[Senate Hearing 108-600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-600
SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR; TRIBUTES TO AMERICA'S
VETERANS; SITES HONORING PRESIDENTS; LANDS IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK;
EL CAMINO REAL DE LOS TEJAS; AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER OF THE TAPOCO
PROJECT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1064 S. 2046
S. 1092 S. 2052
S. 1748 S. 2319
__________
APRIL 27, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-992 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 3
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 26
Breaux Hon. John B., U.S. Senator from Louisiana................. 2
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 6
Copeland, Kathy, Director of Policy and Legislation, South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL......... 46
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio........................ 31
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Florida...................... 29
Hoffman, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, Department of the Interior.............................. 8
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas.............. 4
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 7
Moe, Richard, President, National Trust for Historic Preservation 38
Nau, John L., III, Chairman, Texas Historical Commission;
Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Houston,
TX............................................................. 50
Overbey, Randall M., President, Primary Metals Development for
Alcoa, Knoxville, TN........................................... 42
Phillips, Faye, Associate Dean of Libraries, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA.................................... 48
Robinson, J. Mark, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission................................... 22
Rooney, Brian, President, Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their
Stripes, Northridge, CA........................................ 32
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 53
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 65
SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR; TRIBUTES TO AMERICA'S
VETERANS; SITES HONORING PRESIDENTS; LANDS IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK;
EL CAMINO REAL DE LOS TEJAS; AND
HYDROELECTRIC POWER OF THE TAPOCO PROJECT
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. We will go ahead and get the committee
going. Thank you all for being here.
Senator Breaux, I hope this will not be quite as long as
our 2\1/2\ hour meeting this morning. But in any event, I do
want to welcome you.
I welcome the representatives from the Park Service and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other witnesses to the
National Parks Subcommittee.
We have six bills that we are talking about today: S. 1064,
a bill to establish a commission to commemorate the
sesquicentennial of the American Civil War; S. 1092, a bill to
authorize the establishment of a national data base for the
purpose of identifying, locating, and cataloguing the many
memorials and permanent tributes to American veterans; S. 1748,
a bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and
maintain sites honoring the Presidents of the United States; S.
2046, a bill to authorize the exchange of certain lands in
Everglades Park; S. 2052, a bill to amend the Trails System Act
to designate the El Camino Real Trail as a National Historic
Trail; and S. 2319, a bill to authorize and facilitate the
hydroelectric power licensing of the Tapoco Project. And I
guess that is it.
So welcome to all of you. Senator, we are glad to have you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Akaka and Senator Campbell, for being here this
afternoon.
Arguably there is no more important event in the history of
the United States than the consequences and the conduct of the
Civil War almost 150 years ago. I introduced legislation back
in 1995 that was a joint resolution that basically named the
United States Civil War Center at Louisiana State University
and the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College as the
flagship institutions in the United States for planning of the
sesquicentennial celebration and commemoration of the Civil
War. And since that time, Members of Congress from Virginia
have included Pamplin Historical Park and the Virginia Center
for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech also to be included in
these institutions that are the flagship institutions with
regard to studying the Civil War.
Now let us fast forward to where we are today. I introduced
the bill, S. 1064, in May of last year, and this bill
establishes a commission to commemorate the 150th anniversary
of the Civil War. There are a number of cosponsors of that
legislation. It is bipartisan. Senator Landrieu, Senator
Specter, Senator Santorum, Senator Warner, and Senator Allen
all are co-sponsors of this legislation.
Basically the point of creating a commission is to ensure
that there is a suitable national observance and it encourages
really a true interdisciplinary examination of the Civil War.
The commission would have the role to ensure that what we do is
done properly.
It is an authorization of $500,000, which in today's world
is not a lot of money at all, but it is important to have this
commission to supervise how we commemorate the 150th year
anniversary of the Civil War.
It is more than just studying the battles. It is more than
just counting how many men and women fought and how many men
and women were killed and died. It is really looking at the
Civil War in the totality of what occurred, why it happened,
what caused it to happen, in addition, what were the social
consequences of that great event in our Nation's history. What
did we learn from it? All of these things are incredibly
important if we are going to study and commemorate the 150-year
anniversary of that important event.
You are going to be hearing from Ms. Faye Phillips who is
associate dean of libraries at Louisiana State University.
Because the United States Civil War Center is a special
collection within the libraries there, all of these people
report to her. She has provided research for over 30 years to
Civil War scholars and students and the general public. She is
truly an expert in this area, and I think she will be very
beneficial to the committee.
She has also been the archivist for many of our
colleagues--Senator Russell Long, Senator Mack Mathias, Senator
Eagleton, Senator Gary Hart--and will be doing the same thing
for me as we try to figure out what to do with all of the
material that we collect over our congressional careers. But I
think her statements are of great value.
I just wanted to come by and make a couple of comments
about her to the committee and hope that we could push this
legislation and bring it to the full Senate. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Breaux follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John B. Breaux, U.S. Senator
From Louisiana
In just a few years, our nation will celebrate the sesquicentennial
of the American Civil War. This 150th anniversary formally begins on
April 11, 2011, a day that will forever mark one of the greatest tests
of our unity as a people. The Civil War was a defining experience in
the development of the United States. While we cannot help but
acknowledge our struggle with issues arising from the Civil War and the
subsequent Reconstruction, we can learn from our shared heritage.
As we approach the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, we have a
unique opportunity to recall the Civil War, and its legacy in a spirit
of reconciliation and reflection. The years 2011-2015 will mark the
150th anniversary of the Civil War, a war in which more Americans lost
their lives than in any other conflict in American history. Claiming
almost 700,000 Americans, the Civil War tore our nation apart along an
ideological seam. Fathers and sons, brothers and relatives met in
combat on the fields of the American frontier to fight for the most
basic of all human rights--freedom.
In 1996, Congress designated the United States Civil War Center at
Louisiana State University and the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg
College as co-facilitators of the sesquicentennial commemoration of the
Civil War. In addition, in 2002 the Pamplin Historical Park and the
Virginia Center for Civil War Studies joined in these efforts to plan
the commemoration. These four institutions will be at the forefront of
a series of programs and activities related to the observance of the
sesquicentennial of the Civil War.
As part of the Commission, these institutions will receive funds to
promote the lessons of the war from the perspective of all professions,
occupations, and academic disciplines. The institutions will also
create grant programs to conduct commemorative activities, establish a
National Student Essay Award and publish information packets and
calendars.
At the conclusion of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln said,
``Let us therefore study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn
wisdom from.'' The upcoming anniversary, and this legislation, can help
to realize President Lincoln's vision.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate
your taking time to be with us.
Senator Akaka, any opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
you for holding this hearing.
Two of the bills on today's agenda involve land exchanges
at national parks, one at Everglades, and the other at Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. While I generally prefer not to
remove land from national park status--even if exchanged for
other land--I believe that these two bills merit our support.
It has been almost 15 years since this committee approved
Senator Graham's bill to expand the park's boundary to include
110,000 acres in the East Everglades in an effort to restore
the natural water flow patterns into the park. Subsequently,
Congress approved a multi-billion Everglades restoration
program in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Because
the proposed exchange will allow for the completion of one of
these significant restoration projects, this exchange will
benefit the park.
Likewise, it seems to me that the proposed exchange at
Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one that will also
benefit the park. In this case, a hydroelectric project has
inundated a few tributaries that are inside the park boundary
for over 50 years. Without this bill, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission will be precluded from relicensing the
project. There is no way to lower the water level without
completely eliminating the reservoir. The proposed exchange
will provide for a new increase of park acreage and protect
significant wildlife habitat, while ensuring that an important
source of electricity and recreation is not disrupted.
I would like to commend Senator Graham and Senator
Alexander for their work on these bills.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the witnesses to the
subcommittee. I look forward to hearing their testimony and
learning more about all of these bills. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hutchison, welcome. Glad to have you here. Just go
right ahead please.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have
with me today--and I think he is going to also make a
statement--the chairman of our Texas Historical Commission, who
will also speak in favor of S. 2052, the El Camino Real de los
Tejas National Historic Trail Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have been working with the people in my
State for probably 3 years now to try to make sure that if we
do establish this trail, that we do so in a way that provides
protection for our private property owners and gives the State
Historical Commission also a chance to participate. And that is
exactly what the bill does. I am pleased because I think this
is the way that we should pursue historic trails.
This will preserve a storied piece of Texas ancestry for
generations to come. The El Camino Real was a corridor of
trails used by settlers, immigrants, Indians, and the military.
It served as a path for Texas heroes such as Davy Crockett and
Sam Houston who fought in the struggle for Texas independence.
The 300-year-old corridor provided a critical trade route,
a post road, a cattle trail, and military highway. It opened
the Americas to Texas and Texas to the world. It extends 2,600
miles from the Rio Grande River near Eagle Pass and Laredo
through San Antonio, Bastrop, and Nacogdoches to Natchitoches,
Louisiana. 2500 miles of the trails wind across 40 Texas
counties, and the last 80 miles are in Louisiana.
The El Camino Real served as a strategic corridor during
the Texas struggle for independence from Mexico. Supplies made
their way along the trail for the Republic of Texas army as it
forged ahead to victory.
The opt in/opt out provision protects private property
owners along the trail. I think it is critical that we respect
private property rights while we also preserve historic
significance on major trails such as the El Camino Real. This
bill will allow our State agencies, such as the Texas
Historical Commission, to participate in the establishment and
designation of the trail.
My bill allows the people of Texas and visitors to
understand how the trail helped to shape the development of
Texas. It is not just a highway with a historical significance,
it is a road that has been the foundation of an inspirational
past.
I am proud to offer this legislation and I hope very much,
after you hear from my friend, John Nau, the chairman of our
Texas Historical Commission, that you will give us a markup as
soon as possible because I believe if we can pass this bill and
get it over to the House, it will be a Senate bill and it will
be, I think, a model bill for future historic trail
designations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. If we have questions, we can talk with Mr.
Nau later. Is that right?
Senator Hutchison. Yes. I am happy to take a question.
Senator Thomas. But he is going to talk on that subject.
Senator Hutchison. He will give it from the State
perspective, absolutely.
Senator Thomas. Super.
Senator Hutchison. I want to acknowledge also my friend,
the Senator from Louisiana, who has been pushing this trail for
a long time, and I think that we have now gotten to the point
where it really will be a model bill and one that will preserve
traditions of Louisiana, as well as Texas.
Senator Thomas. You sort of share this. You have 250 miles
and she has 8.
Senator Hutchison. That is right.
Senator Landrieu. But we have a very important 8.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. Eighty. You have 80.
Senator Landrieu. It is a very important 80. I cosponsor
the legislation and I also want to add my support for it, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Great.
Senator.
Senator Campbell. Well, thank you. I have a statement on S.
1092 I would like to give, but before Senator Hutchison
leaves--I do not know if I will be here when Mr. Nau testifies
or not.
I grew up in California, and of course, there is an El
Camino Real in California started by Father Junipero Serra, I
think in the 1700's. It went from Mexico City all the way up
through clear to San Francisco, and there are about 10 missions
in fact along the California coast that are all along the old
El Camino Real. I did not even know until today there was
another El Camino Real, the one you are talking about, the
King's Highway.
But I was wondering, when I was reading the bill, if there
would be some confusion between the two if we have two
nationally designated places that are El Camino Reals.
Senator Hutchison. Frankly, I did not know that there was a
California one. This one is very well established in Texas and
that is the name of it.
Senator Campbell. Well, I support it.
Senator Hutchison. This is de los Tejas. It is El Camino
Real de los Tejas, so it is a Texas designation. Maybe that
would make the difference.
Senator Campbell. I guess so. Everybody will have to speak
Spanish to understand it. OK. I support the bill. I just
wondered if there would be some confusion or not.
Senator Hutchison. Maybe the de los Tejas was added because
of that by the people who put it together.
Senator Campbell. Perhaps so. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. But there is nothing else that we could
possibly name it. It is such an important part of our history.
And it did connect actually Nacogdoches, where my mother grew
up, and Natchitoches, Louisiana where so many people came from
in the early days of the Texas independence. They were sister
cities.
Senator Campbell. Is that near Senator Landrieu's home
town?
Senator Landrieu. Not my home town, but it is a very
special area because it is the Cane River heritage. If you all
saw Steel Magnolias, it is where it was filmed, so you have
some visual of that. But it is a magnificently historical area.
In fact, it may be the oldest settlement in the Louisiana
Purchase, even older than--am I right, historians? Thank you.
It is older than New Orleans. I think it was the capital of
Texas, Kay, at one point.
Senator Hutchison. Well, Nacogdoches is the oldest town in
Texas.
Senator Campbell. Well, Mr. Chairman, with Senator
Hutchison supporting it and Senator Landrieu on the other end
of the trail, I guess it is going to pass.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I do not know if we want to switch
our capital cities, but we were happy to host the capital of
Texas, at least for a short time.
Senator Hutchison. The legend is that there were two Indian
brothers, Natchitoches and Nacogdoches. That is legend,
obviously. But Nacogdoches is designated as the oldest city in
Texas and it was the home of Sam Houston and Thomas Rusk whose
seat I hold in the Senate.
Senator Campbell. The chairman says he knew that, but I did
not know that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I speak just
for a moment on S. 1092, my bill?
It would authorize the establishment of a national data
base to locate and catalogue the many memorials and permanent
tributes to American veterans. There are thousands of public
memorials and tributes to veterans in communities throughout
the country, Mr. Chairman, but they have never been
comprehensively catalogued. Right now an individual can go on
line and access a network of all the railway main lines,
railroad yards major sitings, or if you want to search all the
scenic byways, you can easily access a data base for the
National Park System or the Federal Highway Administration. So
there are many things now that are catalogued to remind us of
those historic important places, but it seems to me that we
need some kind of a national comprehensive cataloguing of
veterans memorials too. Certainly they are at least as
important as the lighthouses and railroad sitings, so many
things that we already do catalogue. But there is no central
information of structures commemorating an individual or group
in the armed forces available to the public.
Under the legislation that I have introduced and we are
considering, this data base would be established by the
Department of the Interior with the assistance of other
agencies, non-profits, tribal governments, and any other
entities that the Secretary of the Interior would deem
appropriate. Since the Department of the Interior already
maintains several data bases, I do not think it would be
difficult to expand that because they already have a proven
capability to maintain a catalogue of different data bases.
The Secretary would also have to report back to Congress 3
years after enactment to assess the feasibility of establishing
a permanent fund to repair, maintain, and restore the memorials
that need help.
Several years ago, Congress passed a law which expressed
the need for cataloguing and maintaining these public veterans
memorials when similar legislation was reported favorably out
of the House Committee on Resources last Congress. The CBO
estimated it would not have a significant impact on the budget
of State, local, or tribal governments and would not preempt
their laws. A first step in making sure that the sites and
structures honoring the veterans are properly maintained is
also making sure that we know where each of them are.
As a veteran myself, I think this is a very important bill,
a bill that is going to be rather low cost to get it off the
ground, and I look forward to hearing the testimony on it and
hope for its passage.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator. I hope you can stay
around as long as you can.
Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I
have another meeting. I am going to have to slip out.
But I just wanted to recognize the distinguished guest here
from Louisiana State University in particular, Mrs. Faye
Phillips, the associate dean of the libraries for special
collections. She has had a long and wonderful relationship with
the Senate and with Senator Russell Long and now will be
helping Senator John Breaux with his archives and is
particularly suited to help us lead this effort by at least
representing our university, along with another partner we
have, the Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, as the official
institutes responsible for facilitating and planning the 150th
anniversary or commemoration of the Civil War, which will take
place in a few years. So I just wanted to be here to welcome
you, Faye, and to support the bill that Senator Breaux has
brought before our committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much for coming.
Why do we not go ahead now with our first panel: Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Paul Hoffman,
the Department of the Interior; Mr. Mark Robinson, Director,
Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Gentlemen, welcome. Glad to have you here.
Mr. Secretary, it is very nice to have you. I am always a
little prejudice toward a Wyoming background, as you know.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always appreciate
that prejudice for Wyoming. Thank you, members of the
committee.
My name is Paul Hoffman. I am the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks over at the Department
of the Interior, and it is my privilege to be able to testify
here today before you on these six bills before your committee.
If you have got your pens and pencils out, I will give you
a brief scorecard summary, and then I would like to give some
brief comments on each bill.
S. 1064, the Civil War sesquicentennial commission bill, we
support with some amendments.
S. 1092, the national data base of memorials, monuments,
and markers, we oppose.
S. 1748, National Park Service management of sites honoring
past Presidents of the United States, we oppose.
S. 2046, the Everglades land exchange, we support with
amendments.
S. 2052, El Camino Real de los Tejas trail designation, we
support with technical amendments.
S. 2319, the Tapoco agreement and land exchange, we support
with amendments.
We have submitted written testimony which I would like to
have entered for the record.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
Mr. Hoffman. The first bill, S. 1064, is the American Civil
War Sesquicentennial Commission. As Senator Breaux so aptly
pointed out, the 150th anniversary presents a significant
opportunity to appreciate what some have called the great
single event in our history. The Civil War cost 620,000
American lives, 4 million slaves were freed, and it led to the
passage of three constitutional amendments.
With the 150th anniversary of this war, we have an
opportunity now to really examine the issues and the social
forces that were at work then and continued to work through the
following 150 years in shaping this Nation.
We would like to recommend some amendments. We feel that a
27-member committee is too large. Our experience in dealing
with committees is that 15 to 17 is about the right size for a
committee or a commission, and we would like to recommend that
it be amended to reduce the size accordingly.
We would like to recommend an amendment to authorize the
Secretary, not the President, to make the appointments.
We would like to recommend an amendment to allow 180 days
to make those appointments as opposed to the 60 days
articulated in the bill.
We would like an amendment to designate a lead agency for
this commission.
And we would like to ask that the bill be amended to reduce
the authorized budget from $500,000 to $250,000 given existing
budget constraints and the pressing needs of existing
maintenance backlog issues and operations of national parks.
Typically the way these commissions work is that they go
out and raise money in the private sector, and we believe that
$250,000 will be a good seed fund available to help them get
established and to go out and raise the kind of money they need
for the promotion of the sesquicentennial.
Senator Thomas. That is $250,000 for 12 years.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes.
S. 1092, authorizing the national data base to identify,
locate, and catalogue memorials, monuments, and markers that
recognize American veterans. Mr. Chairman, we oppose this bill.
The National Park Service maintains its own data base of
historic and prehistoric structures, which includes 26,531
structures. Of those 26,000, 3,760 are memorials or markers. Of
those, 3,196 recognize veterans, and of those, 2,876 are
related to the Civil War veterans.
This bill requires the cataloguing of all monuments on all
lands, and we believe that that would put the Park Service well
outside its normal mission. We oftentimes do not get the best
of receptions in areas where we work, and to have to go out
onto city lands and State lands and private lands and ask
people to provide information about markers or monuments on
their lands might put us over the edge with some folks.
There is an existing data base due to the good work of Mr.
Brian Rooney. The Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their Stripes
has developed a data base and we believe that this data base
should be further developed. We would like to work
cooperatively with that organization, sharing the data that we
have and perhaps providing some technical assistance or
guidance in helping to enhance that data base.
There are also grants available that might be able to help
establish this data base and help with the maintenance of these
markers: Save America's Treasures or Chairman Nau's favorite
program, Preserve America, perhaps.
We appreciate very much the efforts and the work that Mr.
Brian Rooney has put into this project, but unfortunately it
falls outside our mission, scope, and resources at this time.
S. 1748, National Park Service management of all sites
honoring past Presidents. Mr. Chairman, we oppose this bill.
This is much too large of an obligation to be absorbed by
the National Park Service at this time. As you know, for the
past 4 years, we have been busily trying to address the
maintenance backlog issue and just maintain our existing
operations. And to take on such a large obligation at this time
would not be prudent use of taxpayer funds.
There are existing family foundations, historical
societies, historic preservation organizations, and other NGO's
that can and do manage these sites and we would not want to put
ourselves in the position of having to take that, wrench that
management from them.
We are happy to help those folks with grant applications
and technical assistance and management training assistance as
necessary, but we simply cannot take all those sites on.
[NOTE: I would like to clarify statements I made in my oral
presentation regarding S. 1748.
The bill would establish a grant program whereby the National Park
Service (NPS) would help maintain and improve presidential sites that
are not part of the National Park System (System). The NPS does not
intend on managing or assisting in the management of any sites that are
not currently a part of the System.]
S. 2052, designation of the El Camino Real de los Tejas as
a national trail. We support this bill, Mr. Chairman, with
technical amendments.
As was previously stated, this is a 2,600-mile trail
system. It is actually three trails that run concurrently but
do branch off at a couple different points, and it runs from
the Rio Grande to Natchitoches, Louisiana. These trails extend
into Mexico, but this designation, of course, would only apply
to the United States portion of those trails, and the State
Department has put their blessing on this designation.
A trail designation under the National Trails System Act
only puts a trail on the map. It provides for public access to
trails when those sections of the trails are owned by the
Federal Government or if a certification agreement is reached
with a private property owner to allow public access to that
trail. There is no Federal land acquisition process associated
with the trail designation. There are no Federal land
management overlays associated with the trail designation. And
the National Trails System Act fully recognizes and protects
private property rights associated with any trail designation.
There is some confusion sometimes with the terminology
associated with this act. Designation and establishment are
used interchangeably in the act. That is the process of
actually putting the trail on the map, as I indicated before.
Then there is the certification of a segment of a trail,
and that is the process of reaching an agreement with a private
property owner to allow public access and use of that section
of the trail. Each of those certification agreements are
individually negotiated with each individual private property
owner, and they are only limited by the negotiators'
imaginations. The private property owner can add whatever
qualifications they want in terms of times of day that people
can get on the trail, what kind of activities they will
continue to do on the trail, regardless of the designation,
whatever they want to put in there.
We estimate that the annual cost associated with
administering this particular national trail would be
approximately $500,000 a year. I grew up in southern California
as well, Senator Campbell, and I too spent a lot of time on the
El Camino Real. There is, in fact, another El Camino Real de la
Tierra Adentro that was studied at the same time the de los
Tejas trail was studied. In fact, it has been designated as a
national trail, and it runs up from the Rio Grande up into
Colorado. So I guess it is somewhat analogous to our interstate
highway systems. We should just put numbers after them instead.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hoffman. The Spanish interstate highway system.
S. 2046 authorizes a land exchange at Everglades National
Park. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a correction to the
Department's written testimony on this bill. We state in that
testimony that we believe no formal appraisals have been
completed for the smaller exchange involving the GSA, Miami-
Dade County, and the U.S. Navy. We have been informed that
appraisals were conducted by the Navy and the lands involved
were determined to be of equal value. We will be happy to
provide the subcommittee with a corrected copy of that
testimony.
We support this bill with amendments. This bill seeks to
authorize the exchange of 1,054 acres of land between
Everglades National Park and the South Florida Water Management
District. There has not been an appraisal of these lands.
However, they are determined to be of roughly equal habitat
value. When we do appraisals, we do appraisals by something we
call the uniform appraisal standards for Federal land
acquisitions, and those have to use standards adopted by
industry groups as to quantifiable ways to determine economic
fair market value. And it is not a very suitable system for
determining habitat value or other use values.
This exchange is necessary to facilitate the C-111 project,
which is an Army Corps of Engineers project, to modify the
water flows in the south Florida ecosystem and would help
restore the environmental integrity to the Everglades National
Park, while protecting Miami and Dade County from flooding.
We analyzed five exchanges before bringing this one
forward, and the exchange you have before you is the one picked
because it adds the most value to the resources of the park.
Some people will question whether or not this is
replumbing, if you will, of the Everglades water quality issues
and suggest that something in this bill should address water
quality. Our position is that water quality is adequately
addressed by a host of other laws that are already on the books
and we do not need to address that in this bill.
Amendments we would recommend to this bill include that we
articulate that the lands going to the South Florida Management
District are to be used for the C-111 project.
