[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 546, H.R. 2457 and H.R. 2715
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
83-959 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 22, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Case, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Hawaii..................................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 546........................... 4
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands, Prepared statement on H.R. 546, H.R. 2457
and H.R. 2715.............................................. 6
Mica, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida................................................. 5
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 546, H.R. 2457 and H.R. 2715.. 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Adams, Dr. William R., Ph.D., Vice President, Colonial St.
Augustine Preservation Foundation, Inc., St. Augustine,
Florida.................................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 2457.......................... 9
Jarvis, Jon, Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Oakland,
California,................................................ 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 546........................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 2457.......................... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 2715.......................... 14
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 546, TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY OF THE KALOKO-
HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK IN THE STATE OF HAWAII, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 2457, TO AUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR AN EDUCATIONAL CENTER
FOR THE CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2715, TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO
FACILITIES AT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Radanovich, Kildee, and Grijalva.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands is called to order.
This is a hearing on H.R. 546, H.R. 2457 and H.R. 2715.
Our first bill, H.R. 546, introduced by Congressman Ed Case
of Hawaii, would revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historic Park in the State of Hawaii.
Our second bill, H.R. 2457, introduced by Congressman John
Mica of Florida, would authorize funds for an educational
center for the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.
Our last bill, H.R. 2715, which I introduced, provides
necessary improvements for the facilities at Yosemite National
Park.
Mr. Radanovich. Specifically, my bill, among other things,
would direct the Secretary of Interior to restore the campsites
at Upper and Lower River campgrounds, construct the maximum
number of parking spaces in and around Camp 6 and prohibit the
implementation of an out-of-Valley shuttle using remote parking
facilities.
While I introduced H.R. 2715 for a number of reasons, my
primary reason is to have the Service restore the number of
campsites that existed in Yosemite Valley prior to the 1997
Merced River flood. At the Subcommittee's April 22 field
hearing, the Service told me that they are prohibited from
administratively amending the December, 2000, Yosemite Valley
plan to adjust the campground numbers. I would like to fix this
problem legislatively.
In addition, my bill would direct the Secretary to remove
the LeConte Memorial from the park. I believe the LeConte
Memorial Lodge, which is operated by the Sierra Club, is
inconsistent with the Club's stated opposition to restoring
Upper and Lower River campgrounds and to minimize the human
footprint in the Valley. Private use permits such as that
permit for the LeConte Memorial Lodge are not as important as
public use as park resources such as low-impact camping. If the
Sierra Club is serious about reducing the human impact in
Yosemite Valley, the Lodge should be removed and that portion
of the Valley restored to its natural condition. Any other
position is nothing short of hypocritical.
Mrs. Christensen, I understand will not be here, I would
ask unanimous consent that Mr. Case and Mr. Mica be permitted
to sit on the dais following these statements. Without any
objection--I don't see any objection here, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 546, H.R. 2457,
and H.R. 2715
Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands will receive testimony on three bills--H.R. 546, H.R. 2457
and H.R. 2715.
Our first bill, H.R. 546, introduced by Congressman Ed Case of
Hawaii, revises the boundary of the Kaloko Historical Park in the State
of Hawaii.
Our second bill, H.R. 2457, introduced by Congressman John Mica of
Florida, would authorize funds for an educational center for the
Castillo (Cos-tee-yo) de San Marcos National Monument.
Our last bill, H.R. 2715, which I introduced, would provide for
necessary improvements to facilities at Yosemite National Park.
Specifically, my bill would, among other things, direct the Secretary
of the Interior to restore the camp sites at the Upper and Lower River
campgrounds, construct the maximum number of parking spaces in and
around Camp 6, and prohibit the implementation of an out-of-valley
shuttle system using remote parking facilities. While I introduced H.R.
2715 for a number of reasons, my primary reason is to have the Service
restore the number of campsites that existed in Yosemite Valley prior
to the 1997 Merced River Flood. At the Subcommittee's April 22 field
hearing, the Service told me that they are prohibited from
administratively amending their December 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan to
adjust the campground numbers. I would like to fix this problem
legislatively.
In addition, my bill would direct the Secretary to remove the
LeConte Memorial from the Park. I believe the LeConte Memorial Lodge,
which is operated by the Sierra Club, is inconsistent with the Club's
stated opposition to restoring Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, and
to minimizing the human footprint in the Valley. Certainly private use
permits, such as the permit for the LeConte Memorial Lodge, are not as
important as public uses of park resources, such as low impact camping.
If the Sierra Club is serious about reducing human impact in the
Valley, the Lodge should be removed and that portion of the Valley
restored to its natural condition. Any other position is nothing short
of hypocritical.
Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Case and Mr. Mica be permitted to sit on the
dais following their statements. Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen for any opening
statement she may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I will now then go ahead and turn to our
first panel of witnesses; and I want to welcome the Honorable
Ed Case, Representative from Hawaii, to the Committee.
Mr. Case, welcome. You are here to speak on your bill, H.R.
546. I apologize for maybe butchering the names that were
included in there, and maybe you can set me straight on the
proper pronunciation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Mr. Case. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would be happy
to give private lessons later on. First of all, it is ``Kaloko-
Honokohau.''
I thank you very much for considering H.R. 546, which is to
authorize expansion of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic
Park by two acres. You have my written testimony, Mr. Chair;
and I would ask the Committee's consent to simply insert that
into the record, if that is permissible.
Mr. Radanovich. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Case. I have reviewed the supportive written testimony
of the National Park Service, and am very much supportive in
endorsing that.
So what I would like to do with my time, Mr. Chair, is to
give you the big picture of where this bill fits into efforts
to protect the incredibly valuable and unique natural, scenic,
recreational and historic resources of my Hawaii. And these are
rich resources indeed. They range everywhere in incredible
numbers, in fact, from the highest numbers in our country of
endangered plants and species; to incredibly unique national
and scenic resources from active volcanoes to fantastic
coastlines and seashores, and then finally the historic
physical remains of a rich, prosperous and advanced indigenous
culture well over a thousand years old. All of these are not
only State but national and international treasures, and all of
them are endangered or threatened for one reason or another.
