislation, the Secretary of the Interior or
designee was directed to meet and consult with the Commission at least
annually on general policies and specific matters related to the
administration and development of the park.
The Commission performed a valuable service during its first 40
years in advising and assisting the National Park Service in the
administration and development of the park. In the early years, the
Commission served as the vehicle for public meetings in the development
of the park's general plan and several site-specific development
concept plans. In the years since, the Commission has served as the
public forum for discussing implementation of plans along the 185 miles
of the park.
The Commission represented not only the local park neighbors, but
the national constituency as well. Many Commission members had a
lifelong interest in the C & O Canal and the National Park Service. The
Commission met quarterly and Commission members were only compensated
for reimbursement of actual expenses for meetings. Individual members
of the Commission served on various volunteer groups and participated
in park-sponsored events throughout the year. The commissioners
communicated directly with the park superintendent during meetings and
individually throughout the year regarding park issues.
The need for the Commission continues because the park is spread
across 19 political jurisdictions. The Commission assisted park staff
in reaching out to these numerous constituencies and ensuring that all
their views were heard. As the work of managing C & O Canal National
Historical Park continues, the public connection to park management
through the Commission should continue as well. We understand that the
appointments for the existing commissioners have expired. If enacted,
the Secretary would appoint or reappoint commissioners in accordance
with the Act.
ON S. 486
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 486, a bill entitled ``to authorize pedestrian
and motorized vehicular access in Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Recreational Area, and for other purposes.''
The Department strongly opposes S. 486. This bill would reinstate
the 2007 Interim Protected Species Management Strategy (Interim
Strategy) governing off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Cape Hatteras
National Seashore (Seashore).
The Department supports allowing appropriate public use and access
at the Seashore to the greatest extent possible, while also ensuring
protection for the Seashore's wildlife and providing a variety of
visitor use experiences, minimizing conflicts among various users, and
promoting the safety of all visitors. We strongly believe that the
final ORV Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
special regulation are accomplishing these objectives far better than
the defunct Interim Strategy. Contrary to some reports, there is not
now and never has been a ban on ORVs at the Seashore. The great
majority of the beach is open to ORVs, visitation is rising, and
tourist revenues are at record levels. At the same time, beach-nesting
birds and sea turtles are finally showing much-needed improvements.
The Seashore stretches for about 67 miles along three islands of
the Outer Banks of North Carolina. It is famous for its soft sandy
beaches, outstanding natural beauty, and dynamic coastal processes that
create important habitats, including breeding sites for many species of
beach-nesting birds, among them the federally listed threatened piping
plover, the state-listed threatened gull-billed tern, and a number of
species of concern including the common tern, least tern, black
skimmer, and the American oystercatcher. Long a popular recreation
destination, Cape Hatteras attracts about 2.3 million visitors a year
who come to walk the beach, swim, sail, fish, use ORVs, and enjoy the
ambiance of the shore. In the towns that dot the Outer Banks, a major
tourism industry has developed to serve visitors and local beachgoers,
including fishermen. In 2011, visitors to the three islands spent
approximately $121 million (an increase of $13 million from 2010), and
supported about 1,700 jobs.
Under the National Park Service Organic Act, the Endangered Species
Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Seashore's enabling act, and
National Park Service (NPS) regulations and policies, the NPS has an
affirmative responsibility to conserve and protect wildlife, as well as
the other resources and values of the Seashore. Executive Order 11644
(1972), amended by Executive Order 11989 (1977), requires the NPS to
issue regulations to designate specific trails and areas for ORV use
based upon resource protection, visitor safety, and minimization of
conflicts among uses of agency lands.
The special regulation that went into effect on February 15, 2012,
brings the Seashore into compliance with applicable laws, policies, and
Executive Orders after many years of non-compliance. In addition to
resource impacts, the approved plan addresses past inconsistent
management of ORV use, user conflicts, and safety concerns in a
comprehensive and consistent manner.
The Interim Strategy was never intended to be in place over the
long-term. When it was developed, the Seashore had no consistent
approach to species protection and no ORV management plan or special
regulation in place. While the Interim Strategy took an initial step
toward establishing a science-based approach, key elements such as
buffer distances for American oystercatchers and colonial waterbirds,
and the lack of night driving restrictions during sea turtle nesting
season, were inconsistent with the best available science. The 2006
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biological opinion for the
Interim Strategy indicated that it would cause adverse effects to
federally listed species, but found no jeopardy to those species mainly
because of the limited duration of implementation (expected to be no
later than the end of 2009). Similarly, the 2007 NPS Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Interim Strategy indicated the
action had the potential to adversely impact federally listed species
and state-listed species of concern, but found that a more detailed
analysis (an EIS) was not needed because of the limited period of time
that the Interim Strategy would be implemented.
After a lawsuit was filed against the Interim Strategy, a federal
judge entered a Consent Decree for park management. The species-
specific buffer distances and the night driving restrictions contained
in both the Consent Decree and in the plan/EIS are based on scientific
studies and peer-reviewed management guidelines such as the USFWS
Piping Plover and Loggerhead Turtle Recovery Plans, and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Report 2009-1262 (also referred to
as the ``USGS protocols,'') on the management of species of special
concern at the Seashore. Buffer distances for state-listed species are
based on relevant scientific studies recommended by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, USFWS, and USGS.
Under the science-based species protection measures of the Consent
Decree, many of which are incorporated into the ORV management plan and
special regulation, a trend of improving conditions for beach nesting
birds and sea turtles has emerged. Although breeding success depends on
a number of factors including weather, predation, habitat availability,
and level of human disturbance, there has been a striking improvement
in the condition of protected beach-nesting wildlife species. The
Seashore has experienced a record number of piping plover pairs and
fledged chicks, American oystercatcher fledged chicks, least tern
nests, and improved nesting results for other species of colonial
waterbirds. The number of piping plover breeding pairs has increased
from an annual average of 3.6 pairs from 2000 to 2007 under the Interim
Strategy to an average of 11.75 pairs between 2008 and 2011 under the
Consent Decree. In 2012, the NPS documented 15 piping plover breeding
pairs. The number of sea turtle nests also significantly increased,
from an annual average of 77.3 from 2000 to 2007 to an average of 129
from 2008 to 2011. In 2012, sea turtle nesting in the Seashore climbed
to an all-time high of 222.
Although the prescribed buffers have resulted in temporary closures
of some popular locations when breeding activity was occurring, even at
the peak of the breeding season there have generally been many miles of
open beach entirely unaffected by the species protection measures.
Under the Consent Decree from 2007 to 2011, annual visitation at the
Seashore continued at a level similar to that of 2006 to 2007. In 2012,
visitation increased 17 percent from 2011, and it was a 6 percent
increase from the average visitation between 2007 and 2011. Dare
County, where the Seashore is located, experienced record occupancy and
meal revenues in 2012, as reported by the Outer Banks Visitor Bureau,
despite the impacts of Hurricane Sandy that closed or substantially
limited traffic along North Carolina Highway 12 to Hatteras Island from
late October to late December 2012. This occupancy revenue has
continued to climb over the last several years as follows: 2009 ($318
million), 2012 ($330 million), 2011 ($343 million), 2012 ($382 million
through the end of November) while meals revenue has also increased as
follows: 2009 ($185 million), 2010 ($188 million), 2011 ($191 million),
and 2012 ($201 million though the end of November).
The final ORV management plan and regulation provide long-term
guidance for the management of ORV use and the protection of affected
wildlife species at the Seashore. The plan not only provides diverse
visitor experience opportunities, manages ORV use in a manner
appropriate to a unit of the National Park System, and provides a
science-based approach to the conservation of protected wildlife
species, but also adapts to changing conditions over the life-span of
the plan. It includes a five-year periodic review process that will
enable the NPS to systematically evaluate the plan's effectiveness and
make any necessary changes.
During the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the management plan, the NPS evaluated the potential environmental
impacts of long-term implementation of the Interim Strategy. The
analysis determined that if the Interim Strategy were continued into
the future, it would result in long-term, moderate to major adverse
impacts to piping plovers, American oystercatchers, and colonial
waterbirds, as well as long-term, major adverse impacts to sea turtles.
Impacts to sea turtles and three species of colonial waterbirds had the
potential to rise to the level of ``impairment,'' which would violate
the National Park Service Organic Act.
Moreover, if the Interim Strategy were to be reinstated, it could
well be counterproductive to visitor access. Under the Interim
Strategy, popular destinations such as Cape Point and the inlet spits
still experienced resource protection closures. Several of the beach-
nesting bird species at the Seashore may renest several times during
the same season if eggs or very young chicks are lost, which is more
likely when there is a higher level of human disturbance in proximity
to nests and chicks. Under the Consent Decree, with its science-based
buffers, there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of these
renesting attempts for piping plovers and American oystercatchers,
which means the duration of closures is typically shorter. Because the
Interim Strategy allows smaller buffers and more disturbance of nests
and chicks at these key sites, it increases the likelihood that birds
will renest one or more time at those sites, and so even though the
closures may seem smaller, they may be in place for a longer time than
under the ORV plan or Consent Decree. This is even more likely to be
the case now, because the number of nesting birds has increased
significantly since 2007.
The Seashore has taken steps to enhance access in areas favored by
beach fishermen. Specifically, a bypass below Ramp 44 allows ORV access
to the eastern side of Cape Point and areas not closed during bird
breeding season in the event of access blockage on the beach proper,
whether from weather and tide events or resource closures. At Hatteras
Inlet, at the end of Hatteras Island, a trail has been created and
maintained to allow ORV access and the ability to park closer to what
have traditionally been preferred fishing areas. In the proximity of
Ramp 4, a pedestrian access trail adjacent to the Oregon Inlet Fishing
Center to provide access for fishing in the ocean for those visitors
without ORVs. Also, as a mitigation measure with the building of the
new Bonner Bridge project, a new access ramp will be installed at
approximately mile 2.5 that will expedite access to the northern end of
the park. The Seashore is also in the final stages of completing an
Environmental Assessment titled ``Proposal to Construct New Development
that Facilitates Public Access'' which may include additional access
points to areas that are traditionally closed off due to resource
closure; these will enhance the fishing/beach driving opportunities.
In addition to reinstating the Interim Strategy, S. 486 provides
authority for additional restrictions only for species listed as
``endangered'' under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and only for
the shortest possible time and on the smallest possible portions of the
Seashore. This would conflict with numerous other laws and mandates
including the National Park Service Organic Act, the Endangered Species
Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Seashore's enabling act, the
aforementioned Executive Orders, and NPS regulations implementing these
laws, which provide for the protection of other migratory bird species
and other park resources.
S. 486 also provides that the protection of endangered species at
Cape Hatteras shall not be greater than the restrictions in effect for
that species at any other national seashore. Species protection
measures cannot reasonably be compared from seashore to seashore
without considering the specific circumstances at each site and the
context provided by the number and variety of protected species
involved, the levels of ORV use, and the underlying restrictions
provided by the respective ORV management plans and special
regulations. Even though Cape Hatteras has a wider variety of beach
nesting wildlife species than Cape Cod or Assateague, for example, its
plan actually allows for a much higher level of ORV use on larger
portions of the Seashore. It would be neither reasonable nor
biologically sound for Cape Hatteras to use less protective measures if
they were designed for a location where the level of ORV use is much
lower to begin with. Nor does it appear that such an arbitrary approach
could possibly comply with the ``peer-reviewed science'' requirement
imposed elsewhere in the bill. The Cape Hatteras plan was specifically
designed to be effective for the circumstances at Cape Hatteras. The
bill would require, to the maximum extent possible, that pedestrian and
vehicle access corridors be provided around closures implemented to
protect wildlife nesting areas. This concept was thoroughly considered
during the preparation of the plan and EIS. The plan already allows for
such access corridors when not in conflict with species protection
measures. For example, under the current regulation, the Seashore works
with the communities and has the ability to allow access around a
turtle nest when the alternative route is between the nest and dunes
but does not cause impairment to the existing dunes/vegetation.
Shorebird nesting areas are often close to the shoreline because of
the Seashore's typically narrow beaches. A concentration of nests occur
near the inlets and Cape Point, and access corridors cannot always be
allowed without defeating the fundamental purpose of such closures:
protecting wildlife. Several species of shorebirds that nest at the
Seashore have highly mobile chicks, which can move considerable
distances from nests to foraging sites. Inadequate resource closures in
the past have resulted in documented cases of human-caused loss or
abandonment of nests and chick fatalities. Corridors that cut through a
resource closure area would essentially undermine the function of the
closure and render it compromised or even useless.
Finally, the final ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation
are the products of an intensive five-year long planning process that
included a high level of public participation through both the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and negotiated rulemaking,
including four rounds of public comment opportunities. The Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee's function was to assist directly in the
development of special regulations for management of ORVs and met from
2007 to 2009. Although the committee did not reach consensus on a
proposed regulation, it provided a valuable forum for the discussion of
ORV management and generated useful information for the NPS. The NPS
received more than 15,000 individual comments on the draft plan/EIS and
more than 21,000 individual comments on the proposed special
regulation. In completing the final ORV management plan/EIS and special
regulation, the NPS considered all comments, weighed competing
interests and ensured compliance with all applicable laws.
Currently, the ORV management plan/EIS and special regulation are
the subject of a complaint that was filed by a coalition of ORV
organizations with the US District Court in the District of Columbia on
February 9, 2012. The Memorandum of Order to transfer the complaint to
the US District Court of North Carolina was issued on December 23,
2012.
ON S. 507
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 507, a bill to establish the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los
Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes.
The Administration supports S. 507. The development of the atomic
bomb through the Manhattan Project was one of the most transformative
events in our nation's history: it ushered in the atomic age, changed
the role of the United States in the world community, and set the stage
for the Cold War. This legislation would enable the National Park
Service to work in partnership with the Department of Energy to ensure
the preservation of key resources associated with the Manhattan Project
and to increase public awareness and understanding of this
consequential effort.
S. 507 would require the establishment of the Manhattan Project
National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System within
one year of enactment, during which time the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Energy would enter into an agreement on the
respective roles of the two departments. The unit would consist of
facilities and areas located in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, as
identified in the bill and determined by the Secretary of the Interior
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, except for the B Reactor
National Historic Landmark in Hanford, which would be required to be
included in the park. The National Historical Park would be established
by the Secretary of the Interior by publication of a Federal Register
notice within 30 days after the agreement is made between the two
secretaries.
The bill would provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior
to acquire the named resources in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford.
It would also allow the Secretary to acquire land in the vicinity of
the park for visitor and administrative facilities. The bill would
provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
agreements with other Federal agencies to provide public access to, and
management, interpretation, and historic preservation of, historically
significant resources associated with the Manhattan Project; to provide
technical assistance for Manhattan Project resources not included
within the park; and to enter into cooperative agreements and accept
donations related to park purposes. Additionally, it would allow the
Secretary of the Interior to accept donations or enter into agreements
to provide visitor services and administrative facilities within
reasonable proximity to the park. The Secretary of Energy would be
authorized to accept donations to help preserve and provide access to
Manhattan Project resources.
S. 507 is based on the recommendations developed through the
special resource study for the Manhattan Project Sites that was
authorized by Congress in 2004 and transmitted to Congress in July
2011. The study, which was conducted by the National Park Service in
consultation with the Department of Energy, determined that resources
at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, met the National Park Service's
criteria of national significance, suitability, feasibility, and the
need for Federal management for designation as a unit of the National
Park System. S. 507 assigns the respective roles and responsibilities
of the National Park Service and the Department of Energy as envisioned
in the study; the National Park Service would use its expertise in the
areas of interpretation and education to increase public awareness and
understanding of the story, while the Department of Energy would retain
full responsibility for operations, maintenance, safe access, and
preservation of historic Manhattan Project properties already under its
jurisdiction, along with full responsibility for any environmental
remediation that is deemed necessary related to the properties to
ensure public safety.
Because the Department of Energy would maintain and operate, as
they do currently, the primary facilities associated with the Manhattan
Project National Historical Park, the study estimated that the National
Park Service's annual operation and maintenance costs for the three
sites together would range from $2.45 million to $4 million. It also
estimated that completing the General Management Plan for the park
would cost an estimated $750,000. Costs of acquiring lands or interests
in land, or developing facilities, would be estimated during the
development of the General Management Plan.
The Department of Energy has not yet assessed fully the operational
difficulties in terms of security and public health and safety,
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and the potential new
cost of national park designation at the sensitive national security
and cleanup sites, which would be addressed with the context of the
General Management Plan. The Department anticipates that the initial
agreement between the two Departments likely would be fairly limited in
scope, given the bill's one-year timeframe for executing an agreement
that would enable the Secretary of the Interior to establish the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park. We appreciate the language
specifically providing for amendments to the agreement and a broad
range of authorities for the Secretary of the Interior, as these
provisions would give the National Park Service the flexibility to
shape the park over time and to maximize the promotion of education and
interpretation related to the park's purpose in coordination and
consultation with the Department of Energy.
