**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING H.R. 53, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM LEASE WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**APRIL 23, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 53, a bill to enter into a long-term
lease with the Government of the United States Virgin Islands.

The Department opposes H.R. 53 because it would allow the lease of
property within a National Park Service unit for a use inconsistent with
the purpose for which the park was created. The Department is concerned
about the precedent this would set for other communities adjacent to
national parks that may want to develop National Park Service lands for
a local, civic purpose.

H.R. 53 would authorize the Secretary to lease to the U.S. Virgin
Islands real property, including any improvements, for the purposes of
constructing a local school complex to serve grades K through 12.

Virgin Islands National Park (subsequently referred to as "park") was
authorized by Congress in 1956 and established largely by an initial
donation of land on St. John from Laurance Rockefeller through the
Jackson Hole Preserve, Incorporated. Congress enlarged the park in 1962
by adding 5,650 acres of submerged lands along the north and south
coasts of St. John. In 1978, Congress added approximately 135 acres at
Hassel Island in St. Thomas Harbor to the park. The park protects
Caribbean forests, coral gardens, beaches and historic ruins, and
currently owns 12,917 acres of land and water within its 14,689-acre
boundary.

The property identified for this lease is a 10-acre plot within the park
that is part of Estate Catherineberg, a historic sugar plantation
located near the center of the island, close to Centerline Road. The
property is not part of the Rockefeller donation, and is not encumbered
by the reversionary clause that restricts the use of the Rockefeller
properties to national park purposes. Though no formal survey has been
done, the property is believed to contain fewer historic resources than
other parts of the Estate.

The lease authority proposed by H.R. 53 would exceed the authority
currently granted to the Secretary to lease real property within units
of the National Park System. The 1998 National Parks Omnibus Act gives
the Secretary the authority to lease buildings and associated property,
as long as the lease does not "result in degradation of the purposes and
values of the unit."

Public education is not in conflict with the purpose of Virgin Islands
National Park. However, the construction of a complex of buildings is in
conflict with the direction given by the park's authorizing legislation,
which states that the park "shall be administered and preserved by the
Secretary of the Interior in its natural state..."

The National Historic Preservation Act gives the Secretary of the
Interior authority to lease historic property, including historic
buildings and historic lands, but only if the lease "will adequately
insure the preservation of the historic property." New construction of
an education complex would not insure that the historic character of the
land in question is preserved.

Finally, the Land and Water Conservation Act authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to convey to a freehold or leasehold interest in lands
within the national park system, but this authority does not apply to
"property within national parks."

During the past 14 years, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the National Park
Service have discussed other proposals that would allow the U.S. Virgin
Islands to construct a school on land currently owned by the National
Park Service. These proposals have included an administrative land
exchange. Though the Secretary of the Interior does have the authority
to make minor boundary revisions of a unit of the National Park Service
system through a land exchange, the Land and Water Conservation Act
stipulates several conditions that must be met before the land is
exchanged and the boundary is revised.

First, the land gained in the exchange must be "necessary for ...the
proper preservation, protection, interpretation or management of an area
of the national park system." Second, the total value of the land
exchanged -- the combined value of both the land added and the land
deleted from the unit -- must be less than \$750,000. Though no formal
determination has been made, it appears that the Estate land alone is
likely to be worth more than \$750,000.

The Department understands that the U.S. Virgin Islands would like to
build a school in a central location on St. John and that
reasonably-priced private land is largely unavailable. However, the
Department believes this would set a dangerous precedent for other units
of the National Park Service system. Several units of the system are
located in areas where reasonably-priced private land is unavailable for
civic purposes. The enactment of H.R. 53 might encourage these
communities to pursue the use of park lands for purposes other than the
national purpose for which they were designated.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions
you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING H.R. 1483, A BILL TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996 TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN NATIONAL
HERITAGE AREAS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**APRIL 23, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
1483, as passed by the House, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public
Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain
national heritage areas, and for other purposes. The committee has asked
us to only address specific sections contained within Title II through
VI in our testimony. We should note, however, that the Department
testified on May 15, 2007, in opposition to the sections in Title I that
extend the authorization for federal funding for nine established
national heritage areas. The Department has also cited concerns or
recommended the committee defer action on other provisions included in
H.R. 1483.

H.R. 1483, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act as passed by the
House, has six titles related to national heritage areas. The Department
will present its position on each of the specific sections within each
of the five titles as requested by the committee.

Title II, Subtitle C would establish the Muscle Shoals National Heritage
Area in the counties of Colbert, Franklin, Lauderdale, Lawrence,
Limestone, and Morgan in northwestern Alabama, and would designate the
Muscle Shoals Regional Center as the local coordinating entity
responsible for developing and implementing the management plan for the
heritage area. The National Park Service is in the process of conducting
a feasibility study, authorized by Public Law 107-348, to determine the
suitability and feasibility of establishing this region as a national
heritage area. We expect to complete the study later this year, at which
time we will provide a recommendation on the suitability and feasibility
of establishing the Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area. Until the
study is completed, it would be premature to state a position on its
designation as contained in this subtitle, so we recommend that the
committee defer action on this provision.

Title II, Subtitle D would establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage
Area that includes 37 Massachusetts and 8 New Hampshire communities
northwest of Boston. This is a region that substantively influenced our
democratic forms of governance and the development of intellectual
traditions that underpin the concepts of American freedom, democracy,
conservation, social justice, and ethnic diversity. Its natural and
community resources are exceptional examples of the rural beauty of the
New England landscape.