On the West Coast of the Island of Hawaii, where Kaloko-
Honokohau is located, the major threat is development: rapid
development, urban development, not particularly smart growth
on the Kona Coast. We have seen most of the rapid and spread-
out growth in all of Hawaii over the past decade. This
Committee and this Congress together with the National Park
Service have recognized all of this over a period of decades
through many actions throughout Hawaii for which I am most
grateful.
On the Big Island of Hawaii alone, on the West Coast, the
Kona Coast, some of those efforts have been: the designation of
Puuhonua o Honaunau National Historic Park, the so-called City
of Refuge, a deeply significant site of ancient Hawaiian
culture; Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site, which is the
great war temple of Kamehameha I; the Ala Kahakai National
Historic Trail, which is the ancient road, the ancient way
around the entire Island of Hawaii; and then, finally, just a
few weeks ago, the huge expansion of really the crown jewel,
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, with the addition of Kahuku
Ranch.
Now Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is an
integral part of this overall effort to protect the natural,
scenic and cultural resources of the Island of Hawaii. It
really has everything that we are talking about here. It has
incredibly significant ancient ruins, ranging from an ancient
fish pond to house sites. It has endangered plants. It has a
major portion of the Ala Kahakai ancient trail that runs
through it. So this site is an incredibly valuable component of
our overall national, international and State efforts to
protect the scenic and natural resources of my State.
This site has done very well but lacks one thing, and that
is adequate administration and parking facilities. The
particular bill in front of this Committee would take a 2.1
acre site immediately adjacent to the current park with a
building that is already in existence on it and really turn
that into parking and administration for the site. It is a
fantastic siting and fantastic addition to the park. I was just
there about a week-and-a-half ago and did my own site
inspection. I overflew the park, and it is really everything
that we are expecting it to be.
The National Park Service is supportive not only because it
needs these facilities at this particular park, but because
what it hopes to do in addition is to run its administrative
efforts for all of West Hawaii out of this particular site,
ranging from Puukohola, which is up to the north, and on down
to Puuhonua o Honaunau in the south. So this is really a very
important effort that I urge this Committee's support for and
appreciate this Committee's anticipated support.
I would be happy to answer any questions; and I look
forward, once we get this one over with, to a number of other
efforts that I would love to bring to the Committee's attention
having to do with other sites in Hawaii. As always, I offer the
benefit of an in-depth site visit should the Committee deem it
appropriate. We can certainly show you what we are all about.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Case. Appreciate
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Case follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ed Case, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Hawaii, on H.R. 546
Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Aloha! Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to testify in
support of my bill to authorize expansion of the Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park, located on the Kona Coast of the Island of
Hawaii. This bill is identical to Senator Daniel Akaka's bill S. 254,
which passed the Senate on March 4, 2003, and was referred to this
Subcommittee.
H.R. 546 and S. 254 authorize expansion of the park boundaries to
allow the National Park Service to purchase a 2.14-acre parcel with an
existing building to serve as a park headquarters. The park has been
without a permanent headquarters since its establishment in 1978, and
is now renting space some distance from the park.
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park was created for the
national preservation, protection and interpretation of traditional
native Hawaiian activities and culture. This 1,160-acre park is
remarkable not only for its cultural and historical attributes, but as
an incredibly beautiful, unspoiled natural treasure. The park is the
site of an ancient Hawaiian settlement, which encompasses portions of
four different ahupua'a, or traditional sea-to-mountain land divisions.
Its resources include ancient fishponds, kahua (house site platforms),
ki'i pohaku (petroglyphs), a holua (stone slide), and heiau (religious
sites). The park is of tremendous significance to the people of Hawaii,
and especially to indigenous Native Hawaiians.
The National Park Service is currently renting space for its
headquarters at a cost of $150,000 a year. The current headquarters
only has parking for three to four visitors at a time, which is
woefully inadequate to accommodate the growing number of visitors to
the park. Visitors increased from 54,000 in 2001 to 70,000 in 2002. The
proposed acquisition has plenty of parking for visitors and park
vehicles. And the existing building has more than adequate space for
the park's administrative needs and interpretive mission. The already-
developed parcel has the additional benefit of being right next to the
park; therefore, the fragile resources within the current park
boundaries will not be adversely affected.
I strongly encourage the Subcommittee members to come to my
birthplace, the Big Island of Hawaii, to visit this remarkable park,
and I thank you for considering this legislation.
______
Mr. Radanovich. As you know, we have had a vote call here;
and I think what we are going to try to do is hear from our
first panel, take a break and vote, and then come back and hear
the testimony from panel 2.
So joining us now is the Honorable John Mica, who is
representing the Seventh District of Florida, here to speak on
H.R. 2457.
John, welcome to the Committee; and as soon as you are
done, we will all go vote.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Mica. I will try to be brief so we don't miss the vote.
I appreciate your hearing my legislation, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee. H.R. 2457 is legislation that would
authorize basically Federal participation in what I consider a
very unique partnership to one of our national treasures,
Castillo de San Marcos.
I think some of you may be familiar with this site, which
is now run by the National Park Service. You can see the
Castillo here and on existing Federal park property the
Department of Interior and National Park Service, and it served
us well for some 400 years. It is probably the most historic
fort that we have in the United States, certainly one of the
most complete and earliest documented national treasures, as I
said.
It is very difficult to reconfigure that type of facility
to today's demand on tourism, and we have millions of tourists
for a small community of some 12,000 who visit St. Augustine,
who visit there. It is also difficult to keep up with things
like our requirements for citizens with disability. It is
difficult to also put some of the national treasures, archival
records and other things that are so important to a fully
educational experience on display, given the parameters of a
castle and fortress of this age.
And the States recognize this. The City of St. Augustine
has recognized this. A unique partnership, Colonial St.
Augustine Preservation Foundation, a private sector group has
come together; and, right now, across the street, in some of
the areas--and you will have to excuse me, I am a bit color
blind. But the blue area that is being pointed out here, the
State of Florida owns; and the purple area, the City of St.
