[Senate Hearing 109-547]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-547
OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER; PRESIDENT WILLIAM
JEFFERSON CLINTON BIRTHPLACE HOME; VISITOR CENTER FOR THE VIETNAM
VETERANS MEMORIAL; CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC
TRAIL; NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD; AND ADMINISTRATION OF
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1686 S. 2568
S. 2417 H.R. 4192
S. 2419 H.R. 4882
S. 2627 S. Res. 468
__________
MAY 16, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-619 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, 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
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
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.................. 2
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia................... 3
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California................ 6
Capps, Hon. Lois, U.S. Representative from California............ 8
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 4
Gallagher, Patricia, Executive Director, National Capital
Planning Commission............................................ 23
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 14
Martin, Steve, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior................................................ 15
Noonan, Patrick, Chairman Emeritus, The Conservation Fund,
Arlington, VA.................................................. 51
Pryor, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Arkansas..................... 5
Robinson, Harry G., III, Consultant, TRG Consulting Studio,
Washington, DC, on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund 40
Saikus, Rimantas (Ray), Vietnam Veteran, U.S. Army, 173rd
Airborne Brigade, 1968-1969, Cleveland, OH..................... 36
Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from Maryland............... 11
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 13
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from Virginia................. 10
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 65
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 75
OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER; PRESIDENT WILLIAM
JEFFERSON CLINTON BIRTHPLACE HOME; VISITOR CENTER FOR THE VIETNAM
VETERANS MEMORIAL; CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC
TRAIL; NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD; AND ADMINISTRATION OF
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 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. OK, we'll call the committee to order. It
may be a minute early, but we may get called a little earlier
this afternoon, too. So, good afternoon. I wanted to welcome
Deputy Director Steve Martin, from the National Park Service,
and the other witnesses that we have here today.
Our purpose for this hearing is to receive testimony on
five Senate bills, one Senate resolution, and two House bills:
S. 1686, a bill to amend the Constitutional Heritage Act of
1988 to provide for the operations of the National
Constitutional Center;
S. 2417 and H.R. 4192, bills to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to designate the William Jefferson Clinton
Birthplace Home in Hope, AK, as a National Historic Site and a
unit of the National Park Service;
S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper
remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by
providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center
for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial;
S. 2568, a bill to amend the National Trail System Act to
designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic
Site;
S. 2627, a bill to amend the Act of August 21, 1935, to
extend the authorization for the National Park System Advisory
Board, and for other purposes; and,
S. Res. 468, a resolution supporting the continued
administration of the Channel Islands National Park, including
Santa Rosa Island, in accordance with the law and the policies
of the National Park Service.
With all these bills, I've heard more about the visitor
center for the Vietnam Memorial than the others. On the one
hand, I've heard about delays approving the site for the
underground center; on the other hand, I've heard of the need
to satisfy all of the compliance requirements.
Congress has approved the center, and I would hate to see
delays, for bureaucratic reasons, but I understand the
importance of determining possible impacts on the Mall before
proceeding. Having this hearing, I hope we can find a way to
get the job done in a reasonable amount of time without
impacting the use and enjoyment of the Mall by future
generations.
S. Res. 468 is another item on today's agenda. I understand
a provision has been added to the defense authorization bill in
the House to ultimately allow military personnel to hunt deer
and elk in the national park on Santa Rosa Island. As a former
marine, I fully support activities to improve the morale of
members serving. However, it's my hope that a hearing such as
this can determine if hunting in the national park is an
appropriate way to reward our veterans.
We look forward to hearing the testimony of these and other
bills. And we thank the witnesses for being here today.
Let's see if we have any opening statements.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the ranking
member, Senator Akaka.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. That was my mistake.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We have several interesting legislation proposals today on
our agenda, and I would be--I would like to make some brief
comments about them.
The first item is S. 2419, and its House-passed
counterpart, H.R. 4882, which would select a site for the
visitor center that was authorized 3 years ago for the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. The preferred site is a parcel of land
across from the memorial. Perhaps more than any other memorial
in our Nation's capital, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a
symbol of what a successful memorial should be: unforgettable
architecture and a source of remembrance and healing.
I am a proud supporter of the proposal to build an
underground visitor center to help educate new generations
about the war and the Americans who fought there. I'm also
mindful of our responsibility as stewards of the National Mall
and the laws this committee has put in place to protect the
Mall, and to ensure that all new construction proposals undergo
a vigorous review and approval process.
I understand that the proposed location for the visitor
center has received preliminary approval from two of the three
agencies involved, but still awaits a decision from the
National Capital Planning Commission. It is my hope that we can
move forward in a timely manner with this review and approval
process so that construction of the new visitor center is not
unduly delayed. I look forward to hearing more about this from
the witnesses who will be testifying on this bill.
The second issue I would like to comment on is Senators
Feinstein and Boxer's resolution concerning the management of
Santa Rosa Island, which is part of the Channel Islands
National Park. The island has a long and complicated history,
but in 1986 the people of the United States paid almost $30
million to acquire the island to be managed as part of the
national park. In accordance with the court-approved
settlement, the pre-existing commercial hunting operation will
be phased out within the next 5 years, and, at that time, the
island will be managed consistent with other national parks,
allowing for public recreation and enjoyment, while protecting
the island's native plant and animal species.
As you know, last Congress there was an attempt made, as
part of the Department of Defense authorization bill, to change
the island's status and to allow for continued hunting
opportunities for members of the armed forces, disabled
veterans, and their guests. Although that proposal did not
succeed, the issue has been included again this year in the
House version of the DOD authorization bill.
While I certainly support hunting and other recreational
activities for veterans, I don't believe it is appropriate to
use a national park for that purpose, and I hope we can keep
the debate over the management of a national park in this
committee, where it belongs.
Finally, I would like to express my support for the
proposal to designate President Clinton's boyhood home as a
national historic site, and the Captain John Smith Water Trail
as a National Historic Trail. I understand that the Park
Service has not completed its studies on either proposal;
however, in my view, both are clearly nationally significant,
and in these specific cases I don't believe that proceeding
with the designation will complicate their future management.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all
of our witnesses who are here to testify this afternoon. I look
forward to hearing them.
Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Now, Senator Allen.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak about a very
important time, place, and individual in the history of the
United States.
And I was glad to hear Senator Inouye's--excuse me, Senator
Akaka's comments on the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail Designation Act. Almost 400 years ago, Captain
John Smith was one of America's earliest English explorers, and
he sailed into the mostly uncharted waters of the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries. Captain John Smith was one of the key
founders of the settlement at Jamestown. He spent 3 years,
we'll find from the testimony--and I see my colleagues are here
from Virginia and Maryland, but he spent 3 years--1607 through
1609--exploring and mapping the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and parts of
Pennsylvania, covering about 3,000 miles. These maps were some
of the most accurate early maps of the whole Chesapeake Bay
region. His voyages took him--and we'll see the maps. And he
did make a comment. He said, quote, ``Heaven and Earth never
agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation.'' Well,
judging by the population of Virginia and Maryland and Delaware
and Pennsylvania, he proved to be correct.
Most importantly, and why we need action--and I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing on this bill--is that
next year we'll be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the
founding of Jamestown. Jamestown, as a practical matter, is the
cradle of American liberty. It's where representative democracy
started, the first legislative body and a variety of other
highlights of national historic significance.
We need to move this measure--and we'll hear testimony from
the Park Service and others--and the sooner we can get this
moving, the more it'll converge with the celebration, when much
of the world is going to be looking at Virginia, and the 400th
anniversary of the founding of American liberty at the cradle
of American liberty, in Jamestown. And so, it will have
historic, educational, and tourism value for us. So, I'm
hopeful that the testimony that we adduce here today at this
hearing will help us move this legislation forward so that our
States and our Federal partners can work together, so that the
celebration of Jamestown's 400th anniversary will be as
pleasurable, helpful, and, in fact, a long-lasting legacy of
the 400th commemoration.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'm glad to see my colleagues, Senator Warner and
Senator Sarbanes, who are also key leaders on this matter, as
well as Senators Mikulski, Biden, and Carper here, as well.
And, again, I thank you for putting this on the docket,
recognizing that the study is not quite yet complete, but I
think that the testimony that we'll hear, and the evidence,
will allow us to, with comfort, move forward on this as quickly
as possible.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to comment on Santa Rosa Island, which is part of
the Channel Islands, right off the coast of Santa Barbara, in
California. I know my colleague is going to comment more
precisely on the geography of the island, so I won't, except to
say it's not a small island. It's 54,000 acres, so it's fairly
good-size island.
This island was bought by the Park Department in 1986 for
$30 million from the company Vail & Vickers, who had owned this
island prior to that. The purpose was to restore its native
ecology, and also to provide public access. In addition to
that, the prior owners of the island were told that they would
be allowed to keep hunting and grazing on the land through
2011. There was a court--they went to court, and there was a
settlement in the court. And the court found that they would
remove the cattle immediately, but reaffirmed that the non-
native deer and elk would have to go by 2011. The court
actually set up a framework for that: 75 percent will be left
by the end of 2008, 50 percent by the end of the 2009, 25
percent by the end of 2010, and zero by 2011.
Now, this company runs the hunting on the island. This is
$9,000 for a trophy elk on this island. This island is public
property. It is all supposed to revert to the public in 2011.
What was added in the defense authorization bill essentially
prevents it from reverting to the public at the end of 2011,
despite the court settlement, despite the fact that in 1986 the
taxpayers paid $30 million for the island.
Now, the reason given was, ``Oh, well, we're going to have
hunting for the military.'' Well, we have a number of bases in
California where the military can hunt, where disabled military
can hunt. This is also a rugged island. It's difficult to get
around. It's offshore, so getting people there, too, is
somewhat difficult.
I've been interested in this, because I don't quite
understand why anyone would put in a bill to essentially give a
very big monetary gift to owners who sold the island to the
public, where there is a court settlement that specifically
provides that all of this ends by 2011.
So, Senator Boxer and my resolution essentially negates
what has been put in the House defense authorization bill.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
We're very pleased to have several Senators here today.
I'll break our tradition, I think, and ask you to speak in the
order of your appearance so it won't take very long.
Senator Pryor.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you and the committee for allowing me to testify on behalf of
S. 2417, legislation to designate the President William
Jefferson Clinton Birthplace home, in Hope, AK, as a National
Historical Site and unit of the National Park System.
Congressman Mike Ross has shepherded identical legislation
through the House of Representatives, which passed, on March 8,
by an overwhelming majority.
The little wood-frame house at 117 South Hervey Street
begins the first chapter to a story that many people in America
are familiar with. And it's a story of hope and opportunity.
It's the home where Billy Blythe spent his first years, where
he tells us he learned to walk and talk and pray and read and
count by using playing cards. It is, by all means, a modest
home that defines a humble childhood. It is the birthplace home
of our 42nd President. Like the homes of presidents who came
before him, I believe this landmark deserves Federal
recognition and should be preserved as part of the National
Park System.
President Clinton's birthplace underwent an extensive
renovation funded by the nonprofit Clinton Birthplace
Foundation. During the home's dedication in 1999, then-
President Clinton recalled that we make seemingly ordinary
places into landmarks because they ``remind us that America's
greatness can be found not only in its large centers of wealth
and culture and power, but also in its small towns, where
children live, learn from their families and neighbors the
rhythms and rituals of daily life. They learn about home and
work, about love and loss, about success and failure, about
endurance, and the power of dignity of their dreams.''
Mr. Chairman, I know that the National Park Service has an
objection, similar to the one that Senator Allen mentioned a
few moments ago. They would like to do a 2-year study. They
made the same objection with President Reagan's home, and the
Congress overcame that objection. I think overcoming the
objection here would be very justified, given the fact that the
Clinton Birthplace Foundation has already done extensive
renovation to the infrastructure and the other circumstances
around this site.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to thank members of
the committee.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it's a sort of a strange issue we bring
before you, because Senator Feinstein and I are a little
perplexed as to why this has happened. And I think she outlined
that we have to be very careful here when there looks like a
proposal that's going to benefit a private individual.
I want to show you the picture of Santa Rosa Island,
located right off of Santa Barbara. See, it's quite beautiful.
And that's why the National Park Service wanted to have it for
all of us to share, all of your constituents and mine, a very
important parcel. And Senator Feinstein and I believe
strongly--and I have a sense, after listening to your brief
comments, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps you'll come down on our
side.
I just want to bring a point out here. We are perplexed,
Mr. Chairman. You served in the House; right? I served in the
House. Senator Akaka served in the House. It's unusual for a
Congress Member from another district to come in and say to
another member, ``This is what I want to do, and, whether you
oppose it or not, I'm going to do it.'' It's rare. I mean, even
with partisan divide, we really respect each other's boundaries
most of the time. So, this is also confusing to us.
And I won't go through everything Senator Feinstein said to
you about the private company, about the deal that was cut, but
I will tell you that there's--I wanted to talk to you
specifically about the other opportunities for the military to
hunt, because Senator Feinstein alluded to those. And I would
ask unanimous consent to place in the record a little Web site
from the Camp Roberts Hunting Program, if I might, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
Senator Boxer. And Fort Hunter Liggett. And we know
Vandenberg has a hunting program. So, there are these great
opportunities for hunting in other bases
I don't know if I asked already, but I would like to put my
whole statement in the record. And I'm really almost done,
because I think I can just summarize.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and let me begin by expressing my
appreciation to the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on this
important topic.
I also appreciate the opportunity to speak on the matter before us,
which greatly impacts a very special and fragile part of my state--
Santa Rosa Island in Channel Islands National Park.
CHART--Island--This is Santa Rosa Island. Located off the South-
Central Coast of California, Santa Rosa Island is 54,000 acres.
Mr. Chairman, Channel Islands National Park, like all National
Parks, belong to everyone.
All Americans, not just a select few, have the right to access and
enjoy these marvelous places.
That is why I am greatly disturbed by attempts to limit access by
the general public to any national park especially one as stunning as
Channel Islands.
However, one member of Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter is trying to
change this and curtail conservation efforts and the general public's
access to this National Park.
Last week, Rep. Hunter included a provision in the House Department
of Defense (DoD) authorization bill directing the Interior Secretary to
cease the removal of non-native deer and elk populations on the Island
this provision would effectively overturn? settlement agreement with
the Park Service to phase-out hunting operations there and help restore
the natural ecosystem.
Last year, Rep. Hunter went as far as try to transfer control of
the island from the National Park Service to the Department of Defense,
for the private use of top military brass and their official guests.
After that rationale failed, he tried to say that he wanted to give
veterans more hunting opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, I am all in favor of providing recreational and
hunting opportunities to our service men and women. In fact, the
Department of Defense is required to provide outdoor recreational
opportunities on bases.
Indeed, in my home state of California, Vandenberg Air Force Base,
Fort Hunter Liggett Reservation, and Camp Roberts Reservation all
provide hunting opportunities to the military and veterans.
I would like to submit for the record the Fort Hunter Liggett
Reservation hunting program, taken from the Reservation's website.
There, our service men and women can hunt elk, deer, rabbit and fowl.
Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon did not ask for this; the Park Service
certainly didn't ask for this.
Both Rep. Lois Capps and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors
strongly oppose this.
That is why Senator Feinstein and I introduced a Sense of the
Senate Resolution expressing the need to manage the island under the
laws and rules: of the Park Service.
I would like to take a few moments and show you this special place
and some of the wildlife that calls Santa Rosa Island home.
CHART--This is the endangered Santa Rosa Island fox.
CHART--Baby Fox--The Fox is a subspecies of the endangered Channel
Island Fox. These foxes are unique to the islands--perfectly adapted to
the distinct conditions of the islands, and they live nowhere else on
earth.
CHART--Golden Eagle--The foxes have become endangered because of
the Golden Eagle.
Golden Eagles were attracted to the young deer and elk, when they
were brought to the island in the early 20th century for commercial
hunting.
After the Park Service purchased the Island for the Park in 1986, a
settlement agreement was reached with the island's original owners to
phase-out hunting and the deer and elk populations.
Under the settlement agreement, the Park Service is removing these
non-native populations to restore the ecosystem of Santa Rosa Island to
its natural state.
This is very important not only to restoring the island but also to
allowing full access to the Park--90% of the island is off-limits to
the general public for 4 or 5 months each year during the hunts.
That is why the settlement agreement is so important.
Mr. Chairman, this is a unique and special place--we cannot allow
the whims of one Member of Congress--no matter how powerful that member
may be--to compromise the public's access to treasures like Santa Rosa
Island.
I would like to conclude with the words of warning that President
Harry Truman made when Everglades National Park in Florida was
inaugurated.
``We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those
who would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain.
Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise and
initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people for the
benefit of a few.''
Senator Boxer. I'd like to put in the record Rep. Lois
Capps' statement for your consideration against this. She's the
Congresswoman who represents the area. Also, the National Park
Conservation Association opposing Representative Hunter's
legislation and supporting ours, and other organizations. And
the Ventura Board of Supervisors, which is quite bipartisan,
opposing what Congressman Hunter is trying to do.
[The prepared statement of Representative Capps follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lois Capps, U.S. Representative
From California
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding
this hearing today and for the opportunity to present testimony in
support S. Res. 468. This resolution recognizes the importance of Santa
Rosa Island and the Channel Islands National Park, which is located in
my congressional district.
I want to also thank my colleagues from California, Senator
Feinstein and Senator Boxer for introducing S. Res. 468 and for
bringing this important issue to the Committee's attention.
As you are well aware, the FY 2007 Department of Defense
Authorization Act, which recently passed the House, contains a
provision that negatively affect the public's access to Santa Rosa
Island.
Last week, I tried to offer an amendment to remove this offending
provision from the bill. Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in
order by the House Rules Committee and so the full House was not able
to debate or express its will on the issue. That's why this legislation
before you today is so important.
The provision in the House defense bill has many problems.
First, this issue has no place in the defense authorization
legislation. This language deals with the operations of a National Park
and interferes with the mission of the NPS to restore the islands and
open them to the public. There have been no congressional hearings or
opportunity for public input on this proposal. It is my understanding
that the Defense Department has not requested this provision and the
NPS strongly opposes it.
Second, this proposal seeks to continue indefinitely an unusual
trophy-hunting operation of non-native deer and elk on Santa Rosa. This
operation currently closes off public access to about 90 percent of the
island for 4 to 5 months of the year while hunting is underway.
However, the hunting is scheduled to wind down over the next several
years and cease completely in 2011, when full public access to the
island will be ensured. This proposal would also undermine the Park
Service's on going and successful work to restore the island to its
natural form.
The termination of hunting operations is being done through a
legally binding court ordered Settlement Agreement entered into by the
Park Service, the previous landowner (Vail & Vickers), the Justice
Department, and the National Parks Conservation Association. It is my
understanding that even Vail & Vickers is not seeking to extend the
hunting operation. Neither is the Park Service, Justice Department or
the National Parks Conservation Association.
Under the provision in the defense bill, one of the principal goals
of this settlement--year-round public access to Santa Rosa--simply
would not happen. And it would hinder the Park Service's plans to turn
the island into a destination spot, complete with overnight lodging and
expanded access for disabled visitors.
Third, this proposal appears to be predicated on giving members of
the armed forces and disabled and paralyzed veterans' greater access to
Santa Rosa Island. To be perfectly clear--everyone has access to the
island right now, including members of the armed forces and veterans.
If there is a need to address access problems for members of the armed
forces or veterans, then this issue can be worked out without any
legislation. I have spoken with the Superintendent of the Channel
Islands National Park and he assures me that he is willing to do
whatever he can to work with the Defense Department if there are any
access problems veterans might be having. The Defense Department has
made no such requests.
Last year when this issue was raised at the end of the defense
authorization conference, the author of the provision, the Chairman of
the House Armed Service Committee, argued that this proposal would
allow our servicemen and women and veterans to engage in hunting
activities on the island. They can do that currently, but a quick look
at the website of the hunting outfitter contracted by Vail & Vickers
shows that hunting trips cost between $5,000 and $16,500. Admittedly,
that is hardly within the reach of your average soldier, sailor or
airman. But in an era of $300 to $400 billion annual deficits and
monthly obligations of nearly $10 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan
alone, it seems unlikely that the Pentagon will seek funding to
subsidize hunting trips or that Congress would go along if it did.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember how this all started. It
was a mere five months ago that Chairman Hunter proposed kicking the
public off Santa Rosa completely by transferring the island to the
Defense Department. This was rejected by the defense authorization
conference, after being called an attempt to create a private hunting
reserve for top military brass and their official guests.
Then the idea of giving veterans more hunting opportunities became
the reason to intervene in Santa Rosa. But, as discussed earlier,
veterans already have access to Santa Rosa and the Park Superintendent
has offered to address any problems with that access. And veterans
currently enjoy a wide variety of other hunting opportunities on
private and publicly held lands, as well as on military bases around
the country. For example, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Fort Hunter
Liggett and Camp Roberts all on the Central Coast provide hunting to
the military and veterans.
The latest rationale for this proposal is supposedly to stop ``the
extermination'' of these privately owned, non-native deer and elk on
Santa Rosa Island. However, the settlement agreement only calls for
removal of the animals; it does not specify how the animals must be
removed. If Vail & Vickers wish to remove their animals to the
mainland, they are not precluded by the agreement from doing so and I
would support such an effort. It is important to remember that the
animals are being removed because of the damage these large herds cause
to Santa Rosa and federally listed species.
The proposal contained in the defense bill would mean something far
different than more hunting opportunities for veterans or animal
protection. It would mean the indefinite continuation of inappropriate
trophy-hunting in a National Park. This would keep the public off Santa
Rosa for nearly half of the year while hunting is underway. I would
remind the Committee that the public paid $30 million for this island
20 years ago. Last year, some 5,000 people visited Santa Rosa Island
and that this numbers will increase commensurately once the island is
open year-round to the public.
In addition, the defense bill language would require the Park
Service to maintain the huge herds of non-native deer and elk on the
island in numbers that exist today. These are, of course, animals the
Park Service does not even own so there are takings issues at play
here. And, from the conservation perspective, maintaining these huge
herds would mean continued damage to federally listed species and
reduce the value of the Channel Islands National Park.
Mr. Chairman, the issue of ending hunting on the island is a very
serious one. The Park Service and Vail & Vickers are in constant
contact on this issue to ensure the cessation date is met and that it
is done in a fair and equitable manner. The goal is to ensure that the
public, finally, has full access to its national park.
I hope the Committee adopts S. Res. 468 to show its support for the
goal of making Santa Rosa Island publicly accessible year-round, as it
should be.
Thank you again for your interest in this issue and I look forward
to working with the Committee to show support for Santa Rosa Island.
Senator Boxer. But let me say, as a senior member on the
Environment Committee, I just wanted to point something else
out. This deal, which was resolved in the court, was resolved
to protect--let's show the fox, the Santa Rose fox. And this
beautiful--God's creature here, Mr. Chairman, is now a
threatened species. And one of the reasons for the court deal
was to protect this species, which is in deep trouble. Let's
show the actual size. I know you're not--I mean, I'm excited
about this because of the Environment Committee. So, I wanted
to show you that this is--we're dealing with saving this--God's
creature, as well as all these other things, preserving this
area for everyone to use and enjoy.
So, I hope you'll come--
Senator Allen. Is that full grown?
Senator Boxer. It's a baby.
Senator Allen. Oh, OK. Good.
Senator Boxer. It's a little baby.
Senator Allen. Good.
Senator Boxer. But look what happened to me, and I'm full
grown. So, you never know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. You could have, you know, little guys out
there.
Bottom line, I think the deal that was agreed to in the
court settlement is a good one. I think that as representatives
of all the people from your State and mine, we have a chance to
be on the right side here. And I hope that you will support
Senator Feinstein and I in our quest to keep this as it's
supposed to be a public park, with no hunting after 2011.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to Senator
Warner, who has another engagement that he has to get to, and
then I'll follow along.
Senator Thomas. Fine.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'll forgo my statement, given that my distinguished
colleague and dearest of friends, George Allen, has covered
every fact relating to this.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. And what minor omission he may have, I can
tell you that Mr. Sarbanes will tell it all better than I can.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. He is known as Mr. Chesapeake Bay, because
Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mathias, a former colleague of
ours, have been the grand patrons of this bay for so many
years. And you've done a wonderful job, I say to you, my dear
friend. And I've been privileged to learn, at your side, all of
the things about this glorious bay. Take it off from there and
go with it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MARYLAND
Senator Sarbanes. I think I'll yield to John Warner all the
time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I welcome this opportunity to testify on S. 2568,
designating the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of
the Chesapeake Bay as a national historic trail.
Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to include the whole statement.
I know the committee's under some time pressure, and I'll try
to summarize.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
Senator Sarbanes. OK.
We have, I think, a very unique opportunity to commemorate
a very significant event in the history of our Nation, the
400th anniversary of Captain John Smith's first landing and
settlement at Jamestown, VA, and the beginning of his momentous
voyages of discovery throughout the Chesapeake Bay region.
Actually, there's a map over here that shows the
explorations which John Smith made throughout the Chesapeake.
And, of course, this is what we're trying to get designated now
as National Historic Water Trail.
That, I think, is Smith's version. Why don't we put the one
that's a little more understandable up ahead of it. You can
see, starting down at the bottom, the route that was followed.
I think there's a compelling case for establishing this
trail. Senator Allen and Senator Warner spoke to it. We're
joined today by Pat Noonan, who's the chairman emeritus of The
Conservation Fund, who originated this idea. And Pat's
accompanied by Gilbert Grosvenor, the chairman of the board of
the National Geographic Society. We'd like to get this done
before the quadrennial celebration begins, in the spring of
next year.
Congress, of course, established the National Trail
Systems. A number of have been so authorized. This would be a
water trail, so this is somewhat different from most of them.
It doesn't raise some of the problems others raise, because
there's very little land acquisition involved. The cost is
relatively minimal. Last year, the committee helped us to move
through the authorization for the Park Service to undertake a
study of the feasibility of the proposed trail. They're moving
ahead on that. They just came in with a report, which I would
submit for the record, that found the criteria that perhaps is
most difficult in establishing a national trail has been met,
and that is that it is nationally significant. The other two
criteria are a documented route, through maps or journals--and,
of course, Smith kept incredible records and journals--and a
significant potential for public recreational use, which, we
submit, is apparent, on its face.
This project, I think it's important, if we possibly can,
to get it done as we go into the quadrennial celebration.
There'll be a high level of interest in Jamestown and Captain
Smith, and Smith's voyages. The public, I think, will be very
interested in the commemorative events, learning more about
Jamestown, about Captain John Smith. And this anniversary year
gives us the opportunity to establish the trail, name a trail
manager, and open a trail office in time to provide the public
with information on this chapter. As Senator Allen said, we
want to integrate it with the actual marking of the 400th
anniversary.
Second, these National Historic Trails are--we reduce the
cost substantially for the Federal Government by relying
heavily on local nonprofit partners to help with education and
interpretation and other components of the trail. And with the
growing interest in the 400th anniversary, there's a unique
opportunity to go to foundations, corporations, and other
donors to seek non-Federal funds to help support the new trail.
So, if we act promptly, we have the opportunity to save
significant Federal funding with in-kind support, which we
think is an important consideration.
I'd just submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, what better way to commemorate this very important
part of our Nation's history than to honor John Smith's
courageous voyages by designating the Captain John Smith
Chesapeake National Historic Trail? We're strongly supported in
our endeavor by our cosponsors, Senators Mikulski, Carper,
Biden, Santorum, and Specter, and the Governors of Maryland,
Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, the mayor of the District of
Columbia, as well as scores of other officials, individuals,
and organizations, including The Conservation Fund, the Garden
Club of America, the Isaac Walton League of America, the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Now, the Park Service has received somewhat less than 200
letters, which is a pretty good submission, all of them in
favor. We know of no opposition to the legislation. But we're
anxious to move the legislation in the effort to get the trail
designated before the 400th anniversary celebrations. We think
the most difficult criteria has been met by the submission of
the advisory report. The Park Service is looking at the other
two criteria, but no one expects any difficulty with those
criteria. And we urge the committee, if it can find its way
clear to do so, to get us on a fast track so we can get this
trail in place as we go into the celebration of the
quadrennial, in the early part of next year.
I thank the Chair.
[The prepared statements of Senators Sarbanes, Stevens and
Hagel follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, U.S. Senator From Maryland
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for this
opportunity to testify on S. 2568, designating the route of Captain
John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay as a National Historic
Trail.
We have a unique opportunity to commemorate a very significant
event in the history of our Nation and of the Chesapeake Bay--the 400th
Anniversary of Captain John Smith's first landing and settlement at
Jamestown, Virginia and the beginning of his momentous voyages of
discovery in the Chesapeake Bay region. There is a compelling case to
be made for establishing this trail and Senators Warner, Allen and I
are joined here today by Pat Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of The
Conservation Fund--who conceived this idea--and Gilbert Grosvenor,
Chairman of the Board of the National Geographic Society, to make that
case and to appeal to the Committee to swiftly approve this legislation
and designate this trail, this year, before our nation's quadcentennial
celebrations in 2007.