A feasibility study and addendum was completed by the proposed
management entity, the Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc., and
reviewed by the National Park Service. The study found that the area met
the criteria for designation as a national heritage area. However, the
Department recommends that the committee defer action on this area and
all other proposed heritage area designations until program legislation
is enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for the designation
of national heritage areas. In summer 2006, the Administration sent to
Congress a legislative proposal to establish such guidelines and a
process for designation. The National Heritage Areas Partnership Act, S.
278, was introduced during the 110^th^ Congress and it incorporated the
majority of the provisions of the Administration's proposal. We look
forward to continuing to work with Congress on this very important
issue.

With 37 national heritage areas designated across 27 states, and more
heritage area legislative proposals in the pipeline, the Administration
believes it is critical at this juncture for Congress to enact national
heritage area program legislation. This legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. Program legislation also
would clarify the expectation that heritage areas work toward
self-sufficiency by outlining the necessary steps, including appropriate
planning, to achieve that shared goal.

Title II, Subtitle F would establish the Santa Cruz Valley National
Heritage Area in southern Arizona, managed by the Santa Cruz Valley
Heritage Alliance Inc. The proposed Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage
Area encompasses approximately 3,300 square miles of the upper and
middle Santa Cruz River watershed and the upper Sonoran Desert. It
includes two units of the National Park System, Tumacacori National
Historical Park which preserves a Spanish Colonial Mission, and Saguaro
National Park which protects a diverse and picturesque area of the
Sonoran Desert. The Juan Baptista de Anza National Historic Trail also
crosses the heritage area's boundary. Both the Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service manage extensive land within the proposed
national heritage area.

A feasibility study was completed by the Center for Desert Archaeology
and reviewed by the National Park Service. The study found that the area
met the criteria for designation as a national heritage area. However,
the Department recommends that the committee defer action on this area
and all other proposed heritage area designations until program
legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and a process for the
designation of national heritage areas.

Title III, Section 3001 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with appropriate State historic preservation officers,
State historical societies, and other appropriate organizations, to
conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the
Northern Neck National Heritage Area in the Commonwealth of Virginia to
evaluate if it meets the criteria for heritage area designation. The
Secretary would be required to submit a report to Congress, no later
than three years after funds are made available, on the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the study. The Department supports
enactment of this title, however, we believe that any funding requested
should be directed first toward completing previously authorized
studies.

Title IV, Section 4006 would amend the Erie Canalway National Heritage
Corridor Act (Title VIII of Appendix D of Public Law 106-554) with
several changes to improve the operation of the federal commission. The
Department supports these amendments.

Title V, Section 5001 states that it is the sense of Congress that the
Federal Government should not fund a national heritage area in
perpetuity. As outlined in the Administration's legislative proposal,
and as included in S. 278 as reported by the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, it is our expectation that heritage areas should
work toward self-sufficiency with federal funding through the National
Park Service limited to a 15-year period. The Department concurs with
this provision.

Title VI, Section 6001 states that all designated and future designated
lands within any natural heritage area for which funding is provided
under this Act shall be exclusively governed by relevant State and local
laws regarding hunting, fishing, and the possession or use of a weapon,
trap, or net. Relevant State and local laws already apply to lands
within a national heritage area and the majority of recently designated
heritage areas include a provision in the authorizing legislation that
state that nothing in a heritage area's designation diminishes the
authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife including the
regulation of fishing and hunting within the heritage area. However, the
Department is concerned that there are federal lands within national
heritage areas, including units of the National Park System, that do not
allow hunting, fishing, trapping, or other wildlife harvesting
activities. Under Departmental regulations, the National Park Service is
already required to consult with State agencies on certain fish and
wildlife management actions within national park units. We would
recommend that the section be amended to exempt federal lands within
national heritage areas from this requirement and we recommend that the
reference be changed to "national" heritage areas to reflect the correct
name of these areas.

Finally, we would like to work with the committee on amending this bill
to include an additional title that would make a technical amendment to
the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Act (Public Law 99-647) to allow ex officio or delegates of commission
members to attend commission meetings on behalf of the State officials
who sit on the commission. This is a standard provision in most recently
established federal commissions, but was not included in the Act
establishing the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National
Heritage Corridor, and this oversight has hampered the work of the
commission.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I am prepared to answer
any questions that you or other members of the committee might have at
this time.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING S. 662, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
CONDUCT A STUDY TO EVALUATE RESOURCES AT THE HARRIET BEECHER STOWE HOUSE
IN BRUNSWICK, MAINE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**APRIL 23, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
662, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study to evaluate resources at the Harriet Beecher Stowe House in
Brunswick, Maine.

The Department supports the enactment of this bill. However, the
Department feels that priority should be given to the 29 previously
authorized studies for potential units of the National Park System,
potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the
National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic River System that
have not yet been transmitted to the Congress.

If enacted, the bill would direct the Secretary to conduct a special
resource study to evaluate the national significance of the Harriet
Beecher Stowe House and surrounding land, and to assess the suitability
and feasibility of including the site as a unit of the National Park
System. The study, which is to be completed within three years after
funds are made available for it, will follow the criteria for potential
new areas contained in section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C.
1a-5(c)) which require such studies to address four areas: significance,
suitability, feasibility, and management options.

The Harriet Beecher Stowe House, located at 63 Federal Street,
Brunswick, Maine, is a National Historic Landmark whose oldest portion,
a 2-story wood frame house, dates from 1807. It was the residence from
1850 to 1852 of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of the influential
indictment of slavery, *Uncle Tom's Cabin,* which was written here. It
was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962, and is listed by
the National Park Service in its Underground Railroad travel guides as a
site of interest.