Another amendment would direct the Miami-Dade County
exchange with the Navy that I referred to in our written
testimony. In the 1,054 acres that the Park Service would
receive, there is a 153-acre hole in the donut, if you will,
that belongs to Miami-Dade. Miami-Dade is working on a separate
exchange with the Navy to make that 153 acres part of the
1,054-acre exchange. So what we would suggest is that the bill
be reworded to sequence these exchanges, that the big exchange
does not occur until the hole in the donut is filled, if you
will.
And we would like to have this bill amended to authorize
the Secretary to acquire no more than 10 acres outside the
boundary of Everglades National Park from willing sellers for
administrative, housing, maintenance, and other uses. Currently
there were some houses that were condemned by the National Park
Service as part of what they call the MOD Waters project, and
those houses eventually will need to be razed as that area is
reflooded as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration
project. But we in the interim have been using those for law
enforcement and fire protection because they provide a much
faster response to the areas that need protection. So we are
going to be in need of some place to house those people when
those other places are no longer available.
Lastly, S. 2319, the land exchange to facilitate the FERC
hydropower relicensing of the Tapoco Project or, as we
affectionately call it, the ``tapioca project.''
The Tapoco Project is a series of four dams with power
plants along a river system that is in between Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and the Cherokee National Forest. These
dams and plants are owned and operated by Alcoa Power
Generating, Incorporated, and all four of these hydroelectric
projects provide electricity that supports 2,000 jobs in
eastern Tennessee, 2,000 significant manufacturing jobs for
eastern Tennessee.
Under the law, FERC cannot relicense the Chilhowee facility
because, as it was pointed out earlier, it floods National Park
Service lands. It is approximately 100 acres that are flooded,
and this bill would propose to exchange 100 acres of National
Park Service land for 186 acres of land owned by Alcoa Power
Generating, Incorporated.
This land exchange is part of an overall settlement
agreement on the whole Tapoco relicensing project that is
really a remarkable agreement that best exemplifies Secretary
Norton's four C's: conservation through cooperation,
communication, and consultation. It is hard to list all of the
parties that have been involved in the negotiation of this
agreement. It is so extensive. It is literally dozens of
organizations from local counties, States, environmental
quality boards from the various States, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the BIA, the National Park Service, NGO's, and of
course, the private sector.
Also, this exchange is required to be done legislatively
because, once again, we do not have appraisals on these lands
because the values of these lands and the value of the overall
settlement agreement make it much too complex to appraise under
the uniform appraisal standards.
The 100 acres that would be exchanged that would go to
Alcoa would include a reversionary agreement, such that if the
project ever went away and those lands were no longer flooded,
the land would revert back to the National Park Service. So
that addresses Senator Akaka's philosophy that we never
completely give up National Park Service land at least. The
Park Service would retain authority to manage the 100 acres,
which would facilitate their management of the land adjacent to
that 100 acres that is flooded.
The lands that the park would acquire are between a set of
power lines and a highway, and the addition of that 186 acres
of land to the national park will greatly facilitate that park
management of that boundary line, particularly as it pertains
to managing hunting because it is a little bit confusing
because hunters can get off the road and hunt there, and then
the park line is back in the woods and it is more difficult for
the park to manage that border.
The settlement agreement has other elements that are
separate from this legislation. It includes conservation
easements that would go to the Nature Conservancy, giving them
a first right of refusal to purchase those conservation
easements if the Forest Service or the Park Service do not ever
come up with the money. There is one 5,500-acre conservation
corridor that would conserve the land between the national park
and the national forest, providing a migration corridor for
wildlife. There are 4,000 acres in eastern Tennessee that would
enhance conservation there, and there are another 400 acres
between highways and power lines that would, again, improve the
management ability of the National Park Service.
The agreement also restores stream flows between a couple
of the dams on the project, which will enhance recovery of
endangered fish and also enhance recreation opportunities in
that corridor. The agreement includes recreation easements on
the lake shores of Alcoa's reservoirs to enhance recreation
opportunities for the locals in the area, as well as visitors
to the area. And Alcoa will fund a $100,000 per year
conservation fund to help mitigate other impacts from the
project, and they will also fund $25,000 a year to the State of
North Carolina for projects that they want to do.
An amendment we recommend to the bill is that the
reversionary language not include having the dam or the
reservoir revert to the National Park Service. We are really
not in the dam management business. Hold the ``n'' please.
We would like to seek some clarification on when the
reversion occurs, and we will be glad to work with the staff on
that.
We would also like to see an amendment that would remove
the language that waives NEPA and the National Historic
Preservation Act study requirements. We have done those studies
and we believe those studies support the settlement agreement
and this exchange. So there is no need to waive that
requirement.
And then a technical amendment to reconcile some language
between section (a)(2) and section (4)(f).
And with that rather lengthy testimony, I would open it up
to questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Hoffman follow:]
Prepared Statements of Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
S. 1064
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1064, a bill that would establish a commission to commemorate the
sesquicentennial of the American Civil War. The Department supports the
enactment of this legislation with some amendments outlined in our
testimony and believes that establishment of the commission would help
ensure that the lasting legacy of the Civil War is understood and
appreciated by all Americans.
S. 1064 would establish a Civil War Sesquicentennial Commemoration
Commission to cooperate with and assist States and national
organizations with programs and activities to ensure a suitable
national observance of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and to
ensure that the anniversary will have lasting educational value. It
also authorizes a grant program to specific institutions listed in the
bill.
The Civil War was, in the words of Robert Penn Warren, ``the great
single event of our history.'' It was a wrenching conflict that
resulted in the loss of 620,000 lives, the liberation of four million
African American slaves, and the ratification of three Constitutional
amendments that forever changed the face of American democracy. The
Civil War ultimately decided the supremacy of the Federal government
over state sovereignty, even though the issue of ``states' rights''
continues to be the subject of both constitutional debate and arguments
before the courts. The United States by 1870 was a very different place
from what it had been in 1861. In 1865 Congress abolished slavery, in
1868 Congress declared the newly freed men and women citizens of the
United States, and in 1870 Congress guaranteed their right to vote. The
importance of the Civil War can be fully understood only when one takes
the long view and understands that the political revolution wrought by
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution was not
fully realized for a century after the events of April 1865 at
Appomattox. S. 1064 is mindful of this reality as it directs the
Commission to recognize ``the experiences and points of view of all
people affected by the Civil War,'' and provides for the development of
``programs, projects, and activities on the Civil War that have lasting
educational value.''
As S. 1064 acknowledges, the military aspects of the Civil War are
important events to commemorate. It is equally important, however, as
we prepare to reflect on the war from the vantage point of a century
and a half later, that we explore the causes of the conflict to
understand better how the democratic framework of the country failed to
resolve the sectional issues short of war. Likewise, we would be doing
a disservice to those who fought and fell, if the sesquicentennial did
not fully examine and reflect upon the consequences of the Civil War
including not only the Reconstruction era and its failure, but also the
subsequent constriction of equal rights for African American citizens,
and the ultimate achievement of those civil rights for the descendants
of enslaved peoples almost a century later. To that end, it would be
instructive to consider the efforts of the Centennial Commission of the
Civil War and its efforts to commemorate the war.
Most ignored the fact that the nation had failed to resolve the
debate over the nature of the Union and to eliminate the contradictions
between its equalitarian ideals and the institution of slavery without
resort to a bloody civil war. Instead, they celebrated the war's
triumphant nationalism and martial glory.'' This celebration of the war
and its memory was at the forefront of the events marking the
centennial of the war during the 1960s. Throughout all of the
reenactments, parades, gala balls, cake sales, and speeches, very
little attention was paid to the causes of the war or its lasting
legacies, legacies that were vividly playing out during the early 1960s
in the form of freedom rides, sit-ins, marches, and boycotts. The war
was remembered primarily as a symbol of military honor, reunification
and reconciliation. In so doing, according to Harvard University
historian Oscar Handlin, the commemoration ``grotesquely distorted the
actuality of the war as it had been. And the continued preservation of
that symbol also obscures the surviving problems left by the war.''
As the country approaches the 150th anniversary of the war, we are
mindful that it is a different country than it was fifty years ago. The
sesquicentennial of the war will be commemorated within a different
political and social environment from that of the centennial. The
meaning of the Civil War can be explored more fully. Its causes and
consequences, subjects Congress directed the National Park Service to
address beginning in 1989 and 1990, can and must be a major part of the
sesquicentennial.
The sesquicentennial should assume the broadest possible approach
to remembering and commemorating the war. However, this must be
accomplished with less funds for both the planning and implementation.
With that in mind, I respectfully urge this committee to consider the
following suggestions for strengthening 5.1064 and making its
implementation more efficient and effective.
First, the bill emphasizes military history over other aspects of
the Civil War era. We recommend that additional states be considered to
provide the broadest possible presentation of the war and that other
scholarly centers and programs be added so that the social, political,
and economic aspects of the war receive equal emphasis. For example,
the Virginia Center for Digital History (University of Virginia) with
its The Valley of the Shadow project could contribute much to this
effort. Other entities that might logically be considered would include
the Center for Study of the American South and the Center for the Study
of Southern Culture. The Civil War was a national experience; its
sesquicentennial commemoration should likewise represent a broad
spectrum of the nation. In addition, we believe that section 7 of the
bill should be amended. We can get the best return for the taxpayer
money by establishing a discretionary program that awards grants
through a competitive process and does not specify in advance who
should receive funds. As these organizations are leaders in Civil War
history, they would likely compete well for grants without a statutory
earmark.
Second, respecting the importance of the appointments to this
nationally important commission, we recommend that the bill allow for
180 days instead of sixty days for the selection of the commission
members, and that those selections be made by the Secretary of the
Interior instead of by the President.
Third, the bill envisions a commission that would include twenty-
seven members. We believe a commission of this size would significantly
impede the timely selection of its members, diminish its ability to
work efficiently and effectively, and would be too costly. We recommend
a smaller commission, with perhaps fifteen or seventeen members.
Fourth, S. 1064 does not designate a lead department or agency. We
recommend a lead agency be designated.
Fifth, the bill authorizes $500,000 for each fiscal year to carry
out the purposes of this Act. We recommend only $250,000 a year be
authorized for this effort given other competing priorities and the
need to focus federal funds on our parks and other essential programs.
Finally, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of
Government Ethics have raised a number of structural issues with S.
1064 which we will provide to the Committee at a later date.
Establishing a commission to commemorate the sesquicentennial of
the Civil War as envisioned in S. 1064 would provide the nation an
opportunity to reflect upon this momentous event within an environment
that would be inclusive and contemplative. It would enable all
Americans to reflect anew upon the war, its consequences, and its
lasting legacies. It would result, we can hope, in greater public
insight into the war and promote increased awareness of its shadow in
our society today.
This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the committee might have.
S. 1748
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 1748, a bill to establish a
program to award grants to improve and maintain sites honoring
presidents of the United States.
The Department supports efforts to protect Presidential sites,
which honor our country's former presidents and are an important
historical part of our national heritage. The birthplaces, museums,
memorials, and tombs provide excellent resources to study and learn
about our past presidents' lives, leadership, and values. The value and
educational benefit of visiting first hand the birthplace or other
memorial site of a person one has read or studied about can leave a
very indelible impression that cannot be acquired in any other way.
Being involved in history and in the lives of those who have
contributed to our American legacy through physical, mental, and
emotional contact with the things that helped shape their lives or the
places that store their remains can bring a deeper appreciation of our
country's struggles and the heritage we enjoy today.
However, because of the financial implications of this bill on
national parks and park programs, the Department opposes the enactment
of S. 1748 at this time. The Department is committed to supporting the
President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in
our national parks. We believe funds are more appropriately directed at
this time to reducing the long list of necessary but deferred
construction projects that have been identified in our national parks.
Our opposition does not detract from the significance and
importance of creating partnerships with public and private entities to
preserve and maintain the non-Federal Presidential sites of our
nation's past presidents. Rather, our opposition is due to our belief
that it is inappropriate to use limited National Park Service
appropriations to fund maintenance and improvement projects for
institutions and sites that are not part of the National Park System.
We encourage the family foundations, historical societies, historic
preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations that own
the majority of these sites to continue to seek funding for the
maintenance and improvement projects necessary to prevent further
deterioration and continued interpretation of these sites and
structures. We believe that there are other sources of funding
available for the restoration and maintenance needs of these
Presidential sites. One national example is the Save America's
Treasures program that awards grants for preservation and conservation
work on nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and
nationally significant historic structures and sites. These
Presidential Sites are ``national class properties'' and would, we
believe, compete favorably in the Save America's Treasures program as
well as in any other fundraising campaign. The Department would be more
than happy to assist with developing Save America's Treasures
applications to accomplish this important work.
S. 1748 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
grant program to help pay for the Federal share of major repairs,
modifications, and capital and interpretive improvements to existing
non-Federal Presidential sites. The Federal share of the cost would be
50 percent or less of the total cost of a project. Appropriated funds
of $5 million would be authorized for fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
with funds available until expended. The bill states that 15 percent of
the grant money would be used for emergency projects; 65 percent for
Presidential sites with a 3year annual operating budget of less than
$700,000, with an endowment less than 3 times the annual operating
budget; and 20 percent for sites with an annual operating budget of
$700,000 or more, with an endowment equal to or more than 3 times the
annual operating budget. It also states that unexpended funds may be
used for another category of projects described in the Act.
S. 1748 also outlines the application and award procedures and
authorizes the establishment of the Presidential Site Grant Commission
(Commission). The operators and owners would submit applications to the
Secretary who would then forward them to the Commission. The Commission
would review the applications and make recommendations to the Secretary
for grant assistance. Of the five members on the Commission, two of the
four members appointed by the Secretary would represent the
Presidential sites eligible for grant awards. The term for an appointed
member is two years. The bill states that during the two-year period in
which a representative of a particular site serves on the Commission
that site would be ineligible for grant money under this Act.
Presidential sites honor our country's former presidents and are an
important historical part of our national heritage. The birthplaces,
museums, memorials, and tombs provide excellent resources to study and
learn about our past presidents' lives, leadership, and values. While
we recognize that these sites provide a valuable link to understanding
our country's history and government, we believe that National Park
Service funds should not be authorized for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be
happy to answer any questions you or your committee may have.
S. 2046
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on S.
2046. This bill would authorize a land exchange at Everglades National
Park for the purpose of implementing an important restoration project
that will benefit park habitat and resources.
The Department strongly supports an exchange of land between the
South Florida Water Management District (District) and Everglades
National Park (Park), as proposed in S. 2046, with amendments that are
attached to this testimony. We have worked closely with the Department
of the Army and the State of Florida on the proposed amendments related
to the exchange so that it clearly states the purposes of the exchange
and ensures that other administrative actions will be completed to
effectuate the exchange contemplated by S. 2046. We understand that the
State of Florida has expressed its support for the exchange.
S. 2046 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
exchange approximately 1,054 acres of land from the Rocky Glades area
of the park for approximately 1,054 acres of District land located in
the Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental Area. The park lands
that are exchanged would be used for the C-111 project that is
intended, among other things, to restore park habitat that has been
adversely affected by the Central and Southern Florida Project, as well
as restore more natural flows of water to the park's eastern panhandle,
and Taylor Slough, as well as Florida Bay.
The parcels proposed for exchange have been studied and found to be
similar. There has, however, been no formal appraisal of the two
parcels. Additionally, the NPS does not expect to incur increased
operational costs associated with the exchange because of the
restricted access to the area adjoining the lands the park would
acquire and because the park's current operational responsibilities for
lands that the park would be giving up would essentially be transferred
to the proposed new additions.
Everglades National Park is one of the most unique ecological
reserves in the nation and is unlike any other national park in the
world. It is also, unfortunately, one of the most threatened of our
national parks. Conditions arising in the south Florida region which
threatened this park are well known to this Subcommittee and are the
subject of several projects authorized by the Congress to attempt to
restore aspects of the original physical and biological features of the
historic Everglades.
For example, in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
Congress authorized modifications to one project, the C-111 Project, to
address restoration along the park's eastern boundary. As set forth in
the May 1994 Final Integrated General Reevaluation Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for the C-111 Project, features will be
constructed that will limit water losses from the park through ground
water seepage and restore more natural water flows and level through
Taylor Slough, the eastern panhandle area of the park, and into
northeastern Florida Bay.
While maintaining the authorized level of flood protection for
agricultural activities adjacent to the park and within the C-111
basin, features include the construction of four pump stations in the
L-31N and C-111 canals and a series of retention areas just east of the
park boundary to prevent the loss of water from the park through
seepage.
In addition, a fifth pump station and distribution canal is
specified in order to direct water into the Eastern Panhandle region
and restore more natural flows through Taylor Slough to Florida Bay.
The flow capacity in Taylor Slough would be increased through
construction of two new bridges, spoil mounds south of the C-111 canal
would be removed,. and the C-109 and C-110 canals and levees would be
removed. Funding has been provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) and State of Florida, with some additional amounts for land
acquisition from the Department of the Interior.
The NPS, working with the COE and the District, evaluated the
modifications as described above to the C-111 project and determined
that land previously included within Everglades National Park would be
needed for construction and completion of the project. S. 2046 would
allow NPS, through an exchange, to provide the necessary lands to
complete the project modifications and obtain an equal amount of
acreage from the District, adjacent to the to the park boundary , which
when incorporated into the park, would conform to the NPS's goal of no
net loss to the park.
NPS evaluated five exchange alternatives in order to determine the
maximum net gain in resource values for lands to be acquired. In
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the NPS established resource
based criteria and evaluated the exchange alternatives as a part of the
Final Integrated General Reevaluation Report Supplement and
Environmental Assessment, completed in January 2002. The study's
selected alternative proposed an exchange of lands as specified in S.
2046, which would result in an equal acreage exchange but an overall
increase in resource benefits provided to the park.
Although the necessary exchange has not yet been completed, to date
the project has accomplished the following important restoration goals.
Three of the five pump stations and portions of related detention areas
have been completed, the C-109 levee and canal and spoil mounds in the
lower C-111 have been removed, two new bridges in Taylor Slough along
the park road have been completed, and the District has purchased most
of the land required for the project. Operations of the final project
features for the C-111 Project will be assess in the Combined
Structural and Operational Plan (CSOP) for both the C-111 and Modified
Water Deliveries Project. Work on developing this plan is ongoing and
is scheduled for completion by the COE in June 2006.
Fundamentally, however, S. 2046 is needed so that work may proceed
as planned. Although we strongly support the exchange, we suggest three
amendments to S. 2046. The first would clarify the use of the federal
land conveyed to the District. It clarifies that the lands to be
provided by the park under the exchange are for the purpose of
implementing the project as previously planned and authorized by
Congress.
The second would direct the completion of additional federal
administrative actions that are necessary to complete the exchange. In
brief, it directs completion of a smaller land exchange between Miami-
Dade County, the U.S. Navy, and the NPS in order to acquire into
federal ownership 153 acres within the 1,054 acres of park land to be
exchanged under S. 2046. We had been examining options for completing
this exchange administratively. We believe this exchange should be
included in this bill since this exchange must occur before the
exchange envisioned in the bill can take place. As with the larger
exchange, no formal appraisals appear to have been done. All parties,
however, support the exchange, and believe the values are similar.
The third amendment would authorize the Secretary to acquire no
more than 10 acres outside the park boundary, from willing sellers, in
the vicinity of the East Everglades portion of the park for
administrative, housing, maintenance and other park uses.
That completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or any members of the Subcommittee may have.
Proposed Amendments
S. 2046--LAND EXCHANGE IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK
Page 3, line 3, strike ``compatible with'' and insert ``for''.
Page 2, line 22, add the following at end of the first sentence:
``Prior to the Secretary's conveyance of fee title to the Federal
land to the District, the Administrator of the General Services
Administration shall exchange, as expeditiously as possible.
approximately 595.28 acres of land declared excess by the Department of
the Navy, known as `Site Alpha,' for two parcels of land, known as
`Tract 605-01' and `Tract 605-03' and totaling approximately 152.93
acres, owned by Miami-Dade County. Upon completion of the exchange, the
Administrator of the General Services Administration shall transfer
administrative jurisdiction for Tract 605-01 and Tract 605-03 to the
Secretary without reimbursement.''
Page 3, line 10, add a new section:
``SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.--Section 102 of the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-6)
is amended:
(a) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first sentence in subsection
(a), and
(b) by adding the following new paragraph:
(2) The Secretary may acquire up to 10 acres from willing sellers
outside the park boundary, but adjacent to or in the general proximity
of the East Everglades area of the park, for the development of
administrative, housing, maintenance or other park purposes. Upon
acquisition, the land shall be administered as part of Everglades
National Park in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.''
S. 2052
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. 2052, a bill to amend the National Trails System
Act to designate El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic
Trail.
The Department supports S. 2052 with amendments to clarify the
differences between designation of the trail and certifying sites and
segments to be managed as part of the trail.
S. 2052 would add the Camino Real de los Tejas as a national
historic trail component of the National Trails System only on publicly
owned land. Making sites and segments of the trail available for public
use where the trail crosses privately owned lands would be authorized
only upon the consent of the owner when the site qualifies for
certification. Subject to the provisions for privately owned lands, the
bill would designate a series of routes, totaling approximately 2,600
miles.
The designated trail would include the evolving routes of the
camino real as well as its successor, the Old San Antonio Road. The
trail would extend across a 550-mile-long corridor from the Rio Grande
near Eagle Pass and Laredo, Texas to Natchitoches (pronounced Nack-a-
dish), Louisiana with trail administration provided by the Secretary of
the Interior. No land or interest in land outside the exterior
boundaries of any federally administered area could be acquired by the
United States for the trail except with the consent of the owner. S.
2052 also would allow the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate
activities with the United States and Mexican public and non-
governmental organizations, academic institutions and, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, the government of Mexico and its political
subdivisions. Finally, the bill also calls for the Department to
consult with appropriate state agencies including exchanging trail
information and research, fostering trail preservation and education
programs, providing technical assistance, and working to establish an
international historic trail with complementary preservation and
education programs in each nation.
The National Park Service (NPS) was authorized to study both El
Camino Real de los Tejas and the Old San Antonio Road by P.L. 103-145.
The National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental
Assessment, El Camino Real de los Tejas--Louisiana was completed in
July 1998. The study concluded that both roads met all national
historic trail criteria as defined by the study provisions of the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244). The study was presented to
the National Park System Advisory Board and the board concurred with
the findings.
El Camino Real de los Tejas was the primary route between the
Spanish vice-regal capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial
capital of Tejas at Los Adaes (pronounced Uh-die-us) (1721-73) and San
Antonio (1773-1821). The camino real, bringing Spanish and Mexican
influences northeastward, led to the exploration, conquest,
colonization, settlement, migration, military occupation, religious
conversion, and cultural interaction that helped shape what are now the
southern borderlands of the United States.
The Old San Antonio road brought American immigrants and influence
westward to Texas during the early 19th century. This large-scale
immigration led to revolt, creation of the Texas Republic and
eventually its annexation to the United States, which in turn
precipitated war between the U.S. and Mexico.
While the entire route of El Camino Real de los Tejas extended over
1,600 miles from Mexico City to Los Adaes, today most of the route lies
in Mexico. S. 2052 would allow for collaborative programs with Mexican
institutions, both public and private, that would help in fully
understanding the history, geography, and cultures of the entire route.
Interest has been expressed by officials in Mexico for developing
preservation and education programs along Mexico's part of El Camino
Real de los Tejas. If this complementary program were implemented, an
international historic trail would be created with benefits leading to
an increase in mutual understanding between our nations.
Partnerships and cooperation, keystones to the development of the
National Trails System, are essential to bring about the preservation
and interpretation of El Camino Real de los Tejas resources. The trail
crosses public and private lands and it is important that the intent of
the National Trails System Act be met by respecting private property
rights. Respecting property rights will develop solid and long-lasting
relationships with partners and help stimulate and maintain a strong,
grassroots-managed trail system. It is also vital that we acknowledge
the pride and stewardship of all our partners, private and public, in
their voluntary and good faith efforts to preserve and appropriately
share their part of our national patrimony.