As you well know, the Congress established the National Trails
System ``. . . in order to promote the preservation of, public access
to, travel within and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air,
outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.'' National Historic
Trails such as the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Pony Express Trail, the
Trail of Tears, and the Selma to Montgomery Trail were authorized as
part of this system to identify and protect historic routes for public
use and enjoyment and to commemorate major events which shaped American
history. To qualify for designation as a National Historic Trail, a
trail must meet three principal criteria: It must be ``nationally
significant,'' have a documented route through maps or journals, and
offer significant potential for public recreational use. There is no
question that the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail meets these criteria and is a fitting addition to the
National Trails System.
We are grateful for the Committee's support last year in helping us
to enact provisions authorizing the National Park Service to undertake
a study of the feasibility of establishing the proposed trail. Pursuant
to that legislation, on March 21, 2006, the National Park System
Advisory Board concluded that the proposed trail is ``nationally
significant'' because of its impact on the exploration and settlement
of North America, its impact on the commerce and trade of North America
and its impact on our ethnic heritage and relations between the English
settlers and the Native American tribes of the region. The National
Park Service has been proceeding expeditiously with its examination of
the other two criteria and recently completed a thorough, peer-reviewed
report, which is now being published, documenting the routes of John
Smith's Chesapeake voyages, satisfying the second of the three
criteria. The careful journals that Smith kept and the remarkably
accurate maps and charts he made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries provided a wealth of information to support this
study.
Likewise it is clear that the proposed trail offers tremendous
opportunities for public recreation and historical interpretation and
appreciation. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark
National Trail, this new historic ``watertrail'' will inspire
generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to
learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the
contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region.
It would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and
canoes to travel the same routes that Smith took--from the mouth to the
headwaters of Chesapeake Bay--and serve as a national outdoor resource,
providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage
tourism not only for more than 16 million Americans living in the Bay's
watershed, but for visitors to this area. Already reports about the
proposed trail and the reproductions of the vessels the Godspeed and
open shallop--are generating national and international attention and
inquiries. Equally important, the Trail would help highlight the Bay's
remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the
diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current
efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary. In
response to an inquiry on the status of the study that Senator Warner
and I sent to the National Park Service, the Director recently
responded ``. . . we have not encountered any information that would
lead us to believe that the trail fails to meet required criteria for
designation.''
What better way to commemorate this important part of our nation's
history and honor John Smith's courageous voyages than by designating
the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail? We are
strongly supported in this endeavor by our co-sponsors, Senators
Mikulski, Carper, Biden, Santorum and Specter, by the Governors of
Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania and the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, as well as scores of other officials, individuals
and organizations, including the Garden Club of America, the Izaak
Walton League of America, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission. In fact we know of no opposition to the
legislation.
There is precious little time remaining in this session of the
Congress--less than 15 weeks--and it is important to have this
legislation on a fast track if we are to have any hope of having the
trail designated before the 400th anniversary celebrations in 2007. We
urge the Committee to swiftly approve this measure and report it to the
full Senate for consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator From Alaska
On November 5th, 2003 Congress passed legislation authorizing the
construction of a visitor center to complement the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial. In passing this legislation by Unanimous Consent, Congress
enabled the creation of a facility that will tell the stories of those
who served in the Vietnam War to the more than 4 million people who
visit the memorial annually. The center will emphasize the traditional
values of our men and women in uniform, including duty, honor, country,
and respect.
Having served with the Army Air Corps during World War II, I share
a deep bond with those the memorial honors, and I salute their service.
Our nation is now engaged in a Global War on Terror, and the ideals our
fellow veterans fought to uphold are more important than ever. The
exhibits at the memorial's visitor center will give all Americans who
visit the memorial the opportunity to understand the values of military
service and honor the men and women of the Vietnam War.
Unfortunately, since Congress passed the original authorizing
legislation, the site designation process has stalled. Senator Chuck
Hagel, and Senator John Kerry and I have introduced the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act, which will,
we hope, move this project forward. Ensuring the center's timely
completion is a debt we owe to the veterans of the Vietnam War.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator From Nebraska
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, thank you for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee on National Parks. I am here
today to express my support for S. 2419, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Visitors Center Deadline Enforcement Act. I am an original co-sponsor
of this bill, and I enthusiastically support its passage.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a powerful tribute to those who
fought and died in Vietnam. As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I have a
personal understanding and appreciation of the sacrifices that this
memorial represents. With each new generation, however, our citizens
lose that personal connection. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors
Center will serve to inform and educate the public about the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial, and what it represents.
I was the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration when
ground was broken for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in March of 1982.
Since then, I have continued to be involved with the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund and its efforts to preserve the legacy of the Memorial,
promote healing, and educate people about the impact of the Vietnam War
on our nation.
In 2003, I introduced legislation to authorize the construction of
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center at or near the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. In November 2003, President Bush signed that bill
into law. Since that time, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, in
conjunction with the National Parks Service, has conducted an extensive
site selection study, selected an appropriate site, and worked to gain
site approval for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center.
The site they selected, commonly referred to as Site ``A'', is
across Henry Bacon Drive from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It is the
ideal location for the Memorial Visitors Center as it will tie the
educational experience together with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. In
consideration of the open space and visual sight-lines on the National
Mall, those involved with designing the Memorial Visitors Center have
agreed it will be an underground facility.
In September 2005, The Commission on Fine Arts approved the site
selected by the National Parks Service and the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund. With that approval, all that remained in the site
selection process was the approval of the National Capitol Planning
Commission.
Since July 2005 the National Capitol Planning Commission has
delayed site approval. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the
National Parks Service have testified before the National Capitol
Planning Commission in July and October, and both times they were
instructed to review sites other than the one they had selected. After
complying with these requests they were scheduled to testify for a
third time in December, until the National Capitol Planning Commission
removed them from the agenda the day prior to the hearing.
Having observed this process from the beginning, I believe that the
National Capitol Planning Commission is attempting to indefinitely
delay site approval. This apparent lack of good faith effort on behalf
of the National Capitol Planning Commission is what led me to co-
sponsor the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center Deadline
Enforcement Act. The Memorial Visitors Center is far too important to
be indefinitely tied up in bureaucratic disagreements.
I urge the Committee to pass S. 2419 and complete what was intended
in the original legislation.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate
your being here.
All right. Let's go now to our first panel: Mr. Steve
Martin, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior; and Ms. Patricia Gallagher, executive director,
National Capital Planning Commission, Washington, DC.
Thank you very much for being here.
Steve, if you'd like to go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF STEVE MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to present the views of the Department
of the Interior on the five bills and the one resolution that
are the subject of today's hearing.
I have individual testimony on each bill that I would like
to submit, and then I'll summarize all of our comments all
together at once at the start.
Senator Thomas. It'll be included in the record.
Mr. Martin. S. 1686 would amend the Constitution Heritage
Act of 1988 that authorized the construction of the National
Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. The Department
supports enactment of this bill, with some amendments.
The NCC represents a true exemplar of the value of public/
private partnerships being undertaken today at Independence
National Historic Park. S. 1686 would clarify provisions of a
cooperative agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and
the National Constitution Center. The main provision of the
agreement requires that any revenues from facilities and
services of the center shall be made available to the National
Constitution Center to offset operating expenses without
further appropriation. The bill also provides amendments to a
number of sections to clarify the differences between the
physical building and the 501(c)(3) organization.
S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 would authorize the Secretary to
establish the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace
Home as a National Historic Site and a unit of the National
Park System in Hope, AR. The Department supports the efforts to
honor the birthplace home of former President William Jefferson
Clinton, but suggests amending S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 to
authorize a study. Along with a discussion of the historical
significance of the site, a research study would look at the
integrity of the buildings and other factors associated with
the site, the appropriate management entity, the management
structure, and the costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating
the site.
S. 2419 and H.R. 4882 would ensure the proper remembrance
of Vietnam veterans in the Vietnam War by designating a site
for a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The
Department supports development of a visitor center for the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
We also support the process governing such developments as
set forth in the Commemorative Works Act, which separates the
authorization of memorials and the site and design approval
process, and provides for public input as well as appropriate
NEPA compliance. Should the subcommittee decide to move
forward, the Department recommends that the additional language
in section 2(c) of S. 2419 be removed, because it is confusing
and does not make a distinction between the site selection and
the design of the facility. The siting process for the center
is currently underway; however, the center has not yet
undergone the design phase, and those decisions cannot be
completed within 30 days.
S. 2568 would designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Trail. The Department is currently completing
the study authorized by P.L. 109-54 to determine the
feasibility of designating this trail. We request that the
committee defer action on the bill until the study is
completed. To date, we have not encountered any information
that would lead us to believe that the trail fails to meet the
required criteria for designation as a National Historic Trail.
In March 2006, the National Park System Advisory Board
found the routes of John Smith's voyages to be nationally
significant, a major requirement in the finding of national
trail feasibility. We expect to issue a draft report for public
comment no later than August of this year, at which time the
public will be given an opportunity to comment on any proposed
designation alternatives.
S. 2627 would extend the authorization and improve the
composition of the board members of the National Park System
Advisory Board. The Department supports S. 2627. The Department
wishes to thank Senator Domenici for sponsoring this
legislation, at the Department's request. The National Park
System Advisory Board is an invaluable partner of the
Department as we carry out the national vision that created the
National Park System 90 years ago. Throughout that time, the
Department and the board have worked effectively together to
enhance conservation efforts across the Nation.
S. Res. 468 would support the continued administration of
Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in
accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the
National Park Service. The Department strongly agrees with the
sentiment expressed by the resolution that Santa Rosa Island
should continue to be managed in a manner that provides for
protection of the park's resources and their enjoyment by
visitors.
The National Park Service spent 30 million to purchase
Santa Rosa Island, to restore its native ecology and make it
accessible for the general public recreational use year round
as a national park. For that to happen, the non-native deer and
elk need to be removed, and the hunting operation ended. The
deer and elk are being phased out under a court-ordered
settlement agreement, and they will be removed altogether by
2011. The National Park Service believes we should stand by the
settlement agreement.
This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen P. Martin, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
ON. S. 1686
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1686, a bill to amend the Constitution Heritage Act of 1988. The
Department supports enactment of S. 1686 with some amendments.
The construction of the National Constitution Center (NCC) was a
major component of the reconstruction of Independence Mall, the three
city blocks north of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
This multi-year planning effort also included a new Independence
Visitor's Center completed in 2001, and the Liberty Bell Center
completed in 2003. Improvements to the Mall landscape are continuing.
The NCC represents a true exemplar of the value of public-private
partnerships being undertaken today at Independence National Historical
Park by the National Park Service. The state of the art facility,
designed with more than 100 advanced interactive exhibits, opened to
rave reviews on July 4, 2003, and continues to provide an outstanding
visitor experience. Visitors to the NCC come away with an understanding
of the framing and implementation of the Constitution of the United
States, and as important, its continuing relevance to today's society.
The NCC's programs are challenging, thought provoking and have received
wide acclaim by visitors and scholars alike. The National Park Service
is proud and privileged to be a partner with the non-profit
organization of the same name, the National Constitution Center, which
operates the NCC, in this most successful endeavor.
S. 1686 would clarify the authorities that support current
operations and agreements between the National Park Service and
National Constitution Center. It would amend Section 4 of the
Constitution Heritage Act of 1988 by adding a new subsection (c)
relating to provisions of a cooperative agreement between the Secretary
of the Interior and the National Constitution Center. The provisions
specify that any revenues from facilities and services of the NCC shall
be made available to the National Constitution Center to offset
operating expenses without further appropriation, as is the current
practice. It would also ensure the continuation of an existing
cooperative agreement, and allow a subsequent agreement to be
negotiated for up to 30 years, instead of the current limit of five
years. This longer time period would facilitate the National
Constitution Center's efforts to obtain financing. Other provisions
would require the National Constitution Center to purchase insurance,
provide annual reports, and take other administrative steps as part of
a cooperative agreement. The bill also provides amendments to a number
of sections by striking the word ``Center'' and inserting ``NCC'' to
clarify the difference between the physical building and the 501(c)(3)
organization.
The relationship of the National Park Service with the National
Constitution Center is a significant model for successful public-
private partnerships. We look forward to continuing our productive
partnership in the future and request that the committee favorably act
on S. 1686.
We propose a few amendments to the bill to clarify when we are
referring to the organization operating the NCC and not to the actual
building. In addition, based on Public Law 107-217, we need to update a
reference to an existing law that has been superseded. We would be glad
to work with the committee on these proposed amendments.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the committee might
have.
ON S. 2417 AND H.R. 4192
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2417
and H.R. 4192, bills that would authorize the Secretary to establish
the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home as a National
Historic Site and a unit of the National Park System in Hope, Arkansas.
H.R. 4192 passed the House of Representatives on March 8, 2006, without
a hearing. The Department supports the effort to honor the birthplace
home of former President Clinton, but suggests amending S. 2417 and
H.R. 4192 to authorize a study.
S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to designate the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home as a
National Historic Site and a unit of the National Park System should
the Secretary acquire, by donation only, the birthplace home and any
personal property related to that site from the Clinton Birthplace
Foundation, Inc. The Secretary would administer the unit in accordance
with laws generally applicable to preserving national historic sites.
It is our understanding that the Clinton Birthplace Foundation also
intends to donate the existing visitor center located at 415 West,
Division Street and adjacent to the birthplace home, however this
property was inadvertently left out of S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 when the
bills were introduced.
In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National Parks
Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires congressional
authorization of areas to be studied for potential new units of the
National Park System. The law also designates the criteria to be
followed by the National Park Service (NPS) in determining whether to
recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System.
We recognize the importance of the birthplace of President William
Jefferson Clinton and therefore appreciate the goals of S. 2417 and
H.R. 4192. Consistent with our testimony on the Ronald Reagan Boyhood
Home in March 2001, we suggest, however, that the subcommittee ensure
that the intent of Congress, as expressed in Public Law 105-391, is
carried out by amending the bill to authorize a study of the birthplace
and the visitor center to determine whether they conform to the
criteria of Public Law 105-391. We recognize the potential significance
of these properties and would support an authorization of a new study.
We would be glad to work with the subcommittee on the appropriate
language.
With respect to historical sites, the studies do not only look at
whether the event or person associated with the site was historically
significant. They also look at the integrity of the buildings, and
other factors, such as whether there are other sites that might more
appropriately tell the story associated with a particular individual.
The National Park system consists of many previous residences of
former Presidents. However, there are also many residences of former
Presidents that are not part of the system. A study would look at
whether the Federal government is the most appropriate entity to manage
the site. Some sites are managed by other entities, such as state
governments and private foundations. Conducting a professional study
allows Congress to be sure it is protecting an area that meets the
criteria of the National Park System.
A study also will enable the NPS and the Congress to identify the
costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential site. We
believe that the information gathered during the study process is
invaluable and better ensures that the NPS can continue its progress in
addressing maintenance backlog needs in our national parks. In fact, in
March 2001, the Department also took the position that a study was
needed when asked to testify on the designation of the Ronald Reagan
Boyhood Home as a National Historic Site. Similar to S. 2417 and H.R.
4192, that bill also proposed designation prior to the authorization
and completion of a study.
Presidential homes and sites provide a valuable link to
understanding our country's history and government and are an important
part of our national heritage. Plans to purchase and restore the
birthplace home of then President William Jefferson Clinton began in
1993, and the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, a non-profit organization,
was formed to purchase, restore, and promote the history of the site.
The two and one-half story American four-square home, patterned from a
design in France, was built in 1917 by Dr. H.S. Garrett. The home is
located at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope, Arkansas, and belonged to
President Clinton's maternal grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy.
William Jefferson Blythe, as he was then known, lived there from his
birth in 1946, until his mother married Roger Clinton in 1950.
The residence has been returned to its identical state when
President Clinton lived there as a young boy. It is currently open for
public tours operated by the Clinton Birthplace Foundation. When the
home was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1994, it
was described as ``. . . the single property most significantly and
exclusively associated with Clinton's humble beginnings, the inner
strength he learned from his mother, and the dedication to purpose that
has sustained him throughout his distinguished political career.''
The William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace site demonstrates the
efforts of a local community working together to preserve and to tell
the story of the birth and childhood of a man who later became the 42nd
President of the United States to present and future generations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other subcommittee members might have.
ON S. 2419 AND H.R. 4882
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. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper
remembrance of Vietnam Veterans and the Vietnam War by designating a
site for a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The House
of Representatives passed H.R. 4882 as amended on March 28, 2006, by a
vote of 404-4.
The Department supports development of a visitor center (center)
for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We also support the processes
governing such development as set forth in the Commemorative Works Act
(CWA), which separates the authorization of memorials and the site and
design approval processes and provides for public input, as well as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which describes a vision for
balancing environmental, cultural, and economic goals and provides for
cooperative problem solving by requiring public comment on the
environmental effects of federal actions.
We are making significant progress in the site approval process for
the center as provided for under the CWA and the National Park Service
(NPS) is nearing completion of the Environmental Assessment provided
for under NEPA that was requested by the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). The NPS plans to release the Environmental
Assessment for public comment before the end of May and submit our
preferred site for the center to the NCPC by June 30, for approval at
its August 3 meeting. If the NCPC agrees with our preferred site, the
site selection process will be completed this summer.
S. 2419 and H.R. 4882 would amend section 6 of Public Law 96-297,
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Act, by authorizing the location of the
center for the memorial at Henry Bacon Drive, 23rd Street, Constitution
Avenue and the Lincoln Memorial in the District of Columbia. S. 2419
also would authorize a deadline for the final approval of the center no
later than 30 days from the date of enactment of this legislation in
section 2(c). Should the subcommittee decide to move forward, the
Department recommends that the additional language in section 2(c) of
S. 2419 be removed because it is confusing and does not make a
distinction between the site selection and the design process. The
siting process for the center is currently underway; however, the
center has not yet undergone the design phase and those decisions
cannot be completed within 30 days.
The CWA developed a process for establishing memorials in the
Nation's Capital. This process has worked well for 20 years, and we
support this process. While it has been amended, these changes have
strengthened the CWA without modifying the process as originally
authorized. The CWA identifies the roles and responsibilities of the
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, the NCPC, the Commission
of Fine Arts (CFA), and the Secretary of the Interior. The NCPC and the
CFA both play critical roles in the site selection and design process.
We believe that the expertise offered and the approvals required by
these entities as well as the process of gaining the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior has resulted in new memorials of the highest
quality. In addition, the CWA provides the American people with the
opportunity to be involved in the decisions regarding how the
historical events and persons will be honored in the Nation's Capital
by providing public involvement in the siting and design of the
memorials.
Some of the organizations authorized by public law to erect
memorials have been frustrated by the delays brought about by the
opinions of these public bodies regarding the location or design of
their projects. But by the time these memorials were dedicated, many
have agreed that their commemorative work was of a higher quality due
to the process used along the path to completion.
The Act authorizing the center states that the provisions relating
to siting of memorials under the CWA would apply. This includes
approval of the site by both the NCPC and CFA. The CFA reviewed and
conditionally approved the site at its September 15, 2005 meeting with
the proviso that the design not detract from the Lincoln Memorial and
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Their conditional approval was based on a
documentation of alternative sites evaluated for the center, which
followed a similar format that other memorial sponsors have used since
the enactment of the CWA. As mentioned above, NPS will complete its
portion of the process by the end of June with the NCPC's consideration
of NPS' site submission in August. We, thus, plan to complete the
siting process by the end of this summer.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other subcommittee members might have.
ON S. 2568
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2568, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail.
The Department is currently completing the study authorized by
Public Law 109-54 to determine the feasibility of designating this
trail. We request that the committee defer action on the bill until the
study is completed. To date, we have not encountered any information
that would lead us to believe that the trail fails to meet the required
criteria for designation as a national historic trail.
S. 2568 would designate the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail as a component of the National Trails System. The trail
would be administered by the Department of the Interior in coordination
with the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network and the
Chesapeake Bay Program. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior
would consult with other Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local
agencies, and the private sector in the administration of the trail. No
land could be acquired for the trail outside the boundary of any
Federally managed area without the consent of the owner of the land.
As we approach the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement
and the anniversary in 2007 of the beginning of Captain John Smith's
explorations, the conduct of our present study is most timely. The
proposed trail would follow a series of routes extending approximately
3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay in the States of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware, and the District of Columbia that trace Captain John Smith's
voyages charting the land and waterways of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
Captain John Smith explored the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
in a series of voyages and travels from 1607 through 1609, while
executing his company's directives to search for a ``northwest
passage'' to the Pacific Ocean. Smith's two major explorations occurred
in the summer of 1608, each leaving from Jamestown, Virginia. Between
the two voyages, Smith and a small crew traversed the entire length of
the Chesapeake Bay, explored the shoreline of the lower half of the
Eastern Shore, and ventured into the major tributaries along the
western shore of the bay. Smith had extensive interactions with Native
Americans and recorded significant information about these peoples and
the general Chesapeake environment in his book published in 1612. He
also made one of the first and most detailed maps of the Chesapeake
Bay. In Smith's words ``heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a
more perfect place for man's habitation.''
Four hundred years later, the Chesapeake Bay's basic geography
remains relatively similar to Smith's time, but much else has changed.
More than 16 million people live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with
the densest concentrations at locations adjacent to where Smith
traveled (Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD and the greater Norfolk/Hampton
Roads area in VA). Human uses of the bay region have caused significant
impacts on the Chesapeake environment and the Bay itself. The
establishment of a national historic trail traversing the routes of
John Smith's early voyages would likely provide increased public
knowledge of the history, and sensitivity to the valuable resources of
the Chesapeake Bay, as well as increased recreational opportunities.
The National Park Service enjoys a close association with the
Chesapeake Bay and local governments and organizations in the region
through the Gateways and Water Trails Network, authorized by the
Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998. This partnership system of 147
designated Chesapeake Bay Gateways serves to connect the American
public with the resources and themes of the nationally significant
Chesapeake Bay. Through its coordination of the network, the National
Park Service is also authorized to provide technical and financial
assistance to gateways for enhancing interpretation, improving public
access, and stimulating citizen involvement in conservation and
restoration efforts. All of these efforts would complement the proposed
trail. S. 2568 provides for coordination of the trail with the
Chesapeake Gateways and Water Trails Network and the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
Our study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith
Chesapeake National Historic Trail is nearing conclusion. In March
2006, the National Park System Advisory Board found the routes of John
Smith's voyages to be nationally significant, a major requirement in
the finding of national trail feasibility. The Advisory Board concluded
that the trail is of national significance for its association with the
following themes: (1) Ethnic Heritage (American Indians); (2)
Exploration and Settlement; and, (3) Commerce and Trade.
We expect to issue a draft report for public comment no later than
August of this year. In light of this schedule, we would request that
the committee defer action so that the study may be completed and the
public given an opportunity to comment on any proposed designation
alternatives. Our receipt of 167 letters regarding the study since it
began indicates considerable public interest in trail designation.
The Department wishes to recognize the generous support of the
State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission during the conduct of this study.
This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the committee might have.
ON S. 2627
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's comments on S. 2627, the National Park
System Advisory Board Act of 2006, a bill to extend the authorization
and improve the composition of board members of the National Park
System Advisory Board (Board).
The Department supports S. 2627, which is similar to a proposal
transmitted to Congress by the Administration on December 7, 2005. The
Department wishes to thank Senator Domenici for sponsoring this
legislation at the Department's request.
The National Park System Advisory Board was first authorized in
1935 under the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. The Board
advises the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of
the Interior on matters relating to the National Park Service,
including the administration of the Historic Sites, Buildings, and the
Antiquities Act; the designation of national historic landmarks and
national natural landmarks; and the national historic significance of
proposed national historic trails. The Board may advise on matters
submitted to the Board by the Director, as well as any other issues
identified by the Board.
The Board's membership consists of no more than 12 individuals
selected from citizens of the United States having demonstrated
commitment to the mission of the National Park Service, and
representing various geographic regions, including each of the seven
administrative regions of the National Park Service. The Board has
provided exemplary service to the Director of the National Park Service
and works cooperatively with the Director to ensure the preservation of
this Nation's important natural and historic places for future
generations of Americans.
The Board is an active body currently engaged on a broad front of
issues, meeting quarterly and consulting regularly with the Director.
Recent accomplishments and ongoing efforts include:
The Board regularly considers recommendations from its
National Historic Landmarks Committee about properties the
committee wishes the Board would recommend to the Secretary for
designation as National Historic Landmarks.
Last year, the Senate passed Senator Thomas's ``Heritage
Partnership Act'' (S. 234), which incorporated recommendations
from a Board report. The Act would create a system of National
Heritage Areas and clarify the relationship of those areas to
the National Park Service.
The Board just completed an advisory report to the Director
recommending that the National Park Service undertake a series
of pilot projects to test, measure and validate the premise
that the national parks contribute to healthy lifestyle through
active participation in park-based recreational activities.
This report supports the President's HealthierUS initiative and
Executive Order 13266, which calls on federal agencies to
increase the accessibility of resources for physical activity.
In support of President Bush's call to help, ``restore civic
and historical understanding throughout American Society,'' the
Board recently convened a panel of prominent American
historians and scholars. The panel counseled the National Park
Service about its education/interpretive mission and ways in
which the program offered visitors at parks and historic sites
can advance the President's goal.
Next week, the Board will review and advise the Director on
the National Park Service's proposed final revision of NPS
Management Policies. Participating in this assessment will be
several former National Park Service Directors and past Park
Service senior executives.
S. 2627 proposes amending the Board's statutory authorization in
four areas. The first area would modify the membership to the Board.
This would be done by requiring at least four members to have expertise
in the fields of history, archeology, anthropology, historical or
landscape architecture, biology, ecology, geology, marine science or
social science; three members to have expertise and prior experience in
management of National or State parks or protected areas or natural or
cultural resources management; three members to have expertise in any
other professional or scientific discipline important to the mission of
the National Park Service; at least one member to have expertise in
historic recreational opportunities within units of the National Park
System; and at least one member to be an elected official from an area
adjacent to or within close proximity to a unit of the National Park
System. The second area would require that the Advisory Board members
adhere to ethics and conflict of interest provisions by removing the
current law's exemption. The third area extends the authority of the
Board to 2016. A fourth area of revision provides for technical
amendments. The Department supports the amendments, which will increase
the Board's overall effectiveness and influence and improve clarity and
ease of reference.
The National Park System Advisory Board is an invaluable partner of
the Department as we both carry out the national vision that created
the National Park System 90 years ago. Throughout that time, the
Department and the Board have worked effectively and collegially
together to enhance conservation efforts across the nation. The
Department looks forward to continuing this relationship with the Board
as we strive to position the NPS for its next 100 years.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may
have.
ON S. RES. 468
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today to present the views of the Department of the
Interior on S. Res. 468, supporting the continued administration of
Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in
accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the
National Park Service.
Because S. Res. 468 is a Senate resolution that will not be signed
into law, the Department is not taking a position on the resolution
itself. However, the Department strongly agrees with the sentiment
expressed by the resolution that the National Park Service (NPS) should
continue to manage Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa
Island, in a manner that provides for protection of the park's
resources and their enjoyment by visitors to the islands.
S. Res. 468 calls for the NPS to manage Santa Rosa Island, part of
Channel Islands National Park, in a way that protects and allows
interpretation of the natural, scenic, and cultural resources of the
island and provides visitors with a safe and enjoyable park experience.
It further states that the NPS should not be directed to manage Santa
Rosa Island in a manner that would result in the public being denied
access to significant portions of the island or that would be
inconsistent with the responsibility of the NPS to protect native
resources within the park.
We understand that S. Res. 468 is in response to repeated attempts
in recent years to allow deer and elk, and associated hunting
operations, to remain on Santa Rosa Island indefinitely. The current
effort in this regard is language included in H.R. 5122, the National
Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007, which requires the
Secretary of the Interior to stop the plan to remove the deer and elk
from the island as required by a court-ordered settlement agreement.
This provision would effectively overturn the 1998 settlement
agreement, that the NPS is legally bound to, that requires the phaseout
of non-native deer and elk over several years and their complete
removal from the island by the end of 2011. Until the deer and elk are
removed and the hunting operation ends, most of the island will remain
closed to the public for significant portions of each year.
Channel Islands National Monument was designated in 1938 by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the authority of the Antiquities
Act. In 1980, the monument was expanded to include additional islands,
including the 54,000-acre Santa Rosa Island, and redesignated as
Channel Islands National Park. The park's purpose is to protect the
nationally significant natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological,
archaeological, cultural, and scientific values of the five out of the
eight California Channel Islands that comprise the park.