The flexibility is particularly important because managing a park
with such complex resources, in partnership with another Federal
agency, at three sites across the country, will likely bring
unanticipated challenges. Some of the resources that may be included in
the park may be near facilities that have highly sensitive, ongoing
national security missions including nuclear weapons production and
intelligence activities. Also, some of these sites may be on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List. If this
legislation is enacted, these issues, among others, will be taken into
consideration by the Departments in the development of an agreement and
management plan. The National Park Service has already begun a
partnership with the Department of Energy regarding the Manhattan
Project resources through our coordinated work on the study. If this
legislation is enacted, we look forward to building a stronger
partnership that will enable us to meet the challenges ahead.
ON S. 615
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior regarding S. 615, a bill to establish
Coltsville National Historical Park in the State of Connecticut, and
for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of S. 615 with the amendments
discussed later in this statement.
S. 615 would authorize the establishment of a new unit of the
National Park System centered on the Coltsville Historic District in
Hartford, Connecticut. Establishment of the park would depend upon the
Secretary of the Interior receiving a donation of a sufficient amount
of land to constitute a manageable unit; the owner of the East Armory
property entering into an agreement with the Secretary to donate at
least 10,000 square feet of space in that building for park facilities;
and the Secretary entering into an agreement with the appropriate
public entities regarding compatible use and management of publicly
owned land within the Coltsville Historic District.
The legislation also authorizes agreements with other organizations
for access to Colt-related artifacts to be displayed at the park and
cooperative agreements with owners of properties within the historic
district for interpretation, restoration, rehabilitation and technical
assistance for preservation. It provides that any federal financial
assistance would be matched on a one-to-one basis by non-federal funds.
S. 615 also provides for the establishment of a commission to
advise the Secretary on the development and implementation of a general
management plan for the unit. The advisory commission would terminate
ten years after the date of enactment of the legislation unless
extended for another ten years by the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary).
The Secretary designated the Coltsville Historic District a
National Historic Landmark on July 22, 2008. The manufacturing complex
and associated resources constitute the site of nationally important
contributions to manufacturing technology by Samuel Colt and the
industrial enterprise he founded in 1855--Colt's Patent Firearms
Manufacturing Company. It includes, among other resources, the armories
where firearms and other products were made, the home of Samuel and
Elizabeth Colt, Colt Park, and housing used by factory workers.
Samuel Colt is most renowned for developing a revolver design which
revolutionized personal firearms. The Colt's Firearms Company is best
known for its manufacture of the Peacemaker, a six-shot revolver. Colt
was a major innovator in the ``American System'' of precision
manufacturing, replacing the practice of individually crafting each
component of a product with the use of interchangeable parts. After his
death in 1862, his wife Elizabeth owned and directed the manufacturing
complex for 39 years, becoming a major entrepreneur in an age when
women rarely occupied positions of importance in manufacturing.
During both World War I and World War II, the Colt Firearms Company
was one of the nation's leading small arms producers and made vital
contributions to U.S. war efforts. The company applied its
interchangeable-parts techniques to a wide variety of consumer products
and the Colt complex became an ``incubator'' facility for other
inventors and entrepreneurs. Coltsville is also noteworthy as a fully
integrated industrial community that includes manufacturing facilities,
employee housing, community buildings, and landscape features that were
built largely under the personal direction of Samuel and Elizabeth
Colt. Colt, whose labor practices were advanced for their time,
attracted highly skilled laborers to his manufacturing enterprise.
Pursuant to Public Law 108-94, the Coltsville Study Act of 2003,
the National Park Service (NPS) conducted a special resource study of
the resources associated with the Coltsville Historic District. Based
on Coltsville's National Historic Landmark designation in 2008, the
study concluded that Coltsville meets the national significance
criterion. An analysis of comparability to other units of the national
park system and resources protected by others demonstrated that
Coltsville is suitable for designation as a unit of the national park
system. The study was unable, however, to conclude that Coltsville was
feasible to administer at that time due to the lengthy duration of
financial issues surrounding the site. In concert with the lack of
feasibility, the study was also unable to determine the need for NPS
management, or specifically what the NPS would manage.
The special resource study did not conclude that the site
absolutely failed to meet feasibility criteria or require NPS
management, but rather that that it did not meet feasibility criterion
with the circumstances present at the time of the study and that it was
impossible to determine, at that time, the need for NPS management of
the site. In both cases, the uncertainty of public access and financial
viability of the financial developer of the privately owned portion of
the site were at issue.
Since the time of the study, much progress has occurred, showing
significant promise for the future of Coltsville and preservation of
the resources. During a visit in 2011, the Secretary noted the progress
made in the area since the study was completed, while stating that
``Coltsville again promises to be an economic engine, producing jobs
and spurring growth in the Hartford area.'' Significant re-development
has already begun. Several of the buildings have been rehabilitated and
are occupied as educational facilities, residential housing, and
businesses. Negotiations are underway between the developer and the
city on an agreement for the East Armory building, which would serve as
the focal point for park visitors. We have been advised the plan has
designated benchmarks for the project as well as projected funding for
the development.
The conditions in S. 615 for establishing Coltsville as a unit of
the National Park System are intended to assure that the park is
established only when the development is moving forward and there is
certainty that the public will have the ability to learn about the
manufacturing process that took place at the site. However, to ensure
the viability of the park, we recommend that the conditions include
additional requirements regarding the evaluation of the financial
feasibility of the park's operations and management, including
ownership and financing of Coltsville properties.
A 2008 Visitor Experience Study developed visitor service scenarios
identifying a range of potential costs from a very basic scenario
(small contact station, limited hours, and staff shared with a
neighboring park unit) estimated at $720,000 to a full site scenario
estimated at $9.3 million (four level East Armory development, cultural
landscape plan implementation, and multimedia exhibit construction). If
a park were established, a comprehensive planning process would assess
the actual needs for visitor services and staffing, further defining
the park's operational budget. In addition, there could be significant
Federal costs in providing financial assistance to restore or
rehabilitate the properties, as authorized in Section 4(c)(1). All
funding would be subject to NPS priorities and the availability of
appropriations.
We recommend that S. 615 also be amended to eliminate the
establishment of an advisory commission. The management planning
process required under section 5 already provides a forum to involve
key stakeholders and provide a broad representation of interested
parties, without the need for a commission. In addition, we note that
the inclusion of an advisory commission in park enabling legislation is
not as common as it once was. Other bills before this committee that
would establish new parks, including the two parks honoring Harriet
Tubman, the park composed of resources in the State of Delaware, the
park commemorating the Manhattan Project, and the Valles Caldera park,
do not provide for advisory commissions. This change can be
accomplished by striking line 20 on page 8 and all that follows through
the remainder of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
Senator Udall. Ms. O'Dell, that was very helpful. I know
Senator Manchin has a very busy schedule, as my colleagues
always do. I wanted to recognize him for questions and
comments, I think in particular on 486.
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Ms. O'Dell, if I may, I had a copy of your submitted
testimony. That you state the Department of Interior supports
allowing appropriate public use and access at the Cape Hatteras
National Search, to the greatest extent possible, I think.
While balancing the needs to preserve wildlife habitat.
I agree with you that we need to have a balance here. But
the final plan that the National Park Service implemented in
2012, in my estimation and the reason for this bill, doesn't
strike that balance. It's actually hurting the local economy
and affecting the experience of vacationers. I would say like
vacationers like the ones from West Virginia, who really have
been going there for years. Things are changing drastically.
As I said at a hearing on this bill before, this committee
last year when I spoke it is in this instance the Park Service
is acting as an adversary and not an ally. I've always said
government should be your partner and your ally, trying to find
the balance between the economy and the environment. The
people, I believe, that live there, the people that have always
lived there, the people that make their living on tourism, are
still wanting that balance. It doesn't benefit them to
deteriorate or destroy the natural beauty they have.
I've joined my friends, Senator Burr and Hagan, as I did
last year in co-sponsoring this bipartisan legislation of S.
486 because I believe it strikes the appropriate balance of
providing access to the seashore, but it also protects the
habitat of sea turtles and the piping plover. Our legislation
would reinstate the interim plan. I think you know about the
interim plan. It would reinstate that plan that was backed by
113 page biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
So what I would ask is, is your Department and how is your
Department supporting access at the greatest extent possible
when roughly 26 miles of the beach have been permanently closed
to motorized beach access?
Ms. O'Dell. Sir, I would say that we have done our very
best to create that balance and to find a way to accommodate
all the interest at the seashore. We have had a year now
operating under the ORV management plan. We are showing success
in the numbers of birds that have come back, the numbers of
turtles that have hatched. We're also showing that the visitor
bureaus out in North Carolina reported an increase in revenues
from both meal receipts and occupancy in that area for tourism.
So we are very hopeful that over time as this plan stays in
place and we all use it appropriately that we are going to see
continued improvement in all of those elements.
Senator Manchin. Do you think----
Ms. O'Dell. Because we want people to be--to have a great
experience there.
Senator Manchin. Do you think it was a plan that was agreed
upon when it was given to the locals at the time it was. They
entered into it in a very hastily way, if you will. Then
basically nothing had happened. There was the court ruling that
decided this and put it in a whole and different light.
Ms. O'Dell. I know the interim plan, sir, was created
hastily because the Park Service had been out of compliance for
so many years. So the interim plan was put in place and the
environmental documents that were created with the interim plan
clearly stated that short term implementation of that plan
would not do harm to the environment or to the protected
species.
But long term use of that interim plan would potentially
cause impairment for the National Park resources.
That would be like killing the golden goose if the park has
no longer, have the wildlife values that people enjoy and go
there to see, we would be harming tourism even more than some
people perceive we are now.
Senator Manchin. You've closed so much of the beach they
can't even fish. I think they went there more to fish than
anything else.
Ms. O'Dell. There are still 41 miles of road open to AT--
Off Road Vehicles out of the 67.
Senator Manchin. Twenty-six has been closed.
Ms. O'Dell. Sixty-seven are open to pedestrians full time.
Senator Manchin. Let me--I know you just said about the
economic impact. If anything things are improving.
Have you talked to the local citizens? Have you really sat
down with the people that live and operate there everyday
because I just heard from them again yesterday? As a matter of
fact they are sitting in the audience here.
They completely differ from what you're saying. They just
get so--I mean they're to the point they're exasperated that
you're not paying any attention to them. They're just asking
for the balance.
You had a 113 page report which you all basically have
neglected as far as in what they're saying. Can't you go back
to the----
Ms. O'Dell. Sir, after that interim report we were
operating under a consent decree by the court. That's what led
to the creation of this new plan. So it was informed by locals.
It was formed by people who, all across the country, who care
about it.
We do have a very wonderful management team in place at
Cape Hatteras, a new superintendent who is hopefully engaging
well with the community. We continue to stress with him how
important it is to be engaged with the local community so that
we can continue to get feedback on this plan. The management
plan does require us to take a--to review the plan every 5
years and to make adjustments to it. The adaptive management
policies that we have will allow us to do that----
Senator Manchin. Are you really--and I'm so sorry, Mr.
Chairman, but are you looking at just the Hatteras and Ocracoke
areas that are tremendously affected? Directly to them and not
to the entire, you know, if you look at the span that you're
talking the 40 some miles. You've closed the most premium
places that people, I know from West Virginia, would go.
They're closed.
You want them to go where the fish aren't, I guess.
Ms. O'Dell. That would not have been our intent, sir.
Senator Manchin. But that's what's happened.
Let me ask you.
Ms. O'Dell. I would respectfully----
Senator Manchin. One final question.
Is other places in the country treated under the same
parameters that this is being treated down in Hatteras and
Ocracoke, the amount of, you know, the way you all have written
the new rules, if you will or complied with?
Ms. O'Dell. The----
Senator Manchin. Let's up along the Eastern seaboard
somewhere.
Ms. O'Dell. There are off road vehicle plans for other
national seashores. They were crafted for those specific parks
with the specific conditions that are present in those areas.
Senator Manchin. Does any of them have this amount of
restriction?
Ms. O'Dell. I would not be able to answer that, sir. But
I'd be happy to get you any kind of comparison you wanted.
Senator Manchin. Don't you think there should be a fairness
to the system? There should be a balance and fairness.
Ms. O'Dell. It's the balance between what is needed to
protect the wildlife values and what is needed to----
Senator Manchin. Whose determination is that? Yours or in
conjunction with the people that basically live there?
Ms. O'Dell. It certainly has been informed by feedback from
the locals and national visitors.
Senator Manchin. You know that we don't agree because we
wouldn't be introducing the bill if we agreed with you.
Ms. O'Dell. That's correct, sir. I understand that.
Senator Manchin. OK. So we don't think that you're talking
to the same people we are.
Ms. O'Dell. I respect your opinion on that, sir.
Senator Manchin. We just need enough votes now, that's all.
You're not going to fight this, are you?
Ms. O'Dell. Am I going to fight it?
Senator Manchin. Uh huh.
Ms. O'Dell. I don't have as much power as you all have in
terms of deciding what happens with this bill, sir.
Senator Manchin. We want you to find a balance. So just
meet with them. Find a balance----
Ms. O'Dell. We will continue to meet with the proponents
down in the seashore. Our superintendent Barclay Trimble will
be delighted to continue to meet with them.
Senator Manchin. You've got the complete--you have this
complete handout and brochure showing you what you've really
shut down?
Ms. O'Dell. I do not know that I have that.
Senator Manchin. Can I give this to you?
Ms. O'Dell. I would be----
Senator Manchin. Because I think it really is shocking to
see how much of this seashore that we've enjoyed for tens and
twenty and thirty and forty, fifty years ago that you have
said, OK West Virginia, don't go to Hatteras or Ocracoke
anymore because you can't use the areas you did.
Alright?
Senator Udall. Senator Manchin, would you provide the
committee with a copy of that document as well?
Senator Manchin. I would love to. It would be possible.
Senator Manchin. Thank you.
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
I thought we'd turn now to Ms. Kolb. I know, Senator
Heinrich, you've got a busy schedule, but I think her testimony
is important to your concerns.
So, Ms. Kolb, the floor is yours for 5 minutes. We look
forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF INGRID KOLB, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Kolb. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is
Ingrid Kolb and I'm the Director of the Office of Management at
the Department of Energy. I'm pleased to be here today to
discuss only one bill. That bill is S. 507, for a proposed
Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
The Manhattan Project National Park study act, Public Law
108-340, directed the Secretary of the Interior as well as the
Department of Energy to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of designating one or more Manhattan Project sites
as a unit of the National Park System. Following extensive
public meetings and assessments of potential park boundaries
and historical resources, the Department and the National Park
Service agreed that a park was feasible, that it met the
sustainability and suitability requirements for creating a new
park and that it should be established.
In October 2010, the National Park Director concurred on
the study which contained the recommendation for a 3 site park
at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Hanford, Washington and Los Alamos,
New Mexico.
In March 2011, our Deputy Secretary, Dan Poneman, concurred
on the findings of the study and provided assurances to the
National Park Service that the Department would retain full
control of its properties in accordance with its missions and
security requirements.
The Department of Energy is proud of its Manhattan Project
heritage and recognizes that this partnership with the public
National Park Service would bring one of the most significant
accomplishments of 20th century America to a wider public
audience.
The establishment of a National Historical Park will
represent a new era for the Department of Energy, particularly
in certain areas of our sites that have been largely off limits
to the public. The Department has not yet fully assessed the
operational difficulties in terms of security and public health
and safety and the costs. However, these issues will be
addressed as we develop the general management plan that is
called for in the legislation. We will develop this plan in
partnership with the National Park Service.
So we welcome the leadership of you, Mr. Chairman, as well
as the subcommittee in telling the important story of the
Manhattan Project. We look forward to working with you as this
legislation advances through the Congress.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I'm happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kolb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ingrid Kolb, Director, Office of Management,
Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, my name is Ingrid
Kolb. I serve as the Director, Office of Management, at the U.S.
Department of Energy. As part of our programmatic responsibilities, the
Office of Management coordinates cultural resources and historic
preservation activities across the Department and is the lead office
coordinating DOE participation in the proposed Manhattan Project
National Historical Park. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
proposed park and S. 507, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project
National Historical Park.
The Manhattan Project National Park Study Act, Public Law 108-340,
directed the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy, to conduct a special resource study to determine
the feasibility of designating one or more Manhattan Project sites as a
unit of the National Park System A park, the legislation noted, would
have to be compatible with ``maintaining the security, productivity,
and management goals of the Department of Energy,'' as well as public
health and safety. In preparing the study, the Department's Office of
Management was an active partner with the National Park Service, and
its staff participated fully, providing information, input, and
comments.
Following public meetings at the sites and extensive assessments of
potential park boundaries and integrity of historical resources, the
Department and the National Park Service agreed that a park was
feasible, met the suitability requirement for creating a new park, and
should be established. In October 2010, the National Park Service
Director concurred on the study, which contained the recommendation for
a three-site park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Hanford, Washington, and Los
Alamos, New Mexico, in partnership with the Department of Energy. The
Department of Energy would continue to manage and maintain its
properties and control access to them. The National Park Service would
provide interpretation and consult with the Department on preservation
issues
In March 2011, the Deputy Secretary of Energy concurred on the
findings of the study and provided assurances to the National Park
Service that the Department would retain full access control to its
properties in accordance with its missions and security requirements.