With continued and even increasing public interest and efforts to
help commemorate it, opportunities for partnerships along El Camino
Real de los Tejas are very promising. Longterm success of the trail
will depend on continued involvement from partners as well as the
States of Texas and Louisiana, landowners, and other organizations and
individuals. In that regard, we would strongly encourage the early
creation of a nonprofit trails organization to represent the various
constituencies along the trail and to enhance the public/private
partnerships that make nationally designated trails successful.
Should S. 2052 be enacted, the NPS, subject to availability of
funds, would prepare a comprehensive management plan with public input
to identify the goals and objectives for trail preservation, research,
interpretation, public use, trail marking, and cooperative management.
The required national historic trail advisory council would be
established with broad representation of those interested, including
private landowners, to advise on trail planning and administration
matters. The NPS would implement the plan by creating a trail
administration office to provide technical and limited financial
assistance for preservation, historical research, planning and design
for interpretation and development projects. It would also manage the
negotiating and certifying of qualifying sites, trail segments, and
interpretive facilities. NPS would develop and manage the official
trail marker symbol, marking the route and negotiating agreements with
different trail partners. This would include establishing agreements
with Mexico to enrich our understanding of trail history and to
exchange information to enhance resource preservation and public
understanding. This would involve some increased operational costs,
although most trails have annual funding of less than $300,000.
We believe there is some confusion with regard to the language that
seeks to assure that private property rights are protected and we
recommend that this language be clarified to eliminate this confusion.
When Congress adds a trail to the National Trails System Act,
designation of the trail and certification of sites and segments are
two separate actions. Designation of the trail involves the
acknowledgment of a continuous route on a map with a beginning and an
ending point. This route is consistent with the findings of the study
completed for the trail.
However, the designation of this route does not mean that each
piece of land that makes up the route is open and available for public
use. Sites and segments are only available for public use through the
certification process whereby the NPS would discuss with private
landowners whether they would like the portion of the trail through
their property to be part of the designated trail. No landowner is
required to have his property available for use even though a trail is
designated by Congress.
Should a landowner agree to have any site or segment certified for
a designated trail, the NPS Intermountain Region, which administers
eight national historic trails and would be responsible for the trail
designated by S. 2052, includes language in its certification agreement
to protect private property rights. That language reads: ``The owner
retains all legal rights to the property, and nothing in this agreement
is to be construed as granting any legal authority to the National Park
Service over the property or any action by the owner.'' Landowners
retain complete rights to their lands and only participate in trail
programs to the extent that they desire through the certification
process. Under existing authorities, neither trail designation, nor
certification gives the Federal government any control over private
lands.
Some of the language proposed in this bill to protect private
property rights is already found in the National Trails System Act, and
we believe creates confusion between the designation and certification
processes. We would be glad to work with the committee on alternative
language to eliminate this confusion.
We appreciate the committee's interest in this legislation. That
concludes my remarks and I would be happy to respond to any questions
that you may have.
S. 2319
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views regarding S. 2319. This bill would
authorize and facilitate hydroelectric power re-licensing of the Tapoco
Project, near Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
The Department supports S. 2319 with the amendments discussed later
in this testimony. We believe that the exchange authorized in S. 2319,
together with the comprehensive Settlement Agreement discussed later in
this testimony, is an excellent example of Secretary Norton's 4 C's,
Conservation through Cooperation, Consultation and Communication and
demonstrates how environmental groups, local and state governments,
industry, tribes, and the Federal government can work cooperatively on
the conservation of important environmental resources.
S. 2319 would resolve a jurisdictional issue by allowing the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue a new license to
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) to operate its existing Tapoco
Project (FERC project # 2169), a system of four hydropower dams on the
Little Tennessee and Cheoah rivers straddling the North Carolina-
Tennessee border. The bill also authorizes the Secretary to exchange
lands within Great Smoky Mountains National Park (park) with APGI. Once
the exchange is completed, the bill allows FERC to re-license the
project. The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture are also
authorized to acquire title to additional lands that may be transferred
to a nongovernmental organization, as part of the Settlement Agreement
related to this project, and add them to the boundaries of the park or
the Cherokee National Forest.
In 1999, when APGI began work on a re-licensing application with
FERC to continue the operation of the Tapoco Project, it was discovered
that a portion of the project, known as Chilhowee Reservoir, inundates
approximately two miles of government-owned lands along Abrams Creek
and shorter segments along three other streams, all within the 1926
authorized boundary of the park. This situation has existed since the
1950's when Chilhowee Dam was completed and originally licensed by the
former Federal Power Commission. FERC does not have the legal authority
to issue licenses for hydropower projects that flood lands within
authorized national park boundaries.
The Federal Power Act and the enabling legislation for the park
specifically prohibit hydropower projects within the park. The
historical record, from the 1950's and earlier, of how the licensing
was allowed to occur is unclear. Records indicate that the NPS and the
Federal Power Commission were aware of the jurisdictional defect, but
no evidence has been found that proves that the issue was legally
resolved. It appears that the Federal Power Commission granted the
license and the decision was not challenged.
S. 2319 would resolve this situation by requiring a transfer of
approximately 100 acres of submerged lands along Abrams Creek, and
three smaller tributaries within the park, to APGI and granting
jurisdiction to FERC to re-license the Tapoco Project and the
operations at Chilhowee Dam and Reservoir. In exchange, the park would
receive fee title to 186 acres of forested uplands within its
authorized boundary that are currently under APGI ownership and retain
management and enforcement rights over the 100 acres transferred to
APGI. The bill also contains a reversionary clause that stipulates if
the dam is ever breached or removed, the submerged lands would revert
to the NPS.
The exchange would extend park-owned land to the east shoulder of
U.S. Highway 129 for approximately three miles. Currently, park-owned
land stops at a powerline easement well to the northeast of the
highway. This gap between the highway and the powerline creates an
isolated pocket of land within the park boundary that poses ongoing
management and law enforcement problems. Because of the reserved
management easement, NPS rangers would continue to patrol the four
flooded creek embayments within the park and enforce park rules, even
though the underlying fee interest in the land will now belong to APGI.
Critical to our support of this bill are additional conservation
provisions in a comprehensive Settlement Agreement that has recently
been developed among APGI, the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Forest Service, Tennessee and North Carolina natural resource agencies,
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, local governments, and several
nongovernmental organizations. The Settlement Agreement has widespread
support from the involved parties and will be filed with FERC to
address the issues in the re-licensing of the Tapoco Project, including
whether or not Chilhowee should continue to operate as a reservoir.
In addition to the land exchange proposed in S. 2319, under the
Settlement Agreement APGI will donate to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) a
permanent conservation easement on an additional 400 acres of land it
owns in Tennessee, within the park's authorized boundary, but lying
southwest of highway 129 and the previously mentioned 186-acre parcel.
These lands will continue to be maintained as a wildlife management
area under an existing agreement with the State of Tennessee until such
time as they might be acquired by the NPS. APGI will also grant an
option to TNC to buy the fee interest of this tract for a price
reflecting impact on value of the donated easement, and TNC will be
restricted from selling the tract to any entity other than the NPS.
In addition to the land exchange provisions in S. 2319, the
Settlement Agreement also stipulates that APGI will donate conservation
easements to TNC for several other parcels of land. The first permanent
conservation easement is on approximately 5,500 acres of land that will
be the centerpiece of a ``conservation corridor'' linking the park with
the Cherokee National Forest, immediately south of the project's
reservoirs on the Little Tennessee River. TNC will hold the easement
and the property will be available for purchase in fee for future
addition to the Cherokee National Forest or the park, as appropriate.
The second conservation easement is on approximately 4,000 more
acres of APGI lands in Tennessee and would last for the term of the new
FERC license. If APGI decides to sell these lands or to sell the
project to a different company, it has agreed to make these lands
available for purchase by TNC. Through in essence a right of first
refusal, TNC would only be authorized to sell these lands to the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the U.S. Forest Service or the
park.
Finally. APGI has agreed to establish a mitigation fund for the
project area in Tennessee that will make $100,000 per year available to
the NPS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service,
TNC, the State of Tennessee, and other stakeholders for actions to
mitigate the ecological impacts of the hydroelectric project, such as
reducing invasive, non-native, terrestrial and aquatic species,
improving wildlife habitats, and conducting relevant ecological
research. A similar, but smaller mitigation fund ($25,000 per year)
will be established for projects on the North Carolina portion of the
project. APGI will also restore biologically important minimum stream
flows to sections of the Little Tennessee River and the Cheoah River
that have been bypassed for the last 50 years for power generation.
We should note that an appraisal has not been done on the lands to
be exchanged. The value of these lands would normally be determined
through an objective appraisal conducted in accordance with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA). However, we
are mindful that legislated land transfers often promote other
considerations that may not lend themselves readily to the standard
appraisal process or to equal value exchanges in all cases. In this
instance, NPS conveys approximately 100 acres of land to APGI and
receives in return a reservation of a conservation easement on the 100
acres of land, a reversion interest on the 100 acres of land. and 186
additional acres of land or suitable equivalent. Conservation
provisions also are provided for in the related Settlement Agreement.
For these reasons, this exchange results in environmental, management,
energy-related and economic benefits for the parties and the public.
The balancing of important public policy considerations against the
financial implications of proposed transfers are ultimately a question
that rests with Congress.
We also have several amendments to suggest. Section 4(c) provides
for the reversion of fee simple title to the United States. We would
like to work with the Committee, APGI, and other interested parties to
address several issues in this subsection. First, the provision
requires reversion for fee simple title for the Chilhowee Dam, and we
believe the intention of the provision is to require the reversion of
the lands identified in Section 4(a)(2), not the dam itself. Second, we
would like to discuss with the parties further refinement of the
circumstances under which reversion of fee title should occur.
Section 4(g) of the bill states, among other things, that the
exchange is deemed to meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation
Act. The Department does not believe this broad exemption is necessary.
Much of the environmental compliance work necessary to implement the
exchange has already been conducted. We therefore recommend striking
these provisions from the bill.
In addition, we suggest one technical amendment that will make the
land acquisition authorized in Section 6(a)(2) of the bill consistent
with that in Section 4(f). The amendment is attached to this testimony.
S. 2319, which will authorize the re-licensing of the Tapoco
Project, and the accompanying Settlement Agreement together provide a
solution that makes sense, helps protect ecosystem sustainability
within the Southern Appalachians, and is widely supported by the
involved agencies and groups. We look forward to working with the
committee to help this bill move forward.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Proposed Amendment
S. 2319, TAPOCO PROJECT LICENSING ACT OF 2004
In Section 6(a)(2)(A) insert the following after ``under paragraph
(1)'':
``and administer any acquired land as part of the Park in
accordance with applicable law (including regulations)''
Senator Thomas. Mr. Robinson, would you care to go ahead
with yours?
STATEMENT OF J. MARK ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF ENERGY PROJECTS, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Robinson. Sure, and I will only be speaking on one
Senate provision.
My name is Mark Robinson. I am the Director of the Office
of Energy Projects. We certificate about 2,000 miles of natural
gas pipeline every year. We authorize the construction and
ensure the safety of liquified natural gas plants in the United
States, and more specifically to why we are here today, we
license, administer, and ensure the safety of about 1,600
hydroelectric projects across the country, one of which is the
Tapoco Project.
We have a problem. The Tapoco Project was licensed in 1955
and it was licensed to include about 100 acres on four small
pieces of land in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The
Federal Power Act, however, precludes the commission from doing
just exactly what it did in 1955, which is to license projects
in national parks. The Tapoco Project is up for relicensing,
and we need some help. We need to rectify this inconsistency
between the Federal Power Act and the specific project.
S. 2319 would do just that by allowing for the transfer of
that 100 acres of land that is currently inundated by the
Tapoco Project in the Smoky Mountains National Park and the
removal of it from park boundaries. If that occurs, then we can
consider relicensing this project as it is currently
configured, and that would make everything just that much
easier, much more smooth at the commission in terms of what to
do with this particular project.
Without this provision, without S. 2319, it is unclear
exactly what we would do with this particular project. Not
licensing and taking the project out of license would mean 52
megawatts of power that is currently being produced by the
Chilhowee development, which is part of the Tapoco Project,
would no longer occur. That is nothing that anyone is
proposing, and so the land transfer appears to be the best
route.
If we could put one thing on our wish list with this
legislation, it would be that it include a provision that
requires the land exchange to occur by the end of December
2004. We would request that because the license expires on
February 28, 2005. That would give us approximately 2 months to
conclude the licensing process and act on the license
application prior to license expiration, which is an objective
the commission has had for some time.
What that would also do, it would put a time certain on
when the new licensing provisions could go into play. That
could include additional flows for recreational purposes,
additional recreational facilities, and all sorts of
environmental benefits associated with the relicensing of this
project.
I would make one comment in terms of the amendment offered
by Mr. Hoffman on the NEPA exclusion. If NEPA and the National
Historic Preservation Act provisions have already been
satisfied, then we have no difficulty with that proposed
amendment. If in fact they have not, then I think the bill, as
it is currently structured, would give us the best shot of
having the land transfer occur by December 2004, and put us in
the best position to act on the license application before the
license expires and thus allow all those other benefits
associated with relicensing to start accruing to the public.
Finally, I would like to just say that this is an example
of how our licensees work with numerous stakeholders. We see
this all over the country, and I would like to applaud Alcoa as
an example for how we can relicense significant hydroelectric
projects to the benefits of both power and the environment. And
it is significant that we are here this week because, as we sit
here, across town the National Hydropower Association has
brought together about 200 to 300 hydro operators who are
hearing repeatedly, in one session after another, how important
it is to try to reach settlements and look across issues, both
developmental and non-developmental to ensure adequate
licensing of hydroelectric projects.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Mark Robinson, Director, Office of Energy
Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committees, My name is J. Mark
Robinson and I am the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss S. 2319, the Tapoco Project
Licensing Act of 2004, which relates to a hydroelectric project
regulated by the Commission. As a member of the Commission's staff, the
views I express in this testimony are my own, and not those of the
Commission.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission
is responsible for licensing and relicensing non-Federal hydropower
projects, managing those projects during their license terms, and
overseeing the safety of hydropower dams. Section 4(e) of the FPA
authorizes the Commission to issue licenses for projects which, among
other things, are located ``upon'' reservations of the United States.
The Federal Water Power Act of 1920 (FWPA), which in 1935 became
Part I of the FPA, originally included national parks in the definition
of ``reservations.'' In 1921, Congress amended the FWPA to remove
national parks and monuments from the Commission's jurisdiction, and to
retain in Congress the jurisdiction to authorize the construction of
dams in parks. In 1935, when the FWPA was amended and became Part I of
the FPA, Congress revised the definition of the term ``reservation'' to
state that ``reservations shall not include national monuments or
national parks.''
Establishment of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park--was--first
provided for by a Congressional Act approved on May 22, 1926, with a
provision specifying that, the provisions of the FWPA did not apply to
the park.
The 359.8-megawatt (MW) Tapoco Hydroelectric Project is located on
the Little Tennessee and Cheoah Rivers in Graham and Swain Counties,
North Carolina, and Blount and Monroe Counties, Tennessee. The project
consists of the 49.2-MW Santeetlah Development, located on the Cheoah
River, and the 118MW Cheoah Development, the 140.4-MW Calderwood
Development, and the 52.2-MW Chilhowee Development, all located on the
Little Tennessee River. The project occupies 387 acres within the
Nantahala National Forest, which is administered by the U.S. Forest
Service. Notwithstanding the prohibitions discussed above on the
Commission licensing projects within national parks, the reservoir of
the Chilhowee project is located in part on one hundred acres of land
within the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is administered by
the National Park Service.
The Commission issued the original license for the Tapoco Project
on March 17, 1955, for a period of 50 years, effective March 1, 1955,
and expiring on February 28, 2005. The 1955 license authorized the
construction and operation of the Chilhowee Development, and the
continued operation of the Calderwood, Cheoah, and Santeetlah
Developments. The license order did not state that a portion of the
project would occupy national park land. Moreover, the license
application, filed on October 25, 1954, states that ``[n]o lands or
reservations of the United States will be affected by the . . .
[p]roject.'' A search of the Commission's files has produced no
information that sheds further light on the matter.
As I have mentioned, the only portion of the Tapoco Project that is
located on national park land is a part of the Chilhowee Reservoir.
When the reservoir, which has a surface area of about 1,734 acres at
normal full pond elevation of 874.0 feet msl, is at full elevation, it
inundates approximately 100 acres of national park land.
Water in the reservoir is stored and released in order to provide
head for generation at the project. In addition, the reservoir supports
the second highest recreational use of the four developments, due to
its proximity to Knoxville, and the availability of several boating
access points and campgrounds. Also, Chilhowee's upper end supports a
cold- to cool-water fishery, while the lower portion of the reservoir
supports a cool-water fishery. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
actively manages the upper portion of the reservoir as a stocked put-
and-take trout fishery and stocks catchable sized trout.
THE RELICENSING PROCEEDINGS
On February 21, 2003, Tapoco Division of Alcoa Power Generating
Inc. (Alcoa) filed an application for a new license for the project. On
July 23, 2003, the Commission issued a public notice of the
application. In response to the notice, several agreements in principle
were filed with the Commission, setting forth the framework of a
comprehensive settlement agreement among Alcoa, the U.S. Department of
the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, resource agencies of the States of North Carolina and
Tennessee, local governments, and national, regional, and local non-
governmental organizations, with respect to relicensing the Tapoco
Project. The parties have indicated to Commission staff that they
expect to file a settlement agreement with the Commission on or before
May 14, 2004
As part of the agreement in principle, Alcoa agrees to convey to
the Park Service, in fee simple, approximately 200 acres of land
located outside of the Tapoco Project boundary, and within the
authorized boundary of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. In
return, the Park Service would transfer to Alcoa the approximate 100
acres of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park inundated by Chilhowee
Reservoir. If these transfers were accomplished, no portion of the
Tapoco Project would be located within a national park. However, it is
my understanding that the Secretary of the Interior must obtain
Congressional authorization in order to complete the transfers.
On March 15, 2004, Commission staff issued an environmental
assessment (EA) for the relicensing of the Tapoco Hydroelectric
Project.
The EA states that there is essentially no shoreline development on
any of the Little Tennessee River mainstem reservoirs other than
project-related facilities (project works and recreation facilities),
and some small, public, non-project recreation areas. All of the
shoreline surrounding the Chilhowee, Calderwood and Cheoah reservoirs
is owned by Alcoa, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Forest Service,
the National Park Service, and the Tennessee Department of
Transportation. Moreover, with the exception of a few parcels, most of
the property adjoining the project boundary is also owned by these
entities. The EA concluded that topography and existing property
ownership virtually ensure that these reservoir shorelines will
continue to be protected from future development. Further, nothing
proposed by Alcoa is expected to change development patterns around the
reservoir, or the current uses of the reservoir. Finally, as is often
the case for projects in the southeastern U.S., the EA recommends that
Alcoa be required to develop and implement a shoreline management plan,
in order to protect important aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
cultural sites, and to enhance recreation resources by establishing
specifications and criteria to ensure that all private and multi-use
recreation facilities are properly constructed and maintained.
On the other hand, the EA indicates that, were the reservoir
lowered to an elevation where it would no longer inundate the Great
Smoky Mountain National Park, virtually the entire 1,724 acre Chilhowee
Reservoir would be eliminated, resulting in the loss of the fishery,
boating, and other recreation opportunities, as well as the annual loss
of 52.2 MW of capacity, or enough to power about 52,000 homes.
The EA recommended that the Commission issue a new license for the
Tapoco Project consistent with the agreements in principle. Comments on
the EA are due by May 14, 2004.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
S. 2319 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, consistent
with the agreements in principle, to transfer to Alcoa the 100 acres of
national park land that are occupied by the Chilhowee Reservoir, in
exchange for some 186 acres of land located elsewhere in Great Smoky
Mountain National Park, or for equivalent land. S. 2319 further states
that, on completion of the land exchange, the Commission will have
jurisdiction to license the Tapoco Project.
The land exchange provided for by S. 2319 will allow the Commission
to consider Alcoa's proposal to relicense the project in its current
form, as contemplated by the agreements in principle, without the need
to address the issue of a portion of the project being located in a
national park. If the legislation were to provide that the transfer be
concluded by December 2004, it would help ensure the Commission's
ability to act on Alcoa's proposal by the date the license expires on
February 28, 2005.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Good. Thank you.
On that bill, it indicates that Alcoa will grant a
permanent easement for 6,000 acres in the Great Smoky Mountain
National Park and Cherokee National Forest, a 40-year
recreational easement on 4,000 to the Tennessee Nature
Conservancy. Alcoa has all those acres here. Is that the idea?
Mr. Hoffman. Yes, sir. They own that acreage in that area.
Senator Thomas. And so they are going to put a use easement
on it.
Mr. Hoffman. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. It also indicates at the end of the bill
that it authorizes funding necessary. What does that mean?
Mr. Hoffman. I believe that pertains to just the cost of
actually performing the land exchange, the surveys, the legal
document draftings, those sorts of things.
Senator Thomas. You do not have a number.
Mr. Hoffman. I do not have a number. I can get that for
you.
Senator Thomas. But it is not an ongoing maintenance or
anything of that nature.
Mr. Hoffman. No, sir.
Mr. Robinson. There is also a fall-back position. If the
land exchange does not occur, the 100 acres for the 186 acres
designated, that different lands would be proposed by Alcoa
that might be used in lieu of the 186, and I think there is
also a further provision that if that did not occur, there
might be some purchase. And I think those funds may go to that
as well.
But the objective is to get the 100 acres exchanged for the
186, and I think a timeframe associated with that might put
everybody's attention to that specific purpose.
Senator Thomas. I guess in that cost thing I was just
wondering, are they going to pay the Tennessee group for this
easement? Or do you know? I guess I am interested in the
financial impact of this.
Mr. Hoffman. My understanding is that the easements will be
given to the Nature Conservancy, and I think maybe the Nature
Conservancy buys the easements. They hope to then sell the
easements to the National Park Service and/or the Forest
Service at some point in the future, which will be a separate
transaction. If neither the Park Service nor the Forest Service
buys those easements at all in the future and there is another
renewal or Alcoa determines to dispose of those lands, the
Nature Conservancy has the first right of refusal to buy those
lands. So it is hoped by the Nature Conservancy that the
Federal Government will buy them out of this, but they are
committed to the long haul.
I would just add to that the list of participants in this
agreement is the most impressive list of participants in any
agreement I think I have ever seen. These are groups that
oftentimes are at odds with one another. This has been worked
out over a number of years, and I think represents a huge win-
win opportunity here where we can protect park resources,
protect national forest resources, restore fisheries, enhance
recreation, and save nearly 2,000 jobs in eastern Tennessee, an
area that definitely is in need of those jobs.
Senator Thomas. Yes, it sounds like a fairly complicated
thing. We were just discussing, Senator, this--what is it
called?
Senator Alexander. Tapoco.
Senator Thomas. We have just talked about it. If you would
like to comment on it, we would be happy to have you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me for
being late. I was involved in helping to manage a bill on the
floor, and I am sorry that I was late because this is a subject
in which I am extremely interested. I have talked with the
chairman about it.
I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to
leave for the record, if I may.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
Senator Alexander. If I may just say a word about it.
This land swap, these principles, this agreement which we
are being asked to approve should be hailed as a model, I
believe, of cooperation between the industry, communities, and
conservation groups. This involves, as has been said, about
10,000 very precious acres. They lie between the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park, which is the most visited park, 10
million visitors a year, and the Cherokee National Forest,
which has another 2 million to 5 million visitors a year.