The question of whether to allow hunting in units of the National
Parks System is decided by Congress on a case-by-case basis. Congress
discussed the issue of the appropriateness of hunting on the Channel
Islands during consideration of the legislation to redesignate Channel
Islands National Monument as a national park in 1979 and 1980, and made
a deliberate decision not to allow hunting there. We feel that this is
still the appropriate decision today.
It is important to note that once it was determined that Santa Rosa
Island was to be incorporated within Channel Islands National Park,
Vail and Vicker's, Ltd. (V&V) requested that Santa Rosa Island be the
highest priority for acquisition by the NPS. This was reflected in the
enabling legislation. In 1986, the NPS purchased Santa Rosa Island for
$29.5 million from V&V, who retained a 25-year non-commercial
reservation of use and occupancy covering a 7.6-acre area containing
the ranch house and a nearby field. At the request of V&V, supported by
members of Congress, the NPS issued a series of 5-year special use
permits (SUPs) to allow V&V to continue their cattle ranching and elk
and deer hunting operations.
In 1996, because of the impacts on endangered species and water
quality issues, the National Parks Conservation Association sued the
NPS. In 1997, V&V sued NPS to retain their current SUP and continue
their operations until 2011. A three-way settlement agreement, entered
into court in 1998, provided for removing the cattle by the end of
1998, which occurred on schedule, and for phasing out deer and elk, and
removing them altogether by the end of 2011, when the V&V 25-year non-
commercial reservation of the 7.6 acre ranch expires. The settlement
agreement included two options under which hunting could continue. The
parties chose the second option, which was to manage the deer and elk
using adaptive management guidelines. Each year, the NPS, with
recommendations from an agreed upon scientific panel, determines
whether an accelerated reduction in either the deer or elk herds are
necessary. Regardless of the management option, all deer and elk are to
be removed by V&V no later than the end of 2011. At that time, V&V will
be required to remove all their property, including any remaining deer
and elk, which V&V owns.
It is necessary to end the hunting operation to open up the island
for other recreational purposes, such as hiking, camping, and
sightseeing, on a year-round basis. So long as a hunting operation
continues, 90 percent of the island will be off limits for general
recreation for four to five months of each year. After spending $29.5
million to purchase the island and more to restore native plants and
animals, the NPS has been eager to make this spectacular island
available for full-time enjoyment by the general public.
Santa Rosa Island is currently the most accessible of the five
islands that are part of Channel Islands National Park. It is the
island where the NPS can most easily and cost effectively welcome
American citizens who have physical disabilities, including our men and
women in uniform who have become disabled in the service to our Nation.
Removal of the non-native deer and elk is necessary for native
plants and animals to flourish on Santa Rosa Island, and to ensure that
efforts spent on restoration are not wasted. Channel Islands National
Park has been in the forefront of the NPS's efforts to control non-
native species that out-compete the native species. The park has
undertaken several successful ecological restoration programs. The
eradication of introduced rats from Anacapa Island has resulted in the
increased survivability of the Xantus's murrelet. The removal of
introduced rabbits, cattle, sheep, and mules from Santa Barbara, Santa
Rosa, Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands has allowed for vegetation
restoration. Park staff, local communities, the Nature Conservancy, and
the Montrose Trustees, who worked together to reestablish the American
bald eagle were recently rewarded with the first eaglet born on the
northern Channel Islands in 50 years, on Santa Cruz Island. The NPS
looks forward to more successes of this type in the Channel Islands,
including Santa Rosa Island.
For all these reasons, the Department supports the continued
implementation of the 1998 settlement agreement, so that the day will
come, after 2011, when NPS will be able to manage Santa Rosa Island as
Congress intended when Channel Islands National Park was established in
1980.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Ms. Gallagher.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL
CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for this opportunity to speak with you today.
For the record, I am Patricia Gallagher, executive director
of the National Capital Planning Commission. The commission is
authorized by Congress to provide overall planning and guidance
for the development and preservation of Federal lands and
buildings in the National Capital Region. Through its planning
and design review process, the commission works to protect and
enhance the extraordinary historical, cultural, and natural
resources of the Nation's Capital.
To begin, Mr. Chairman, I must state emphatically that the
National Capital Planning Commission supports the Vietnam
Veterans Visitor Center. Our concern is with maintaining the
integrity of the site selection and design review process,
which Mr. Martin so clearly has described as making a key
contribution.
In my abbreviated testimony today, I want to make three
points. First, the Mall is a special place that we have a duty
to protect. Millions of tourists visit the Nation's Capital
every year to see sites that are revered by all Americans. As
trustees of our national heritage, Congress and Federal
agencies have a responsibility to site, design, and build
commemorative works, like the Vietnam Veterans Center, and, at
the same time, to preserve some of the country's most important
buildings and public spaces.
The review and approval procedures embodied in our Nation's
laws provide a means to take into account a full range of
important values, including protecting existing monuments,
memorials, and open spaces, as well as developing new
commemorative works in ways that will enhance our treasured
places, our history, and our culture. The Commemorative Works
Act assures this important outcome, and setting aside this
process makes protection of these values far more difficult.
Second, Mr. Chairman, the review process for the site
selection is moving forward appropriately. Congress authorized
the visitor center in November 2003. In January 2005, the
National Park Service and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund
made available to the public their site selection study, which
identified seven alternative sites for the center at or near
the National Mall. In March and May 2005, the Park Service and
the Fund consulted with the National Capital Memorial Advisory
Commission, as required by law. In September 2005, the Park
Service requested NCPC's approval of the Henry Bacon Drive
site. At its October meeting, the NCPC members deadlocked on
approval and asked the Park Service to provide additional
information about other sites along with information on the
building program that would enable them to more fully
understand the impacts of the center, that the center might
have on--above ground at any site.
Also in accordance with NCPC's environmental policies and
procedures, and in consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality, NCPC requested the Park Service submit
an environmental assessment with its next submission for site
approval. This assessment will cover such matters as the effect
of the visitor center on views to and from the Lincoln and
Vietnam Memorials and important information about the
environmental and historical impacts of the visitor center at
two sites. This assessment is nearing completion and will be
released to the public at the end of this month. NCPC intends
to act on this matter at its August 3rd, 2006, regular public
meeting. In short, the process is working.
Finally, both bills would override all or part of this
evaluation and public participation process. The Senate bill
would override the National Historic Preservation Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act for this project for both
site selection and design. The House bill would select the
Bacon Drive site without a review that takes into account
possible impacts the visitor center would have on important
environmental and historic preservation concerns, and it would
limit our ability to propose design parameters and mitigation
for the effects of the siting decision. These are critical
considerations that will ensure the best siting and design for
a visitor center that is worthy of our honored veterans and the
American public.
Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to keep this committee
informed of our progress on this project and answer any
questions you might have. Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia Gallagher, Executive Director,
National Capital Planning Commission
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on S. 2419 and
H.R. 4882 related to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center
(``Visitor Center''). The National Capital Planning Commission and the
Administration actively support a Visitor Center to inform and educate
the public about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam War. We
also support a sound process for site selection that includes
development and evaluation of environmental and historical information
and an opportunity for public input as provided under the Commemorative
Works Act process. It is important to note that the National Park
Service has nearly completed an Environmental Assessment, and wilt
solicit public comment by the end of May, such that a site selection
decision can move forward at NCPC's August 3, 2006 meeting.
THE BILLS
The Commemorative Works Act process provides an important
opportunity for the public to review the site for a commemorative work
like this Center on the National Mall--one of the nation's most
important public spaces; and provides for gathering and evaluating
important environmental and historic preservation data in order to
permit informed decisions about siting and design. The Commemorative
Works Act process takes into account possible impacts, facilitates the
development of design parameters and mitigation for the effects of the
siting decision, and assures the best siting and design for a Visitors
Center and a National Mall that is worthy of our honored veterans and
the American public. While the text of S. 2419 is not clear, it appears
to preempt meaningful evaluation, public input, and review at the site
selection phase, and the concept, preliminary, and final design
approval stages as well.
The House bill, H.R. 4882 provides that the site of the Visitor
Center will be at an area specified in that bill (``the Bacon Drive
site''). It does not override the Commemorative Works Act process for
the design phases of the project, including its implementation with
NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. While H.R. 4882 as
amended permits evaluation and public involvement in these design
stages, it still precludes evaluation and public involvement at the
critical basic stage of site selection.
THE MALL IS A SPECIAL PLACE THAT WE HAVE A SPECIAL DUTY TO PROTECT
As trustees of our nation's heritage, all of us--including federal
agencies and Congress--have an important responsibility to site,
design, and build commemorative works like the Visitor Center, and to
preserve and protect some of the country's most important buildings and
public spaces that grace the nation's capital. The National Mall is of
particular importance as a ceremonial and cultural symbol of America's
rich history. The review and approval procedures embodied in our
nation's laws ensure the provision of important information and provide
a means to take into account a full range of important values,
including protection of existing monuments, memorials, and open spaces,
as well as the development of new commemorative works in ways that
enhance our treasured places, our history, and our culture.
The Commemorative Works Act process assures this important outcome.
For example, site selection for the Visitor Center may affect historic
trees and spaces, views to and from the Lincoln Memorial and the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, traffic at a major gateway to our nation's
capital, and the visitor experience to the Mall. The Public Law that
authorized the Visitor Center provides for application of site and
design criteria under the Commemorative Works Act and requires that the
size of the Visitor Center be limited to ``prevent interference or
encroachment on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and to protect open space
and visual sightlines on the Mall.'' The Commemorative Works Act
process ensures that the public has an important role and can give
views and comment on alternatives for meeting these standards.
SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE
The impetus for the proposed legislation appears to be a concern
that the review process for site selection for the Visitor Center has
been slow. A look at the process to date shows that it has moved along
appropriately.
Our nation has commemorated Vietnam Veterans with three memorial
components on the National Mall. These are: the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Wall and the three service men statue; the women in service to
the Vietnam War statue; and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaque. In
November 2003, Congress passed Public Law 108-126, authorizing the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (the ``Fund'') ``to construct a Visitor
Center at or near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Federal land in the
District of Columbia, or its environs . . . .'' The Act further
reinforces that the Commemorative Works Act process, including approval
by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine
Arts, applies. The second title of the legislation establishes a
Reserve on the Mall and underscores that siting of new commemorative
works other than the Visitor Center is prohibited in the Reserve.
Congress has made clear that the Visitor Center is to be sited and
designed through the thoughtful and public process specified in the
Commemorative Works Act as amended in P.L. 108-126. That process
provides for site selection that is reviewed by the National Capital
Memorial Advisory Commission (the ``NCMAC''), and subsequently approved
by the Commission of Fine Arts (``CFA'') and the National Capital
Planning Commission (``NCPC''). The Public Law specifies certain design
requirements, such as that the Visitor Center be underground; it also
provides for effective development, review and approval of the design
of the Visitor Center. In April of 2004, after several years of work
with CEQ, NCPC updated its environmental review procedures with
specific provisions for site and design decisions under the
Commemorative Works Act to ensure that compliance with the National
Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act
provides important information to the decision-makers and a key role
for the public. This approach assures that there is full and effective
vetting and weighing of impacts and values--particularly in such
greatly significant places as the National Mall.
After the authorizing legislation was enacted, the Fund worked with
the National Park Service to develop and evaluate a number of
alternative sites for the Center. In January 2005, the National Park
Service and the Fund made available to the public their site selection
study, which identified seven alternative sites on or near the National
Mall. NPS and the Fund then submitted the study to the National Capital
Memorial Advisory Commission (``NCMAC''), and in May 2005, the NCMAC
recommended advancing two sites, Site A and Site E--the Department of
the Interior South Building--for further study by the National Park
Service. (A map with sites indicated is attached). In September 2005,
the National Park Service submitted a request for approval of its
preferred Site A to the Commission of Fine Arts and the National
Capital Planning Commission. That same month, CFA gave conditional
approval for Site A, raising many concerns about the sensitive nature
of that site and advising NPS that CFA approval could be given only
with the applicant's assurances that the project design would be
developed to alleviate CFA's concerns that the Center not detract from
the setting of the Lincoln Memorial and the experience of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial.
The National Capital Planning Commission considered the application
for site approval at its meeting of October 6, 2005. By a tie vote, the
Commission did not approve or disapprove Site A. Rather, it voted
unanimously to: ``Request that the National Park Service submit a study
of the Interior South Building front yard, Site G, and any other sites,
to determine if they are feasible for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Center, using the same level of analysis previously undertaken for Site
A; and that (b) The applicant [NPS] will also provide sufficient
information on the Center's proposed building program to enable the
Commission to better understand the impacts that the Center might have
above ground on any site.''
NPS conducted a site analysis of Site G. With regard to the
Interior South Building front yard, the Department analyzed this option
and determined that any change would have a negative impact on the
operation of the offices currently located there and the ability of the
Department to meet its mission. The Department explained these issues
in a letter to NCPC dated October 27, 2005 citing operational,
security, public access and design concerns.
On October 28, 2005, NPS resubmitted the preferred site, Site A,
for approval along with the additional analysis on Site G for
consideration at the December 1, 2005 meeting of the National Capital
Planning Commission. The NCPC subsequently removed the project from
December meeting agenda, citing the lack of the required Environmental
Assessment.
The National Capital Planning Commission developed the updated
Policies and Procedures in close consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality--the agency charged with oversight of NEPA
through work that commenced in the year 1999. These updated policies
were unanimously adopted by the Commission on April 1, 2004 after
approval by the Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ''). The Visitor
Center is only the second Commemorative Work to be reviewed under the
new Policies and Procedures, with the first the Victims of Communism
Memorial--being non-controversial and meeting criteria in NCPC's
Policies and Procedures for a categorical exclusion from NEPA. The
Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ''), by letter of December 1,
2005, confirmed that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement is required by NCPC procedures at the site selection
stage under the Commemorative Works Act in order to properly inform the
Commission and involve the public in the review of the Center. (CEQ's
Letter of December 1, 2005 is attached).
Since that time, NCPC and the National Park Service, with
assistance from CEQ, have worked to develop a cooperative and joint
approach to an Environmental Assessment. A letter of agreement dated
February 15, 2006 and signed by NCPC and NPS, sets forth the substance
and process for the EA, and a useful EA is nearing completion. As of
May 10, 2006, a revised working draft Environmental Assessment has been
circulated for review by the National Park Service and NCPC staff. We
expect the NPS will circulate an EA for public comment by the end of
May and will, as the sponsoring agency, resubmit a request for site
approval. NCPC will expeditiously review the application. Both the
National Park Service and NCPC fully expect that this submission will
be considered at NCPC's August 3, 2006 meeting.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN FOR THIS MEMORIAL
PROTECTS THE MALL
While the materials that the National Park Service developed in
2005 for site selection for the Visitor Center looked at the effect of
the environment on the proposed Visitor Center, there continues to be a
need for important information about the effect of the Center on the
environment and historic resources of the proposed site, the National
Mall, and existing Memorials. The required environmental assessment,
the opportunity for the public to engage in the process, and federal
review of this project, will result in a Center that the nation's
veterans and all Americans can be proud of. This commendable and
important project deserves no less. Because of the special importance
of the National Mall, and the particular concern of Congress in the
Commemorative Works Act that agencies protect other Memorials on the
National Mall, this information is crucial.
The site selection process as specified in the Commemorative Works
Act should move forward on a course that will ensure the kind of
professional evaluation that Congress has recognized as important and
useful. Most importantly, this process brings about a much better
outcome by taking into account possible impacts, permitting mitigation,
and assuring the best siting and design of a Visitor Center on the
National Mall that is worthy of the nation's honored veterans and the
American public. In summary, the process for review of site selection
for the Visitor Center is moving forward quickly without further
legislation.
Attachments
Executive Office of the President,
Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, DC, December 1, 2005.
Ms. Lois J. Schiffer,
General Counsel, National Capitol Planning Commission, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Schiffer: This letter supplements our letter of March 31,
2004, documenting and concluding the review by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) of the final environmental and historic
policies and procedures developed by the staff of the National Capitol
Planning Commission (NCPC) for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA). The March 31, 2004 letter addressed changes to Section 4 of
those procedures that were necessary to address the relationship
between environmental documentation for siting decisions and subsequent
environmental documentation for design decisions. Pursuant to CEQ NEPA
regulations, 40 CFR 1507.3(a), CEQ found that the NCPC NEPA procedures
conform to NEPA and CEQ regulations. In accordance with your request,
this letter offers CEQ assistance to NCPC and the National Park Service
as you address the NEPA decisions that NCPC is required to make in the
process of approving a site for a commemorative work.
Section 4 of the NCPC NEPA procedures identifies the Commission
decision points for five stages of decision-making and states that the
``Commission requires the following specified environmental documents
(NEPA Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Statement, or a
Categorical Exclusion determination) and the NHPA Section 106 process
information that must accompany the request for a review decision.''
Section 4(a). For the Site Proposal Approval decision under the
Commemorative Works Act, 40 U.S.C. 8905(a), or other law providing for
separate site and design proposals, the Commission requires the
submitting agency to ``submit an environmental document that considers
the potential environmental effects of a site selection decision upon
the proposed site and a reasonable range of alternative sites.''
Section 4(a)(2). This provision acknowledges the relationship between
the environmental documents for site and subsequent design decisions by
stating that the ``level of detail in the environmental analysis should
be proportional to the scope of the site decision . . . and should
defer detailed consideration of the effects of the design approval
decision to a subsequent environmental document, to the extent that
detailed consideration of alternative design proposals is
impractical.'' Id.
Section 4 requires NCPC, in cooperation with the submitting agency,
to make decisions about the level of detail in environmental analysis
that it needs to provide an adequate environmental document in support
of decision-making on a site proposal. Section 4 recognizes that site
decisions will range from environmentally insignificant to nationally
significant, and thus requires one of the three forms of NEPA
documentation, an Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental
Assessment, or a Categorical Exclusion determination, for these
decisions.
As noted in our letter of March 31, 2004, CEQ has offered to assist
NCPC and cooperating agencies in the implementation of these
provisions. We look forward to working with you on the practical
application of these provisions to pending decisions under the
Commemorative Works Act.
Sincerely,
Edward A. Boling,
Deputy General Counsel.
______
NCPC Chronology for Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center
November 17, 2003--Congress passes Public Law 108426 authorizing
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund ``to construct a visitor center at or
near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Federal land in the District of
Columbia, or its environs . . .'' consistent with the Commemorative
Works Act.
April 1, 2004--National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) adopts
revised Environmental and Historic Preservation Policies and Procedures
by unanimous vote. Procedures include requirement for an environmental
document (that is either an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement) at site selection stage for commemorative works.
March 14, 2005--NCPC's executive director sends letter to NCMAC
advising that NPS site selection study does not adequately address the
project's impacts on its wider context and recommends that all
potential sites remain on the table. NCPC's executive director notes
that Site A could be problematic due to potential adverse affects to
vistas, sightlines, and historic settings.
May 11, 2005--As required under the Commemorative Works Act, the
National Park Service (NPS) presents site selection study for Vietnam
Center to National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) for
recommendation. NCPC testifies that Site A on the Lincoln Memorial
Grounds is too sensitive and recommends that applicant give further
consideration to Site E, Department of the Interior South Building.
NCMAC recommends forwarding both Site A and Site E to NCPC and
Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) for action.
June 27, 2005--NCPC sends letter to NPS indicating need for
additional study, including environmental information, and recommending
further consideration of Interior South Building, Site E.
September 2, 2005--NPS submits request for October site approval of
Site A on Lincoln Memorial grounds to NCPC and CFA using same
submission materials previously presented to NCMAC for consideration.
NPS cites Department of the Interior statement that the Interior South
Building (Site E) is not available. At its September meeting, CFA gives
conditional approval for Site A specifying great concern about the
sensitive nature of Site A and requiring NPS to prove that the Center
can be designed without disrupting the Lincoln and Vietnam Veterans
Memorials' settings. CFA states that it will retract site approval if
NPS cannot make such a case during the design phase.
October 6, 2005--At its October meeting, NCPC does not approve Site
A, instructing NPS to provide a comparable level of analysis for the
south lawn of the Interior South Building and for Site G as it provided
for Site A, and to provide sufficient proposed building program
information to enable the Commission to better understand the impacts
that the Center might have above ground on any site. The staffs report
(issued September 29) reiterates that NPS has provided inadequate
environmental information. The report also indicates NPS's obligations
for consultation with other agencies and parties, under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, is not yet sufficient for
decision-making.
October 28, 2005--NPS resubmits a request for approval of Site A
(for December commission meeting), citing Department of the Interior
statement that the lawn of Interior South Building is not available.
November 18, 2005--NCPC staff sends draft report to NCPC Executive
Committee.
November 23, 2005--NCPC staff discusses draft report with NCPC
Executive Committee, noting that NPS has still not submitted
information on how the Center will impact the surrounding environment,
and that NPS has not provided the required environmental document (that
is an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement) at
the site selection stage for all commemorative works.
November 28, 2005--NPS, NCPC and Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) meet to discuss NCPC's requirements for environmental
documentation. CEQ confirms that NCPC's Environmental and Historic
Preservation Policies and Procedures adopted in April of 2004 require
an environmental document (that is either an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement) at the site selection stage for all
commemorative works. CEQ subsequently reiterates this confirmation in
writing.
November 29, 2005--NCPC Executive Committee removes project from
the agenda, citing lack of a required environmental document (that is
either an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement).
December 1, 2005--NCPC Chairman convenes meeting with NPS and CEQ
to discuss NCPC Environmental and Historic Preservation Policies and
Procedures applicable to the site selection stage of commemorative
works, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center. CEQ confirms
again that NCPC's procedures require an environmental document (that is
either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement) at the site selection stage for all commemorative works,
including the Center. All parties begin to discuss the content and
process for the NPS to move forward with an Environmental Assessment
for the site selection stage of the Center.
January 9, 2006--NCPC and NPS meet to discuss the process for
moving forward on an Environmental Assessment for the Center, and agree
to put together a letter of understanding between the parties as to the
process and content for the Environmental Assessment. NPS indicates
that it is moving forward to contract with a consultant to produce an
Environmental Assessment for the Center.
January 9-26, 2006--NCPC and NPS work jointly to produce letter of
understanding on Environmental Assessment process and content.
January 26, 2006--NCPC and NPS meet again to review Environmental
Assessment process and content. NPS states that the consultant is
beginning work on the Environmental Assessment.
January 26-February 15, 2006--NCPC and NPS work jointly to finalize
letter of understanding for Environmental Assessment process and
content.
February 15, 2006--NCPC and NPS finalize and execute letter of
understanding. NCPC contacts NPS to suggest an immediate meeting among
NCPC, NPS and NPS consultant to avoid any potential delay or
misunderstanding on the consultant's part. NPS confirms that consultant
is under contract and agrees to schedule the requested meeting. Letter
of understanding also indicates that NPS will conduct Section 106
consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act concurrent
with completion of the Environmental Assessment for the Center for site
selection.
March 17, 2006--CEQ convenes meeting with NCPC, NPS, and the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to discuss status of Environmental
Assessment.
prior actions affecting vietnam veterans memorial grounds
1982--Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall dedicated
1984--Three Servicemen Statue dedicated on the Memorial grounds
1993--Vietnam Women's Memorial dedicated on the Memorial grounds
2004--Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaque dedicated on the Memorial
grounds
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. Thank you both.
We'll have a few questions, I suspect. We'll try and have
short questions, and perhaps you can have short answers, and
that will get us through.
Mr. Martin. We'll do our best.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Martin, on the Constitutional Center,
how much money does it currently take in that would be affected
by this legislation?
Mr. Martin. It runs between $4 to $6 million a year. It's
been averaging $4 million, but this year, because of some
special exhibits, it looks like it will be about $6 million.
Senator Thomas. What happens to the money, currently?
Mr. Martin. Under a cooperative agreement, it is being
utilized by the Center, and this legislation would just clarify
it and make sure that there was no question that that was the
intent.
Senator Thomas. So, it's already staying with the
institution.
Mr. Martin. That's correct. But this----
Senator Thomas. Why is this legislation necessary?
Mr. Martin. I think, in our minds, it just ensures that the
tool we're using is the accurate one. And sometimes when we're
doing things, passing money through and allowing it, with just
an agreement, it's better to have it codified.
Senator Thomas. Would this be something picked up by other
park sites?
Mr. Martin. It potentially could, because of some of the
other significant projects that are underway that are being put
together, with the need for revenues to make them operable, it
could be, yes.
Senator Thomas. Parks are generally 80-20, in terms of
their funding. They keep 80 percent and turn 20 percent into
the fund; isn't that normal?
Mr. Martin. Yes, 80 percent stays in the park, and 20
percent goes to a national fund, for distribution.
Senator Thomas. OK. On the Clinton birthplace, what's,
roughly, the annual cost to operate and maintain that? Do you
have any idea?
Mr. Martin. Our preliminary estimates are roughly $600,000
a year to maintain it and operate it.
Senator Thomas. And who's paying this now?
Mr. Martin. That's the entities that are--that have it. I
think that they have a small foundation that's running that.
Senator Thomas. That cost would be shifted to the Park
Service?
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Senator Thomas. OK. On the Vietnam Center, what's the role
of the Park Service in reviewing these projects? What other
organizations are involved?
Mr. Martin. Our role is basically to submit a
recommendation to the National Capital Planning Commission and
to the commission on Fine Arts. All three agencies must agree
on the site once a memorial site is authorized to be
undertaken.
Senator Thomas. I see. This moves it up, then, or at least
pushes it on the report. Are you aware of any other instances
where the Congress has intervened, in terms of sites such as
this?
Mr. Martin. Not in the last 20 years, is what we looked at,
since the most recent act, the Commemorative Works Act.
Senator Thomas. When do you expect the study on the John
Smith Water Trail to be completed?
Mr. Martin. We hope to have it out in August and completed
in October.
Senator Thomas. Would that be in time to meet the
centennial?
Mr. Martin. The 400-year celebration, yes.
Senator Thomas. Good.
Mr. Martin. We feel that it should be completed in time.
Senator Thomas. OK. Let's see. Ms. Gallagher, when do you
think this study will be completed?
Ms. Gallagher. We've been working very cooperatively with
the National Park Service over the last several months. They
are charged with producing the environmental assessment. They
are scheduled to--the document has been completed, in draft,
and they are expected to release it for public review and
comment at the end of this month. So, we anticipate presenting
the project--the site-selection approval to our commission at
its August 2006 meeting.
Senator Thomas. I understand your organization waited until
November 2005 to say it was necessary to have an environmental
assessment; why did you wait so long?
Ms. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, we had advised--at the staff
level, we had advised the National Park Service, in our early
consultation, that the site analysis developed by the fund and
the Park Service contained inadequate environmental
information. We had advised them, in writing, in e-mail, and in
conversations. When the project came to the commission in
September, our staff report noted, in quite a bit of detail,
the insufficient environmental information contained in the
submission. We then consulted with the commission, the Council
on Environmental Quality, for adherence to NCPC's revised
environmental policies and procedures to clarify the exact
nature of the environmental information that was required for
site selection. The CEQ did agree with the NCPC that the
submission materials were inadequate. So, therefore, the
submission was removed from further consideration until that
environmental assessment was complete.
Senator Thomas. This has taken a little longer than it
probably would have been, had this whole thing begun in one
package in the beginning.
Ms. Gallagher. We first received the submission for our
formal review in September 2005, so we don't feel that this was
delayed unduly, on our part.
Senator Thomas. All right, thank you.
Senator Akaka, do you have any questions?
Senator Akaka. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin, I would like to begin with a question
concerning Channel Islands National Park. According to your
testimony, in enacting the enabling legislation for the park,
Congress--and I'm quoting--``made a deliberate decision not to
allow hunting there. We feel that this is still the appropriate
decision today.'' In addition, it is my understanding that Park
Service regulations state that hunting is prohibited in the
National Park System unless specifically authorized by law;
and, even then, it is only allowed if the park superintendent
determines that the hunting is consistent with public safety
and enjoyment and sound resource management principles.
According to your testimony, the previous owner of the
island retained use for 7\1/2\ acres of land surrounding a
ranch house for noncommercial use, but the rest of the island
was conveyed to the United States without restriction. My
question is, what authority did the Park Service have to allow
commercial hunting within the park?
Mr. Martin. To be honest with you, I'm not sure. I think
that that was done through an agreement, that it was probably
not in accordance with our practices or regulations, but in
negotiations, after the purchase and for that life estate, it
was determined that they felt, I guess, it could be authorized.
I don't feel that that's something that we would do if we were
starting over again now.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your candid answer there.
I'd like to follow up with a related question. Even if the
hunting was a legal activity within the park, the hunting on
Santa Rosa Island is a large-scale commercial operation. As you
noted, the reservation retained by the previous owner was for
noncommercial use. As I understand the situation on Santa Rosa
Island, the Vail & Vickers Company uses land it no longer owns
for the hunting operation. It charges thousands of dollars per
trip, and keeps all of the revenue without a concessions
contract or any other payment to the Park Service.
Now, first of all, is my understanding correct? And, if so,
what authority did the Park Service have to allow this to
occur?