Harriet Elizabeth Beecher (1811-1896) was born in Connecticut and moved
with her family to Cincinnati, Ohio in 1832 at the age of 21. There she
was a teacher and author, and traveled to Kentucky where she interviewed
fugitive slaves and witnessed the brutality of slavery first-hand. In
1836 she married Calvin Ellis Stowe, who later became a professor at
Bowdoin College, prompting her move to Brunswick, Maine. She used her
personal experiences to develop *Uncle Tom's Cabin,* published as a
serial in 1851 in an antislavery newspaper, and in book form the
following year. An enormous popular success, its antislavery message
provoked strong reactions throughout the South. In response to
criticism, she wrote *A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin,* (1853), a collection
of factual material on slavery intended to justify the charges implied
in the novel. She continued to lead the life of an active writer,
publishing a second anti-slavery novel, poetry, and numerous essays and
fictional works about New England social life.

The property at 63 Federal Street was operated as an inn for many years,
and was expanded several times to include an attached barn, several
ells, and a 54-unit motel. The complex was purchased several years ago
by Bowdoin College, which rehabilitated the motel for use as a student
dormitory. The main house is not currently in use or open to the public.
The college has recently undertaken a study of the historic structure,
to identify remaining elements that would have been present during
Stowe's era, and to explore various options for preserving it. The
college is committed to preserving the building, but is reluctant to
undertake the financial burdens of restoring and operating it as a house
museum.

The property is one of three former Stowe homes listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The others are houses at 2950 Gilbert
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio and 73 Forest Street, Hartford, Connecticut,
both of which are open to the public as sites honoring Harriet Beecher
Stowe. The special resource study would allow National Park Service
professionals to build upon the historic structure reports recently
prepared for the Bowdoin College house through a grant from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to assist in the
preparation of options for long-term preservation of the National
Historic Landmark Harriet Beecher Stowe House.

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 committee members might have.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
PARKS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S.
827, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE FREEDOM'S WAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN THE
STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

# APRIL 23, 2008

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department's views
on S. 827, a bill to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire.

While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the
Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, we recommend that the committee
defer action on S. 827 and all other proposed heritage area designations
until program legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and a
process for the designation of national heritage areas. In summer 2006,
the Administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal to establish
such guidelines and a process for designation. Bills were introduced in
the 109^th^ Congress (S. 243, H.R. 760 and H.R. 6287) that incorporated
the majority of the provisions of the Administration's proposal, and S.
243 passed the Senate. During the 110^th^ Congress, a similar heritage
area program bill, S. 278, has been introduced, and we look forward to
continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue.

With 37 national heritage areas designated across 27 states, and more
heritage area legislative proposals in the pipeline, the Administration
believes it is critical at this juncture for Congress to enact national
heritage area program legislation. This legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. Program legislation also
would clarify the expectation that heritage areas would work toward
self-sufficiency by outlining the necessary steps, including appropriate
planning, to achieve that shared goal.

The proposed Freedom's Way National Heritage Area includes 37
Massachusetts and 8 New Hampshire communities northwest of Boston. It
includes the Minute Man National Historical Park, the Oxbow and Great
Meadows National Wildlife Refuges, the Concord, Assabet and Sudbury Wild
and Scenic Rivers, as well as National Historic Landmarks and Districts,
and many sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

This is a region that substantively influenced our democratic forms of
governance and the development of intellectual traditions that underpin
the concepts of American freedom, democracy, conservation, social
justice, and ethnic diversity. Historically prominent leaders in
literature and intellectual thought found the region to be a source of
inspiration including Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson,
Nathaniel Hawthorne and Louisa May Alcott. It was also the locale for
expressions of religious freedom and social experimentation with the
settlements of the Shakers, Millerites and Transcendentalists. Its
natural and community resources are exceptional examples of the rural
beauty of the New England landscape. The events that occurred here
during the American Revolution include the ride of Paul Revere and the
engagements at Lexington and Concord, which are known to virtually every
elementary school child in the nation.

The concept of a Freedom's Way National Heritage Area was defined in a
feasibility study undertaken by the proposed management entity, the
Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc. Priorities outlined in this
study speak to linkages through education and preservation of the
region's nationally distinctive natural and cultural resources through
partnerships. The region has a strong partnership base among its many
cultural institutions, businesses, non-profit organizations, local
governments, and citizens. The governors of both states have endorsed
the designation of a national heritage area.

The National Park Service reviewed the national heritage area
feasibility study undertaken by the proposed management entity in July
1997. Since it did not fully address the interim national heritage area
criteria, representatives of our Northeast Region conducted field
reconnaissance visits in November 2000. Based on the findings of the
reconnaissance team, the Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc.
submitted an addendum in April 2001 to the 1997 Freedom's Way National
Heritage Area Feasibility Study entitled "The Proposed Freedom's Way
National Heritage Area and Compliance with the National Park Service
Interim Criteria for National Heritage Area Designation." The National
Park Service evaluated that addendum, as well as the original
feasibility study, and found that the criteria were fully addressed and
met.

Since 2001 when the study was amended, both Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have enacted legislation establishing state heritage area
commissions related to Freedom's Way. Although these state laws are
quite similar to each other, and appear to be consistent with the
general aims of S. 827, they raise a number of issues. For example, each
state is authorized to establish a Freedom's Way Heritage Area
Commission, and among other duties "prepare and implement a unified
historic preservation and interpretive plan for the area." If S. 827 is
enacted, the Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc., a nonprofit
organization, would be the management entity, and would also be charged
with developing a comprehensive management plan for the area. It is
unclear how the heritage area would function with three separate
management entities charged with similar duties. The Massachusetts law
states that if a federal heritage area is designated by act of Congress,
the governor may terminate the commission when a federal management
entity is appointed, but the New Hampshire law includes no such
provision.

