[Senate Hearing 111-92]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-92
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 227 S. 1117
S. 625 S. 1168
S. 853 H.R. 714
S. 1053 H.R. 1694
__________
JULY 15, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-444 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 3
Cardin, Hon. Ben, U.S. Senator From Maryland..................... 4
Farrell, Mara, Co-Founder, Fishkill Historical Focus, Fishkill,
NY............................................................. 25
Francis, Sharon F., Executive Director, Connecticut River Joint
Commissions, Charlestown, NH................................... 18
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator From Vermont................. 29
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire............ 17
Stevenson, Katherine H., Acting Deputy Director, Support
Services, National Park Service, Department of the Interior.... 6
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 33
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 37
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 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. We want to welcome Senator Cardin. I'm going to share
a brief opening statement, we'll turn to Ranking Member Burr,
and then Senator Cardin. We look forward to hearing your
remarks.
This afternoon we will begin reviewing several bills that
have been referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks. In an
effort to address the many hearing requests that we received,
we will hold a second subcommittee hearing covering another
group of bills next week.
Today's hearing will consider the following bills.
S. 227, which will establish two new national park units.
The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, New York
and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical
Park in Maryland.
S. 625, to establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in
the State of Texas.
S. 853, to designate additional segments and tributaries of
White Clay Creek in the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania as
a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System.
S. 1053, to amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act
to extend the time period to begin construction of the museum.
S. 1117, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide
assistance in implementing the cultural heritage, conservation,
and recreational activities in the Connecticut River.
S. 1168 and H.R. 1694, which would amend the American
Battlefield Protection Act to authorize the acquisition and
protection of nationally significant battlefields and
associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
H.R. 714, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
enter into a lease in the Virgin Islands National Park.
I believe most of these bills, if not all of them are non-
controversial. I understand that the administration has
identified concerns with a few of the bills. We can discuss
those issues with the National Park Service witness in a few
minutes and then hear from our public panel.
I'd like to turn to the ranking member, Senator Burr.
[The prepared statements of Senator Kaufman and
Representative Chet Edwards follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward E. Kaufman, U.S. Senator
From Delaware
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Subcommittee members, thank you
for your consideration of S. 853, legislation that would designate
additional segments and tributaries of White Clay Creek in the States
of Delaware and Pennsylvania as a component of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. I introduced this legislation back in April of
this year along with my colleagues Senator Carper and Senator Casey.
The White Clay Creek Watershed was originally designated a National
Wild and Scenic River in 2000. At that time, almost 191 river miles of
the watershed were included in the designation. It was the first river
in Delaware to be classified as wild and scenic and the first in the
country to be designated on a watershed basis. Today it remains
Delaware's only National Wild and Scenic River.
The watershed covers approximately 107 square miles and drains over
69,000 acres in New Castle County, Delaware and Chester County,
Pennsylvania. Of those 69,000 acres, 5,000 acres are public lands owned
by state and local governments and the rest of them are privately owned
and maintained.
It boasts a rich and diverse variety of plant and animal life, a
bi-state preserve and state park, and a number of prehistoric
archeological sites. There are 27 species of reptiles and amphibians
and approximately 21 species of fish found in the watershed. The Bog
Turtle, a threatened species as identified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, is among them. The White Clay Creek is also
Delaware's premier trout-fishing stream, stocked annually by both
Delaware and Pennsylvania. Almost 100,000 people live within the
watershed and it's a major source of drinking water for the area.
My legislation adds nine river miles to the designation by
incorporating the Lamborn Run in Delaware and the East Branch and Egypt
Run in New Garden Township in Pennsylvania. The incorporation of these
nine miles has the unanimous support of all the communities and local
governments located in the watershed.
The White Clay Creek Watershed is truly a remarkable region in
Delaware and Pennsylvania. Expanding its National Wild and Scenic River
designation will not only allow us to further preserve this unique
area, but also will allow us to continue to enjoy it for years to come.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chet Edwards, U.S. Representative From Texas
Thank you, Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Senate Subcommittee on National Parks for the opportunity to provide
testimony for your Subcommittee regarding the Waco Mammoth National
Monument Establishment Act of 2009 which I introduced to the House of
Representatives on March 6, 2009. I would also like to thank Senator
Cornyn and Hutchison for their support and efforts to advance this bill
in the Senate.
The Waco Mammoth National Monument Establishment Act of 2009 will
establish in Texas the Waco Mammoth National Monument as a unit within
the National Park System; authorize the construction of administration
and visitor use facilities on the site; and instruct the Secretary of
the Interior to prepare a management plan for the monument in
consultation with Baylor University and the City of Waco.
First discovered in 1978 in my hometown of Waco, the Waco Mammoth
Site is the largest known concentration in the world of prehistoric
mammoths dying from the same event (some 68,000 years ago). It is a
unique find of national and international importance.
To date, twenty-four Columbian mammoths including articulated
skeletons, a giant tortoise and a camel have been discovered and the
potential for future mammoth discoveries is high with research
activities ongoing at the 109 acre site. It has become an area of
significant study within the archaeological community, and, as living
history, has the capacity to serve as an educational resource for
people of all ages for generations to come.
For nearly a decade, I have been proud to join with and support the
efforts of the City of Waco, Baylor University and the Waco Mammoth
Foundation to fulfill our dream of having the Waco Mammoth Site become
a national monument and join the ranks of American National Monuments
such as the Statue of Liberty. This project has received four hundred
thousand dollars in grant funding, as well as robust private
fundraising that brings the monetary support this project has received
to over $3.5 million. Construction of a permanent protective structure
has already begun. This great effort and initiative should serve as a
testament to the dedication and importance that Waco feels for this
site.
I plan to continue my strong support for this project in every
possible way, and it will be one of my top priorities in next year's
appropriation cycle.
Directed by legislation I authored in 2002, the National Park
Service completed last year a Special Resource Study of the Waco
Mammoth Site. The National Park Service and Department of Interior
found that the site met all criteria and reported favorably regarding
establishing the site as a national monument, with management led by
the National Park Service in partnership with Baylor University and the
city of Waco.
The Special Resource Study found that the site is nationally
significant. The site possesses a unique combination of skeletal
remains still located in their original position along with specimens
that have been excavated from the site that have proven to be the
nation's first and only recorded discovery of a nursery herd of
Pleistocene mammoths. The study also found that the Waco Mammoth Site
possesses excellent opportunities for visitor enjoyment, scientific
study and education.
The Special Resource Study found that the Waco Mammoth Site not
only meets suitability and feasibility criteria for consideration as a
new unit of the national park system but would serve to expand and
enhance the diversity of the paleontological resources already
represented by other parks in the system.
Having judged that the Waco Mammoth Site meets the criteria of
national significance, suitability and feasibility, the National Park
Service and Department of Interior evaluated several management
alternatives for the Waco Mammoth site.
They found that the most effective and efficient approach for
ensuring the long-term protection of the site and maximizing
opportunities for public enjoyment and education would be for the
National Park Service to lead a partnership with the City of Waco and
Baylor University.
Under this arrangement, the National Park Service would take the
lead responsibility for the protection, scientific study and visitor
enjoyment of the site while the enlisting the partners in this effort.
The partners would take the responsibility for initiating additional
recreational and educational opportunities at the site.
The local community has committed over $3.5 million dollars toward
this effort.
The Waco Mammoth Site is truly an American treasure and one that
deserves to be preserved and protected for the education and enjoyment
of families and children throughout Texas and the nation.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I
want to thank you for convening this subcommittee hearing.
This is our first legislative park subcommittee hearing of
the year. I look forward to working with you and other members
on what I think will be a very productive year. We do have
seven bills on the agenda today. Most are fairly straight
forward and involve additional designations establishing park
units or adjusting deadlines.
All of these bills are important, but one particularly
caught my attention as I prepared for the hearing. H.R. 714,
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a
lease with the CBI Acquisitions Inc., the proprietors of the
Caneel Bay Resort in the Virgin Islands National Park.
Similar bills have previously come before the subcommittee
and I continue to have reservations regarding the appearance of
a sole source contract. But I do recognize the unique set of
circumstances surrounding this situation. I'm very interested
in hearing more about the logic behind the Park Service
position as it relates to this proposal.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I
apologize to them up front that at the conclusion of Senator
Cardin's remarks I'm going to sneak out for an Intelligence
Committee markup, but I assure the witnesses that I will cover
the contents of this hearing thoroughly.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member. I want to turn
now to Senator Cardin for his remarks. We thank you for taking
the time to come to the subcommittee hearing today.
Senator Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Senator Udall and Senator Burr, I thank you
very much for the opportunity of testifying in support of S.
227, the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and Harriet
Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. I'm
joined by my colleagues Senator Mikulski, Senator Schumer, and
Senator Gillibrand in this legislation. We have the support of
the National Park Service.
I would ask that if we could put into the record a letter
from Governor O'Malley, the Governor of Maryland.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Senator Cardin. The woman who was known as Harriet Tubman
was born Araminta ``Minty'' Ross in approximately 1822 in
Dorchester County, Maryland. She spent nearly 30 years of her
life as a slave on Maryland's Eastern shores. As a young adult
she took the first name, Harriet. When she was 25 she married
John Tubman.
Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in
the dead of night navigating the maze of tidal streams and
wetlands that are the hallmark of Maryland's Eastern shore. She
did so alone demonstrating courage, strength, and fortitude
that became her hallmark.
Harriet Tubman returned repeatedly for more than 10 years
to the place of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline
Counties where under the most adverse conditions she led many
family members and other slaves to their freedom. Tubman became
known as the ``Moses of African Americans and White
Abolitionists.'' She was perhaps the most famous and most
important conductor in the network resistance known as the
Underground Railroad.
During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a
spy, a scout, and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and
South Carolina. She is credited with leading hundreds of slaves
from those slave States to freedom during those years.
Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, New
York. There she was active in the Women's Suffrage movement.
She also established one of the first incorporated homes for
the aged African Americans.
Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913. She is buried there
at Fort Hill Cemetery. Slaves were forced to live in primitive
buildings even though many were skilled tradesman who
constructed substantial homes for their owners.
Not surprisingly very few of the structures associated with
early Tubman life still stand. The landscape on the Eastern
shore of Maryland, however, remains true to the time that
Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape
which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers
and wetlands.
In particular a number of properties, including the
homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewarts Canal, where he
worked, Brodess Farms, where she worked as a slave, and others
are preserved even if their buildings are not. Where she
lived--were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the
landscape that we knew as she secretly led black men, women,
and children to their freedom.
In New York on the other hand, many of the buildings
associated with Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home
as well as the Tubman Home for the Aged, the church and rectory
with a Thompson memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church and the Fort
Hills Cemetery all still stand. At Congress' direction the
National Park Service conducted a special resource study to
determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit in the
National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman.
The Park Service recommended that a park that would include
two geographically separate units would be appropriate. The New
York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings
in Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of
landscape that are consistent of Tubman's time and historically
relevant. The bill before you incorporates the recommendations
of the National Park Service.
Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone
from whom liberty and freedom was not just concepts. She lived
those principles and shared that freedom with hundreds of
others.
In doing so she has earned our Nation's respect and honor.
That is why I am so proud to ask you to support this
legislation establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical
Park and Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park. This is part of the heritage of our Nation.
This park will allow young people and everyone to know more
about this remarkable woman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Cardin. This is a
compelling idea. I look forward to working with you as I know
the chairman of the full committee does as well.
I turn to the ranking member if he had any questions or
comments on this particular legislation?
Senator Shaheen, do you have any questions or comments?
Thank you for taking the time to join us today.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Before I call--actually let me
call the witness Katherine H. Stevenson, who is the Acting
Deputy Director of Support Services, National Park Service to
the witness table. As you're getting comfortable I want to see
if Senator Shaheen has any opening remarks. I'd be happy to
yield to her.
Senator Shaheen. Not at this time.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Ms. Stevenson, we look forward to hearing your comments.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
SUPPORT SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to offer the views of the
Department of the Interior on the seven bills before you today.
For the sake of time I will abbreviate my testimony and I
request that the full text be entered in the record.
The Department supports the enactment of S. 227, which
would establish two new units of the National Park Service to
honor and commemorate the life and work of Harriet Tubman in
Maryland and in Auburn, New York. These units, to be managed
cooperatively with the present owners, will preserve the
structures and the historic landscapes associated with Harriet
Tubman's remarkable and esteemed contributions to freedom.
The Department also supports S. 625, the Waco Mammoth
National Monument designation. This bill would establish a new
unit of the National Park Service near the city of Waco, Texas.
The site would preserve and interpret the remains of the
Nation's largest concentration of mammoths dying in the same
event. The national monument would be managed as a partnership
with the city of Waco and Baylor University.
The Department supports enactment of the bill, S. 853, to
authorize additional segments of White Clay Creek as a National
Wild and Scenic River. In the year 2000, the White Clay Creek
and its tributaries were designated as a unit of the National
Wild and Scenic River system. In that bill several eligible and
suitable segments were removed from consideration because the
Delaware River Basin Commission was looking at these areas as
possible locations for reservoirs and because there was not
demonstrated municipal support.
These issues are now resolved, and the Department supports
the addition of the nine miles to the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers system.
The Department has no objection to S. 1053, which would
extend the authorization of the National Law Enforcement Museum
to 2013.
The Department, however, cannot support, S. 1117, the
Connecticut River Watershed Assistance Act as we believe that
there are existing funding mechanisms within the National Park
Service, within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
Federal agencies to foster the partnership efforts described in
the bill. This has been demonstrated through various
recognition, technical assistance and funding efforts by NPS
and others in the past.
The Department supports S. 1168 and H.R. 1694, the
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act
with an amendment that would include the funds authorized by
the House and would contain authority for acquisition grants.