Mr. Martin. I think, at this point in time, it's upholding
our portion of the settlement agreement. And we feel that
that--the court-ordered settlement agreement that we've worked
out allows us to continue. But that's also, I think, the reason
why we feel, in 2011, it needs to stop.
Senator Akaka. You have referred to the 1998 settlement
agreement which allowed hunting to continue on the island until
2011. Is the National Park Service generally able to enter into
binding agreements to allow activities for which it has no
legal authority?
Mr. Martin. I think, as a result of court settlement
agreements, I would say that that's--that we feel that we have
sufficient legal authority to manage the island like we are
now. But I think that one of the reasons that we entered into
it was some of the lack of the jurisdictional issues that
you're bringing up that had been laid out prior to that. And it
is not a normal set of circumstances, for sure.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Well, thank you very much for those
responses. I just want to be sure my understanding is correct
here.
Ms. Gallagher, your testimony states that the NCPC fully
expect that the issue of the visitor center location will be
considered at the commission's next meeting, in August. While
assurances--what assurances can you give that the location
issue will not only be considered, but that it will be resolved
by the commission's next meeting?
Ms. Gallagher. We fully believe that the work that has been
conducted by the National Park Service in completing its
environmental assessment over the past couple of months will be
sufficient to meet our requirements under our environmental
policies and procedures. We have the full support of commission
members understanding the significance of this project. My
chairman has committed to expedite this--the review and
approval of this project.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to focus on the John Smith Water Trail issue, and my
questions will be directed to Mr. Martin.
Earlier this year, the National Park System Advisory Board
found that the trail is nationally significant, which is one of
the key criteria for designation. In your testimony, with
regard to the remaining two criteria, Mr. Martin, you stated
that, quote, ``We have not encountered any information that
would lead us to believe that the trail fails to meet the
required criteria for designation.''
Now, although the study's not yet completed, is it your
view that the proposed John Smith Water Trail satisfies the
remaining two criteria--namely, it's a route with established
historic uses, and it has significant potential for outdoor
recreation and historical interpretation?
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Senator Allen. Thank you. Good answer. I like that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Adducing the good testimony.
Second, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sarbanes referenced this
also, but I don't think it was made part of the record. The
U.S. Department of the Interior, on March 20 of this year, the
Landmarks Committee unanimously recommended that the full
advisory committee approve the statement of national
significance for the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Water Trail. On March 21 of 2006, the first--
the full advisory board voted unanimously to approve the
statement of national significance, and that will be put into
the full feasibility study. That is a correct assessment;
right, Mr. Martin?
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Senator Allen. I'd like this to be made part of the record
of the committee.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The study has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Thomas. Without objection.
Senator Allen. Now, Mr. Martin, in January of this year,
the Park Service did begin the whole--the full public process
by sending out letters to interested parties, providing notice
that the National Park Service was moving forward with the
study that we authorized by legislation previously. Based on
your testimony and the number of letters--out of the nearly 200
letters, or any comments you've received, have any of them been
opposed to this water trail?
Mr. Martin. Not that I'm aware of. I don't have a complete
breakdown. I think we've received about 170, and my
understanding is that it's been supportive. There could be some
in there that express concerns over what the Federal
involvement--or exactly how the trail would be managed,
questions like that. But my understanding is that they've been
very much supportive of the trail.
Senator Allen. And the Governors of Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware are supportive of the trail?
Mr. Martin. That's my understanding.
Senator Allen. You mentioned one of the reasons for
requesting the committee to defer action on the bill is to wait
until the full feasibility study is completed, and you said it
would probably be completed in October. Just so you understand
the schedule here, in October, we're going to be out of
session. Senator Akaka will be cruising on his way to
reelection in Hawaii. There will be others that will not--we're
out. We have elections in November. The only time, as a
practical matter, after this is completed, which will be in
late October/November, which would be in the event that we have
a lame-duck session sometime, during the holidays, before
Christmas, which means mostly--and who knows if something like
this would pass then. Then the way this place operates is, you
go into session January 3 of next year; usually nothing much
happens in January, to the aggravation of some of us, but
nothing happens much; you wait for the State of the Union
Address; and sometime in February, you get into legislating;
and it would probably pass in February of next year. Next year
is the 400th anniversary.
And so, having us wait until the full study is completed,
and given the time it takes to move legislation, and also
looking at the calendar this year, aren't we--as a practical
matter, if we waited--precluding Congress from establishing the
trail this year, in advance of the 2007 400th anniversary of
Jamestown?
Mr. Martin. Again, I think our view is that these proposals
are generally strengthened by having it out for public input,
that we get a lot of valuable insight into how to manage the
trails or manage new park areas. And so, that's why we try, as
best we can, to work within the established process. But we
also understand the importance--and that's why we've been very
supportive in accelerating this whole process--the importance
of getting it done in a timely fashion, especially with a
project that has this support and is of this quality.
Senator Allen. Mr. Martin, doesn't Congress have the
ultimate authority to designate national historical trails, and
has actually done so in the past, in the absence of a complete
study?
Mr. Martin. Yes, that's happened a couple of times.
Senator Allen. And it is also possible--let's assume that
this was adopted and passed at the end of next month or so.
There's no reason why the Park Service and the States and the
Jamestown commemoration folks, the National Geographic Society,
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, all those that are involved in
this, could not adapt--listening to reasonable, good,
constructive ideas, and adapt as they move forward, but at
least everyone would know it's established and can take into
account the good ideas that may come from organizations and
individuals; could that not still occur?
Mr. Martin. Yes, I think it could.
Senator Allen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We have another member of the committee. While he's being
seated, let me ask one quick question.
On this reauthorization of the advisory board, I've heard
some rumblings that perhaps the reauthorization would change, a
little bit, the character of it, putting more emphasis on
recreation, as opposed to maintaining the resources. Is there
any reason to think that's the case?
Mr. Martin. I think that the makeup that's proposed would
change some of the focus of the advisory board. I think it
would--our belief is that it would allow us to ensure that the
makeup of the advisory board would keep us relevant and would
keep us attuned with what's going on. It would also, the makeup
that's proposed, ensure that the protection of park resources
was a key component of everything that we do.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Alexander, would you have any comment or question?
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'd like to
make a short comment, if I may.
Senator Thomas. Sure, very good.
Senator Alexander. If it would be appropriate right now.
Senator Thomas. Certainly.
Senator Alexander. I'd just like to say that I appreciate
the efforts that have been made on the Captain John Smith
Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act. And what
impresses me about it, Mr. Chairman, are a couple of things.
One, it's relevant to the 400th anniversary of the founding of
the first English settlement. That's important to all of us in
America. And I know Virginia is especially proud of that, which
is Senator/Governor Allen's comment. But the thing that
interests me, too, is the strong private partnerships that Gil
Grosvenor, Pat Noonan, Will Baker, and others have forged
there. I think we need more of that in this country. The
Federal Government can't shoulder the whole load. And so, it
makes a big difference to me that so many private organizations
and other organizations are pitching in on this. So, it has
exceptionally strong leadership, and I was proud to be a
cosponsor of the legislation to authorize the study. I'm going
to continue to watch it carefully.
And I really came to the hearing primarily to emphasize my
support for it and to notice the strong private partnerships
that could make it succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Very good.
Senator Allen, I just would mention to you that most trails
in Wyoming leave footprints. This one will not; is that
correct?
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. No, no footprints. It's all water.
Senator Thomas. That's unusual.
Thank you. Thank you both very much. We appreciate it.
Mr. Martin. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Now, if we could have our second panel,
please: Mr. Ray Saikus, a Vietnam veteran from Ohio; Patrick
Noonan, chairman emeritus of The Conservation Fund; Gilbert
Grosvenor, chairman of the board, the National Geographic
Society; and Harry Robinson, consultant, TRG Consulting Studio.
Thank you, gentlemen. We'll take you just as you're seated
there, if you please. And if you'll hold your statements to
about 5 minutes, and then we'll have some short questions.
Mr. Saikus.
STATEMENT OF RIMANTAS (RAY) SAIKUS, VIETNAM VETERAN, U.S. ARMY,
173RD AIRBORNE BRIGADE, 1968-1969, CLEVELAND, OH
Mr. Saikus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for this opportunity. I'm honored to testify on
behalf of myself and the family and my best friend, Steve
Mylant, a U.S. marine who was killed in Vietnam in 1967, my
fellow Vietnam veterans, and my fellow citizens, who are in
concert with the statements and concerns to be presented here,
but could not attend.
My testimony is directed to your deliberations regarding S.
2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance of
Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline
for the designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial.
I was shocked and angered on learning, from the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, of the course of action that
the House of Representatives has taken with H.R. 4882 and the
Senate is considering with S. 2419. My alarm about these bills
moved me to inform others and participate here.
Those who serve, and have served, have placed their lives
on the line with the believe that, as we bring freedom and
self-determination others, we're guaranteeing the same for our
families and our fellow citizens. This bill, if enacted, will
dishonor those who gave their all for their country and those
who serve, or served, by stripping the right and ability of
ordinary citizens to participate in our Government, especially
from the families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, as
well as those who served, and their families.
I can assure you, from my personal experience, that the
laws which would be pre-empted by these bills, laws like the
National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act are fundamental to the rights of citizens in
our democracy and are effective ways for citizens to
participate in our Government.
The House of Representatives seems to perceive citizens'
involvement as a nuisance that should be eliminated. They did
not even give us an opportunity to present our insight on its
impact.
It is critical to understand that by shutting off these
well-established public comment procedures, Congress would be
silencing the voices of the families of those who made the
ultimate sacrifice, Vietnam veterans who served, and their
families, and denying all of their ability to have any say in
the location and design of their visitor center. It will also
take away the opportunity to benefit from the still gravely
needed healing process that the site selection and design
process for the Vietnam Veteran Memorial visitor center can
bring.
I have had the privilege of participating as a veteran and
as a citizen in volunteer organizations dedicated to honoring
our heritage and honoring those who serve, so I have a special
appreciation for the importance of protecting our heritage,
which these bills would undermine.
In my written testimony, I site four examples in which I
have been personally involved for the process of public
involvement by citizens and veterans, including through the
very laws that Congress is considering pre-empting here or
having a meaningful effect. Because we, as citizens and
veterans, so far were left out of these bill passage processes,
I am one of the voices for those who want to make sure that the
families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who
still have both physical and emotional scars from the Vietnam
War, as well as their families and the veterans who served have
an opportunity to be heard on how we're going to commemorate,
memorialize, and interpret the story of their sacrifice and
alleviate their pain and suffering, and especially how we're
going to help them, and our Nation, heal.
Our soldiers serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts
of the world expect, and will find comfort, knowing that, on
our watch, the freedoms and rights of their families to
participate in the government decisionmaking process are being
protected, especially when many of them are sons and daughters
of Vietnam veterans.
My personal healing has come a long way, because I have
been able to participate in the administrative process that
influences the decisions of our Government. Gentlemen--the
ladies are gone--through your actions, you can help veterans,
and the Nation, heal. Please do not disrupt the ability of
others to heal by taking away their right to participate in the
public process that will help to decide the location and design
of our visitor center.
A little wait by us, Vietnam veterans and families, through
this process, will give an opportunity for the end product to
be a significant and memorable addition to our ``Wall'' and one
that those honored on ``The Wall'' deserve. Taking the
additional time to allow a public process would also give the
Vietnam veterans themselves the opportunity to participate in
influencing the location and design of the new visitor center.
The bill, as proposed, will completely shut us out of that
discussion, and all interested citizens, including the veterans
themselves, deserve to be heard and have the right to
participate, and be defended and protected by this Congress.
I must commend the chairman and the Senate committee for
respecting their fellow citizens, especially the Vietnam War
families and veterans, by giving them this opportunity to
express their position on this issue and bill. The wisdom you
have demonstrated to hold this hearing, and the cry from
veterans and citizens, can only lead you to conclude that this
bill should not be passed. Please let the process that is in
place have a chance to work.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saikus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rimantas (Ray) Saikus, Vietnam Veteran, U.S.
Army, 173rd Airborne Brigade, 1968-1969, Cleveland, OH
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of myself and the family of my best
friend, Steve Mylant, a U.S. Marine, who was killed in Vietnam in 1967;
my fellow Vietnam Veterans; and my fellow citizens, who are in concert
with the statements and concerns to be presented here but could not
attend. My testimony is directed to your deliberations regarding S.
2419 and H.R. 4882, bills to ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam
veterans and the Vietnam War by providing a deadline for the
designation of a visitor center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
I have made this trip in the midst of a monumental task--helping to
organize the placement of Memorial Day flags honoring the 120,000-plus
veterans buried in more than 150 cemeteries throughout Greater
Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. I am the Vice-President of the
Memorial Day Association of Greater Cleveland.
But the course of action that the House of Representatives has
taken with bill H.R. 4882 and the Senate is considering with bill S.
2419, alarmed me and moved me to participate in this hearing in memory
of those who we honor on Memorial Day. If this bill is enacted, it
would bring into light a painful reality about what value we place as a
nation on the beliefs and sacrifices of those who gave their lives for
their country and those who serve or served in the past. My fellow
veterans and myself served and placed our lives on the line with the
belief that, as we brought freedom and self-determination to others
throughout the world, we were guaranteeing the same for our families
and our fellow citizens. The right and ability of ordinary citizens to
participate in our government is what these bills would strip from the
families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who served and
the citizens. It would take away the opportunity to benefit from the
still gravely needed healing process that the site selection and design
process for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center can bring.
I can assure you from my personal experience that the laws which
would be preempted by these bills--laws like the National Environmental
Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act--are fundamental
to the rights of citizens in our democracy, and are effective ways for
citizens to participate in our government. The House of Representatives
seems to perceive citizen involvement as a nuisance that should be
eliminated. But it is important to understand that, by shutting off
these well-established public comment procedures, Congress would be
silencing the voices of Vietnam veterans themselves, as well as their
families, and denying veterans the ability to have any say at all in
the location and design of their visitor center.
I have had the privilege of participating in volunteer
organizations, as a veteran and as a citizen, dedicated to honoring our
heritage and honoring those who served. As a Mechanical Engineer and
member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, now ASME
International, I had the honor of successfully nominating two icons of
our nation's industrial heritage, the Steamship William G. Mather and
the Hulett Iron Ore Unloaders in Cleveland, for designation as ASME
International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks. So I have a
special appreciation for the importance of protecting our heritage,
which these bills would undermine. I would like to cite four examples
in which I have been personally involved, where the process of public
involvement by veterans, including through the very laws that Congress
is considering preempting here, is having a meaningful effect.
I was a co-founder of Greater Cleveland Veterans Memorial
Inc., an organization in Cleveland that reclaimed Marshall
Frederick's ``Fountain of Eternal Life'', a once-abandoned
monument and plaza originally dedicated to honor those who died
during WWII and the Korean War. In a process that took over 10
years, we participated to guarantee the monument's proper
refurbishment and to bring about its expanded scope, one
honoring all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our
country from Cuyahoga County, beginning with the Spanish-
American War up to and including the present Iraq and
Afghanistan Wars. Over 5500 names are now engraved on plaques
around the fountain.
On another occasion, we Vietnam Veterans of Northeast Ohio
had to fight to retain the name of ``Vietnam Veterans of
American Highway'' from being changed to ``Hall of Fame
Highway,'' a proposal that had been developed and advanced
without any consultation at all with the veterans.
In another area of Cleveland, Rockefeller Park, trees were
planted with plaques at their bases in memory of the 800-plus
soldiers from the County that were killed in action in World
War I. Rockefeller Park is also the site for four other
veterans-related memorials, the American Colonial Garden with a
monument to those who perished at Pearl Harbor, the Brotherhood
Shrine Garden with a monument in memory of the four Chaplains
who gave their lives to save our troops, the American Legion
Peace Garden of the Nations and the American Legion Peace
Garden of the United States. This area, once abandoned by the
city, has been continually restored during the last twenty
years by volunteers and has become a pristine area in honor of
those WWI soldiers, the other veteran memorials, with pride in
the heritage of Rockefeller Park and Cleveland's Cultural
Gardens. Then the Doan Brook ``Restoration'' project was
introduced by the FAA in an attempt to mitigate damage to
wetlands and streams from the expansion of the Cleveland
Airport. However, the veterans were totally excluded from this
decision-making process, even though the veterans were the
earliest and among the most affected stakeholders. The
remediation design called for imposing extensive blotchy
sections of wild growth, demolishing retaining walls, and
creating a look of abandonment, with major safety problems for
volunteers, residents and visitors. Fortunately for us
veterans, the National Trust for Historic Preservation advised
us about the proposed project. The veterans immediately rallied
to the defense of a place of honor for those who cannot defend
it themselves. Yet our requests to reopen the decision were
rejected by the FAA and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, even though the project was running into other
problems as a result of bids that far exceeded estimated costs.
The veterans informed them that the Doan Brook ``Restoration''
project was a misnomer and misled us into assuming that they
were fixing the retaining walls and improving the area. Though
this conflict has not yet been resolved, we are confident that
the process will eventually be effective.
On another project in Cleveland, four of the last remaining
Hulett Iron Ore Unloaders were the subject of a legal battle in
Federal Court in which I was one of the Plaintiffs against the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for not complying with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. We lost two of the
four Huletts to demolition when the Army Corps issued a
dredging permit without even considering preservation of the
Huletts. With the help of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, however, we were vindicated by a federal court,
and the dredging permit was revoked. Six years later, the Port
Authority is re-applying for a permit and the National Historic
Preservation Act is empowering us to defend and preserve for
future generations the remaining two Huletts, icons of this
country's ingenuity and its industrious people.
Because we as citizens and veterans were left out of many of these
processes, I am one of the voices for those who want to make sure that
the families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, those who still
have both physical and emotional scars from the Vietnam War as well as
their families, and the veterans who served, have an opportunity to be
heard on how we are going to memorialize and interpret the story of
their sacrifice, and alleviate their pain and suffering, and especially
how we are going to help them and our nation heal. Our soldiers serving
in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world will find comfort
knowing that on our watch the freedoms and rights of their families to
participate in the government decision-making process are being
protected, especially when many of them are sons and daughters of
Vietnam Veterans.
Congress has created the procedures for citizens to participate and
bring forth their visions. Since this Visitor Center will be built on
public federal property or with the support of public funds or
services, then all interested citizens, including the veterans
themselves, deserve to be heard and have their right to participate
defended and protected by this Congress.
My personal healing has come a long way because I have been able to
participate in the administrative process that influences the decisions
of our government. Gentlemen and ladies, through your actions you can
help other veterans and the nation heal. Please do not disrupt the
ability of others to heal by taking away their right to participate in
the public process that will help to decide the location and design of
our Visitor Center.
The WWII and Korean Veterans waited longer than the Vietnam
Veterans for their memorials. A little wait by us Vietnam Veterans and
families through this process will give an opportunity for the end
product to be a significant and memorable addition to our ``Wall'' and
one that those honored on the ``Wall'' deserve. Taking the additional
time to allow a public process would also give the Vietnam Veterans
themselves the opportunity to participate in influencing the location
and design of the new Visitor Center. The bill as proposed would
completely shut us out of that discussion.
We respect and salute those who have championed the cause to honor
those who gave their all during the Vietnam War, and those who served.
Now is the time to reflect on their accomplishments, cherish the legacy
that they have left, and let not haste and exclusion taint their good
deeds.
Below are organizations (Veteran and Civic) I am currently
associated with and hold offices in:
Vice-President--Memorial Day Association of Greater Cleveland,
[email protected], www.mdaogc.org
Secretary-Treasurer--Joint Veterans Commission of Cuyahoga County,
[email protected] wwwjvcocc.org
Life member of--Vietnam Veterans of America, VVA Delegate to
MDAOGC, 82nd Airborne Division Association, 82nd ADA Delegate to JVCOCC
President--Citizens Vision, [email protected],
www.citizensvision.org
Member of Executive Board--Cleveland Cultural Garden Federation,
http://ccgf.kliot.net/
Resume Provided Separately
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robinson.
STATEMENT OF HARRY G. ROBINSON, III, CONSULTANT, TRG CONSULTING
STUDIO, WASHINGTON, DC, ON BEHALF OF THE VIETNAM VETERANS
MEMORIAL FUND
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'm honored to be here today to present this
testimony. We do have a statement in the record, and I'm going
to summarize that.
For the record, I would like to say that I'm a Vietnam
veteran. I served in that country in 1967. That service
garnered for me the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. And, with
the exception of that period out of this city and a period in
grad school, I've spent my entire life here in Washington, DC.
Indeed, I was on the Fine Arts Commission for a period of 8
years, and out of those 8 years, I served as either the acting
chair or the chair of that body.
I say this to say that I understand that a public process
from these agencies--the NCPC and the Fine Arts Commission--
must have transparency, honesty, the absence of personal bias,
neutrality, and competency. And it is those issues that I
think--or those values that I think have been missing from this
process.
The four points that I would like to summarize relative to
S. 2419 are thus: VVMF and its partner, the Park Service, have
had extensive public hearings--at least six, to my count. We
have been before every public body to which we have been
summoned. We have spoken honestly. We have hired the best
possible expertise to assist us. And, from these meetings, we
have taken counsel, and we've changed many directions from
them.
In the legislation, there was a statement of ``at or near
the memorial.'' We hired Dr. Sue Taylor, from Howard
University, who created a brilliant statement about what ``at
or near'' meant. It was a statement that included not only
distance, but emotional separation. This statement of ``at or
near'' has never been challenged in any meeting or any public
forum; neither have we received any response to this statement
from any of the reviewing bodies.
We have engaged the best possible architects and designers
to do the study for us. The Polshek Partnership and Ralph
Applebaum Associates are well underway on their studies, and
had, in fact, made a presentation in this very building last
week. I'd like to remind you that this facility is underground,
as required by the legislation.
I'd like to speak to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund's
adherence to CWA. When we first built what has become to be
known as ``The Wall,'' it is that legislation, it is that
process, that gave us great direction. The late J. Carter
Brown, in his position as chairman of the Fine Arts Commission,
gave much counsel to Jan Scruggs and those working with him to
build ``The Wall''. We respect the values of CWA. We respect
the history of CWA, and the Mall. We simply ask for a clear,
unfettered path to site selection as appropriate to our
purposes.
I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Fund follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund
Today, you are considering S. 2419, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act, which was introduced by
Senators Stevens, Kerry and Hagel on March 15. A similar bill was
passed in the House last month.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is testifying today to answer
some of the questions members of the Senate may have about the
necessity of this bill.
The Memorial Fund is the organization that built the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. Over the years, we have found that ``The Wall That
Heals'' has become ``The Wall That Educates.'' Many of the 4 million
visitors who come to the Wall each year are schoolchildren who were not
even alive during the Vietnam War. The Memorial Fund has come to
realize that we need to do more to educate the country's young people
about the patriots who sacrificed for their country during that war.
We have sought the advice of experts who have a great deal of
knowledge about the National Mall. Our initial site evaluations were
conducted by the designers who created Constitution Gardens and the
architect of record for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
We have worked in good faith with the commissions responsible for
new projects on the Mall, but the delays continue. Congressmen Richard
Pombo and Steve Pearce met with the chairman of the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) on March 2, 2006, and asked him about these
delays. They soon thereafter introduced and passed H.R. 4882 to force
compliance with the law authorizing the Center. Senators Ted Stevens,
Chuck Hagel and John Kerry agreed that a legislative solution was
needed, and they introduced S. 2419, now under consideration by this
Subcommittee.
THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND HAS WORKED WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED
SYSTEM TO GET A SITE APPROVED FOR THE MEMORIAL CENTER
This legislation is not an alternative to going through the normal
channels. We have, in fact, been working within the system. Two of the
three commissions that must approve a site before it is awarded have
approved our preferred site, which is the site named in the
legislation: ``Site A,'' the land bordered by Henry Bacon Drive, 23rd
Street and Constitution Avenue. (For a timeline of all activity on the
Memorial Center, see Exhibit 1.)
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission recommended two
sites for the Memorial Center on May 11, 2005: Site A and the Interior
South Building on Constitution Avenue, which is not available.
The Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) gave conditional approval to Site
A during a Sept. 15, 2005 meeting, approval that was reasonably
conditioned on seeing an appropriate design.
The problems have stemmed from the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC), the third group that must give approval to the use
of Site A.
THE MEMORIAL FUND AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HAVE EXPERIENCED
NUMEROUS AND CONTINUING DELAYS AT THE HANDS OF THE NCPC
The Memorial Fund and the National Park Service have acted in good
faith, trying to work with the NCPC to comply with all of its requests.
Here are three examples:
During a presentation at the Oct. 6 NCPC meeting, architect
James Cummings, AIA, presented traffic data gleaned from
existing studies conducted in 1992, 1998 and 2000. The NCPC
concluded that this information was not current enough and
requested a new traffic study be conducted. It was commissioned
by the Memorial Fund immediately, completed and submitted to
the NCPC in time for the Dec. 1 meeting.
From the beginning of their dealings about the Memorial
Center, the NCPC and the Memorial Fund have been using the
NCPC's own Museums and Memorials Master Plan as a guide for how
and when information should be submitted in the approval
process. This document clearly shows that a preliminary
environmental analysis should be completed prior to site
approval, and an in-depth environmental assessment should be
completed once a site has been named. (Exhibit 2) Yet, the
Memorial Center was taken off of the agenda for the Dec. 1,
2005 NCPC meeting because the commission insisted that a
detailed environmental assessment needed to be conducted on two
sites before approval was given for any site. The Memorial Fund
commissioned this assessment. It has taken four months and has
cost $80,000-time and money the Memorial Fund was forced to
invest in a site that has not even been approved.
In June 2005, the Department of the Interior refused to
allow its Interior South Building on Constitution Avenue to be
considered as a site for the Memorial Center. In spite of this
refusal, the NCPC insisted the building, as well as land in
front and in back of it, be considered for the Center. At NCPC
insistence, the National Park Service went back to the
Department of the Interior several times to request that
permission to use Interior South be reconsidered. The answer
remained ``no.'' When the National Park Service and Memorial
Fund did not advance the building as a serious site candidate,
the NCPC staff recommendation prior to the Oct. 6, 2005 meeting
criticized them for not giving this site more consideration
(Exhibit 3).
WHY IS THE NCPC DELAYING SITE APPROVAL?
The NCPC is on the record opposing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Center since the project was first being considered by Congress in
2001. In 2003, as part of her testimony before this subcommittee
concerning the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors Center, NCPC
Executive Director Patricia Gallagher said, ``Since 1991, the
Commission has been consistent in expressing its objection to additions
to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.''
In 2003, Congress passed legislation allowing a Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center ``at or near'' the Memorial. President Bush signed that
bill into law that same year. Although the will of Congress is clear,
NCPC members have felt free to continue debating the question as late
as October 2005, when they were supposed to be considering where to put
the Center.
``I understand that Congress passed and said that the
Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center would be exempt from that [the
ban on future memorials on the Mall], and that would be the
last one. Well, that doesn't ring a bell with me, because
Congress has said that will be the last one on a lot of other
things, too, and they didn't live up to what they said.''--
Herbert F. Ames, NCPC Commissioner
``This is sort of deja vu of World War II for me, which I
voted against consistently for one reason: I do not believe we
should study war on the Mall. I think the Mall is a sacred,
hallowed ground, underneath or on top, and I believe that we
should not have more and more things that point to war and
celebrate it.''--Arrington Dixon, NCPC Commissioner
``If you ask the average American person, they would
probably say the Mall is finished. Stop doing things to it.
Leave it alone. I think that what we are trying to do here in
continuing to nibble away at it by special exceptions will
never end unless we all cumulatively take a stand on this.''--
Jose L. Galvez III, NCPC Commissioner
Documents that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has obtained
through the Freedom of Information Act illustrate an institutional bias
against the Memorial Center on the part of key members of the NCPC:
In an e-mail in February 2005 about the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center project, NCPC Historic Preservation Officer
Nancy Witherell jokes about a colleague's comments that, to get
to a remote site, ``pedestrians can `run' when they get a Walk
sign!'' (Exhibit 4)
In the same e-mail, Witherell referred to a recently held
public meeting about the Memorial Center site as ``an NPS dog
and pony show.'' (Exhibit 4)
In another e-mail sent around the same time, Witherell
dismisses the importance of the Memorial Center: ``I realize
Jan Scruggs/Congress is a high-powered applicant, but so was
MCl/Mayor Barry/Abe Pollin/Federal City Council.'' (Exhibit 5)
Other memorials, including the World War II Memorial and the FDR
Memorial, have found the bureaucracy of the NCPC to be inhibiting to
forward progress and have also sought legislative remedies to the
problem.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT ENABLE THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND TO
IGNORE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Furthermore, it has never been the intention of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Fund to bypass environmental concerns or distract
from the historic importance of the Mall.
The Memorial Fund has demonstrated again and again that it
cares about preserving the historic vistas of the National
Mall.