Augustine owns; and then we have some commercial areas, too,
that--what color is that--the yellow ones that we are looking
to acquire. This would--this is also on a very historic street,
area of the colonial St. Augustine area. But what we are
looking at doing is creating a visitor center and taking out
some of the tacky development and complete the experience for
the visitor and put some basic accommodations and historical
display that can only be accommodated by a new structure. So
that is the plan.
I want to stress again it is a unique approach. It would
have a partnership, again, the private sector, the State of
Florida, the City of St. Augustine joining together and
eventually have this turned over to the National Park Service.
We believe we can also, as part of that plan, eliminate any
of the future costs. This is not a new idea, Mr. Chairman.
Since 1977, it has been part of a proposed master plan but
never all of these things come together to allow us to develop
this. So we would encourage your authorization.
We are looking at about half of the $8.2 million project to
be funded by the Federal Government; about $4 million, the
balance, to be contributed by State, City and the private
foundation.
You will hear in a few minutes after this vote from Dr.
Bill Adams, who is Vice President of the Foundation; and he
will explain their unique role and also moving this project
forward at I think very little cost to the taxpayers but great
benefit to the future.
So, with that, I urge your support. I would like to see
this authorized sooner rather than later and be glad to answer
questions maybe when we come back.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, John. I appreciate that as well as
testimony from you, Mr. Case. Thank you for coming before the
Subcommittee. If you will join us after the vote, we will have
the second panel and address both of your bills.
We are in recess to go vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Radanovich. The Committee is back in session.
We are going to introduce our second panel, but before we
do that, I want to recognize Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit
the statement of the Ranking Member, Donna Christensen, into
the record.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered. Thank
you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Donna Christensen, a Delegate in Congress
from the Virgin Islands, on H.R. 546, H.R. 2457 and H.R. 2715
Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee is meeting to receive
testimony on three unrelated bills.
Our first bill, H.R. 546, sponsored by our colleague Ed Case, would
expand the boundary of the ``KA-lo-ko hon-o-ko-HOW'' National
Historical Park on the western shore of the Island of Hawaii.
It is our understanding that the National Park Service currently
rents space in a building near the Park for use as a visitor's center
and administrative offices. Apparently, there is a much larger space
for sale nearby.
This legislation will alter the boundary of the Park to include
this building so that the Park Service might acquire the new space for
Park use. We look forward to hearing about the Park and about the need
for this expansion and acquisition.
Our second measure is H.R. 2457, sponsored by Representative Mica.
Like the Park in Hawaii, the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
in Florida has no visitor's center. To remedy this, H.R. 2457 would
authorize a total of $4 million in grants to the City of St. Augustine,
Florida and the Colonial St. Augustine Preservation Foundation for the
design and construction of a visitor's center for the Monument. The
legislation would require that the City and the Foundation provide a 50
percent match for these grants and enter into a cooperative agreement
with the National Park Service.
This approach to providing visitor facilities for a unit of the
National Park System is unusual and raises several concerns. In
particular, it is our understanding that the National Park Service is
in the process of preparing a new general management plan for the
Monument and authorization of a new visitor's facility may be premature
if it takes place before completion of the new plan. We look forward to
input on this issue from our witnesses.
Our last bill, H.R. 2715, which you introduced just last week,
would make significant changes to the approved plans for the
preservation and use of Yosemite National Park.
Mr. Chairman I certainly appreciated having the opportunity this
Spring to travel to Yosemite National Park and participate with you in
the Subcommittee's field hearing in Yosemite Valley.
The Yosemite Valley Plan is a far-reaching document that was
developed over a long period of time with considerable public input. As
NPS Director Mainella noted, public input has not ended with completion
of the plan. Our field hearing showed there is significant ongoing
local and national interest in the preservation and use of Yosemite
National Park.
Against that backdrop it should come as no surprise that the
introduction of H.R. 2715 has generated significant interest and
concern with the legislation from numerous individuals and
organizations. Many of the provisions of the bill run directly counter
to the Yosemite Valley Plan. As such, the Subcommittee will need to
carefully consider the changes being proposed and their impact on the
preservation and use of Yosemite National Park.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses and
colleagues who are present with us and look forward to learning more
about the matters we are considering today.
______
Mr. Radanovich. With that I would like to introduce Mr. Jon
Jarvis, who is the Regional Director of the Pacific West Region
of the National Park Service, here to speak on all three bills,
actually, H.R. 546, 2457 and 2715; and then Dr. William R.
Adams, who is the Vice President of Colonial St. Augustine,
Florida, here to speak on H.R. 2457. Mr. Adams, welcome.
Each of you have about 5 minutes, and we will go through
both of the testimonies. Mr. Mica, you are more than welcome to
join us on the dais.
Mr. Mica. I will stay down here with my folks. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. I did introduce Mr. Adams, and he is ready
to begin his testimony. Mr. Adams, welcome.
Again, if you follow the 5-minute timers, limit it to 5
minutes, we would appreciate it. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. ADAMS, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, COLONIAL
ST. AUGUSTINE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA
(H.R. 2457)
Mr. Adams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
appearing before the Subcommittee on behalf of the Colonial St.
Augustine Preservation Foundation, a not-for-profit
organization whose purpose is to engage in and encourage public
and private participation in preserving, restoring and
reconstructing the historic colonial resources within the City
of St. Augustine that embody that city's significant place in
American history. I am also the director of the City of St.
Augustine's Department of Heritage Tourism, which administers
St. Augustine's visitor services program and manages a museum
that interprets the city's colonial history.
I am here today to urge the Subcommittee to act favorably
upon House bill 2457, which authorizes funds to develop an
educational center for the Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument located in St. Augustine.
In concert with the City of St. Augustine, the Foundation
has identified the development of the proposed educational and
orientation center for the Castillo as a first priority in the
restoration of the colonial resources of the City.
The visitor to the Castillo de San Marcos enters totally
unprepared, leaving all but the very well educated unable
either to understand its place in history or to fully enjoy the
experience. The lessons about the past that this historic site,
like any other great piece of history, ought to impart are, I
strongly suspect, lost upon most. Few historic sites managed by
the National Park Service or, for that matter, any State or
local agency that administers them labor under such a
disadvantage. No illustrations, no film, no lectures of any
kind prepare the visitor.