This bill authorizes a matching grant program for Revolutionary
War and War of 1812 sites. The grants will leverage local
preservation efforts to preserve sites with a minimum of
Federal assistance.
Finally, the Department supports H.R. 714, which would
allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a lease in
lieu of the retained use estate at Caneel Bay Resort. The
retained use estate expires in 2023, but lease would be to the
economic and administrative advantage of the National Park
Service and to the lease. In order to execute a non-competitive
lease, the National Park Service would need this authority.
Ordinarily, the National Park Service would oppose such a
non-competitive lease or non-competitive concession. But the
circumstances in this situation make this arrangement necessary
and desirable.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Acting Deputy Director,
Support Services, National Park Service, Department of the Interior
h.r. 714
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R.714, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands
National Park, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 714, with some minor amendments.
This legislation would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into a lease with the current holder of a retained use estate for
property at Caneel Bay within Virgin Islands National Park after the
termination of the retained use estate and donation of all improvements
to the National Park Service (NPS). The Caneel Bay resort is one of two
large resorts on the island of St. John. Located on a 150-acre
peninsula on the northwest side of the island, this luxury resort has
approximately 425 to 450 employees and serves as one of the primary
economic engines for the U.S. Virgin Islands. A large number of
employees travel daily to St. John from their residences on neighboring
St. Thomas. The resort is also an Economic Development Center
beneficiary and, as such, receives various tax exemptions from the
Government of the Virgin Islands.
Lawrence Rockefeller established the Caneel Bay resort in 1956. In
1983, Jackson Hole Preserve, a Rockefeller corporation, donated the
land at Caneel Bay to the United States Government for inclusion within
Virgin Islands National Park and reserved to itself the right to
continue its operations for 40 years under a retained use estate.
Jackson Hole Preserve did not convey the improvements on the land to
the United States at that time. The retained use estate will expire on
September 30, 2023. The warranty deed stipulates that when the retained
use estate terminates, the owner of the retained use estate must donate
the buildings and other improvements to the NPS.
Enactment of H.R. 714 would allow the current holder of the
retained use estate to negotiate a long-term lease, up to 40 years,
with the NPS that could extend the Caneel Bay Resort operation well
beyond the year 2023. Such an extension could allow the leaseholder to
secure financing to undertake capital improvements that would most
likely not be possible financially under the remaining term of the
current retained use estate.
The NPS has evaluated various options for the future use and
management of the Caneel Bay property. Based upon a value analysis, we
believe that the continued future operation of Caneel Bay as a resort
under a lease would provide the greatest advantage to the NPS and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. A lease could provide economic and administrative
benefits to the NPS and the lessee that are not available or not as
viable as under a retained use estate or a concession contract, two of
the other options that were examined.
Legislation is necessary because the NPS does not have the
authority to enter into a noncompetitive lease under existing
regulations (36 CFR Sec. 18, Leasing of Properties in Park Areas). The
only exceptions to competitive leasing under the regulations are for
leases to nonprofit organizations or units of government, and for
leases of duration of 60 days or less.
We would like to stress that we are supporting this legislation
because the Caneel Bay resort is an exceptional case. In general, where
leasing has been determined to be appropriate in a national park unit,
we support leasing through the usual competitive process, consistent
with existing law and regulations.
H.R. 714 requires that the operations and maintenance of the resort
be conducted in a manner consistent with the preservation and
conservation of the resources and values of the park. Additionally, the
lease authorized by the bill would address the continued protection,
preservation, and restoration of the property's structures, many of
which are more than 50 years old, and may be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The lease also would address the fair
market value rent of the property, constraints on development of
property during the term of the lease, and the ability to transfer the
lease in the future.
The legislation also provides for the rental proceeds to be
retained by the Virgin Islands National Park and used for visitor
services and resource protection. It would require congressional
notification at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the lease,
similar to the requirement for large concession contracts. And, it
would require the property's conversion to a concession operation after
the lease expires if the Secretary determines continuation of
commercial services at the resort to be appropriate. When the current
retained use estate was created, there were three small properties that
are integral to the operation of the Caneel Bay resort that were not
included. These properties could be acquired by the NPS and included
under the terms of the lease that would be authorized by H.R. 714.
We appreciate the many changes that have been made to this
legislation since it was first introduced in the 110th Congress to help
assure that the interests of Virgin Islands National Park, and the
general public, would be protected if the Caneel Bay resort property is
leased on a noncompetitive basis. We would like to work with the
subcommittee on a few minor changes that would further clarify the bill
language.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
s. 227
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 227, a bill to establish the
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, New York, and the
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in
Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot Counties in Maryland.
The Department supports enactment of S. 227.
Harriet Tubman is truly an iconic American. Born circa 1822 as an
enslaved person in Dorchester County, Maryland, she courageously
escaped her bondage in 1849, returned on many occasions to Dorchester
and Caroline Counties to free others including members of her family
and remains known, popularly and appropriately, as ``The Moses of her
People.'' She was a leading ``conductor'' along the Underground
Railroad guiding the enslaved to freedom at great risk to her own life.
Her accomplishments were admired and extolled by her contemporaries
including the abolitionist leader and former slave Frederick Douglass.
In 1868 Douglass wrote to Tubman:
Most that I have done and suffered in the service of our
cause has been in public, and I have received much
encouragement at every step of the way. You, on the other hand,
have labored in a private way. I have wrought in the day-you in
the night.The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the
witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism.
Harriet Tubman served honorably during this nation's Civil War as a
cook, nurse, scout and spy for Union forces in Virginia, South Carolina
and Florida, always at personal risk and always advancing the quest for
freedom by providing assistance to other enslaved people. In June 1863
she guided Union troops in South Carolina for an assault along the
Combahee River resulting in the emancipation of hundreds of the
enslaved.
At the invitation of then U.S. Senator and later Secretary of State
William H. Seward, Harriet Tubman purchased land from him in Auburn,
New York where she lived and cared for members of her family and other
former slaves seeking safe haven in the North. In later life, she
became active in progressive causes including efforts for women's
suffrage. Working closely with activists such as Susan B. Anthony and
Emily Howland, she traveled from Auburn to cities in the East
advocating voting rights for women. Harriet Tubman gave the keynote
speech at the first meeting of the National Federation of Afro-American
Women upon its founding in 1896.
Harriet Tubman was an intensely spiritual person and active in the
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. In 1903 she donated land to
the Church in Auburn for the establishment of a home ``for aged and
indigent colored people.'' She died on March 10, 1913 at this home for
the aged and was buried with full military honors at Fort Hill Cemetery
in Auburn. Booker T. Washington, also born into slavery, journeyed from
Alabama a year later to speak at the installation of a commemorative
plaque for her at Auburn City Hall.
Harriet Tubman is an American figure of lore and legend. Today, she
is an enduring inspiration to those who cherish individual freedom and
strive for human rights throughout the world.
On January 12, 2009, the Department transmitted the Harriet Tubman
Special Resource Study to Congress. The study, authorized by Public Law
106-516, the Harriet Tubman Special Resource Study Act, concluded that
the resources associated with Harriet Tubman in Auburn, New York and
Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot Counties, Maryland met the national
significance, suitability, feasibility and need for National Park
Service management criteria for potential units of the National Park
System. After an intensive and lengthy public involvement process, the
study found that there is extensive public support, including support
by affected private property owners within the boundaries proposed by
S. 227 in New York and Maryland, for the establishment of the two
units. Locally elected officials in both states have also expressed
their support.
S. 227 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
unit of the National Park System, the Harriet Tubman National
Historical Park in Auburn, New York, upon the execution of an easement
with the A.M.E. Zion Church, the owners of the property. The park would
be comprised of the Harriet Tubman Home, the Home for the Aged, the
Thompson Memorial A.M.E. Zion Church, which is no longer used for
religious services, and its parsonage. The Secretary would be
authorized to enter into cooperative agreements and provide technical
and matching financial assistance to the A.M.E. Zion Church and others
for historic preservation, rehabilitation, research, maintenance and
interpretation of the park and related Harriet Tubman resources in
Auburn, New York. The Secretary would be further authorized to provide
uniformed National Park Service staff to operate the park in
partnership with the Church and to conduct interpretation and tours.
In Maryland, the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park would be established and comprised of nationally
significant historic landscapes associated with Harriet Tubman in
Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot Counties. This agricultural, forest and
riverine mosaic largely retains historic integrity from the time that
Tubman was born enslaved, worked in the fields and forests, emancipated
herself, and helped others there to escape to freedom.
The Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to provide
matching grants to the state of Maryland, local governments and
nonprofit organizations for the purchase of lands and easements within
the boundary of the park and matching grants to the state of Maryland
for the construction of a visitor services facility to be jointly
operated by the state and uniformed staff of the National Park Service.
The Secretary would be further authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with various organizations and property owners, and provide
grants for the restoration, rehabilitation, public use, and
interpretation of sites and resources related to Harriet Tubman, as
well as research including archeology. Because a number of closely
related Harriet Tubman resources exist on lands adjacent to the
proposed park managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, or on lands scheduled for future
refuge acquisition, the bill provides for an interagency agreement
between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service to promote compatible stewardship and interpretation of these
resources.
The cost estimates for the annual operations and maintenance for
each unit would be approximately $500,000 to $650,000. The cost
estimates for the federal share of capital improvements are
approximately $7.5 million at the Harriet Tubman National Historical
Park in Auburn, New York. The federal share of the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad visitor center and grants for land protection at
the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in
Maryland are estimated at up to $11 million. The cost estimates for the
completion of the general management plan for each unit would be
approximately $600,000 to $700,000. All funds are subject to NPS
priorities and the availability of appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, it is not a usual occasion when the Department comes
before the committee to testify on a bill to establish two units of the
National Park System to honor an enslaved woman who rose from the most
difficult and humble beginnings imaginable to indelibly influence the
causes of human justice and equality in our society, and to have such a
significant impact on our national story. We do so with full
understanding of the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman and
suggest that nearly 100 years after her death the time for this
abundantly deserved honor has finally arrived.
That concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions from you and members of the committee.
s. 625
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 625, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of Texas.
The Department supports S. 625, with an amendment to provide the
map reference in the bill. The Department testified in support of H.R.
1376, a similar bill, on April 23, 2009, before the House Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
S. 625 would establish a new unit of the National Park System, the
Waco Mammoth National Monument (monument), near the city of Waco,
Texas. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
administer the monument in accordance with the laws applicable to the
National Park System and to enter into cooperative agreements with
Baylor University and the City of Waco to manage the monument. The bill
also authorizes the Secretary to acquire land for the monument from
willing sellers with donated or appropriated funds, transfer from
another federal agency, or exchange. Lands owned by the State of Texas,
or its political subdivisions, may only be acquired by donation or
exchange. Finally, the Secretary is authorized to construct facilities
on non-federal land within the boundaries of the monument and to
complete a General Management Plan for the monument within three years
after funds are made available.
The National Park Service (NPS) was directed to complete a Special
Resource Study (SRS) of the Waco Mammoth site by Public Law 107-341.
This study evaluated a 109-acre site owned by the City of Waco and
Baylor University and found that the site meets all the criteria for
designation as a unit of the National Park System.
The Waco Mammoth Site area is located approximately 4.5 miles north
of the center of Waco, near the confluence of the Brazos and the Bosque
rivers. Baylor University has been investigating the site since 1978
after hearing about bones emerging from eroding creek banks that led to
the uncovering of portions of five mammoths. Since then several
additional mammoth remains have been uncovered - making this the
largest known concentration of mammoths dying from the same event.
The discoveries have received international attention and many of
the remains have been excavated and are in storage or still being
researched. The SRS determined that the combination of both in situ
articulated skeletal remains and the excavated specimens from the site
represents the nation's first and only recorded nursery herd of
Pleistocene mammoths. The resource possesses exceptional interpretive
value and superlative opportunities for visitor enjoyment and
scientific study.
From the time the site was discovered until the present, the
University and the City have managed the site responsibly. The SRS
examined a range of proposed options for the NPS involvement at the
site. We believe that NPS joining in partnership with the city of Waco,
Baylor University, and others would offer the most effective and cost-
efficient management of this unique resource.
If established based upon the management alternative recommended in
the SRS, we estimate that the costs to create the monument would
include $8.1 million from the identified partners to develop the
facilities at the monument with the NPS providing an additional
$600,000 for enhanced interpretive media. Total operational costs are
estimated to be $645,000 with the NPS contributing approximately
$345,000 for NPS staffing of four full-time equivalent positions and
associated supplies, materials, and equipment. All funds are subject to
NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations.
We recommend that Section 3 of S. 625 be amended to include the map
reference for the monument. The map title is ``Proposed Boundary Waco-
Mammoth National Monument'', the map number is ``T21/80,000'', and the
date is ``April 2009''.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
s. 853
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior
on S. 853, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by
designating additional segments and tributaries of the White Clay Creek
in Delaware and Pennsylvania as components of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation with one
technical amendment.
S. 853 would designate nine additional miles of segments and
tributaries of the White Clay Creek as part of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System, to be administered by the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary). The additional tributaries will be managed in
accordance with the ``White Clay Creek and Its Tributaries Watershed
Management Plan'' (amended Summer 2001) with the Secretary coordinating
the White Clay Creek Watershed Management Committee.
In December 1991, Congress directed the National Park Service to
undertake a study of the headwaters of the White Clay Creek in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its confluence with the Christina River
in the State of Delaware. The study was also to include the East, West,
and Middle Branches, Middle Run, Pike Creek, Mill Creek and other
tributaries of the White Clay, as identified by the Secretary, to
determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. The study was to be done in cooperation and
consultation with various federal, state, regional, and local
governments and affected landowners. In addition, a river management
plan was to be prepared that would provide recommendations as to the
protection and management of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries.