The year-long study commissioned by the Memorial Fund to
evaluate potential sites was conducted by Henry Arnold and
George Dicky, who designed Constitution Gardens, and J.C.
Cummings, the architect of record for the Memorial.
The Memorial Fund conducted a public design competition
that took nearly nine months and produced two world-renown
firms as winners: Polshek Partnership LLC as the architect
and Ralph Appelbaum Associates as the exhibit designer.
In his testimony in front of the NCPC in October 2005,
architect James Polshek stated his goals for the Memorial
Center: ``This is a project that [will] not bear, in the
end, the signature of an architect, something that you are
all too familiar with here in Washington . . . I talked to
my staff and my partners and I said, `We are going into
this as a facilitator, as a mediator and as a protector
that, in the end, our job is to protect the sanctity of the
memorial and its site.' ''
The National Park Service is a partner with the Memorial
Fund to make sure the site chosen is best for the Center,
the Mall and the country. 4 VVMF Testimony Page 5 o A board
member of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and a key
advisor in this process is Harry Robinson, chairman of the
department of architecture at Howard University and a past
member and chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts.
The enabling legislation passed in 2003 stipulates that the
Center will be underground. So, while a representative of the
NCPC was quoted by the press not long ago as saying that this
legislation would result in ``a five-story building on the
National Mall,'' that is impossible. And it is not the goal of
the National Park Service or the Memorial Fund. The Center will
be underground. (For the facts about other misconceptions that
have aired in the press, see Exhibit 6. )
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park
Service must still work with the NCPC and other commissions to
get approval on the design aspects of the Memorial Center. Our
intention is not to bypass these bodies, but to remove the
delays from getting the center under way.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. We urge the
members of this subcommittee and the entire Senate to approve S. 2419.
______
Exhibit 1
VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL FUND--
VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL CENTER TIMELINE
September 21, 2000--Plans to introduce legislation to build an
education center on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial grounds are announced
by combat veterans Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Rep. John P. Murtha (D-
Pa.) and Vietnam Veterans Memorial Founder and President Jan Scruggs.
January 2001--An independent survey is commissioned by the Memorial
Fund and conducted by Reed Haldy McIntosh & Associates. It finds that:
nearly 80 percent of adults polled see a need for an education center;
younger adults (age 18-29) more enthusiastically support the idea; and
75 percent of teachers surveyed felt learning about the war was
important.
February 7, 2001--Legislation is introduced in the House (H.R. 510)
and Senate (S. 281) to authorize the construction of an education
center near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
February 11, 2002--The National Park Service, under the direction
of the Bush Administration and the Department of Interior, supports
construction of an ``underground'' educational facility at the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial. Former U.S. presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald
Ford also support the initiative.
May 23, 2002--Texas Senator Phil Gramm halts passage of Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Education Act for the third time.
June 5, 2002--The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee approve legislation to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Education Center on the National Mall.
March 26, 2003--Exactly 21 years after the groundbreaking of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-
CA) introduces bipartisan legislation (H.R. 1442) providing for
construction of a Visitor Center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
May 19, 2003--U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), introduces the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Act (S. 1076) providing for
construction of a visitor center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
May 21, 2003--A historical congressional hearing of the House
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands is held
near The Wall to discuss H.R. 1442. It is the first time a hearing
occurs within the core area of the National Mall.
June 3, 2003--William P. Lecky, AIA, internationally acknowledged
for his award-winning work, most notably the Vietnam Veterans and the
Korean War Veterans Memorials, testifies before the Senate Subcommittee
on National Parks in favor of a Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor
center.
June 25, 2003--The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee unanimously approves legislation (S. 1076) authorizing the
design and construction of a visitor center at the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial.
July 18, 2003--The U.S. Senate unanimously approves legislation (S.
1076) allowing a visitor center to be built at the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial.
September 24, 2003--The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center
Act (H.R. 1442) passes the House Resources Committee.
October 15, 2003--The U.S. House of Representatives passes
legislation (H.R. 1442) virtually assuring the construction of a
visitor center at the Memorial. Jan Scruggs calls for President Bush to
sign legislation by Veterans Day.
November 5, 2003--The Senate unanimously approves H.R. 1442.
(Language changes necessitate another vote.)
November 6, 2003--The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously
approves the legislation.
November 17, 2003--President Bush signs H.R. 1442, amending Public
Law 96-297, ensuring the creation of an underground center which will
honor the memory of Vietnam veterans and educate visitors of the
sacrifices that veterans have made in the name of freedom.
January 15, 2004--The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund announces a
two-stage national competition to select a team to design the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Center.
February 2004--The Memorial Fund commissions a site study and
environmental analysis to determine the most suitable site for the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center. Objectives are to find a location
that will enhance the visitor's experience and respect the sanctity of
the National Mall and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
March 2, 2004--Nine finalists are chosen in the design competition
out of 39 entrants.
March 31, 2004--The field of design teams is further narrowed to
four.
July 19, 2004--The inaugural meeting of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center Advisory Board is held, chaired by General Barry R.
McCaffrey, USA (Ret.). The Board consists of veterans, historians,
authors, educators and scholars to consider the design of the Center
and nature of the exhibits.
September 17, 2004--Memorial Fund announces award-winning Polshek
Partnership Architects, LLP to head design team to build the visitor
center. The team includes award-winning Ralph Appelbaum Associates,
Inc., Exhibit Design.
November 30, 2004--The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center Advisory
Board holds its second meeting.
January 26, 2005--The Memorial Fund and the National Park Service
hold a joint news conference announcing the completion of the site
study and the study team's recommendation of the site bordering Henry
Bacon Drive, Constitution Avenue and 23rd Street, NW, for construction
of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center.
February 22, 2005--A public meeting is held at the American
Institute for Architects to review the site selection process and
gather public comment.
March 15, 2005--A site study presentation is given to the National
Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. The commission requests that
further study be conducted on Sites A (Henry Bacon), B (East Knoll) and
E (Interior South).
May 11, 2005--The second presentation of the site study is made to
the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. The commission
recommends Sites A and E.
May 29, 2005--The third Meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Center Advisory Board is held.
June 23, 2005--A second public meeting is held. The National Park
Service announces that the Secretary of Interior has removed Site E
from further consideration.
September 15, 2005--A presentation is made to the Commission of
Fine Arts. The commission approves Site A subject to conditions of
architectural development.
October 6, 2005--At the National Capital Planning Commission
meeting, a motion was made to vote in favor of the executive director's
report which would eliminate Site A. Before voting on this motion,
Chairman Cogbill suggested a substitute motion to conditionally approve
Site A. The substitute motion resulted in a 6-6 tie, ending the motion.
The NCPC then returned to the first motion, which also resulted in a 6-
6 tie. John Parsons made a motion to have the applicants return to the
NCPC with an evaluation of the front lawn of the Interior South
Building (a site put forth in the executive director's report), further
analysis of Site G and program information for Site A. This motion
passed unanimously.
November 29, 2005--The National Capital Planning Commission removes
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center from the agenda for its meeting on
December 1, 2005. The reason given is that the Commission would like an
in-depth environmental assessment completed before it will consider the
site chosen by the Memorial Fund. In spite of protests by the National
Park Service and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the decision
stands.
January 27, 2006--The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund commissions
EDAW to conduct an environmental analysis on Site A and Site G to
comply with NCPC requests. The study will take several months to
complete and cost nearly $80,000.
March 28, 2006--The U.S. House of Representatives passes H.R. 4882,
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline Enforcement Act,
404-4. The act, which was introduced by Rep. Richard Pombo, would give
the NCPC 30 days to approve Site A for the Memorial Center.
May 16, 2006--The Senate Subcommittee on National Parks holds a
hearing on S. 2419 and H.R. 4882, bills that would end the delays in
approving a site for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center. S. 2419 was
introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens.
______
Exhibit 2*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendix A--From the Memorials & Museums Master Plan, National
Capital Memorial Commission, February 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPS FOR ESTABLISHING A MEMORIAL IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL
Individual characteristics of proposals may require additional
related actions, the combination of two or more actions, or a change in
the order of steps as outlined in this guide.
Initiation
1. Memorial sponsor seeks National Capital Memorial Commission
(NCMC) staff assistance to review the requirements and process
established by the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) and its applicability
to the proposed memorial.
Legislation
2. Memorial sponsor seeks a Senator or Representative who is
willing to draft and introduce a bill to authorize establishment of the
memorial.
3. Staffs of NCMC, member of Congress who will introduce bill, and
authorizing committees draft a bill that conforms to the provisions of
the CWA.
4. Congressman and/or Senator introduce bill authorizing the
memorial and designating the sponsor as the entity responsible for its
erection at no cost to the federal government.
5. NCMC considers proposed authorizing legislation to establish its
views pursuant to CWA (See. 3(d)).
6. Chairmen of House and Senate authorizing subcommittees solicit
views of NCMC, may hold hearings on proposed authorizing legislation,
and take action on a bill before sending it to the full House and
Senate for a vote on the bill.
7. President signs bill into law if passed by Congress.
8. Memorial sponsor organizes the structure of the entity that will
establish the memorial and begins planning for fund-raising efforts.
Site Selection and Approval
9. If requested by the sponsor, the Secretary of the Interior or
the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA),
depending on whose land is involved, seeks the advice of NCMC to
determine whether the memorial warrants placement in Area 1. Secretary
or Administrator, if requested, notifies Congress of a determination
that the subject is of preeminent and lasting historical significance
(CWA See. 6(a)) so that Congress can consider passage of legislation
authorizing an Area 1 location.
10. Memorial sponsor works with staff of NCMC to identify potential
sites and prepare alternative site study and accompanying preliminary
environmental analysis.
11. Memorial sponsor submits alternative site study and
accompanying preliminary environmental analysis to NPS or GSA for
approval of preferred site. After consultation with NCMC, NPS or GSA
approves a preferred site on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior or
the Administrator of GSA, depending on whose land is affected.
12. NPS or GSA submits approved site to the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) for
approval and initiates consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO).
Design Approval
13. After site approval by NCPC and CFA, and comment by SHPO, the
design process begins.
14. Memorial sponsor selects (1) a designer, or (2) a coordinator
for design competition if a competition is to be held.
Design Approval
16. Memorial sponsor selects preferred design concept and meets
with NPS or GSA to discuss issues that design may present. After
possible refinements, sponsor submits the design concept and
accompanying environmental assessment to NPS or GSA for approval. NPS
or GSA reviews design concept and, upon concurrence, submits it to
NCPC, CFA, and SHPO.
17. Memorial sponsor, in close coordination with NPS or GSA,
refines the design concept on the basis of agency comments and submits
preliminary design to the landholding agency who, upon approval,
submits it to NCPC, CFA, and SHPO.
18. Memorial sponsor, in close coordination with NPS or GSA,
refines preliminary design on the basis of agency comments and submits
final design to NPS or GSA who, upon approval, submits it to NCPC, CFA,
and SHPO.
19. Memorial design team completes final drawings and
specifications in close coordination with NPS or GSA.
Fundraising and Construction
20. Memorial sponsor completes fund-raising.
21. Memorial sponsor submits to NPS or GSA final drawings and
specifications, cost estimate, and evidence of funds on hand, plus 10
percent cash payment of design and construction costs for maintenance.
The sponsor seeks final approval by the Secretary of the Interior or
the Administrator of GSA.
22. NPS or GSA issues a construction permit on behalf of the
Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of GSA.
23. Memorial sponsor begins construction and preparation of
operation, maintenance, and preservation plans for the memorial.
24. Memorial is dedicated and transferred to NPS or GSA for
management with accompanying as-built operation, maintenance, and
preservation plans.
______
Exhibit 3
National Capital Planning Commission,
Washington, DC, August 24, 2005.
Hon. Gale A. Norton,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Norton: The National Capital Planning Commission
(NCPC) was disappointed to learn of the decision to drop the Interior
South building from consideration as a possible site for the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Visitor Center. Given that this center will impact
one of the nation's most precious resources--the National Mall--I write
to respectfully request that you revisit this decision.
The Interior South building, at Constitution Avenue between 19th
and 20th Streets, NW, would allow both NCPC and the Department of the
Interior to further our respective roles as stewards of this treasured
open space. While we recognize that a change of use would have some
impact on existing operations at Interior, we believe the site is
worthy of further consideration given the many positive benefits to
locating the visitor center off the Mall. Use of Interior South would
protect the Mall's historic open spaces, views and nearby memorials;
its location and architecture are appropriate for greater public use;
and it would create the opportunity to locate additional visitor
services, such as food and orientation facilities, with the visitor
center.
I would like to encourage you to ask your staff to reconsider the
site analysis prepared by NCPC on this matter. Enclosed is a letter we
sent to your staff in late June, outlining our rationale for our strong
support of the Interior South Location. We hope you will agree that the
merits of this location are worthy of further deliberation and study.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this project with you
further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
John Cogbill,
Chairman.
[Enclosure.]
______
Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, September 27, 2005.
Mr. John V. Cogbill, III,
Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Cogbill: This will respond to your August 24 letter to
Secretary Gale Norton in which you requested reconsideration of the
Interior South Building as a possible site for the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center (Center) authorized by Public Law 108-126, enacted
November 17, 2003.
We appreciate the role of the National Capital Planning Commission
as the Federal planning agency and one of the stewards oldie Nation's
Capital. Similarly, the Secretary of the Interior bears the ultimate
responsibility for the property under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Interior. As such, we must balance the mission of all
agencies within the Department as stewards of this Nation's unique
natural and cultural resources providing access for visitors from home
and abroad to these exceptional places and national recreational
opportunities, Additionally, because the Center will be built pursuant
to the requirements at the Commemorative Works Act, the Secretary of
the Interior must also approve the site.
Adaptive use of the Interior South Building. for the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Center would result in serious operational, security
and fiscal impacts to the Department, as well as the Office of Surface
Mining and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That determination was
reinforced in recent discussions between the Department Assistant
Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, and. the Chairman, Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, who agreed that the Interior South
Building was removed from further consideration for very valid reasons.
In carrying out the requirements of Public Law 108-126 to construct
and landscape the Center in a manner harmonious with the site of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, consistent with the special nature and
sanctity of the Mall, we have engaged the public and worked closely
with-the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (Fund) to complete an analysis
of site alternatives, including the Interior South Building.
Consequently, we have submitted on behalf of the Fund, our preferred
site, located in the parcel of park land south of Constitution Avenue
between Bacon Drive and 23rd Street, NW. We have included in the
submission, for the Commission's consideration, specific design
guidelines that we believe will protect West Potomac Park and the
Lincoln memorial from adverse visual impacts. We look forward to the
Commission's review of those design guidelines as pay of its
consideration of the proposed site.
We appreciate your interest and concerns, and trust that you can
respect the Department's position on this important project.
Sincerely,
Paul Hoffman,
For the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
______
Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, October 27, 2005.
Mr. John V. Cogbill, III,
Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Cogbill: This letter responds to further conceptual site
selection ideas for the future location of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center discussed by the National Capital Planning Commission
(Commission) at its meeting of October 6, 2005. We continue to
appreciate the vital role. of the Commission in this process as one
oldie stewards of the Nation's Capital.
At the last Commission meeting, the potential use of the south lawn
of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) South Building was suggested
as a potential underground site for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Center. There are many operational, security, public access and design
concerns associated with the use of this site for a high-volume public
facility.
The DOT South Building and its grounds are the setting in which the
DOI manages a wide range of federal initiatives and land management
programs station-wide. The change of any portion of this building, its
grounds, or its attendant facilities will have a negative impact upon
the operations of these offices and, therefore, on the ability of the
DOI to meet its mission,
The south lawn of the DOI South-Building is bisected by the
ceremonial path leading to the grand south entrance. As authorized by
Public Law 108-126, enacted November 17, 2003, the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center will be an underground facility. The small scale of
available lawn in the suggested location would not provide for
adequate. space. to accommodate expected visitation entering and
exiting from the Center. The visual intrusion of sufficient entrance
and exit above-ground structures would overwhelm the landscape and the
immediately adjacent structure, as well as, disrupt the historic
building line and streetscape along the north side of Constitution
Avenue. Further, the ability to construct a visually unobtrusive
entrance to a facility under the south lawn is extremely problematic
because of the scale of available lawn and the existing architectural
features, such as walls and plazas.
The introduction of a new high-volume public facility and the
attendant increased bus awl vehicular traffic associated with a
facility serving more than two million visitors annually adjacent to
sensitive federal facilities presents a serious concern for the DOI. In
addition to the several years of disruption associated with the
necessary construction and commissioning of an underground facility in
immediate proximity to the DOI, we are aware that neighboring Federal
agencies have raised serious concerns about similar impacts to their
facilities during public meetings as well as in testimony given at the
October meeting.
Further, this site remains inherently problematic as indicated to
discussion presented within the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.Center Site
Selection Environmental Study for sate visitor movements to and from
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The barrier created by the 8-lane
arterial roadway, Constitution Avenue, which would divide the Center
and Memorial, is detrimental to successful operation of programs which
will involve large school groups, veterans groups and other similar
organizations for which the Center's message is primarily intended.
Therefore, the Interior South Building and its grounds are not
available for consideration as a potential site for the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Center.
We appreciate the Commission's. suggestions, and we trust that you
can respect the Department's position on this important project.
Sincerely,
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
______
Exhibit 4
From: Witherell, Nancy
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 1:52 PM
To: Maloney, David (OP)
Subject: FW: TR Bridge and Viet Vets--read this after your staff
reports. n
Comments from Tony Simon below--he obfuscates a bit at the bottom--
I think your language generally is fine, or you could add 2M to future
statements if you wish, or even better refer to long-term federal
planning goals on and around the Mall. Everyone understands the space
crunch--and you have created potential new museum site.
If Parsons' office could get funding for a Mall Master Plan, we'd
all be better off. This is a huge problem--bigger every year. CFA got
us off to a good start last week by suggesting a Mall summit to discuss
goals and how to achieve them. And we have given specific statements to
GAO several times this year about need for NPS to do Master Plan and
our offer to do it with NPS if we can get the money from Congress.
Gene Keller also wrote me that he likes your plan--he thinks the
building site looks a bit isolated on the plan but that pedestrians can
``run'' when they get a Walk sign!
I'm still reading Viet Vets study--will have more comments on that
and in relation to TR by tomorrow afternoon.
Also. I e-mailed Martha to learn if she had seen NPS ``106'' letter
on Viet vets (``106'' in quotations! )--not, so I faxed to her. She
would like our briefing comments on Viet in advance of March 15 if
possible. I'm assuming I can share at least a version of them--I'll
send to you, too. Hate, to burden you, but I hope you or Lisa can sit
for Mayor.
Thank you again for faxing NPS letter to me. Wayne and I spent some
time yesterday exchanging snarky a-mails about NPS's 106 procedures
and, more specifically, how they intend to hide politically behind you,
us, and CFA on this entire project. Wayne and I just love the level of
analysis in the letter! Parsons could state that any underground site
here would be adverse and STILL be playing it very safe. But, no, he
can't even do that. Even if he was the one to suggest to Congress that.
it be placed underground, he still would be merely stating his own
stewardship responsibility by stating that any museum here would be
adverse. Sally's sentence in the letter is ludicrous--and of course NPS
will now claim that they have initiated, and will always reiterate the
date during the upcoming lawsuit.
Did I mention that Tony Simon went to the public meeting last
night? He and 2 vets were there . . . they were both in support. So
much for a well-publicized public meeting . . . or for the ``trust''
that C100 and Coalition have in an NPS dog and pony show.
Nancy Witherell,
Historic Preservation Officer, National Capital Planning Commission
______
Exhibit 5
From: Costa, Wayne E.
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 2:26 PM
To: Witherell, Nancy
Subject: RE: 106 for Vietnam Visitors Center
Based on that letter, it really looks like NPS is going to use
NCMAC, CFA and us as the foils for Jan Scruggs. If they were being
honest--and even without a preferred site, I would think they--would
have to say that the area around the existing memorial would be
adversely affected. It's the Mall or adjacent to the Mall. To show they
are not doing any initial analysis, is just digging themselves a hole.
Wayne E. Costa,
General Counsel, National Capital Planning Commission
Original Message
From: Witherell, Nancy
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 2:19 PM
To: Costa, Wayne E.
Subject: RE: 106 for Vietnam Visitors Center
Sigh. This is just how ww2 started, you know . . . NPS came in for
concept approval from us with little more analysis than that. I have
never, ever sent an initiation letter to the SHPO (and of course, NPS
is also a licensing agency in this context) without (Ding the affected
NR properties and making at least a preliminary determination about the
nature and type of the effects. I realize Jan Scruggs/Congress is a
high-powered applicant, but so was MCI/Mayor Barry/Abe Pollin/Federal
City Council.
Nancy Witherell,
Historic Preservation Officer, National Capital Planning Commission
______
Exhibit 6
the vietnam veterans memorial center: addressing the misconceptions
Rumor: By bringing Congress into the picture, the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund is making an ``end run'' around the established memorial
approval process already in place in Washington, D.C.
Fact: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park
Service have been working within the established review process for
several years now. The two groups have been studying sites,
commissioning analyses and reports, holding public meetings and working
with the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), the National Capital Memorial
Advisory Commission (NCMAC) and the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) since 2004.
Rumor: The plans for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center will not
stand up to the rigorous review process of the three commissions that
must approve it.
Fact: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center preferred site at Henry
Bacon Drive, 23rd Street and Constitution Avenue (also called ``Site
A'') has already received approval from two of the three commissions
that must give approval before the project can proceed.
On May 11, 2005, NCMAC, after hearing a presentation by the
Memorial Fund and the National Park Service, recommended two sites be
advanced for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center: Site A, the
preferred site, and the Department of Interior South building, north of
Constitution Avenue at 20th Street. The Department of the Interior has
repeatedly refused permission for use of that building and its
surrounding area.
The second body that must approve new Mall projects, the CFA, gave
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center conditional approval on Sept. 15,
2005.
Since then, the Memorial Fund and the National Park Service have
been working in good faith to meet the requirements of the NCPC, but
those requirements keep changing.
Rumor: The NCPC has not asked the Memorial Fund and the National
Park Service for anything that it has not required of every other group
it has worked with.
Fact: The NCPC's own study, the Museums and Memorials Master Plan,
indicates that an in-depth environmental study will not be required
until after a site is approved.
The National Park Service and the Memorial Fund conducted a 10-
month study of seven potential sites, which included environmental
analyses, noise studies, analyses of historic sightlines of other
memorials, traffic studies, pedestrian counts, studies of the impact on
area vegetation and tree growth, and how placement of a Memorial Center
in each of these spots would affect the other memorials on the National
Mall. This study has been added to over the last year, as the NCPC has
requested other information.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center site was on the agenda to be
considered by the NCPC at its Dec. 1, 2005 meeting. On Nov. 30, it was
pulled from the agenda without warning. At that time, the NCPC
requested an in-depth environmental study of two sites before it would
consider the Memorial Center again. This is unprecedented, as past
memorials have not been required to submit such a costly and time-
consuming analysis until after a site was approved.
Even so, the Memorial Fund commissioned the in-depth environmental
study requested. However, this will cost $80,000 and take several
months. And at the end of it, there are still no guarantees that the
site will be approved.
Rumor: The public has not had the opportunity to weigh in on a
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center and where it should be located.
Fact: Two public meetings were held in 2005 to solicit response and
opinions from the public. The Memorial Fund held a public meeting on
Feb. 22, 2005 at the American Institute for Architects. The National
Park Service held a second public meeting on June 23, 2005.
Rumor: If Congress approves this legislation, it will send a signal
to other groups wanting fast approval of their memorial sites: ``You
don't have to get a good design. Just hire a lobbyist.''
Fact: The Memorial Fund did not hire a lobbyist to get this bill
passed in Congress. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) introduced H.R. 4882
after researching the delays in site approval and meeting with NCPC and
Memorial Fund officials. As a supporter of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Center, he was dismayed at the continual delays the project
was facing.
Also, the Memorial Fund has spent a good deal of time, effort and
money on the Memorial Center's design. A national competition to hire a
designer was announced in January 2004. Many rounds of careful judging
ensued before a design team was selected on Sept. 18 of that year.
The architect and exhibit designer chosen for the project are world
renowned and, between them, have worked on such prestigious projects as
the National Holocaust Museum and the William Clinton Presidential
Library.
Rumor: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has not considered other
locations.
Fact: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the National Park
Service have considered eight sites. Seven of them were included in the
10-month study mentioned earlier, which was conducted by
preservationists, landscape architects and the designers of
Constitution Gardens.
At the conclusion of the study, Site A was recognized as the
location that met the most criteria set by the Memorial Fund, the
National Park Service and the authorizing legislation.
The eighth site, the space in front of the Interior South building,
was suggested by the NCPC last fall and was studied by the National
Park Service and the Memorial Fund. However, the Department of the
Interior has repeatedly refused requests to use the Interior South
Building or its grounds.
Rumor: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center will disrupt the other
attractions on the National Mall.
Fact: The analysis conducted of potential sites for the Memorial
Center studied noise, foot traffic and other factors that could
possibly disrupt visitors to other memorials on the National Mall, and
Site A was found not to be disruptive.
Rumor: If the NCPC is taken out of the decision-making process, the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center will end up being a five-story
building on the National Mall.
Fact: The National Park Service would never support such a plan,
and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund would never propose it. Every
care has been taken to preserve the look and feel of the National Mall.
Also, this contention overlooks an important fact: the authorizing
legislation calls for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center to be an
underground facility.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Noonan.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK NOONAN, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS OF THE
CONSERVATION FUND, ARLINGTON, VA; ACCOMPANIED BY GILBERT
GROSVENOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
Mr. Noonan. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for
holding this hearing today.
I want to introduce my colleague, Gil Grosvenor, to my
right. Gil is chairman of the board of the National Geographic
Society and, along with me, a child of the Chesapeake. He joins
me in supporting this important legislation before you.
In the interest of time, I ask consent to have my
statement, and that of Mr. Grosvenor, entered in the record.
Senator Thomas. Without objection.
Mr. Noonan. I especially want to acknowledge the leadership
of Senator Sarbanes and the bipartisan support for this
legislation. Senators Warner, Allen, and Mikulski--they, along
with Senators Biden, Carper, Santorum, and Specter, are the
real visionaries behind this legislation.
On behalf of trail supporters across the Bay watershed, we
express strong support for this bill. This bill recognizes and
commemorates the historic 3,000-mile voyage of Captain John
Smith throughout the Chesapeake Bay region.
I ask consent to submit for the record a list of
individuals, groups, governmental entities, and tribal
governments who support this bill. Thank you.
I do want to mention the full support of the Chesapeake
Executive Council, chaired by Governor Ehrlich, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there's a map to
your left. That map was provided by the National Geographic
Society, which has done extensive research on John Smith's
diaries and his early drawings from 1608 to 1612, remarkably
accurate drawings that have been recreated on a current base
map detailing his travels in his areas of exploration.
We've heard that the National Park Service has completed
the mandated study of the proposed trail as to its historical
significance, and determined that it is nationally significant,
as well, a critical first step to establish the trail.
2007 will mark the 400th anniversary of Captain Smith's
journey. There is growing interest and enthusiasm in the Bay
area and around the world for commemorating this remarkable
event. We need to designate this trail now, in anticipation of
next year's 400th celebration, the first quadricentennial
celebration in our Nation's history, so that the National Park
Service and its non-Federal partners will be ready and able to
meet the public's high expectations for Jamestown.
We have been extremely fortunate that the private
partnerships with the State and local governments, the
departments of tourism, nonprofit and corporate America,
including DuPont, Verizon, Lockheed Martin, and other
corporations have embraced this concept. We express our
appreciation.
Smith's exploits were nothing short of remarkable. With
only a few men, he courageously explored the entire region,
from the Virginia Capes to the lower Susquehanna River. His
famous map of 1612 was the first accurate description of the
region and provided, along with his diaries, similar depictions
of the Bay and its peoples. My friends, this was the earliest
extensive exploration of America by the English of this great
land we now call America, 200 years before Lewis and Clark.
Smith was a bold leader. As the president of the Jamestown
Colony, he was an inspiration political force who stressed the
importance of loyalty, hard work, respect for the individual,
and planted the seed of our democratic ideals.
The proposed trail is important on many levels. There are
opportunities for education and interpretation, recreation,
economic development, tourism, and especially the rapidly
expanding and very exciting area of heritage tourism.
Yes, Captain John Smith's routes of travel deserve to be
recognized and commemorated as a National Historic Trail, not
just for our generation, but more importantly, for future
generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Noonan and Mr. Grosvenor
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick F. Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of
The Conservation Fund
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of S. 2568, the ``Captain John
Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act of 2006.'' I
am Patrick F. Noonan, Chairman Emeritus and founder of The Conservation
Fund--a national organization dedicated to conserving historic, natural
and working landscapes and to promoting sustainable economic
development through tourism, education and community-based initiatives.