Especially disadvantaged are the schoolchildren, some
75,000 of whom arrive annually on sponsored visits, and the
disabled, who cannot gain access to the terreplain or upper
level of the Castillo because its features prohibit
construction or access ways to them.
The Castillo itself and the grounds surrounding it contain
no space upon which to erect a center for orienting visitors.
For that matter, the City and the Foundation selected--for that
purpose, the City and the Foundation selected two obvious,
well-situated and privately owned parcels adjacent to both the
Castillo and the interpretive museum that is administered by
the City. The City has already purchased one of those sites.
The Foundation has secured from the owner of another an
agreement for sale. The City has also undertaken to secure the
cooperation of the State of Florida, the owner of the
surrounding lots, in this project.
This effort to develop a visitors center for the Castillo
is, accordingly, a partnership in every sense, for it will
involve Federal, State and municipal governments along with the
private sector, represented by the Foundation and the people
who contribute to it. All will share in the cost of the
center's development. The State of Florida and the City will
contribute land to the project. The Foundation and the Federal
Government will contribute the moneys for its construction. The
City will bear the cost of managing the facility in future
years, a not inconsiderable sum given the many millions of
people who will enter in that time. The National Park Service
will contribute only staffing to conduct visitor orientation.
The siting and construction of the center will also
contribute to the continuing restoration program through the
removal of intrusive buildings and the replacement by buildings
that in scale and appearance harmonize with the adjacent
presidio museum.
The opportunity and the participants for this important
project are in place at this time. We are thankful to the
Congressman for introducing this measure, and we urge your
support. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
Statement of William R. Adams, Ph.D., Vice President,
Colonial St. Augustine Preservation Foundation, Inc., on H.R. 2457
My name is William R. Adams. I am appearing before the Subcommittee
on behalf of the Colonial St. Augustine Preservation Foundation, Inc.,
a not-for-profit organization whose purpose is to engage in and
encourage public and private participation in preserving, restoring,
and reconstructing the historic colonial resources within the City of
St. Augustine that embody that city's significant place in American
history. I am also the director of the City of St. Augustine's
Department of Heritage Tourism, which administers St. Augustine's
visitor services program and manages a museum that interprets the
city's colonial history.
The reason for my testimony today is to urge the Subcommittee to
act favorably upon H.R. 2457, which authorizes funds to develop an
educational center for the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,
located in St. Augustine. Before addressing the specifics of the
proposed educational and orientation center, I would like to provide
some historical background that might explain the need for the
facility.
The significance of St. Augustine to the history of the United
States is manifest. Its historical resources incomparably testify to
the contributions of Spain and Spanish-speaking people to the
historical and cultural development of the United States. For over two
centuries, St. Augustine served as the capital of the Spanish empire in
this part of the continent and for most of that time constituted
virtually the only population center in the vast southern region
stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi River. The
enormity of St. Augustine's contributions to the architectural and
cultural heritage of America can hardly be weighed.
Throughout the last century and a half of St. Augustine's 256-years
long colonial era, the Castillo de San Marcos was the northern-most
military outpost within Spain's enormous New World empire. It is the
oldest masonry fort and the best preserved example of Spanish colonial
fortification in the continental United States. Begun in 1672 and
substantially completed by 1695, the Castillo subsequently enabled the
Spanish to withstand two attempts by the English to drive them from St.
Augustine and Florida.
The War Department assumed control of the Castillo in 1821 when the
United States took possession of Spain's Florida colonies. The
venerable fortress was transferred to the National Park Service in
1936. Since that time, it has been the central historical attraction
within St. Augustine, with an average annual visitation of more than a
half million.
The Foundation that I represent here today has picked up the reins
of a seven-decade long program to restore the northern section of the
colonial presidio of St. Augustine, adjacent to the Castillo. That
Restoration program, initiated in 1936 upon the recommendation of a
national committee of citizens, public officials and scholars, was
originally directed by a former chief historian and acting director of
the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings for the National Park
Service, Dr. Verne Chatelain.
From 1959 to 1997, the State of Florida administered the
Restoration program. Upon the state's withdrawal, the City of St.
Augustine, numbering only some 12,000 inhabitants, took responsibility
for carrying on a project that is of inestimable importance to the
interpretation of American colonial history. The Colonial St. Augustine
Preservation Foundation was formed to mobilize the support of private
citizens to assist the City in preserving and interpreting for its
visitors St. Augustine's colonial legacy. In concert with the City of
St. Augustine, the Foundation has identified the development of the
proposed educational and orientation center for the Castillo as a first
priority.
The visitor to the Castillo de San Marcos enters the site coldly
unprepared, leaving all but the very well educated unable either to
understand its place in history or fully enjoy the experience. The
lessons about the past that this historic site, like any other great
piece of history, ought to impart are, I strongly suspect, lost upon
most. Few historic sites managed by the National Park Service or, for
that matter, any state and local agencies that administer them, labor
under such a disadvantage. No illustrations, no film, no lectures of
any kind prepare the visitor.
Especially disadvantaged by the lack of an orientation center are
school children, some 75,000 of whom arrive annually on sponsored
visits; and the disabled, who cannot gain access to the terreplain or
upper level of the Castillo because its features prohibit construction
of access-ways for them.
The Castillo itself and the grounds surrounding it contain no space
upon which to erect a center for orienting visitors. For that purpose,
the City and the Foundation selected two obvious, well situated and
privately owned parcels adjacent to both the Castillo and the
interpretive museum that is administered by the City. The City has
already purchased one of those sites. The Foundation has secured from
the owner of another an agreement for sale. The City has also
undertaken to secure the cooperation of the State of Florida, the owner
of the surrounding lots, in this project.
This effort to develop a visitor's center for the Castillo is
accordingly a partnership in every sense, for it will involve Federal,
state and municipal governments along with the private sector,
represented by the Foundation and the people who contribute to it. All
will share in the cost of the center's development. The State of
Florida and the City of St. Augustine will contribute land to the
project; the Foundation and the Federal Government will contribute the
monies for its construction. The City will bear the cost of managing
the facility in future years, a not inconsiderable sum given the many
millions of people who will enter in that time. The National Park
Service will contribute staffing to conduct visitor orientation.