It is our understanding that if the heritage area is federally
designated, then both state commissions would not be established and the
responsibility to prepare the management plan would be the duty of the
Freedom's Way Heritage Association, Inc. as the management entity.

Mr. Chairman, while the proposed Freedom's Way National Heritage Area
contains significant natural and cultural resources and meets the
established criteria for congressional designation, we would again
request that the committee defer action until national heritage area
program legislation is enacted. However, if the committee chooses to
move ahead with this bill, the Department would like to work with them
to make some technical corrections to the bill. In addition, the
Department would recommend that the bill be amended to include an
additional requirement for an evaluation to be conducted by the
Secretary, three years prior to the cessation of federal funding under
this act. The evaluation would examine the accomplishments of the
heritage area in meeting the goals of the management plan; analyze the
leveraging and impact of investments to the heritage area; identify the
critical components of the management structure and sustainability of
the heritage area; and recommend what future role, if any, the National
Park Service should have with respect to the heritage area.

Mr. Chairman this completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or any of the members of the subcommittee may have.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S.
923 AND H.R. 1528, BILLS TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO
DESIGNATE THE NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL IN THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT AND COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AS A COMPONENT OF THE
NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**APRIL 23, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior
on S. 923 and H.R.1528, bills to amend the National Trails System Act by
designating the New England National Scenic Trail as a component of the
National Trails System.

The Department supports enactment of this legislation. At a hearing on
May 15, 2007 in the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands, the Department testified in support of H.R. 1528.

S. 923 and H.R. 1528 would designate an approximately 220-mile trail
route from Long Island Sound in the Town of Guilford, Connecticut to the
New Hampshire-Massachusetts border in the Town of Royalston,
Massachusetts as the New England National Scenic Trail. The route
includes portions of the existing Mattabesett, Metacomet, and
Metacomet-Monadnock trails studied under Public Law 107-338, the
Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail Study Act of 2002. The proposed
New England National Scenic Trail would be administered by the Secretary
of the Interior and managed through partnership agreements with the
State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the
Connecticut Forest and Park Association, the Appalachian Mountain Club,
and other local stakeholders as appropriate. There are no existing
federal lands associated with the proposed trail route and no new
federal acquisition of lands is anticipated to be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of S. 923 and H.R. 1528.

In spring 2006, the National Park Service produced the draft report and
environmental assessment for the Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett
National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study. The report, which was recently
transmitted to Congress, concludes that the proposed route meets the
definition and intent for national scenic trail establishment under the
National Trails System Act. The characteristics that make the proposed
route worthy of designation include its scenic mountain landscape,
historic New England villages, geological resources, and an abundance of
endangered and natural communities.

The route traverses the Metacomet, Mt. Tom, and Mt. Holyoke ranges
offering some of New England's most outstanding scenery and geologic
features. Over 50 National Register Districts abut the trail. There are
outstanding views from the trail as well as links to many side trails.
The trail offers some of the world's best opportunities to view
volcanic, sedimentary, and glacial geology, including columnar basalt,
fossils, and dinosaur footprints. Areas along the trail have an
outstanding richness of habitat types, natural communities, and rare and
endangered species' habitats. In Connecticut, 132 occurrences of rare
species or natural communities have been documented within 1,000 feet of
the trail.

In addition, one of the most important factors identified in the
National Trails System Act for evaluating potential new components of
the system is proximity to population centers. Through the Act, Congress
recognized the need to serve the nation's population centers with
quality recreational opportunities. As such, the proposed New England
National Scenic Trail offers a truly extraordinary opportunity, with
over 2 million people living within 10 miles of the trail system.

S. 923 and H.R. 1528 would implement the environmentally preferred
alternative of the study report and environmental assessment. This
alternative was developed through a collaborative process with key trail
stakeholders associated with the existing Metacomet Monadnock and
Mattabesett trails, including the two states, the Appalachian Mountain
Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, and the 39 abutting
communities. In addition, GIS mapping was cross-referenced against
community land ownership data to build for the first time a database of
more than 1,000 landowners on or near the trail route. These landowners
and entities were all engaged directly in the study through regular
mailings and invitations to information meetings and working sessions.
Input from all of these sources was incorporated into the
environmentally preferred alternative, which includes the following
elements:

First, the "Blueprint for Management" included in the report was
developed through input by a full range of study participants to provide
the best blueprint for long-term trail viability. The National Park
Service and Trail Stewardship Council would base trail management,
administration and protection efforts on this document.

Second, the report calls for the creation of a Trail Stewardship Council
that would bring trail partners and stakeholders together on a regular
basis to discuss trail issues, coordinate management and protection of
the trail, and generally guide implementation of the Management
Blueprint. The Council would have advisory powers only, and would be
non-regulatory in nature.

Third, the study identified no need for direct federal ownership or
management of the trail. Thus, the National Park Service's role in
implementing the proposed national scenic trail designation would be one
of technical and financial assistance to existing trail partners,
coordinated through the Trail Stewardship Council.

Fourth, a new unifying name, the New England National Scenic Trail, was
suggested for national scenic trail purposes. Traditional trail names
would continue to be used in guidebooks or on trail signs, as
appropriate, such as the Mattabesett Trail, part of the New England
National Scenic Trail.

Finally, in addition to the proposed extension to Long Island Sound in
Guilford, Connecticut, a new route for the national scenic trail is
proposed in the Belchertown-Leverett area of Massachusetts. The new
route is envisioned to take advantage of substantial state-owned lands
that can provide a quality, protected trail route, while avoiding a
segment of the Metacomet-Monadnock trail almost completely devoid of
protected lands.