The reason Alcoa has them, of course, as I am sure has been
detailed, is because they got in early, 1913 I think, and built
four dams very high in the mountains. In fact, in my home town
of Maryville, the mayor was run out of town for allowing Alcoa
to come in there with its big aluminum smelter. But, of course,
it transformed that part of Appalachia, first in terms of jobs.
People in that region were making probably a third of the
national average in family income. Today it is 100 percent
because Alcoa's wages were wages negotiated on a national
scale. People made good money there. So people were driving
from all over, Mr. Chairman, to go to work at the Alcoa plant,
as many as 14,000 people during the war.
My dad was one of those, and as I grew up with a dad
working at the Alcoa plant, I also had a chance to earn an
Alcoa scholarship which are given to children of employees.
The first reason that I hope that we approve this and that
the license is renewed for another 40 years is jobs, good
paying jobs, in the Appalachia region of America.
The second is conservation. This is an area under a lot of
pressure. I and most other people who live in east Tennessee
would welcome the opportunity to have 10,000 more acres to hike
in and fish in and go to, particularly between the Great Smokys
and the Cherokee Forest. Just over in North Carolina is the
Joyce Kilmer Forest, which has some of the biggest hardwoods in
the Eastern United States.
So I heard win-win, as I was coming in. It is win-win-win-
win in my book: jobs, conservation, good example. And I want to
congratulate those conservation groups who have worked for 7
years on this. I want to congratulate Alcoa for being unselfish
about its land, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can approve
this Alcoa land swap. So far as I know, it has enormous, strong
support in east Tennessee where I live and have grown up, and I
believe it will be hailed as a model across this country once
it is culminated.
Thank you for interrupting so that I could make my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senator From Tennessee
Chairman Thomas, thank you for holding this hearing on S. 2319,
which I introduced on April 19. This legislation would give
Congressional approval to an agreement that will save thousands of
good-paying jobs at the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) plants in
Blount County--and at the same time provide recreational opportunities
on thousands of acres of ALCOA mountain land for canoeists, hikers and
fishermen. And, of importance to all of us who enjoy the outdoors in
East Tennessee and North Carolina, this agreement should help to create
fuller lake reservoirs during the summer recreation season.
This agreement is necessary because, since 1913, Alcoa has operated
dams high on the Little Tennessee River adjacent to the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park near the border of Tennessee and North Carolina.
These dams were built before either the Tennessee Valley Authority or
the Great Smoky Mountain National Park was created. These four dams
provide half of the electric power ALCOA uses to operate its plants in
the valley below the mountains in Blount County, Tennessee. ALCOA's
license to operate these four dams expires next year. The company has
applied to the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission for a 40-year
license renewal.
ALCOA's license renewal application has created widespread interest
in the Tennessee Valley for two reasons. The first reason involves the
economic well-being of thousands of current and retired ALCOA workers
and the communities in which they live. The second reason is that the
application attracted broad attention from conservation organizations
because of the opportunity to create recreation opportunities on land
ALCOA owns in the Little Tennessee River Watershed adjacent to the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Some of this ALCOA land is
actually within the legislation boundaries of the Park.
This hydroelectric relicensing is a textbook example of how a major
American company can work with communities and conservation
organizations to help Americans keep a high standard of living as well
as to conserve the environment. Once approved, I expect it to become a
model for many other companies, communities and conservation groups.
It is critically important to renew this hydroelectric license for
another 40 years and keep these good jobs in the Tennessee Valley.
Without these four dams providing low cost, reliable power, these jobs
would be gone overnight--probably to ALCOA's plants in Quebec or
Iceland where the hydroelectric power is plentiful and cheap.
A critical requirement of obtaining this 40-year license renewal is
the settlement agreement negotiated by and with a large group of
interested relicensing stakeholders. The stakeholders include the
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Eastern Band
of Cherokees, state agencies representing Tennessee and North Carolina,
and numerous non-governmental organizations, local governments,
homeowners association, and individual citizens.
Seven years ago, settlement agreement negotiations on the
hydroelectric facility began. It has taken seven years to work out all
the issues with all the various interested parties. However, after
seven years of hard work, a settlement that preserves jobs and protects
the environment has come forward.
In order to make the settlement agreement effective, Congress must
authorize the land exchanges in the settlement agreement. The terms and
conditions under the settlement agreement will then become terms and
conditions under ALCOA's hydroelectric license. In order for FERC to
have legal authority to put the settlement agreement terms and
conditions in the license, legislation from Congress is required prior
to FERC making a relicensing decision in August 2004.
Much of the settlement agreement is focused on the transfer of land
interests between the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the U.S.
Forest Service and ALCOA.
The legislation has two main components:
The first component is the authorization of a land swap between the
Great Smokies National Park and ALCOA. The Great Smokies will transfer
100 acres of submerged, flooded areas of land in exchange for 186 acres
of biologically sensitive acreage that ALCOA currently owns inside the
legislative boundary of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. Once
this land swap occurs, FERC can issue the new hydroelectric license.
The second component is that the legislation permits the National
Park Service to purchase an additional 6,000 acres of land in the
future, if the Tennessee Nature Conservancy exercises its option to
purchase the land.
Here's how it works. Once FERC issues the new license, ALCOA then
will grant (for free) to the Tennessee Nature Conservancy a permanent
easement for 6,000 acres. Once the permanent easement is granted, the
Tennessee Nature Conservancy will then make it available for hiking,
fishing, and recreational activities. This 6,000 acres, currently owned
by ALCOA, is nestled between the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
and the Cherokee National Forest. In addition, the Tennessee Nature
Conservancy will then have the option to purchase the 6,000 acres of
permanent easement from ALCOA and in turn, the Tennessee Nature
Conservancy will sell the land at fair market value less the valuation
of the permanent easement to the Great Smokies or U.S. Forest Service.
The settlement agreement also provides that ALCOA will grant to the
Tennessee Nature Conservancy a 40-year term easement for an additional
4,000 acres south of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park along the
Calderwood Reservoir to the Tennessee-North Carolina border. This 40-
year term easement will expire at the end of the hydroelectric license
term and return to ALCOA free and clear. Once the term easement is
granted, these 4,000 acres will then be made available for hiking,
fishing and recreational activities for the length of the license.
In addition, the settlement agreement provides millions of dollars
to enhance the recreational opportunities on the Tennessee River. The
types of commitments included in the settlement agreement include more
portage trails for canoeing, better access for hikers and fisherman to
the Tennessee River, and fuller reservoirs during the summer recreation
seasons.
Signatories on the settlement agreement include:
Alcoa, Inc.
American Rivers
Blount County, TN
City of Alcoa, Tennessee
City of Maryville, Tennessee
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Great Smoky Mountains
National Park
National Parks Conservation Association
North Carolina Department of Environment and Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Tennessee Clean Water Network
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Forest Service
Other Supporters of the settlement agreement include:
Blount County Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Blount County Industrial Development Board
TN Great Smokies National Park Commission
TN State House of Representatives
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and I thank you
for holding this hearing today.
Senator Thomas. Thank you for being here.
Before we call on Senator DeWine, do you have any questions
for this panel?
Senator Akaka. Yes, I do.
Senator Thomas. Would you care to go ahead?
Are you in a timeframe thing?
Senator DeWine. No, sir.
Senator Thomas. We will be with you very soon then,
Senator.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that the
statement from Senator Graham on the Everglades National Park
bill, S. 2046, be included in the record.
Senator Thomas. it will be in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Graham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator
From Florida
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Akaka for holding
today's hearing and including S. 2046, a bill I introduced with Senator
Nelson to authorize a land exchange between Everglades National Park
and the South Florida Water Management District.
The land exchange authorized in S. 2046 is necessary for the
completion of the C-111 Canal project. The project is integral to the
future of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and it
must be constructed before we can begin work on important CERP
projects.
I have reviewed the testimony that Mr. Hoffman will give today, and
I understand that the Department of Interior supports the bill with
some clarifying amendments. I think that these amendments are
improvements to the original legislation, and I ask that the committee
staff work with my staff to make the necessary changes before we take
this bill to mark-up.
I also want to thank Ms. Kathy Copeland for traveling from Florida
to be here today. Ms. Copeland has spent a lot of time working with me
and my staff and the Department of Interior to draft S. 2046. I want to
thank her for her work on this bill, and her commitment to Everglades
restoration in general.
I have written testimony provided by a number of environmental
organizations. I ask that this testimony be included in the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Hoffman, I have two questions. Is it all
right to proceed?
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir, please.
Senator Akaka. Two questions on S. 2046, the Everglades
land exchange. As I understand the bill, the purpose is to
transfer just over 1,000 acres to the South Florida Water
Management District to allow for the completion of the C-111
project. According to your testimony, the project would, among
other things, restore park habitat. I would like to ask what
else the district could do with the land it would receive in
the transfer. Will it be able to use any of the land for
purposes that do not benefit Everglades National Park?
Mr. Hoffman. Senator Akaka, the exchange provides benefits
to both the South Florida Water Management District and the
park, but those benefits to the South Florida Water Management
District go more to preventing flooding of Miami-Dade County.
Those benefits neither enhance nor hurt the park if they are
conducted in a way that continues to restore the water flows
through the Everglades.
Part of the C-111 project is a construction of a couple of
bridges that will restore flows into the Shark and Taylor
Sloughs. Basically the C-111 project predated the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Project. This has been on the books for
a long time, and the idea is to take water that can potentially
flood Miami-Dade County, pump it out of the C-111 canal into
holding ponds, stack the water up, which then under hydraulic
pressure goes down into the aquifer. It rises back up, part out
in the park, part out on the Miami-Dade side, and they just
continue to pump from the Miami-Dade side back toward the park
side. As that water stacks up, that hydraulic pressure begins
to create flows that start to restore the ecosystem of the
whole South Florida complex.
Senator Akaka. According to your testimony, the district
will transfer an equal amount of land to the park to conform to
the Park Service's goal of no net loss of park lands. Are the
lands that would be transferred to the Park Service important
from an ecological or cultural perspective, or is the main
purpose of this addition simply to ensure that the park's
acreage remains unchanged?
Mr. Hoffman. It is an attempt to approximate equal habitat
value, and the lands selected from the South Florida Water
Management District were selected primarily because those lands
represented the highest habitat value and most complemented the
management of the park. Those lands probably are not essential
to the management of the park but do enhance the management of
the park.
Senator Akaka. I am switching to S. 2319. According to Mr.
Robinson's statement, if the exchange were completed by this
December, it would help ensure that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission could act on the license renewal in a
timely manner. Do you see any problem with the Park Service
being able to complete the exchange by the end of the year?
Mr. Hoffman. No, sir. I do not think that poses a problem
at all.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Hoffman, this is on S. 1092. The
administration opposes S. 1092 which authorizes the Interior
Department to maintain a data base of veterans and war
memorials. According to your testimony, the Department is
concerned that the added responsibility of maintaining a data
base would take away resources from other park funding
priorities. Since, according to your testimony, the Park
Service already maintains an inventory of over 3,700 monuments,
memorials, and markers, how much do you expect it would cost to
maintain a data base that includes the non-Federal memorials?
Mr. Hoffman. Senator Akaka, no estimates are available to
address that cost because there really is no way to assess how
many markers or memorials or monuments there are out there to
be included in a data base. The only way to do it is to wear
soles off shoes and get out and beat the street. That takes
people and that takes money. You are talking about a very
extensive process that is virtually impossible for us to gauge
the expense of.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate it.
Senator DeWine, welcome. Glad to have you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank
you for including S. 1748, the Presidential Sites Improvement
Act in this afternoon's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, across this country there are a number of
sites that are associated with our former Presidents. These are
homes where former Presidents have been born. These are homes
that are uniquely associated with the Presidents. Sometimes
these are Presidential libraries. What they all have in common
is that none of them are owned nor maintained by the Federal
Government. They are maintained many times by local historical
societies, nonprofit organizations, sometimes by State
historical societies.
There are many, many of them. I have a two-page list here
in front of me. I just counted through here. It looks like
there are 60 or 70 different sites associated with different
Presidents.
The challenge is that many of these wonderful sites are
supported by organizations that do not have very much money,
and so when you go to these sites, sometimes you will see that
they are in great need of repair. What our bill does is it
simply authorizes up to--up to--$5 million a year to be used
for the expenditure of the maintenance of these sites. It
provides a mechanism by which a board would be appointed to
decide how this money would be spent, and this would be done on
a yearly basis. It provides for a 50 percent match from the
local money that would have to be generated, along with the
Federal dollars.
Let me just point out what this bill does not do, and I
think it is important to set the record straight here today.
This bill does not provide for the Federal Government to take
over any of the ownership or the running or the maintenance of
any of these sites. The Federal Government should not do that.
The Federal Government has enough to do and this committee
knows better than any other committee in the Congress the great
burden the Federal Government already has.
I think the unique blend that we already have in this
country of the Federal Government owning a few of the
Presidential sites, maintaining them, but yet probably the bulk
of the Presidential sites actually now being maintained locally
is just a fine mix.
But what this bill does is take a relatively small amount
of money and say that we are going to match that with a local
initiative, locally generated money to preserve these sites and
to make sure these sites will be there for our children and our
grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
In Ohio we are fortunate that we have a number of these
sites. A good many of them are in local hands. They are not
maintained by the Federal Government at all. Unfortunately, we
have had a struggle in Ohio. We have seen some of these sites
that are--the great front porch campaign of Warren G. Harding.
That front porch in Marion, Ohio was kind of falling down. We
have had a problem getting money to repair that. And there have
been other examples.
But that is what this bill does. It is a pretty simple
bill, and I will just stop at this point and ask your
consideration of the bill. But I just wanted to make it very
clear what the bill does and what it does not do. It is a
pretty simple and straightforward bill, but it does not call
for the Federal Government in any way, shape, or form to take
over these sites or to take over the maintenance. It is very
limited, very narrow focus in what it does. But the limited
amount of money that this bill would provide I can tell you
from my own experience of what I have seen in Ohio would go a
long, long way to preserve these sites for our kids.
I thank the chair.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it very
much.
Let us go on then to our second panel: Mr. Brian Rooney,
president of the RVETS, Remembering Veterans who Earned
Stripes; Mr. Randall Overbey, president, Primary Metals, Alcoa;
Ms. Faye Phillips, associate dean, Special Collections
Facilities, Louisiana State; Richard Moe, president, National
Trust for Historic Preservation; Kathy Copeland, director of
policy and legislation, South Florida Water Management
District; and John Nau, Chairman of the Texas Historical
Commission and chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
I thank all of you for coming. We will include your total
statements in the record. So if you feel inclined to sort of
capsulize it in 5 minutes or less, that would make us all very
happy I suspect. So, Mr. Rooney, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF BRIAN ROONEY, PRESIDENT, REMEMBERING VETERANS WHO
EARNED THEIR STRIPES, NORTHRIDGE, CA
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka.
My name is Brian Rooney. I am a twice disabled Vietnam
veteran, the father of six children, and I teach in the Los
Angeles Unified School District. I thank you for inviting me
here to testify on behalf of this important legislation.
In 1970 I was an Army medic in Vietnam performing triage on
a helipad. I had a couple of wounded that I helped, and there
was another GI that was badly wounded and I presumed him to be
dead. I did not like the idea of Americans dying in a foreign
land without me calling them by their name. So when I was
finished with the others, I leaned over his mortally wounded
body to get his name off his dog tag. And as I leaned over, he
opened his eyes, grabbed my shirt, pulled me down, and said,
remember me. Then he was gone.
So for about 23 years after that, I was cursed to remember
that soldier, in fact, haunted by the faces of many American
dying soldiers.
In 1993 that curse slowly began to turn into a blessing. I
was doing consulting for a California utility and I had
occasion to try to find some veterans memorials around town.
After much research, I discovered that there was no
comprehensive cataloguing of war memorials anywhere in America.
So over the next 9 years, I sent out about 40,000 letters
to every municipality, veterans group, patriotic group in
America asking them simply where the memorials were in their
town. I received in return tens of thousands of faxed pages
offering data on the existence and location of about 8,600 war
memorials in 50 States.
As the data rolled in, however, a disturbing trend began to
emerge. Way too many memorials were reported lost, vandalized,
or were just given up to apathy. The thought of throwing a
veterans memorial out with the trash was quite simply
unacceptable. So I started RVETS, a nonprofit 501(c)
organization, with the mission of monitoring veterans memorials
annually and taking steps to restore or save those in jeopardy.
I had the honor in the year 2000 to help write H. Con. Res.
345 which was a sense of Congress acknowledging the work of
RVETS and calling on America to honor the memory of those
courageous soldiers of war who gave their lives for our
freedom. The bill passed and was signed into law.
During the course of all this activity, including countless
thousands of phone calls, e-mails, letters, and faxes, it
dawned on me that most people are uninspired by a chunk of
concrete or brass. It is the person that we erect a memorial to
and it is that person that we are memorializing. Unfortunately,
time seems to erode our memory. So I decided that I will tell
the personal story of every individual named on every memorial
in America from the Revolutionary War to the present. As you
know, there is a memorial here in town that has 58,000 names on
it and 58,000 stories to tell. But if someone died for our
freedom, I intend to tell their story.
That soldier that died in my arms in Vietnam created a deep
scar in my heart, but in the course of time, I have come to
realize that he is much more than a single, nameless GI that
died on the battlefield far from home. Through this
legislation, that brave, young American becomes every American
that ever died for freedom, whether at Concord, Gettysburg,
Korea, or North Africa, on the shores of Omaha Beach or in the
streets of Baghdad.
If I observed somebody defacing a Vietnam memorial, I think
we might have a fight on our hands. My father landed at
Normandy Beach, fought his way across Europe, and liberated a
concentration camp. So again, if I saw a World War II memorial
in jeopardy, I think I would be pretty upset.
But who cares for the War of 1812 memorial or the Spanish
American war memorial? They are so far removed from our
conscious thought. Who then will champion the cause of those
Americans who bled and died on the battlefield of freedom? Who
will take up the fight to preserve those national treasures,
and more importantly, who will tell the story of their courage
and sacrifice for us?
With a national archive, housed in the U.S. Park Service
website, Americans will for the first time have access to the
location, the condition, and information of every memorial in
America, as well as a treasure-trove of incredible stories of
patriotism at its grandest heights.
In a sense, every American who died in war from the
Revolutionary War to the present war on terrorism is reaching
up now to you, grasping your shirt, and pleading, remember me.
By enacting S. 1092, you would not only preserve and honor
the memory of members of our armed forces, but you would also
contribute to the education of our children, to chronicle our
great American history, to promote a sense of patriotism, to
facilitate genealogical research, and to benefit the
preservation efforts.
I would be glad to answer any questions. Thank you very
much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rooney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Rooney, President, Remembering Veterans
Who Earned Their Stripes, Northridge, CA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, Committee members, my name is Brian
Rooney, I am a twice disabled Vietnam veteran, the father of six
children, and a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today on behalf of this
important legislation.
In 1970 I was an Army medic in Vietnam performing triage on a
helipad. I had treated a couple of wounded, but there was one GI who
was badly wounded and I presumed him to be dead. I didn't like the idea
of Americans dying in a far away land without me calling them by their
name, so after taking care of the others, I leaned over his mortally
wounded body to get his name off his dog tag. As I leaned over him he
opened his eyes, grabbed my shirt, pulled me down close to him, and
said ``Remember me . . . .'' And then he was gone.
For more than twenty three years those words were a curse to me
because I did in fact remember that soldier's face, as well as the
faces of many other dying Americans. Then in 1993 that curse slowly
began to turn into a blessing.
While doing consulting for a California utility I had the occasion
to try to locate some veterans memorials around town. After a great
deal of research I learned that there did not exist in America any
comprehensive archive of war memorials.
So over the following nine years I sent out more than 40,000
letters to every municipality, veterans group, and patriotic group in
America asking them where the memorials were in their town. I received
in return tens of thousands of faxed pages offering data on the
existence and location of about 8,600 veterans memorials in the fifty
states.
As the data rolled in however, a disturbing trend began to emerge.
Way too many of the responses spoke of an old memorial that was moved
or vandalized, or simply lost to apathy. The thought of throwing a
veterans memorial out with the trash was quite simply unacceptable, so
I created RVETS, a non-profit 501-C organization with the mission of
monitoring veterans memorials annually and taking steps to restore or
save any memorials that might be in jeopardy.
I had the honor in the year 2000 to help write HR345 which was a
sense of Congress acknowledging the work of RVETS and called on America
to honor the memory of those courageous soldiers of war who gave their
lives for our freedom. The bill passed and was signed into Public Law
106-511 title 3. (attached)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course this activity, including countless thousands of
phone conversations, emails, letters, and faxes, it dawned on me that
most people are uninspired by lifeless chunks of concrete or brass.
It's the person that we erect a memorial for and its the person that we
are memorializing. Unfortunately time seems to erode our memory. So I
decided that I will tell the personal story, of every individual named
on every memorial in America. As you know there is one memorial here in
town that has 58,000 names on it and 58,000 stories to tell. But if
someone died for our Freedom I intend to tell their story.
That soldier that died in my arms in Vietnam created a deep scar in
my heart, but in the course of time I have come to realize that he is
much more than a single, nameless GI that died on a battlefield far
from home. Through this work and legislation, that brave young American
becomes every American that ever died for freedom, whether it was at
Concord, or Gettysburg, Korea or North Africa, on the shores of Omaha
beach or the streets of Baghdad.
Several years ago I realized that if I observed someone defacing a
Vietnam memorial, we would have a fight on our hands. My father fought
in WWII landed at Normandy Beach, fought his way across Europe, and
liberated a concentration camp. So again if I saw a WWII memorial being
vandalized or neglected I would be pretty upset. But who cares about
the War of 1812 memorial, or the Spanish American War Memorial, they're
too far removed from our conscious thoughts. Who then will champion the
cause of those Americans who bled and died on the battlefield of
freedom. Who will take up the fight to preserve those national
treasures, and more importantly, who will tell the stories of their
courage and sacrifice for us.
We are the posterity that they were talking about.
With a national archive housed on the US Park Service website
Americans will for the first time have access to the location,
condition, and information of every memorial in the country, as well as
a treasure-trove of incredible stories of patriotism at its grandest
heights.
In a sense every dying American soldier from the Revolutionary War
to this present War on Terrorism is reaching up now to you, grasping
your shirt, and pleading, Remember Me . . . .
Then he was gone.
TRIBUTES TO PATRIOTISM
Courageous men and women have fought and died for this great
country from before the signing of the Declaration of Independence to
today's War on Terrorism. We are approaching close to one million
Americans who have given their lives to preserve our freedom. To
commemorate their sacrifice states, counties, cities and towns across
America have erected tributes to the heroism of these patriots of
freedom. While those memorials were intended to be permanent, many are
lost every year. Some are lost to neglect, others to vandalism, some to
redevelopment, and some to apathy. RVETS has worked for more than ten
years with the goal of first cataloging the tributes, then monitoring
the condition of memorials, and ultimately to tell the story of each
and every hero represented on the tributes.
The risk of losing these memorials is real. We have received
letters and faxes from virtually every state telling stories of
memorials lost.
The process of collecting information about our nation's tributes
to our patriots began with a vision--a vision that never again will a
memorial or permanent tribute be lost or forgotten. The work done by
RVETS since 1994 is but one step toward a larger effort that will
enable the public to obtain information about any memorial. It will aid
historians in their research about specific conflicts as well as
helping families seek information about their ancestors. It will
rekindle a sense of patriotism and encourage every American to reaffirm
their appreciation of our heritage.
As one staff member at the Library of Congress said of the project,
``Your work will change for the better the way Americans view their
country over the next fifty years.''
EDUCATION
I teach in the Los Angeles Unified School District and I am always
appalled at the people that our children choose to be their heroes and
role models. One facet of this legislation is that every school in
America will have access to the incredible stories of courage and
bravery demonstrated by the heroes of liberty from their own home town.