The Department of Energy is proud of its Manhattan Project heritage and
recognizes that this partnership with the National Park Service would
bring one of the most significant events in 20th century America to a
wider public audience. In July 2011, the Secretary of the Interior
recommended to Congress the establishment of a three-site Manhattan
Project National Historical Park.
The establishment of a National Historical Park will represent a
new era for the Department of Energy, particularly in certain areas of
our sites that have been largely off-limits to the public to date due
to national security concerns and potential impacts to our ongoing
missions. The Department has not yet assessed fully the operational
difficulties in terms of security and public health and safety,
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and the potential new
cost of national park designation at our sensitive national security
and cleanup sites; but these issues will be addressed as we develop a
general management plan with the National Park Service. Funding for any
significant new costs will need to be provided through the budget
process. The proposed legislation, S. 507, would give the Department of
Energy and Department of the Interior the flexibility to establish the
timeline, boundaries, and a suitable management plan for a National
Historical Park that would allow us to ensure the continuance of public
safety, national security, and the ongoing missions at our sites. We
recommend that provisions of Section 5 be clarified so that other sites
to be identified by the Secretary of the Interior within the city of
Oak Ridge do not include properties managed by the Department of
Energy, unless the Secretary of Energy concurs. We welcome the
leadership of Chairman Udall and the National Parks Subcommittee in
telling this important story, and we look forward to working with you
as this legislation advances.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee. This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Before I recognize Senator Heinrich, I want to apologize
for not correctly pronouncing your last name. Is it Kolb?
Ms. Kolb. It's Kolb, but Kolb is fine too.
Senator Udall. Kolb. There are----
Ms. Kolb. I answer to both.
Senator Udall. We'll make sure the record shows it's Kolb.
In Senator Heinrich's and Senator Barrasso's part of the
world there are a couple of famous brothers, the Kolb Brothers,
who were among those who first ventured down the Colorado River
through all of its rapids and deep canyons.
Thank you for your testimony.
Senator Heinrich, I know these are topics of great
importance to you and your State and to the country.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. O'Dell, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions
regarding the Valles Caldera National Preserve just for the
record.
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir.
Senator Heinrich. One has to do with hunting and fishing on
the preserve. That is one of the ways I've been able to enjoy
the preserve over the years and just wanted to put on the
record whether hunting and fishing will continue to be uses
that the Park Service manages for as should this legislation
pass.
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir. Hunting and fishing is common on the
other preserves that we manage throughout the National Park
System.
Senator Heinrich. I think it's worth just stating that it's
one of the reasons why the preserve model was so attractive to
the community and New Mexico because that is one of the uses
that really sets this particular unit on the map nationally is
its values there.
I also wanted to ask you about the current situation and
maybe the dichotomy in terms of costs into the future. The
current body called there a Board of Trustees 2009 report said
that the preserve currently spends about 20 times more per
individual visitor than similar National Park Service units. I
understand that the Park Service Feasibility Study also found
that cost savings would be likely if the unit were managed
under the Park Service in conjunction with nearby Bandolier
National Monument.
Can you provide any additional details on what kind of cost
savings we might be able to expect if this bill passes?
Ms. O'Dell. I can't give you specific figures yet. We don't
really have that information prepared yet. But we certainly can
expect to get some savings because we will be using many of the
services out of Bandolier National Monument. Many of the
administrative services, loaning some of the maintenance types
of equipment instead of having to purchase, many kinds of
economies like that would be able to be achieved.
Senator Heinrich. Once again, I think this is one of the
things that makes this attractive is the per unit cost of doing
a national preserve as a one off has proven to be incredibly
expensive. I think taking advantage of those economies of scale
is very attractive as well.
Finally, the Valles Caldera includes a lot of sites that
are sacred to native neighboring pueblo tribes. I wanted to ask
if the Park Service would ensure that those sites are protected
from inappropriate use to begin with and also accessible to
tribal members for religious and cultural purposes.
Ms. O'Dell. We would welcome consultation with the tribes
to understand their traditional uses of the land and work with
them to ensure that those can continue.
Senator Heinrich. I think that's going to be very important
just to make sure that those kind of cultural traditions are
preserved as part of the fabric of this preserve moving
forward.
I'm going to shift gears real quickly and just ask you to
elaborate on something that Senator Manchin brought up. Were
the closures that Senator Manchin asked about, were they
closures, complete closures to the public including pedestrians
and including fishing or is it only a closure to off road
vehicle use or motorized access?
Ms. O'Dell. The entire 67 miles remains open to
pedestrians.
Senator Heinrich. OK.
Ms. O'Dell. Fourty-three miles remain open to ORV use.
Senator Heinrich. OK.
How much of that is open to fishing?
Ms. O'Dell. People can fish anywhere.
Senator Heinrich. Anywhere? So even the areas that are
closed to vehicular access are open to fishing?
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir.
Senator Heinrich. Great.
Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. Senator Heinrich, thank you for your
questions and interest.
Senator Barrasso is recognized.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. O'Dell, S. 486 supported by North Carolina, both
Senators, Republican and Democrat and so both Senators support
as well as Representative Walter Jones, Republican, who
represents North Carolina's third district, home to Cape
Hatteras. Here we have an example of an entire delegation,
elected by the people who live and work and recreate in an area
supporting the same legislation, bipartisan. When I see
legislation like this with unanimous support for land
management policy from the elected delegation, I believe it's
significant.
Every effort, I believe, should be made by the
Administration and Members of Congress to support the desires
of the local people, the delegation. Do you believe a
delegation's views should or should not be given particular
consideration when determining land management policy within
their home State and district?
Ms. O'Dell. Certainly they should be given consideration,
sir.
Senator Barrasso. OK.
The National Park Service currently reports a maintenance
backlog of about $11 billion. However, a number of the bills in
front of the subcommittee today enjoy Park Service support
despite the fact that these new units would increase
liabilities and responsibilities. So I ask you, Ms. O'Dell,
would you purchase 3 or 4 new houses if you couldn't afford the
mortgage on your current home?
Ms. O'Dell. Personally, I probably wouldn't do that, sir.
Senator Barrasso. So it just doesn't make sense then to me
that and to many other Americans for the Park Service to
support obtaining further properties, further expenses and
liabilities when the Park Service can't open parks on time and
can't maintain their existing parks. I mean, this is now
happening in Wyoming with Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks.
Do you as the Deputy Director of Operations believe it's a
sound financial decision for existing park units for the agency
to acquire more land and more liabilities?
Ms. O'Dell. We make our position based on the fact that
Congress has asked us to study these areas. All of these areas
met the criteria for significance, feasibility and suitability
for management of National Parks. With the economic benefit
that comes to a community, we believe, that a national park is
an investment in a community as well.
Senator Barrasso. So is it time for the Park Service to
begin prioritizing funding? What's a higher priority for the
National Park System operating dollars to keep the existing
parks open or adding to the park system?
Ms. O'Dell. We address that every year in the President's
Annual Budget, sir. That's where the priorities are set by the
Department for activities in the National Park Service.
Senator Barrasso. So we have 4 new parks proposed here
today. Are any of these parks a greater priority than the 11
billion dollars maintenance backlog?
Ms. O'Dell. Unfortunately it's all a priority, sir.
Senator Barrasso. So which 1 of these 4? You say all 4 of
these are a greater priority than the 11 billion maintenance
backlog or equal or?
Ms. O'Dell. That's a very difficult question to answer at
any moment in time. But we support the fact that they are
nationally significant. If Congress sees fit to pass a bill to
put them into the National Park Service, we will do our best to
set our financial priorities to support those assets that the
Congress wants to see in the National Park Service.
Senator Barrasso. It seems to me that the Park Service is
supporting new units and they--I'm still trying to decide
from--hear from you clearly, if they are or not a greater
priority than the existing parks in the 11 billion dollar
maintenance backlog?
Ms. O'Dell. I would say that they are all of priority to
us, sir. As we have our budget and we dole it out every year.
We try and distribute it appropriately to deal with the
immediate priorities before any given park at any moment in
time.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
I would for the record like to ask unanimous consent that
Senator Alexander's statement on the Manhattan Project National
Historic Park be included in the record.
Without objection, it shall be done.
Senator Udall. I appreciate Senator Barrasso's comments.
I also want to point out that the legislation that's in
front of us, I should say the 14 various pieces of legislation,
have in many cases, almost every case been generated by those
delegations, by those communities who see the value in the
utility in additional designations. I do think it's important
that the Congress take into account Senator Barrasso's
concerns. But I also don't want to diminish the excitement and
the interest that is generated in many of these areas when
there's an opportunity to protect the national memorial that
celebrates the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Valles
Caldera. The list, of course, is a long one here today. But
that's the--the committee has some work to do.
I'd also like to comment on the bill to designate Mount
McKinley a National Monument. If you look at the history the
State of Alaska has officially recognized Denali as the name of
the peaks since 1975. Congress in 1980 changed the name of the
National Park to Denali National Park. But we didn't act on the
name change for the mountain.
I've had the great opportunity, although some people
question my sanity, to actually climb Mount McKinley or Denali,
depending on the way in which you want to direct the name
toward it. I think the idea of designating Denali keeps faith
with the native people. There's a long history and of course,
Denali, with all due respect to President McKinley, means the
``Great White One.''
I know Senator Portman, I think hails from--I know he hails
from Ohio, thinks President McKinley was an Ohioan. So we may
have to work with Senator Portman and make sure that President
McKinley continues to receive the kind of respect and attention
that he deserves. I think this is a suitable step we could
take.
That's my personal opinion. We'll see what the committee
decides to do and the Senate as a whole.
Thank you both again for taking the time to be here.
Oh, Senator Portman has just arrived. I was about to
adjourn. But I wanted to, as I'll let Senator Portman settle
himself, thank Senator Portman for his willingness to serve as
the ranking member for what I believe, and I think he believes,
is the most important subcommittee in the entire U.S. Senate.
Senator Portman has a long history of connection with the
National Parks. He served on the Centennial Commission that
looked at the 100 year anniversary of the National Parks and
put forth some ideas as to how we celebrate and nurture and
maintain and enhance the National Park experience. I'm very
much looking forward to working with him.
I was pleased, as I said earlier, to be able to work with
him on his Peace Corps Memorial effort. I know Senator Portman
knows my mother's history, which I mentioned earlier, that is
she served in the Peace Corps for 4 years. That's personal to
me. It's an important memorial. It's, I think, one of America's
best ideas, the Peace Corps.
With that I'd like to recognize Senator Portman for any
remarks he might have, general or questions on the various
legislative vehicles that have been in front of us.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OHIO
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize that I'm late.
I got detained over in the Capitol. They were trying to get
a lot of things done this week before we go on a recess next
week. So I apologize not to be here sooner.
Thank you for convening this hearing. I talked to Senator
Manchin, said he was here. I know you all have talked about
some of the legislation that's before you. I think we have 13
bills before the committee. We appreciate getting the
Administration's feedback on them.
I also want to thank Chairman Udall for being willing to
take on this task. He is uniquely qualified to be the Chairman
of the Park Subcommittee because he has climbed mountains in
all of the parks that have peaks over about 5,000 feet. He's
kayaked rivers in the other ones. So he understands the
importance of our parks and the need for us here at the
Centennial to ensure that we are providing the parks the
resources they need and also expanding the number of people who
can take advantage of the parks which is one of my reasons for
being on this subcommittee.
I did enjoy being on the Commission for a short period of
time before I got back into this business. Also when I was at
OMB worked on the Centennial Initiative and the Centennial
Challenge. The notion is, in part, to get even more people
involved and interested in the parks.
We have a great urban park in Ohio, the Cuyahoga National
Park which is, I think, top 10 in the country, maybe number 6
now in terms of visitation and partly it's because it's near an
urban area. So I think that's part of the future of the parks
is bringing more and more people in and more public/private
partnerships as we try to do the Centennial Challenge.
Of the 14 bills that were before the committee today all
have received hearings in the previous Congress, I'm told. Some
were even marked up in full committee. So we do have a lot of
momentum.
I want to just take a moment, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
talk about 2 of them.
One you just mentioned which is the Peace Corps
Commemorative Foundation that you and I introduced last year.
This is again, to build a memorial to commemorate the mission
of the Peace Corps here in Washington, DC, on Federal land.
It's already passed out of committee by unanimous consent. I
thank the members of our committee for their support in that.
But it does not involve additional Federal funds. It's
something that I would hope that we could enact quickly working
with the House where's there's also a strong interest in it, as
I understand.
We're also reintroducing a bill to allow a plaque to be
placed on the World War II memorial inscribed with the words of
Franklin Roosevelt that he prayed with the Nation on D-Day,
June 6 1944. This is legislation that Joe Lieberman and I
worked through the system last go around. We didn't get it
done.
It did pass the House with a large margin. We appreciate
the Administration working with us on this, the Department of
Interior and the folks on the Mall and the Commemorative Works
Commission, as I recall. I do hope, again, that's one thing we
can also get done this year and move forward. Again, it was a
very major bipartisan victory in the House. It's something that
I think deserves our support as well. Very inspirational words
that Senator Lieberman and I spoke on the Floor of the Senate
last year.
So again, thank the witnesses for being here. I don't have
any additional questions for them. I don't want to hold you up,
Mr. Chairman.
But again, thank you for holding this hearing. I look
forward to our work going forward.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Portman. With that let me
point out if there are no further questions I want to thank
both of you for being here this afternoon. Some members of the
committee may submit some additional questions in writing. If
so, we may ask you to submit answers for the record.
We'll keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to receive
any additional comments.
Senator Udall. With that the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Peggy O'Dell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
on s. 155
Question 1. Most Alaskans refer to Mt. McKinley as Denali. While
reviewing your written testimony I noticed that the National Park
Service's official position on S.155 is that it does not object to the
proposal. Can you outline the reasoning behind this position? Are there
any changes to the legislation that I can make to get the Park Service
to support this bill?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) appreciates the long
history and local interest in the traditional Athabascan name, Denali.
We also recognize that for many years, members of Ohio's congressional
delegation have sought to retain the name Mount McKinley out of respect
for President McKinley, a native of Ohio. The NPS respects both of
these positions and therefore does not want to take a position on S.
155 more supportive than ``does not object to.''
S. 156
Question 1. The National Park Service assisted my staff in drafting
this legislation. Can you please tell me why the National Park Service
now feels the proposed amendment is necessary?
Answer. As testimony was being prepared in 2011 on the version of
the bill introduced last Congress, the question of whether having the
Hoonah Indian Association share equal authority with the Secretary in
preparing the harvest plan was a Constitutionally improper conferral of
Federal authority to a non-Federal entity was raised. To ensure that
there would be no question about this issue, we recommended that Hoonah
Indian Association's role be advisory.
Question 2. Wouldn't the proposed amendment weaken the position of
the Hoonah Indian Association? The very folks who we are trying to work
with and help with this proposal?
Answer. The NPS respects the importance of this traditional
cultural activity. If this amendment is adopted, the NPS will endeavor
to accommodate the wishes and concerns of the Hoonah Indian
.Association to the greatest extent possible while ensuring the
sustainability of gull populations in the park.
Question 3. Once this legislation is adopted and passed into law,
how long will it be before the first gull egg harvest takes place?
Answer. According to the 2010 Record of Decision, a first harvest
could occur at each of the open sites on or before the 5th day
following the onset of laying, as determined by NPS staff monitoring a
reference site.
Maintenance Backlog
Question 1. Given our current state of affairs, there is no room
for budget increases-in fact, hard cuts will have to be made across the
board. However even with its current budget the Park Service is $10
billion behind on projects needed just to maintain existing National
Parks. What kinds of plans does the Park Service have to address this
shortfall?
Answer. The NPS is addressing the $11.5 billion deferred
maintenance backlog through a variety of fund sources, including repair
and rehabilitation, line-item construction, recreation fee revenue, and
appropriations available to us through the Department of
Transportation/Federal Highways Administration. We expect to continue
our policy of requesting construction funding for critical life,
health, safety and resource protection projects, many of which address
deferred maintenance, and not for the construction of new facilities.
With relatively limited funding available to address the maintenance
backlog, our Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) focuses funding on our
most important assets and pursues disposal of non-mission critical
assets in serious disrepair.
Question 2. Are there other asset sales or transfers that could
reduce this amount?
Answer. While sales or transfers are considered when assets are no
longer needed, most are in very poor condition and in areas with
limited access. If a sold or transferred asset were to remain within a
park, it could create usage conflicts with the NPS mission or impose
other costs. As an example, if an asset is sold and remains within the
park, the owner would have access rights, creating infrastructure
maintenance and law enforcement costs for the Federal Government.
Question 3. What are the largest maintenance projects on this list?
Answer. There are many large-scale projects on the NPS list of
deferred maintenance needs. Starting with the FY 2014 budget request,
the five-year line-item construction program totals $415 million.