The siting and construction of the center will also contribute to
the continuing Restoration program through the removal of intrusive
buildings and their replacement by buildings that in scale and
appearance harmonize with the adjacent presidio museum. Our foundation
is committed to this project and we respectfully urge your support.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Jarvis, I know you have got 5 minutes
to talk about three bills, and we just got another vote call.
Why don't you take some time to explain these bills, and then
we will break. We still have about another 10 minutes. If you
would like to begin.
STATEMENT OF JON JARVIS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST
REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA (H.R. 546,
H.R. 2457 AND H.R. 2715)
Mr. Jarvis. I will go through them very quickly then.
First, I will speak to the Kaloko-Honokohau bill.
By the way, I am Jon Jarvis, Regional Director of the
Pacific West Region. We have submitted our testimony for the
record and thank you for the opportunity.
The first bill, H.R. 546, the boundary adjustment to
Kaloko-Honokohau, would add two parcels. We support that. The
Department supports that bill. It will save the National Park
Service approximately $150,000 per year in lease costs that we
are currently paying.
This facility will serve four parks on the Island of
Hawaii. It is an existing building that is currently not being
used and will be an excellent facility both for the visitors,
administration and particularly for the collection and storage
of the cultural items for the native culture.
So, with that, that is all I have to say about that bill.
Mr. Radanovich. That is great.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
Statement of Jon Jarvis, Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 546
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 546, a bill to revise the boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park in the State of Hawaii.
The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 546, which is
virtually identical to S. 254 as passed by the Senate on March 3, 2003.
This legislation would adjust the boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park to include two adjacent parcels of land,
totaling 2.14 acres, to be used as the park headquarters to house
administrative, interpretive, resource management, and maintenance
functions. No appraisal has been done of these properties, but both
parcels and the building were assessed for a total of $2.0 million,
according to Hawaii County public records. Purchasing this property
would allow the National Park Service to relinquish its existing lease,
which costs $150,000 per year. Over the long term, this acquisition
would prove more cost-effective than continuing the lease, even when
adding in estimated annual maintenance costs of $24,000-$48,000.
Since 1988, the park has leased building space outside the park
boundary to carry out needed administrative, interpretive, resource
management and maintenance functions. These leased spaces have also
been providing the basic means of visitor contact for park information
and orientation. The amount of visitor parking available at this leased
facility is completely inadequate (limited to 3 to 4 spaces).
The two parcels are adjacent to the existing park boundary though
separated from the park by a state highway right-of-way. More then 90
percent of the land remains undeveloped and is large enough to
accommodate the storage of park vehicles and equipment as well as
visitor and staff parking. One of the parcels contains a 6,039 square-
foot, two-story concrete block building that would permit an easy and
inexpensive retrofit for use as the park headquarters. The building has
never been occupied and contains offices, restrooms, a reception lobby,
lab, storage areas, and a garage with roll-up trucking access doors and
a loading dock. The entire side of the building facing the park
consists of glass block walls from which sweeping panoramic views of
the park, including the ocean, can be seen. The building interior is
air conditioned and finished with floor tile and carpeting.
The location of the property between the Kona International Airport
and the City of Kailua-Kona would be highly accessible to visitors to
the Kona Coast and would be an invaluable asset for all of the National
Park Service units on the Island of Hawaii. It could support the co-
location of a number of management functions for Pu`uhonua o Honaunau
National Historical Park, Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Site, and
would also house the offices of the Ala Kahakai National Historic
Trail.
Established in 1978, the purpose of Kaloko-Honokohau National
Historical Park is to provide a site for the preservation,
interpretation and perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian culture
and activities, and to demonstrate historic land use patterns. An
important management goal at the park is to limit the development of
facilities within the park to those directly related to visitor
services. The acquisition of the properties that would be brought into
the boundary by H.R. 546 would allow for facilities related to park
operations, including administration, resource management and
maintenance, to be permanently sited in a location that would not
impact park values and resources. In that respect, the boundary
adjustment would be consistent with National Park Service Management
Policies that states ``the Service must avoid the construction of
buildings, roads, and other developments that will cause unacceptable
impacts on park resources and values.''
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks and I will be
happy to answer any questions you or other committee members might
have.
______
Mr. Jarvis. The second bill that I will speak to is H.R.
2457.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this
regarding the authorization of funds for an education center at
the Castillo de San Marcos in Florida.
The Department of Interior strongly supports the concept of
a partnership with the City and the Foundation. The need for a
visitors' center was identified in the draft management plan
which was prepared in 1977, and they identified not only the
need for a visitor center but also the opportunity to do it
jointly with partners.
I would mention that plan is 25 years old, and the park has
begun a new general management plan, just started this last
year. We have public meetings planned for this fall and a
public draft due out in the spring of 2004. This new GMP gives
us the opportunity to flesh out the details of a partnership
arrangement and how the National Park Service would most
effectively participate with the Foundation and the City of St.
Augustine; and, therefore, we would ask--the Department asks
that they defer on H.R. 2457 until we complete the GMP, which
would be next year, and also because of our emphasis this year
on eliminating the maintenance backlog in the National Park
System.
And that concludes my testimony on that bill. Shall I keep
rolling?
Mr. Radanovich. Absolutely.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
Statement of Jon Jarvis, Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2457
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department's views on H.R. 2457. This bill
would authorize funds for an educational center for the Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument.
The Department supports the concept of a cooperatively constructed
and operated educational center for the Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument (Monument) and the City of St. Augustine, Florida as outlined
in H.R. 2457. However, because the National Park Service (NPS) is in
the process of completing a General Management Plan (GMP) which will
include an examination of the long-identified need for a Visitor Center
at the Monument, we believe this legislation is premature and that the
GMP process should be finalized before moving such a proposal.
Additionally, in order to help us make further progress on the
President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog,
we recommend that the Subcommittee defer action on H.R. 2457 during the
108th Congress.
H.R. 2457 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
award grants to the City of St. Augustine and the Colonial St.