So that History teacher when teaching on say WWII can include the story
of an American hero that may have gone to that very school, and their
name may be found on the memorial right up the street.
History comes alive when you can bring it home to where the
students live. In Ohio an eagle scout discovered in the 1990's that
four soldiers from their town died in WWI, and that they all lived on
the same street. That young eagle scout spearheaded an effort to build
a memorial on that street to those brave Americans who gave their lives
for their country more than 50 years before he was even born.
How many children will discover their great and noble heritage on
this website in future generations.
ROLE MODELS
Desmond Doss was a medic with a Ranger unit in WWII. They had
scaled a cliff and engaged the enemy on the plateau above. But they
underestimated the strength of the enemy and were utterly decimated in
the ensuing battle causing them to retreat. Desmond Doss however,
returned to the open ground amidst automatic fire and mortar rounds to
retrieve a wounded GI. Desmond carried the soldier to the cliff, tied a
rope around him, and lowered him to safety below. This was a courageous
act and worthy of a medal, but Desmond was uninterested in medals at
the time, because he returned a second time exposing himself to enemy
fire to carry another GI to safety. This second act of bravery might
have earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor, but again Desmond's
focus was on doing his job which was saving lives. Well this great
American hero that most Americans have never even heard of returned
alone to that battlefield 72 times!!!! Carrying 72 American wounded
back to the cliff, tying a rope around 72 GI's, lowering 72 of them to
safety below.
Henry Johnson was an African American in the New York National
Guard during the first World War. His unit trained with broomsticks on
the streets of New York City. They were reluctantly sent to the war in
Europe, but were given non-combat duties. The French army needed
reinforcements and this black unit was the only one available. Henry
Johnson and his buddy Nedham Roberts were in a forward observation post
when they were overrun by about thirty German soldiers. They were shot,
gassed, and grenaded leaving Henry wounded 21 times and unconscious.
The German troop carried Nedham Roberts off as a prisoner. When Henry
came to he saw his friend being taken prisoner, so despite his 21
wounds, including a shattered leg, he pursued the troop and overtook
them. Henry then single-handedly engaged the force firing his rifle at
four of the enemy, using his bayonet on several more, and finally
pulling out his bolo knife and slashing his way through the German
troop toward his friend. After killing or wounding as many as 15 of the
enemy, the rest of the German troops wisely decided to run leaving
Henry with his buddy Nedham Roberts. This was certainly an incredible
act, but even more incredible is the fact that these two terribly
wounded American soldiers did not seek medical attention, but in fact
returned to their post and finished out the remaining six hours of
guard duty. Henry Johnson's memorial is in Albany, New York.
We've seen in movies a soldier dive onto a hand grenade sacrificing
his life to save his buddies. Well in the real world it seems that a
person would have to think hard for a while to decide whether he should
die for his friends or not. Yet that instantaneous decision to give
ones life for his friends has happened literally hundreds of times in
the archives of American history.
HISTORY LOST
In Ione, California there was a WWI Honor Roll, this is a memorial
that lists the names of Americans that gave their lives for our
country. RVETS had heard that this memorial existed and tried to
catalogue it. To our surprise we were told that sometime in the 1950's
the city hall, where the eight by four foot plaque hung, was torn down
and the plaque moved up the street. A few years after that it was put
in the mayor's garage, and ultimately lost. So that tribute to those
brave Americans who willingly went off to war to fight for freedom's
cause, was shuffled around like a piece of rag eventually to be cast
off to the trash heap.
An RVETS associate was at a demolition site of a Texaco plant. He
noticed in the rubble a brass plaque, so he walked over to it and
picked it up. To his shock it read in part, ``. . . to the memory of
our Texaco workers who gave their lives for our freedom . . .'' It
seems that the memory of a life sacrificed was short lived. Thankfully
that tribute was redeemed from the junk pile and now hangs in a place
of honor at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, California.
There are hundreds of such stories of memorials lost. According to
recent VA statistics we are also losing veterans at a rate of 1800 a
day. These veterans are taking with them the stories that our children
can benefit from, there is a great sense of urgency.
GENEALOGY
Americans will be able to go to the US Park Service website and
input their family surname and instantly see where in the United States
their ancestors' names appear on a veterans memorial, as well as their
story.
A family in California contacted RVETS asking for the location of a
memorial somewhere in the South Pacific. All they had was a photograph
of the father of a sailor killed in the Pacific standing next to a
memorial with the son's name on it, the picture was taken in the early
1950's. I located the memorial and 48 members of the family took a
pilgrimage to the site, to pay homage and tell the children and
grandchildren about the uncle that they never knew. (Story included in
L.A.Times article).
RVETS has received numerous inquiries from people seeking long lost
relatives and friends who were separated by wars.
VETERANS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS' EFFORTS
In 1994 in an effort to assist in the upkeep of veterans memorials
in California, I discovered that there was no statewide directory of
memorials. I then attempted to find California's veterans memorials in
a national directory. None existed. I decide that there should be a
comprehensive and complete list of the permanent tributes throughout
this country that have been dedicated to the men and women who made the
ultimate sacrifice and paid the ultimate price for their country.
Since then, I have worked to build a complete, comprehensive list
of every tribute to armed conflict in the United States. I have sent
out more than 40,000 letters to veterans organizations and
municipalities throughout the United States. I have sent a letter of
inquiry to every State, city, village, borough, parish, hamlet, town--
anyone who may have knowledge of where a memorial might be in any of
the fifty states. The responses I received range from detailed
descriptions of memorials, including the names and histories of those
honored, to a simple, ``Yes, we have one in town''. To date, I have
catalogued more than 8,600 permanent tributes honoring military
conflicts and those who have served our nation in 50 states.
During this time, I founded RVETS (Remembering Veterans who Earned
Their Stripes), a non-profit 501(c) organization dedicated to creating
a national directory of veterans memorials in America and monitoring
the condition of the tributes annually. To the best of my knowledge,
this directory is the only one of its kind in the United States.
Over the years I have approached and worked with many other
veterans and community organizations on this project. I have included
with my testimony examples of support I have received from
organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion,
the Minority Officers Assn., and the Boy Scouts of America. While RVETS
has maintained the lead role in identifying, researching, cataloging,
and monitoring the nation's tributes to our Armed Forces, we recognize
the important role that federal assistance would play.
Since 1994, RVETS has been at the forefront of this effort. We
believe that locating, cataloging, and monitoring permanent tributes,
as well as telling the stories of American heroes, will provide
enormous benefits not only to the 30 million veterans throughout the
country, but to our young people who can learn about our rich heritage,
to our senior citizens who remember the sacrifices that they and their
neighbors made during WWII and the Korean War. And to my generation,
the Vietnam Veteran, who served proudly and with distinction along with
the veterans of other conflicts.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WOULD BE A GREAT BENEFIT
To address the risk of losing more memorials, former Congressman
Jim Rogan introduced HconRes345 on June 6, 2000. The resolution
expressed the sense of Congress regarding the need for cataloging and
maintaining public memorials commemorating military conflicts of the
United States and the service of individuals in the Armed Forces.
On July 26, 2000 the Committee on Resources met to consider the
bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was ordered, favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
On September 19, 2000 the House of Representatives passed the
resolution by voice vote on the Suspension Calendar. During its
consideration, Chairman Jim Hansen stated, ``Thousands of public
memorials dealing with the United States' involvement in military
conflicts exist throughout the world. However, there is no index or
record as to their location nor is there a catalogued assessment as to
their condition. Unfortunately, many of these memorials suffer from
neglect, disrepair, or have been relocated or stored in facilities
where they are not accessible to the public.''
Rather than independent consideration by the Senate, the Resolution
was included in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's S. 964, the
Cheyene River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act which became
Public Law 106-511.
Under current law, several branches of the federal government
monitor and maintain federally funded memorials to the service of our
armed forces. For example, the Department of the Interior is
responsible for about 27 federally funded war memorials. But the
Department does not keep track of non-federally funded tributes.
However the same resources currently deployed to catalog federal
memorials could be used to catalog non-federally funded memorials.
Additionally, the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible for
cataloging, monitoring, and maintaining memorials within the 120
National Cemeteries throughout the country. Yet it does not keep track
of non-federally funded tributes, nor the tributes outside of their
cemeteries.
S. 1092, if enacted into law, would coordinate these disparate
efforts in one program and collect all of the information in one
location so it is easy for the public to access. The responsible
federal agency would work with community groups and other federal
agencies to collect data on the nation's tributes to service in the
Armed Forces. The data would be collected, verified, and make available
on the Internet so veterans', students, and anyone else interested
could access it at their convenience.
BENEFITS OF S. 1092
The benefits of S. 1092 to the nation are many and far reaching. It
will:
1. Honor the Armed Forces: By creating a comprehensive catalogue of
tributes to Patriotism. S. 1092 will demonstrate to America's Armed
Forces and veterans that their sacrifices are appreciated and
remembered.
2. Help to Educate America's Children: High school students are now
studying U. S. history without the benefit of knowing those courageous
heroes of freedom in their own town. Maybe from the very school that
they are attending. The students and their teachers will have access to
the stories of courage and honor from names on their home town
memorials. Classes may take learning walks to the memorials in town and
teachers could bring history to life by relating the stories that S.
1092 will provide. RVETS has already received inquiries from high
schools who assign students to research the biographies of the names on
the memorials in their town. This creates a sense of community as well
as a heightened sense of patriotism.
RVETS has received a series of correspondence from the University
of Pisa, Italy who's students were doing Masters dissertations on
United States wars And were seeking information on specific battle
monuments.
3. Aid in Chronicling Our History: S. 1092 will provide a framework
that will promote cooperation between public and private efforts. RVETS
has established a working relationship with the Library of Congress to
share information. The LOC is currently conducting a program of video
interviews with World War I and II veterans to create a video history
of the World Wars. We feel a sense of urgency because our veterans of
war are now dying at a rate of more than one thousand a day. Their
stories of courage, commitment, and of patriotism are dying with them.
4. Promote Patriotism: S. 1092 will increase awareness in our youth
to the sacrifices that have been made for the liberties that we all
enjoy. This will be accomplished in a proactive manner by distributing
to every school district a copy of the stories of their local home town
heroes of war. This information can be used in history and government
classes. RVETS has already begun to perform this service, and it has
worked successfully in concert with the ``Veterans in the Classroom''
program.
5. Facilities Genealogical Research: S. 1092 will help families to
teach their younger members about their unique history. RVETS intends
to record every name on every memorial in America and include that
information in the database. That number will be enormous, but the
benefits will be equally significant. People will be able to input
their family surname or ancestor and immediately find the locations of
every tribute in America that bears that name. Much like the family who
made the pilgrimage to Hawaii, the database can also satisfy families'
needs for resolution and closure for their lost loved ones.
6. Benefit Preservation Efforts: S. 1092 intentionally does not
authorize the federal government to maintain America's memorials.
However, without a comprehensive directory of memorials, Americans have
no way of knowing if one is in jeopardy.
RVETS has received numerous reports of neglected memorials. We
simply call the local veterans and patriotic groups who in turn take
care of the site themselves.
Additionally, the memorials will include a photograph, whether in
pristine condition or neglected. Most cities would prefer to be
represented by a well kept memorial.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Congratulations on your effort
and your work.
Mr. Moe.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MOE, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Moe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, for the
opportunity to appear before you today. Mr. Chairman, let me
thank you especially for your support of historic preservation
in our parks and beyond. You have been an inspiring leader for
us in many ways.
I will be very brief because Senator DeWine really made a
very effective case for this bill that he has introduced, but I
want to say just a few words.
I am the president of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, and the stewardship of the country's most
historic places such as Presidential sites goes to the very
heart of the National Trust's 1949 congressional charter. It is
a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to
protecting the irreplaceable.
This mission includes Presidential sites across the
country, three of which we operate as part of our inventory of
National Trust historic sites. These include Virginia's
Montpelier, the home of James Madison; the Woodrow Wilson House
where in Washington, DC; and President Lincoln's summer cottage
at the Soldiers' Home, also in Washington.
All too often in our efforts to protect important places
chronic underfunding that leads to deferred maintenance
deprives the Nation of its most important patrimony, which is
its heritage. Whether postponed maintenance results in the loss
of historic fabric or prevents important artifacts and exhibits
from reaching the public, good preservation and proper
interpretation are integral to our responsibility for the
stewardship of cultural resources. Arguably nowhere is this
more important than caring for America's Presidential legacy
from the iconic homes of our greatest leaders to some of the
humble places in which they were born. Senator DeWine, along
with Senators Durbin and Voinovich, understand this
responsibility, and their bill would target these sites in
particular with small matching grants to address urgent
maintenance needs, modernization, and accessibility
requirements, and interpretive improvements for the greater
public appreciation of each location.
More importantly, the bill would direct a relatively modest
amount of funding to the places that need it the most, and
through a matching requirement help invigorate efforts to raise
private dollars that are essential to meeting the needs of the
most important historic sites. Awards made available under S.
1748 would not go to federally owned Presidential sites, nor
would they be used for operating purposes. Project-based funds
would only be available to locations where the need is often
the greatest, those that are run by often financially
struggling State and local governments, private groups, local
historic preservation organizations, schools, and foundations.
The American Association for State and Local History documents
133 Presidential historic sites nationwide, with only 45 of
those run by the National Park Service and the Federal
Government. So about two-thirds of the inventory falls into the
categories covered by the bill, including 23 Presidential sites
that are State-run. Most of this inventory is pretty modest,
and just staying open is often a challenge for many of them.
Senator DeWine's bill is more important now than ever.
Funding for historic preservation, especially at the State and
local level, has been cut to the bare bones, and this coincides
with an equally tough climate for foundation-giving and Federal
dollars that would augment the cost of maintaining and
operating an historic site. Let me just give you one example
that reflects the condition affecting many historic sites,
particularly those 23 sites that are operated by States.
The National Trust survey of State historic funding shows
that from fiscal year 2001 to 2002, the Ohio Historical
Society's budget has been cut 17 percent by almost $2.5
million. During the same period, annual appropriations for the
Ohio Historic Preservation Office were reduced by 20 percent,
nearly $86,000. There are three State-run Presidential sites in
Ohio that are affected by this.
Let me just correct several impressions that I think were
left by Secretary Hoffman, if I may. He said that there is
plenty of opportunity for fund-raising in the private sector
from foundations and other sources for these sites. That is
increasingly difficult, as you know, given the economic
downturn and the reduced portfolio of many of these
foundations. It is much more difficult than ever before to
access these kinds of funds.
I also want to correct the impression that Senator DeWine
also addressed. This bill does not ask the National Park
Service to take over the management of these sites. The only
thing that the bill asks is that the Park Service administer a
very small grant program, and the National Park Service today
already administers a number of grant programs. So this would
not be too great a burden administratively.
Finally, he said that this would be too large an obligation
for the National Park Service to take on. Well, this is $5
million for some of our most important historic sites, and I
think the small grants provided here can make the difference
between survival and prosperity.
Now, why should Presidential sites be treated differently?
Well, I think for a very basic reason. We do not have royalty
in this country. We do not have castles. These Presidential
sites really represent the most important part I think of our
political history at least and also our cultural history. These
places tell important stories.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity, and I
strongly urge your consideration of this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Moe, President, The National Trust for
Historic Preservation
Thank you, Chairman Thomas, and members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to bring you today the views of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation in support of S. 1748, ``the Presidential Sites
Improvement Act.'' Let me begin by acknowledging the Chairman's long
record of support for historic preservation. I look forward to
continuing our close working relationship on issues of mutual concern.
Your commitment to the important issues facing our heritage is evinced
by raising the Presidential Sites Bill to the Subcommittee's agenda.
The stewardship of the country's major historic places such as these
goes to the very heart of the National Trust's 1949 Congressional
charter.
The National Trust is a private, nonprofit membership organization
dedicated to protecting the irreplaceable. This mission includes
Presidential sites across the country, three of which we operate as
part of our inventory of the ``National Trust Historic Sites.'' Those
include Virginia's Montpelier, the home of James Madison that is
currently undergoing a massive restoration; the Woodrow Wilson House in
Washington, DC; and President Lincoln's summer cottage at the
``Soldiers' Home'' also in this city. As recipient of the Humanities
Medal, the Trust provides leadership, education, and advocacy to save
America's diverse historic places and revitalize communities. Its staff
headquartered in this city, six regional offices, and 25 Historic Sites
work with the Trust's 200,000 members and thousands of local community
groups in all 50 states.
All too often in our efforts to protect the irreplaceable, chronic
under-funding that leads to deferred maintenance deprives the nation of
its most basic patrimony--our heritage. Whether postponed maintenance
results in the loss of historic fabric or prevents important artifacts
and exhibits from reaching the public, good preservation and proper
interpretation are integral to our responsibility for the stewardship
of cultural resources. Arguably, nowhere is this more important than
caring for America's Presidential legacy from the iconic homes of our
greatest leaders to some of the humble places in which they were born.
Senator DeWine along with Senators Durbin and Voinovich understand this
responsibility, and their bill would target these sites in particular
with matching grants to address urgent maintenance needs, modernization
and accessibility requirements, and interpretive improvements for
greater public appreciation of each location.
More importantly, the bill would direct a relatively modest amount
of funding to the places that need it most and--through a matching
requirement--help invigorate efforts to raise the private dollars that
are essential to meeting the needs of most historic sites. Awards made
available under S. 1748 would not go to federally owned Presidential
sites nor would they be used for operating costs. Project-based funds
would only be available to locations where the need is often greatest--
those that are run by often financially struggling state and local
governments, private groups, local historic preservation organizations,
schools, and foundations. The American Association for State and Local
History documents 133 Presidential historic sites nationwide with only
45 run by the Federal government. So, about two-thirds of the inventory
falls into the categories covered by the bill including 23 Presidential
sites that are state-run. Most of this inventory is pretty modest and
just staying open is often a major achievement for many sites.
Moreover, the bill would place added emphasis on the smaller,
lesser-known, Presidential site by reserving 65 percent of available
funds for locations that have a three-year annual operating budget
averaging under $700,000. It is easy to assume--simply by virtue of
being part of our Presidential heritage--that a related site is well-
funded and adequately endowed. This is not necessarily the case,
particularly among the places that this bill would emphasize--those
that are immensely important to telling the complete story of a chief
executive's historical role, but not traditionally associated with the
prominence of Mount Vernon or Monticello. These include law offices,
retreats, birthplaces, burial sites, memorials, and tombs.
Senator DeWine's bill is important now more than ever as two
significant national trends converge. First, funding for historic
preservation, especially at the state and local level, has been cut to
its bare-bones. This coincides with an equally tough climate for
foundation giving and federal dollars that would augment the cost of
maintaining and operating an historic site. It is important to note
that most of the Presidential sites covered by S. 1748 meet their
annual operating budgets through admission fees typically ranging
between $5 to $7, donations, memberships, and fundraisers.
Second, more and more Americans are choosing domestic travel
destinations oriented toward historic and cultural themes. The
proliferation of National Heritage Area designations and requests under
your purview is evidence of this trend. If a Presidential site--
especially the smaller, lesser-known location that this bill would
recognize--is unable to provide the public with compelling exhibits;
proper access, safety, and comfort; and intact, adequately maintained
historic fabric, then it risks being bypassed by this trend and further
compromised.
Let me provide you with a few examples that reflect the conditions
affecting many historic sites, especially those 23 Presidential sites
that are state-owned. The National Trust's survey of state historic
preservation funding shows that from FY'01 to FY'02 the Ohio Historical
Society's budget has been cut by $2.4 million (17 percent). During the
same period, annual appropriations for the Ohio Historic Preservation
Office were reduced by nearly $86,000 (20 percent). There are three
state-run Presidential sites in Ohio, Ulysses Grant's birthplace and
boyhood homes, and the Warren Harding home.
In Vermont, the budget for state sites was cut by 2 percent this
year while visitation has been down, resulting in a $90,000 shortfall.
Its two state-run Presidential sites honoring Arthur and Coolidge will
invariably feel the effects. In Virginia, home to Washington Mill State
Park where the first President operated Mount Vernon's milling
operations, state funding for the Department of Historic Resources was
reduced by about 24 percent over the past two years. As a result agency
staffing has been pared down and funding for state historic
preservation grants was eliminated for FY'04. And in North Carolina,
where the state maintains the Polk Memorial in Pineville, the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office has suffered a loss of
$252,000 federal dollars and $118,000 in state funds totaling $370,000.
Juxtapose the declining resources at every level with the
increasing and very specialized needs of many Presidential sites.
Books, documents, furniture, and artifacts all require special care
because of their age and significance, and all work must be done with a
detailed eye to historical accuracy. This is often costly. Some
exhibits at the home of Rutherford B. Hayes, which opened to the public
in 1916, have not been updated in 35 years. The private foundation that
runs the site has a noteworthy collection of Presidential memorabilia
that should be displayed, but it lacks the $300,000 to $400,000 needed
to construct a new exhibit. The former mansion of James A. Garfield
used to be open to the public every weekday all year long. Now, it is
accessible only on weekends or by appointment Monday through Friday.
The Benjamin Harrison house in Indianapolis has more urgent
requirements. Its sole bathroom and outdated plumbing cannot
accommodate the hundreds of schoolchildren that its director
desperately wants to come see the home. It lacks the $150,000 for
making these renovations and the added money required for rehiring its
librarian and displaying Harrison's books that are currently in
storage. In addition, the ongoing need to conserve items can hit
budgets hard. The James K. Polk ancestral home in Tennessee recently
had to spend nearly $8,000 to preserve garments worn by his First Lady.
Lastly, many Presidential sites are not handicapped accessible. The
Warren G. Harding home has had to defer plans for an educational
facility and staff office space until it is ADA compliant. Such
situations are common across the county.
Even though the $5 million authorized by the bill will not solve
the problem of caring for these national treasures, it is the beginning
of a solution--with historic sites a little goes a long way. The
National Trust believes that preserving the legacy of America's chief
executives--especially through the smaller, lesser known places that
are not federally owned--is a top priority. Given the examples I have
included in my statement and the countless others around the country,
there is clearly an unmet need that must be addressed. There are
significant costs associated with operating and maintaining
Presidential sites and opening them up to the public often leaves
little else for repair and renovation. The result can lead to deferred
maintenance, loss of essential historic elements, and stagnant exhibits
that compromise the vitality essential to a well-run historic place.
With S. 1748, we can begin to address this problem and plan for passing
on our Presidential heritage--every part of it--to future generations.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
You know, activity on the floor sometimes interferes with
things we really ought to be doing. I am going to have to scoot
over and take a vote, if you do not mind. I should be back in 5
or 6 minutes and we will finish up. So we will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you for your patience. As I said,
this voting kind of mixes us up from time to time.
Mr. Overbey.
STATEMENT OF RANDALL M. OVERBEY, PRESIDENT, PRIMARY METALS
DEVELOPMENT FOR ALCOA, KNOXVILLE, TN
Mr. Overbey. I am Randy Overbey. I am president of Alcoa
Primary Metals Development. In my former role with the company,
I was also president of Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. That has
been referenced here. In any case, all that is Alcoa.
It is my privilege to testify today about S. 2319, the
Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004. This was introduced by
Senator Alexander, as you know. And both on the floor and
today, he has described the long history and deep investment in
east Tennessee, and this bill is critical to our company's
future in east Tennessee, as well as being critical to millions
of visitors who enjoy the Great Smoky Mountains in east
Tennessee and western North Carolina.
Specifically this bill does clear up a technical barrier to
the licensing of the Tapoco hydro project. Maybe just a bit of
background on that. On February 21 of last year, Alcoa filed an
application with FERC for relicensing the project. Soon we
expect to file also this comprehensive settlement agreement
that has been negotiated by and with a large number of
interested licensing stakeholders that has been referenced
before. The settlement agreement is intended, Mr. Chairman, to
serve as a consensus basis for the new license. Included in
this agreement is a requirement for Federal legislation that
cures this legal defect in the original project license. If not
remedied, it will prevent FERC from relicensing the project. S.