Examples of the largest deferred maintenance projects currently
identified for funding in the 5-year plan include: Grand Canyon
National Park, Replacement of the Transcanyon Water Distribution
Pipeline; Yosemite National Park, Correction of Critical Safety Hazards
and Rehabilitation of the Historic Ahwahnee Hotel; and Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal National Historical Park, phased Rehabilitation and
Restoration of Canals and Locks. Work and funding for these types of
large-scale projects are typically phased over a number of years.
Question 4. Are major maintenance projects regularly completed?
Answer. Yes, although some of the largest projects seem to take a
very long time because they are usually done in phases. Phasing is
utilized when possible in order to allow other critical projects to be
accomplished at the same time. Examples of major completed projects
include: safety upgrades and stabilization at the Statue of Liberty
National Memorial ($50 million); repairs to the Reflecting Pool at the
National Mall and Memorial Parks ($38 million); the preservation and
rehabilitation project at Tuskegee Ainnan National Historic Site ($28
million); and replacement of unsafe deteriorated utility systems at
various parks. Many of the recent major maintenance projects were
completed using the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funding, which provided a one-time boost for NPS construction funding.
Question 5. Our National infrastructure is aging, as I imagine that
many of our Park facilities are as well. Is this backlog expected to
grow? What is the Park Service doing to limit this growth?
Answer. The maintenance backlog at parks will likely continue to
grow. Currently, less than half of the amount needed annually to hold
the backlog at a ``steady state'' is appropriated. However, the NPS
uses available funding to target the critical systems of the highest
priority (mission-critical or mission-important) assets; this strategy
will maintain a large number of important assets.
Question 6. Is creating new National Park units a greater priority
than the $13 billion maintenance backlog? If not, should we then wait
until the backlog is paid down before this new. unit is created or we
expand other National Park Units?
Answer. The mission of the National Park Service is to protect and
preserve cultural and natural resources for the enjoyment of the public
and future generations. There are many sites currently unprotected and
vulnerable to development or degradation that may be as important to
our American story as resources already under NPS protection. The
proposed new national park units would be important additions to the
National Park System. The $11.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog is
a significant concern to the NPS, but the designation of these new
units should not have to be postponed because of the backlog.
Question 7. Can you please outline the costs associated with the
crea.tion of each of the new park proposals before us today?
Answer. Four new units of the National Park System would be
established by bills under consideration at this hearing. The cost
estimates for these parks are as follows:
Valles Caldera National Monument:
Operations: $4 million annually
Development: $26 million
Land Acquisition: undetermined, expected to be minimal
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park:
Operations: $2.6 million
Development: $6.1 million
Land Acquisition: $4.8 million
Manhattan Project National Historical Park:
Operations: $2.4 million to $4 million annually
Development: $750,000 (general management plan) and unknown costs for
the Department of Energy
Land Acquisition: undetermined
Coltsville National Historical Park:
Operations: undetermined
Development: undetermined- potential range is from $720,000 to $9.3
million
Land acquisition: undetermined
Question 8. What will the new annual operating costs for each of
the parks be? Which maintenance backlog projects would these funds have
gone to if this park were not created?
Answer. The anticipated operating costs are noted in the question
above. However, in the initial years of operation, the parks would
likely receive less than $200,000 annually. Any proposed funding for
newly authorized units of the National Park System, and any proposed
funding for reducing the maintenance backlog, would be determined
through the Administration's budget priority-setting process. Spending
for new units would not necessarily offset spending for the maintenance
backlog.
S. 285
Question 1. Can you give me an estimate on the amount of funds the
Park Service has expended on the Valles Caldera Preserve since 2000 in
hard appropriated funding as well as services-in-kind work?
Answer. The National Park Service has not received any appropriated
funding to directly support the Valles Caldera National Preserve
(Preserve). The NPS does, however, provide in-kind support to the
Preserve. The superintendent of Bandelier National Monument (NM) serves
as a member of the current Valles Caldera Trust (Trust). In that role
he attends meetings three times a year and consults with other board
members regularly. In addition, Bandelier NM park staff participate in
the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program with local land
managers including the Trust; the park's fire ecologist and fire
management officer participate in a regional fire ecology group that
helps to manage the regional fire management response; the park's chief
of resources is a member of an ecology group, which is composed of
staff from various federal agencies; and, there are other regional
activities that involve local land management agencies and their
interests. All told, it is estimated that the Bandelier NM staff have
contributed roughly $100,000 of in-kind work to the Preserve since
2001.
In addition, the NPS Intermountain Regional Office's Planning
Division, in conjunction with various partners, including Bandelier NM,
the Trust, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) completed the Update
Report on the NPS 1979 New Area Study in December2009 at the request of
Senator Tom Udall and former Senator Jeff Bingaman. This report cost
the NPS approximately $22,000 in employee time and travel.
Question 2. Can you give me an estimate on the cost of bringing the
property up to Park Service standards, including the cost of new
infrastructure such as a visitor's center, etc.
Answer. Based on current expenses for the Preserve and the cost to
operate comparable NPS units, we anticipate the annual cost to operate
and manage the Preserve would be approximately $4 million, although
more complete cost estimates would be developed through a General
Management Plan. The costs to develop infrastructure, which may include
a visitor center, a maintenance facility, trails, roads, parking, and
exhibits, could be approximately $22 million, but would depend largely
on the planning process and public input into that process.
Question 3. Can you compare and contrast the Santa Fe National
Forest's firefighting capabilities with that of the Bandelier National
Park's firefighting capabilities?
Answer. Bandelier National Monument shares firefighting
capabilities and has agreements in place with the Santa Fe National
Forest, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico State Forestry, and other partners in the Santa
Fe Zone to utilize interagency resources during fires.
The structure of Bandelier's fire management division is somewhat
different from the Santa Fe National Forest. In addition to suppression
resources, Bandelier hosts aviation, fuels management, a wildland fire
module, and a fire ecology program, which supports a fire effects crew.
The fire ecology program and fire effects crew are key contributors to
basing our fire management objectives on science-based adaptive
management. These functions all reside within the Bandelier NM Division
of Fire Management and help integrate fire management activities within
the monument and on an interagency basis.
For the past 10 years, Bandelier NM has been a key player in the
Santa Fe Zone. Bandelier manages the Santa Fe Zone Interagency Fire
Center Heliport and the Type 3 contract helicopter. The interagency 10-
person crew that serve the Santa Fe Zone are assigned to this facility.
Question 4. Can you compare the fire fighting capability of the
Forest Service to that of the National Park Service's fire fighting
capability?
Answer. Federal wildfrre response requires an interagency and
intergovernmental response, and therefore, it is difficult to make
comparisons between the firefighting capabilities of the two agencies.
Both the NPS and the USFS are members of the National Wildland Fire
Coordinating Group, which establishes standards for firefighters and
firefighting assets. The NPS assets meet established national standards
and training, as do all assets from Department of Interior agencies and
from the USFS. In number, the NPS firefighting assets are only a
fraction of the USFS assets; however, all of the land management
agencies work across boundaries on an interagency basis. This
coordination is critical to wildland fire management and safety.
Question 5. I understand that the best agency needs to manage the
land for the mission involved, but clearly the mission for Valles
Caldera is multiple use. I believe that many members of the Jemez tribe
and northern New Mexico stockmen are in agreement and are concerned
with potential NPS management, so please tell me what the NPS is a
better choice to manage this land than the Forest Service?
Answer. Numerous studies, including the updated new area study
completed in 2009, at the request of Senator Tom Udall and former
Senator Jeff Bingaman, found that Valles Caldera meets the criteria for
designation as a unit of the National Park System.
S. 59
Question 1. Are there any other examples of private museums being
designated as ``National Memorials?''
Answer. We are not aware of any private museums that have been
designated by Congress as National Memorials. We note that the bill
would not designate the March Field Air Museum itself as a national
memorial, bt rather it would bestow this title upon a memorial on the
grounds of the museum.
Question 2. Is there any estimation of the fmancial benefits and
increased patronage that will accrue to this private museum as a result
of the designation?
Answer. As the March Field Air Museum is not affiliated with, nor
proposed to have any relationship with, the National Park Service, we
have not conducted any analysis or evaluation of the effects of the
proposed designation.
S. 305
Question 1. This bill expands the size of Vicksburg National
Military Park more than 6 times over. Why is this expansion necessary
now, over 100 years after the creation of the original park?
Answer. The Vicksburg Campaign Trail Feasibility Study, completed
by the National Park Service in 2005, recommended that the battlefields
at Champion Hill and Port Gibson be added as units to Vicksburg
National Military Park to protect and preserve sites connected with
this turning point of the Civil War. The study also recognized the
significance of the Raymond Battlefield, which was not recommended as
an addition to Vicksburg National Military Park at the time of the
study because the non-profit that manages the site had planned to
continue to do so indefinitely.
It is not accurate that the bill would expand Vicksburg National
Military Park by more than six times its current size. The bill would
not allow any expansion of the park unless and until battlefield land
is actually acquired by the NPS. The likelihood that all the acreage
eligible to be acquired would be acquired is very small.
Question 2. Given the proximity of this land to established
development, acquisition costs for this proposed addition must be very
high. Do you believe that the estimate of approximately $20 million is
accurate?
Answer. Most of the land that would be eligible for acquisition is
rural and remote from dense development. The value per acre has been
estimated between $1,700 and $3,000. If the bill is enacted, the NPS
expects to receive donation of the land held by the state of
Mississippi, the Friends of Raymond, and the Civil War Trust.
The value presumes that the agency would acquire all private land
within those identified areas in fee, which is the most costly
approach. The NPS often pursues scenic easements and other less-costly
options for protecting land. In addition, it often takes many years
from the time the agency is given the authority to acquire land to the
time funding is appropriated for that purpose.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Maureen Finnerty, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, on S. 371
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present the views of the Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees on S. 371, a bill to establish the Blackstone River
Valley National Historical Park, to dedicate the park to John H.
Chafee, and for other purposes. We are submitting this to be
incorporated for the record with other testimony of your Hearing of
April 23, 2013.
This is important legislation. We strongly support the enactment of
S. 371. It would create a Blackstone River Valley National Historical
Park based on its real significance to the nation, and sustained by
mutually supportive partnerships.
It is the ``wholeness'' of the Blackstone Valley that makes it
significant. It is the reason S. 371 is structured as it is. Few places
exist where such a concentration of integrated historic, cultural and
natural resources has survived and can be made accessible by
interpretation, preservation and management strategies. This resource
tells the story of a watershed that depicts every phase of industrial
development and environmental interaction from colonial times to the
present era of revitalization. Much can be learned here about what
makes a landscape environmentally and economically sustainable. In one
small area of approximately 700,000 acres between Worcester,
Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island--a river basin of only about
45 miles long and 22 miles wide--you can still see on the landscape
evocative layers of nearly every phase of American development in the
Northeast.
The streams and tributaries of the Blackstone River descend 450
feet from the hills in and above Worcester, Massachusetts to the
Narragansett Bay, or 10 feet a mile--a faster descent than the Colorado
River through Grand Canyon National Park. Through the work of people
and the power of this geography, the river and its tributaries became
the first place in the United States to experience the widespread use
of waterpower for industry; the Valley became the center of industrial
innovation for the nation, the Silicone Valley of its time.
The first layer you can see along these waterways is evidence of
Native American settlements, early transportation routes, and
vocabulary of resource features highlighting the significance of the
waterways. These waterways are fed by what The New Yorker magazine
called ``large and spectacular wetlands.''\1\ Surrounding the wetlands
you can see important concentrations of colonial rural landscape
development including hilltop villages with village commons, and
crossroad villages and colonial transportation systems. The industrial
and waterpower period followed, with riverside industrial villages and
cities, including large parts of the 2nd and 3rd largest cities of New
England, and then continued layers to our time. You can see the affect
of landscape on culture, and culture on landscape at every stage. You
even can perceive a sense of the way forward toward the future, or at
least the choices and the opportunities for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ `` . . . the Blackstone Valley (was) the first area in North
America to be industralized. The . . . Massachusets part, which is
bordered by large and spectacular wetlands, stayed mostly undeveloped,
but in Rhode Island mill villages dotted the hillsides . . . Every town
on the river was supported by a mill, and every waterall on the river
had a mill next to it. . . . ``The New Yorker magazine, ``Encountering
The Countryside,'' August 28, 1989, pp. 37-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rolling farmlands lined with classic New England stone walls
remind you that the dawn of industry led to the revitalization of
farming--just one of many unexpected interrelationships this park will
be able to illustrate and interpret. With the concentration of
distinctive resources across an entire landscape, this park could be
understood as a natural resource. With the unique survival here of
representatives elements of entire 18th and 19th century production
systems, this Valley can be seen as a machine--a watershed harnessed as
one integrated machine. For many national historical parks with one or
two primary resources a compact park and legislative framework may work
best. For the Blackstone Valley, a combination of parkland
administration and partnership collaboration is needed, as provided by
S 371.
This reshaping of the river basin, its physical and social
response, the creation of sustainable wealth and community, its
economic and environmental decline and more recently its pathway to
restoration is the major significance of the Blackstone River Valley.
The story it tells of America is both compelling and potentially
redeeming.
This Valley has high integrity, is compact, and capable of
supporting the very best of interpretation and public programming in a
living, working cultural landscape.
It is certainly much more, and much more interesting to visitors,
than the probably-misnamed ``Birthplace of the American Industrial
Revolution.'' Describing these resources as exclusively industrial or
of a narrow period of industrial history truly misses and seriously
understates what makes the Blackstone River Valley significant on a
national scale.
Rather than a park boundary to include the whole watershed--the
complete resource--as we and others originally proposed, this bill is a
brilliant solution to the key issue of landscape and boundary.
Brilliant, in the sense of a more modest, efficient and cost effective
framework while still centered on the ``wholeness'' of the Blackstone
River Valley. S. 371 accomplishes this by relying on the local
jurisdictions and private sector involvement, and especially on
partnering with the surrounding National Heritage Corridor, to enable a
much smaller park.
As called for by the Special Resource Study (SRS) the park would be
anchored in the essential 5 representative historic districts and, as
its spine and network, the Blackstone River with its tributaries and
canal. S. 371 would enable the state of Rhode Island to donate the
Blackstone River State Park within in the Ashton historic mill village,
as needed in the opinion of the NPS to be the robust anchor of NPS
administration and the link to other park partnership districts.
We recommend that the committee's report specifically state that
the public overwhelmingly identified the river and tributaries as
essential park resources because they are essential to the story of
waterpower, they are the spine holding the Valley together, and they
offer an important way to view and enjoy the park. They also represent
the natural environment that always has been seen by the local public
as the first purpose of the preservation efforts in the Valley, even as
far back as the 1980's in the first survey conducted by National Park
Service for the first management plan.
Therefore, we strongly urge the committee to include in the park
all the key resource areas identified in the Special Resource Study, as
are found in S. 371 as written.
We will say more at the conclusion about the goals of our
Coalition, but at this point let me say simply that a primary
responsibility of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is to
provide insight on how legislation and policy and practice REALLY
affect things in the Field, where as everyone knows, the rubber meets
the road. We appreciate how difficult it can be to get beyond theory
and `what if's' to what really can work.
To that end, our judgment is that the National Park Service is to
be congratulated for the distinction and insight of the Blackstone
River Valley Special Resource Study, the basis of this legislation. The
Valley is as important and as complex a landscape as may be found, and
the National Park Service responded with many elegant and essential
resource preservation solutions in this SRS. In addition to the
interests of multiple federal agencies, this park plan engaged two
sovereign states and over 20 New England towns and cities and 40
historic villages. The SRS team did the work, worked with the public
and really listened, and to be noted, they also read and assessed all
the voluminous evaluations and analysis, the plans and their results
that you find in the SRS Bibliography. It is a remarkable demonstration
of strength that the team understood and articulated the special needs
of this resource.
The SRS calls for NPS expenditures on the same order of magnitude
as the last 20 years. As the Conservation Study Institute report
demonstrates, if the existing energy and imagination and partnerships
in the Valley from the NPS' past experience are incorporated into this
new national park, the costs will be very modest. We believe that the
higher vision established by S. 371 will attract motivated partners,
and that unequivocally enabling collaboration will attract significant
investments by the private sector, by State and local government, and
by other federal agencies.
The National Park Service has demonstrated over the past 20 years
that it and its partners have developed the right balance among the
private sector, the local governments and the federal government. None
of the communities or businesses has raised concerns over any loss of
authority. No community has ever asked to be deleted from the heritage
area. In fact, other communities keep asking to join. During the public
review of the SRS, the overwhelming community response was in support
of the park, with nearly all those who spoke at the public meetings
calling for including the river and its tributaries in the park. This
comes from placing the public at the center of decision making, of
getting the balance of incentives right, but above all by the power of
the Meaning of the resource and power of an exciting park story people
identify with. This legislation builds from those positive
relationships.