Augustine Preservation Foundation (Foundation) for land acquisition,
planning, design, and construction of an educational center for the
Monument and attractions located within the City. The grants will not
be awarded until the City and Foundation have secured contributions for
a dollar-for-dollar match of the grant. Prior to awarding a grant
authorized under this bill, the Secretary is directed to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the City and Foundation for the planning,
design, construction, operation and maintenance of the educational
center. This agreement will allow all the parties to determine--before
the new facility is built--what are the full life-cycle costs to
operate and maintain the center, and how these costs will be shared.
The Federal portion of the grants proposed by H.R. 2457 would be $2
million for land acquisition, design, and planning, and an additional
$2 million for construction. The Foundation has developed a conceptual
design, as well as preliminary cost estimates for the educational
center, which would be approximately 9,000 square feet in size and cost
approximately $3 million. If constructed, NPS operational costs are
expected to be minimal as one of the primary purposes of the
educational center would be to provide a sales outlet for joint tickets
to the Monument and City attractions. These ticket sales are expected
to generate enough additional revenue to cover all operational costs of
the educational center. If revenues from ticket sales do not cover all
operational and maintenance costs, then the cooperative agreement will
specify how the unfounded costs will be shared among NPS, the City, and
the Foundation.
The Castillo de San Marcos National Monument was originally
proclaimed as Fort Marion National Monument, under the jurisdiction of
the War Department, in 1924. The Monument was transferred to NPS in
1933 and renamed in 1942 and is located in St. Augustine, Florida, the
oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the Continental
United States. The Spanish, who controlled Florida for 225 years before
it became a United States territory, constructed the Castillo de San
Marcos, the oldest masonry fort in the Continental United States.
The Monument has never had a visitor center and has relied upon
exhibits within the fort to provide visitor orientation and information
even though it receives approximately 700,000 visitors each year. The
need for a jointly developed and operated visitor center for the
Monument and other local attractions was identified in the Monument's
1977 Draft Master Plan. Currently, the Monument is developing a General
Management Plan to replace this almost 30-year-old management document
and initial scoping for the plan has also identified the need for this
type of visitor center. In a public forum and process, the General
Management Plan will seek to confirm the purpose, function, and scope
of the proposed visitor center. Both of these plans encourage better
cooperation between the NPS and the agency that interprets the civilian
life of the Spanish soldier within the local community.
The educational center proposed in H.R. 2457 would serve the
Monument, where the military story of the Spanish soldier's life is
interpreted as well as the Colonial Spanish Quarter Museum operated by
the City, where the civilian life of the soldier is interpreted. The
City has operated the Spanish Quarter Museum since 1997 after being
operated by the State of Florida since the mid 1960s.
The overall project would consist of two phases with the first
phase consisting of land acquisition and facility planning and design
and the second phase being facility construction. The bill also could
allow the value of the land to be used as part of an in-kind match for
the City and Foundation's match of the Federal grant, if the land is
donated to the Secretary. Although our understanding is that the intent
is for the educational center to remain on City property and be City
owned, should this donation occur, legislation would be required to
expand the Monument's boundary around the proposed site of the
educational center, which is adjacent to, but outside of, the current
boundary.
That completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or any members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Jarvis. The third bill that I would like to testify to
today is H.R. 2715. Since we have limited time at this moment,
I will like to invite the Superintendent of Yosemite, Mike
Tollefson, to the table, but I would like to do that
afterwards.
Mr. Radanovich. If we can hear your testimony, Mr. Jarvis,
and then recess and come back and then Mr. Tollefson can join
you then for questions.
Mr. Jarvis. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's
support and leadership in this area of working with gateway
communities. We look forward to working with you not only in
this bill but also in future bills that relate to gateway
communities.
The Department strongly supports section 1 which would
allow the National Park Service to participate actively in the
future of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System, or
YARTS. This has been a goal since the 1980 general management
plan to participate in a regional transportation system. So we
do support that section.
We are concerned about one aspect of that, and that is the
identification of user fees as one funding source. We feel that
this has departmental, if not broader, implications for
recreation fees, and we suggest that discussions of how those
fees--recreation service wide if not departmental wide--be
addressed in the future on field legislation.
Section 2 regarding camping in the Upper and Lower Rivers,
these proposals are not consistent with the 1980 general
management plan, which has been modified by the Yosemite Valley
Plan and the Merced River Plan. These plans have had many years
of public comment and strike a balance between day use and
camping. However, we would like to work with you further on
this issue.
Section 2 also calls for authorization of specific benefits
to concession employees, and the Department does not believe
that it is appropriate for the Federal Government to provide
these kinds of subsidies to concession employees.
Section 2 also would prohibit the use of funds for remote
parking. We want to emphasize there are no plans to prohibit
private automobiles in the Valley at any time. All we are
trying to do is create transportation choices, and any remote
parking would be 10 or more years away. But, again, we would
like to work with you on those concerns.
Section 2 also calls for the removal of the LeConte
Memorial Lodge. The LeConte is one of four National Historic
Landmarks, including the Ahwahnee, the Parsons Lodge and the
Rangers Club; and the Department is opposed to removing this
structure. Again, though, we would be happy to work with you on
any concerns you have over its use.
And that concludes my testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Jarvis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
Statement of Jon Jarvis, Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2715
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2715, a bill to provide for
necessary improvements to facilities at Yosemite National Park.
The Department strongly supports enhancing partnerships and
increasing communication between gateway communities and Yosemite
National Park. These efforts are consistent with the Administration's
``new environmentalism,'' an initiative that will help build a
healthier environment, dynamic economies, and sustainable communities.
At the center of the Department's plan to implement this new
environmentalism are what Secretary Norton has termed the ``Four
C's''--Communication, Consultation, and Cooperation, all in the service
of Conservation. The Four C's recognize that both gateway communities
and Federal lands can benefit from creative partnerships.
Last Congress, the Department voiced strong support for improving
partnerships and enhancing cooperation with gateway communities that
border all Federal lands when we testified on H.R. 4622, the ``Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act of 2002''. We appreciate the Subcommittee's
leadership on this issue, and we look forward to continuing to work
with you on these efforts.