The draft report and environmental assessment for the Metacomet
Monadnock Mattabesett Trail Study was released for public and agency
review in August 2006. An executive summary was mailed to all identified
trail landowners and stakeholders, along with invitations to public
meetings in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Approximately 60 written
responses were received between August and December 2006. The vast
majority of these supported the environmentally preferred alternative,
and only a few comments were received in opposition to national scenic
trail designation.

The Department of Justice has advised us that requiring the Secretary to
manage and administer the trail consistent with the Trail Management
Blueprint may raise constitutional concerns, and it would like to work
with the committee on that provision. In addition, the Department would
like to work with the committee on some technical amendments to the
Senate version of the bill to reflect the map reference contained in the
House-passed version of H.R. 1528.

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other committee members may have regarding
this bill.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING S. 956, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE LAND BETWEEN THE RIVERS
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.**

# April 23, 2008

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. 956, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to establish the Land Between the Rivers National Heritage Area
in the State of Illinois. The Department does not support enactment of
this bill at this time.

Before a national heritage area is designated by Congress, a
comprehensive feasibility study should be completed that evaluates an
area by applying criteria developed by the Department and Congress. The
study undertaken by Southern Illinois University provides a good
beginning in identifying the many stories and variety of resources found
within the region. However, we believe that S. 956 should not be enacted
until an adequate feasibility study is completed that yields the
necessary information to demonstrate that the proposed national heritage
area meets the criteria for designation. We also believe that individual
bills proposing to designate new national heritage areas should be
deferred until program legislation is enacted that establishes
guidelines and a process for the designation of national heritage areas.
In summer 2006, the Administration sent to Congress a legislative
proposal to establish such guidelines and a process for designation.
Bills were introduced in the 109th Congress (S. 243, H.R. 760 and H.R.
6287) that incorporated the majority of the provisions of the
Administration's proposal, and S. 243 passed the Senate. During the
110th Congress, a similar heritage area program bill, S. 278, was
introduced, and we look forward to continuing to work with Congress on
this very important issue.

S. 956 would establish the Land Between the Rivers National Heritage
Area, including Kincaid Mound, Fort de Chartres, Kaskaskia, Fort Massac,
Wilkinsonville Contonment, the Lewis and Clark Sculpture, Flat Boat,
Cave-in-Rock, the Shawneetown Bank Building, the Iron Furnace, the
Crenshaw "Slave House," Roots House, the site of the Lincoln-Douglas
debate, certain sites associated with John A. Logan, the Fort Defiance
Planning Map, Mound City National Cemetery, and Riverlore Mansion, and
any other sites within 17 counties in the State of Illinois that the
management entity determines to be appropriate to include. It designates
the Southern Illinois University Carbondale as the management entity.

The Department has concerns about the limited scope of the legislation.
For example, S. 956 does not make the case that this region is a
cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape, unified around one
nationally important story that sets it aside from all other areas. The
boundaries for the proposed area are not defined. While complete
boundaries that encompass the key contributing components of the
nationally important story are refined during the development of the
management plan, the main region is typically stated within the
legislation as a demonstration of where most of the grassroots efforts
are taking place.

Also, S. 956 does not define the role and functions of the management
entity or direct the management entity to develop and submit a
management plan for the heritage area. The role and functions of a
management entity are defined during development of the feasibility
study as they require concurrence of the residents. Legislative language
for a management plan includes a description of comprehensive policies,
goals, strategies, and recommendations for telling the story of the
area. It specifies existing and potential sources of funding or economic
development strategies to protect, enhance, and interpret the area. The
plan also includes a description of actions and commitments that
governments, private organizations, and citizens will take to protect,
manage, and develop resources of the heritage area. S. 956 does not
include any standard legislative language for management planning. The
diversity of perspective and goals of any heritage area requires a
written agreement on how to proceed. Specific guidelines regarding these
issues were provided in the proposed legislation for heritage areas
developed and presented to Congress by the Department in 2006.

A final concern is that S. 956 does not authorize any appropriations to
provide financial assistance in conducting and carrying out the
activities and functions of the heritage area.

The Department has consistently taken the position that proposed
national heritage areas follow the proven path of those achieving
designation in recent years. We cannot support S. 956 at this time as it
does not meet the specific criteria for designation demonstrated by the
completion of an adequate feasibility study. We are, however, fully
prepared to provide advice or assistance in the completion of a
feasibility study that meets our professional standards and provides
Congress with the necessary information and assessment upon which to
base its decision regarding designation in the future.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING S. 2073, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT RELATING TO
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT APPLIES TO CERTAIN CLAIMS**

#  April 23, 2008

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2073, to amend the National Trails
System Act relating to the statute of limitations that applies to
certain claims.

On July 13, 2006, the Department of the Interior testified on a similar
bill, H.R. 4581, before the House Resources Subcommittee on National
Parks. At that time, we were advised by the U.S. Department of Justice
that they planned to further evaluate the legislation and would send a
report to the Committee that would include a position on the bill. That
report was sent to Chairman Devin Nunes in the form of a letter dated
August 1, 2006. In that letter the Department of Justice stated that
this legislation ". . .would unnecessarily displace settled,
well-reasoned case law, as well as raise other concerns, including
constitutional ones. We thus note our opposition to the bill." The
Department of Justice advises us that S. 2073 has not eliminated these
constitutional concerns. The administration therefore opposes this bill.