2319 resolves that issue and allows the implementation of the
settlement agreement.
In addition to the many ecological improvements,
relicensing the Tapoco Project will allow Alcoa to continue to
generate reliable, low cost power for its Tennessee operations,
which includes an aluminum smelter and a rolling mill and has
nearly $400 million of annual economic impact in the greater
Knoxville area.
Originally licensed in 1955, the Tapoco Project is along
the border of east Tennessee and western North Carolina. The
8,000 acres contained within the project boundary are
sandwiched between about 10,000 acres of non-project land owned
by Alcoa, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Cherokee
National Forest, the Nantahala National Forest, the Citico
Creek property, and the Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Areas.
Having been licensed almost 50 years ago, the current
license does expire next year, as you heard. Accordingly,
starting 7 years ago, we convened an extensive process
involving a wide range of stakeholders, including the Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, State agencies from Tennessee
and North Carolina, national local NGO groups, local
governments, homeowners associations, and many individual
citizens.
A significant element of the settlement agreement that has
attracted widespread interest concerns the conveyance of
interests in valuable Alcoa lands that are between the park and
the U.S. forest. Specifically as part of the settlement, Alcoa
will grant a permanent easement to the Nature Conservancy on
almost 6,000 acres of this land, as well as an option for the
Nature Conservancy to buy the balance of the interest in that
land and, in turn, they would sell the land to the park,
perhaps to the forest, or the State of Tennessee, at such time
that funds were available for that transfer. These lands would
be managed as Federal parks, forests, or as State wildlife
areas, and could be enjoyed by recreationists and outdoor
enthusiasts of all types.
The agreement also provides that we will grant the Nature
Conservancy a conservation easement for 40 years on almost
4,000 additional acres, 40 years matching the period of the new
license.
With that background, I would like to turn now to the FERC
jurisdictional issue that we have been discussing and the
reason for this act. FERC does lack the authority under the
Federal Power Act to relicense the Tapoco Project as presently
configured due to this technical problem. Specifically a
portion of the Chilhowee Reservoir floods four incoming stream
embayments, making up approximately 100 acres of land within
the national park. The Federal Power Act and the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park legislation of 1926 each prohibit the
licensing of hydro projects inside the park.
Under terms of S. 2319, the Secretary of the Interior would
be directed to exchange approximately 100 acres of land located
within the park and currently within the boundary of the Tapoco
Project as well for 186 acres of ecologically valuable Alcoa
land. This will solve the issue of preventing FERC from issuing
the new hydroelectric license.
It is very important to Alcoa and to the many signatories
to the settlement agreement that this legislation be enacted by
Congress before FERC is due to make a relicensing decision on
the Tapoco Project. There are indications that FERC could act
as soon as even August of this year, but certainly as you heard
from FERC, they would like to have this done by the end of the
year so that they can have early next year to complete the
licensing process.
If that is not done, it is likely they will issue an annual
license, in which case the settlement agreement terms would not
become effective as part of that annual license. So the good
things we have talked about in the settlement agreement would
largely be put on hold.
So thank you for allowing me to speak about this important
bill. Alcoa is also grateful to Senator Alexander for his
leadership on the legislation and for the subcommittee's quick
action in holding this hearing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Overbey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randall M. Overbey, President, Primary Metals
Development for Alcoa
Chairman Thomas, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Randy
Overbey, and I am President of Primary Metals Development for Alcoa.
Previous to this role, my position included being President of Alcoa
Power Generating Inc, a subsidiary of Alcoa Inc. It is my privilege to
be here today to testify about S. 2319, the ``Tapoco Project Licensing
Act of 2004'', a bill introduced in the Senate on April 20th by Senator
Alexander, my Senator from the great State of Tennessee. As Sen.
Alexander so eloquently described in his floor statement, Alcoa has a
long history and a deep investment in the east Tennessee region, and
this bill is critical to our company's future there, as well as to the
millions of Americans that enjoy the Smoky Mountains in east Tennessee
and western North Carolina.
Specifically, this bill clears up a technical barrier to the
relicensing of the Tapoco Project, an APGI-owned and operated
hydroelectric project located in the States of Tennessee and North
Carolina that is federally-licensed pursuant to the Federal Power Act,
16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq. On February 21, 2003, APGI filed an
application for a new Project license with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). APGI soon will also file with FERC a
comprehensive Settlement Agreement negotiated by, and with, a large
group of interested relicensing stakeholders. The Settlement Agreement
is intended to serve as the consensus basis for the new FERC license.
Included in the Agreement is a requirement for federal legislation that
cures a legal defect in the original project license that, if not
remedied, will prevent FERC from relicensing the Tapoco Project. S.
2319 resolves that issue and allows the implementation of other
important elements of the Settlement Agreement. Among other things,
relicensing the Tapoco Project will allow APGI to continue to generate
economical, readily-available energy for Alcoa's Tennessee Operations,
which includes an aluminum smelter and a rolling mill, and has a nearly
$400 million economic impact on the greater Knoxville, Tennessee
region.
Originally licensed in 1955, the Tapoco Project can be found in the
western portion of the Little Tennessee Watershed on the Little
Tennessee and Cheoah Rivers. The more than 8000 acres contained within
the Tapoco Project boundary are sandwiched between nearly 10,000 acres
of non-project lands owned by Alcoa, the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, the Cherokee National Forest, the Nantahala National Forest, and
the Citico Creek and Joyce Kilmer Slickrock Wilderness Areas.
Almost seven years ago APGI set out to obtain a new license for the
Tapoco Project through FERC's new alternative relicensing procedures.
Accordingly, APGI convened an extensive process involving a wide range
of stakeholders, including the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, state agencies representing Tennessee and North Carolina, and
numerous national and local non-governmental organizations, local
governments, homeowners associations, and individual citizens.
The alternative licensing process proved to be fruitful as it
produced a Settlement Agreement reflecting a consensus of nearly all
parties to the relicensing concerning extensive protection, mitigation
and enhancement measures for the Project that address ecological
resources, as well as other beneficial uses of the Cheoah and Little
Tennessee Rivers, including hydropower generation, watershed
protection, endangered species enhancement, fish passage and enhanced
recreational opportunities. The Settlement Agreement comprehensively
addresses the terms and conditions that should be a part of any new
license issued by FERC.
A significant element of the Settlement Agreement that has
attracted widespread interest concerns the conveyance of interests in
the pristine and biologically valuable Alcoa lands that are between the
Park and the U.S. forests. Specifically, as part of the Settlement
Agreement, Alcoa will grant a permanent easement to The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) on almost 6000 acres of its land, as well as an
option for the TNC to buy the balance of interests in that land at a
price reflecting the encumbrance of the easement. If the TNC exercises
that option, it will then have a period of time to sell (and it intends
to sell) the land to the federal government or the State of Tennessee
for its purchase price plus carrying costs. These lands would be
managed as federal parks, forests, or as State wildlife areas, and
could be enjoyed by recreationists and outdoor enthusiasts of all
types. The Agreement also provides that Alcoa will grant the TNC a
conservation easement that will protect another almost 4000 acres of
Alcoa land for the term of the new APGI license, which is at FERC's
discretion, but is expected to be 40 years. Once the term of the new
license has run, those 4000 acres will once again be owned by Alcoa
free and clear of any encumbrance.
I'd like to turn now to the FERC jurisdictional issue and the
reason for the ``Tapoco Project Relicensing Act of 2004''. Despite the
thousands upon thousands of hours dedicated by all parties towards
reaching consensus on the operation of the Tapoco Project under a new
license, FERC lacks authority under the Federal Power Act to relicense
the Tapoco Project as presently configured. Specifically, a portion of
the Project's Chilhowee Reservoir floods four side stream embayments
inundating approximately 100 acres of land within the authorized
boundary of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. These lands were
included within the boundary of the Park when it was first created in
1926 but, apparently for financial reasons, the government decided at
that time not to acquire the flooding rights for those lands that were
then held by APGI's corporate predecessor. However, the Federal Power
Act and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park legislation of 1926, 16
U.S.C. Sec. 403 et seq., each prohibit the licensing of hydroelectric
projects inside the Park. Thus, it appears the Tapoco Project was
erroneously licensed in 1955 to include within the Project boundary the
four embayment areas located within the Park that were flooded with the
construction of the Project's Chilhowee development in 1957. As a
result, while APGI owned in 1955 and still owns to this day valid
property rights to flood those lands within the Park, FERC nonetheless
is without jurisdiction under federal law to issue a new license for
the Project.
Under the terms of S. 2319, the Park Service and APGI will exchange
certain lands located in Tennessee in order to correct mistakes made 50
years ago and to clear the way for FERC to relicense the Tapoco
Project. This legislation is necessary to affirm that FERC has
jurisdiction to relicense the Project once the exchange is consummated.
Specifically, the bill would direct the Secretary of Interior to
acquire from APGI 189 acres of ecologically valuable lands located
within the authorized boundaries of the Park, currently owned by Alcoa,
in exchange for approximately 100 acres of land located within the Park
and the boundary of the Tapoco Project. Under the terms of the
legislation, the Secretary would also be directed to reserve a
conservation easement over the lands transferred to APGI that would:
(1) prohibit any development on the lands; (2) ensure continued public
access to the lands; and (3) authorize the National Park Service to
continue to enforce Park regulations on those lands transferred. The
legislation also authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture
to adjust the boundaries of the Park and adjacent U.S. forests in order
to accept the lands that are expected to be transferred by APGI to the
TNC and subsequently by the TNC to the Federal Government.
It is very important to APGI and the many signatories to the
Settlement Agreement noted above that this legislation is enacted by
Congress before FERC is due to make a relicensing decision on the
Tapoco Project. There are indications that FERC could act as soon as
August of this year, and if the bill is not enacted by then, FERC will
be forced to issue annual licenses until Congress grants it
jurisdiction. In an annual license, many of the elements of the
Settlement Agreement, including the conservation easements and the
option to purchase land, would not be effective.
Thank you for allowing me to speak about this important bill. APGI
is grateful for Senator Alexander's leadership on the legislation and
for the Subcommittee's quick action in holding this hearing.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Copeland.
STATEMENT OF KATHY COPELAND, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
LEGISLATION, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WEST PALM
BEACH, FL
Ms. Copeland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here on behalf of the State of Florida in support of S.
2046.
I am Kathy Copeland. I work for the Water Management
District, and we are the local sponsor to the Corps of
Engineers for the largest public works project in the country.
We are also home to over six national refuges and parks, and so
that is the reason why Congress in the year 2000 decided to
modernize the central and southern Florida flood control
project and address some of the environmental impacts that this
project has caused.
Under the leadership of Governor Bush and the support of
our legislature, we have dedicated $200 million to the
Everglades Restoration Project since the year 2000. That has
allowed us to take into public ownership over half of the
property that is needed for the implementation of this project.
We are also very committed to Everglades National Park
restoration and have a longstanding commitment. One of the
demonstrations of that is that the State of Florida has donated
46,000 acres of State-owned land into the park to achieve the
expansion of the Everglades National Park.
It is not the end, though. The two projects that are
necessary to fulfill the total benefits for the restoration are
the C-111 project and the modified water deliveries project.
The C-111 project is the one that this bill addresses. Land
exchange is the critical link that is necessary to make this
project happen, and it basically will, as you know, be an even
exchange of land. It will create a buffer, a detention area, if
you will, to allow the park waters to not seep out and also
allow the State of Florida to continue to provide flood
protection to the areas that are to the east.
I would like to say that there were five alternatives that
were addressed. Mr. Hoffman mentioned that to you. The
alternative that was chosen was the lands that provide the most
ecological benefit to the Everglades National Park, but from
the State's perspective, they also were the ones that had the
least amount of impact to the recreational users in that area.
And so for that reason, we supported this alternative.
We would like to move forward on this as quickly as
possible because this project is scheduled for completion in
the year 2006, and so we urge your support.
I would like to thank Senator Graham for sponsoring this.
On a personal note, the State of Florida is going to miss him
when he leaves the Senate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Copeland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Copeland, Director of Policy and
Legislation, South Florida Water Management District
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. It
is a pleasure to be with you today representing the State of Florida's
support of Senate Bill 2046, authorizing the exchange of land in
Everglades National Park (ENP). I am Kathy Copeland, Director of Policy
and Legislation at the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
The SFWMD is the local sponsor to the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) for the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control Project
(C&SF), which was authorized by Congress in 1948. The existing project
encompasses 18,000 square miles, including over 11,000 miles of canals,
200 water control structures and half of the remaining Everglades
wetlands. It is the largest public works project in the country,
extending from Orlando in the north to the Florida Keys in the south,
including Everglades National Park. In fact, six national parks and
refuges lie within the boundaries of the water management district. You
will remember that in 2000, Congress recognized the need to modernize
this 50-year old system and to address its undesirable impacts on the
environment. In response, they authorized the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) as the framework for restoration.
Under the leadership of Governor Bush and with the support of the
state legislature, $200 million have been dedicated annually from
Florida, providing our state's share toward the restoration effort.
Since 2000, this investment has totaled $790 million. These funds have
allowed the SFWMD to purchase 205,179 acres of land, representing more
than half of the approximately 402,479 acres needed to implement CERP.
Additionally, the state of Florida has donated over 42,000 acres of
state-owned land to the federal government to complete the expansion of
Everglades National Park.
The expansion of Everglades National Park is an important component
in the Park's environmental restoration. This expansion in combination
with the environmental enhancements provided by several projects will
complete the restoration of Everglades National Park. Two of the most
crucial projects for restoration of Everglades National Park are the C-
111 Canal Project and Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National
Park Project. In fact, a Congressional mandate requires the completion
of the C-111 Canal project prior to commencing with other restoration
projects. Furthermore, the C-111 Canal project cannot meet its
objectives without the land swap proposed in this bill.
C-111 CANAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The C-111 Canal project is located in southern Miami-Dade County,
in the C-111 basin portion of the original C&SF project. The project is
now comprised of modifications to the C&SF project, including
acquisition of lands in the Frog Pond/Rocky Glades area and the
construction of levees, canals and pump stations to divert water flow
into the Taylor Slough portion of Everglades National Park. The 1994,
GRR authorized construction of a buffer and detention system along the
eastern boundary of ENP. This was designed to establish a ``hydraulic
ridge,'' to reduce seepage from ENP and also reestablish the historical
surface water flow from Northeast Shark River Slough to Taylor Slough.
This detention and buffer system provides these benefits while ensuring
flood protection to the eastern urban and agricultural areas. As a
point of clarification a detention system functions differently than a
retention system. A pure retention system holds all water in an area.
Conversely, a detention area holds water in an area but allows water to
leave either by seepage and/or surface water discharges. This is an
important distinction because while highly effective in reducing water
seepage from Everglades National Park, the detention system will not
eliminate seepage altogether because Florida's highly permeable
limestone subsurface will always allow some ground water movement. The
authorized detention and buffer system affected by the land swap
consists of a series of detention areas, a \1/2\ mile-wide buffer
between the detention areas and the L-31N Canal and three pump stations
to move water from the L-31N Canal into the detention areas.
REASON FOR LAND SWAP
The State of Florida strongly supports this critical exchange of
lands between the SFWMD and Everglades National Park. The C-111 Canal
project is scheduled for completion by 2006 and requires the land swap
between ENP and the local sponsor (SFWMD) to allow completion of the
detention and buffer system. Currently, only 700 acres of the
approximately 3,000 acres--or about 2.5 miles of the 8 mile-long
detention and buffer system--has been constructed. Senate Bill 2046
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to exchange
approximately 1,054 acres of land from the Rocky Glades area of ENP for
approximately 1,054 acres of land to be provided by the SFWMD from the
Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental Area.
REASON FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The USACE has been advised that the National Park Service cannot
provide lands to the C-111 Canal project without assurances from the
USACE that ENP would receive compensatory lands of similar size and
quality to ensure that the size of ENP remains unchanged. In addition,
Congress must authorize any national park boundary changes larger than
200 acres.
To maintain the intent of the ENP Protection and Expansion Act of
1989, the ENP has proposed an exchange of lands with the non-federal
sponsor (SFWMD), recognizing this as a requirement for C-111 Canal
project completion. In May of 1999, the USACE asked the ENP to review
for acquisition several parcels of state-owned land within the Southern
Glades Wildlife and Environmental Area, all located in the southern end
of the C-111 Canal project.
In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the National Park
Service evaluated five alternatives, including one proposed by the
South Florida Water Management District. The resource-based criteria
and evaluations are documented in the Integrated General Reevaluation
Report Supplement and Environmental Assessment, completed in January
2002. The SFWMD's proposal, Alternative 5, was selected as the
preferred alternative. Alternative 5 provides lands located between the
southern end of the C-111 Canal and the southeastern panhandle of ENP.
The SFWMD prefers Alternative 5, because the incorporation into ENP of
this particular parcel of land will have the least impact on existing
recreational use in the Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental
Area.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of S. 2046
and will be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Ms. Phillips.
STATEMENT OF FAYE PHILLIPS, ASSOCIATE DEAN OF LIBRARIES,
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON ROUGE, LA
Ms. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to
testify in support of S. 1064, establishing the Civil War
Sesquicentennial Commission. We are grateful to Senator
Landrieu for her cosponsorship of the legislation as introduced
by Senator Breaux, and I appreciate their remarks today.
I am Faye Phillips, Associate Dean of Libraries at
Louisiana State University.
The legacy of the Civil War is a potent force in our Nation
even today. That legacy is manifest in both the divisive issues
of race and the politics of federalism and the fulfillment of
the bold promise of democracy. The increasing number of
publications, research organizations, reenactments, electronic
resources, historic sites, and battlefield preservation efforts
testify to the fact that interest in the Civil War is growing
both nationally and around the world. By establishing a
national commission to study and reflect upon the Civil War, we
are seizing a significant opportunity to tap into the public's
interest in this time period and foster unity among all of our
citizens.
A defining era in our Nation's history, the Civil War has
meaning for every American. Public memory of the war and its
aftermath, coupled with scholarly research, continue to shape
our conception of identity as Americans.
The Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission Act seeks to
establish a national consortium of representatives of a variety
of cultural institutions and academic disciplines to reflect
diverse perspectives. It is truly an interdisciplinary look at
the Civil War.
Commission members will plan national programs, serve as a
resource for local and State organizations planning
commemorative activities. They will coordinate and distribute
scholarly publications to the public, administer grant programs
to encourage interdisciplinary examination of the Civil War,
and encourage involvement of the international community.
As you know, an act of Congress in 1996 named the United
States Civil War Center at LSU and the Civil War institute at
Gettysburg College as co-facilitators of the Civil War
sesquicentennial. In 2002, as representatives of the State of
Virginia, witness to more military engagements and host to more
historic sites commemorating the Civil War than any other
State, Pamplin Historical Park in Petersburg, Virginia, and the
Virginia Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech, joined
our initiative.
As outlined in the legislation, funding is requested for
these four institutions. These institutions would serve to
assist the commission in its work by planning and implementing
sesquicentennial programs such as a regrant program for
institutions seeking to conduct interdisciplinary commemorative
activities, designation of a national student essay award,
publication and circulation of information packets, and
organizing public lectures and symposia.
The Civil War is a cornerstone of our national heritage. It
remains powerfully relevant in our modern world. By reflecting
on this era, collectively as a Nation, under the direction of
individuals representing major cultural institutions and a
variety of perspectives, we can take significant steps to
overcome fundamental issues that divide us and emerge unified.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:]
Prepared Statement of Faye Phillips, Associate Dean of Libraries,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am honored to testify in
support of Senate Bill 1064 establishing the Civil War Sesquicentennial
Commission. We are grateful to Senator Landrieu for her co-sponsorship
of the legislation as introduced by Senator Breaux.
The legacy of the Civil War is a potent force in our nation even
today. That legacy is manifest in both the divisive issues of race and
the politics of federalism, and the fulfillment of the bold promise of
democracy. The increasing number of publications, research
organizations, reenactments, electronic resources, historic sites and
battlefield preservation efforts testify to the fact that interest in
the Civil War is growing, both nationally and around the world. By
establishing a national commission to study and reflect upon the Civil
War, we are seizing a significant opportunity to tap into the public's
interest in this time period and foster unity among all of our
citizens.
A defining era in our nation's history, the Civil War has meaning
for every American, whether rich, poor, old, young, male, female,
native born or new citizen. Public memory of the war and its aftermath,
coupled with scholarly research, continue to shape our conception of
identity as Americans.
The Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission Act seeks to establish a
national consortium of representatives of a variety of cultural
institutions and academic disciplines to reflect diverse perspectives.
Members will represent the following institutions and/or academic
disciplines:
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Education
National Endowment for the Humanities
Library of Congress
National Park Service
National Archives
members of the corporate community
historians
experts in art history, historic preservation, or a related
field
experts in anthropology, cultural geography, sociology, or a
related field
experts in political science, law, economics, or a related
field
Commission members will plan national programs, serve as a resource
for local and state organizations planning commemorative activities,
coordinate and distribute scholarly publication to the public,
administer grant programs to encourage interdisciplinary examination of
the Civil War, and encourage involvement of the international
community.
As you know, an Act of Congress in 1996 named the United States
Civil War Center at LSU and the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg
College as co-facilitators of the Civil War Sesquicentennial. In 2002,
as representatives of the state of Virginia, witness to more military
engagements and host to more historic sites commemorating the Civil War
than any other state, Pamplin Historical Park in Petersburg, Virginia,
and the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech, joined
our initiative.
As outlined in the legislation, funding is requested for these four
institutions. These institutions would serve to assist the commission
in its work by planning and implementing Sesquicentennial programs,
such as a re-grant program for institutions seeking to conduct
interdisciplinary commemorative activities, designation of a National
Student Essay Award, publication and circulation of information
packets, and organizing public lectures and symposia.
The U.S. Civil War Center is actively partnered with individuals
representing each of the other three Civil War research institutions.
Gabor Boritt, director of the Civil War Institute, serves on the U.S.
Civil War Center's National Advisory Board. James I. ``Bud'' Robertson,
Jr., director of the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies, also serves
on the U.S. Civil War Center's National Advisory Board, and is a
contributor to the pages of the Center's publication, Civil War Book
Review. In addition, Professor Robertson served as the executive
director of the Civil War Centennial Commission. Arthur Bergeron,
historian at Pamplin Historical Park, is a frequent reviewer for Civil
War Book Review.
The Civil War is a cornerstone of our national heritage; it remains
powerfully relevant in our modern world. By reflecting on this era
collectively as a nation, under the direction of individuals
representing major cultural institutions and a variety of perspectives,
we can take significant steps to overcome fundamental issues that
divide us, and emerge unified.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much for being here.
Finally, Mr. Nau.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. NAU, III, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS HISTORICAL
COMMISSION; CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION, HOUSTON, TX
Mr. Nau. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I
appreciate this opportunity to speak on S. 2052, authored by
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. My name is John Nau and
I am the chairman of the Texas Historical Commission, which is
the State agency for historic preservation. I also chair the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. I am here today to
testify in support of S. 2052.
This bill will amend the National Trails System Act to
designate a new El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic
Trail, a combination of historic routes totaling 2,580 miles
from the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass, Texas to Natchitoches,
Louisiana.
This trail route was used for more than 150 years as the
principal route between Mexico City and what is today
northwestern Louisiana. If designated by Congress as a national
historic trail, El Camino Real de los Tejas would be managed
through cooperative partnerships with public agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and importantly, private landowners.
The designation of El Camino Real de los Tejas as a unit of
the national trails system would make it possible and easier to
coordinate activities along the length of the trail between
State, county, and city governments, as well as private
landowners. It would also increase opportunities for
coordination with the Mexican government on resource
preservation and tourism.
There is much support for this legislation in Texas because
this bill addresses the concerns of private landowners.