The plan was to outline roles for the state and local governments and
affected landowners to play in the management of the White Clay Creek
as a designated component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.
In 1998, a watershed management plan was prepared that contained
six goals for management of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries.
These goals include improving and conserving water quality and
quantity, and conserving open space, woodlands, wetlands, and geologic
features. The plan was done cooperatively and calls for a management
framework for the White Clay Creek and its tributaries that relies
heavily on local land use decisions.
In 1999, the National Park Service issued the ``White Clay Creek
and Its Tributaries National Wild and Scenic River Study Draft
Report.'' In the report, the National Park Service found that the
majority of the river segments identified in the study met the
eligibility requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by virtue of
their free-flowing condition and presence of one or more outstandingly
remarkable resource values. For example, the watershed includes open
space and recreational opportunities for hiking, jogging, canoeing and
fishing; in fact, the White Clay Creek is the most heavily stocked and
heavily used put-and-take trout stream in the State of Delaware. In
2000, Public Law 106-357 designated 190 miles of the White Clay Creek
and its tributaries as components of the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
The study report also identified additional segments and
tributaries, which are the subject of S. 853, that would be eligible
and suitable for designation. These segments are eligible and suitable
because they are free-flowing streams with outstandingly remarkable
values including the Cockeysville marble geologic formation that
supports a high-yielding aquifer, a major source of drinking water, and
threatened and endangered species including the Muhlenberg's (bog)
turtle and cerulean warbler. However, these segments were removed from
consideration because the Delaware River Basin Commission was looking
at these areas as possible locations for reservoirs under their
comprehensive plan. In addition, there was not demonstrated municipal
support for such a designation, a requirement under the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.
In 2007, these segments and tributaries were removed from the
comprehensive plan of the Delaware River Basin Commission. In addition,
the New Garden Township in Pennsylvania, the only affected
municipality, passed a resolution in support of the designation. With
these two issues resolved, the Department now supports these segments,
totaling nine miles, be added to the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
The Department would like to work with the committee to make a
technical correction to a map reference in Section 3 of the bill.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
s. 1053
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. 1053, a bill to amend the National Law
Enforcement Museum Act to extend the termination date.
The Department has no objection to this legislation. S. 1053 would
amend section 4(f) of Public Law 106-492 to authorize construction of
the Museum to begin up to 13 years after the date of enactment of that
law. If amended, the authority to construct the Museum would terminate
on November 9, 2013.
Public Law 106-492 authorizes the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund (the Fund) to design, plan, construct and maintain a
National Law Enforcement Museum on land within U.S. Reservation 7 in
the District of Columbia, south of the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial. Reservation 7 is one of the original public
reservations of the City of Washington. With the exception of the
Memorial, Reservation 7 has been under the jurisdiction of the District
of Columbia since 1970. Reservation 7 is also listed in the National
Register of Historic Places as a significant element of the L'Enfant
Plan.
The Act for the new museum requires that the design be approved by
the Secretary of the Interior, the National Capital Planning Commission
(NCPC), and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). Over the past few
years, the Fund has coordinated extensively with the National Park
Service (NPS), on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, as well as
the courts, the NCPC, CFA, the D.C. State Historic Preservation Officer
(DC SHPO), and the District of Columbia government. When the Department
appeared before this Committee to testify on S. 1438, a bill to
establish a National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land in the
District of Columbia, on April 27, 2000, we were concerned, from an
historic preservation standpoint, about the impact of locating a new
building within this complex of six historic public buildings dating
from 1820 to 1939. However, the careful design and placement of the
museum has resolved these concerns, as evidenced by the execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement on June 23, 2008, by the DC SHPO, the Fund, the
NPS, and NCPC, fulfilling the requirement of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Site and building plans for the
museum were approved by the CFA on May 24, 2008, the NCPC on August 28,
2008. The plans were prepared according to the requirements of the
National Law Enforcement Museum Act and are the result of agreements on
perimeter security, shared access to the loading facility, the design
of the shared plaza, and a pavilion design that is compatible with the
Courts' historic buildings at Judiciary Square.
The Act prohibits the Fund from beginning construction of the
museum unless the Secretary of the Interior ``determines that
sufficient amounts are available to complete construction of the
Museum.'' The Secretary currently cannot make this determination. On
February 11, 2009, the Fund announced a new time line and budget for
the project which was approved by its Board of Directors during the
week of February 2, 2009. The announcement proposed a new start date in
the fall of 2010, with an anticipated completion of mid-2013. Cost
savings measures will reduce the construction budget from $80 million
to $51 million, with a corresponding reduction in size from 100,000
square feet to 55,000 square feet and a reduction in the number of
floors from four to three. The Fund has advised that these changes will
not impact the above-ground features of the museum but will require the
re-design of the underground spaces. The reduced footprint will
eliminate the need to relocate a number of utilities and will thereby
diminish the potential impact to the adjacent Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial.
The Fund has also advised that the changes will not diminish the
design or the visitors' experience; however, the revised plans have not
yet been submitted for review. Though the NPS will not own, operate, or
maintain the museum, we look forward to reviewing the revised design as
required by the National Law Enforcement Museum Act.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony on S. 1053, and
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
s. 1117
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1117, the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act, which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in
implementing cultural heritage, conservation and recreational
activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the States of New
Hampshire and Vermont.
The Department appreciates the efforts of the Connecticut River
Joint Commissions and their exemplary work in the upper Connecticut
River watershed. Many local, state, regional and federal organizations
have worked in partnership with the Commissions for many years to
support numerous efforts to improve water quality, promote sustainable
tourism, protect unique natural and rural resources, and improve
recreational opportunities.
While we support activities that conserve and enhance the cultural,
environmental and recreational resources of the upper Connecticut River
watershed, the Department cannot support S. 1117. There are existing
funding mechanisms within the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and possibly other federal agencies that can foster
the type of partnership efforts envisioned in this bill. For example,
technical assistance is available through the National Park Service's
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, while grants are
available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's North American
Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program.
The upper Connecticut River watershed encompasses 41 percent of the
state of Vermont's total area and 33 percent of the state of New
Hampshire's. It has been the subject of many past studies, including
National Park Service (NPS) studies, which document its natural and
cultural resources. The upper Connecticut River watershed was
recognized by Congress in 1991 as part of the Silvio O. Conte National
Fish and Wildlife Refuge; the refuge manages the Nulhegan Basin unit
and sponsors education centers at the Montshire Museum in Norwich,
Vermont as well as in Colebrook, New Hampshire and Turner's Falls,
Massachusetts. The watershed also contains units of the National Park
System including Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park,
Saint Gaudens National Historic Site, and sections of the Appalachian
Trail. The NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program field
office in Woodstock, Vermont has projects in the watershed, and the
Hydropower Relicensing and Wild & Scenic River programs serve the
region from the Northeast Region's office. The Connecticut River was
designated an American Heritage River in 1998, and is home to the
Connecticut River Scenic Byway, designated by the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire in 1999. In 2005, it was also designated as a National
Scenic Byway.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions was formed in 1989, uniting
separate commissions that had been formed by the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire previously. In 1997, working with 5 bi-state local
subcommittees, they produced the Connecticut River Corridor Management
Plan. From 1992 to 1999 the NPS provided $1.325 million to the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, as well as technical assistance,
for work in the upper Connecticut River watershed. The NPS will
continue to support and work with the Joint Commissions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions
you or other committee members may have regarding this bill.
h.r. 1694 and s. 1168
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1168
and H.R. 1694, to amend Sec. 7301 of the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) to authorize the acquisition and
protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites
of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American
Battlefield Protection Program.
The Department supports S. 1168 and H.R. 1694 with an amendment to
include language that passed the House on April 21, 2009.
In March 2008, the National Park Service transmitted the Report to
Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War
of 1812 Sites in the United States, which identified and determined the
relative significance of sites related to the Revolutionary War and the
War of 1812. The study assessed the short and long-term threats to the
sites. Following the success of the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, this study
similarly provides alternatives for the preservation and interpretation
of the sites by Federal, State, and local governments or other public
or private entities.
The direction from Congress for the study was the same as for a
Civil War sites study of the early 1990s. As authorized by Congress for
this study, the National Park Service looked at sites and structures
that are thematically tied with the nationally significant events that
occurred during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The result
was a more thorough survey that represents twice the field effort
undertaken for the Civil War study.
Building upon this recent study, S. 1168 and H.R. 1694 would create
a matching grant program for Revolutionary War and the War of 1812
sites that closely mirrors a very successful matching grant program for
Civil War sites. The Civil War acquisition grant program was first
authorized by Congress in the Civil War Battlefield Protection Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-359), and was recently reauthorized by the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11).
That grant fund has been tremendously successful in allowing local
preservation efforts to permanently preserve Civil War battlefield land
with a minimum of Federal assistance. Grants of $26.3 million from the
National Park Service have leveraged a total of $55.3 million in
nonfederal funding. To date, the grant program has assisted in the
permanent protection of 13,906 acres at 54 Civil War battlefields. In
FY 2009, $4 million was appropriated for this program. The President's
FY 2010 Budget also includes a request for $4 million.
With the release of the Report to Congress on the Historic
Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Sites in the
United States, communities interested in preserving their Revolutionary
War and the War of 1812 sites can take the first steps similar to what
the Civil War advocates did 15 years ago. If established, this new
grant program can complement the existing grant program for Civil War
battlefields and, in doing so, become a benefit to the American people
by providing for the preservation and protection of a greater number of
sites from the Revolutionary War and War 1812. All funds are subject to
NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations
The Department recommends an amendment to S. 1168 and H.R. 1694 to
include language that passed the House on April 21, 2009. In the
introduced version of H.R. 1694, there was a $10 million annual
authorization for the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 acquisition
grant program. This funding level was separate and in addition to the
$10 million annual authorization for the existing Civil War acquisition
grant program. On April 21, 2009, the House-passed version of H.R. 1694
included language that provided a combined funding of $20 million for
both acquisition grant programs in each of fiscal years 2010 through
2014. However, we understand that this language was inadvertently
dropped by the House legislative clerk when the bill was engrossed and
sent to the Senate.
When the bill was introduced in the Senate as S. 1168, it also did
not contain the authorization language for the acquisition grant
program and we understand this was an inadvertent error on the
sponsor's part. We recommend adding the House-passed funding language.
We also support the increased authorization level as there are two
separate constituencies for these programs. The language of the
amendment is attached.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions from you and members of the committee.
Proposed amendment to H.R. 1694 and S. 1168: H.R. 1694, as
engrossed by the House: On page 3, after line 16, add the following:
``(8) In paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), by striking `$10,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013' and inserting `20,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014'.''
S. 1168, as introduced: On page 3, after line 14, add the
following: ``(8) In paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), by striking
`$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013' and inserting
`20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014'.''
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. I would like to
direct some questions your way. Then I'll turn to Senator
Shaheen if she has questions.
Let me start with the last piece of legislation that you
just summarized. You talk about the unique circumstances
surrounding the lease proposal, the maximum lease term of 40
years which is twice as long as the maximum term for a National
Park concession contract. If 20 years is long enough to allow
park concessioners to obtain sufficient financing for what are
in many cases much larger financial obligations than those
required at Caneel Bay. Why is this 40-year lease term
necessary?
Ms. Stevenson. The lessee or the potential lessee, has been
consulting with financing institutions. It's our understanding
that financing in the Virgin Islands is a very different kettle
of fish than it is other places, particularly because of the
risk factors associated with extreme weather. So while we would
negotiate down from 40 years, we anticipate that it will be
pretty close to a 40-year lease, that it is necessary in order
for them to secure their financing.
Senator Udall. When you say extreme weather are you
speaking of hurricanes?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Any other weather events or hurricanes the
main concern?
Ms. Stevenson. That's the main one.
Senator Udall. Main concern. Thank you for that
clarification. Let me turn to the Connecticut River Watershed
since I think that's the bill on the list with which you have
the most concerns.
Your testimony indicates that the DOI supports the
activities to protect the Connecticut River Watershed that are
authorized in the bill. But you don't support the bill itself
because there are other funding authorizations available. Can
you help me clarify the Department's concerns with the bill?
Is this a question of the watershed resources not meriting
Federal funding or rather that there are already appropriate
authorities to provide Federal assistance?
Ms. Stevenson. It's the latter, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. It's the latter, alright.
Ms. Stevenson. We have provided assistance, a small amount
since the year 1992 through 1999 in about an average of
$100,000 a year. The resources are very significant. However,
we realize that there are other kinds of technical assistance
available to this area.
We've been giving them technical assistance. Fish and
Wildlife, NOAA, EPA and other agencies have resources
available. This would establish a unique grant program just for
the Connecticut River Watershed that would stand on its own. We
just don't think that's an appropriate situation.
Senator Udall. Let me direct a follow up question. Then you
may have responded in your previous answer. But many of the
bills that we're considering today could be addressed using
other funding authorizations. For example, the Harriet Tubman
bill authorizes grants to the State of Maryland for land
acquisition through that could also be funded through the LWCF.
Why do you support those provisions, but oppose this
authority?
Ms. Stevenson. The other areas that we're talking about
today in particular are being designated as units of the
National Park System. So that makes the situation quite
different than a generalized area of a river valley without any
specific designation.
Senator Udall. I'd be interested in what Senator Shaheen
has to say when I turn to her since the Connecticut River plays
an important part in her State as well. But let me go to the
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield sites, if I
might. My understanding is the existing American Battlefield
Protection Program works closely with the Civil War
Preservation Trust with respect to protecting Civil War
Battlefields.
Is there a similar organization that you anticipate working
with for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812
Battlefields?
Ms. Stevenson. We're not aware of any organizations that
exist that are exactly like the one for the Civil War.
Different people have expressed--different groups have
expressed some interest. But they haven't been coalesced into a
single group.