The National Park Service is aware that there was some confusion created
by various court rulings on what date would trigger the Statute of
Limitations for rail-to-trail takings cases. We believe this issue was
resolved in court rulings issued in 2005 and 2006. In the Caldwell v.
United States case concerning a railroad right-of-way in the state of
Georgia, the plaintiffs alleged that they were the fee owners of land
that was burdened by a railroad easement and that the railbanking and
interim trail use of this right-of-way under the Trails Act constituted
a taking of their property. Both the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the
trial court) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled
that the statute of limitations for the Caldwell plaintiffs' Trails Act
takings claim had expired. However, the two courts ruled differently for
establishing when the statute of limitations started to run. The trial
court ruled that two events are necessary for a Trails Act takings claim
to accrue: (1) the Surface Transportation Board (STB) must issue its
decision (the Notice of Interim Trail Use or "NITU") authorizing
railbanking, and (2) the railroad and qualified trail sponsor must reach
a trail use agreement pursuant to that authorization. The appeals court
found the triggering event to be when the STB issued the NITU because
that decision forestalled the abandonment proceedings and precluded any
state law reversionary interests from taking effect. In 2006, the
Federal Circuit reaffirmed the appeals court determination in the
Caldwell case ruling in Barclay v. United States that the issuance of
the original NITU triggers the running of the statute of limitations. As
a result of the Caldwell and Barclay decisions, no confusion remains in
the law regarding accrual of rails-to-trails takings claims.

S. 2073 would amend Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act to
state that the claims for damages shall not begin to accrue before the
date on which the State, political subdivision, or qualified private
organization enters into an agreement with the railroad to assume full
responsibility for the right-of-way and interim use of that right-of-way
under paragraph (1).

In 1983, Congress recognized the continuing need to preserve linear
transportation corridors and the demand for trails by amending the
National Trails System Act (NTSA) to include a "railbanking" clause.
Railbanking is defined as the preservation of a railroad corridor for
future rail use. Railbanking is accomplished under the NTSA through
provisions that allow a railbanked corridor to be used for interim trail
use purposes through a voluntary agreement reached between a railroad
and a trail manager. In Section 8(d) of the NTSA, the Secretary of the
Interior is asked to encourage state and local groups to develop trails
on railroad rights-of-way in order to protect and keep these corridors
intact in case they are needed for rail service in the future. Section
8(d) also facilitates the development of rail-trail corridors that
provide both high-quality recreational opportunities and serve
transportation needs.

In cities, these rail-trail corridors benefit the citizens by serving as
transportation corridors, providing safe and easily accessible commuting
areas for bikers and walkers, helping to mitigate our urban traffic
problems and pollution. The present use of these trails has the
additional benefit of attracting tourism dollars to communities that
have lost income through the disuse of the railroad. Rail-trail
corridors attract people to these areas, who in turn spend money on
recreational equipment, food, and lodging as they use these trails.

Rail-trail corridors provide important recreational and energy-efficient
transportation opportunities throughout the United States. However, it
is important to provide a process that will ensure just compensation is
provided to private property owners only when railbanking and interim
trail use authorized under the NTSA results in a taking of private
property.

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions
you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESORCES, CONCERNING S. 2513,
A BILL TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARY OF MINUTE MAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**APRIL 23, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2513, a bill to modify the boundary of Minute Man National Historical
Park to include the home and surrounding farmland of Colonel James
Barrett and the area around the Joshua Brooks House.

The Department supports the enactment of this bill.

In December 2006, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study to evaluate the significance of the Colonel James
Barrett Farm and to assess the suitability and feasibility of including
the farm in the National Park System as part of the Minute Man National
Historical Park. The National Park Service consulted affected property
owners, state and local governments, preservation organizations, and the
public, and incorporated their views into the findings of the study. The
boundary study and environmental assessment, transmitted to Congress in
March 2008, concluded that the expansion of the boundary of the park to
include the home and surrounding farmland of Colonel James Barrett and
the area around the Joshua Brooks House, met the criteria for boundary
expansions and that inclusion within the boundary was important to
ensure the protection of nationally significant resources and values.
There is extensive public support for the boundary expansion.

S. 2513 would permit the inclusion of 67 acres of land within the
boundary of the Minute Man National Historical Park, thus adding
significant properties to the park that might be cooperatively managed
or acquired from willing sellers. The potential boundary expansions were
found to meet all National Park Service criteria including the ability
to protect significant resources, enhance opportunities for public
enjoyment, and improve management capabilities.

The most significant property proposed for inclusion within the revised
boundary is the Colonel James Barrett Farm, located at 448 Barrett's
Mill Road, Concord, Massachusetts, two miles from the town center and
from Minute Man National Historical Park. It includes the home and
surrounding farmland of Colonel James Barrett (1710-1779), Revolutionary
War patriot and one of the leading figures in the events leading up to
the British march on Concord in April 1775. The Barrett Farmhouse and a
total of 10 parcels on 64 acres of land that has been farmed
continuously since the 18^th^ century would be included in the expanded
boundary.

The farm was a major hiding place for the colonists' stores of arms and
ammunition. British troops headed there on April 19, 1775 but found
nothing, the residents having been alerted by Paul Revere in time to
secrete muskets, canons and powder in the fields. The Battles of
Lexington and Concord occurred later that day, marking the start of the
Revolutionary War. Minute Man National Historical Park encompasses 967
acres and includes the North Bridge, site of "the shot heard round the
world," and the historic Battle Road, where the British both advanced
and retreated. Barrett\'s farm was the impetus for the British advance
and the vigorous work of Colonel Barrett and his militia was a key
reason for the British retreat.