I am accompanied by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Gilbert
Grosvenor, the Chairman of the Board of the National Geographic
Society. Gil Grosvenor and I have worked closely together to educate
the public about the importance of Captain John Smith's voyages and the
splendors of Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I
ask consent to include Mr. Grosvenor's statement in the record.
We also wish to thank Senator Sarbanes for his leadership role in
introducing this bipartisan bill with the outstanding support of
Senator Allen and Senator Warner. The bill is co-sponsored by Senator
Mikulski, Senator Biden, Senator Carper, Senator Santorum and Senator
Specter, a testament to their recognition of our nation's rich history
and the importance of commemorating the 400th anniversary of the
establishment of Jamestown and Captain John Smith's voyages.
We strongly support S. 2568, a bill to amend the National Trails
System Act to designate Captain Smith's routes of travel as the Captain
John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. By establishing a new
National Historic Trail, the bill would designate Smith's historic
routes of travel as nationally significant. These routes of travel
extend for approximately 3,000 miles in the Chesapeake Bay and along
portions of the Bay's major tributaries in the states of Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware.
For over thirty years, I have worked to protect America's great
treasures, such as Civil War battlefields, by forming partnerships with
private landowners, major corporations, and state and federal agencies.
The Chesapeake region is particularly special to Gil and me because we
are ``children of the Chesapeake'' and have lived near its shores for
our entire lives.
The proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
comes from the people of the Chesapeake. After the hearing before this
Subcommittee last year, we have seen a tremendous outpouring of support
for establishing the trail, from state and local governments, Indian
tribes, businesses, chambers of commerce, tourism leaders, non-profit
organizations, landowners, educational institutions and individual
citizens. We are pleased that the proposed trail enjoys the support of
the governors of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania as well
as the Virginia Council on Indians and the Nanticoke Indians. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters be included
in the record.
The completion of a replica of Captain John Smith's 30-foot boat, a
shallop, earlier this year has heightened this level of public support
and stirred the imagination of the general public about Smith's
voyages. We are pleased that the shallop will be on display here in
Washington, D.C. at the National Geographic Society later this year. We
anticipate that the public's enthusiasm for telling this important
story will only grow in advance of next year's commemoration of the
important events that took place in the Bay nearly 400 years ago.
In carrying out the Congressionally-authorized study of the
proposed trail, the National Park System Advisory Board recently found
that Smith's voyages are nationally significant, a key step in the
process to establish the trail. The Board concurred in the findings of
the National Park Service and National Landmarks Committee that Smith's
routes of travel are nationally significant with respect to several
broad themes in our nation's history including ethnic heritage (Native
Americans), exploration and settlement, and trade and commerce. Because
of the historic, cultural, and economic importance of Captain John
Smith's explorations of the Chesapeake Bay and the public's demand for
information on Smith's voyages, we respectfully request that Congress
pass the bill to establish the trail this year.
BRINGING AMERICAN HISTORY AND IMAGINATION TO LIFE
As you know, 2007 marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of
Jamestown, the first permanent American settlement and of Captain John
Smith's arrival in the New World. Captain John Smith--sailor, soldier,
explorer, and colonial leader--played a crucial role in establishing
the roots of our nation's rich maritime heritage when he explored the
Chesapeake Bay in a shallop. Smith saved the hour at America's birth
and served as indefatigable leader who, with the assistance and
forbearance of the Native Americans, turned fate by keeping Jamestown
afloat.
As the eve of the quadricentennial of Jamestown's founding
approaches, it is important to commemorate the national significance of
Smith's voyages, which are on par with Lewis and Clark's Corps of
Discovery and their exploration of the nation's interior. The proposed
trail will recognize John Smith's leadership and inspire generations of
Americans and overseas visitors to follow Smith's journeys, gain a
better understanding of the contributions of the Native Americans and
to learn about the roots of American democracy.
Captain John Smith's exploration of Chesapeake Bay was a monumental
and historic achievement, shaping the boundaries, character and future
of America. Smith and his crew of just over a dozen men courageously
traveled almost 3,000 miles along the Bay exploring a vast region from
the Virginia capes to the lower Susquehanna River near Pennsylvania.
Smith saw a Chesapeake Bay with its incredible, productive
ecosystem intact and with sophisticated and diverse Native American
cultures thriving along the shores of what is known today as Maryland,
Virginia, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Smith's famous 1612 map was the first accurate depiction of the
Chesapeake Bay and the native settlements present. For nearly a
century, the map served as the definitive map of the region, including
areas documented entirely with information supplied by Native
Americans. By providing accurate information, this map enabled the
colonization of British North America. Smith's voyages also opened the
door of opportunity to establish our democratic forms of government for
all Americans
On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain
Smith became the point of first contact for scores of Native American
leaders from around the Chesapeake. His notes describing the indigenous
people he met in the Chesapeake are still widely studied by historians,
anthropologists and scientists. The impact of Smith's voyages on the
American Indians is a critical element of the story.
Smith commonly formed partnerships with the many different tribes
by building an economic relationship based on trade. The supplies he
obtained through trade with American Indians are credited with saving
the Jamestown colony, during its early years. The historic meeting
between colonists and Native Americans profoundly impacted both
cultures and changed the course of history. These early interactions
between the ambassadors of both peoples were in many ways a significant
prelude for events to come.
As chronicled in his journals, Smith's voyages in America ignited
the imagination of the Old World. He produced many books and his
writing inspired hundreds, and then thousands of people to settle in
the ``dense woods and fertile valleys'' of the Chesapeake. His
adventurous spirit, descriptive writing and accurate mapping all serve
to bolster his place in history. A man of humble birth, he was a
captivating individual that played a crucial role in our country's
history. The proposed National Historic Trail provides a practical
opportunity for the outdoor enthusiast as well as the historian to get
a taste of Smith's spirit by traveling the same route he did nearly 400
years ago.
In many ways, Captain John Smith personified the chance for a
better life that would become the American dream for the millions of
immigrants who would later benefit from his daring. The son of a farmer
in Lincolnshire, England, Smith left his home to seek adventure and
fortune in the wider world. Although he was not part of England's upper
class, he became President of the Jamestown Colony, which was funded by
the London based Virginia Company, one of North America's first
``venture capital'' enterprises. Smith demonstrated that America was a
different place, where success was achieved through hard work, not
necessarily noble birth. He helped set the foundation for America's
philosophy of equality through his famous ``don't work, don't eat''
policy. Smith focused on skills and talents, not titles, setting an
egalitarian outlook that has echoes in America to this date.
Smith was a bold leader who defied the odds and ignited a nation.
His contemporaries gave him the credit for having supplied the firm
hand and common sense that saved the Jamestown colony during its early
struggles with starvation and disease. If not for his leadership, the
colony would most likely have failed like the earlier lost colony of
Roanoke. England may have lost its claim on the New world and our
history would have been vastly different. Instead, he planted the seeds
of our American democracy right here in the arms of the Chesapeake and
provided inspiration to our county's founding fathers, such as Thomas
Jefferson when writing the Declaration of Independence.
In 1804, in his book on The Life of George Washington, Chief
Justice John Marshall wrote of Captain Smith ``[w]hen we consider that
he sailed above three thousand miles in an open boat; when we
contemplate the dangers, and the hardships he encountered, and the
fortitude, courage and patience with which he met them; when we reflect
on the useful and important additions which he made to the stock of
knowledge respecting America, then possessed by his countrymen; we
shall not hesitate to say that few voyages of discovery, undertaken at
any time, reflect more honor on those engaged in them, than this does
on Captain Smith.''
MARITIME HERITAGE, TOURISM AND RECREATION
In addition to commemorating Smith's voyages, the proposed trail
offers tremendous economic opportunities through heritage tourism, such
as: trail outfitting and guide services, motor coach tours, food,
lodging and maritime commerce. By establishing the trail, S. 2568 would
provide an excellent opportunity for the public to learn about Native
American history, early English settlement, as well as the Chesapeake
Bay's natural resources. The trail could promote public education
through: trail maps and guide books, classroom and field experiences,
museum and website exhibits, and interpretive buoys.
Smith is a proud part of the region's rich maritime and cultural
heritage, which includes the fleets of working boats tied up to the
docks at watermen's villages, restored 19th century skipjacks and
buyboats, Native American villages, and documentation in local maritime
museums. John Smith's waterways of history would link these features
with other recreational, cultural and historic destinations providing a
highly desirable tourism opportunity for the region.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Executive Council,
and economic development officers, chambers of commerce and local
governments have recognized the potential historic tourism
opportunities of the trail. Involving volunteer communities, non-
governmental organizations, public agencies, business and private
landowners in the planning and operation of the trail will make the
trail a new model for public-private partnerships so crucial to
protecting the ecological integrity of working waterways and the
ability to experience history.
CONCLUSION
The Chesapeake is an American treasure. It is the cradle of our
nation and ties us to our history as a nation from Yorktown to the
nation's capital. The Chesapeake is also a working landscape providing
billions of dollars annually to the economy of the region and is
cherished by the millions of people that live near its shores. Through
the bipartisan leadership of the Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania Congressional delegation, the establishment of the Captain
John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail would create exceptional
opportunities for recreation and historical tourism experiences,
education and stewardship.
S. 2568 recognizes the riches of the Chesapeake, just as John Smith
did when, referring to the Chesapeake, he said, ``Heaven and earth
never agreed better to form a more perfect place for man's
habitation.'' We urge your favorable consideration of this bill and
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Supporters
The following entities have expressed support for Senate Bill S.
2568 specifically and/or the expedited completion of the National Park
Service's feasibility study for the trail as well as the general
concept of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Water
Trail.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Governor Tim Kaine, Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Virginia Senate, Virginia House of Delegates, Virginia
Council on Indians, Chickahominy Indian Tribe
Arlington County, County of Accomack, County of Charles City,
County of Henrico, County of Stafford, James City County, King William
County, Northampton County, Surry County
City of Fredericksburg, City of Norfolk, City of Richmond, City of
Virginia Beach, Town of Colonial Beach
Arlington County, Committee on Jamestown 2007; BikeWalk Virginia;
Cape Charles Historical Society; Colonial Beach Yacht Center, Inc.;
County of Charles City, 2007 Planning Committee; Eastern Shore of
Virginia Tourism Commission; Friends of the Rappahannock; Friends of
the Rivers of Virginia; George Washington's Fredericksburg Foundation;
James River Association; Jamestown 2007; Lynnhaven River 2007; New Kent
Chamber of Commerce; Richmond Metropolitan Convention & Visitors
Bureau; Richmond Region 2007; Tidewater Marine Trade Association of
Virginia; Virginia Beach 2007; Virginia's Eastern Shore Tourism
Commission
STATE OF MARYLAND
Governor Robert Ehrlich, Delaware Department of Natural Resources,
Delaware Department of Transportation
Anne Arundel County; Cecil County; Dorchester County; Mid-Shore
Regional Council (Talbot, Dorchester & Caroline Counties); Upper Shore
Regional Council (Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne's Counties); Wicomico
County; Worchester County
City of Annapolis, City of Salisbury, Town of Bel Air, Town of
Cecilton, Town of Elkton, Town of North East, Town of Perryville, Town
of Port Deposit, Town of Rising Sun, Town of Vienna
Dorchester County Tourism Department, Heart of Chesapeake County
Heritage Area Management; DelMarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences;
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy; Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Council;
Marine Trades Association of Maryland; Maryland Legislative Sportsmen's
Caucus; Nanticoke Watershed Alliance; National Aquarium in Baltimore;
Rural Maryland Council; Somerset County Tourism; The Salisbury
Zoological Park; Salisbury Area Chamber of Commerce
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Governor Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania State Senate, Pennsylvania House
of Representatives, York County, City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Environmental Council, The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program
STATE OF DELAWARE
Governor Ruth Ann Minner; Delaware Economic Development Office;
Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control;
Delaware State Senate; Delaware House of Representatives; Nanticoke
Indian Tribe; New Castle County; City of Seaford; Town of Laurel;
Bethany-Fenwick Area Chamber of Commerce; Greater Seaford Chamber of
Commerce; Laurel Chamber of Commerce; Southern Delaware Tourism, Sussex
County; University of Delaware
GREATER CHESAPEAKE BAY
Chesapeake Bay Commission; Chesapeake Executive Council; American
Rivers; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; The Conservation Fund; Discovery
Creek, Children's Museum; DuPont Corporation; Garden Club of America;
Izaak Walton League of America; National Geographic Society; Sultana
Projects, Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of Gilbert M. Grosvenor, Chairman,
National Geographic Society
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide a statement on the importance of Captain John
Smith's voyages of exploration in Chesapeake Bay. When my good friend,
Pat Noonan, a distinguished member of our Board of Trustees and
Chairman emeritus of The Conservation Fund, came to me with the idea to
create the Captain John Smith Water Trail I got on board immediately
with Pat and Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation as
a founding member of the Friends of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Water Trail.
National Geographic is an international organization with a mission
to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge. For 118 years, the
Geographic has developed new and exciting vehicles to bring the world
to our millions of members and the public at large. Captain Smith's
voyages of exploration are a vital chapter in American history, and
national recognition of these voyages creates yet another new mechanism
to provide information to the public about history, geography, and the
environment.
Nearly 400 years ago, Captain John Smith and a dozen or so men
traveled nearly 3,000 miles on the Chesapeake Bay in a small open boat.
They carefully documented the region's geography, ethnography and
ecology. By learning to speak Algonquin, Smith shared information and
traded with the Native Americans for supplies vital to the survival of
the Jamestown colony. Smith's 1612 map of the region is the Magna Carta
of American cartography and provides us with an invaluable record of
English discovery and our nation's social history. For over 60 years,
it served as the definitive source for all other maps of the region,
providing information on geography, elevation, forest cover, and Native
American settlements and it opened the door to English settlement of
America.
Smith and his accomplishments in Chesapeake Bay were the inception
of the American spirit of adventure. We support the effort to educate
our citizenry about the importance of Smith's voyages and the
establishment of Jamestown. In accordance with our mission, National
Geographic has undertaken a number of actions to promote geography
education in the Chesapeake Bay, including:
A June 2005, National Geographic Magazine story on the
Chesapeake Bay, that included a piece on Captain John Smith
(circulation over 7,000,000 worldwide).
Also in 2005, National Geographic TV & Film produced a
documentary; ``Nightmare in Jamestown.'' They also produced an
educational video; ``John Smith's Voyage of Discovery,'' that
was distributed free of charge to educators across the
watershed and is streamed on our web site.
Our Education Foundation established a $2,000,000
``Chesapeake Bay Geography Education Fund,'' an endowment
intended to encourage and support geography and environmental
education pertaining to the Chesapeake Bay among K-12 students
and teachers.
Also Last year, National Geographic Maps produced and
distributed, free of charge, 100,000 state-of-the-art printed,
large-format maps of the Bay; one side depicting the Bay in
John Smith's time, including natural habitats and Native
American communities, and the other focusing on the
environmental health of the Bay today. We also reconfigured the
map for grades 2-3 and 4-6 and published nearly 1 million
copies for Explorer Magazine for kids.
In addition, we created a web resource that serves students,
educators, and the general public (www.nationalgeographic.com/
chesapeake). The site also includes a new, innovative, online
interactive map.
Since hosting an Education Summit on the Chesapeake Bay in
November of 2005, we have been working with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop the
Chesapeake Interpretive Buoy System, which would mark the John
Smith trail and facilitate environmental monitoring and
education. The buoys could relay historical, educational and
real-time scientific data to nearby boaters and kayakers on the
Trail and to children in their classrooms via the Internet.
National Geographic Books will publish a children's book on
the life of Captain John Smith and a Special Publications book
on John Smith's routes of exploration in the Bay authored by
John Page Williams, Senior Naturalist, at the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
Lastly, our Research, Conservation and Exploration Group has
awarded a grant to Sultana Projects, Inc. in support of their
efforts to build a replica of the shallop used by Captain John
Smith to explore the bay. The shallop will be on display at
National Geographic headquarters in Washington D.C. from
November 3rd, 2006 to January 7th, 2007. It will be accompanied
by an educational exhibit that illustrates the early 17th
century Chesapeake Bay region. This will be an excellent
opportunity to view the shallop up-close before it sets off in
2007 on its epic re-enactment of Smith's voyages.
Thank you for considering my thoughts on the importance of Smith's
voyages of exploration. Smith's spirit of adventure has captured the
imagination of the American public for hundreds of years. Smith's
voyages of exploration and his interactions with Native Americans were
important in the history of the formation of our democracy. In the
event that Congress should establish the Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Trail, we look forward to working with the National
Park Service to continue the development of interpretive materials for
this important chapter in American history.
Senator Thomas. You're very welcome. The other material you
mentioned will be included in the record as well.
Mr. Noonan. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Saikus, you want involvement in the
procedure, as I understand it. Do you have specific concerns
about the location or the design?
Mr. Saikus. Yes. The main thing that's--when I presented,
to my fellow veterans in Ohio, some of the design concepts and
everything like that--and some of them are suffering from
PTSD--the one statement--and you should have seen their facial
expression--was, ``Great, a bunker, that's all we need.'' OK?
I was involved in a veterans memorial in Cleveland, OH,
where we unified all the veterans from the Spanish-American War
to the current Iraq war. And part of the design had gazebos in
the quadrants to have entrances to the garage, because they put
a garage underneath. And what happened, there was glazing
around the gazebo, and, to many of us Vietnam veterans, OK, it
reminded us of site of--we've seen and read about our fellow
veterans that were incarcerated in the POW cages, and we had to
fight it along the way. And that's one of the things about this
process that's very critical to involve more of the Nation's
veterans.
The fund has done great work, and I commend them and salute
them, OK, and fellow veterans, for coming through with ``The
Wall,'' but this is something that the Nation--it belongs to
the Nation, it belongs to all the veterans throughout the
Nation, and this process has to slow down to give a chance for
all the veterans of the Nation--all of us don't have a chance
to participate here. And I'm honored to be here, and I
appreciate your invitation.
Senator Thomas. This bill, as I understand it, would move
up the normal study, then, if this did not pass, and the normal
study took place, would that meet your needs; do you think?
Mr. Saikus. The main thing of this process, what really
concerned me as soon as I heard it, is that it is unusual to
try to move things so fast when there are avenues there. I've
been involved in processes in Cleveland where the FAA came in
and brought in the wetlands into an area where there's veterans
memorials from World War I. Well, there's--none of the World
War I veterans, and very few relatives, are left to be able to
fight that issue.
Senator Thomas. OK.
Mr. Saikus. And they never even consider getting veterans
involved. And we respect veterans and citizens.
Senator Thomas. Sure.
Mr. Saikus. And that's why we want to make sure our----
Senator Thomas. Well, this process has gone on for some
time.
Mr. Saikus. No, I understand that.
Senator Thomas. I mean, this isn't a brand new idea.
Mr. Saikus. No, I understand that. But what we're trying
to--why I'm here is that this idea of just pushing things
along, while there's still time to input--the final design
stages are not there and everything else, and to move it along,
the concern that we have is why should Congress be in such a
rush, when our health benefits and other things for veterans
are not coming through; OK?
Senator Thomas. OK.
Mr. Saikus. So, it's part of that package, where I think
this will require a little bit insight to really heal all of
us.
Senator Thomas. Yes, I understand. Thank you.
Mr. Robinson, just in summary, what is your concern?
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that we've been
involved in a process that doesn't have the values that I
ascribe to those review processes in Washington, DC, from NCPC
and CFA.
Senator Thomas. You mean the opportunity to have input?
Mr. Robinson. No, the actions of the NCPC staff have not
been transparent. I believe they have not been honest. And we
have been as transparent and honest as we possibly can.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Robinson. We've had conflicting views of our work.
We've had--we've been lauded, on one hand, and then it was
turned down, on the other hand. We would like to have a process
that's clear and unfettered by personal bias.
Senator Thomas. I see. Your organization isn't officially
involved; is that correct?
Mr. Robinson. No, Mr. Chairman, it's a Park Service
process, but we're partnering with them.
Senator Thomas. I understand. OK, very good. Thank you for
making that clear.
Mr. Noonan, do you think, from what you've heard today,
that this study will be completed in time to meet the needs for
the 400th anniversary?
Mr. Noonan. Our concern is the mushrooming and growing
interest in this Nation and across the world in the 400th
anniversary celebration, 1 year from today, from this week. The
interest is growing rapidly. There's tremendous need to put in
place understanding and education programs. We have the private
sector anxious to participate. And so, we would hope that this
bill could be moved forward quickly so we could develop the
appropriate partnerships that are now available to us, to
ensure that we have a quality experience.
Senator Thomas. So, the partnerships could be put together
after the bill is approved; is that it?
Mr. Noonan. They could be, but they--the partnerships,
before they commit money, would like to be ensured that there's
going to be a historic trail. And so, the effort to date has
been to try and bring this trail to fruition in an effort to
increase those partnerships. I might ask my colleague, Mr.
Grosvenor, just to comment on his view on the partnership
effort of National Geographic, which is rather extensive, at
this time.
Senator Thomas. Yes, please.
Mr. Grosvenor. Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Alexander hit
the nail on the head. This is a marvelous example of not-for-
profit partnerships forming an important project.
National Geographic's mission will be to disseminate
information about the importance of this historic voyage. We'll
do it through schools, through K-through-12 programs. We'll do
it through magazines. We'll do it through our Web site. It will
drive home to Americans the importance of the Jamestown
celebration. And we feel it's extremely important to get that
information out ahead of that celebration so Americans are
prepared for it.
Senator Thomas. I understand. Thank you.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to thank our panel for their responses. This is
going to be helpful when we consider these bills.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me follow up on your questions to Mr. Noonan, and Mr.
Grosvenor's added comments. You heard my questioning of the
first witness, from the Park Service, Mr. Martin, about waiting
around until they finally finish the study, which they say
might be in October. The voting schedule here is, we're going
to be out of session in October, then elections in November, so
at best, it would be December. From your perspective, Mr.
Noonan--and you're very respected, Mr. Grosvenor, and how you
would want to present this history, the context--you have made
up the maps, but then there's also the dissemination, the
education, the promotion, the garnering of the private-sector
folks who want to help in it. As a practical matter, if this
were actually passed--and the earliest that I can really
foresee it would be in the undesirable, but possible, event
that we have a lame-duck session in December--how many months
does it take, do you think, to properly present this? And would
action in December, as a practical matter, hamstring or hobble
the full potential of this presentation and interest in the
Captain John Smith Historic Water Trail?
Mr. Noonan. The Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia financially helped participate with the study, in the
hope that this bill would pass as quickly as possible. This is
an unprecedented celebration, with millions of people, the
President, the Queen of England. It is a wonderful opportunity
to celebrate 400 years here, 400 years of history.
In order to put together those celebrations and go beyond
Jamestown to the water trail, the opportunities are before us
right now to put in place educational materials, supporting
efforts, engage communities who can plan events around the
water trail. As you know, we have a model shallop that's been
built that will be available to go across the Bay watershed,
following the route. All of these efforts are poised to move
forward, but they seek assurance that this water trail is going
to be a reality so that they can begin their planning. That is
the critical element we now face, whether it's in the nonprofit
sector, local communities, public agencies, or the private
sector.
Senator Allen. Mr. Grosvenor, what's your view of how much
lead time--if this were actually passed, let's say, in
December, or even, probably more likely, February of next
year--the point is, how many months do you think it would take
to get this program, the interest--see, to me, this is
obviously wonderful for Virginia. When I was Governor, we
started the funding and the promotion, the 10-year countdown,
license plates and getting prepared. This is a homecoming for
all of America. That doesn't--folks in Wyoming, folks in
Hawaii, folks in Tennessee, folks all across the country--this
is the cradle of American liberty. It's where the first elected
body was in the New World, first glassmaking, first steel, and
some of the more negative aspects and blemishes of American
history, the first slaves brought into what became the United
States. And, granted, the French and the Spanish were over in
the New World way before Jamestown, but insofar as America and
so many of our foundational values, it was there.
To present this in the whole context of the whole region,
it's not something that is just done in the year 2007. It takes
preparation for this aspect of it, Mr. Grosvenor, because your
people put together these maps, and they didn't do this in just
a weekend. It wasn't just a click and--you know, point and
click. So, how long would you think--how many months do you
think it would take to get this properly presented to
educators, to students, to tourists, and others who would be
interested in the heritage and history of these many voyages
and explorations up the tributaries of the Chesapeake, and the
Chesapeake itself?
Mr. Grosvenor. We started in this project well over a year
ago. We published our first articles of this celebration last
spring. We have entered into a permanent endowment with the
Lenfest Foundation, where we each put a million dollars into a
permanent endowment for the States of Virginia, Maryland--all
the Chesapeake Bay States. We will do this, regardless of
whether it is approved in time. However, this historic water
trail adds a wonderful dimension for kids to understand
exploration, and to tie that in to our work would make it much
more meaningful. We're going to do it anyway, but it will
become much more meaningful for these kids if they can see this
trail. We will have the shallop on display at the Geographic,
which was made--which was a replica of his vessel. That, too,
will draw tens of thousands of kids in K through 12 into this
picture. Having the trail established will clearly make our job
easier. It will make it more successful. And I think the State
will benefit from it dramatically.
Senator Allen. Do you all know of any--we've been talking
here for over an hour about history in Virginia and the
region--do you know of any other--I'm only aware of one other
National Historic Trail that's currently in Virginia, and
that's the one that goes through the Cumberland Gap, as best I
understand it. Is that correct, Mr. Noonan?
Mr. Noonan. I believe that is correct.
Senator Allen. I have no further questions. Thank both you
all for your leadership, your commitment to our heritage, our
history. And one learns from history, and you make--you
understand the foundations, you also understand some of the
mistakes, so that we have the proper action in the future.
And I thank you all with National Geographic. I love maps,
and you all just have fantastic maps. You interest young
people. The way this coordinates with our schools is also, I
think, going to be wonderful for young people, because, after
all, The Virginia Company was a commercial venture, and all of
us are modern-day shareholders in that commercial venture.
And I thank both you and the organizations for your truly
salutary, wonderful, important leadership for our future by
better understanding our past.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator Allen. Come visit the
Oregon Trail sometime.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. I will say the Oregon Trail is, by far, the
very best computer game.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. I love playing. Any teachers, parents, it is
the best computer game. You learn logistics, weather, the
different people along the Oregon Trail trading, bartering,
whether to caulk a wagon or not, or hire an Indian guide. It is
the best. So, I'd highly recommend the Oregon Trail.
Senator Thomas. Very good, thank you, Senator.
Senator Allen. It's the best computer game ever.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
A question for Mr. Noonan and Mr. Grosvenor. You said
you're going to do this anyway, but as I know something about
the entrepreneurial abilities of Mr. Noonan, wouldn't it be
easier to raise all this money and excite all this interest if
it was designated before the 400th anniversary, rather than
after?
Mr. Noonan. Absolutely. December is simply just too late.
If you think about--as you know, Jamestown is going to have a
national ``teach-in.'' That national ``teach-in,'' in November,
will reach every schoolchild in America. Now, why should we not
move forward, create the National Water Trail to be part of
those educational materials that will soon be developed or in
process? It's a wonderful opportunity to share, not just with
the people in this room, but to share with every schoolchild in
America, so they understand the 400-year legacy that we enjoy.
So, Mr. Senator, you're absolutely right that December is
too late. There are too many things that are starting to move
forward that we need to partner in to capture the true essence
of this and make this a national celebration of international
importance.
Senator Alexander. Are you willing to estimate the amount
of money or in-kind contributions that you're hoping that this
trail will attract if it were given a timely approval?
Mr. Noonan. Well, we already have some examples because of
the Governors who have already contributed funding to help just
with the planning, which is unprecedented for a national trail.
Here, the Governors came forward, from Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and Virginia, and said, ``We'll match you on this study.''
That's unheard of. And from that, DuPont Corporation and
Lockheed Martin made substantial gifts. Mr. Senator, I think we
don't know the full measure until we move on with the process.
If you give us the national trail, if the legislation does
pass, we will certainly be able to raise much more money,
increase the number of partnerships, and leverage this desire
to reach every schoolchild. If we don't have the legislation,
and we wait until January or February 2007, it will be too
late, and I think we'll miss the mark.
Senator Alexander. I notice--and maybe you mentioned this a
little earlier--that on March 21 the full advisory board--the
full National Park Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve
the statement of national significance for the trail. What's
the significance of that statement to any action that the
Congress might take?
Mr. Noonan. Mr. Senator, it's probably the most important
statement, because if that element is met, that it is of
national significance and historically importance, which that
study reflects, the 50-some-page report, where some of the best
historians in the Nation working with the National Park
Service, some of the finest people in the National Park
Service, who worked on this, that is an historic document, and
the most important document, in the minds of historians, in the
determination of a National Historic Trail. From that flows the
other elements, including public recreation, which we think
will be easily met. And the gentleman from the National Park
Service testified earlier that, in his view, he felt this trail
would meet all the criteria, and he saw no impediments. That,
Mr. Senator, is a very important statement.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Well, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Just one quick one, Mr. Noonan. One of the problems we're
having, as the park grows, and accumulates more responsibility,
is problems with the funding and so on. What do you see, over
time, with the funding of this trail?