This bill authorizes the establishment of the El Camino
Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail and the
administration of the trail and related historic sites within
privately owned lands only with the voluntary and express
consent of the landowner. Nothing in the act or in the
establishment of any portion of the trail authorizes anyone to
enter private property without the consent of the landowner.
Additionally, nothing in the act or establishment of any
portion of the historic trail will authorize the Federal
Government to restrict a private property owner's use or
enjoyment of their own property.
This act does not in itself confer additional authority to
apply any other Federal laws and regulations on non-Federal
lands along the trail. Furthermore, the Federal Government
would have no authority to condemn any privately owned property
for the purpose of deeming it a portion of this historic trail.
Should land ownership change hands, the new owner must consent
to being included again in this historic trail.
Senator Hutchison's bill recognizes the importance of
protecting these private property rights along the El Camino
Real de los Tejas and allows for only voluntary participation
to every willing landowner along this trail.
The Texas Historical Commission operates and maintains a
series of historic trails as part of our Texas Heritage Trails
Program. The program has been highly successful and serves to
protect our historic, cultural, and natural resources. This
program also creates jobs, increases property values, and
generates tax revenues while educating residents and visitors
about Texas history.
Texas ranks second in the Nation in the number of cultural
and heritage tourists visiting the State. The Texas economy
benefits from heritage tourists who spend more per day and stay
longer than any other type of tourist. Heritage tourism is the
fastest growing segment of the $40 billion tourism industry in
Texas. Establishment of a national historic trail along many of
Texas' historic and cultural attractions would only strengthen
an already positive experience for heritage travelers in the
State of Texas.
Many Texas cities, counties, county historical commissions,
and private citizens support this legislation. I urge you to do
the same.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Well, thanks to all of you. We appreciate
you making the effort to be here and to comment on these bills
that I know are of importance to you. I also want to tell you
that the activities of people like yourselves on the ground are
the things that cause these things to happen. We have to try
and set some rules here in which we operate so that we have
some definition of what the role of the Federal Government
should be, although that is not always shared by everyone
similarly.
So we may ask some questions and we may be writing to you.
I will not ask any now. We have been here a while and you have
covered it very well. So, thank you again and we may be in
touch with questions for each of you.
Otherwise, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Chairman,
Washington, DC, May 26, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: The Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004 (S. 2319)
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your May 13 letter in which you
forward questions for the record of the April 27, 2004 Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks hearing on the
Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004 (S. 2319).
I am enclosing my responses to your questions. Additionally, I am
providing a copy of our answers to Senator Bingaman's questions that we
submitted to him on May 10, 2004 regarding S. 2319.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to let me
know.
Best regards,
Pat Wood, III,
Chairman.
[Enclosures.]
Questions From Senator Craig Thomas
S. 2319, THE TAPOCO PROJECT LICENSING ACT OF 2004
Question 1. Have any environmental or recreation groups expressed
opposition to the proposed land exchange? If so, have you modified the
proposal in any way to accommodate their concerns?
Answer. We are not aware of any groups expressing opposition to the
proposed land exchange.
Question 2. The proposed land exchange is designed to facilitate
relicensing of the power plant. Do you see this simply as a short term
fix to get through the licensing process or is it considered a long
term solution?
Answer. The proposed land exchange is considered a long term
solution in that it would not only enable the Commission to
expeditiously take action on the pending application for relicensing
the Tapoco Project, but also any subsequent relicense application for
the project.
Question 3A. Is the land exchange being completed as mitigation for
obtaining the license to operate the hydroelectric plant?
Answer. Since staff was not a party to the settlement negotiations,
we cannot say whether the settling parties considered the land exchange
as mitigation for obtaining the license to operate the hydroelectric
plant.
Question 3. What other types of mitigation are you being asked to
perform and who is asking?
Answer. Other mitigation measures proposed by the settling parties
include: modifying the impoundment rule curves; providing minimum
flows; funding fish reintroduction; developing vegetation and rare,
threatened and endangered species management plans; adding to, and
improving recreation facilities; and preparing a Programmatic Agreement
and Cultural Resources Management Plan.
Question 4A. Could FERC relicense the power plant without this
legislation?
Answer. The land exchange provided for by S. 2319 will allow the
Commission to consider Alcoa's proposal to relicense the project in its
current form, as contemplated by the agreements in principle, without
the need to address the issue of a portion of the project being located
in a national park. If the legislation were to provide that the
transfer be concluded within a reasonable time following enactment, it
would help ensure the Commission's ability to act on Alcoa's proposal
by date the current license expires, in 2005.
Question 4B. Why has FERC allowed Alcoa to operate the plant for so
many years without the land adjustment?
Answer. Until the issue recently arose during relicensing
proceedings, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the
project occupied National Park lands; therefore, the Commission had no
knowledge of any need for a land adjustment. The Commission issued the
original license for the Tapoco Project on March 17, 1955, for a period
of 50 years, effective March 1, 1955, and expiring on February 28,
2005. The 1955 license authorized the construction and operation of the
Chilhowee Development, and the continued operation of the Calderwood,
Cheoah, and Santeetlah Developments. The license order did not state
that a portion of the project would occupy national park land.
Moreover, the license application, filed on October 25, 1954, states
that ``[n]o lands or reservations of the United States will be affected
by the . . . [p]roject.'' A search of the Commission's files has
produced no information that sheds further light on the matter.
______
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of Energy Projects,
Washington, DC, May 10, 2004.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Thank you for your questions for the record
of the April 27, 2004 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee
on National Parks hearing on S. 2319, the Tapoco Project Licensing Act
of 2004.
I have enclosed my responses to your questions. If you have further
questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to let
me know.
Sincerely,
J. Mark Robinson,
Director.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Jeff Bingaman
Question 1. You testified that the original license for the Tapoco
Project issued by the Federal Power Commission on March 17, 1955 ``did
not state that a portion of the project would occupy national park
land.'' Nonetheless, the original license strongly suggests that the
Commission was aware of the proximity of the project to the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and was concerned about the ``status'' of the
``lands included in the project.'' 14 F.P.C. 610.
Paragraph (9) of the order plainly states that the Commission found
that most of the exhibits filed by the license applicant ``conform to
the Commission's rules and regulations and should be approved as part
of the license for the project.'' Yet paragraph (9) also indicates that
the Commission found those exhibits ``showing a detailed project
boundary and the land status of all lands included in the project'' to
be wanting. The Commission expressly ordered that the ``Licensee shall
file, within three years from the effective date of the license, . . .
[new exhibits] showing a detailed project boundary and the land status
of all lands included in the project.'' In addition, it ordered the
licensee to ``cooperate with the National Park Service in the
preservation of park values along those sections of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park boundary fronting on the proposed lake,'' and
to ``consult with the National Park Service regarding the relocation of
U.S. Highway No. 129.'' 14 F.P.C. 610.
On February 27, 1959, the licensee filed the requisite exhibits
``showing the project boundary and project lands.'' The Commission
expressly found that the new exhibits ``conform to the Commission's
rules and regulations'' and ordered that they be ``approved as part of
the license.'' 21 F.P.C. 651. Plainly, the Federal Power Commission
knew, or should have known, that it was licensing a power project in a
national park.
Please explain how the Federal Power Commission could have issued
the original license for the Tapoco Project, No. 2169, without knowing
that the project encroached on the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
or, if it knew, how it could justify issuing the license without lawful
authority.
Answer. As explained in my testimony, the 1955 license which
authorized the construction and operation of the Chilhowee Development,
and the continued operation of the Calderwood, Cheoah, and Santeetlah
Developments, did not state that a portion of the project would occupy
national park land. Moreover, the license application, filed on October
25, 1954, states that ``[n]o lands or reservations of the United States
will be affected by the . . . [p]roject.'' Commission staff cannot go
beyond the words of the 1955 Commission's order to hypothesize what it
or the National Park Service knew about the location of the Tapoco
Project with respect to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. As I
stated, the record of the licensing proceeding does not reveal that
either agency discussed the matter. Commission staff has found nothing
in the record that demonstrates that the Commission was aware at the
time that it issued the project license that a portion of the project
was located in a national park. The facts that the Commission required
the licensee to provide more detail about the project's boundaries, to
cooperate with the National Park Service in the preservation of park
values along those sections of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
boundary fronting on the proposed lake, and to consult with the
National Park Service regarding the relocation of a highway, do not,
without more, demonstrate that the Commission knew that a portion of
the proposed project was located in a National Park.
Question 2. How many other power projects, if any, has the Federal
Power Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensed
in national parks or monuments without statutory authority?
Answer. Other than the Tapoco Project, Commission staff is aware of
no instance in which the Commission has issued a license for a
hydropower project in a national park or national monument without
statutory authorization.
Question 3. What safeguards, if any, has the Federal Power
Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission erected since
1955 to prevent the issuance of licenses for power projects in national
parks or monuments?
Answer. Commission staff is cognizant of the extent of the
Commission's hydropower licensing jurisdiction set forth in Part I of
the Federal Power Act, and is vigilant in complying with all statutory
requirements. The license application regulations and procedures in
place in the 1950s bear little resemblance to the vastly more detailed
and comprehensive licensing process of today. The Commission's current
hydroelectric licensing process provides for a thorough examination of
environmental impacts by Commission staff, and for extensive public
input designed to highlight all issues with respect to a proposed
project. Before filing a license application, an applicant must contact
and consult with all relevant Federal, State, and Interstate resource
agencies, including ``the Federal agency administering any United
States lands or facilities utilized or occupied by the project.'' See
18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(a) (2003). The potential license applicant must
provide the Federal agencies with specific information, including
``[d]etailed maps showing project boundaries, if any, proper land
descriptions of the entire project area by township, range, and
section, as well as by state, county, river mile, and closest town, and
also showing the specific location of all proposed project facilities.
. . .'' See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(b)(1)(i) (2003). The potential
applicant then must schedule a joint meeting with all pertinent
agencies, with Indian tribes, and with the public, including an
opportunity for a site visit. See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(b)(2) and (3)
(2003). Following the public meeting, the agencies and tribes are to
provide comments to the potential applicant. See 18 C.F.R.
Sec. 4.38(b)(4) (2003). Next, the potential license applicant must
diligently conduct all reasonable studies and obtain all necessary
information requested by agencies and Indian tribes (unless Commission
staff determines that the studies or information is unnecessary). See
18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(c) (2003). The potential applicant must provide
agencies and Indian tribes copies of a draft application, which must
include responses to any comments or recommendations they have made,
and a request that they review and comment in writing on the draft
application. See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(c)(4) (2003). If the written
comments indicate that the agency or Indian tribe has a substantive
disagreement with the potential applicant's conclusions, the potential
applicant must hold a joint meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve
disagreements, and must provide the Commission with an explanation of
any disagreements. See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(c)(5-8) (2003. When an
application is filed with the Commission, the application must be
served on consulted resource agencies or Indian tribes, see 18 C.F.R.
Sec. 4.38(d)(2) (2003); the applicant must document consultation and
any disagreement with resource agencies or Indian tribes, see 18 C.F.R.
Sec. 4.38(f) (2003); and the applicant must issues public notice of,
and conduct, another joint meeting at or near the site of the project.
See 18. C.F.R. Sec. 4.38(h)(4). The Commission's regulations require
that maps provided by applicants must include ``[b]oundaries of public
lands and reservation of the United States, if any,'' using official
plats of survey from the Bureau of Land Management or, where those are
not available, township and section lines ``recognized by the Federal
agency administering those lands.'' See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.39 (2003). A
license application must list ``[a]ll lands of the United States ...
that are enclosed within the project boundary. . . .'' See, e.g., 18
C.F.R. Sec. 4.41(b)(6) (2003). Also, the Environmental Report submitted
with the application must include reports on water use and quality and
fish wildlife, and botanical resources prepared in consultation with
any State or Federal agency with management authority over any part of
the proposed project lands; a report on historical and archeological
resources, prepared in consultation with relevant State officials and
the National Park Service; and a report on recreational resources,
prepared in consultation with, among other agencies, the National Park
Service; and a report describing the existing uses of the proposed
project lands and adjacent property, prepared in consultation with
``any Federal or state agency with managerial responsibility for the
proposed project or abutting lands.'' See, e.g., 18 C.F.R.
Sec. 4.41(f)(2), (3), (4), (7) and (9) (2003).
In the course of its environmental review of license applications,
Commission staff conducts public scoping to identify potential issues.
After the Commission's public notice that an application is ready for
environmental review, the Commission requests comments and conditions
from all interested parties, specifically including Federal agencies.
See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.34(b) (2003). Commission staff generally issues a
draft environmental document for comments. This includes an independent
analysis of the environmental impacts of proposed projects, including a
review of land uses. When a license is issued, parties may file
requests for rehearing before the Commission, setting forth any alleged
errors made by the Commission in its licensing order.
Considering this thorough and public process, it is difficult to
imagine a license today being inadvertently issued for a project within
a national park or national monument. I note that the Commission's new
regulations establishing an integrated licensing process, which are
being implemented over the next two years, contain even more
requirements regarding communication between prospective license
applicants and affected parties, and also provide for increased
involvement by Commission staff in the prefiling periods. This will
render it even less likely that a national park issue would not be
raised early on.
______
United States Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2004.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: Enclosed is the response to the follow-up
question that you submitted to the Department after the Subcommittee's
April 27 hearing. If there are questions regarding any of these
responses, please contact the National Park Service's Office of
Legislative and Congressional Affairs at (202) 208-5656.
Sincerely,
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Question. Mr. Hoffman, in your answer to my question about the use
of the land to be transferred to the South Florida Water Management
District, you indicated that the District could use the land for both
restoration of Everglades National Park and for flood protection
without causing harm to the Park. What steps will the Department take
to monitor whether or not harm is caused to the Park? What will the
Department do if harm is found to occur within the Park due to the use
of this exchanged land?
Answer. The Department of the Interior, including the National Park
Service (Everglades National Park) and Fish and Wildlife Service, is a
partner with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the South Florida
Water Management in implementing the C-111 Project. As indicated in the
testimony, the primary purpose of the land exchange is to allow for the
construction of a series of detention basins that will, in the end,
restore park habitat that was damaged by past operation of the Central
and Southern Florida Project. The Department's primary role in this
project is to provide technical analysis and input to the Corps on the
design and operation of the detention basins. In that role, the
Department and its agencies will assist in the development and analysis
of project alternatives to ensure that the project achieves its
intended environmental benefits without causing negative adverse impact
to park resources. The Department believes that relevant federal and
state environmental laws protecting park resources and water quality
provide protection to ensure that this result will be achieved.
Further, systematic monitoring of the project's operation on park
resources will be a key element in ensuring that park resources are not
adversely affected. If the monitoring of the project operations reveals
that adverse impacts are occurring to park resources as a result of the
project operations, then the National Park Service and-the Department
of the Interior will work with the Corps, and the South Florida Water
Management District, to modify the operation of the project so that
adverse impacts to park resources are avoided and that the overall
restoration objectives of the project are realized.
______
Responses of The National Trust for Historic Preservation to Questions
From Senator Thomas
Question 1a. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-
profit organization that raises funds and promotes the preservation of
historic and culturally significant properties. What is the role of the
National Trust in maintaining and interpreting sites honoring
Presidents?
Answer. The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to
care for some of the nation's most historic places and maintain them
for their educational value and the public benefit. As such, the Trust
currently owns and operates 25 properties in its inventory of
``National Trust Historic Sites.'' Three of these qualify as
``Presidential sites.'' They are 1) Montpelier in Virginia--the former
home of James Madison; 2) the Woodrow Wilson House in the District of
Columbia; and 3) the Lincoln Cottage, President Lincoln's former ``Camp
David'' located on the grounds of the ``Soldiers' Home'' also in this
city.
Question 1b. Does the National Trust accept donations for use
toward maintaining and interpreting Presidential sites? If so,
approximately how much do you raise annually for this purpose?
Answer. Yes, the National Trust does accept donations for
maintaining and interpreting Presidential Sites. At Montpelier, which
has an annual operating budget of $2.3 million, we raise $744,000
through admissions and fees, $1.31 million through annual donations,
and $244,000 from endowment income. At the Woodrow Wilson House, which
has an annual operating budget of $500,000, we raise $120,000 through
admissions and fees, $280,000 through annual donations, and $110,000 in
endowment income. Over the past five years, the National Trust has
provided $266,000 to Montpelier and $120,000 to Wilson House through
its Historic Sites Fund and Interpretation and Education Fund. Although
the Lincoln Cottage is included in this inventory, it is still in the
midst of an exterior restoration and not yet open to the public, so I
don't think its fundraising budget would provide a good example here.
Also, as a federally owned property, it would not be eligible for
funding under this bill.
Capital Needs for Montpelier: $9.5 million over the next ten years.
Essential costs include projects to meet building code compliance,
enhance visitor safety, and improve accessibility.
Capital Needs for Woodrow Wilson House: $3 million over the next
ten years. Major upgrades are needed to security, fire protection,
improved collections storage for 8,000 presidential objects, overall
climate control for the entire site, and interpretation improvements
including website based educational programs for students.
Question 2a. The proposed legislation limits the amount of funds
available for sites based on the annual operating budget. Those with an
annual budget less than $700,000 can compete for 65 percent of the
money and those with an annual budget greater than $700,000 can compete
for only 20 percent of the money. How many sites fall into these 2
categories?
Answer. Of the 133 Presidential sites nationwide listed by the
American Association of State and Local History, 45 are operated by the
federal government. Of the remaining 88 sites, 23 are state-run and the
rest are owned by non-profit organizations or private individuals and
would all qualify for funding under the bill. There are 5 sites that
exceed an annual operating budget of $700,000. They are Mount Vernon,
Montpelier, Monticello, Jefferson's Poplar Forest, and Rutherford B.
Hayes Presidential Center.
Question 2b. Is this a fair way to divide the money or should all
sites be allowed to compete for all funding?
Answer. This is a fair way to accomplish the precise goal of the
bill--that is to target a relatively small amount of funding to the
properties where the need is greatest, especially those Presidential
sites that may be smaller and lesser-known. We believe that even those
smaller, lesser-known places are just as important to telling the
complete story of a chief executive's legacy and it is those sites that
are in greatest danger of deferring maintenance or lacking the monies
for proper interpretation.
Question 3. Many of the Presidential sites are currently operated
by state agencies. Is it appropriate for the federal government to be
responsible for funding state-owned property?
Answer. It certainly appropriate for federal funds to help out with
some of the capital costs not borne by state or private sources.
Twenty-three of the 133 Presidential sites across the country are
state-run, and as my testimony outlines though several examples, state
funding for historic preservation--this includes the operation of
historic sites--is at an all-time low. State budget crises combined
with inadequate federal funding through the Historic Preservation Fund
have stretched resources to the braking point and Presidential sites
are by no way immune to the effects of cost cutting. State-run
Presidential sites have reduced hours of operation, deferred exhibits,
cut staff, and postponed critical maintenance needs.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2004.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the follow-up
questions from the hearing held by Subcommittee on National Parks on
April 27, 2004 on S. 1064, S. 1092, S. 1748, S. 2046, S. 2052, and S.
2319. These responses have been prepared by the National Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on this
matter. We apologize for the delay in our response.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel..
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. (S. 1064, Civil War Commission): Have similar
commissions been formed in advance of milestone events similar to this?
How successful were they? How does the proposed civil war
sesquicentennial commission compare in size, composition, and scope of
responsibility to previous commissions?
Answer. Yes, commissions have been formed for milestone events such
as the Centennial of Flight, Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial, and the most
recent example, the establishment of the Jamestown 400th Commission,
authorized in December 2000 to celebrate the 2007 anniversary. This
commission is comprised of 16 members, appointed by the Secretary of
the Interior, based on recommendations by the Governor and the
Jamestown 2007 Steering Committee, and includes individuals with
expertise appropriate to the commemoration. There was no time line for
appointing members to the commission. The scope of responsibility for
the commission was very broad-based to include all relevant parties
associated with the 400th commemoration. Most commemorative commissions
have about 15 members, no more than 20. We believe the Civil War
Commission should be a smaller, more manageable size. Overall, these
commissions are very valuable at bringing together diverse groups to
work on celebrating commemorative events.
Question 2. (S. 1064, Civil War Commission): Has the National Park
Service taken any steps to prepare for the Civil War sesquicentennial?
How far in advance do you intend to begin planning for the milestone?
Answer. The National Park Service has already begun preparations
for the 150th anniversary. Back in 1989 and 1990, Congress directed the
NPS in two different public laws (P.L. 101-214 and 101-377) to address
the causes and consequences of the Civil War. Since that time, new
exhibits have been installed at many parks including Harpers Ferry
National Historical Park and Richmond National Battlefield Park. More
exhibits are planned for other parks such as Gettysburg National
Military Park and Stones River National Battlefield. In addition, there
have been Civil War-related publications including a new brochure at
Fort Sumter National Monument, a new handbook at Appomattox Courthouse
National Historical Park, and three new films at Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park.
Question 3. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): Gathering data
for the proposed database could be quite extensive. Approximately how
many veterans memorials currently fall under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service?
Answer. There are approximately 3,196 veterans monuments, memorials
and markers within units of the National Park System.
Question 4. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): Do you
currently maintain a database on other types of memorials? Could the
National Register of Historic Places be modified to include information
on veteran's memorials?
Answer. The National Park Service maintains an inventory of all
historic and pre-historic structures that are significant in the 388
units of the National Park System. Currently there are 26,531
structures listed. Some of these structures are also listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, but the Register is a more
extensive list that includes all cultural resources, public and
private, and is not limited to military sites. The Register is already
set up to include nationally significant military resources if they
meet the criteria for listing; most commemorative works do not meet
this standard. It would be problematic to modify the Register to
include commemorative works that do not meet the criteria for listing.
Question 5. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): Is the National
Park Service the appropriate agency for establishing and maintaining a
database on veterans memorials or would some other agency be more
appropriate?
Answer. We do not believe this is an appropriate role for the NPS
because it could take resources away from maintaining and protecting
our parks. Since an existing database has been compiled and is
maintained by RVETS (Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their Stripes), we
would recommend they continue this function and seek financial support,
if required, through private and federal grants available for this
purpose.
Question 6. (S. 1748, Maintaining Sites Honoring Presidents): How
many sites are potentially affected by this bill?
Answer. Non-Federal presidential sites include birthplaces, homes,
memorials, tombs, and libraries. These sites are owned and managed by
family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical
societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit
organizations. The National Park Service does not maintain a current
database of these sites. However, in the written statement submitted at
the hearing by Richard Moe, President of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, it says, ``. . . the American Association for
State and Local History documents 133 Presidential historic sites
nationwide with only 45 run by the Federal government.'' Using those
figures, approximately 88 sites would be affected by this bill.
Question 7. (S. 1748, Maintaining Sites Honoring Presidents): How
much did the National Park Service spend on Presidential sites each
year during the past five years?
Answer. Please see attached list that covers FY 02-05 (requested).
Question 8. (S. 2046, Everglades Land Exchange): A Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan has been developed to guide the multi year
effort to restore the Everglades ecosystem. Is this the only land
exchange envisioned in that plan? Will any land acquisitions be needed
to complete the plan? If so, how many acres of private land and what is
the estimated cost?
Answer. The State of Florida is responsible to acquire any lands
that are needed to implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP), and we do not envision any land exchanges between the
federal government and the State of Florida for the purpose of
implementing CERP. To date, the State has acquired nearly half the
acreage that is required to implement CERP; however, the Department
does not have current information on the total cost for the remaining
lands that the State needs to acquire.
In contrast, S. 2046 authorizes a land exchange that is needed to
implement portions of the C-111 Project, which is on-going and pre-
dates CERP, and is intended to restore habitat within Everglades
National Park and restore more natural flows of water to Florida Bay.
Prior planning, in which NPS participated, determined that the most
appropriate lands to build the C-111 project features included
parklands. Because the amount of park acreage that is needed is above
the level at which the Secretary may adjust the boundary of the park,
legislative authorization is required.