But we're pretty sure that with funds available that we'll
see groups come together and want to match the Federal funds to
be able to preserve the land.
Senator Udall. I think Senator Burr's family has a
connection to the Revolutionary War. I'm going to speak with
him at some other point and ask him about his interests there.
On the National Law Enforcement Museum extension authority,
do you have any opinion on the likelihood that sufficient
funding will be achieved in the three additional years so that
additional extensions wouldn't be necessary?
Ms. Stevenson. The fund has expressed confidence that they
will have the money and that they will not need any further
extensions.
Senator Udall. So you----
Ms. Stevenson. So we're relying on their word.
Senator Udall. On their--Finally let me turn to Waco
Mammoth National Historical Park. I understand that public
access is restricted at this time. If it's designated as a unit
of the National Park System, do you anticipate greater access
for the public or do you think that that access with still need
to be limited?
Ms. Stevenson. The access is limited now in order to
protect the remains. We anticipate with technical assistance
and some construction and protection that we'll be able to open
it up for much more access for the visitor.
Senator Udall. Ok. Thank you for that clarification. I turn
to Senator Shaheen.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
being here. I appreciate the good work that the National Park
Service does.
I have to say I do disagree with you, however, with respect
to S. 1117 which would address the Connecticut River Watershed,
as you've indicated. You pointed out that there are programs
available that would provide funding for some of the critical
work that needs to be done in the watershed. But I think it's
important to point out that while these programs, you know, the
Fish and Wildlife Service's, North American Wetlands
Conservation Act Program is one of those. The National Park
Service's Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program is
one of those.
While they are available to communities, unfortunately over
the last two decades they funded very few projects. There is so
much more work that needs to be done. There has been a lot of
effort that we will hear about in a few minutes on both the
Vermont and New Hampshire side of the Connecticut River to
involve the communities and to address the work that needs to
be done there.
Unfortunately the local efforts and the State involvement
has not been able to deal with the long term needs that exist.
So it's my hope that once we hear from the next panel that they
will, very clearly, show why it's so important that we get this
legislation done. Again, I appreciate the work that you all do,
but this is one where I think the merits of the project does
require a different outcome.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I have no more
questions. I would ask that we keep the record open and if we
have additional questions we'll direct them to you, Ms.
Stevenson and the Department of the Interior.
Senator Udall. Thank you for taking the time to come up the
hill today.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you. If the next panel would take
their seats we'll proceed to hear your testimony.
Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. I'm going to
introduce Ms. Farrell briefly. I'm going to turn to Senator
Shaheen to introduce Ms. Francis. Then, Ms. Farrell, we'll come
back to you for your testimony.
So I want to welcome you. You're Mara Farrell. You are the
co-founder of the Fishkill Historical Focus from Fishkill, New
York. Welcome.
Ms. Farrell. Thank you.
Senator Udall. We look forward to your testimony. I'll turn
to Senator Shaheen to introduce Ms. Francis.
Ms. Farrell. Thank you. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
especially pleased to have a fellow Granite Stater, Sharon
Francis, here as part of this panel. I'm pleased not just to
have someone from New Hampshire, but to have someone who has
Sharon's extensive and very impressive background working on
environmental issues in New Hampshire.
Sharon serves as the Executive Director of the Connecticut
River Joint Commissions and is here to testify in support of
the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act. She has been with
the Commissions since its founding in 1989 and is a tireless
advocate for the protection of New England's largest river. Her
service and dedication to the protection of this important
economic, environmental and cultural natural resource is a real
inspiration for us all.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked with Sharon during my years as
Governor. Have long supported the protection of the Connecticut
River. I'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Upper
Connecticut River Partnership Act along with Senator Leahy,
Senator Gregg and Senator Sanders.
As Governor I worked with then Governor of Vermont, Howard
Dean, environmental organizations and community groups along
the upper reaches of the Connecticut River on a settlement
agreement with New England Power Company to protect this
important natural resource. The agreement that Governor Dean
and I worked on led to the creation of a mitigation fund to
restore, protect, and enhance the Connecticut River ecosystem
affected by the Fifteen Miles Falls, hydroelectric project.
Since 1997, some $5 million in projects have been funded and
12,000 acres of land have been protected in permanent
conservation under this program.
However, despite all of this progress more needs to be done
to protect this important resource. The Upper Connecticut River
Partnership Act establishes a grant and technical assistance
program to carry out conservation, restoration, as well as
historic and cultural preservation efforts in the Upper
Connecticut River Watershed. Projects funded through this
cooperative program will protect water quality, fish and
wildlife habitat, promote education and support historical
preservation efforts.
I believe this legislation can serve as a very important
model because it would have not only the States and the
communities along the river working in partnership. But it
would have the Federal Government joining with them in an
effort at all levels to protect this wonderful resource. So I
want to again, welcome Sharon to the committee.
I look forward to your testimony and to doing everything I
can to help your efforts to preserve the historic and amazing
Connecticut River. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Ms. Francis, with that introduction I'm
inclined to offer you the opportunity to share your testimony
now, if you're ready. I'm sure Ms. Farrell would not object.
STATEMENT OF SHARON F. FRANCIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONNECTICUT
RIVER JOINT COMMISSIONS, CHARLESTOWN, NH
Ms. Francis. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen, Senator
Udall. This moment is really a summit among many in my 50 year
professional career. I used to try to hide how long I'd been
doing it. I've decided well, let's put it out front, 50 years
professional career of safeguarding the environment of our
country.
I want to share with you the outline of a unique
organization which is the Connecticut River Joint Commissions.
We have been very, very successful. We have the right model, I
believe. I want to give you an opportunity to see what that
model is and make your own judgment about it.
We are twin watershed advisory commissions on the part of
the State of New Hampshire and the State of Vermont, set up by
the legislatures of the two States. In response to public in
the river valley saying we an institutional home. The
legislatures gave the Connecticut River, not a great big
department in agencies, but a very modest pair of commissions.
We have a small government philosophy up in Northern New
England. It seems to work pretty well because it draws out so
much help, inspiration, energy on the part of the public
itself. The two commissions formed a non-profit organization
which is The Connecticut River Joint Commissions.
Each State Governors, legislatures, appoint 15 river
commissioners. Behind those 15 river commissioners are local
subcommittee members appointed by the select boards or city
councils of their communities. Everything we do is based on
plans developed by these grassroots people. So it is very much
bottoms up. It very much is high caliber, well informed
planning.
I want to mention a moment. Senator Udall, I think you will
appreciate this, a moment of history that I share with the
National Park Service. That goes back to 1966 when Senator
Abraham Ribicoff, before the predecessors of this committee,
proposed a national recreation area study of the whole length
of the Connecticut River.
Indeed he authored the legislation. It was duly adopted.
The study was conducted.
My boss at the time, Stewart Udall, thought it was
wonderful because of instead of one or two nice, Federal
national recreation areas. It was a string of pearls, some
national recreation areas, some scenic waterways, tour ways,
roadways on both sides of the river, some Federal recreation
areas. It was just very imaginative, creative, forward
thinking.
I worked with the Secretary on his remarks at the time it
came out. He called it a new era, a new model. It was from the
perspective of Washington.
From the perspective of Northern Vermont and New Hampshire
it was bad. It looked like some great, big, green Federal
monster that was going to swallow up people's land. It did not
go over. They shot it down. If you don't learn the lessons of
history, of course, you're condemned to repeat them.
I did not forget that lesson because it seemed to me,
something was being said there. So in 1991 when the Silvio O.
Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge came to the Connecticut River
Valley we now existed, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions
existed. We were rooted very, very, well in the local
leadership of that watershed. We said to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, let us chair your meetings. Let us be your front and
facilitate this discussion of what habitat should be preserved,
where and why.
Don't think there aren't very knowledgeable wildlife and
fisheries persons up in very small towns of New Hampshire and
Vermont, because there are. They know those places on a day to
day basis. So indeed, by being able to provide that bridge for
the Conte Refuge we were able to help them come up with a very
good plan. The opposition just melted away. It no longer had
teeth.
We've done other things with Federal programs. We were
successful in getting the Connecticut River designated as an
American Heritage River in the Clinton administration, one of
14 nationally, no small feat. We have gotten it designated a
National Scenic Byway. A lot of the tourism related, heritage
tourism work that we're doing is funded through the National
Scenic Byway program.
What I want to emphasize is that people in our part of the
country really like to emphasize a local approach to resource
stewardship. They're reluctant to sign on to a large Federal
program. But they're willing to engage and welcome support and
help from Federal agencies, as long as they feel that their
views are going to be able to guide what happens.
Senator Shaheen mentioned how some of the programs touted
by the National Park Service really have had historically very
limited application in our area. Yes, we can have one or two
projects assisted by the Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program. They're good folks and they do a good job
and they have helped us.
We don't want one or two good projects. We want hundreds
and hundreds of good projects. We don't necessarily need the
National Park Service to create good projects because there is
the talent, the knowledge, the commitment right in our local
communities to do that.
We've worked a lot with NOAA. But the funding for their
community based restoration programs is now going elsewhere. It
isn't available to us.
So I think that we've talked with congressional staff about
what might be an appropriate home for us. We've certainly
considered NOAA. We work a lot with EPA. Both of the State's
environmental agencies treat us as someone they fund every year
for EPA related work.
But we really feel that the National Park Service has the
elasticity in its overall authorities and mandates. It's grown
over the years to do a variety of things. National recreation
areas were a big revolution at one time. Now, of course,
they're Wild and Scenic Rivers and there are Heritage Corridors
and so many other designations.
We feel our 20-year track record--I couldn't have
necessarily stood before you 20 years ago and made this
proposal because I wouldn't have been able to show you that we
can do it. But I can show you that we can do it. We have done
it. We are doing it.
The local units of the National Park Service, St. Gaudens
National Historic Site and Marsh-Billings Rockefeller National
Park, like us very much. We work very much with them. I think
the Federal National Park Service people would like to have us
as colleagues too.
When you think about what the Park Service said here today,
they said almost the same thing in 2005 when a hearing was held
on this legislation, almost the same thing. Yet the Senate
passed that legislation for the Connecticut River Partnership
Act. It did not however pass in the House. There just wasn't
any leadership to bring it forward.
So in essence we're coming back to the Senate. I'm very
glad we're coming back to your committee because your knowledge
and commitment is enormous. I think you can understand the
kinds of things I'm talking about.
Senator Udall. Ms. Francis? If you might, and I thank you
for those kind words.
Ms. Francis. Yes.
Senator Udall. If you might, can you finish up and then
we're going to come back to you for some questions. So I want
to have a chance to turn to Ms. Farrell----
Ms. Francis. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Udall [continuing]. For her testimony.
Ms. Francis. Very much so. I would only say that my
prepared testimony talks a lot about the partnership program.
How we've operated. What we funded with it.
So if you want some of the details about it, it's in the
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Francis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon F. Francis, Executive Director,
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, Charlestown, NH
Senator Udall and Members of the Subcommittee, this day is a summit
moment in my 50 year professional career of safeguarding the
environment. It gives me opportunity to share with you the outline of a
unique organization that is notably successful in fostering widespread
conservation achievements throughout our bi-state 7,000 square mile
watershed.
role of the connecticut river joint commissions
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions, twin watershed advisory
commissions established by the Legislatures of New Hampshire and
Vermont, have guided growth and development in the upper watershed of
New England's largest river for the last 20 years. Essential to their
extraordinary success has been their focus on local stewardship and
citizen empowerment.
Robert Frost in his poem ``New Hampshire,'' described New Hampshire
and Vermont as a pair of states united by a river, and he gave verse to
the complementary happenstance of two political jurisdictions sharing
the same geographic feature. The Connecticut River unites New Hampshire
and Vermont for 275 miles. Twenty years ago the people of the watershed
called upon the two state legislatures to create an institutional home
for the bi-state River.
The result was two state commissions, an approach that fits with
the small government preference in northern New England. The
commissions share a single mandate to preserve and protect the
resources of the Connecticut River Valley, guide growth and
development, and cooperate with the other states in doing so. Governors
or legislators appoint the fifteen river commissioners from each state.
The commissions formed a nonprofit organization, the Connecticut River
Joint Commissions in 1989, so they could share office, staff, fund
raising, and program administration.
CRJC has its roots in the river communities, since behind the
thirty active volunteer commissioners, stand local subcommittee
representatives of the 52 riverfront towns who are appointed by their
select boards and city councils and who have worked together, across
the river and across gaps in self-interest, to reach consensus on plans
for wise river management.
The upper Connecticut River watershed encompasses 41 percent of the
state of Vermont's total area and 33 percent of the state of New
Hampshire's. It has been the subject of many past studies, including
National Park Service studies, which document its natural and cultural
resources. The Connecticut River watershed was recognized by Congress
in 1991 as the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, and
as an American Heritage River in 1998.
history of the national park service and other federal agencies in the
connecticut river valley
The Department of the Interior's National Park Service has a long
history in the Connecticut River Valley that goes back to 1966 when
Senator Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut testified before the
predecessor to this Committee, and authored legislation calling for a
national recreation area study the length of the River. When the study
was completed, my boss, Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, was
especially pleased that it called for a ``string of pearls,'' some
sites to be protected by the National Park Service as national
recreation areas, others as scenic rivers, a scenic tourway bordering
the river, and other sites under stewardship of the states. This was
forward-thinking cooperative conservation, and I worked with the
Secretary on his remarks, welcoming a new era, a new model.
From our perspective in Washington at the time, the Connecticut
River National Recreation Area Study offered an admirable interplay of
federal and state roles. From the perspective of landowners in northern
Vermont and New Hampshire, however, the proposal looked only like a
Green Federal Monster intent upon devouring their lands. They wanted no
part of it, and they effectively shot it down.