Considered for inclusion when Minute Man National Historical Park was
established in 1959, the farm was then in private ownership and not
available for acquisition. The farmhouse is now owned by Save Our
Heritage, Inc. a local nonprofit organization, which seeks to preserve
it for public use and enjoyment. The group has been working closely with
the Town of Concord and has expended over \$2 million to acquire the
farmhouse and in addition, has raised \$770,000 to provide urgently
needed stabilization of the building. Much of the surrounding acreage is
owned by the Town and is managed as agricultural conservation land, thus
preserving the historic agrarian landscape. Owners of the three private
parcels have been consulted and have no objection to the boundary
change.

The other property included in the proposed boundary expansion abuts the
historic Joshua Brooks House, which is owned by the National Park
Service. Located at 37 North Great Road (Battle Road), this 3-acre
parcel is partially inside the park boundary. Expanding the boundary
would ensure protection of the viewshed around the Joshua Brooks House,
a key spot on the Battle Road, by permitting acquisition of the property
in fee or through a less-than-fee purchase such as a conservation
easement.

The estimated increase in annual operations, maintenance and
interpretation costs resulting from the acquisition of lands authorized
with this proposed boundary expansion would be approximately \$65,000.

Of the 67 acres authorized in this boundary expansion, the only land
that is envisioned to be acquired by the National Park Service is the
4.5 acres that include the farmhouse and the adjacent farmland. The
approximate cost to acquire the 4.5 acres would be \$2.1 million.
Funding for these costs would be subject to NPS priorities and
availability of appropriations. For the remaining 62.5 acres, most of
the land (55+ acres) within the potential boundary expansion at
Barrett's Farm is owned by the Town of Concord or the Concord School
Committee. The park is only authorized to acquire land from a government
entity by donation. The rest of the acreage could be protected through
conservation easements or management agreements.

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 committee members might have.

**STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,** **NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING S. 2604 TO ESTABLISH THE BALTIMORE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN
THE STATE OF MARYLAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**APRIL 23, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
2604, a bill to establish the Baltimore National Heritage Area in the
State of Maryland.

We recommend that the committee defer action on S. 2604 and all other
proposed heritage area designations until program legislation is enacted
that establishes guidelines and a process for the designation of
national heritage areas. In summer 2006, the Administration sent to
Congress a legislative proposal to establish such guidelines and a
process for designation. The National Heritage Areas Partnership Act, S.
278, was introduced during the 110^th^ Congress and it incorporated the
majority of the provisions of the Administration's proposal. We look
forward to continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue
[]{.mark}

With 37 national heritage areas designated across 27 states, and more
heritage area legislative proposals in the pipeline, the Administration
believes it is critical at this juncture for Congress to enact national
heritage area program legislation. This legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. Program legislation also
would clarify the expectation that heritage areas would work toward
self-sufficiency by outlining the necessary steps, including appropriate
planning, to achieve that shared goal.

The Baltimore Heritage Area was certified by the Maryland Heritage Areas
Authority in 2001 as a state heritage area. The Baltimore Heritage Area
is managed by the Baltimore City Heritage Area Association, a 40-member
board appointed by the Mayor. The Association has a proved track record
as a successful coordinating entity among diverse partners in the
Baltimore area. Over the past seven years, the Baltimore Heritage Area
has proved to be a successful effort, supporting, facilitating, and
leveraging interpretive projects, historic preservation projects, and
education efforts. The heritage area has strong support from the public
and a myriad of state, local, federal, and non-governmental partners
throughout the area.

The National Park Service reviewed both the updated management action
plan and the feasibility study and concurs that the proposed Baltimore
National Heritage Area meets required criteria for congressional
designation. In 2006, the Baltimore City Heritage Area Association
updated the Baltimore City Heritage Area Management Action Plan that
serves as a blueprint for protecting historic, cultural and natural
resources through activities and investments within the heritage area.
In addition, the Association completed a national heritage area
feasibility study, based upon the National Park Service criteria, to
determine whether the area met the criteria for national heritage area
designation. The study concluded that the region met all of the criteria
for designation including the existence of significant levels of public
support and local commitments necessary for successful planning and
implementation of a heritage area.

The proposed heritage area comprises a large swath of the city of
Baltimore, approximately 11,000 acres, and includes 24 National Historic
Landmarks, 53,000 buildings listed in 52 National Register of Historic
Places historic districts, 8,000 buildings in 30 local historic
districts, a system of parks and waterways, five Maryland Scenic Byways,
and an All-American Road. In addition to Baltimore's important cultural,
natural and recreational resources, the City derives its significance
from several key historical events with many opportunities to interpret
and provide for public understanding and appreciation of the City's rich
history through heritage programming.

First and foremost amongst these is the defense of Baltimore against the
British in 1814 by a populace of largely first-generation immigrants and
free and enslaved African Americans. The Star-Spangled Banner, our
national anthem, and a new sense of national identity were forged in
large part out of this experience. This theme of forging a strong,
diverse, and complex national identity is very robust in Baltimore and
includes the period of the War of 1812, the notorious domestic slave
trade, the earliest organized abolition movement in the South, a vital
community of free Blacks, and the City's divided loyalties during the
Civil War. All were part of the City's national identity and are still
represented in the cityscape, historic buildings, and diverse peoples of
Baltimore.

Baltimore was home to Frederick Douglass, Isaac Myers, and Thurgood
Marshall each of whom, with their individual contributions, helped forge
the identity of the nation. Douglass declared: "Going to live at
Baltimore laid the foundation, and opened the gateway, to all my
subsequent prosperity. . ." The Frederick Douglass-Isaac Myers Maritime
Park commemorates the story of these two men and the first African
American shipyard. Resources associated with Thurgood Marshall, the
first African American to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court of the
United States, include Public School 103, the first school Thurgood
Marshall attended, and his boyhood home. The Heritage Area has already
begun to rehabilitate and interpret the public school.