Mr. Noonan. We think the study itself can be completed by
the National Park Service, based upon other Park Service
studies, over a 3- or 4-year period, for $400,000, which we
don't believe is very much. We also believe, in terms of actual
manpower, personnel, we're looking at an annual budget of
$350,000 a year. Again, we're dealing with a water trail. And I
would like to mention the full partnership that NOAA is showing
in providing educational materials. So, we are leveraging out.
And we think for a reasonable sum of money we will get a very
high return on the investment.
Senator Thomas. OK, well, thank you.
Thank all of you very much, and thank you all for being
here. If there are further questions, we'll submit them to you
and hope that you'll give us an answer. Thank you very much.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Fran Mainella to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1a. (S. 1686, Constitution Center): S. 1686 allows the
National Constitution Center to keep 100% of revenue generated from
entrance fees, concessions, and other fees for use in managing the
National Constitution Center.
How much money does the National Constitution Center currently take
in that would be affected by this legislation?
Answer. The National Constitution Center earned over $3 million
during the first six months of this fiscal year (October 1, 2005--March
31, 2006) which should result in annual revenue of $6 million. The
normal annual revenue is approximately $4 million, but the new Ben
Franklin exhibit has increased visitation, and thus, increasing revenue
this fiscal year.
Question 1b. What currently happens to the money that is being
collected?
Answer. The money currently goes to the National Constitution
Center, based on the 1988 authorizing legislation.
Question 1c. Why is this legislation needed?
Answer. Although the 1988 authorizing legislation gives the
National Constitution Center the general authority to operate the
Center, all parties wanted to clarify that the non-profit organization
was authorized to keep the revenue instead of it going to the U.S.
Treasury. Also, the proposed bill language would authorize the National
Constitution Center to occupy the site for 30 years, which enables them
to finance future capital improvement projects.
Upon further review of S. 1686, the Department also would like to
recommend an additional clarifying amendment. As currently drafted, the
bill would amend Section 4 of the Constitution Heritage Act of 1988 by
creating a new section (c)(1)(A)(iv), which would authorize the NCC to
``negotiate and enter into agreements, leases, contract . . .'' we
recommend removing the authority provided to NCC to enter into leases,
since the site would remain under the ownership of the U.S. Government
and thus, such authority may not be appropriate or desirable for NCC's
purposes. Instead, we believe that the authority provided to NCC to
enter into contracts would sufficiently address NCC's future plans for
the site.
Question 2a. (S. 2417/H.R. 4192, Clinton Birthplace Designation):
S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 would designate the Clinton birthplace a National
Historic Site.
Would the National Park Service manage the Clinton birthplace as an
independent unit or add it to the responsibilities of an existing unit?
Answer. The National Park Service testified in support of the
effort to honor the birthplace home of former President Clinton, but
suggested amending S. 2417 and H.R. 4192 to authorize a study. Should
Congress decide to enact these bills, the National Park Service would
manage the Clinton Birthplace Home as an independent unit. The
birthplace home is 89 miles south of Hot Springs National Park, the
nearest park unit in Arkansas.
Question 2b. What is the estimated annual cost to operate and
maintain the Clinton birthplace as a National Historic Site?
Answer. Since the Department testified on S. 2417 and H.R. 4192, we
understand that the Clinton Birthplace Foundation, Inc. has
incorporated the parcel of land where the Clinton Birthplace Home is
located at 117 South Hervey Street and the adjacent parcel of land
where the visitor center is located at 415 West Division Street into
one document of title.
We understand the intention is to donate both parcels under one
title for the Establishment of the National Historic Site. The
estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the proposed National
Historic Site is $633,000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel................................................. $506,000
Leased Space ($12,000-15,000)............................. 15,000
2 leased vehicles......................................... 12,000
Furnishings, supplies and equipment....................... 100,000
-------------
Total cost............................................ $633,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2c. How many full-time and part-time National Park Service
employees will be required to operate and maintain the site?
Answer. It would take 9 employees to operate and maintain the site.
The following is a list of the FTEs needed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superintendent/Site Manager-GS 12/13................ $66,000-78,000
Administrative support-GS 5/6/7..................... $30,000-36,000
Chief, Interpretation--GS 11........................ $55,000
Interpretive Ranger-GS 9............................ $43,000
Interpretive Ranger-GS 5............................ $28,000
Park Guide-GS 4..................................... $25,300
Education Specialist-GS 9........................... $43,000
Facility Manager-WS 5............................... $40,300
Maintenance Worker-WG 3............................. $25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3a. (S. 2419/H.R. 4882, Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center):
What is the role of the National Park Service in reviewing and
approving projects on the National Mall? What other organizations are
involved?
Answer. With respect to National Park Service projects, such as
perimeter security, visitor service facilities, or other similar
capital projects, the NPS submits its projects to the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) and Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) for
approval. In both cases, the District of Columbia State Historic
Preservation Office and/or the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation are consulted.
Since enactment of the Reserve in 2003, there will be no
commemorative works other than the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Center and
the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial constructed on the National Mall.
With respect to commemorative works authorized pursuant to the
Commemorative Works Act in other areas of the city, the project
sponsor, in consultation with the NPS, develops an alternative site
study in the manner described below, generally following the lists of
sites contained in the Memorials and Museums Master Plan. The National
Capital Memorial Advisory Commission considers the alternative sites
and makes a recommendation of a preferred site or sites to the NPS. The
NPS submits its preferred alternative site to the CFA and the NCPC for
approval. Sites for commemorative works must be approved by all three
agencies.
Question 3b. Has the approval process for the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial proceeded any differently than previous memorial proposals?
How?
Answer. In April 2004, after several years of work with CEQ, the
NCPC adopted new Environmental and Historic Preservation Policies and
Procedures that explicitly require an environmental document (defined
as an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement) at
site selection. NCPC's prior environmental procedures were adopted
before the Commemorative Works Act was enacted, and did not
specifically address it. Thus, site selection for memorials approved
before the new policies generally did proceed without an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, with these documents
frequently submitted at the preliminary design stage.
Question 3c. Has the National Park Service had to provide the
National Capitol Planning Commission with the level of documentation/
information being requested for the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center for
any previous memorial, monument, or project on the National Mall? If
yes, please explain.
Answer. As stated in the answer to Question b, site selection for
memorials approved before the adoption of NCPC's April 2004 Policies
and Procedures generally did proceed without an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, with these documents
frequently submitted at the preliminary design stage. Between early
2005 and November 2005, NCPC and NPS actively worked together on the
content of the environmental analysis needed to support the site
selection process for the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center. NCPC and NPS
did not have the same interpretation of what was required by NCPC's new
procedures. On November 29, 2005, after consulting with CEQ, both NCPC
and NPS agreed the information would be incorporated into an
Environmental Assessment for the site selection.
On June 29, on behalf o the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the NPS
submitted its preferred alternative (Site A) for consideration by NCPC
at its August 3 meeting. As agreed between NPS and NCPC staff, the
submission included presentation materials for Site A, proposed design
guidelines, and copies of public comments received on the Environmental
Assessment and our response to those comments. The Environmental
Assessment is part of the submission but was previously provided to
NCPC when it was made available for public comment from May 24 to June
23, 2006.
With respect to other NPS projects, as described in the answer to
question (a) above, the NPS prepares an Environmental Assessment prior
to submission of the project to NCPC and CFA for review and approval.
Examples of projects include the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial,
and Jefferson Memorial perimeter security projects.
Question 3d. Are you aware of any instances where congress has
intervened to select a specific site for a monument, memorial, visitor
center, or other structure on the National Mall prior to a decision by
organizations responsible for the approval process?
Answer. Since the Commemorative Works Act was enacted in 1986,
Congress has not specified a site for a commemorative work, although it
has authorized modifications to existing memorials in the form of
additional commemorative features three times, once at the Lincoln
Memorial and twice at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Congress did
select a specific site when it authorized construction of the National
Museum of the American Indian in 1989 and identified four sites from
which a potential location would be selected for the National Museum of
African American History and Culture in 2003.
Question 4a. (S. 2568, Captain John Smith Water Trail): The usual
process for designating a unit of the national park system is to first
complete a study and then request designation by congress. The National
Park Service is currently working on a study for the Captain John Smith
Water Trail, but the study is not complete.
I understand that you are currently working on a study of the
Captain John Smith Water Trail. When do you expect to complete the
study?
Answer. The draft study should be completed and made available to
public no later than August 2006 and finalized by early October.
Question 4b. Has the National Park Advisory Board provided input to
the study or made any recommendation regarding designation?
Answer. At the March 2006 meeting, the National Park Advisory Board
found the routes of Capt. John Smith's voyages to be nationally
significant for its association with three main themes:
Ethnic Heritage (American Indians)
Exploration and Settlement
Commerce and Trade
This finding of national significance is a required component of
the study process.
Question 4c. How much do you expect it to cost the National Park
Service to establish the water trail and how much will it cost to
operate and maintain as a unit of the national park system?
Answer. Normally, we do not count the direct costs of establishing
a trail. Start-up expenses such as marking trail sites and producing
brochures are counted in the administration costs.
The estimated cost to administer the trail is not available at this
time since that is part of the draft study. However, for the 15 trails
currently authorized to be administered by the NPS (with the exception
of 3 that are authorized units of the National Park System and the
Lewis and Clark NHT), the average annual appropriation is between
$300,000-$400,000.
Question 5a. (S. 2627, NPS Advisory Board Reauthorization): S. 2267
extends to authorization for the NPS Advisory Board for another 10
years and changes the composition of the Board.
What new challenges is the park service facing and how would the
proposed changes to the Advisory Board help them tackle those
challenges?
Answer. New challenges facing the NPS include the ongoing
development of business practices, demand for a broader range of
recreation activities, and maintaining relevance with the changing
demographics of the American people. Reviewing and guiding
implementation of new business practices, assisting with determining
appropriate use of recreation within the parks, and ensuring the parks'
relevance are all challenges the Advisory Board would be very helpful
addressing.
Question 5b. S. 2627 requires that one member of the Board be an
expert in and have appreciation historical recreational opportunities
in the national parks. What is meant by for ``historic recreational
opportunities''? In what way are these activities part of the park
service mission?
Answer. ``Historical recreational opportunities,'' are well-
established recreational visitor uses within the parks. Examples
include hiking, mountaineering, canoeing, fishing, and climbing to name
a few. Having a board member representing ``historical recreational
opportunities,'' would ensure that the recreational community is always
represented on the board. The current composition could allow for
exclusion of recreational expertise in this important aspect of the
visitor experience.
Question 5c. What has been the role of the current NPS Advisory
Board in the revisions to the NPS management policies?
Answer. Following approval of the NPS National Leadership Council,
a special committee of the NPS Advisory Board met with key NPS staff to
discuss the revised draft policies. On the recommendation of the
special committee, the revised draft policies were endorsed by the full
NPS Advisory Board on June 9, 2006.
Question 6a. (S. Res. 468, Santa Rosa Island Resolution): Santa
Rosa Island is currently managed under a court-mediated Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement helped to address lawsuits that
alleged that water quality and soil erosion were getting worse under
NPS management.
What progress has the Park Service made in the management of Santa
Rosa Island since the Settlement Agreement?
Answer. The most dramatic progress has been the restoration of
riparian wetlands throughout the island. Under the settlement
agreement, cattle were removed at the end of 1998. In the 6 years that
followed, the wetlands have become much more biologically productive.
In addition, the endangered island fox was brought back from the brink
of extinction. And, the bald eagle has been observed on the island and
could potentially breed there next year.
Question 6b. Which units of the national park system currently
allow hunting?
Answer. There are 61 units of the National Park System that allow
hunting, but those are mostly national preserves, national recreation
areas, national seashores, and other areas with a designation other
than ``national park.'' Only the following units designated as a
``national park'' allow hunting:
(1) Parks in Alaska, which allow subsistence hunting;
(2) Grand Teton National Park, where licensed hunters help with elk
reduction management programs; and
(3) Santa Rosa Island in Channel Islands National Park, where
hunting is allowed under the settlement agreement and 5-year special
use permits, and is scheduled to end in 2011.
Question 6c. I've heard of congressional interest in providing
special arrangements for military personnel, including disabled
veterans, to hunt deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island. Are you aware of
any existing opportunities for military personnel, including disabled
veterans, to hunt on military lands?
Answer. The Department of Defense has a list of more than 100 sites
under its jurisdiction where hunting is available to military
personnel. Of those sites, more than 70 are accessible to the disabled.
Question 6d. If the island was closed to allow private, paid
hunting trips during part of the year, how many members of the public
would be denied access to the island?
Answer. Currently during hunting season, August to December, about
90 percent of Santa Rosa Island is closed to general recreational use.
It is difficult to project how many people would come if the island
were fully open.
Question 6e. Are any other units of the national park system
managed to provide paid trips for special groups while excluding the
public?
Answer. I am not aware of any units of the National Park System
where the public is excluded to provide paid trips for special groups
to the extent that this occurs at Santa Rosa Island with private
hunting trips for four or five months a year.
Question 6f. How many disabled veterans currently hunt on Santa
Rosa Island? Are you aware of any specific requests by disabled
veterans to hunt on Santa Rosa Island being denied?
Answer. Since the hunt operation is managed by Vail & Vickers and
the firm they contract with, Multiple Use Managers, we have no way of
knowing whether any disabled veterans have requested and been denied
access to hunting.
______
Responses of John V. Cogbill, III to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. (S. 2419/H.R. 4882, Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center):
The National Capitol Planning Commission has been accused of delaying
approval of the site for the Vietnam Memorial Visitors Center. NCPC is
currently working toward having the site location request ready for
consideration by the Commission at their August meeting.
What is the role of the National Capitol Planning Commission in
reviewing and approving projects on the National Mall?
Answer. Congress has designated NCPC as the central federal
planning agency in the National Capital Area. Its job, through planning
and through review, is to preserve and protect the Mall and other
important sites in our nation's capital. NCPC, along with the
Commission of Fine Arts, and the Secretary of the Interior (or
Administrator of the General Services Administration), approves the
site and design of projects authorized under the Commemorative Works
Act. Since enactment of the Reserve in 2003, there will be no more
memorials added to the National Mall other than the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Visitor Center and Martin Luther King Junior Memorial.
Question 2. What approvals, and by which organizations, are
required before the National Capitol Planning Commission can make a
decision regarding site selection for the Vietnam Memorial Visitor
Center?
Answer. Site selection is important in the overall planning for our
nation's capital, and especially for the Mall. Under the Commemorative
Works Act, a sponsoring federal agency submits sites for review to the
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC); the NCPC; and
the Commission of Fine Arts for site selection review. For the Visitor
Center, we are on track to review the site at our August 3 meeting.
Question 3. At what point in the approval process is an
Environmental Assessment required? Has that always been the required
timeframe? Has the President's Council on Environmental Quality
approved your approach to achieving compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act?
Answer. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires
federal agencies to carefully consider environmental impacts in their
decisions. In April 2004, NCPC adopted new Environmental and Historic
Preservation Policies and Procedures. The policies and procedures
require that the submitting agency provide ``an environmental document
that considers the potential environmental effects of a site selection
decision upon the proposed site and a reasonable range of alternative
sites. The level of detail in the environmental analysis should be
proportional to the scope of the site decision, including consideration
of design guidelines and other criteria . . .'' It appears that NCPC
and the National Park Service did not have the same interpretation of
those new procedures. Between early 2005 and November 2005, NCPC and
NPS actively worked together on the content of the environmental
analysis needed to support the site selection process. On November 29,
2005, after consulting with CEQ, both NCPC and NPS agreed this
information would be incorporated into an Environmental Assessment for
the site selection. Subsequently both agencies worked together to
develop an outline for NPS' Environmental Assessment on site selection.
Question 4. I understand that you organization waited until
November 29, 2005, to inform the National Park Service and the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Fund of the need for an Environmental Assessment to
support the site selection process. Is this correct? If so, why did you
wait so long to inform them of the requirement?
Answer. As stated in response to Question 3, NCPC and NPS did not
have the same interpretation of what was required by the NCPC's April
2004 Policies and Procedures. Between early 2005 and November 2005,
NCPC and NPS actively worked together on the content of the
environmental analysis needed to support the site selection process. On
November 29, 2005, after consulting with CEQ, both NCPC and NPS agreed
this information would be incorporated into an Environmental Assessment
for the site selection. The Environmental Assessment was made final on
May 24, 2006 and has been circulated for public comment for
consideration at NCPC's August 3 meeting.
Question 5. Was the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center site approval
removed from the December 1, 2006, agenda for the National Capitol
Planning Commission? If so, why?
Answer. After reviewing the NCPC staff analysis of the Center for
the December meeting, NCPC's Executive Committee determined--informed
by CEQ--that NCPC required a greater level of environmental review to
inform its decision-making. This meant that the Commission could not
act without violating its obligations under NEPA and the item would
have to be removed from the agenda. Just after it heard from CEQ, the
Executive Committee voted to remove the item from the agenda.
Question 6. Are you aware of anyone at the National Capitol
Planning Commission using NEPA compliance or any other part of the site
approval process for the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center to delay or
prevent site selection or construction?
Answer. No. Everyone at NCPC--staff and Commissioners--is committed
to a sound and fair process to carry out the agency's obligations under
the law.
Question 7. Are you aware of any instances where congress has
intervened to select a specific site for a monument, memorial, visitor
center, or other structure on the National Mall prior to a decision by
organizations responsible for the approval process?
Answer. Since the Commemorative Works Act was enacted in 1986,
Congress has not specified a site for a commemorative work, although it
has authorized modifications to existing memorials in the form of
additional commemorative features three times, once at the Lincoln
Memorial and twice at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Congress did
select a specific site when it authorized construction of the National
Museum of the American Indian in 1989 and identified four sites from
which a potential location would be selected for the National Museum of
African American History and Culture in 2003.
Question 8. Has the approval process for the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial proceeded any differently than previous memorial proposals?
How?
Answer. In April 2004, after several years of work with CEQ, the
NCPC adopted new Environmental and Historic Preservation Policies and
Procedures that explicitly require an environmental document (defined
as an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement) at
site selection. NCPC's prior environmental procedures were adopted
before the Commemorative Works Act was enacted, and did not
specifically address it. Thus, site selection for memorials approved
before the new policies generally did proceed without an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, with these documents
frequently submitted at the preliminary design stage.
Question 9. What must happen for NCPC to complete the site review
and selection process between now and the end of August?
Answer. The National Park Service anticipates that it will submit
by June 30, 2006 a revised application for site approval, for
consideration at the National Capital Planning Commission meeting on
August 3. The application will be accompanied by a completed
Environmental Assessment, which was made final on May 24, 2006, the
public comments from the 30-day public comment period, and an analysis
of the comments. Between the time of submission and the meeting, NCPC
staff prepares an Executive Director's Report (EDR) that makes a
recommendation about the request. That EDR and supporting documents
including the Environmental Assessment are posted on NCPC's website and
submitted to the Commission for discussion and consideration at the
meeting. The NPS has assured us that it will meet its submission
deadlines and we fully expect that the Commission will consider site
selection for the Center at its August meeting.
Question 10. What assurances can you provide that NCPC is working
closely with both the Park Service and Vietnam Veterans to get this
finished?
Answer. We consulted with the National Park Service and the
consultant to NPS and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund about the
Environmental Assessment. The National Park Service finalized the
Environmental Assessment on May 24, 2006. The National Park Service is
putting the EA on its website and noticing it for 30 days of public
comment. NCPC will also provide notice that the EA is available for
comment. We continue to have discussions with the National Park Service
about its submission, and will consult with the Park Service staff
regularly as we prepare the Executive Director's Report for
consideration at the August 3 Commission meeting.
Question 11. What is the status of the Environmental Assessment
submitted to your office?
Answer. The National Park Service completed the Environmental
Assessment on May 24, 2006, and is noticing it for 30 days of public
comment. We received the Environmental Assessment electronically on May
24, 2006. The National Park Service will provide public comments and
its analysis of the public comments by June 30, 2006 with its
application for site approval.
______
Responses of Ray Saikus to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Are you concerned about the process that is being
followed for the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center or do you have
specific concerns about the location or design?
Answer. I am most concerned about the process, but I also have
objections to the proposed design and location of the Visitor Center
(see answer to #2 below). My fellow veterans and I are also concerned
that Congress is focusing its time and energies away from more critical
legislation on veterans' issues, and setting a precedent on interfering
with established avenues for veterans and citizens to participate in
determining the end result of such an important decision, just because
someone creates an artificial deadline. When one individual's vision is
bullied through without a review process, it loses its significance and
will not incorporate the necessary features. A Congressional hearing is
not the most effective or appropriate venue for trying to design a
visitor center for a memorial, or to resolve fundamental differences
about the vision for that important place. The Vietnam Veterans
Memorial Fund is not the only voice for this Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Visitor Center. Passage of this bill would endorse them as the sole
voice for Vietnam Veterans, and we object to that also. They have a
right to participate as much as we do. But Jan Scruggs has a very
limited vision of this visitor center as being for the youth, with no
regard as to how the interpretation and design will totally disregard
the feelings and pain of our fellow Vietnam Veterans and their
families, and especially the families of those who made the ultimate
sacrifice for their country. The message that will go out for
generations to come has to bring healing and peace to these veterans
and their families. This is not a show-and-tell theater production that
we are embarking on. I would encourage Senator Thomas and the other
Senators from the Committee and Congress to reflect on how frustrated
and angry they would feel if they were sitting in our place, and they
were being excluded from having a voice in how to interpret for the
public something that they had placed their lives on the line for. We
are trying to help our Vietnam War families and veterans heal from that
war and its ramifications. Instead, Congress just opened another wound
by proposing to bypass the voices of the people affected by the Vietnam
War. Congress has the power to help heal that wound by not passing
these bills.
Question 2 What would you like to see included in the Visitor
Center for the Vietnam Memorial?
Answer. The most critical facet is the location and design of the
visitor center. One that has not experienced the Vietnam War and its
ravages could not visualize every element that might be painful to many
of us. The story to be told, and how it is told, will be the next most
important issue, the transitions from all the suffering to the triumphs
of war, families, and individuals, as well as the legacy that was left,
needs special attention and widespread input. The proposed design is an
underground bunker, which evokes a variety of negative feelings. Aside
from the obvious associations with combat, it also symbolizes Vietnam
Veterans being swept under the rug, and hidden from public recognition.
How much more healing it would be to let the light of day shine in on
the public interpretation of the Vietnam War! Furthermore, an
underground visitor center could be vulnerable to terrorist attack, and
the fear of such an attack would certainly be on the mind of many
veterans in such a setting. We have a long way to go before finding the
answer to what kind of design would be appropriate. The proposed
location is also a problem. As envisioned by Jan Scruggs, it would be a
huge, ugly mound that would defoliate the landscape and degrade the
setting of the Lincoln Memorial, and even the setting of our own Wall.
It should be far enough away that the Wall can speak for itself. The
Wall takes you through a range of emotions that one needs time and
space to regain one's composure and serenity, the Visitor Center if
done properly will also take one through a similar roller coaster of
emotions and there needs to be time and space designed-in to allow for
the recovery. More thought has to be invested into the design and site
selection to understand the relationship between the Wall and the
Visitor Center and where the visitors first visit might be directed to,
if at all. There are many Vietnam Veterans like myself who can and want
to be contributors to make this phase of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
completion one that will leave a sense of belonging and give our fellow
Vietnam Veterans another path to healing.
Question 3. Do you think the Environmental Assessment for the
Visitor Center should be completed during the site selection process or
only for the construction of the facility?
Answer. The Environmental Assessment for the Visitor Center should
be done prior to site selection. It is unsound fiscally to invest in
the design of a structure at a site if there are Environmental issues
that could affect the Visitor Center's design, its costs and its
ultimate function and purpose, as well as the surrounding memorials and
other structures. The Environmental Assessment needs to include an
evaluation of the effects of Radon and other contaminants, if any, on
staff and artifacts, and a study of the emissions from the ventilation
system. Also there should be a detailed security assessment performed
for each potential site, since statistics from the number of visitors
to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial indicate that the final selection will
be a highly visited site with great masses of people congregating, and
could be a potential target for terrorist activity.
Question 4. Do you consider the National Environmental Policy Act
as a beneficial tool for evaluating projects and involving the public
in the process?
Answer. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act are important laws requiring agencies to give
pause and assess the impact of their proposed projects on other
resources, and in particular to protect our surroundings as well as our
rich historic heritage. These laws are not only beneficial tools for
evaluating projects and involving the public in the process, they are
actually essential in helping the public participate and embrace the
preservation of our heritage and our way of life.
______
Responses of Harry G. Robinson, III, to Questions From Senator Thomas
(S. 2419/H.R. 4882, Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center): The proposed
location for the Visitor Center is slightly north of the Lincoln
Memorial and West of the Vietnam Memorial in the open space bordered by
Henry Bacon Drive and 23rd Street.
Question 1. How many visitors do you estimate at the Vietnam
Memorial Visitor Center each year?
Answer. There are approximately 3.5 to 4 million visitors who visit
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial annually. Projections suggest that many
of them will visit the Center.
Question 2. Will it be necessary to install a pedestrian crosswalk
and traffic signal on Henry Bacon Drive or 23rd Street to manage
vehicle and pedestrian traffic?
Answer. Because of the food kiosk being constructed there now, the
National Park Service plans to have two traffic lights installed on
Henry Bacon Drive to allow for the pedestrian traffic to the food
service kiosk. These controls will be sufficient to allow access to the
VVM Center.
Question 3. Will the proposed location impede traffic flow or
increase commute time during rush hour?
Answer. No, the heavy group visitation hours for the Memorial (and
the Center, when completed) are after the AM rush hour and before the
PM rush hour.
Question 4. Is the soil type and water table at the proposed
location conducive to construction of an underground Visitor Center?
Answer. Soils technology will allow construction of the Center
using strategies similar to those used on the World War II Memorial.
The use of a slurry wall to bedrock approximately 34 feet below the
existing grade is the preferred methodology.
______
Responses of Patrick Noonan to Questions From Senator Thomas
(S. 2568, Captain John Smith Water Trail): Unlike any other trail
in the national park system, the John Smith Water Trail would be
entirely over water. It would be marked by buoys to indicate the route
taken by Captain John Smith.
Question 1. Do you foresee a need for a visitor center or any other
land based structures to support and interpret the water trail?
Answer. We do not foresee a need for a new visitor center for the
proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. The
National Park Service (NPS) currently has a number of visitor centers
it operates in the Chesapeake Bay, including a visitor center at the
Jamestown National Historic Site. In the event that Congress
establishes the trail, we envision that the NPS will use existing NPS
and non-NPS visitor centers, administrative facilities and land based
structures to support and interpret the trail to provide information to
the general public about Smith's voyages and the establishment of
Jamestown.
In addition, the proposed trail's comprehensive management planning
process would include guidance on how best to interpret the trail. As
part of the planning process, we could foresee new land-based signage
and informational kiosks on publicly-owned sites, or in conjunction
with non-profit organizations, that would complement existing land-
based structures, the buoy system and Internet-based interpretive
materials.
Question 2. How many visitors do you estimate will visit the water
trail each year?
Answer. Currently, a large number of people travel via boat on
waterways that Smith journeyed on between 1607-1609. At this point, we
do not have an estimate of the number of visitors to the trail.
Question 3. How much do you expect it to cost the National Park
Service to establish the water trail and how much will it cost to
operate and maintain as a unit of the national park system?
Answer. As a general matter, designating a National Historic Trail
is a low-cost means to recognize national significant routes of travel.
We understand that National Historic Trails have four main costs
associated with them, including planning, an advisory commission, plan
implementation and annual operations. In the event that Congress
establishes the trail, the National Trails System Act would require the
NPS to complete a comprehensive management plan (CMP) for the trail. We
understand that, on average, a trail CMP costs between $400,000-600,000
to complete. The cost varies based on the amount of information that is
available to the NPS at the time of the planning process.
The National Trails System Act also requires the creation of an
advisory council for each trail. We understand that a typical council
costs between $10,000-20,000 per year and could operate for ten years.
The cost varies based on the composition of the council and the
geographic location of the council members.
In addition to the cost of developing the plan, the NPS would have
to implement the plan. These costs would include coordinating the
interpretation of the trail with local governments and non-profit
partners. The commitment of funding from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to develop and deploy interpretive buoys
along the trail would reduce NPS's plan implementation costs.