Not many years later, after the popular Massachusetts Congressman
(and fisherman) Silvio O. Conte passed on, Congress established in 1991
a national fish and wildlife refuge in his name in the Connecticut
River watershed. The exact areas to be protected were to be established
by study. The people up north were pretty sure the idea again was a bad
one
The new ingredient this time was the Connecticut River Joint
Commissions. We were accepted and respected locally, and we convinced
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff to let us chair meetings and obtain
local expertise and recommendations. Apprehension about the federal
guvmn't faded. Ultimately, the Conte Refuge was not demonized, and over
the years the Connecticut River Joint Commissions have been a bridge
between the federal refuge and local landowners, fishermen, bird
watchers, land trusts, and others who implement the refuge purposes.
Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is drafting a new
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Refuge, and CRJC has played a
major role in stimulating public participation in that effort.
CRJC led the upper watershed effort toward successful designation
of the Connecticut River as one of 14 American Heritage Rivers in 1998.
Most recently, CRJC sponsored successful designation of the Connecticut
River Byway as a National Scenic Byway in 2005. CRJC has worked in
partnership with many local, state, regional and federal organizations
to support these agencies' efforts to protect the cultural heritage of
this large watershed, improve its water quality, promote sustainable
tourism, protect unique natural and rural resources, and improve
recreational opportunities.
We promote visitation through the Connecticut River Byway, to the
National Park Service's installations at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller
National Historical Park in Vermont, Saint Gaudens National Historic
Site in New Hampshire, and sections of the Appalachian Trail in both
states. CRJC is promoting interest in the 75 National Register Historic
Districts in the region by carrying the historic data about each on our
website and promoting this heritage to residents and visitors through a
series of history itineraries we are developing for the Byway.
All of these experiences have taught CRJC that northern New England
prefers a local approach to resource stewardship. Northern New England
residents have demonstrated their reluctance to sign on to large
federal programs time and time again, but are willing to engage with a
more trusted, home-grown organization. Thus CRJC is better qualified to
deliver a broader range of assistance with more impact than the federal
programs that may be aimed in similar directions.
For example, while technical assistance is available through the
National Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program, this program has conducted only a small handful of projects in
the Connecticut River valley during the 20 years CRJC has been active.
While grants are available through the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act Grants Program, they are well out of reach of nearly
all the watershed's communities and only two such grants have been made
in the region in the last 20 years. While CRJC's Byway has been able to
put the Department of Transportation's surface transportation program
to good use to promote heritage tourism, CRJC involvement has been
essential for execution. Funding for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) community-based restoration
programs has been directed elsewhere, despite years of effective
support from CRJC, and is no longer available to achieve river goals.
CRJC's approach, rather than promote large government participation
in a few projects, has been to ensure grassroots action on a broad
scale, making scarce federal dollars accessible to a wider constituency
and leveraging them with the energy of local inspiration and
volunteerism. The end result is an inspired citizenry better equipped
to address real issues and opportunities at home.
the connecticut river partnership program
Shortly after establishment of the Connecticut River Joint
Commissions, our commissioners and knowledgeable staff from the
Congressional delegation began exploring how to fund a grant program
that could address the pent-up agenda of projects that could benefit
the river and the region. The Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance
Program of the National Park Service welcomed our initiative and worked
with us for several years, though ultimately we parted company, as they
preferred projects carried out by their own staff members and we were
committed to supporting local expertise.
For each of the fourteen years we have carried out the Partnership
Program, a committee of our commissioners has developed criteria to
determine applicant and project eligibility. The organizing principle
has been to implement recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor
Management Plan, developed through consensus at hundreds of meetings by
valley citizens, and to advance the effectiveness of the Connecticut
River Byway as an economic development and heritage protection tool.
Eligible applicants include municipal boards and committees, non-
profit tax-exempt organizations, schools, and regional organizations
such as regional planning commissions or county conservation districts.
Informal citizen groups, state and federal agencies, and private
businesses can apply through one of the above organizations. The
program invites local projects addressing issues laid out in the river
and byway plans, including
water quality
fisheries and wildlife habitat
recreation
agriculture and forestry
land use guidance
river-related education
preservation of scenic and historic features
visitor education for the Connecticut River Byway.
Criteria for grant selection included:
how the project addresses implementation of the Connecticut
River Corridor Management Plan or the Connecticut River Byway
Corridor Plan
The tangible results and lasting benefits to the community
and/or the watershed
Demonstration of cooperation within the community,
establishment of partnerships with public, private, and
community resources, or encouragement of cross-river efforts
between NH & VT
Ability to leverage additional funds, obtain commitments of
technical assistance, materials, or support from other sources
Likelihood of success given the project scope, requested
support, and organizational commitment
A plan for publicity and community outreach about the
project and its benefits.
Selection process: Each year, CRJC assembled a Selection Committee
of commissioners and Byway Council representatives to evaluate and
select winning applications. CRJC staff reviewed the applications for
completeness and included both less experienced grant applicants, such
as a local scout troop or historical society, who might propose a
compelling project with strong local need, with organizations with
professional staff such as The Nature Conservancy.
Selection committee members reviewed and ranked the applications
according to a consistent scoring system. Staff then assembled scores
and presented the combined rankings to the committee at a day-long
meeting, during which the committee made final award selections. The
committee strived to balance awards in each of the topic areas, and
also to achieve a geographic balance. The result is that, over the 14
years of the program, nearly every single community of the 214 towns in
the Upper Connecticut River watershed has experienced the benefits of
the program, and much progress has been made in implementing the
Connecticut River Management Plan and Connecticut River Byway Corridor
Plan.
Matching dollars were not required in the first 14 years of the
program, although higher ranking was given to applications if match was
offered.. CRJC has found that the Partnership Program has been
especially instrumental in providing the required local cash match for
New Hampshire's Land and Community Heritage Investment Program, and has
been one of the only sources of such match for small communities of
modest means who are facing challenges such as the loss of a beloved
local landmark or key parcel of prime farmland.
CRJC made awards of $500-$5000, with an occasional award up to
$8,000 if the results and public benefit are outstanding and clearly
demonstrate a need for additional funding. Awards were distributed at
an awards ceremony that brought together winning applicants from all
over the river valley. This event provided an inspiring venue for
further energy and creativity on behalf of the watershed, as the
stories of other projects prompted many applicants to envision similar
efforts in their own communities.
In the first 14 years of the program, CRJC provided 75% of the
grant award up front, reserving 25% pending receipt of a report
detailing project completion. Given the need to stretch grant dollars
further in current economic times, it seems appropriate to require a
25% match and provide 50% of project funding at the onset, and provide
the final 25% on completion.
examples of partnership projects
The Connecticut River Partnership Program has dovetailed well with
state-sponsored programs on both sides of the river. The Partnership
Program has funded 57 projects that support Vermont's Clean and Clear
Action Program, established by Governor Jim Douglas. These include
projects such as a stream geomorphic assessment of the Wells River
Watershed, a project to reconstruct a highly eroded river access trail
next to the historic Dummerston covered bridge to reduce sediment-laden
storm water runoff into the West River, and a citizen-scientist-based
program for monitoring and wildlife activities at Herrick's Cove in
Rockingham, home to 300 species of birds and a major stopover for
migrating waterfowl, to guide future management of the property.
Support for projects in the 40% of Vermont's land area that falls
within the Connecticut River watershed has been extremely important,
since the state's water quality protection dollars are largely targeted
toward the Lake Champlain basin on the far side of the state.
On the New Hampshire side, Partnership Program funds have provided
the essential local cash match for the state's Land and Community
Heritage Investment Program, allowing, for example, conservation of key
river frontage, habitat, and floodplains and the rescue of historic
properties of strong state and local significance. Many communities in
the Connecticut River Valley would not be able to take advantage of
this state program without the support of the Partnership. In both
states, the Partnership Program has also offered a needed source of
project support in the third of the upper watershed that is not
eligible for grants from the Upper Connecticut River Mitigation and
Enhancement Fund. This fund was established by New England Power
Company as a condition of a renewed FERC license for its hydro dams in
the Fifteen Mile Falls region of the Connecticut River. Funds are
available only through this program only for projects north of the
White River confluence in the Hartford/Lebanon area. Beneficiaries of
Partnership grants include:
Watershed groups
Historical societies
Local conservation commissions
Scout troops
Land trusts
Regional planning commissions
Youth conservation programs
Main Street programs
Museums
Cooperative Extension Service
Farm organizations
School groups - from elementary to graduate school level
Local and statewide historic preservation organizations
Over the 14 years of the Partnership Program's activity, in 1992-
2006, CRJC has provided funds for 400 projects, dispersing $1,288,500.
While CRJC take prides in all of the projects sponsored by the
Partnership Program, several stand out as achievements worthy of your
attention. Partnership grants have assisted the Upper Valley Land
Trust, a local land trust with a well-deserved national reputation, in
protecting floodplains in the key natural valley flood storage areas
identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1994 as essential to
flood protection for all four watershed states. The Corps was unable to
proceed with acquisition of these flood storage areas as recommended by
the study, and it fell to local land trusts, assisted by CRJC, to carry
this important flood protection initiative forward. Partnership funds
assisted UVLT with surveying, appraisal, and other costs that the farm
landowners could not meet. In the course of conserving these floodplain
areas, UVLT and the farmers also protected agricultural soils of
national significance, fragile riverbanks and riparian habitat, public
recreational access, and broad scenic views of rural farmscapes from
the nationally designated Connecticut River Byway. Such projects, aimed
at keeping the valley an attractive place to visit, live, and work,
also helped protect a vanishing way of life in northern New England.
Similarly, the Partnership Program has invested significantly in
projects to raise awareness and protect federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species in the Connecticut River Valley.
Among them are a beautifully illustrated and engaging book, Freshwater
Mussels of the Connecticut River Watershed. Written and illustrated by
Ethan Nedeau, a notable scientist as well as artist, the book focuses
on identification and protection of imperiled mussel populations by
providing scientifically sound information to citizens, conservation
groups, municipalities, planning boards, businesses, regulatory
agencies and educators.
Partnership grants have also helped fund a Migratory Fisheries
Restoration Initiative, a comprehensive approach to reconnecting river
habitat by removing barriers such as derelict dams on tributaries in
both states in order to restore migratory and resident fish
populations.
Partnership grants have helped restore church steeples, wooden
covered bridges, historic windows, and stage curtains. They have
protected local cultural treasures for the benefit of residents and
visitors alike. They have built trails, repaired trails, made signs for
trails, and built canoe campsites along the river.
other highlights of crjc's work
In addition to awards to partner organizations and communities, the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions have also developed strong programs
in river science and river education that demonstrate the quality of
our work.
River Science - One of the most pervasive problems along the
Connecticut River is riverbank erosion. Our efforts to understand why
some riverbanks erode and others do not led us several years ago to the
science of fluvial geomorphology whose practitioners are able to assess
how a river moves through the bedrock, soils, and slope of its
landscape, where and why it floods, changes course, or eats the land.
Since 2004, we have conducted several fluvial geomorphic assessments on
the northern Connecticut River and its tributaries, and shared our
findings with landowners and local officials. In their behalf, we have
developed riverbank restoration projects that include removing the
source of the river instability, even when the cause is located on a
tributary some distance upstream.
This summer we will be carrying out a riverbank restoration in
Colebrook New Hampshire that will feature placement of six engineered
log jams - a technique used in the Pacific Northwest, but not yet in
the Northeast - as well as redirecting an upstream tributary into its
natural alluvial fan instead of the straight ditch created by the Corps
of Engineers in the 1960s. Local school children will help us plant a
riparian buffer once the log jams are installed, and New Hampshire's
Governor John Lynch and Vermont's Governor Jim Douglas plan to visit
the site in October.
River Education - CRJC and its partner, Dartmouth College, unveiled
a new educational resource last month, an atlas entitled Where the
Great River Rises, an Atlas of the Connecticut River Watershed in
Vermont and New Hampshire. The abundantly illustrated atlas has forty
four authors, all experts in their fields that range across both
natural history and human history. It is published by the University
Press of New England, and is available on amazon.com as well as through
bookstores in the Connecticut River watershed. We have sent
complimentary copies to town libraries and schools in order to expand
and enrich popular understanding of the watershed and the many ways in
which people and nature influence each other.
why should the connecticut river partnership program be located in the
national park service?
In 2005, the United States Senate passed the Upper Connecticut
River Partnership Act; however the measure died due to lack of action
in the House. At that time, the Senate believed the National Park
Service was the appropriate home for this bi-state initiative from
Northern New England.
We at the Connecticut River Joint Commissions have thought long and
hard about this question. We have considered locating the Partnership
at EPAor NOAA or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fine as those
agencies are, each has a more constrained mission and authority, and
would force us to drop too much of what is needed in our region.
Of all federal agencies, the National Park Service is the one that
has had the elasticity to embrace national recreation areas in addition
to national parks, to embrace wild and scenic rivers, national heritage
areas, places like Chesapeake Bay Gateways. We admire the National Park
Service, and believe that at the national level they will find us
worthy colleagues, even as do Park Service personnel at the New
Hampshire and Vermont park sites.
Thank you for consideration of these comments.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. We look forward to
asking you some questions.
Ms. Farrell, we're looking forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF MARA FARRELL, CO-FOUNDER, FISHKILL HISTORICAL
FOCUS, FISHKILL, NY
Ms. Farrell. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Thank you for
this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Fishkill Supply
Depot Encampment, an important Revolutionary War site in New
York and the American Battlefield Protection Act.
Over this recent July 4th weekend the Associated Press
released a story titled, ``Saving New York's Valley Forge,
Revolutionary patriots graves besieged by development.'' This
piece was a front page story in newspapers across the country
and carried by news sources abroad. Indeed there is a vital and
compelling story to report here.