Other resources representing the theme of national identity include the
National Road, the Nation's first federally funded interstate
transportation route, that begun in 1811 in Baltimore and headed
westward. Themes and resources that are also well-represented in the
heritage area include maritime history, immigration, and
industrialization. Baltimore was a major shipbuilding center beginning
with the famous Baltimore clippers, a major port of entry for new
immigrants second only to New York, and the starting point and
industrial center of the first long distance railroad into the American
frontier.

Mr. Chairman, while the proposed Baltimore National Heritage Area
contains nationally distinctive natural and cultural resources and meets
the established criteria for congressional designation, we would again
request that the committee defer action until national heritage area
program legislation is enacted. However, if the committee chooses to
move ahead with this bill, the Department would recommend that the bill
be amended to include an additional requirement for an evaluation to be
conducted by the Secretary, three years prior to the cessation of
federal funding under this act. The evaluation would examine the
accomplishments of the heritage area in meeting the goals of the
management plan; analyze the leveraging and impact of investments to the
heritage area; identify the critical components of the management
structure and sustainability of the heritage area; and recommend what
future role, if any, the National Park Service should have with respect
to the heritage area.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared
remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the
members of the committee may have.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
CONCERNING S. 2804, A BILL TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARY OF EVERGLADES NATIONAL
PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

# APRIL 23, 2008

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2804, a bill to adjust the boundary of
Everglades National Park and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to acquire additional property in the Tarpon Basin district.

The Department supports enactment of this bill, with some technical
amendments as discussed later in this testimony.

Congress passed legislation in 1934 authorizing the establishment of
Everglades National Park through public and private donations of land.
Thirteen years later, in 1947, President Harry Truman dedicated
Everglades as the first national park to preserve purely biological --
not geological -- resources. In establishing the park, Congress
recognized that South Florida's climate and the abundant flora and fauna
present there were unique to the United States and to the world.
Specifically, Congress noted the importance of protecting the mangrove
swamp, which "teems with aquatic and amphibian life" and provides a
sanctuary for numerous wading birds. Congress also recognized the
importance of protecting the hardwood hammocks. Oak, mahogany and
gumbo-limbo trees grow on these slightly elevated mounds of limestone,
providing habitat for birds and other wildlife.

Everglades National Park is located at the interface of a temperate and
subtropical environment with a great diversity of resources. It is
recognized by the United Nations as an International Biosphere Reserve
and as a World Heritage Site. It is also designated a Wetland of
International Importance by the international Ramsar Convention treaty.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to adjust the boundary of
Everglades National Park and authorize the acquisition of approximately
600 acres of land and water surrounding Tarpon Basin for inclusion in
the park. These changes are relatively minor, as Everglades National
Park encompasses approximately 1,509,000 acres. However, the resources
that will be acquired are significant and characteristic of those
intended by Congress to be protected. The approximate acquisition costs
would be \$983,000 including cleanup, appraisals and other associated
costs. Anticipated costs for operations are estimated to be under
\$100,000. Funding for these costs will be subject to NPS priorities and
availability of appropriations.

The boundary expansion property, located near Key Largo, Florida,
contains habitat for the wood stork and the West Indian Manatee, each of
which are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The property also contains habitat for the roseate spoonbill and the
white-crowned pigeon. Both are categorized by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission as threatened species.

The property is comprised of two parcels abutting the northeast and
southwest sides of Tarpon Basin. The northeastern parcel, referred to as
the Dusenbury Creek peninsula, encompasses slightly more than 59 percent
of the total tract and includes predominantly coastal mangrove areas,
with some 10 acres of hardwood hammock. This parcel has approximately
900 feet of frontage along the west side of US Highway 1 and is bounded
by Tarpon Basin on the south and Blackwater Sound on the north and west.
The southwestern parcel, referred to as the Grouper Creek peninsula,
consists of approximately 41 percent of the remaining total tract as
coastal mangrove. A number of small salt water ponds are located
throughout the two parcels. The largest, Lake Donna, is accessible by
land. Access to the others is restricted due to dense mangrove stands.

The Dusenbury Creek parcel has a small "hurricane hole," located in the
northern end of the property, which can be accessed from the
Intracoastal Waterway and from Tarpon Basin. Historically, this area has
been used by boaters to moor their sailboats during a hurricane or
tropical storm. This legislation provides the Secretary of the Interior
with authority to issue permits to the owners of a sailing vessel who,
before the date of enactment of this legislation, have used the
hurricane hole to secure that sailing vessel during a tropical storm or
hurricane.

This legislation will have minimal impact on the park's budget, other
than funding for land acquisition. The park will be able to manage any
land additions within its existing priorities. No additional personnel
will be needed to implement the proposal. The boundary adjustment and
acquisition will require the park's Florida Bay District personnel to
perform additional water- and land-based patrols. These patrol changes
are minor, however.

The department has some technical amendments to S. 2804. First, the land
acquisition and administration language in sections 4(b) and 4(d) is
confusing as to its intent. We would like to work with the committee to
simplify the language in accordance with other park boundary adjustment
legislation approved by the committee. We would also like to suggest a
couple of technical changes to the language of section 2 to reflect the
correct name of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
and to section 5 to clarify which sailing vessels are eligible for the
permits. We will be glad to provide those to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or any members of the Subcommittee may have.