Question 9. (S. 2046, Everglades Land Exchange): Will the land
exchange have any impact on agriculture in the area?
Answer. The exchange authorized by S. 2046 will not affect local
agricultural operations; the lands being provided to the South Florida
Water Management District are within the boundary of Everglades
National Park. The lands being provided in return by the South Florida
Water Management District's Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental
Area are substantially similar to the lands within the park.
Question 10. (S. 2052, El Camino Trail): Does the National Park
Service have a policy regarding activities such as oil and gas
development within the viewshed of national trails?
Answer. The National Trails System Act is silent about viewsheds--
although this is an issue that is often considered in the comprehensive
management plan for a trail, based on public input. So far, the impacts
of oil and gas drilling have been the responsibility of on-the-ground
trail segment managers, such as BLM in Wyoming. Historically, pipeline
rights-of-ways have been approved across some trails and oil and gas
development occurs within viewsheds of several trails.
Question 11. (S. 2052, El Camino Trail): How wide a corridor will
the National Park Service need to develop and interpret this trail?
Answer. For a hiking trail in woodlands, a narrow corridor is
usually sufficient (a few hundred feet on either side often protects
the trail from impacting adjoining land uses). As soon as the view
opens up with overlooks, associated structures, divergent traces, etc.,
the trail corridor may vary in width.
Historic trail corridors are particularly tough to estimate because
local conditions vary. On Federal lands, the trail corridor and its
associated features may be quite wide. Elsewhere it is often a remnant
trace, narrowed by subsequent development, fences, pipelines, and
highways. Since the non-Federal segments of historic trails are almost
all designated through a certification process, the certification
agreement will define the size and scope of the site as mutually agreed
upon by the site owner and the trail administrator.
Question 12. (S. 2319, Great Smoky Mountains Land Exchange): We've
been hearing a great deal recently about the air quality in national
parks. Powerplants have been implicated as the source of some of the
pollutants. Does the Tapoco plant contribute to pollution in the area?
Answer. Great Smoky Mountains National Park ranks among the most
heavily impacted by poor air quality. Part of the park's air quality
problems stem from the burning of fossil fuels to produce power.
ALCOA's smelting facility located near the park gets approximately 50
percent of its electrical power from the four hydropower dams that make
up--the Tapoco project. The production of hydropower has no impact on
air quality. The other 50 percent is purchased from the Tennessee
Valley Authority, a significant portion of which (60 percent) is
fossil-produced.
Question 13. (S. 2319, Great Smoky Mountains Land Exchange): Have
any individuals or groups contacted the Department of the Interior or
National Park Service to voice opposition to the proposed land exchange
and hydroelectric plant relicensing?
Answer. No. In fact, we believe that the exchange authorized in S.
2319 is an excellent example of Secretary Norton's 4 C's, Conservation
through Cooperation, Consultation and Communication and demonstrates
how environmental groups, local and state governments, industry,
tribes, and the Federal government can work cooperatively on the
conservation of important environmental resources.
Question 14. (S. 2319, Great Smoky Mountains Land Exchange): Could
this land exchange occur without legislation?
Answer. Technically, yes, but it would not achieve the intended
goals of the settlement agreement, which include resolving the
jurisdictional issue between FERC and NPS. The lands could potentially
be exchanged under existing land exchange statutes, but this would fall
short of meeting the needs of all of the stakeholders who are involved.
The end result would be a highly contested and controversial land
exchange process, and FERC would still lack the jurisdiction to issue a
new license for the Tapoco project. None of the parties involved would
benefit from such an exchange.
Question 15. (S. 2319, Great Smoky Mountains Land Exchange): The
proposed legislation states that funds are authorized to be
appropriated for carrying out the act. The funds are needed for DOI and
USDA to purchase a conservation easement from the Nature Conservancy.
How much money is needed and will the easement run for a specified time
or in perpetuity?
Answer. The Settlement Agreement that is a part of the relicensing
process and is referenced in the bill contains several provisions
regarding easements. These easements are on lands that APGI owns and
they will be donated to, and held by, a non-governmental organization
(NGO), either the Nature Conservancy or some other group. The NGO may
then acquire the remaining fee value of the lands. The terms of the
easements range from permanent to the term of the relicensing. Nothing
in this legislation commits or requires the Department or USDA to
purchase easements or land protected by the easements at this time.
Question 16. (S. 2319, Great Smoky Mountains Land Exchange): The
Tapoco powerplant license expires in February 2005. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is asking that the land exchange be completed by
December 31, 2004. What is the process for completing the land exchange
and can DOI complete all necessary requirements by the end of 2004?
Answer. There are several steps that the Department must complete
in order for the exchange directed under S. 2319, as amended, to be
finalized including completing legal descriptions of the parcels
involved, of the parcels, ordering and receiving the titles and
hazardous materials surveys for the parcels, receiving the title
opinion, reviewing and approving the hazardous materials surveys, final
review of the deeds and transactions documents, and closing on the
transaction. Many of these requirements are done by contractors and
completing the entire process usually takes several months. We estimate
that the requirements can all be completed by the end of 2004, subject
to the availability of funding and assuming that the contractors
complete their portions on or before their deadlines.
Questions From Senator Campbell
Question 1. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): Although this
bill has not been scored by the CBO, a similar bill was scored in the
107th Congress, and assuming Department of the Interior appropriations
in the necessary amounts, CBO estimated that it would cost about $1.6
million over the next year or two and around $500,000 per year
thereafter to establish and maintain the memorial database. With these
additional funds do you think the National Park Service could maintain
this database without taking away from or neglecting already existing
park units?
Answer. The additional funds would enable the National Park Service
to fulfill this directive, however, we believe that this project is
well beyond the mission and existing capability of the National Park
Service. It seems more logical to have RVETS (Remembering Veterans Who
Earned Their Stripes) be the entity to receive additional funding to
continue a project they started and have maintained over the past
several years.
Question 2. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): You have
testified that maintaining a permanent database is a laudable goal.
And, I have heard from the Department of Veterans Affairs that they
don't have the infrastructure but would be glad to participate in a
database project. So everyone supports the goals of this legislation
but no one wants to take the lead.
We have seen a grassroots effort to recognize every veteran who was
honored in war. Don't you think it is fitting that a government agency
like the National Park Service be able and willing to preserve the only
tangible reminders we have of brave service to this country?
Answer. It is fitting for some entity, be it public or private, to
maintain a permanent memorial database. We believe that this database
should be preserved by the state or local governments who largely
sponsored them originally or by a private, non-profit group such as
RVETS. Again, the scope of this endeavor is beyond the mission and
existing capability of the National Park Service.
Question 3. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): You say that
the information you have on your inventory of memorial structures may
be of interest to a wide audience, such as the public. Is that
information now available to the public? How would someone access that
information?
Answer. The information in our inventory of historic structures is
available by request, and we have offered to share it as part of this
effort.
Question 4. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): What is the
criteria to meet the basic National Register of Historic Places? How do
you see it as differing from the types of permanent memorials specified
by S. 1092?
Answer. The criteria of the National Register of Historic Places
are specified in 36 CFR 60.4 cited below. As emphasized below in bold,
most memorials considered under S. 1092 would not qualify for National
Register of Historic Places consideration.
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY
CHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 60--NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Sec. 60.4 Criteria for evaluation.
The criteria applied to evaluate properties (other than areas of
the National Park System and National Historic Landmarks) for the
National Register are listed below. These criteria are worded in a
manner to provide for a wide diversity of resources. The following
criteria shall be used in evaluating properties for nomination to the
National Register, by NPS in reviewing nominations, and for evaluating
National Register eligibility of properties. Guidance in applying the
criteria is further discussed in the ``How To'' publications, Standards
& Guidelines sheets and Keeper's opinions of the National Register.
Such materials are available upon request.
National Register criteria for evaluation. The quality of
significance in American history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past; or
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history.
Criteria considerations. Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or
graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been
moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings,
properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have
achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered
eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will
qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the
criteria of if they fall within the following categories:
(a) A religious property deriving primary significance from
architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or
(b) A building or structure removed from its original location but
which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the
surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person
or event; or
(c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding
importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly
associated with his productive life.
(d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves
of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive
design features, or from association with historic events; or
(e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a
restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with
the same association has survived; or
(f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age,
tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional
significance; or
(g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if
it is of exceptional importance.
This exception is described further in NPS ``How To'' #2,
entitled ``How to Evaluate and Nominate Potential National
Register Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the
Last 50 Years'' which is available from the National Register
of Historic Places Division, National Park Service, United
States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
Question 5. (S. 1092, Veterans Memorials Database): Since
the National Park Service has the existing infrastructure to
hold this catalogued information, would you be willing to
accept additional information gathered by other groups and
entities?
Answer. We do not have the infrastructure to hold this
catalogued information. We would not be able to accept
additional information for our existing database gathered by
other groups and entities for several reasons. First, our
inventory is a management tool for park managers and only
covers structures located within the boundaries of units of the
National Park System. Information about other memorials or
structures would not be appropriate for this inventory. Second,
information included in our inventory is gathered by trained
professionals and meets certain standards. We would not have
the staff with the level of proposed funding to verify that
information provided by other groups or entities meets our
standards. And third, the structure of our inventory is
controlled to meet management needs at the parks and is not
designed to meet other purposes.
Question From Senator Akaka
The Department previously responded to Senator Akaka's
question in a letter dated June 10, 2004. A copy of that
response is included in this letter.
Question. In your answer to my question about the use of
the land to be transferred to the South Florida Water
Management District, you indicated that the District could use
the land for both restoration of Everglades National Park and
for flood protection without causing harm to the Park. What
steps will the Department take to monitor whether or not harm
is caused to the Park? What will,the Department do if harm is
found to occur within the Park due to the use of this exchanged
land?
Answer. The Department of the Interior, including the
National Park Service (Everglades National Park) and Fish and
Wildlife Service, is a partner with the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the South Florida Water Management in implementing
the C-111 Project. As indicated in the testimony, the primary
purpose of the land exchange is to allow for the construction
of a series of detention basins that will, in the end, restore
park habitat that was damaged by past operation of the Central
and Southern Florida Project. The Department's primary role in
this project is to provide technical analysis and input to the
Corps on the design and operation of the detention basins. In
that role, the Department and its agencies will assist in the
development and analysis of project alternatives to ensure that
the project achieves its intended environmental benefits
without causing negative adverse impact to park resources. The
Department believes that relevant federal and state
environmental laws protecting park resources and water quality
provide protection to ensure that this result will be achieved.
Further, systematic monitoring of the project's operation on
park resources will be a key element in ensuring that park
resources are not adversely affected. If the monitoring of the
project operations reveals that adverse impacts are occurring
to park resources as a result of the project operations, then
the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior
will work with the Corps, and the South Florida Water
Management District, to modify the operation of the project so
that adverse impacts to park resources are avoided and that the
overall restoration objectives of the project are realized.
NPS PRESIDENTIAL SITES--PARK BASE FUNDING
[FY 2000-FY 2005 Request]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($000)
-----------------------------------------------------
Park 2005
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHS............................ 509 520 652 654 727 977
Adams NHP................................................. 2,063 2,275 2,507 2,507 2,494 2,494
Andrew Johnson NHS........................................ 488 499 509 712 708 708
Eisenhower NHS............................................ 1,107 1,036 1,050 1,051 1,045 1,045
Ford's Theatre NHS........................................ 695 740 980 985 981 981
FDR Memorial.............................................. 1,324 1,360 1,371 1,377 1,371 1,371
General Grant NMem........................................ 600 602 604 604 601 601
George Washington Birthplace NM........................... 1,064 1,096 1,121 1,123 1,112 1,112
Harry S Truman NHS........................................ 1,025 1,050 1,070 1,071 1,066 1,152
Herbert Hoover NHS........................................ 870 890 1,078 1,075 1,069 1,069
Home of FDR NHS........................................... 1,665 2,248 2,281 2,279 2,266 2,266
James A. Garfield NHS..................................... 140 143 144 145 144 144
Thomas Jefferson Memorial................................. 1,680 2,009 2,021 2,029 2,017 2,017
Jimmy Carter NHS.......................................... 667 876 985 982 976 976
JF Kennedy NHS............................................ 303 309 309 306 302 302
Lincoln Boyhood NMem...................................... 762 781 795 796 792 899
Lincoln Home NHS.......................................... 1,937 2,000 2,039 2,044 2,332 2,332
Lincoln Memorial.......................................... 1,711 2,077 2,089 2,097 2,086 2,086
Lyndon B. Johnson NHP..................................... 2,834 2,900 2,961 3,153 3,139 3,277
Martin Van Buren NHS...................................... 780 800 814 1,063 1,057 1,057
Mount Rushmore NMem....................................... 2,402 2,473 2,529 2,903 3,315 3,647
Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home NHS............................ 82 82
Roosevelt-Campobello IP \1\............................... [670] [728] [766] [797] [837] 896
Sagamore Hill NHS......................................... 946 970 991 986 979 1,413
Theodore Roosevelt Bthplc NHS............................. 219 222 223 223 223 223
Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural NHS.......................... 213 213 213 212 210 210
Theodore Roosevelt NP..................................... 1,703 1,900 2,187 2,192 2,184 2,184
Ulysses S. Grant NHS...................................... 526 547 561 785 779 779
Washington Monument....................................... 2,298 2,362 2,382 2,392 2,381 2,381
William Howard Taft NHS................................... 508 519 529 529 527 586
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, NPS Presidential Sites......................... 30,949 33,417 34,995 36,275 36,965 39,267
=====================================================
Total, with bracketed numbers......................... 31,619 34,145 35,761 37,072 37,802 39,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to FY 2005 Request, Roosevelt-Campobello International Park was funded under Statutory and Contractual
Aid budget activity under the National Recreation and Preservation appropriation.
NPS PRESIDENTIAL SITES--LINE-ITEM CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
[FY 2000-FY 2005 Request]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($000)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park 2005
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 request Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams NHP........................................ ....... ....... ....... 537 ....... ....... 537
Ford's Theatre NHS............................... ....... ....... 1,562 ....... ....... ....... 1,562
General Grant NMem............................... ....... ....... ....... 174 1,711 ....... 1,885
Home of FDR NHS.................................. 1,295 ....... 5,630 ....... ....... ....... 6,925
Thomas Jefferson Mem............................. ....... 934 2,600 ....... 4,799 ....... 8,333
John Adams Presidential Memorial \1\............. ....... ....... 1,000 ....... ....... ....... 1,000
Lincoln Home NHS................................. 555 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 555
Lincoln Memorial................................. ....... ....... ....... 11,301 ....... ....... 11,301
Mount Rushmore NMem.............................. 4,568 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 4,568
Ulysses S. Grant NHS............................. ....... ....... 5,200 1,981 ....... ....... 7,181
Washington Monument.............................. ....... ....... ....... ....... 14,913 ....... 14,913
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NPS Presidential Sites.................... 6,418 934 15,992 13,993 21,423 0 58,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Adams Presidential Memorial will become an NPS site when completed.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the Environmental & Land Use Law Center, the Everglades
Foundation, the Everglades Trust, the National Parks Conservation
Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund
On behalf of the organizations named above, we want to thank the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding
legislation authorizing the exchange of Everglades National Park land
for purposes of implementing the long-delayed General Reevaluation
Report of 1994 for the Canal 111 (C-111 GRR). We particularly want to
thank Senator Graham for his continued strong support of Everglades
restoration.
Our organizations are concerned that the current language in this
legislation will unintentionally conflict with the goal of completing
this critical restoration project, as well as have consequences
detrimental to the Park. We also want to provide you with a suggested
language addition to the legislation that would resolve our concerns.
Our groups' central concern with the current bill language is that
it does not state that the Park land in question will be used
specifically to implement the C-111 GRR modifications. Rather, the bill
provides for the Park land to be used for the ``C-111 Project'' as a
whole, which has multiple purposes wholly independent of Park
protection and restoration. Indeed, the C-111 GRR modifications were
only developed in the first place in order to correct ecological
problems caused by the larger C-111 project. When Congress authorized
the C-111 GRR modifications in 1996, the Park land in question was at
the heart of the project's design to restore water flows into Taylor
Slough, one of the Park's two major water ``arteries.''
We propose that clarifying language be added to the end of the
legislation's subsection (4) ``Use of Federal Land''. Specifically, we
propose deletion of the final period and addition of the following
phrase:
and for the specific purpose of implementing the Final
Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact
Statement, Canal 111 (C-111), May 1994, as authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
We also recommend to the Subcommittee that explanatory report
language be provided, describing in further detail that (1) the
authorized purposes of the C-111 GRR modifications are, as the 1994 GRR
states, ``to restore the ecosystem in Taylor Slough and the eastern
panhandle of ENP that were affected by construction of the flood
control project in the C-111 Basin . . . [while] preserving the current
level of flood protection for the agricultural activities in the C-111
basin''; (2) the Park land to be exchanged was purchased by the federal
government pursuant to the 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act specifically for the purpose of restoring water flow to
the Park, as well as for the land's particular habitat value; and (3)
it is the intent of Congress that all activities on the Park land to be
exchanged must be consistent with the C-111 GRR and its 1996
authorization, as well as protection and restoration of the Park.
Our suggested bill language constitutes a technical change to the
current version, and is intended to make the bill consistent with the
prior Congressional authorizations and previous agency agreements. This
change is a critical one. Although we realize this is not the intent,
the language in the current bill would cause a significant modification
in the C-111 GRR, as well as a possible pollution threat to the Park.
The C-111 GRR is the single most important restoration project for the
Taylor Slough, Eastern Panhandle, and northeastern Florida Bay.
Absolute clarity from Congress concerning the purpose of the key land
exchange is essential to ensure that the C-111 modifications finally
get off the ground and avoid, further delays and disputes.
We thank the Subcommittee again for the opportunity to submit
testimony on this important legislation.
______
Statement of The Nature Conservancy On S. 2319
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) respectfully thanks the Chairman and
Members of the Committee for the opportunity to express our full
support for S. 2319, the ``Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004.'' This
bill was introduced to the Senate by Senator Lamar Alexander of
Tennessee on April 20th, 2004 and enjoys broad-based support from its
industry, nongovernmental organization, local, state, and federal
government, and stakeholder advocates.
The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants,
animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life
on Earth by protecting the land and water they need to survive. The
Conservancy has over 1 million individual members and nearly 2,000
corporate associates. We currently have programs in all 50 states and
in 30 nations. To date, TNC has protected over 12 million acres of
biologically important lands in the United States and abroad and has
helped local partner organizations preserve millions of acres in other
countries. The Conservancy itself owns a network of over 1,400 private
nature preserves in the U.S., the largest private system of nature
sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound
science, strong partnerships with public and private entities, tangible
results in local places, and compromise.
The lands owned by Alcoa Power Generating, Incorporated (APGI) that
are addressed in S. 2319 contain the biological diversity and
conservation potential that exemplify conservation partnership
projects. These APGI lands lie between the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park and two designated Wilderness Areas (Citico and Joyce
Kilmer). Together, these lands comprise one of the most vast and
undisturbed ``wilderness'' regions in the Eastern United States, and
the only such area remaining in the Southern Appalachians. The APGI
property, or ``Tapoco Lands,'' is a critical link in this chain.
The APGI property includes the entire Tallassee Creek watershed,
one of the few remaining undisturbed, high-elevation, low-gradient
streams in the region, rivaled only by two systems within the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Studies by TNC, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and others have revealed at least 21 species that are
rare, threatened or endangered on APGI property, including amphibians,
birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and plants. Some of the more notable
species include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, bristle fern, chalk
maple, smoky dace, and hellbender salamander. The rare Junaluska
salamander, known only from this region of the Southern Appalachians,
is also documented on the APGI property.
For the past seven years, APGI has worked tirelessly with local,
state, and federal agencies, citizen groups, interest groups, tribes,
and the conservation community to finalize a Settlement Agreement prior
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) relicensing of
four APGI dams (two of which are in Tennessee) that affect terrestrial
and aquatic resources within the above-mentioned ``wilderness'' region.
The Settlement Agreement outlines protection, mitigation and
enhancement measures to offset the continuing social and environmental
impacts of APGI hydropower operations on the Little Tennessee River.
TNC will be a proud signatory of the Settlement Agreement and joins its
partners in officially recognizing that the APGI lands within the areas
affected by the Calderwood and Chilhowee impoundments of the Little
Tennessee River serve as a critical ecological link worthy of
conservation and protection. TNC's further contribution to the project
will include assisting in the eventual transfer of 10,000 acres of APGI
lands to the Cherokee National Forest and Great Smoky Mountains
National Park over the short and long term. By assuring that these
areas remain protected and undeveloped, this unique ecological
landscape may be protected not just for the rare species and ecosystems
within, but also for the human communities that depend upon this land
for economic progress and outdoor recreation.
Before relicensing and ensuing land protection may occur, however,
federal legislation must cure a legal defect in APGI's original license
that allowed for the inundation of lands within the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. FERC may not issue APGI's license to continue
operating the Tapoco hydropower project until this problem is remedied.
Senator Alexander is to be commended for taking a leadership role in
resolving this legal problem and expediting the cooperating parties'
innovative Settlement Agreement. By joining Senator Alexander in
supporting S. 2319, the Senate can contribute to this laudable effort
to marry power production, local economics, terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystem health, and the recreational potential of APGI's land
holdings.
Thank you for the opportunity to lend our support to this important
legislation. For more information, please contact:
Tom Cassidy, Director of Federal Programs, The Nature
Conservancy, (703) 841-4527, [email protected]
Gabby Call, Associate State Director, The Nature Conservancy
of Tennessee, (615) 383-9909, [email protected]
______
Statement of American Rivers On S. 2319
American Rivers is pleased to offer its full support for S. 2319,
the ``Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004'', a bill introduced in the
Senate on April 20th by Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. We
commend the Senator for his leadership and his longstanding commitment
to the people and environment of Eastern Tennessee. As a leader of the
national river movement, American Rivers is devoted to the protection
and restoration of our nation's rivers and communities that depend on
them. We believe that this legislation and the associated settlement
agreement meet those goals while maintaining the ability to generate
low cost electricity.
The simple elements of this legislation belie its true
significance. After almost seven years of analysis and negotiation,
Alcoa reached agreement with tribes, state and federal agencies,
homeowners, recreation interests, and environmental advocates on the
licensing of four dams owned by Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (Alcoa)
affecting critical aquatic and land resources in the heart of the Smoky
Mountains. The agreement improves flows along two significant segments
of river with only a small impact on hydropower generation, while at
the same time enhancing recreational opportunities, improving water
quality, and protecting native species. The centerpiece of the
agreement protects more than 10,000 acres of critical watersheds
through various mechanisms, including incorporation of lands into the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Cherokee National Forest.
Included in the Settlement Agreement is a requirement to support
federal legislation that cures a legal defect in the original project
license that, if not remedied, will prevent the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) from relicensing the Tapoco Project. For
almost 80 years, the project has occupied lands within the National
Park. Because Congress wisely prohibited FERC and its predecessor from
issuing hydropower licenses in National Parks, and the organic statute
of the park itself restated that prohibition, FERC may not issue Alcoa
another license until this problem is remedied. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et
seq. and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 403 et seq. Senator Alexander's leadership in
introducing S. 2319 is paving the way to resolve this legal problem and
put in motion this landmark agreement.
American Rivers is proud to have participated over the past five
years in the relicensing process and negotiations for the Tapoco
Project. We stand committed to implementing its purpose and promise. As
a signatory to more than 30 hydropower licensing settlements, American
Rivers recognizes the importance of hydropower as part of our nation's
energy mix while ensuring that its impacts on our nation's river
ecosystems and the communities that depend on them are adequately
prevented or mitigated. By supporting S. 2319, the Senate can help us
strike a fair and appropriate balance between power production and
environmental protection that meets the needs of the people of Eastern
Tennessee and Western North Carolina.