At the endangered national register Fishkill Supply Depot
recent archeological surveys revealed a large Continental Army
cemetery complex and additional features associated with the
Depot. Hundreds of graves have been sited on one portion of
undeveloped acres within this historic district. What we have
here could well be the largest Revolutionary War burial complex
ever identified in United States history and one of the first
United States military cemeteries.
So I'm here today to speak for the hundreds of veterans and
founding fathers buried here in unmarked graves facing East
within the boundaries of this great American Heritage site. I
come with a hope that critical funding and protection will
become available through the American Battlefield Protection
Program. I respectfully ask where is there more urgent
preservation priority in the United States?
Indeed the Fishkill Supply Depot was an impressive military
facility. Funded by the Continental Congress it matured into
the central and most extensive Northern logistical center for
ammunitions and distributions serving simultaneously as a
medical complex, prison facility and residence for military
officers and soldiers during the Revolutionary War. Best
visualized as a compact military city, it is unique in its
continuous military occupation during the Revolution.
We hear much about the rigors of the winter at Valley
Forge, however what the soldiers endured in Fishkill was far
worse. Conditions were harsh. We've recently learned through
onsite archeological studies conducted in 2008, excuse me, that
starving soldiers may have been forced to eat their beloved
horses in order to remain alive.
So we now know that hundreds, if not thousands who
sacrificed their lives are buried at the Depot complex in what
has long been termed an unknown location. The archeologists
onsite the night the first graves were discovered described the
experience as deeply emotional and heart wrenching. As Senator
Schumer said on June 1st when visiting the Depot, ``The
sacrifices of patriotic Americans should never be forgotten nor
should their graves be paved over.''
As a result of the recent publicity we are beginning to
receive previously unknown information from Americans whose
ancestors were known to have served in Fishkill. The
preservation of the Fishkill Supply Depot will help to create a
sacred place of national memory and allow us to come to better
understand the brilliant record that this historic site has yet
to fully reveal. Excuse me. As you know the American
Battlefield Protection Program currently provides funding to
help protect important sites associated with the Civil War, but
sites associated with the American Revolution and the War of
1812 are not eligible for this funding.
In its current form the Act has been very effective in
helping to preserve important sites associated with the war
that nearly tore this Nation apart. But it does nothing to help
preserve sites associated with the Nation's birth. The
currently proposed changes to the act would provide support to
preserving those sites that help to define the very heart and
soul of America, sites like the Fishkill Supply Depot, a site
that provided for those very first American warriors as they
fought to create this Nation.
So we ask that you support this bill that you recognize
that it is not--that it is just as important to help preserve
places associated with the initial founding of this great Union
of individual colonies into a single Nation as it is to
preserve places associated with the fight to preserve that
Union. So I speak to you on behalf of the Fishkill Supply Depot
and its newly discovered Continental army cemetery complex as
well as other Revolutionary War sites. Today we have an
extraordinary opportunity to recover from past mistakes and
honor New York's Valley Forge.
Thank you for your leadership.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mara Farrell, Co-Founder, Fishkill Historical
Focus, Fishkill, NY
Thank you, Chairman Udall and members of the Committee. I am Mara
Farrell, Co-Founder of the citizens' group, Fishkill Historical Focus.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Fishkill
Supply Depot and Encampment, an important Revolutionary War Site in New
York, which despite being listed on the National Register of Historic
Places since the 1970's has been severely damaged in the past.
Currently, the last remaining intact sections of this site, which
played an important role in the creation of the United States are
endangered by proposed development. I would also like to take this
opportunity to extend heartfelt thanks to Senator Schumer for his
outstanding support of the Fishkill Supply Depot. With your leadership,
its story and its open space have an unparalleled opportunity to
achieve the legacy they so richly deserve.
Over this recent July 4th weekend, the Associated Press released a
story titled, ``Saving NY's Valley Forge: Revolutionary War patriots'
graves besieged by development''. This piece was a front-page story in
newspapers across the country and carried by news sources abroad. And
indeed there is a vital and compelling story to report. At the
endangered National Register Fishkill Supply Depot, recent
archaeological surveys have revealed a large Continental Army Cemetery
Complex and the remains of additional features associated with the
depot. Hundreds of graves have been sited on one portion of the
undeveloped acres within this historic district - a portion currently
on the market and threatened with strip mall development.
What we have here could well be the largest Revolutionary War
burial complex ever identified in United States history and one of the
first United States Military Cemeteries. Properly preserving the
Continental Army's burial ground should go without saying. These are
soldiers buried by soldiers in a remarkable military facility that
sustained the Revolutionary War effort through very lean years. Great
American history is at risk here. We underscore our concern: the twenty
undeveloped acres left as open space in this historic district remain
in danger. Even with this great discovery of the Continental Army
Cemetery Complex, commercial site plans could potentially move forward.
And so I come here today to speak for the hundreds of veterans and
founding fathers buried here, in unmarked graves facing east, within
the boundaries of this great American heritage site - and I come with
the hope that critical funding and protection will become available
through the American Battlefield Protection Program. I respectfully
ask: Where is there a more urgent preservation priority in the United
States? A Continental Army Cemetery Complex is at imminent risk, as
well as vital land and features directly contributing to the success of
the American Revolution.
The Hudson River Valley of New York State is lauded for its natural
beauty and history. In the town of Fishkill, several miles from the
river and surrounded by the Hudson Highlands, lies the physical space
that once defined the Fishkill Supply Depot. Established by General
George Washington and serving at varying times as a headquarters and
nexus point for General Israel Putnam, General Alexander McDougall,
General Horatio Gates, Alexander Hamilton and General Lafayette, it
played an essential role in the Continental Army's victory over British
forces. In spite of its great historical significance, in the latter
half of the twentieth century, rapid suburbanization obscured its
stories and preservation. In 1974, the best efforts of local
conservation groups failed. A substantial portion of the famous
Revolutionary War site was sacrificed to build the now defunct Dutchess
Mall.
Following this fateful decision, the great legacy of the Fishkill
Supply Depot was largely forgotten. Aside from the Van Wyck Homestead,
which served as an officers' headquarters, it seemed hardly a trace of
the depot remained. However, prior archaeological and scholarly
research revealed otherwise.
And indeed, The Fishkill Supply Depot and Encampment was an
impressive military facility. Funded by the Continental Congress, it
matured into the central and most extensive Northern logistical center
for munitions and distribution, serving simultaneously as a medical
complex, prison facility and residence for military officers and
soldiers during the Revolutionary War. The activity level at this
military installation was intense and constant. Ultimately, the
Fishkill Supply Depot prevented the colonies from being divided by the
British, which would have caused the collapse of the entire American
Revolution.
The Fishkill Depot Complex, best visualized as a compact military
city, is unique in it continuous military occupation during the
Revolution - thousands of Continental troops and Militia units resided
at the Depot Complex from October of 1776 through April of 1783 - close
to the entire duration of the war. Soldiers at the encampment suffered
through numerous bitter winters. We hear much about the rigors of the
winter at Valley Forge; however, what the soldiers endured in Fishkill
was far worse, over the course of every difficult winter of the war.
Conditions were harsh, winter weather - brutal, and food scarce. We
have recently learned through on-site archaeological studies conducted
in 2008, that starving soldiers may have been forced to eat their
beloved horses in order to remain alive.
Historians believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of Continental
Army soldiers who sacrificed their lives and died from war wounds,
hypothermia, dysentery, small pox and other diseases are buried at the
Depot Complex, in what has long been termed an ``unknown'' location.
Today, of course, the big news is that finally this location is no
longer ``unknown''. Through rigorous archaeological testing and remote
sensing, the location of the Continental Army Cemetery Complex, which
again I state could well be the largest ever identified in United
States history, has been confirmed. And it is located at the precise
site where new construction was to begin for a strip mall. The
archaeologists on-site the night the first graves were discovered,
describe the experience as deeply emotional and heart-wrenching.
Successful towns across America have understood the importance of
cherishing their historic spaces, and have recognized that progress and
development can come not at the expense of historic preservation, but
hand in hand with it. Real estate carries history, but history is more
than real estate - history is a force that enriches our land. Once
``lost history'' of this magnitude is recovered, heritage tourism and
economic opportunity follows.
As Senator Schumer said on June 1, ``No matter how pro-development
we are, covering up great historical landmarks like this with a
shopping mall doesn't seem like the way we should be honoring our past
and honoring who we are. The bottom line is very simple,'' Senator
Schumer said, ``The sacrifices of patriotic Americans should never be
forgotten nor should their graves be paved over.''
As a result of the recent publicity, we are beginning to receive
previously unknown information from Americans whose ancestors were
known to have served in Fishkill. So protection of the remaining
portions of the site is a deeply patriotic objective. Its preservation
will help to create a sacred place of national memory, and allow us to
come to better understand the brilliant record that the Fishkill Supply
Depot and Encampment has yet to fully reveal.
As you know, the American Battlefield Protection Program currently
provides funding to help protect important sites associated with the
Civil War, but sites associated with the American Revolution and the
War of 1812 are not eligible for this funding. In its current form, the
act has been very effective in helping to preserve important sites
associated with the war that nearly tore this nation apart, but it does
nothing to help preserve sites associated with the nation's birth. The
currently proposed changes to the act would provide support to
preserving those sites that helped to define the very heart and soul of
America, sites like the Fishkill Supply Depot, a site that provided for
those very first American warriors as they fought to create this
nation. We ask that you support this bill, that you recognize that it
is just as important to help preserve places associated with the
initial founding of this great Union of individual colonies into a
single nation, as it is to preserve places associated with the fight to
preserve that Union. I speak to you on behalf of the Fishkill Supply
Depot and its newly discovered cemetery complex, as well as other
Revolutionary War sites. Today we have an extraordinary opportunity to
recover from past mistakes and honor New York's Valley Forge.
Thank you for your leadership. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Farrell for that fine
testimony. We will now turn to a round of questions. We've been
joined also by Senator Sanders who I know will be directing
some questions at the panel.
But let me start. Ms. Farrell, I'll direct my questions to
you. Do you have an estimate of how many Revolutionary War and
War of 1812 battlefield sites might be eligible to receive
funding if the bill were enacted?
Ms. Farrell. I know when the report was prepared--there is
an extensive list of sites.
Senator Udall. We'll keep the record open and if you have
an exact number or at least an approximate number certainly
we'd appreciate that for the record.
Assuming the bill is enacted and money is appropriated, how
do you see the program working? Let me ask a follow on
question. I think it's related.
Since there's no guarantee whether your organization or any
other would benefit from the funding do you anticipate
submitting grant requests directly to the Park Service or would
there be a separate organization coordinating the grant
requests?
Ms. Farrell. We need to work closely with the State Office
of Historic Preservation. We need to establish stewardship of
this site. So right now it's--definitely more decisions need to
take place on that level to see how it would be put together.
We're, of course, concerned about these 20 acres that have
been proposed for commercial development. The national
registered site, itself, is 70 acres. Much of it has been
impacted by development in the past starting in 1974, which
makes it all the more critical to preserve what is remaining.
As I said, you know, we have, of course, the cemetery
complex which is, of course, vulnerable, as well as other
really intriguing features related to the workings of the
Fishkill Supply Depot.
Senator Udall. Thank you. As you generate more information
and more planning takes place again we would be eager to
receive that information.
Ms. Farrell. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Let me recognize Senator Sanders who has
joined us. I know he has a very busy schedule. I know Senator
Shaheen is willing to yield to him.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Let me thank you and let me thank Senator
Shaheen for her indulgence here. Welcome to our two guests.
I'll be very brief. Then I'm going to run out of here.
But Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for holding what is a
very important and interesting hearing and for including S.
1117, the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act in this
discussion. I'm a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation
which was introduced by Senator Leahy and co-sponsored by our
colleagues from New Hampshire, Senators Gregg and Shaheen. We
have come together to support this legislation which would
provide grants and technical assistance for activities within
the Upper Connecticut River Watershed.
The legislation introduced would provide grants to non-
profits, State and local governments and private sector
entities to carry out conservation and restoration projects. In
addition grants could support interpretation of cultural,
recreational and natural resources in the watershed. The total
authorization for this bill would be $1 million a year. A
similar bill passed in the Senate in 2004, but no action was
taken in the House.
The Upper Connecticut River Watershed comprises 41 percent
of the land area in Vermont and 33 percent of the land area in
New Hampshire. The Connecticut River itself is home to a wide
variety of wildlife including 250 species of birds, 59 species
of mammals, 22 species of reptiles, et cetera, et cetera. In
addition the river and its watershed are home to thousands of
different kinds of plants and trees. The river and its
watershed also provide numerous opportunities for recreation
such as boating and fishing. The watershed also has significant
cultural and historical assets including covered bridges,
heritage trails and historic homes and falls.
Today I just want to welcome and thank Sharon Francis, the
Executive Director with the Connecticut River Joint
Commissions. The Joint Commissions came about in 1989 after
separate commissions in Vermont and New Hampshire merged. See,
occasionally the States can get together. Very rarely, but they
can occasionally.
This unique two State partnership has fostered cooperation
amongst farmers, conservationist and others interested in
preserving the Connecticut River and its watershed while
promoting economic development opportunities in the region. I
thank you, Sharon, for taking the time to join us today for
this hearing, for the good work you've done. Bottom line is
this is an important piece of legislation and I look forward to
working with Senator Shaheen and making sure that we pass it.
So thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Sanders. I might before I
turn to Senator Shaheen speak to Ms. Francis and ask if it's
alright with you when I talk to my Uncle Stewart that I mention
you to him. I chaired a hearing yesterday on hard rock mining
reform, another area in which he's been very interested for
many years. It's only an 1872 law that has----
Ms. Francis. Right.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Never seen adjustments and
reforms. There's a growing consensus that we need to reform
that law. But I'd like to send him your good wishes. He's
approaching 90.