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees strongly supports
the provision to dedicate the Blackstone River Valley National
Historical Park to the late Senator John H Chafee. Senator, Chairman,
Governor, Secretary of the Navy and Marine John H. Chafee will be as
inspiring to park visitors as he is to us. He worked extremely well
with all the other Massachusetts and Rhode Island Members of Congress
in support of the Blackstone Valley. His successful efforts to
revitalize the nation's air and water may be seen as a microcosm for
the same in the Blackstone Valley. He knew that a healthy nation and a
healthy economy require a healthy environment, as is also reflected in
history of the Valley and the purpose of the National Heritage
Corridor, now named for Senator John H Chafee.
Thank you for considering this testimony of the Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees.
The more than 800 members of the Coalition of National Park Service
Retirees are all former employees of the National Park Service (NPS)
with more than 26,000 years of stewardship of America's most precious
natural and cultural resources. In their personal lives, CNPSR members
maintain their professional outlook. Just as the national parks are
supported by the broad spectrum of the American people, the CNPSR
members reflect the broad spectrum of political affiliations. CNPSR
members now offer their professional experience and integrity as they
speak out for national park solutions that uphold law and policy. Our
members also support the mission of the National Park Service through
public education.
______
Los Amigos, De Valles Caldera,
Santa Fe, NM, April 23, 2013.
David Brook,
Counsel, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington DC.
Re: SB285
Dear Mr. Brooks: As this bill comes up in front of the National
Parks Subcommittee, we would like to reiterate some of our previous
concerns (letter to Senators Bingaman and Udall, Feb- ruary 24, 2010,
June 27, 2010 Testimony re SB3452, and letter to Sen. Bingaman May 10,
2011), as well as mention some new ones.
We are Los Amigos de Valles Caldera, a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization incor- porated in New Mexico on September 30, 2006 by
former members of the Board of Trustees of the Valles Caldera National
Preserve and others. The Valles Caldera National Preserve, formerly the
privately owned ``Baca Ranch,'' is an 89,000-acre property located in
the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico purchased by the federal
government in 2000 under the Valles Caldera Preservation Act and placed
under the management of the Valles Caldera Trust.
Los Amigos' mission is to support the Valles Caldera National
Preserve for present and future generations through outreach,
education, restoration, and collaboration.
Los Amigos currently has over 200 members. Los Amigos is supported
by govern- ment grants, grants from private foundations, and individual
contributions. These individual contributions have ranged from $25 to
$1,000 and have come from a wide variety of people across the country.
We have brought in over $1 million in restoration funding.
Los Amigos was created to support the Preserve, and we plan to
continue with that mission, no matter who is managing the Preserve.
However, we have a number of concerns about the proposed legislation to
transfer the Preserve from the Trust to the Park Service:
One.--The fourth and final criterion used by the Park Service in
determining whether they should manage an important natural resource
when it is already being managed by another federal agency was
noticeably left unanswered in the NPS report regarding the Valles
Caldera. According to National Park Service Management Policies 2006:
``To receive a favorable recommendation from the Service, a proposed
addition to the national park system must (1) possess nationally
significant natural or cultural resources, (2) be a suitable addition
to the system, (3) be a feasible addition to the system, and (4)
require direct NPS management instead of protection by other public
agencies or the private sector. These criteria are designed to ensure
that the national park system includes only the most outstanding
examples of the nation's natural and cultural resources. These criteria
also recognize that there are other management alternatives for
preserving the nation's outstanding resources. . . . There are many
excellent examples of the successful management of important natural
and cultural resources by other public agencies, private conservation
organizations, and individuals. The National Park Service applauds
these accomplishments and actively encourages the expansion of
conservation activities by state, local, and private entities and by
other federal agencies. Unless direct NPS management of a studied area
is identified as the clearly superior alternative, the Service will
recommend that one or more of these other entities assume a lead
management role, and that the area not receive national park system
status.'' According to the letter transmitting the NPS report regarding
the Preserve, ``The scope of this report is limited to the first three
criteria, and the need for NPS management is not addressed.'' So we
wonder, how and in what way could they do a better job than the Trust?
With all due respect, this crucial question needs to be directly faced
and addressed. As articulated by the Park Service, this last criterion
is not a political decision, but rather a matter of history, financial
resources, and staffing of the Service itself.
Two.--The answer to the fourth criterion would have to take into
account the Park Service's current budget problems. Under the
Sequester, the NPS is taking a $63 million cut, which they say will
mean 900 positions will go unfilled. Even before this cut, the NPS
budget has been cut several times since the original of this bill was
introduced. It is common knowledge that the NPS is unable to meet its
backlog of maintenance at its current units. This has been cited in
articles in the press as well as in GAO reports. The Park Service
indicated in their testimony in 2011 regarding the earlier iteration of
this bill that $32 million would be needed immediately after the
Preserve went to the Park Service, for infrastructure. Then another $4
million would be needed annually for administration. It is unclear how
this could be accomplished under the cuts from the Sequester. The Los
Alamos Monitor reported that there will be furloughs at Bandelier
National Monument, and that they may be cutting off some access to the
backcountry because of the Sequester.
The Trust is currently not having this problem. As they showed in
the 2012 State of the Preserve, they have increased visitation (110,000
in 2012), revenue, and restoration. They are now ``in the black'' in
the livestock program. They are obtaining 30 percent of their total
operating costs through fees and donations. They will not be
furloughing any employees under the Sequester, and they will not be
eliminating programs.
Three.--Since the introduction of the original bill in 2010, the
Preserve and its neighbors have been the victims of a large and
devastating fire, the Las Conchas Fire of 2011. A third of the Preserve
was burned, and although some of that was beneficial, a lot of it was
not and still continues to have impacts on streams and wetlands.
Therefore, everyone agrees that the most critical work to be
accomplished on the Preserve in the foreseeable future is the
restoration of the forest ecosystem to a manageable condition and the
restoration of the wetlands damaged in part by the Las Conchas Fire.
The Southwest Jemez Mountains Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (CFLRP) Project has been funded by the Department
of Agriculture. That project is designed to improve the resilience of
ecosystems on the Preserve and on the Santa Fe National Forest to
recover from wildfires and other natural disturbances and sustain
healthy forests and watersheds by thinning and prescribed burning to
restore more natural fire regimes.
If the Preserve goes to the Park Service, in the Department of the
Interior, that money will be lost, along with our best opportunity to
help prevent any further fires in the Preserve. This is a major concern
to Los Amigos, the Trust, and the neighbors of the Preserve. If forest
restoration is not significantly accomplished in the near future, the
Preserve will be at great risk for a further catastrophic fire. We in
New Mexico are beginning another dangerous fire season. The moisture at
the Preserve is at only 65 percent of normal for this time of year.
This is frightening, given the forecast for continued lack of
significant precipitation in the area.
We hope that the subcommittee will consider these points. We feel
that this may not be the best time for a change in management. The
Trust seems to be making significant progress toward the goals set for
it in the Valles Caldera Preservation Act. We hope that Congress will
give them the time to meet all of those goals and to show the potential
benefits from a new kind of public land management.
We appreciate the committee's ongoing willingness to consider our
concerns. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Doug Fraser,
Chair, Board of Directors Los Amigos de Valles Caldera.
______
Statement of George Dini, Mayor, City of Yerington, Nevada, on S. 159
Chairman Manchin, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to offer testimony in favor of S. 159, the Lyon County
Economic Development and Conservation Act introduced by Senator Heller,
Cosponsored by Senator Reid, and supported by the entire Nevada
Congressional Delegation.
I am proud to serve as the Mayor of Yerington, Nevada. I am joined
today by Lyon County Manager Jeff Page on behalf of the Lyon County
Commission, to jointly express the support of the 3,156 citizens of
Yerington and 52,000 citizens of Lyon County and to urge the committee
to pass this bill. This land sale represents the economic future of our
City and County.
I also express the support of Nevada Governor Sandoval, and a
multitude of local and regional support.
The City of Yerington is located in Northern Nevada in the Mason
Valley and we have a long proud history of mining and agriculture.
However, our current economy is in bad shape. Our unemployment in Lyon
County has averaged over 15 percent during the past year and our
citizens are suffering greatly. Over the past 10 years, we have been
fortunate to receive over $20 million in Federal funding that has been
critical to maintaining our public infrastructure; however, this is not
how our citizens want to survive as a community. We seek jobs and the
ability to work hard to raise our families in a growing and vibrant
community. We need long-term stable jobs for our citizens and an
industry that will provide sustainable economic growth for decades.
S. 159 mandates the fair market sale of approximately 10,400 acres
of federal lands--just 1 percent of 975,000 acres of federal lands in
Lyon County--to the City of Yerington for economic development, a
recreation events center and open space purposes.
The lands that will be conveyed have no current important uses.
There is no threatened or endangered species habitat, no water
resources, and no significant cultural resources. This is barren land
that has few redeeming natural qualities.
The purchase of these lands will allow the City of Yerington to
annex the Pumpkin Hollow Mine site, sell water and sewer services to
the mine operation, benefit from taxes paid by the mine, allows the
City to grow economically and benefit from greatly needed recreation,
cultural and economic development lands.
The legislation also designates land for the Wovoka Wilderness,
which is located in the South Pine Grove Hills. The land was identified
as part of a local consultation process. In addition to wilderness, the
legislation protects the County against a potential listing of the sage
grouse on the Endangered Species List, protects existing grazing
interests, maintains public access on existing roads, and provides
continued access to recreation and hunting. On December 3, 2012, the
Lyon Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution
supporting the designation as outlined in S. 159. I also support this
designation.
For over four years, the City of Yerington has been working with
Nevada Copper to craft a development plan for the Pumpkin Hollow Mine
that will ensure the City of Yerington will economically benefit from
the development of the mine creating a sustainable future for our City.
The Pumpkin Hollow Copper mine that sits on private lands near the City
of Yerington. With or without this legislation, Nevada Copper will
develop and produce millions of tons of valuable minerals. The question
really is whether the Yerington will benefit from this new mining
project.
Nevada Copper proposes to start full project development--an
investment of approximately $1 billion--starting in 2013. In March, the
company secured $200 million to initiate the development of the
underground mine and mineral processing facilities at Pumpkin Hollow.
The company would like to invest another $800 million to build out the
much larger integrated open pit and underground mining operation.
However, that level of financing will only happen subject to passage of
S. 159.
The integrated mine operation facilitated by this legislation will
create over 800 direct mine operations jobs and up to 500 construction
jobs. Using the current published jobs multipliers a total of over
2,000-3,000 direct and indirect jobs would be created by the mine.
The timely passage of this legislation cannot be over-stated. We
are operating on a tight timeline. With the financing they have
received, Nevada Copper is initiating detailed siting, engineering and
design of project infrastructure. This legislation will allow Yerington
to work with the Nevada Copper to locate infrastructure for water,
sewer, and power for both mine development and the other uses
contemplated by the City. Both the City and Lyon County will be able to
share in property, sales, utility and net proceeds of mines taxes from
mine operations. If this legislation is not successful, the mine will
proceed, but as in the past, Yerington will simply have to deal with
the impacts with no real benefits to the City other than some jobs for
citizens.
As importantly, with this contiguous block of land, the City and
Nevada Copper can begin to plan for the future, long after mining is
complete. The development agreement between the City and Nevada Copper
will ensure that the Company leaves behind resources and assets that
will provide sustainable economic growth for the City. S. 159
solidifies the critical partnership that will provide economic
enhancement for decades-and at no cost to the American taxpayer.
Some of the lands will also be utilized for economic development as
commercial and light industrial needs increase to support the
operations of the mine. Also, the City is proposing a portion of the
lands be utilized for renewable energy development such as solar
energy. Lastly, some of the lands will be utilized by Nevada Copper to
maximize the mining operations on their patented lands.
As you can see, the sale of these lands to the City of Yerington
will have a dramatic, positive impact by increasing jobs, the
investment in Nevada, and increased tax revenues for the City, Lyon
County and the State of Nevada. It will also generate jobs and economic
activity in over 20 states nationwide for equipment, materials and
supplies.
Mr. Chairman, the City of Yerington is not asking Congress to give
the City some public lands in the hope of attracting economic
development. We are asking to pay fair market value to acquire a very
small percentage of federal lands that have little or no use to the
public in order to enhance and increase development that is already
occurring at the Pumpkin Hollow site. I cannot express enough the
importance of this project to the future of our City and I urge the
Committee to support S. 159.
______
Statement of Derb. S. Carter, Jr., Director of the North Carolina
Offices of the Southern Environmental Law Center, on H.R. 819
This testimony is submitted on behalf of Audubon North Carolina and
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). In addition, SELC has
represented Defenders of Wildlife in litigation prompting the
rulemaking process, in the rulemaking process itself, and in
intervening in litigation on the side of the National Park Service to
defend the Final Rule that would be abolished by HR 819. SELC also
represents National Parks Conservation Association in defending the
Final Rule.
We strongly oppose HR 819. We support the National Park Service's
Final Rule to manage off-road vehicle use on Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in North Carolina. The bill would abolish the Final Rule which
was adopted by the National Park Service after extensive public review
and comment. The bill would eliminate sensible safeguards to preserve
Cape Hatteras National Seashore for current visitors and future
generations to explore and enjoy. In the one year of management under
the Final Rule, visitation to the Seashore increased, tourism set
record highs, and wildlife on the Seashore continued to rebound.
Passage of HR 819 would ignore and undermine:
Extensive public involvement in adoption of the Final Rule:
The public process informing the National Park Service's management
plan included numerous public meetings, a negotiated rulemaking process
that included opportunity for public comment at each meeting, and two
public comments periods, during which 21,258 written comments were
received on the draft Final Rule and its supporting environmental
impact statement. The vast majority of commenters wrote in favor of
stronger wildlife protections and more stringent off-road vehicle (ORV)
restrictions than even those contained in the Final Rule. The National
Park Service weighed all the comments and public input and struck a
careful and fair balance among competing uses of the Seashore, which is
embodied in the Final Rule. The Final Rule should be given a chance to
succeed.
Detailed economic and environmental review
The Park Service's extensive review culminated in lengthy economic
reports and cost-benefit analyses, an environmental impact statement
that examined six alternatives to the Final Rule, and a detailed
biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, all of
which supported the Final Rule as it was written. The management
measures in the Final Rule are based on a robust scientific record
supported by leading experts.
Balanced access for pedestrians and ORV users provided by the Final
Rule
The Final Rule provides a balanced approach to Seashore visitation,
designating 41 miles (28 year-round and 13 seasonal) as ORV routes of
the Seashore's 67 miles of beaches. Only 26 miles of beaches are
designated as year-round vehicle-free areas for pedestrians, families,
and wildlife, to promote pedestrian access and reduce user conflicts
between motorized and non-motorized visitors. While limiting off-road
vehicular traffic in these areas, the new plan will also provide new
parking facilities and access ramps to facilitate visitor access to
beaches.
The Final Rule and management plan only closes beaches when
necessary to protect nesting waterbirds and sea turtles from
disturbance. Today, one hundred percent of the Seashore beaches are
open to pedestrians and 61 percent of the beaches are open to ORV and
pedestrian use. The remaining 39 percent of the beaches are reserved
for pedestrian use only. During the breeding season for waterbirds
(late April through July) only those areas where birds are attempting
to nest are closed when prescribed disturbance buffers require closure.
Once nesting is completed, these areas are opened.
Most other national seashores either have regulations in place to
manage and restrict ORV use or do not allow ORV use at all; only one
national seashore continues to allow beach driving without a regulation
in place. Four national seashores have long prohibited ORVs entirely,
while four others have regulations restricting ORV use. All of those,
except Padre Island, allow driving on a much smaller percentage of
their beaches than does the Cape Hatteras Final Rule. Thus, the number
of miles Cape Hatteras's beach set aside for ORV use in the Final Rule
is significantly more extensive than most other national seashores.
The overwhelming weight of scientific authority
In contrast to the utter dearth of science to support HR 819, an
extraordinary amount of scientific evidence shows that the Final Rule's
beach driving restrictions are warranted and are the minimum necessary
to preserve the natural resources of the Seashore for future
generations. The rulemaking record includes hundreds of peer-reviewed
articles, the peer-reviewed protocols developed by the government's own
scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, and the support of scientists
at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission. Arguments for ORV use on the entire Seashore are
not only contradicted by substantial scientific studies at the Seashore
and other locations, they are not supported by any scientific evidence
in the record.
Five years of thriving tourism:
In the four years under reasonable wildlife protections and ORV
restrictions similar to those implemented in the Final Rule\1\ and one
year under the Final Rule, tourism has thrived, park visitation has
held steady and increased in some years, and tourism revenues grew.
Notably, in the last two years, new records have been set for visitor
occupancy and tourism revenue in Dare County, North Carolina, where
much of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore land is located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These wildlife protections were established in a consent decree
was entered by the U.S. district Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina in the federal lawsuit entitled Defenders of Wildlife et
al. v. National Park Service et al. (E.D.N.C. case no. 2:07-CV-45). It
imposed protections and beach driving restrictions beginning in 2008
that are very similar to those in the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of 2011, when Hurricane Irene cut off access to
Hatteras Island for nearly two months, visitation to Cape Hatteras
National Seashore has remained steady or increased for the past nine
years, from a low of 2,125,005 (in 2006) and a high of 2,302,040 in
2012. In the first year of management under the Final Rule, Seashore
visitation was the highest since 2003.