While the operations costs of National Historic Trails (NHT) vary
widely, the average operations cost for an existing NHT is
approximately $360,000. We understand that projected annual operations
cost for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake NHT is approximately
$500,000. This would pay for a trail superintendent, support and
interpretive staff and support a trail office.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Camp Roberts Environmental Office Hunting and Fishing
CALIFORNIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Follow these steps to hunt or fish at Camp Roberts:
1. Purchase the appropriate CDFG license, tags, and stamps.
2. Submit an application for a permit (Permits are ONLY available
for sale during hunting and fishing periods at the wildlife check
station at Gate 3, located near the East Garrison exit from Highway
101). Do not send permit applications to Camp Roberts Environmental
office.
3. Review Camp Roberts (see Camp Roberts regulations section), and
CDFG (http://www.dfg.ca.gov) regulations.
4. Call the Hunting Taped Information Line at (805) 238-8167 as
hunting and fishing may be closed on short notice due to military
operations. Call ahead for possible changes. Unless indicated, no
reservations are required.
5. Registration (check-in) is mandatory each time you hunt or
fish--check into the Wildlife Check Station.
6. Checkout is mandatory at the end of your hunt/fishing trip,
prior to leaving Camp Roberts.
Fishing
CAMP ROBERTS HUNTING AND FISHING PROGRAM--2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Fishing To Hours Open
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 29-30....................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
May 6-21\1\..................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
May 27-29....................... Twin Bridges...... 5:00 am-9:00 pm
June 3-25\1\.................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
Jul 1-23\1\..................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
Jul 29-30....................... Twin Bridges...... 5:00 am-9:00 pm
Aug 5-13\1\..................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
Aug 19-20....................... Twin Bridges...... 4:30 am-9:30 pm
Aug 26-Sept 4................... Twin Bridges...... 4:30 am-9:30 pm
Sept 9-30\1\.................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
Oct 1-15\1\..................... Twin Bridges...... 6:00 am-8:00 pm
Oct 21-22....................... Twin Bridges...... 5:30 am-6:30 pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weekends only.
Fishing may be closed on short notice due to military activities.
Call ahead for possible changes. A Camp Roberts permit and a California
State fishing license are required. See instructions below for
purchasing Camp Roberts permits. The Nacimiento River will be stocked
every three weeks from the end of April to the end of August 2006,
provided that water levels are adequate to support fish. Anglers are
not permitted to bring dogs on post due to endangered species concerns.
Please note that due to safety concerns, fishing will be closed on
September 1st, which is the opening day for dove hunting season.
Hunting
A Camp Roberts permit and California State hunting license are
required. Valid fags and or stamps may also be required. Junior hunters
must show proof of completion of hunter safety course. Hunting permits
are good only at Camp Roberts. Dogs are allowed only for upland game
and waterfowl hunting and must be under strict voice control at all
times.
Turkey Hunt
A two-day hunt for turkey, pig, and jackrabbit will be held on
April 29 and 30. Hours are 5:00 am to 8:00 pm. Shoot time for turkey
hunting is one half hour before sunrise to 4:00 pm.
Pig Hunt
A three-day pig hunt will be held over the long Memorial Day
weekend, May 27-29. Hours are 5:00 am to 9:00 pm.
Archery Hunt
A two-day, archery only hunt for buck deer, pig, and rabbit will be
held on July 29 and 30. Hours are 5:00 am to 9 pm.
Junior Hunt
Aug 19-20: A special junior (under age 16) hunt for buck deer, pig,
and rabbit. Hours 4:30 am to 9:30 pm. Junior hunters must be
accompanied by a non-hunting adult chaperon, 18 years of age or older,
while hunting.
Big Game Hunt
Aug 26-Sept 4: Hunting for buck deer, pig, and rabbit. Hours are
4:30 am to 9:30 pm. Opening day (Aug 26) for deer and pig hunting is by
reservation only. After opening day, big game hunters will, be allowed
on a first-come-first-served basis. To request an opening day
reservation form, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to the address
listed below or visit the website. Reservation forms must be received
by July 1 to be considered for the drawing. Advance hunting permits for
Aug 26 may be purchased at the check station from 1:00 to 8:00 pm on
Aug 25.
G-9 Antlerless Hunt
Aug 28-Sept 4: Hours are 4:30 am to 9:30 pm. Fifteen civilian and
15 military tags for antlerless deer will be issued by drawing only.
Civilians should refer to the 2006 California hunting regulations for
drawing information. Active and retired military personnel who wish to
be considered for the military tag drawing must send their name,
address, daytime telephone number, hunting license number, deer tag or
deer tag number, copy of military ID, and self-addressed stamped
envelope to California Army National Guard, Headquarters Camp Roberts,
ATTN: CAEV-CR (Michael Moore), Camp Roberts, CA 93451-5000. Information
must be received by July 1, 2006 to be considered for the G-9 military
tag drawing.
Dove Hunt
Sept 1-4: Dove hunting does not require reservations. Hours 4:30 am
to 9:30 pm.
October Hunt
Oct 21-22 for quail, waterfowl, pig, and rabbit. (Hunters with A-24
archery deer tags for Monterey County may also hunt in Areas 5, 6, and
7) Hours 5:30 am to 6:30 pm.
November Hunt
Nov 11-12 for pig only. Hours 5:30 am to 6:00 pm. Nov 18-19 for
turkey, quail, waterfowl, dove, pig, and rabbit. Hours 5:30 am to 6:00
pm.
Holiday Hunt
Dec 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and Dec 27-31 for rabbit, pig, quail,
waterfowl, pigeon, and dove (Please check California State regulations
for season dates for allowable game species). Hours are 6:00 am to 6:00
pm.
Permits:
FISHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Annual............................ $15.00
State Reduced Fee License\2\.............. $5.00
State Free License\2\..................... Free
Under 16.................................. Free
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Eligibility criteria and application procedures for a California
State Reduced Fee or Free Fishing License is explained in the
California Sport Fishing Regulations. Anglers must present a State
Reduced Fee or Free license to obtain similar Camp Roberts permits.
HUNTING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular................................... $55.00
One-day................................... $15.00
Disabled Veteran.......................... $5.00
Under 16.................................. Free
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the hunter's and angler's responsibility to know the
applicable California State regulations for hunting and fishing.
Permits are available for sale during hunting and fishing periods
at the wildlife check station at Gate 3, located near the East Garrison
exit from Highway 101. Schedules, maps, and opening day reservation
forms can be obtained by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope,
along with your request, to the address listed below or by visiting the
website. Hunters and anglers MUST register at the check station every
day and MUST also turn in registration forms with harvest results at
the close of EACH DAY.
Information
Califomia Army National Guard, Headquarters Camp Roberts, ATTN:
Hunting and Fishing Program, Camp Roberts, CA 93451-5000
Hunting and Fishing may be closed on short notice due to military
operations. Call ahead for possible changes. Unless indicated, no
reservations are required.
______
Fort Hunter Liggett Hunting Program
DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL) is an active military training facility
encompassing 165,000 acres of grasslands, woodlands, and chaparral
habitats in southern Monterey County. FHL is about 25 miles southwest
of King City along Jolon Road, and about 50 miles northwest of Paso
Robles, west from Highway 101 to Jolon Road. When military training
activities allow, FHL may have up to 130,000 acres open to hunting on
weekends and federal holidays, except Christmas day. The number of
hunters is limited any given weekend and registration is on a first
come first served basis. A FHL permit, valid California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) hunting license, species tags and stamps and photo
identification are required to hunt on Fort Hunter Liggett. CDFG
license, species tags or stamps are not available on post.
Hunting Permit: Annual ($70), or Two-Day ($25) permits are sold
only by mail and are to be picked up when you register to hunt. Junior
(15 years old or younger), senior (age 62 or older), or disabled
veterans (with a CDFG disabled veteran hunting license) are eligible
for a no-fee permit. Follow the directions on the permit application to
purchase your permit. Hunting permits are non-transferable and non-
refundable and expire along with your California hunting license. FHL
fees support hunting and fishing, wildlife and habitat management on
FHL.
Hunted Species: The following species may be hunted on FHL during
open seasons and by CDFG regulations: deer, tule elk, pig, coyote,
bobcat, jackrabbit, cottontail, tree squirrel, dove, quail, pigeon,
turkey (spring and fall), duck, and goose.
Special Weapon Areas: Training Areas 29 and 30 are walk-in only,
and restricted to shotgun, muzzle-loading, and archery weapons.
Training Area 3 is restricted to archery only.
Follow these steps to hunt at FHL
1. Purchase the appropriate CDFG license, tags, and stamps.
2. Submit an application for a FHL Hunting Permit (in Adobe pdf
format) or for a Hunting Permit Application in Word format click here.
3. Review FHL (see FHL regulations section), and CDFG
(www.dfg.ca.gov) regulations.
4. Call the Hunting Information Line at (831) 386-3310 on Thursday
evening for open training areas and Check Station Registration Window
hours for the upcoming weekend.
5. Pick up your FHL hunting permit at registration.
6. Registration (check-in) is mandatory each time you hunt--check
into one open training area to receive a training area pass (Hunter
Registration and Harvest report form). Training area changes are
available at the Wildlife Check Station.
7. Report ALL of your harvest on the harvest report form.
8. Checkout is mandatory at the end of your hunt, prior to leaving
FHL. Return both copies of the Hunter Registration and Harvest Report
Form, and any visitor passes to the check station.
Registration: Hunters must register in person at the check station
registration window located near the campground. Each hunter is
assigned to one open training area at a time. Register Fridays--3-7 pm,
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays--5:00 am-1:00 pm (hours vary
with day-length.) Present the following documents for registration:
1) a completed hunter registration form (available at the check
station),
2) a valid California hunting license, and applicable tags and
stamps,
3) FHL hunting permit, and
4) photo ID
Minor hunters may register when accompanied by an adult with photo
identification.
Visitors: Each hunter is allowed one non-hunting visitor free of
charge. Request a visitor pass during registration.
FHL Regulation 420-26, Game Law Enforcement, summary
All visitors must comply with FHL and CDFG regulations, (see at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov).
1. Seasons: 1.1. Hunting permitted during CDFG open seasons and as
military training allows.
1.2. Hunting hours are from one-half hour before sunrise to one-
half hour after sunset unless further restricted by CDFG regulations.
2. General:
2.1. CDFG, FHL and Army regulations are applicable and enforced on
FHL. Violations may result in:
1) Criminal prosecution in Federal Magistrate, U.S. District Court,
California Municipal, or Superior Court.
2) Suspension or revocation of Fort Hunter Liggett hunting
privileges.
3) Written warning.
4) Uniform Code of Military disciplinary action.
2.2. Loaded firearms are allowed only while hunting in the hunter's
designated training area.
2.3. It is unlawful on FHL to:
a) hunt in ``no hunting'' areas. (No Hunting Areas are Cantonment,
Training areas 12A, 20, 21, 22, the Ammunition Supply
Point, and other areas marked with no hunting signs),
b) drive any vehicle off road,
c) drive on military shooting ranges or shoot from towers,
d) pick up, disturb or carry off Government equipment, ordnance,
munitions or parts of the same,
e) excavate, collect, damage, alter, deface, sell, purchase,
transport, or receive any archeological artifacts,
f) take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, any threatened, endangered or non-game
wildlife species (except coyote and bobcat) or to remove or
destroy any threatened, endangered or any other plants,
g) disturb Protection and Rehabilitation Sites, which are marked
with flagging, cones, and/or signs,
h) cut, collect, or gather any wood,
i) hunt within 200 meters of the installation boundary, public
road, or adjacent to private land, or
j) litter
2.4. The following are unlawful in Fort Hunter Liggett training
areas:
k) access without a valid FHL training area or visitor pass,
l) being intoxicated or consuming alcohol,
m) fires,
n) camping,
o) use of off road motorcycles or all terrain vehicles (ATV's),
p) dogs (except voice trained dogs for bird hunting),
q) swimming,
r) target shooting, or
s) possession of air-guns, slingshots or spring loaded devices.
2.5. Vehicles must be parked within the training area noted on the
hunter registration form, or within a designated parking area.
2.6. Vehicles in training areas must have the vehicle copy of the
hunter registration form clearly displayed on the dash and hunter copy
on person at all times.
2.7. The speed limit on FHL is 10 mph when passing troops and 25
mph in all other areas, unless posted otherwise.
2.8. Report uncontrolled fires, the location of unexploded
munitions, and any observed violations of Federal, State or FHL
Regulations to: Law Enforcement Activity (LEA), phone # (831) 386-2513
or (831) 386-2526
3. Training areas:
3.1. FHL is broken into 29 training areas, a cantonment, and ASP.
4. Firearms:
4.1. Handguns may be used per state regulations, but must have
barrels 6 (six inches) or longer and be .38 caliber or larger (.243
or larger in rifle caliber used for handguns). Handguns in a vehicle
must be in a locked container and unloaded (chamber and magazine).
4.2. Rifles of 22 rimfire-caliber are allowed only for hunting tree
squirrel and rabbit.
4.3. Tracking Wounded Game: Hunters may not track wounded animals
into a closed area unless accompanied by law enforcement personnel. If
wounded game goes off the installation, it is the hunter's
responsibility to obtain permission or access from the landowner.
4.4. Tree Stands may be used if they cause no damage and are
completely removed each day at the close of hunting hours.
5. Safety:
5.1. Hunters may not hunt near soldiers. If soldiers are sighted,
the hunter must exit the area and notify FHL Range Control (831) 386-
2403, Law Enforcement Activity (831) 386-2526, or Wildlife Check
Station (831) 386-2677.
5.2. Check in to ensure that you do not enter training areas in
which live fire exercises are being conducted.
5.3. Check out to ensure that someone will look for you if you are
injured or stranded on range.
FORT HUNTER LIGGETT HUNTING AND FISHING AREAS AVAILABLE FOR
THURSDAY MAY 11 THROUGH THURSDAY 18, 2006
1. Information regarding training-areas and reservoirs available
for hunting and fishing, as well as registration hours are also posted
on our web site and normally updated by 5:00 pm on Thursdays.
2. All permit applications will be accepted by mail only.
3. Hunting opportunities for this weekend include: Wild Pig,
Jackrabbit, Coyote.
4. Training areas are available for General hunting Saturday May
13th, and Sunday May 14th, 2006 include: 4, 5, 8, 9, 10/13, 11, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 30.
Training area availability will be very limited or not available
during most weekends in June, July, and August due to training
activity. Access to training area will be very limited during the A-
Zone archery deer hunt and no training area access during the first 3
weekends of the A-Zone general deer hunt.
5. Due to Military training requirements or security reasons,
training areas and reservoirs may be closed without a notice.
6. Anglers register five days per week (Wednesday-Thursday) at the
Hunting & Fishing registration center located on Alamo Road near the
Fort Hunter Liggett main gate. Window hours will be from 8:00 am to
4:30 pm on Wednesday and Thursday, Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with pre-
registration from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Saturday & Sunday from 5:00 am to
1:00 pm. Monday and Tuesday Anglers register at the Environmental
Office (Building# 238) from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
7. Reservoirs open for fishing Thursday May 11th through Thursday
May 18th, 2006 include: Del Venturi, Gravel Pit Generals, Hughes,
Woodrow, El Piojo, Sycamore, and Twin Valley.
8. You may contact us at our email address: huntnfish@liggett-
emh1.army.mil.
9. For more Hunting & Fishing program information or an application
package, please visit our website at http://www.liggett.army.mil and
click on the hunting and fishing link below the photographs to access
the hunting and fishing program page. You may contact our staff at
telephone number (831) 386-2677 or (831) 386-2214, during open business
hours.
______
National Parks Conservation Association,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2006.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 327,000 members of the National
Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I am writing to express our
strong support for S. Res. 468, a resolution supporting the National
Park Service's continued administration of Channel Islands National
Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in accordance with the laws,
regulations and policies of the agency. NPCA commends Senators
Feinstein and Boxer for introducing this important and timely
legislation.
The purpose of the Channel Islands National Park is ``to protect
and interpret the internationally significant natural, scenic,
wildlife, marine, ecological, historical, archeological, cultural, and
scientific values of the Channel Islands.'' Santa Rosa Island, part of
the Channel Islands National Park, is to be enjoyed by all Americans
and should not be limited to a select few. NPCA is strongly opposed to
recent legislative efforts to undermine a court-approved settlement to
restore the natural resources on the island, and efforts to limit full
public access. S. Res. 468 puts the Senate on record in strong support
of restoring, managing, and providing public access to one of nation's
treasures--Channel Islands National Park.
Additionally, NPCA supports S. 2568 to establish the Captain John
Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail to link existing and new water
trails in the basin. Currently, only about two percent of the
Chesapeake Bay's extensive shoreline is accessible to the public.
Creating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
would successfully link existing Chesapeake Bay Gateway Network sites,
while also providing public access and recreational opportunities in a
cost-efficient and low-impact manner.
While NPCA supports efforts to reauthorize the National Park System
Advisory Board, we are unaware of the need to change the composition of
the board, and are concerned with any efforts to reduce the number of
required members with scientific expertise and natural and cultural
resource management, as proposed in S. 2627.
Finally, regarding S. 2419, NPCA supports enhancing interpretation
for visitors to the National Mall's monuments and memorials, including
the Vietnam War Memorial. While we understand members of Congress have
expressed concerns about the length of time it has taken for
construction of the visitor center to proceed, we believe that Congress
should not waive environmental and historical requirements and should
generally let standard procedures be followed. This legislation must
not be considered to set any precedent for other proposals on the
National Mall or other national park units.
Sincerely,
Blake A. Selzer,
Legislative Director.
______
Defenders of Wildlife,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2006.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka: On behalf of the
nearly 500,000 members of Defenders of Wildlife, I am writing to
express our strong opposition to Section 1036 of H.R. 5122, the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007, which would require the
National Park Service to cease implementing its plan to eliminate non-
native deer and elk populations on Santa Rosa Island. Section 1036
would harm native plants and animals on Santa Rosa Island, limit public
access to this National Park, and undermine current efforts to recover
the Channel Island fox, an endangered species. The Channel Island fox
is also listed as threatened under the California State Endangered
Species Act. This unique fox species is found nowhere else in the world
and as such is California's only endemic carnivore.
Defenders of Wildlife has been a participant in the recovery
planning work for the Channel Island fox since 2000. Our California
Representative, Cynthia Wilkerson participates in the Channel Island
Fox Recovery Implementation Team which formed after the listing of four
of the island fox subspecies as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act in 2004. Section 1036, proposed by Representative Duncan Hunter,
would undermine the immense amount of time and resources that have been
spent to address the recovery needs of this species.
The Channel Island fox has been bombarded by a host of ecological
assaults that reflect the fragile nature of all island species.
Widespread use of DDT in the 1950's and 1960's lead to the extirpation
of bald eagles from the northern Channel Islands (Santa Rosa, Santa
Cruz, and San Miguel). This opened the islands to invasion by golden
eagles, a species not historically found on the islands. Golden eagles
are known to feed on piglets and fawns, deer and elk carcasses, and
island foxes. The island foxes did not evolve with aerial predators (as
bald eagles are not known to eat foxes) and are therefore very
susceptible to predation by golden eagles.
The presence of golden eagles in the northern Channel Islands has
been identified by the Recovery Team as the number one threat to island
fox recovery. Since 1999, over 30 golden eagles have been removed from
the northern islands and relocated successfully to northeast
California. Currently there remain 2 active golden eagle territories on
Santa Rosa. These eagles are known to prey on foxes on San Miguel
Island as well. Juvenile bald eagles have been reintroduced to the
Channel Islands and should begin to defend territories from golden
eagles sometime in the summer of 2006 or 2007.
In order for island fox recovery to succeed, introduced deer and
elk must also be removed from the islands. Research by Paul Collins of
the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum conducted on Santa Rosa Island
revealed that mule deer fawns comprise 40% of prey remains at golden
eagle nests. The recovery program for the island fox relies on the
complete phase out of the non-native deer and elk populations by 2011.
This provision was ratified by the United States District Court for the
Central District of California through a settlement agreement approved
in 1997.
Recovery actions for the Channel Island fox have been extensive.
Over the past 10 years, upwards of $3 million has been spent on captive
breeding, golden eagle removal, bald eagle reintroduction, feral pig
removal, and monitoring of foxes. Close to $1 million of this effort
has been focused on removing golden eagles. To date, the recovery
efforts have shown amazing progress and appear on track for success.
Santa Rosa Island fox populations dropped from about 1500 in 1993 to 32
captive individuals in the year 2000. No animals were left in the wild
at that time. With the release of foxes bred in captivity, there were
15 in the wild in 2004 and that number is currently up to 32.
Similarly, the San Miguel fox population crashed from 450 in 1993 to 1
wild individual and 28 in captivity in 2000. Last year there were 15
wild foxes on San Miguel and this number is currently up to 40 due to
release of some of the captive bred foxes. The success to date on all
the northern islands would be jeopardized by the proposal to allow
introduced deer and elk populations to continue to exist on Santa Rosa
Island. It should be noted that maintaining introduced deer and elk
populations on Santa Rosa Island, and consequent feeding on deer and
elk fawns and carcasses by golden eagles, poses a threat to 3 separate
endangered subspecies of Channel Island fox as golden eagles are known
to fly between islands and golden eagles on Santa Rosa Island have been
known to kill foxes on San Miguel and also threaten those on Santa Cruz
Island.
The current court settlement regarding hunting on Santa Rosa Island
requires that Vail & Vickers Inc., which owned the island since 1902
and sold it to the National Park Service in 1986 for about $30 million,
phase out deer and elk hunting by 2011. The proposal by Representative
Hunter would prohibit this phase out entirely. This appears to be an
attempt to secure indefinite revenues to a private hunting operation
that has already been paid for its land and use rights by the public
through the National Park Service. Additionally, the Hunter amendment
would permanently close 90% of Santa Rosa Island to the public for
nearly half the year as hunting areas are closed to the public during
hunts. Maintaining populations of introduced species for the express
purpose of hunting is contrary to the intended purpose of the island as
a National Park.
Last year, the Channel Islands National Park had more than 500,000
visitors. Maintaining introduced deer and elk herds for private hunting
conflicts with this public use would derail recovery efforts for 10
species of imperiled plants as well.
In short, Section 1036 of H.R. 5122 would represent an
irresponsible misallocation of public funds, undermine the ongoing and
successful work to recovery the federally endangered Channel Island fox
and other imperiled species, and greatly reduce the public's access to
the Channel Islands National Park. Defenders of Wildlife strongly
opposes this provision and urges its removal from the final bill.
Please feel free to contact our staff Cynthia Wilkerson directly
should you have any questions regarding this matter. She can be reached
at 916-313-5800 ext.110 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Executive Vice President.
______
Statement of the Center For Biological Diversity, Defenders of
Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition, Federation of Fly Fishers:
Northern California Council, Humane Society of the United States,
Institute for Wildlife Studies, National Environmental Trust, National
Parks Conservation Association, Native Plant Conservation Campaign,
Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society
please oppose destructive channel islands national park provision
in the fy 2007 defense authorization bill
On behalf of the millions of members represented by our
organizations, we write to express our strong opposition to Section
1036 of the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill put forth by
Representative Duncan Hunter concerning Santa Rosa Island, part of the
Channel Islands National Park.
Section 1036 would counteract restoration efforts at the national
park, as well as decrease public access to the park. The proposal
represents a severe threat to the recovery and survival of 3 subspecies
of the island fox that are each listed as endangered under the federal
Endangered Species Act. This unique fox species is found nowhere else
in the world and only 32 wild foxes currently exist on Santa Rosa
Island. The proposal would undermine the immense amount of time and
resources that have been spent to address the recovery needs of this
species on the island.
The provision would close off a portion of the island to the
public, and undermine a court ordered settlement that calls for the
phase out of hunting on the island over the next five years. The
current court settlement regarding hunting on Santa Rosa Island
requires that Vail & Vickers Inc., which owned the island since 1902
and sold it to the National Park Service in 1986 for about $30 million,
phase out deer and elk hunting by 2011. The hunting currently prohibits
full public access to the park as portions open to hunting are closed
to the public. Maintaining populations of non-native species for the
expressed purpose of hunting is contrary to the intended purpose of the
island as a national park.
In short, Section 1036 of the FY Defense Authorization Bill would
undermine the on-going and successful work to restore the island,
including the recovery of the federally endangered Channel Island fox,
and greatly reduce the accessibility and ultimate value of the Channel
Islands National Park.
The National Park Service is strongly opposed to this provision and
the Defense Department has not requested it. We strongly urge you to
oppose this unnecessary provision that will harm both restoration and
public access on one of our nation's crown jewels, the Channel Islands
National Park.
______
A Resolution of the Board Of Supervisors of the County of Ventura
Opposing Removal of Santa Rosa Island from Channel Islands National
Park
Whereas, Santa Rosa Island is the second largest of the Channel
Islands and contains 11 endangered species, unique species not found
elsewhere, and provides unparalleled recreational opportunities to the
American general public, and
Whereas, numerous military bases throughout California provide
ample training and other opportunities and in fact the Department of
Defense is reducing the number of military bases in California and
throughout the nation, and
Whereas two of the Channel Islands, San Nicholas and San Clemente
Islands, are already military reserves, and
Whereas, the Board of Supervisors supports, encourages, and
welcomes the relaxation and recreation of military service personnel,
veterans, and their guests at any and all parks in Ventura County, and
Whereas, Congress purchased Santa Rosa Island for the purpose of
restoring its native ecology and making it available to the American
pubic for recreation and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors
strongly supports these objectives, and
Whereas, Santa Rosa island best serves the United States of America
as a National Park that preserves the Islands' character as North
America's Galapagos Islands.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Ventura supports the continued inclusion of Santa Rosa island
in Channel Islands National Park and its management by the National
Park Service and opposes any change in this status of Santa Rosa
Island.
Upon motion of Supervisor Bennett, seconded by Supervisor Mikels,
and duly carried, the foregoing resolution was approved on January 24,
2006.
Linda Park,
Chair, Board of Supervisors.
ATTEST:
John F. Johnston,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
______
National Coalition to Save Our Mall,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2006.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas and Committee Members: The National Coalition
to Save Our Mall strongly believes that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Visitor Center bill proposed by the House, which is the subject of this
hearing, is bad legislation and sets a dangerous precedent. It will
open the floodgates for potentially endless violations of the
moratorium, in effect making the moratorium moot.
We agree with your own comment from February 16, 2006, that ``it's
time to take another serious look at the Mall as was done in 1901 . . .
the Mall has outgrown its britches and it will take more than a new
belt and suspenders to fix it.'' We believe that this hearing is an
opportunity for the Committee to call for an independent National Mall
Commission that would fulfill a series of goals for the Mall's many
constituencies:
1. Congress needs space for museums and monuments ``on the Mall.''
The moratorium is not working: sponsors are reluctant to
accept sites off the Mall; exceptions are being made. The
Mall is more than a ``completed work of civic art,'' it
needs to respond to our ever-evolving democracy. The Mall
needs to expand to provide new sites.
2. The public needs visitor amenities, orientation, historical
interpretation, transportation, and more things to do on
the open space. The Mall needs public programming aimed at
improving and expanding its urban park quality and
providing recreational and cultural activities day and
night.
3. Organizers of modern mega events and festivals need places for
trucks, large tents, and construction that don't damage the
Mall's turf grass and trees and obstruct the majestic
vista. The Mall needs new areas, covered and open-air, to
accommodate national large-scale functions never foreseen
in the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans.
4. The six managing agencies with jurisdiction over different parts
of the Mall need a means of coordinating their ongoing,
individual planning efforts (currently they don't even
agree on a definition of the Mall); the last comprehensive
plan for the Mall was the McMillan Plan of 1901-1902.
Uncoordinated security gives this problem urgency. The Mall
needs an up-to-date, comprehensive Third Century master
plan that provides a Mall-wide context for the agencies'
individual jurisdiction plans.
5. The Third Century Mall master plan, in order to be intelligently
implemented in association with the six managing agencies,
needs a single entity to function as steward of that plan.
That entity needs authority to obtain public and private
funding, coordinate implementation and enforce compliance
with the plan, and provide meaningful national public
involvement.
6. As a first step toward achieving these goals, the American
people need a forward-looking vision for the Third Century
Mall that includes Mall expansion and unified stewardship.
The Third Century Vision should embody the spirit,
inspiration, and enduring value of our democracy, and the
central place of this great public open space as grand
stage where Americans learn, meet, celebrate achievements,
play, and seek redress of grievances in a national
spotlight.
We hope that you and fellow Committee Members recognize the urgency
of the Mall's need and will create an independent Third Century Mall
Commission to expand the definition of the Mall, prepare an updated
Mall master plan, and unify Mall stewardship in a way that includes
meaningful public involvement.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center legislation violates
the very spirit of the National Mall as symbol of American government
and the rule of law. If passed, it would undermine the right of public
participation in a fair, mandated administrative review process, which
is one of the most important democratic values that our veterans fought
and died for.
Please feel free to call on us if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
W. Kent Cooper, FAIA,
Coordinator, Third Century
Initiative,
Judy Scott Feldman, Ph.D.
Chair.