Ms. Francis. I know.
Senator Udall. He's still in very good condition. I would
add that the idea was appropriate and powerful. The execution
of how to make that idea a reality obviously had to go through
a variety of iterations. In the West we share a similar outlook
that often local control and local initiatives are the best way
to accomplish important land conservation and land preservation
efforts.
I also would note that I described New Hampshire as the
near West in a recent hearing. Senator Shaheen took some
offense to that. So I'm still trying to make it up to her.
But I do know my geography to the extent that the
Connecticut River divides the great States of Vermont and New
Hampshire, at least in the lower reaches. I do know that----
Ms. Francis. It joins them.
Senator Udall. It joins them. That's a better--that's a
much more appropriate and effective way to think of it.
Ms. Francis. Right.
Senator Udall. I do note that the Connecticut River
headwaters are in the fourth Connecticut Lake.
Ms. Francis. Yes.
Senator Udall. So I hope that Connecticut appropriately
thanks you for lending it the word Connecticut with which it
describes its own State. But this is an important effort. As
chairman of this subcommittee, I look forward to working with
you. I now recognize Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You can
see why Sharon is so good at what she does. Pointing out that
the river joins the States of New Hampshire and Vermont, which
in effect, it does. Senator Sanders pointed out that this an
area where the two States have worked very closely together to
preserve our sections of the Connecticut River.
Ms. Stevenson talked a little bit about existing programs
within the National Park Service that were already available to
help address some of the concerns that are raised by this
legislation. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what
your experience has been with those. Why you think it's been so
challenging to get support from those programs for the work
that you've been doing along the Connecticut River.
Ms. Francis. I'll mention two. The Rivers and Trails
Conservation Assistance Program of the Park Service through
which a Park Service specialist will go and help a group build
a trail, plan a trail, develop a river conservation plan. For a
fee, this isn't a free service.
Now there have been maybe half a dozen, in 20 years of
those accomplishments in our river valley. That's not a lot on
275 miles of river and many hundreds more of major tributaries.
In the 1990s, late 1990s, the Park Service conducted a heritage
corridor study for the Connecticut River. The question for them
was does this valley rise to national significance.
I don't recall what their criteria of national significance
were, but the fact that Rudyard Kipling lived there for a while
was not sufficient of itself. Great architects, great builders,
great clock makers, distinguished colonial architecture, that
didn't quite make it of national significance. There is a
machine tool industry, some of which is still alive.
Much of which has marvelous old, long, brick buildings,
five stories tall with windows and there is quite a story to be
told about the machine tool industry. Windsor, Vermont,
Springfield, Vermont, some of Claremont, New Hampshire and then
some of the sites down in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The
Park Service was--they thought maybe that would be of national
significance. But the trouble was none of us wanted to take on
sponsorship of a machine tool heritage corridor because we feel
the heritage is so much richer, more extensive, has so many
more components that to focus it down on that one theme it just
didn't work in any of the four States.
The National Park Service Director of Marsh-Billings
Rockefeller National Historic Site has been assigned, in
addition to his other duties working to develop a Lake
Champlain Heritage Corridor. If he had another staff person who
could do it full time for him it might work. He is way
overworked and overstressed trying to take on that
responsibility in addition to operating the area he has.
So I want to come back to what I said a little bit earlier.
We're working on a multitude of preservation activities.
Historic preservation, habitat preservation, river access,
canoe camp sites, trails, maintenance of trails, just such a--
we've gotten into Fluvial Geomorphology and are doing some
really, very significant river bank restoration projects
including one up in Holbrook that you will come and see some
day.
Just to do two or three or half a dozen things a year
doesn't seem to address the range of opportunities and needs.
Again I come back to the extraordinary talent and good sense
and really inspired energy on behalf of people in our local
communities. They don't need someone from the Park Service
coming in and telling them how to build a trail. They know.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I ask another
question? I know that in your testimony you point out some of
the really important projects that the partnership has done
along the Connecticut River. I wonder if you could just give us
a couple of examples now.
Ms. Francis. Yes.
Senator Shaheen. That you feel have been critical.
Ms. Francis. Yes. One is that over several years we have
been able to help the Upper Valley Land Trust which is a
regional bi-State land trust of very high caliber, protect farm
land and flood plains along the river in the Haverhill, Bath
area of the Connecticut River. Wonderful, wonderful flood plain
farm land. The core of engineers studied us some time back and
with the idea of having a natural valley storage area there.
Their benefit cost ratio formula didn't quite work. But the
need for flood plain protection is huge for all the reasons we
understand. So the Upper Valley Land Trust has been going in,
getting easements from farmers. It helps the farmers
financially. It also helps the farmers be able to set back a
riparian buffer so the land isn't cropped right out to the
river's edge. That, of course, improves water quality and soil
stability.
So that is one very good example. As I was going through
the list last night of projects we've funded, sort of in the 10
or more category. Repairing church steeples, repairing stained
glass windows in churches, sage curtains.
There was a period a couple hundred years ago when every
little town did a play or several plays during the year and
their town hall would have a beautiful painted stage curtain.
These things have had moths in them. They've gotten cracked and
been up in the attic. Now there's a whole movement of
restoration of those curtains. So we've been able to give $500
here and $800 there that have helped the conservancy effort of
those artifacts.
I think that another one I would want to emphasize is the
two schools on opposite sides of the Connecticut River in
Vermont and New Hampshire decided they wanted to build a cross
river trail. They've worked on that for a number of years. But
our funding, our small grants to that effort have bought the
equipment for that trail building work and even to the gloves
that kids have worn as they're handling stones.
It's not a lot of money, but that cross river trail is
very, very nice. It's some 30 some miles long.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. I think you very
eloquently described the importance of this river that is not
just not environmental, but it really is about the history and
cultural heritage of both New Hampshire and Vermont. Again----
Ms. Francis. It's part of New England.
Senator Shaheen. It is.
Ms. Francis. Priceless.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much for all of the work
that you've done.
Ms. Francis. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Let me thank
again our panelists, Ms. Farrell, Ms. Francis, you've been very
helpful to the subcommittee. We will keep the hearing record
open for 2 weeks for additional statements and questions.
Senator Udall. We're now going to adjourn the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Mara Farrell to Question From Senator Murkowski
s. 1168 revolutionary war and the war of 1812 battlefield
protection program
Question 1a. Is there a list of battlefields that are being
considered through this potential program? What percentage of the
battlefields are located on private property?
Answer. Battlefields and Associated Historic Properties, like the
National Register Fishkill Supply Depot, being considered for this
potential program are those listed in the Report to Congress on the
Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the
United States, prepared by the National Park Service, and dated
September 2007. Of the sites in this report, approximately 62% are
primarily privately owned.
Question 1b. What steps will be taken to insure that land is not
taken from private landowners who do not wish to sell their property?
Answer. S.1168 amends an existing Civil War battlefield program
established in Public Law 104-333, 16 USC 469k. The stated purpose of
the program as currently written in the law is to preserve and protect
nationally significant battlefields through conservation easements and
fee-simple purchases of those battlefields from willing sellers. S.1168
further stipulates that land shall only be acquired from willing
sellers.
______
Responses of Sharon F. Francis to Questions From Senator Burr
upper connecticut river partnership (s. 1117)
Question 1. Why is the Connecticut River Grants and Technical
Assistance Program needed to provide grants in the upper Connecticut
River watershed?
Answer. Because of two decades of active watershed planning and
citizen recruitment by the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, people
in this watershed are poised and ready to act upon the recommendations
they have made.
The communities and citizens of the Upper Connecticut River
Watershed have been actively researching and planning for improvements
in the watershed since 1992, and now have assembled a long list of
recommendations to move forward. These are articulated in the
Connecticut River Water Resources Plan, the Connecticut River
Recreation Management Plan (both recognized by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission as comprehensive plans for the river), the
Connecticut River Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan, and their
predecessor, the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan.
This extensive agenda was stimulated and coordinated by the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, working with their five local
river subcommittees of citizens appointed by the 53 riverfront towns in
New Hampshire and Vermont. These plans are also the blueprint for
action by the recreation, tourism, and environmental quality agencies
of the States of New Hampshire and Vermont.
In 1992, recognizing the high level of civic commitment and talent
in watershed communities, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions
initiated a partnership program of small grants. Senator Patrick Leahy
and Senator Judd Gregg were instrumental in securing this support which
came from the National Park Service and from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. The last earmark for the upper Connecticut
River Partnership was in 2006.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions is a unique entity--a pair
of commissions established by two state legislatures for their shared
river. Our accomplishments are many, including achieving American
Heritage River designation for the Connecticut River in 1998, gaining
national scenic byway status for the 500 miles of roadway bordering the
Connecticut River in 2005, and in 2009 publishing a 260-page Atlas of
the Connecticut River Watershed in Vermont and New Hampshire.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions seeks authorization for
this program through S. 1117 knowing we will be a worthy partner for
the National Park Service and offer the Service a way to stimulate
local conservation accomplishments of a high standard in a region with
numerous heritage and resource attributes.
upper connecticut river partnership (s. 1117)
Question 2. Previously, the Administration has testified in
opposition to the bill because it would create a new grant program
focused exclusively on one specific watershed, do you believe that
there should be a grant program for each watershed in the United
States?
Answer. Like the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which also has an
authorized program home within the National Park Service, and the Lake
Champlain Basin Program, which has an authorized program home at EPA,
the Upper Connecticut River watershed is well-organized and prepared to
make the most of the opportunity offered by a program home within NPS.
Most watersheds are not prepared to proceed since they do not have the
benefit of such extensive planning, nor do they boast the level of
citizen and community engagement of the Upper Connecticut River.
______
Responses of Katherine H. Stevenson to Questions From Senator Burr
s. 853 white clay creek wild and scenic river additions
Question 1a. How much of the additions to the White Clay Creek Wild
and Scenic River flow through public land? How much of the additions
flow through private land?
Answer. Approximately 15% of the additions flow through public
lands. Approximately 85% of the additions flow through private lands.
Question 1b. How would the designation as a wild and scenic river
affect current or proposed uses of the river, the water, and the
surrounding land?
Answer. Wild and Scenic River designation would affect only those
uses that curtail the free flowing nature of the river or that have
direct or adverse impacts to identified outstandingly remarkable
resources.
Question 1c. What specific benefits does the 9.9 mile addition to
the White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River provide to the local area?
Answer. The 9.9 mile additions had previously been proposed as
water supply reservoirs. Local elected officials, the Delaware River
Basin Commission and residents of the affected river areas recently
abandoned plans for water supply reservoirs and now support wild and
scenic river designation. The additions will ensure that the free
flowing nature of these river areas will be maintained. Designation
would result in protection for fish and wildlife habitat including that
of the federally listed Bog Turtle, continued maintenance of river
water quality, and recreational benefits for the region.
s. 1168 revolutionary war and the war of 1812 battlefield
protection program
Question 2. Does the National Park Service have any specific
battlefields that it hopes to acquire through this program? Of those
battlefields being considered by the National Park Service how many of
them are located on private property?
Answer. The National Park Service has no plans, intent, or ability
to acquire any specific battlefield through this proposed program. The
bill authorizes a matching grant program to assist States and local
communities in acquiring Revolutionary War and the War of 1812
properties for protective ownership at the State or local level. Such
State and local acquisitions must be from willing sellers. NPS will
administer that grant program and will evaluate grant proposals on
their merit, but NPS cannot use the program to acquire lands for
itself.
virgin islands national park caneel bay lease
Question 3a. Does the National Park Service foresee any potential
negatives to having the management and operation of Caneel Bay Resort
convert to a long-term lease arrangement rather than by continuing the
current retained use estate? What benefits does the National Park
Service foresee by converting the current arrangement to a long-term
lease?
Answer. The National Park Service views a long-term lease as the
appropriate arrangement for long-term management of the Caneel Bay
resort, given the unique circumstances of that property. We have not
identified any specific potential negatives associated with a long-term
lease at that site. Leasing property within a national park to a
private entity always carries some risk that the terms of the lease
will not be met, but we do not believe that there is any greater risk
in this case than anywhere else.
There would be several benefits to Virgin Islands National Park of
converting the current arrangement to a long-term lease:
The park would have the ability to ensure that the grounds
and buildings are maintained in a manner that is consistent
with national park preservation values, that the size and use
of the property is defined, and that the resort is operated
appropriately for its location in a national park;
The park would receive fair market value rental proceeds,
which could be used for visitor services and resource
protection at the park; and
The park would likely have as a tenant a resort operator
with sufficient financing for the business, including the
financial assistance of local tax incentives.
Question 3b. H.R. 714 proposes the establishment of a long-term
lease for a period not to exceed 40 years. Why is there no competitive
process for this long-term lease?
Answer. The authorization of a lease solely for the current
operator of the resort would require the operator, as condition of
receiving of receiving the lease, to terminate the retained use estate.
If other entities were able to compete for the lease, the operator
would not have the incentive to terminate the existing retained use
estate which expires by its terms in 2023.
As mentioned in our testimony, the Caneel Bay resort is an
exceptional case. In general, where leasing has been determined to be
appropriate in a national park unit, we support leasing through the
usual competitive process, consistent with existing law and
regulations.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Martin O'Malley, Governor, State of Maryland,
Annapolis, MD, on S. 227
Members of the Subcommittee, Maryland wholeheartedly supports the
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and Harriet Tubman Underground
Railroad National Historical Park Act under consideration by the
subcommittee today.
Harriet Tubman is a true American hero whose dedication and courage
will continue to inspire children and their families to stand up for
what they believe. The facilities in Maryland and New York and the
protected lands surrounding them will connect community members and
visitors to the rich legacy of Tubman's life, her selfless leadership
of the Underground Railroad, and her humanitarian efforts.