Dare County, NC, where the majority of the Seashore is located,
reports that visitor occupancy tax receipts for each year under the
court ordered ORV restrictions (2008 to 2012) exceeded receipts in 2007
and prior years, with 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 setting successive
records for all-time high receipts. Tourism revenue for Hyde County, NC
(the Ocracoke Island portion of Cape Hatteras National Seashore) has
held steady or increased since 2005, to a record high $31.69 million in
2011. The chart below shows tourism revenue data for Hyde and Dare
Counties, both before the court ordered ORV restrictions went into
effect in 2008 and afterwards:
The majority of the national seashore is on Hatteras Island in Dare
County. Dare County reports that occupancy revenue from hotels, rental
homes, campgrounds, etc. on Hatteras Island was seven percent higher in
2012 (the first year under the Final Rule) than in 2007 (the year that
the Interim Management Strategy, to which HR 819 would return the
Seashore, was in effect). This was true despite the fact that access to
Hatteras Island was cut off after Hurricane Sandy for nearly two months
in late 2012. Occupancy receipts have been steadily rising in recent
years under reasonable wildlife protections and ORV restrictions
similar to those implemented in the Final Rule. The Dare County
Visitor's Bureau reports that Hatteras Island visitors spent a record-
setting $27.8 million on lodging during the month of July 2010
(surpassing July 2009 by 18.5 percent). July 2011 occupancy receipts on
Hatteras Island then set a new high of $29.6 million. Then July 2012
set yet another new all-time occupancy high on Hatteras Island at
$30,577,703. July has the maximum restriction on ORV use due to
seasonal safety ORV closures in front of villages, breeding bird
closures, and night driving restrictions for nesting sea turtles. The
occupancy receipts for June and September 2012, the first year under
the Final Rule, also exceeded the levels for the prior years posted on
Dare County's Visitor's Bureau website, and may also represent all-time
records. (See http://www.outerbanks.org/outerbanks-statistics/ (graphs
for ``Occupancy by District'')).
Although only 4-5 percent of Seashore visitors have an interest in
driving on the beaches, these visitors have this opportunity at all
times under the Final Rule. Since the Final Rule went into effect on
February 15, 2012 (through March 4, 2013), the National Park Service
has issued 32,893 permits to operate an ORV on Seashore beaches (9,086
annual and 23,807 weekly permits). Permits require an applicant to view
a short educational video on safe driving on the beaches. In the first
year under the permit system instituted by the Final Rule, speeding
violations on the beaches decreased by 88 percent from 200 in the prior
year to 23.
Recovery of protected species under reasonable ORV restrictions:
The various federally endangered, federally threatened, and state-
protected species of shorebirds, water birds, and sea turtles that live
and/or breed on Cape Hatteras National Seashore beaches have rebounded
in the five years under court ordered ORV restrictions and the Final
Rule.--These species are sensitive to human disturbance during the
nesting season. All species had declined--and some had even disappeared
from the Seashore--under the prior plan that HR 819 seeks to reinstate.
Under the court ordered ORV restrictions and Final Rule, records have
been set for the number of sea turtle nests, piping plover breeding
pairs, piping plover fledge chicks, American oystercatcher fledged
chicks, least tern nests, and gull-billed tern nests.
Sea turtle nests on Seashore beaches have nearly tripled from 82 in
2007 to a record 222 in 2012. The number of breeding pairs of
threatened piping plovers increased from 6 pairs in 2007 to 15 in 2012.
The number of nests of beach nesting colonial waterbirds including
terns and black skimmers has quadrupled, from 314 nests in 2007 to 1314
nests in 2012. By all measures, the ORV use restrictions during the
nesting season from May to July have been an unqualified success in
restoring wildlife to the Seashore.
The requirements of numerous federal laws:
Executive Order 11644 and 36 C.F.R. Sec. 4.10 require all public
land managers to adopt special regulations to authorize ORV use and
requires that those plans not harm wildlife or degrade wildlife
habitat.
The Park Service Organic Act declares that national parks and
seashores must be managed ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historical objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 1. If a conflict exists between recreational uses and natural
resource protection, natural resource protection predominates.
The enabling legislation for Cape Hatteras National Seashore
declares that it shall be ``permanently preserved as a primitive
wilderness'' and that ``no development of the project or plan for the
convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible
[] with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna of the
physiographic conditions now prevailing in the area.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec.
459a-2.
The Endangered Species Act requires that all federal agencies
provide for the recovery of endangered species. 16 U.S.C. Sec.
7(a)(1). HR 4094, in contrast, prescribes that any management plan for
the Seashore only provide minimum protection to endangered species, but
not recovery.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for federal actions that
significantly affect the environment. The Final Rule is supported by an
EIS, but the Interim Strategy mandated by HR 4094 is not.
Conclusion
In marked contrast to the National Park Service's Final Rule, HR
819 would return Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the failed
protocols of the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy that
were proven to be devastating to birds, sea turtles, other natural
resources, and the public's enjoyment of the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore beaches prior to the introduction of the consent decree. Even
the Interim Strategy itself states that it was not developed as a long-
term solution for managing ORV use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
but rather expressly and repeatedly states that it was intended only to
be implemented temporarily until the Final Rule was in place. The
Biological Opinion for the Interim Strategy reiterates that it will
negatively impact the natural resources of the Seashore in the long-
term.
In contrast to the Final Rule, the Interim Strategy that HR 819
seeks to reinstate:
1. Was not supported by the same degree of public
participation and contradicts the wishes of the vast majority
of people who commented on the Final Rule;
2. Is not supported by any data or evidence that it will have
a greater positive impact (or avoid a negative impact) on
tourism than the Final Rule;
3. Is not supported by an environmental impact statement or
extensive economic studies, as the Final Rule is;
4. Will reserve an extraordinary percentage of the miles of
Seashore beaches for a small minority of park users, to the
exclusion of the majority of park users who prefer to enjoy the
Seashore without the danger, visual blight, noise, and odor of
trucks monopolizing the beach;
5. Is not supported by the great weight of scientific
literature, as the Final Rule is;
6. Was responsible, in part, for the decline in population of
the many protected species at the Seashore by 2007; and
7. Will violate and undermine the requirements of the federal
laws listed above.
In sum, the National Park Service's Final Rule is a balanced plan
to manage ORV use on Cape Hatteras National Seashore while providing
areas for wildlife, and the vast majority of visitors who come to walk
and not drive on the Seashore's beaches.
Please oppose HR 819, and instead support the National Park
Service's balanced and common sense management plan for Cape Hatteras
National Seashore.
______
CREC,
Hartford, CT, April 25, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 615/ HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act
Dear Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, and Congressman Larson:
I am writing to offer CREC's support for the passage of S. 615/ HR
1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act, and our sincere
endorsement for the designation of the Coltsville Historic District as
a National Park. The people of Hartford and Connecticut deserve to have
this historic site preserved. Establishing Coltsville National
Historical Park in the State of Connecticut is an important step
towards revitalizing our capital city. It will aid in the continued
growth and redevelopment of the area, will bring new jobs and revenues
to our city, and will provide generations of children and families
access to this important historic landmark.
CREC currently operates three magnet schools in the Coltsville
Historic District: the CREC Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts High
School, serving students in grades 7-12; the CREC Two Rivers Magnet
High School, serving students in grades 9-12; and the CREC Greater
Hartford Academy of the Arts Middle School, serving students in grades
6-8. We have further plans to develop additional portions of the
Coltsville site, including the complete renovation of one of the
buildings in the north part of the complex.
CREC is committed to the success and stability of the Coltsville
Historic District. We recognize the great economic and educational
potential that the site has for our state, and CREC is grateful to be
part of the ongoing renovation and revitalization of the District. We
offer our full support for the Coltsville Historic District receiving
National Park designation, and we look forward to our continued
partnership in this endeavor.
Thank you for your unwavering dedication to our state.
Sincerely,
Bruce E. Douglas, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
______
CT TRUST,
Hamden, CT, April 6, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 615/ HR 1259 a bill to establish the Coltsville National
Historical Park Act
Dear Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy and Representative Larson:
On behalf of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, I am
writing to urge your support of the National Park land package that
includes establishing Coltsville as a National Historic Park: S. 615/
HR. 1259 a bill to establish the Coltsville National Historical Park
Act.
For the Connecticut Trust, Coltsville National Park will be the
culmination of almost two decades of advocacy to see the buildings
restored and the complex recognized and offered as a public resource.
The extraordinary national importance of the Coltsville story of
precision manufacturing, innovative approaches to mechanization and the
many contributions Elizabeth Colt, as a widow, made to ensure the
development of a culturally vibrant capital will be part of the
national consciousness, where it finally deserves to be.
There is no better time for a National Park to be established at
Coltsville. The old industrial complex, with its various armories and
outbuildings, is hopping with activity. One by one, the buildings have
been and are being renovated. Tenants range from residents to students
to manufacturing workers and restaurateurs. The Coltsville complex is
emerging as the best there can be in reimagining our old industrial
complexes and making them work for the 2151 century. A National Park in
this vibrant mix will bring visitors who will not only be immersed in
the history of Coltsville but will also experience firsthand the return
to life that an old industrial complex can undergo. Coltsville is a
happening place that will become a centerpiece for Hartford and
Connecticut once designated a National Park.
The Connecticut Trust stands ready now and in the future to assist
the National Park Service, the State of Connecticut, the City of
Hartford and other local partners in making Coltsville a successful
National Park in Hartford. The Trust is a partner of the National Trust
for Historic Preservation which has a strong interest in this project.
Thank you for taking the leadership to ensure the designation of
Coltsville as a National Historic Park.
Sincerely,
Helen Higgins,
Executive Director.
______
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The Department strongly opposes S. 486. As stated in testimony
given before the Subcommittee on National Parks on April 23, 2013
(enclosed), the bill would reinstate the 2007 Interim Protected Species
Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, replacing the final ORV Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement and special regulation.
The final plan and regulation, the product of an intensive five-
year long planning process that included a high level of public
participation, not only provides diverse visitor experience
opportunities, manages ORV use in a manner appropriate to a unit of the
National Park System, and provides a science-based approach to the
conservation of protected wildlife species, but also adapts to changing
conditions over the life-span of the plan.
The Department supports allowing appropriate public use and access
at the Seashore to the greatest extent possible, while also ensuring
protection for the Seashore's wildlife and providing a variety of
visitor use experiences, minimizing conflicts among various users, and
promoting the safety of all visitors. We strongly believe that the
final ORV Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement and special
regulation are accomplishing these objectives far better than the
defunct Interim Strategy.
We urge the committee to oppose S. 486.
Sincerely,
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Director.
______
Coalition to Strengthen the Sheldon/Charter Oak
Neighborhood (CSS/CON),
Hartford, CT, April 12, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 615/ HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act
Dear Senators Blumenthal and Murphy and Congressman Larson:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Sheldon/Charter Oak NRZ,
I wish to reiterate our very strongest support for Coltsville National
Historic Park. Our neighborhood, in which Coltsville is located, has
always supported this plan and has been an active member of the
Coltsville Ad Hoc Committee since the idea was conceived.
While the name Sam Colt is synonymous with Hartford and the
firearms industry, the story of Coltsville is much bigger and more
interesting than simply the manufacturing of guns. Sam Colt built a
model factory, which employed the most advanced manufacturing
technology and precision engineering of the day. Coltsville is
nationally important in American industrialization and a leader in the
interchangeability of parts and mechanization of virtually all aspects
of manufacturing. The Colts created more than a factory. They designed
a planned urban industrial district, including housing, recreational
facilities, meeting halls, and churches. Much of this fabric remains
today within the Coltsville area under consideration.
The significance of Coltsville is so much bigger than the sum of
its physical parts. It's the story of a widow (Elizabeth) running a
multi-national company; a springboard for entrepreneurs who honed their
skills at Colt and went on to create typewriters, automobiles, sewing
machines, bicycles, aircraft parts, and more; and it's the story of
epic philanthropy as evidenced by massive art collections, memorials,
and parkland donated to the public realm.
I urge you, and all your fellow Senators and Congressmen, to
support S. 615/HR 1259. Our organization hopes to welcome the world to
Coltsville through the experience of a National Park, so that they too
might learn of the good that came from here, not just the production of
guns.
Sincerely,
Lynn H. Ferrari,
President.
______
Statement of Maureen Finnerty, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees
on s. 371
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present the views of the Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees on S. 371, a bill to establish the Blackstone River
Valley National Historical Park, to dedicate the park to John H.
Chafee, and for other purposes. We are submitting this to be
incorporated for the record with other testimony of your Hearing of
April 23, 2013.
This is important legislation. We strongly support the enactment of
S. 371. It would create a Blackstone River Valley National Historical
Park based on its real significance to the nation, and sustained by
mutually supportive partnerships.
It is the ``wholeness'' of the Blackstone Valley that makes it
significant. It is the reason S. 371 is structured as it is. Few places
exist where such a concentration of integrated historic, cultural and
natural resources has survived and can be made accessible by
interpretation, preservation and management strategies. This resource
tells the story of a watershed that depicts every phase of industrial
development and environmental interaction from colonial times to the
present era of revitalization. Much can be learned here about what
makes a landscape environmentally and economically sustainable. In one
small area of approximately 700,000 acres between Worcester,
Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island--a river basin of only about
45 miles long and 22 miles wide--you can still see on the landscape
evocative layers of nearly every phase of American development in the
Northeast.
The streams and tributaries of the Blackstone River descend 450
feet from the hills in and above Worcester, Massachusetts to the
Narragansett Bay, or 10 feet a mile--a faster descent than the Colorado
River through Grand Canyon National Park. Through the work of people
and the power of this geography, the river and its tributaries became
the first place in the United States to experience the widespread use
of waterpower for industry; the Valley became the center of industrial
innovation for the nation, the Silicone Valley of its time.
The first layer you can see along these waterways is evidence of
Native American settlements, early transportation routes, and
vocabulary of resource features highlighting the significance of the
waterways. These waterways are fed by what The New Yorker magazine
called ``large and spectacular wetlands.''\1\ Surrounding the wetlands
you can see important concentrations of colonial rural landscape
development including hilltop villages with village commons, and
crossroad villages and colonial transportation systems. The industrial
and waterpower period followed, with riverside industrial villages and
cities, including large parts of the 2nd and 3rd largest cities of New
England, and then continued layers to our time. You can see the affect
of landscape on culture, and culture on landscape at every stage. You
even can perceive a sense of the way forward toward the future, or at
least the choices and the opportunities for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ `` . . . the Blackstone Valley (was) the first area in North
America to be industrialized. The . . . Massachusetts part, whic is
bordered by large and spectacular wetlands, stayed mostly undeveloped,
but in Rhode Island mill villages dotted the hillsides . . . Every town
on the river was supported by a mill, and every waterfall on the river
had a mill next to it . . . ``The New Yorker magazine, ``Encountering
The Countryside,'' August 28, 1989, pp. 37-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rolling farmlands lined with classic New England stone walls
remind you that the dawn of industry led to the revitalization of
farming--just one of many unexpected interrelationships this park will
be able to illustrate and interpret. With the concentration of
distinctive resources across an entire landscape, this park could be
understood as a natural resource. With the unique survival here of
representatives elements of entire 18th and 19th century production
systems, this Valley can be seen as a machine--a watershed harnessed as
one integrated machine. For many national historical parks with one or
two primary resources a compact park and legislative framework may work
best. For the Blackstone Valley, a combination of parkland
administration and partnership collaboration is needed, as provided by
S 371.
This reshaping of the river basin, its physical and social
response, the creation of sustainable wealth and community, its
economic and environmental decline and more recently its pathway to
restoration is the major significance of the Blackstone River Valley.
The story it tells of America is both compelling and potentially
redeeming.
This Valley has high integrity, is compact, and capable of
supporting the very best of interpretation and public programming in a
living, working cultural landscape.
It is certainly much more, and much more interesting to visitors,
than the probably-misnamed ``Birthplace of the American Industrial
Revolution.'' Describing these resources as exclusively industrial or
of a narrow period of industrial history truly misses and seriously
understates what makes the Blackstone River Valley significant on a
national scale.
Rather than a park boundary to include the whole watershed--the
complete resource--as we and others originally proposed, this bill is a
brilliant solution to the key issue of landscape and boundary.
Brilliant, in the sense of a more modest, efficient and cost effective
framework while still centered on the ``wholeness'' of the Blackstone
River Valley. S. 371 accomplishes this by relying on the local
jurisdictions and private sector involvement, and especially on
partnering with the surrounding National Heritage Corridor, to enable a
much smaller park.