The Department strongly supports section 1 of H.R. 2715, with one
exception identified in later in this testimony. Section 1 would
authorize the use of donated funds, funds collected from user fees, or
appropriated funds to pay for construction of facilities outside the
boundaries of the park that serve Yosemite and its visitors. This
provision, which is similar to authority that has existed since 1996
for Zion National Park, would facilitate the development of the
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) by allowing the
National Park Service to help pay for the costs of YARTS facilities
outside the park.
The development of a regional transportation system for Yosemite
and its gateway communities as a means of providing transportation
choices to the park for visitors and employees has been a goal of the
Department since the adoption of the park's General Management Plan in
1980. In 1999, Mariposa, Merced, and Mono counties created a Joint
Powers Authority as an entity to implement YARTS and entered into a
cooperative agreement with Yosemite National Park. Now in its fourth
successful year, YARTS provides excellent service and connections to
broader transportation systems such as Amtrak. Visitor usage of YARTS
has increased by about 20 percent in each of the last two years.
Although ridership and revenues are increasing, in order to become
fully functional, YARTS is still in need of strong support to help it
expand and provide quality service. The authority provided by section 1
would allow the National Park Service to provide a financial
contribution to the expansion of YARTS.
While we support section 1, we are concerned about authorizing the
use of ``user fees,'' as one of the funding sources for activities
under this bill. We note that Chairman Pombo has committed to working
on the authorization of the recreation fee program and has expressed
support for using recreation fees to increase the enjoyment of the
recreational experience on Federal lands. Determining how recreation
fee money is spent to enhance visitor facilities and services is an
important element of the recreation fee program for all participating
agencies. While we recognize that creative and mutually-beneficial
opportunities exist to link gateway communities with the recreation fee
program, we suggest that the issue of whether activities authorized by
H.R. 2715 are an appropriate use for recreation fees be addressed
during upcoming discussions on recreation fee legislation.
Section 2 of H.R. 2715 requires the Secretary to allocate funds
identified in section 1 for a number of planning, transportation, and
visitor service purposes. This section would require funding to be used
for planning and restoration of low-impact camping at upper and lower
river campgrounds. This is not included in the park's 1980 General
Management Plan as amended by the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced
Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan. These plans were
developed over many years with extensive public involvement and
comment. We believe the General Management Plan strikes a balance
between the recreational demands of day-users and campers visiting the
park. However, we recognize Congress's authority to move forward on
this issue and, if that occurs, we ask for the opportunity to work with
the Subcommittee further on this issue.
Section 2 would authorize activities, some of which are already
allowed for under existing law relating to parking, traffic management,
and housing and transportation for park employees. This section also
would require the Secretary to provide housing and transportation
benefits for employees of concessioners. Such benefits are not
currently provided to these employees. The Department does not believe
that it is appropriate for the Federal Government to provide concession
employees with these types of benefits.
In addition, section 2 would require funds be used to remove the
LeConte Memorial Lodge in Yosemite. Built in 1903 and moved to its
present location in 1918, the LeConte Memorial Lodge is one of four
structures in the park designated as a National Historic Landmark,
along with the Ahwahnee Hotel, Parsons Memorial Lodge, and the Rangers
Club. Since this is a designated National Historic Landmark, the
Department is opposed to removing this structure. We would be happy to
discuss any concerns you may have about its use.
We are unsure of the intent of the provision in section 2 that
would prohibit the use of funds made available under this legislation
to implement a shuttle system that uses remote parking facilities or
includes operations outside the boundaries of Yosemite Valley. We do
want the Subcommittee to be aware that there are no plans to prohibit
private automobiles from entering and being used in Yosemite National
Park. Instead, long-range proposals in the Yosemite Valley Plan look
toward supplemental transportation choices through shuttle or bus
systems to accommodate and better manage projected increases in
visitation and to provide better connections to gateway communities.
Most of these plans, including the development of remote parking
facilities outside the valley, are at least 10 or more years away. We
would like to work with the Subcommittee to address our concerns with
this section.
The National Park Service is putting a great deal of resources into
improving the visitor experience, planning for growth of visitation,
and increasing camping and day-use opportunities for the millions who
visit Yosemite annually. We are also striving to better protect and
enhance Yosemite's world-class natural and cultural resources, and to
coordinate even more closely with our gateway partners to provide for
better communities and a better Yosemite.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. We look forward to
working with the Subcommittee as the Department has an opportunity to
review the bill further. I would be happy to answer any questions you
or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. We are under the voting--apparently, the
gentleman from Vermont is not happy with a few things, so he is
calling a lot of procedural votes right now, so we have to
recess briefly. It will only be one vote, so the recess will be
very short, and we will join you shortly.
[Recess.]
Mr. Radanovich. We are back in session, and hopefully there
won't be any more votes. I am going to ask you a question, Mr.
Adams, regarding H.R. 2457.
There are several entities working together on this
project--the State of Florida, City of St. Augustine, the
Colonial St. Augustine Preservation Foundation and the National
Park Service. Can you give us an overview please of these
organizations and how they will work together and the role that
each will serve in carrying out this project?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. The City of St. Augustine maintains a
museum across the--adjacent to the Castillo de San Marcos that
interprets the civilian side of the colonial experience. The
National Park Service at the Castillo interprets the military
side. So we would anticipate that there would be a joint
operation of the center by the City and the Castillo in
offering these services to visitors.
The funds for the purchase of the property and for the
development of the building would be provided by this
legislation and by the Colonial St. Augustine preservation
Foundation. The City of St. Augustine and the State of Florida
will contribute the land for the project. The center then that
results would be, in our current planning, current thinking,
would be Title II to the City of St. Augustine and would be
under lease to the Park Service or a permit to the Park Service
to conduct just visitor orientation services within the
building. So that, consequently, we do not anticipate that the
Park Service would have any expense in future years in the
maintenance or operation of the building itself.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jarvis, a couple of questions on H.R. 2715, the
Yosemite bill. While I definitely do appreciate the
administration's support for my efforts to enhance an increased
communication between the gateway communities and Yosemite
National Park, I am a little perplexed as to why the service
remains steadfast against any efforts to restore some of the
basic low-impact campsites to the Upper and Lower River
campground areas.