Upon completion, the Harriet Tubman Discovery Center planned in
Maryland will serve as a national model and destination for sustainable
and environmentally responsible building, and will provide a multi-
sensory experience for an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 annual visitors.
As a welcome and orientation point along the Harriet Tubman Underground
Railroad Byway and national heritage site associated with the life and
times of Harriett Tubman, it will also connect visitors with the vast
outdoor opportunities of the surrounding Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge.
The Discovery Center will also provide administrative headquarters
for the federally proposed Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historic Park. The center will be located on Harriet Tubman Underground
Railroad State Park - the first State Park in Dorchester County. The
State Park was created in 2007 on the 17.3-acre Linthicum tract, which
was acquired through a swap with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Approximately 192 construction jobs and several additional permanent
and auxiliary jobs will be created as a result of the construction and
operation of the Discovery Center and Park sites throughout Dorchester,
Caroline, and Talbot Counties.
The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park
will play a critical role in developing an authentic and sustainable
tourism experience in Dorchester, Caroline and Talbot counties in
Maryland. The center will memorialize the struggles and triumphs of a
truly remarkable woman, while the protected landscapes will allow
visitors to travel in the footsteps of her journey and hear history
interpreted through volunteers, and professionals from the National and
Maryland Park Services.
When open in 2012, the park and its facilities will be the
principal point of welcome and orientation for the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad Byway, a heritage corridor that incorporates the
seven key Maryland sites named in the National Park Service's Harriet
Tubman Special Resource Study. A great deal of work has been done to
identify the landscapes and places where Harriet Tubman traveled, and a
land conservation plan has been developed in anticipation of this Act's
passage, so that we can protect the remaining natural, historical and
cultural resources associated with her life's work.
The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park will serve as a
trailhead and major orientation and interpretation point along the
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway. The state park will
recognize and honor the Underground Railroad's foremost conductor and
Maryland native through interpretive exhibits and a memorial garden.
When completed, the new facility will fill a critical void in
recognizing her life, legacy, and her significant impact on national
history, as described in the National Park Service Harriet Tubman
Special Resource Study.
Funding for various project components is being sought from
different sources. This is truly a partnership between Federal, State
and local organizations. The State has already secured $2.2 million for
the Tubman Discovery Center design which is under way. Maryland has
approved $4.4 million toward construction of the facility and will ask
for approval in the next budget cycle for an additional $3.6 million
toward construction. The State of Maryland also expended $258,000 on
acquiring the land for the Discovery Center and will also use Program
Open Space dollars to help conserve land identified in the conservation
plan. The entire project is estimated to cost $21.4 million when
completed. The project has had a great deal of opportunity for public
comment and input. The State convened a working group comprised of
local citizens and representatives of state, local and federal
agencies. This group continues to guide and shape the project until
completion.
This project is nationally significant because it will provide the
best overall opportunity for residents and visitors to learn about
Harriet Tubman and her homeland as she grew from infant to woman,
enslaved to free, ordinary to extraordinary. The recent Special
Resource Study, commissioned by Congress in 2000 and completed by NPS
in 2008, determined that ``the resources related to Harriet Tubman in
Dorchester, Caroline, and Talbot counties, Maryland, are nationally
significant.because they have been found to meet National Historic
Landmark criteria.'' Furthermore, ``these resources have also been
found to meet the four criteria necessary for national significance for
potential new areas of the National Park System'' warranting the
establishment of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park in these three counties.
As a new unit of the Maryland and National Park Services, the Park
will support significant socioeconomic benefits to citizens through the
economic impact from heritage tourism and local employment.
Additionally, it offers superlative opportunities for enjoyment and
education, and opportunities for 75,000 annual domestic and
international visitors to understand the impact and meaning of slavery
in our nation and of one person who overcame the obstacles of this
pervasive and oppressive institution.
Maryland is pleased to have been in contact with our counterparts
in Auburn, New York to share our plans and to mutually support their
efforts for National Park Service designation as the Special Resource
Study recommended. We believe the story is best told if it includes the
beginning of Harriet Tubman's life in Maryland and where her journey
ultimately ended in New York.
Harriet Tubman is truly an American hero, and we sincerely
appreciate your support for this important Act which appropriately
prescribes actions to honor her remarkable life in both Maryland and
New York.
______
Statement of Craig Floyd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, on S. 1053
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement in support
of S.1053, a bill to amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to
extend the termination date.
The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is celebrating
its 25th year of working to increase public support for law enforcement
by honoring the men and women who wear the badge. For the past 18
years, we have carried out that mission primarily through the operation
and maintenance of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial,
located in Judiciary Square in Washington, DC. It is our nation's
monument to law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate
sacrifice in service to our communities and our nation.
Engraved on the Memorial's walls are the names of 18,661 heroic men
and women who, throughout our nation's history, risked their lives for
the safety and protection of others. Unlike many other memorials here
in our nation's capital, our monument is not static. Each May during
National Police Week, we have the somber responsibility of adding more
names of fallen heroes to our Memorial.
More recently, our organization has embarked on a new, and equally
ambitious, endeavor--to create the first-ever National Law Enforcement
Museum here in Washington, DC. The mission of the Museum is to tell the
rich and fascinating story of law enforcement in America and its role
in our free and democratic society.
In the year 2000, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed,
Public Law 106-492 authorizing the Memorial Fund to build the Museum on
Federal land in Judiciary Square, directly across E Street, NW, from
the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The legislation
mandated that construction commence by November 9, 2010.
In the ensuing years, we have worked diligently to put in place all
of the necessary pieces, as well as to satisfy all of the statutory
mandates, to make the vision of this museum a reality.
To date, our organization has expended more than $13 Million to
design the building and exhibits, as well as to obtain all of the
statutorily mandated Federal approvals. The design of the building was
completed, and both construction and financial documents were submitted
to the Department of Interior for approval, as mandated by the
legislation. Both the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and the National
Capital Planning Commission have approved the final design of the
project, also mandated by the legislation; and Clark Construction was
selected as the general contractor. Design drawings to relocate
utilities under E Street were completed and approved by the National
Park Service, with Congress appropriating $1.25 million in funding
toward this work.
On the financial side of the project, we have also made great
progress. To date, almost $40 Million in private funds has been raised
toward our capital campaign goal of $80 Million. This money has been
contributed by individual, corporate, foundation, and law enforcement
donors. The District of Columbia Government approved the issuance of
$80 Million in Industrial Revenue Bonds, and Merrill Lynch issued a
commitment to underwrite these bonds. More recently, the DC Council
passed legislation providing the project with a sales and use tax
credit of $10 Million during the first 20 years of operation.
Design of the exhibits has been completed and a fabricator selected
to construct them. We have collected more than 8,000 artifacts thus
far, and have executed loan agreements for artifacts with many Federal
agencies, including the FBI, ATF and Secret Service. In addition, the
Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI has named our Museum as its
official repository of its oral history project.
The various, sometimes complex elements of the project were coming
together nicely. The Memorial Fund was prepared to begin construction
in the fall of 2009, more than one year before the statutory
authorization expired. Then, the worst financial crisis in decades hit
our nation. As with other nonprofit organizations, our fundraising
slowed in the current economic environment. However, even more
significantly, Merrill Lynch's commitment to underwrite our bonds was
no longer operative, and bond market funding has been, and continues to
be, essentially frozen.
The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund has satisfied,
or was in a very strong position to satisfy, every statutory mandate
associated with the Museum project, and we were prepared to commence
construction in a timely fashion. However, because of external factors
beyond our control--most notably, the extremely tight credit market for
bonds--we may not be able to meet the statutory deadline of November
10, 2010, to begin construction.
We continue to work diligently and energetically in an effort to
get shovels in the ground in advance of that date. But at the same
time, we have to be realistic about the bond market and how long it may
take for credit to become more accessible and affordable for this
project. Adjusting the statutory deadline for commencing construction
would give us the flexibility to keep the project moving forward in a
manner that is prudent to our donors and supporters.
It is well past the time for our nation to have a Congressionally
authorized, world-class museum dedicated to telling the story of law
enforcement in America. The National Law Enforcement Museum will be
just such a facility - one that will fascinate, educate and inspire our
citizens, in particular our young people. By helping the public better
understand and appreciate the work of law enforcement, the Museum will
serve to build the bridges of trust and cooperation that are so
essential to the safety of our communities and the long-term strength
of our democracy. This Museum needs to be built.
Therefore, we respectfully urge that you support S.1053 and give us
the flexibility to complete this important Congressionally authorized
project as a fitting monument to our nation's law enforcement heroes.
Thank you for your continued support of the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and, especially, the 900,000
dedicated men and women of American law enforcement who put their lives
on the line every day for the safety and protection of all of us and
our families. It is for these heroes that the Memorial Fund has worked
so hard over the past quarter century to create the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial and, now, to build the National Law
Enforcement Museum.
______
National Parks Conservation Association,
National Headquarters,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of our 340,000 members, I'm writing to
express our strong support for the passage of S. 227, a bill
establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, New
York, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical
Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties in Maryland. Harriet
Tubman is one of the most widely recognized icons in America history,
but myth and misinformation have obscured the true significance of her
contributions to this country. The sites created by S. 227 would
provide the public with a much clearer understanding of two critical
but poorly understood periods in Mrs. Tubman's life and place the
responsibility for preserving and interpreting that history in the
hands of the National Park Service, the one Federal agency with the
expertise, partnership framework, and commitment to reestablish Harriet
Tubman's relevance to current generations.
Harriet Tubman once said ``Slavery is the next thing to hell.''
Having experienced firsthand the violence and degradation that was the
lot of the enslaved, she devoted her life to freeing family members,
friends, and strangers, service that she rendered at great personal
risk. Naturally, history has focused on her role as a conductor on the
Underground Railroad. Harriet Tubman's life, however, encompassed so
much more than a fearless resistance to slavery and injustice.
Harriet Tubman was a sister, a wife, and a mother. She capably
served the Union Army during the Civil War as a both nurse and spy. As
an elder in Auburn, New York, Mrs. Tubman suffered through great
personal hardships, aided the less fortunate, and fought for gender and
racial equality and justice under the law. During a time when the
leadership of women was questioned or dismissed, Mrs. Tubman led.
During a period when the new birth of freedom for four million enslaved
African Americans was dashed on the failure of Reconstruction, Mrs.
Tubman inspired others with her faith and perseverance. The
resurrection of such a powerful story is in the vested interest of all
Americans.
We urge due consideration and timely passage of S. 227 and pledge
to provide whatever assistance may be required to pass this bill.
Sincerely,
Alan Spears,
Legislative Representative.
______
Civil War Preservation Trust,
July 13, 2009.
Hon. Mark Udall,
U.S. Senate, 317 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall: I am writing on behalf of the Civil War
Preservation Trust (CWPT), a national nonprofit battlefield
preservation organization, to express our concerns regarding the
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act (S. 1168
in the Senate, H.R. 1694 in the House).
I would first like to express that we unequivocally support the
creation of a program to preserve battlefield lands associated with the
Revolutionary War and War of 1812. In fact, our organization has worked
in support of legislation to create such a program and we applaud
Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Rush Holt for their leadership
in introducing these bills. Such a program is long overdue.
That being said, we have serious concerns regarding the way the
bills have been written, specifically the clause to amend the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act (P.L 111-11) to add the Revolutionary War
and War of 1812 grant program under the same $10 million authorization
as the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program.
Including both programs under the same authorization will
jeopardize the success of both programs. The Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program, while authorized at $10 million, has received on
average an appropriation of $3.4 million per year since the program's
authorization in 2002. To have both programs, covering three
significant conflicts in American history, competing for this same
relatively small amount of money is a disservice to these programs.
The high cost of raw land means many acquisitions reach into the
hundred of thousands--often millions--of dollars. As a result, if both
programs are competing for the same small pot of money--with land
prices remaining incredibly high even in these economic times,
especially in the Northeast where most Revolutionary War battles were
fought--fewer sites will be able to be preserved from any of the three
wars. This will mean that instead of having the entire or a majority of
a battlefield preserved as outdoor classrooms for visitors, only small
portions of battlefields will be preserved. This makes the task of
interpreting a battle and making it accessible to the public that much
harder. A visitor's contemplative, educational experience at a
battlefield is contingent on the preservation of a large portion of the
battlefield and a relatively unobstructed view of the land, thus giving
the visitor a sense of how the landscape would have looked during the
battle.
We are in a race against time to preserve these battlefield lands.
Most battlefields--Civil War, Revolutionary War and War of 1812
included--are located in areas where development is quickly encroaching
and raw land prices are continuing to rise, or at least hold steady at
high prices. We estimate that by the National Park Service Centennial
in 2016, most Civil War battlefield lands will either be preserved or
paved over. Estimates regarding the loss of Revolutionary War and War
of 1812 battlefield lands make clear that they are disappearing rapidly
as well.
We believe the best resolution to this issue is for the individual
programs to have separate $10 million authorizations, but keeping both
grant programs administered by ABET. Separate authorizations will allow
the programs to have their own line items within the budget and not
compete for the same pot of money. This was the original intent when
legislation was first introduced by Congressman Holt creating a
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 grant program. If for some reason
this is not considered a viable solution, and both programs are to
remain under the same authorization, the authorized amount for the
programs should be increased to $20 million with their annual
appropriations at least doubled over current levels. Anything short of
this will jeopardize the successful record of the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program, and severely hinder the progress of a new
Revolutionary War/War of 1812 Preservation Program.
I want to reiterate that we believe that the best solution is for
the two programs to have separate authorizations.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working with
the National Parks Subcommittee, Senator Schumer and Congressman Holt
to resolve this issue and ensure the continued success of the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program as well as a successful start to the
creation of a Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection
Program. Please let me know if you or your staff has any questions.
Sincerely,
O. James Lighthizer,
President.