As called for by the Special Resource Study (SRS) the park would be
anchored in the essential 5 representative historic districts and, as
its spine and network, the Blackstone River with its tributaries and
canal. S. 371 would enable the state of Rhode Island to donate the
Blackstone River State Park within in the Ashton historic mill village,
as needed in the opinion of the NPS to be the robust anchor of NPS
administration and the link to other park partnership districts.
We recommend that the Committee's report specifically state that
the public overwhelmingly identified the river and tributaries as
essential park resources because they are essential to the story of
waterpower, they are the spine holding the Valley together, and they
offer an important way to view and enjoy the park. They also represent
the natural environment that always has been seen by the local public
as the first purpose of the preservation efforts in the Valley, even as
far back as the 1980's in the first survey conducted by National Park
Service for the first management plan.
Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to include in the park
all the key resource areas identified in the Special Resource Study, as
are found in S. 371 as written.
We will say more at the conclusion about the goals of our
Coalition, but at this point let me say simply that a primary
responsibility of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is to
provide insight on how legislation and policy and practice REALLY
affect things in the Field, where as everyone knows, the rubber meets
the road. We appreciate how difficult it can be to get beyond theory
and `what if's' to what really can work.
To that end, our judgment is that the National Park Service is to
be congratulated for the distinction and insight of the Blackstone
River Valley Special Resource Study, the basis of this legislation. The
Valley is as important and as complex a landscape as may be found, and
the National Park Service responded with many elegant and essential
resource preservation solutions in this SRS. In addition to the
interests of multiple federal agencies, this park plan engaged two
sovereign states and over 20 New England towns and cities and 40
historic villages. The SRS team did the work, worked with the public
and really listened, and to be noted, they also read and assessed all
the voluminous evaluations and analysis, the plans and their results
that you find in the SRS Bibliography. It is a remarkable demonstration
of strength that the team understood and articulated the special needs
of this resource.
The SRS calls for NPS expenditures on the same order of magnitude
as the last 20 years. As the Conservation Study Institute report
demonstrates, if the existing energy and imagination and partnerships
in the Valley from the NPS' past experience are incorporated into this
new national park, the costs will be very modest. We believe that the
higher vision established by S. 371 will attract motivated partners,
and that unequivocally enabling collaboration will attract significant
investments by the private sector, by State and local government, and
by other federal agencies.
The National Park Service has demonstrated over the past 20 years
that it and its partners have developed the right balance among the
private sector, the local governments and the federal government. None
of the communities or businesses has raised concerns over any loss of
authority. No community has ever asked to be deleted from the heritage
area. In fact, other communities keep asking to join. During the public
review of the SRS, the overwhelming community response was in support
of the park, with nearly all those who spoke at the public meetings
calling for including the river and its tributaries in the park. This
comes from placing the public at the center of decision making, of
getting the balance of incentives right, but above all by the power of
the Meaning of the resource and power of an exciting park story people
identify with. This legislation builds from those positive
relationships.
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees strongly supports
the provision to dedicate the Blackstone River Valley National
Historical Park to the late Senator John H Chafee. Senator, Chairman,
Governor, Secretary of the Navy and Marine John H. Chafee will be as
inspiring to park visitors as he is to us. He worked extremely well
with all the other Massachusetts and Rhode Island Members of Congress
in support of the Blackstone Valley. His successful efforts to
revitalize the nation's air and water may be seen as a microcosm for
the same in the Blackstone Valley. He knew that a healthy nation and a
healthy economy require a healthy environment, as is also reflected in
history of the Valley and the purpose of the National Heritage
Corridor, now named for Senator John H Chafee.
Thank you for considering this testimony of the Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees.
The more than 800 members of the Coalition of National Park Service
Retirees are all former employees of the National Park Service (NPS)
with more than 26,000 years of stewardship of America's most precious
natural and cultural resources. In their personal lives, CNPSR members
maintain their professional outlook. Just as the national parks are
supported by the broad spectrum of the American people, the CNPSR
members reflect the broad spectrum of political affiliations. CNPSR
members now offer their professional experience and integrity as they
speak out for national park solutions that uphold law and policy. Our
members also support the mission of the National Park Service through
public education.
______
Los Amigos de Valles Caldera,
Santa Fe, NM, April 23, 2013.
David Brooks,
Counsel, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Energy and
Natural Resources Committee Office, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Re: SB285
Dear Mr. Brooks:
As this bill comes up in front of the National Parks Subcommittee,
we would like to reiterate some of our previous concerns (letter to
Senators Bingaman and Udall, February 24, 2010, June 27, 2010 Testimony
re SB3452, and letter to Sen. Bingaman May 10, 2011), as well as
mention some new ones.
We are Los Amigos de Valles Caldera, a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization incorporated in New Mexico on September 30, 2006 by former
members of the Board of Trustees of the Valles Caldera National
Preserve and others. The Valles Caldera National Preserve, formerly the
privately owned ``Baca Ranch,'' is an 89,000-acreproperty located in
the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico purchased by the federal
government in 2000 under the Valles Caldera Preservation Act and placed
under the management of the Valles Caldera Trust.
Los Amigos' mission is to support the Valles Caldera National
Preserve for present and future generations through outreach,
education, restoration, and collaboration.
Los Amigos currently has over 200 members. Los Amigos is supported
by government grants, grants from private foundations, and individual
contributions. These individual contributions have ranged from $25 to
$1,000 and have come from a wide variety of people across the country.
We have brought in over $1 million in restoration funding.
Los Amigos was created to support the Preserve, and we plan to
continue with that mission, no matter who is managing the Preserve.
However, we have a number of concerns about the proposed legislation to
transfer the Preserve from the Trust to the Park Service:
One.--The fourth and final criterion used by the Park Service in
determining whether they should manage an important natural resource
when it is already being managed by another federal agency was
noticeably left unanswered in the NPS report regarding the Valles
Caldera. According to National Park Service Management Policies 2006:
``To receive a favorable recommendation from the Service, a proposed
addition to the national park system must (1) possess nationally
significant natural or cultural resources, (2) be a suitable addition
to the system, (3) be a feasible addition to the system, and (4)
require direct NPS management instead of protection by other public
agencies or the private sector. These criteria are designed to ensure
that the national park system includes only the most outstanding
examples of the nation's natural and cultural resources. These criteria
also recognize that there are other management alternatives for
preserving the nation's outstanding resources. . . . There are many
excellent examples of the successful management of important natural
and cultural resources by other public agencies, private conservation
organizations, and individuals. The National Park Service applauds
these accomplishments and actively encourages the expansion of
conservation activities by state, local, and private entities and by
other federal agencies. Unless direct NPS management of a studied area
is identified as the clearly superior alternative, the Service will
recommend that one or more of these other entities assume a lead
management role, and that the area not receive national park system
status.'' According to the letter transmitting the NPS report regarding
the Preserve, ``The scope of this report is limited to the first three
criteria, and the need for NPS management is not addressed.'' So we
wonder, how and in what way could they do a better job than the Trust?
With all due respect, this crucial question needs to be directly faced
and addressed. As articulated by the Park Service, this last criterion
is not a political decision, but rather a matter of history, financial
resources, and staffing of the Service itself.
Two.--The answer to the fourth criterion would have to take into
account the Park Service's current budget problems. Under the
Sequester, the NPS is taking a $63 million cut, which they say will
mean 900 positions will go unfilled. Even before this cut, the NPS
budget has been cut several times since the original of this bill was
introduced. It is common knowledge that the NPS is unable to meet its
backlog of main- tenance at its current units. This has been cited in
articles in the press as well as in GAO reports. The Park Service
indicated in their testimony in 2011 regarding the earlier iteration of
this bill that $32 million would be needed immediately after the
Preserve went to the Park Service, for infrastructure. Then another $4
million would be needed annually for administration. It is unclear how
this could be accomplished under the cuts from the Sequester. The Los
Alamos Monitor reported that there will be furloughs at Bandelier
National Monument, and that they may be cutting off some access to the
backcountry because of the Sequester.
The Trust is currently not having this problem. As they showed in
the 2012 State of the Preserve, they have increased visitation (110,000
in 2012), revenue, and restoration. They are now ``in the black'' in
the livestock program. They are obtaining 30 percent of their total
operating costs through fees and donations. They will not be
furloughing any employees under the Sequester, and they will not be
eliminating programs.
Three.--Since the introduction of the original bill in 2010, the
Preserve and its neighbors have been the victims of a large and
devastating fire, the Las Conchas Fire of 2011. A third of the Preserve
was burned, and although some of that was beneficial, a lot of it was
not and still continues to have impacts on streams and wetlands.
Therefore, everyone agrees that the most critical work to be
accomplished on the Preserve in the foreseeable future is the
restoration of the forest ecosystem to a manageable condition and the
restoration of the wetlands damaged in part by the Las Conchas Fire.
The Southwest Jemez Mountains Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (CFLRP) Project has been funded by the Department
of Agriculture. That project is designed to improve the resilience of
ecosystems on the Preserve and on the Santa Fe National Forest to
recover from wildfires and other natural disturbances and sustain
healthy forests and watersheds by thinning and prescribed burning to
restore more natural fire regimes.
If the Preserve goes to the Park Service, in the Department of the
Interior, that money will be lost, along with our best opportunity to
help prevent any further fires in the Preserve. This is a major concern
to Los Amigos, the Trust, and the neighbors of the Preserve. If forest
restoration is not significantly accomplished in the near future, the
Preserve will be at great risk for a further catastrophic fire. We in
New Mexico are beginning another dangerous fire season. The moisture at
the Preserve is at only 65 percent of normal for this time of year.
This is frightening, given the forecast for continued lack of
significant precipitation in the area.
We hope that the Subcommittee will consider these points. We feel
that this may not be the best time for a change in management. The
Trust seems to be making significant progress toward the goals set for
it in the Valles Caldera Preservation Act. We hope that Congress will
give them the time to meet all of those goals and to show the potential
benefits from a new kind of public land management.
We appreciate the Committee's ongoing willingness to consider our
concerns. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Doug Fraser,
Chair, Board of Directors.
______
State of Connecticut,
Office of Governor,
Hartford, CT, April 19, 2013.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
Re:S. 615/HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act
Dear Senator Murphy, Senator Blumenthaland, Representative Larson:
For more than a decade,the State of Connecticut has strongly
supported and invested significantly in the re-development, remediation
and renovation of Cotlsville, the most significant and visible site in
our rich precision manufacturing history. As the U.S. Senate Committee
on Energy and NaturalResources' Subcommittee on National Parks
considers S.615/HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act, I
pledge the State of Connecticut's continued financial support to the
Coltsville renovation andre-development, and specifically to Colt's
East Armory in the near term.
With three Coltsville buildings fully renovated and nearly fully
occupied,there is tremendous potential for Coltsville as a National
Historic Park. This designation and support from the National Park
Service would propel the Coltsville redevelopment forward,and a
National Park would have a beneficial effect on our state, and the city
of Hartford, both in terms of job creation and urban revitalization.
Furthermore, a National Historical Park at the 17-acre Colt complex
will bring to life the precision manufacturing and innovative
approaches to mechanization cultivated and inspired by SamColt. It will
complement prestigious historic landmarks in Hartford, such as the Mark
Twain House and the Wadsworth Athenaeum,and expand Connecticut's
tourism industry, one of the top five job producers in our state. It's
a vision that everyone can agree on, including former U.S. Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar, who visited the Colt campus in September of
2011. After touring the complex, he endorsed the idea of Colt becoming
a national park because of its role in the Industrial Revolution.
Connecticut has been and continues to be tremendously supportive of
the renovation and redevelopment of Coltsville, providing significant
funding and technical assistance toward the preservation of the
historic complex. To date,the state has invested $7,705,000 in the Colt
Gateway Project. The Department of Economic and Community Development
(DECO) administered $5,605,000 of the funding in the form of a
$4,500,000 grant for the construction and renovation of utility
infrastructure, including the power plant. To date,$3,480,000 was used
to complete the infrastructure projects and the balance of $1,020,000
was used to install windows in the South and East Armory buildings as
well as facade and roof replacement for the East Armory building.
In addition, DECO committed $405,000 for abatement and demolition
of structures on state-owned property adjacent to the historic Sawtooth
building in order to provide additional parking to serve the complex.
DECO also committed $700,000 from the Statewide Revolving Loan Fund for
remediation of petroleum and hazardous contamination in the courtyard
area of the former Colt factory complex. Of the $7,705,000,the
Connecticut Development Authority (CDA) administered a $2,100,000 loan
to complete the interior build-out of the South Armory.
The state has made other significant investments in and around
Coltsville. The Capital Regional Education Council was relocated to
buildings on the north and south parts of the campus, and DECO provided
a $500,000 grant to Colt's developer for leasehold improvements so that
Foley Carrier Services, LLC,a transportation logistics company, could
move its headquarters into the South Armory. The move brings 110 jobs
to Hartford immediately, with plans to add up to 70 new jobs within
three years.
All this funding demonstrates the significant support Connecticut
has had for a fully renovated Coltsville and additionalinvestments are
being considered as the next phase of redevelopment commences.
Specifically, another $5 million has been allocated for DECO to
administer as future projects progress.
A fully renovated Coltsville that includes a National Historic Park
will be an economic catalyst for Hartford. It is a vision that Iam
strongly committed to realizing. I have instructed my administration to
actively work with Coltsville developer Larry Dooley and Hartford to
craft a financing plan to renovate and re-develop the East Armory that
will turn Coltsville into a revitalized residentia,l commercial and
historic destination linked to downtown Hartford.
Thank you for your steadfast leadership and advocacy to secure the
designation of Coltsville as a National Historic Park.
Sincerely,
Dannel P. Malloy,
Governor.
______
Hartford Preservation Alliance,
Hartford, CT, April 19, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 615/HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act
Dear Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy and Representative Larson:
The Hartford Preservation Alliance, Inc. is pleased to support S.
615/HR 1259 theColtsville National Historical Park Act. Coltsville, a
National Historic Landmark, is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and is an integral component of Hartford's historic
landscape. HPA believes Coltsville to be a prime candidate for National
Park status for the incredible innovative contributions the site has
made to U.S. and International history.
HPA considers Coltsville one of the most recognized sites in the
Capital City and support for creation of a Coltsville National Historic
Park certainly aligns with the mission of HPA which is to advocate for
the preservation and revitalization of Hartford, Connecticut.
Sincerely,
Tomas J. Nenortas,
Associate Director.
______
William Hosley,
Enfield, CT, April 19, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
United States Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
United States Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
United States Representative, Washington, DC.
Dear Connecticut Congressional Leaders:
I am writing to support for S. 615/HR 1259 the Coltsville National
Historical Park Act.
Since 1986, I have been engrossed in scholarship, public
programming and historic preservation efforts aimed at saving and
inspiring future generations with the stories associated with
Coltsville, one of industrial age America's most fascinating and in
tact historic sites. I have witnessed a rising tide of public
acclimation for the Coltsville initiative that cuts across a diverse
spectrum of concerns, from the usual preservationists, museum and
tourism officials, to neighborhood residents, school teachers and a
growing community whose pride of price embraces Hartford's role an
incubators of the industrial age or, as we sometimes phrase it, the
Silicon Valley of the 19th Century.
I am impressed with the sophistication and enthusiasm of the case
that's been made for its significance by National Park Service
personnel. With more than 30 Coltera buildings still intact, the built
environment in Coltsville is remarkable in its beauty, integrity and
survival. Like most industrial buildings, Colt's East Armory, with its
famous blue onion dome, has experienced changes over the years. I am
astonished not by what it has been lost but by how much of what was
there, remains and by its integrity.
What has not been widely reported is the even more remarkable
survival and preservation in the public domain of family and company
archives and collections (Wadsworth Atheneum, Museum of Connecticut
History, Connecticut Historical Society, Armsmear, Church of the Good
Shepherd, Colt Memorial House) that could never be replaced and has a
market value in excess of $200 million! Because Mrs. Colt had a long
history of civic philanthropy, she went to extraordinary lengths to
preserve evidence that is usually lost. As important as the Colt story
is in American industrial history, it is equally important and more
unique in the evidence it also preserves of the corresponding
industrial civilization that is every bit as important to the American
industrial age story.
The integrity of this dual asset--industrial buildings, products
and processes and visual and material evidence of industrial age
cultural resources, values and initiatives--gives Hartford and anything
that might happen in conjunction with this site, a huge leg up on other
places where either the stories are not as compelling, the
personalities not as colorful, or the buildings AND collections not as
in tact. Our friends at NPS have argued that Hartford/Springfield have
the potential to THE PLACE in all the nation, where Americans visit to
learn about the epic achievement of our first high tech industrial age.
This is one of the most important historic preservation initiatives
ever undertaken in Connecticut. At present Connecticut has one small
National Park site in Weir Farm. Our neighbor immediately to the north
has 18 National Park sites. It is long past time that this get done and
given the subject matter--this ought to be an opportunity to cross the
aisle and get support from potential friends like Sen. Richard Shelby,
who I am sure understands the value of this as well as we do. Indeed,
if an offer was made to name some aspect of a visitor center after him
in conjunction with his impending retirement--I suspect it would be a
slam dunk!