After all, what would be the harm, especially noting that
the campsites would be placed within a 150-foot setback from
the river? Does the Bush administration place restoration of a
riverbank above providing a basic recreation opportunity? And
would you agree that low-impact campsites are good use of an
area located within the flood plain which Upper and Lower River
camp grounds are?
Please feel free to bring Mike Tollefson, who, of course,
is Superintendent, up to table as well. Mr. Jarvis, I know that
you asked previously to do that; and I want to welcome Mike to
the Subcommittee hearing.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
We feel--the Department feels that the plans that have been
worked out with the public over the last--well, almost 20 plus
years and most intensely over the last few years are all
integrally linked. They all strive to strike the appropriate
balance between the needs of camping and day use, and they all
begin with the basis of the Merced River plan which zones a
protection area along the river and identifies appropriate
recreational uses that really does, I believe and the National
Park Service believes, an elegant job in distributing the
public throughout the Valley and enhancing their experiences.
The--and there is a lot invested here with the lineup of
projects to implement this over the next 5, 10 years.
So it is our feeling that it strikes the appropriate
balance without the restoration or without the reconstruction
of these campsites. We feel there are other places in Yosemite
where campsites can be added without opening up the whole
planning effort again and creating the controversy that
Yosemite tends to generate.
Mr. Radanovich. It is noted that since the flood of 1997
the Upper and Lower River campgrounds have been shut down, and
the idea in the plan is to dedicate that land primarily to
habitat restoration. I think it has been said there has been a
lot of activity in that area since the enclosure of the
campgrounds anyway. Is it in your mind going to be tough if
this area is dedicated to habitat restoration? It is going to
be hard to keep people out of that area anyway, isn't it?
Mr. Tollefson. Mr. Chairman, the plan calls also for day
use. One of the things we have been focused on is to begin a
day use plan in that area, and there are some areas in there--
there are three great beaches that are seeing an increase in
day use. As we speak today, I am sure people are frolicking on
the beach after river rafting down the river. So there are
several areas that have been clearly identified that we could
allow a significant amount of day use that would relieve
pressure from other areas in the Valley.
Mr. Radanovich. So there is going to be a human footprint,
I think, on the restoration area anyway.
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Jarvis, you mentioned the
administration's opposition to removing the LeConte Memorial
because it has been designated a National Historic Landmark.
Would you not agree that the landmark status refers to the
building itself and not to the land that it is currently
sitting on?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct. It does refer to the
architectural design of the building and its setting.
Mr. Radanovich. Isn't it true that the building has been
moved once already?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. You mention in your testimony, Mr. Jarvis,
that the Service currently has no plans to prohibit automobiles
from entering and being used in the park, but in the long term
you are developing supplemental transportation choices. My
immediate concern is not that this administration has plans to
remove the family minivan from enjoying a day in Yosemite, or
any car for that matter, but future administrations. Why not
prevent the elimination of choices now before they are
eliminated in the future?
Mr. Jarvis. The National Park Service prides itself, I
believe, in being a leader in transportation. Many of our parks
in the system are experiencing not an overuse of the public but
congestion as a result of the private automobile. We believe
that providing the public a range of options to visit the park,
particularly the transportation systems that are high quality,
have interpretive opportunities, have looped trips can enhance
the public's experience and Yosemite, is a perfect example of
that as well.
There are many things to be done, though, in the Valley in
the next 10 years as we implement these plans that will change
the way the Valley is being used and redistribute the public.
So any plans for remote parking are in the outyears. So we felt
it is not the time to limit those opportunities.
Mr. Radanovich. Would you address, please, the issue of
what I call special access that the Sierra Club has to the
LeConte Memorial? I know there are some public activities that
take place there. But the fact of the matter is that Sierra
Club members have a special access into the park, kind of a
special place to park, special place of their own. Don't you
call that special access and isn't that kind of over and above
what should be allowed when we are looking at cutting back the
number of campsites and such in the Valley.
Mr. Tollefson. Sierra Club manages LeConte and has since it
was built as a memorial to John Muir and named after Dr.
LeConte who passed away in the park. The programs that they put
on--the predominant programs are public programs that they
invite public to, and they are not advocacy programs. They are
nature walks, that kind of program. I don't believe there is
any special parking there for them, maybe other than one
person, as I reflect on that, being so fairly new. There is no
special parking in that location. Other organizations such as
Yosemite Institute and Yosemite Association also use that
facility for public programs.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
One last question. Yosemite Valley plan calls for reducing
day use parking to about 550 spaces, I believe. In my bill I am
suggesting as many as 1,200 spaces. Does the Service believe
that by reducing the number of spaces of day use parking that
it will also reduce the number of day use visitors to the park?
Mr. Tollefson. No, sir. The reduction in day use parking
from the number of approximately 1,200 that we are using as
today's current use level, reducing the parking is tied to
providing a shuttle from outside of--west of the Valley, if you
will, into the Valley in anticipation of an increase in the
number of day use visitors.
At 1,200 sites, we can accommodate the flow we have today,
plus or minus 4 million visitors. But as the numbers increase,
we are going to need to provide a different way to get them
into the Valley, and it provides a better experience. Once they
are there today and park their cars, almost 2.8 million people
ride the existing shuttle system in the Valley.
Mr. Radanovich. Separate shuttle system.
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. I think those are the extent of
my questions.
I know Mr. Mica was not able to make it back, and he did
have one question, and I am going to ask it of Dr. Adams--to
you, Mr. Adams. I know Mr. Mica wanted to know how is the
project that is being proposed, how is it unique from many of
the other requests that this Committee receives?
Mr. Adams. Well, I am not familiar with the other requests
that this Committee receives, but I would suggest that one of
the things that is unique about this is the partnership that is
involved. We have brought all the players in--St. Augustine,
Federal, State and local governments and the private citizens
as well--into this project; and it will result in one that will
be also cooperatively administered and managed by the City and
the National Park Service.
Mr. Radanovich. All right, gentlemen. Thank you. I think
that is the extent of my questions. I appreciate you being
here.
Mr. Tollefson, Mr. Jarvis, thank you for coming out for
this; and Mr. Adams, thank you, too.
This ends the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]