Please do whatever it takes to get this done for Connecticut.
Sincerely,
William Hosley,
Principal, Terra Firma Northeast.
______
Statement of Warren Judge, Chairman, Dare County
Board of Commissioners
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Peggy O'Dell, Deputy Director for
Operations for the National Park Service, Department of the Interior,
testified before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
During her Subcommittee appearance, in response to questions from
Senator Martin Heinrich, Ms. O'Dell presented misleading and
contradictory information that warrants correction and clarification.
Following is a transcript of her misleading remarks----
Senator Heinrich--Were the closures that Senator Manchin asked
about, were they complete closures to the public including pedestrians
and including fishing, or, is it only a closure to off-road vehicle use
or motorized access?
Peggy O'Dell--The entire 67 miles remains open to pedestrians, and
43 miles remain open to ORV use.
Senator Heinrich--OK, and how much of that is open to fishing?
Peggy O'Dell--People can fish anywhere.
Senator Heinrich--Anywhere?
Peggy O'Dell--Uh-Huh
Senator Heinrich--OK, so even the areas that are closed to
vehicular access are open to fishing?
Peggy O'Dell--Yes sir.
Senator Heinrich--Great, thank you very much.
Ms. O'Dell stated that ``people can fish anywhere'' including areas
that are closed to vehicular access. This ignores the reality of the
Final ORV Management Plan that is now in place at the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore Recreational Area. Under this plan, areas designated
for ORV access are routinely closed when breeding and nesting behavior
is observed, which precludes fishing and other recreational activities.
Although Ms. O'Dell insisted that 43 miles remain open to ORV access
and implied that this access is guaranteed. She failed to disclose that
considerable ORV areas are immediately closed, without warning,
whenever breeding or nesting behavior is observed, which can change on
a day-to-day basis, severely disrupt the visitor experience, and
adversely impact the local tourism economy.
This important distinction is noted in the National Park Service
Publication on ORV Use, which Ms. O'Dell failed to disclose to the
Subcommittee.
9. Does the ORV permit guarantee that all ORV routes will be
open for me to use? No. There are several reasons that parts of
ORV routes may be closed to ORV use:
There are seasonal closures along certain routes from Apr.
1-Oct. 31. These are shown on the ORV route map;
Routes may be temporarily closed if the carrying capacity is
reached;
Routes may be temporarily closed if there is a specific need
for resource protection; and
Routes may be temporarily closed for safety reasons.
Following is a link to the cited portion:http://www.nps.gov/
caha/planyourvisit/upload/02-10-12-FAQ-Site-Bulletin-for-CAHA-
ORV-regulation.pdf
Ms. O'Dell did not accurately inform the Subcommittee about the
challenges Americans face gaining ocean access for fishing and other
activities. The Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area
encompasses a vast geographical area that was uniquely designed with a
system of ramps to provide direct vehicle access to the ocean. This
system formed a recreational highway that provided access to the ocean.
In the case of the popular, world-class fishing destination known as
Cape Point, access to this vital area is not feasible without ORV
access.
At the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, the
purpose for driving on the beach is to gain access to recreational
areas. This activity is done in a regulated and responsible manner as
promoted by the County of Dare and grassroots organizations. Motorized
access is not intended to be a joyride or high-speed excursion. It is a
practical transportation necessity that is needed to reach the intended
recreational destination.
______
Statement of George Dini, Mayor, City of Yerington, Nevada
on s. 159
Chairman Manchin, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to offer testimony in favor of S. 159, the Lyon County
Economic Development and Conservation Act introduced by Senator Heller,
Cosponsored by Senator Reid, and supported by the entire Nevada
Congressional Delegation.
I am proud to serve as the Mayor of Yerington, Nevada. I am joined
today by Lyon County Manager Jeff Page on behalf of the Lyon County
Commission, to jointly express the support of the 3,156 citizens of
Yerington and 52,000 citizens of Lyon County and to urge the Committee
to pass this bill. This land sale represents the economic future of our
City and County.
I also express the support of Nevada Governor Sandoval, and a
multitude of local and regional support.
The City of Yerington is located in Northern Nevada in the Mason
Valley and we have a long proud history of mining and agriculture.
However, our current economy is in bad shape. Our unemployment in Lyon
County has averaged over 15 percent during the past year and our
citizens are suffering greatly. Over the past 10 years, we have been
fortunate to receive over $20 million in Federal funding that has been
critical to maintaining our public infrastructure; however, this is not
how our citizens want to survive as a community. We seek jobs and the
ability to work hard to raise our families in a growing and vibrant
community. We need long-term stable jobs for our citizens and an
industry that will provide sustainable economic growth for decades.
S. 159 mandates the fair market sale of approximately 10,400 acres
of federal lands--just 1 percent of 975,000 acres of federal lands in
Lyon County--to the City of Yerington for economic development, a
recreation events center and open space purposes.
The lands that will be conveyed have no current important uses.
There is no threatened or endangered species habitat, no water
resources, and no significant cultural resources. This is barren land
that has few redeeming natural qualities.
The purchase of these lands will allow the City of Yerington to
annex the Pumpkin Hollow Mine site, sell water and sewer services to
the mine operation, benefit from taxes paid by the mine, allows the
City to grow economically and benefit from greatly needed recreation,
cultural and economic development lands.
The legislation also designates land for the Wovoka Wilderness,
which is located in the South Pine Grove Hills. The land was identified
as part of a local consultation process. In addition to wilderness, the
legislation protects the County against a potential listing of the sage
grouse on the Endangered Species List, protects existing grazing
interests, maintains public access on existing roads, and provides
continued access to recreation and hunting. On December 3, 2012, the
Lyon Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution
supporting the designation as outlined in S. 159. I also support this
designation.
For over four years, the City of Yerington has been working with
Nevada Copper to craft a development plan for the Pumpkin Hollow Mine
that will ensure the City of Yerington will economically benefit from
the development of the mine creating a sustainable future for our City.
The Pumpkin Hollow Copper mine that sits on private lands near the City
of Yerington. With or without this legislation, Nevada Copper will
develop and produce millions of tons of valuable minerals. The question
really is whether the Yerington will benefit from this new mining
project.
Nevada Copper proposes to start full project development--an
investment of approximately $1 billion--starting in 2013. In March, the
company secured $200 million to initiate the development of the
underground mine and mineral processing facilities at Pumpkin Hollow.
The company would like to invest another $800 million to build out the
much larger integrated open pit and underground mining operation.
However, that level of financing will only happen subject to passage of
S. 159.
The integrated mine operation facilitated by this legislation will
create over 800 direct mine operations jobs and up to 500 construction
jobs. Using the current published jobs multipliers a total of over
2,000-3,000 direct and indirect jobs would be created by the mine.
The timely passage of this legislation cannot be over-stated. We
are operating on a tight timeline. With the financing they have
received, Nevada Copper is initiating detailed siting, engineering and
design of project infrastructure. This legislation will allow Yerington
to work with the Nevada Copper to locate infrastructure for water,
sewer, and power for both mine development and the other uses
contemplated by the City. Both the City and Lyon County will be able to
share in property, sales, utility and net proceeds of mines taxes from
mine operations. If this legislation is not successful, the mine will
proceed, but as in the past, Yerington will simply have to deal with
the impacts with no real benefits to the City other than some jobs for
citizens.
As importantly, with this contiguous block of land, the City and
Nevada Copper can begin to plan for the future, long after mining is
complete. The development agreement between the City and Nevada Copper
will ensure that the Company leaves behind resources and assets that
will provide sustainable economic growth for the City. S. 159
solidifies the critical partnership that will provide economic
enhancement for decades-and at no cost to the American taxpayer.
Some of the lands will also be utilized for economic development as
commercial and light industrial needs increase to support the
operations of the mine. Also, the City is proposing a portion of the
lands be utilized for renewable energy development such as solar
energy. Lastly, some of the lands will be utilized by Nevada Copper to
maximize the mining operations on their patented lands.
As you can see, the sale of these lands to the City of Yerington
will have a dramatic, positive impact by increasing jobs, the
investment in Nevada, and increased tax revenues for the City, Lyon
County and the State of Nevada. It will also generate jobs and economic
activity in over 20 states nationwide for equipment, materials and
supplies.
Mr. Chairman, the City of Yerington is not asking Congress to give
the City some public lands in the hope of attracting economic
development. We are asking to pay fair market value to acquire a very
small percentage of federal lands that have little or no use to the
public in order to enhance and increase development that is already
occurring at the Pumpkin Hollow site. I cannot express enough the
importance of this project to the future of our City and I urge the
Committee to support S. 159.
______
Metro Harrtford Alliance,
Hartford, CT, April 16, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Blumenthal and Murphy and Congressman Larson:
The Alliance serves as the Region's economic development leader and
the City's Chamber of Commerce, and our investors include businesses of
all sizes, health care providers and institutions of higher education,
and 32 municipalities. Our mission is to ensure that the Region
competes aggressively and successfully for jobs, capital and talent so
that it thrives as one of the country's premier places for all people
to live, work, play and raise a family.
On behalf of the Alliance investors, I write to reiterate our
strong continued support for the designation of the Coltsville Historic
District (the ``Distric'') as a National Park. We specifically urge
your continued efforts on behalf of the passage of S.615/HR 1259, the
Coltsville National Historical Park Act (the ``Act'').
As you know, the District is home to one of the nation's first
precision manufacturing facilities, and the significant contributions
to technological innovation and manufacturing advancements by Elizabeth
and Samuel Colt and generations of Colt employees are well documented.
The Colt legacy of industrial innovation and technological development
literally changed the landscape of American business, labor relations
and the entire fabric of a major United States city. Accordingly, the
District would be an outstanding addition to the existing roster of
remarkable National Parks as it both defines an important part of the
American experience and illustrates a class of industry that is
underrepresented currently in our nation's park portfolio.
It is clear that the timing for this designation is also of
critical importance to our local economy. According to McKinsey and
Company, the leisure and hospitality sector could add between 2.1 and
3.3 million jobs in this decade. By increasing awareness of Hartford's
significant natural and cultural attractions, we have the potential to
expand foreign and domestic visitation, a key job growth at a time when
job growth is our primary focus.
The Act carries with it the enhanced benefit of stimulating a
stagnant economy by improving upon a national treasur. a treasure that
led the Industrial Revolution and changed the borders of our nation.
Again, we enthusiastically endorse the request that the District be
designated a National Park and thank you for your ongoing efforts to
see that the Act is passed.
Sincerely,
R. Nelson Griebel,
President & CEO.
______
RIVERFRONT RECAPTURE,
Hartford, CT, April 18, 2013.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Murphy,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 615/HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of Riverfront Recapture in support of the
Coltsville Ad Hoc Committee's submission of Coltsville to the National
Park Service for consideration as a National Historical Park.
Riverfront Recapture, Inc. is a private, non-profit 501(c)3 that
was founded in 1981 by a group of corporate and community leaders for
the purpose of restoring access to the Connecticut River. We have
raised over $60 million for the capital projects in both Hartford and
East Hartford that are generating significant benefits to the
community. Public access to the river is once again possible for local
residents and tourists, and the riverfront has become a catalyst for
economic development on land adjacent to the parks on both banks of the
river.
Our Riverfront Master Plan, which was adopted by the City of
Hartford and Town of East Hartford in 1982, envisioned a revitalized
Coltsville that was home to both small businesses and local residents
and reunited with the Connecticut River. This reconnection to the river
was deemed impm1ant because Sam and Elizabeth Colt located their
factory at that site so they could receive raw materials and ship their
finished products by water. That historic connection was later blocked
by the construction of a flood control dike and the interstate highway
between Coltsville and the river. The restoration of this connection to
the river will help us complete a three-mile loop system of riverwalks
connecting Hartford and East Hartford.
Riverfront Recapture has long supported the owners and developers'
various efforts to restore Coltsville with the goal of returning the
historic structure to local prominence. The designation of Coltsville
as a National Historic Landmark was an important step towards the
ultimate goal of Coltsville becoming a National Historical Park.
To support the Coltsville Ad Hoc Committee's efforts, Riverfront
Recapture will continue the development of our riverfront park system
including the construction of a new park entrance adjacent to the East
Armory. The new entrance will include a public plaza, a walkway and an
operating gate in the dike that will restore the on-grade pedestrian
connection to the river that was lost when the dike was constructed in
the 1940's, followed by the highway's construction in the 1950's. The
walkway will include a history wall, more than 200' in length, that
will retell Hartford's development along the Connecticut River from the
early 1700's through the 20111 century, with a significant pot1ion
dedicated to the Coltsville story as it relates to the river. In
addition, we plan to mimic architectural details of the East Armory in
the structures and plaza hardscape which will help tie Coltsville to
the riverfront.
For the reasons stated above, we urge the National Park Service to
look favorably upon the committee's submission of Coltsville as a
National Historical Park. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Marfuggi,
President & CEO.
______
Statement for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act,
on S. 507
The Manhattan Project is one of the most significant events in
American history. Today it is impossible to imagine that in September
1942, in a valley in East Tennessee, 3,000 farmers and their families
were told to leave their homes to make way for a ``secret city'' that
would bring 100,000 men and women together to help end World War II and
forever change the course of human history. The story of the Manhattan
Project is not only about World War II, it is about the people who
lived and worked at these sites, the scientific achievements they made,
and the impact of their work on our nation's history. I have long
supported establishing a national historic park to protect the
Manhattan Project sites because of the project's important role in our
history, but also because of its importance to the history and people
of Tennessee. Oak Ridge, which was not listed on a map until 1949,
became the home for 100,000 scientists, engineers, machinists,
operators and construction workers. Very few of the scientists knew
what they were working on, and even fewer knew anything about uranium.
Many have asked how a valley in East Tennessee became the first
Manhattan Project site. As Ray Smith, Y-12's Historian, would tell it,
President Roosevelt needed to convince Congress to spend a large amount
of money without knowing what is was going to be used for. President
Roosevelt asked Senator Douglas McKellar, a Democrat from Tennessee, if
this could be done. Senator McKellar is said to have replied, ``Yes,
Mr. President, I can do that for you . . . now just where in Tennessee
are you going to put that thang?''
This is one of thousands of stories that tell a small part of a
full story that communicates the importance of this event in American
history. As Americans we have a special obligation to preserve and
protect our heritage, and the Manhattan Project National Historical
Park will ensure that all Americans learn about the significance of the
Manhattan Project and how it continues to shape our history.
In 2004, I joined Senator Bingaman as a cosponsor of the Manhattan
Project National Historical Park Study Act, which directed the
Department of Interior to conduct a study of the Manhattan Project
sites to determine the feasibility of including the sites in the
National Park System.
In 2011, following public meetings, extensive assessments of
potential park boundaries and assessments of the integrity of the
historical resources, the Department of the Interior found that the
park was feasible, that it met the suitability requirements for
establishing a new national park and that the park should be
established.
As part of the park's establishment the study recommended the
creation of a Manhattan Project National Historical Park with units at
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington.
According to Secretary Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, ``the
Manhattan Project ushered in the atomic age, changed the role of the
United States in the world community, and set the stage for the Cold
War.''
Support for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act is
bipartisan, bicameral, and has the strong support of the Energy
Communities Alliance and the National Parks Conservation Association. I
thank the Committee for holding this hearing today and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation as it moves forward. Thank you.
______
Wadsworth Atheneum,
Hartford, CT, April 17, 2013.
Hon. Christopher Murphy
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Larson,
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 615/HR 1259 the Coltsville National Historical Park Act
Dear Senator Murphy, Senator Blumenthal, and Representative Larson:
On behalf of the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, I write to
reiterate our strong support of the Coltsville Historic National Park
Act. The Wadsworth Atheneum recognizes Coltsville as an important site
that documents momentous innovations in America's technological,
industrial, and cultural development.
In 1905, Elizabeth Hart Jarvis Colt, wife of Samuel Colt,
bequeathed to the Wadsworth Atheneum an extraordinary collection of
artifacts from her husband's firearms factories and their home,
Armsmear. The Wadsworth's Collection possesses rare and elaborately
designed patent pistols that pay homage to the genius of Samuel Colt
and the skilled craftspeople in his factories. In addition, this
expansive collection preserves the memory of Mrs. Colt's art patronage
to contemporary artists such as Thomas Cole and Frederic Church, as
well as her civic leadership in Hartford and the U.S Sanitary
Commission during theCivil War.
The establishment of a National Park museum at the Coltsville East
Armory would be enormously beneficial to the contextual validation and
interpretation of our museum's collections and th ose in the possession
of our sister institutions, the Connecticut State Library, the Hartford
History Museum, and the Connecticut Historical Society. It opens
extensive opportunities for collaborative programming and a communal
site for the continual display of materials documenting the Colts'
public service. The Wadsworth Atheneum looks forward to pmtnering with
the Coltsville administrators in the development of exhibitions, school
programs, and community projects that illustrate the Colt story.
We applaud your legislative efforts as they bring the Coltsville
project closer to being fully realized and accessible to students,
tourists, and scholars alike.