**STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 1191, TO
AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY
SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER A GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION INDEFINITE
DELIVER/INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT ISSUED FOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED AT
THE GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK.**

**NOVEMBER 8, 2007**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1191, a bill that would authorize the
National Park Service to pay for services rendered by subcontractors
under a General Services Administration Indefinite Deliver Indefinite
Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at the Grand Canyon
National Park.

The Department appreciates the subcommittee's efforts to address this
situation but opposes H.R. 1191. The Department also testified in
opposition to H.R. 3961, a similar bill, in testimony before the House
Subcommittee on National Parks on March 30, 2006.

H.R. 1191 would authorize payment, through the appropriation of such
funds as are necessary, to subcontractors who completed work under task
orders to Pacific General, Incorporated (PGI) for which PGI was paid,
but subcontractors were not. The work was completed under National Park
Service (NPS) task orders issued against PGI's Indefinite Deliver
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with the General Services
Administration.

PGI's default has created a financial burden on the affected firms. The
NPS had a contractual relationship with the prime contractor, PGI. The
NPS does not have a contractual relationship with the subcontractors and
NPS does not have the legal authority to pay subcontractors who
completed work under PGI's IDIQ contract for which PGI failed to render
payment.

H.R. 1191 would authorize the Secretary to pay these subcontractors
under certain conditions. The bill would authorize payment if: 1) the
task orders issued to PGI by NPS have been terminated, 2) the amount
owed to the subcontractors is verified, 3) all reasonable legal avenues
or recourse have been exhausted by the subcontractors to recoup amounts
owed directly from PGI, and 4) the subcontractors provide a written
statement that payment of the amount verified represents payment in full
by the United States for all work performed at the park under PGI task
orders issued by NPS between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003.

Between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the Grand Canyon National Park
(park) issued approximately 40 task orders to PGI under this IDIQ
contract. Those task orders totaled an estimated \$17 million for
various construction projects throughout the park. Invoices sent to the
park indicated that PGI certified payments were being sent to
subcontractors and suppliers. The NPS paid more than \$10 million to
PGI, of which approximately \$1.4 million, based on our most recent
estimates, was owed, but never paid, to subcontractors. PGI has been
indicted by the U.S. District Attorney's Office in Arizona on 26 counts
of fraud involved with these task orders.

In January 2004, the park began receiving complaints from subcontractors
citing lack of payment by PGI. In February 2004, the NPS suspended
further payment to PGI and issued a suspension notice ordering PGI to
cease activity, followed by termination for default of 17 remaining task
orders. PGI has had every reasonable opportunity to resolve the
situation, but has since ceased doing business.

Following PGI's default, the NPS withheld payment to PGI and began
paying subcontractors directly for work completed on PGI task orders,
valued at \$906,335. Contract law generally prohibits payments directly
to subcontractors because of the lack of a direct, contractual
relationship between the parties. However, in this case, NPS consulted
with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and with their approval,
began paying subcontractors directly for these claims. NPS has used
approximately 92% of the withheld funds to pay 41 claims of an estimated
total of 76 claims submitted.

The impact of PGI's default was compounded by lapses in the contracting
operations at Grand Canyon National Park. An acquisition management
review conducted by the NPS Washington Contracting and Procurement
Office, determined that the park had failed to obtain payment and
performance bonds from PGI required by the IDIQ contract and the Miller
Act (40 U.S.C. § 3131). To prevent future lapses, we have strengthened
internal controls both at the park and regional level. For example, the
park superintendent is now annually evaluated for management of the
park's contracting program. In addition, the NPS Intermountain Region
will be conducting periodic acquisition management reviews of the Grand
Canyon contracting program.

The Department understands the hardships PGI's default and NPS' actions
have placed upon the involved subcontractors. The payment bonds required
of the contractor under the Miller Act are designed to protect
subcontractors who do not have the recourse of placing a lien on the
property at issue, since liens cannot be placed on government property.
The courts have held that, while the contractor has an obligation to
provide such bonds, the Miller Act places no affirmative obligation on
the federal government to ensure the bonds have been obtained. The
Department recognizes that H.R. 1191 is intended to be an equitable
resolution to a difficult situation. However, it singles out one
situation for relief not available to others under the Miller Act and
would effectively have NPS pay for the same services twice.

Although we are sympathetic about the position of the subcontractors,
the Administration is concerned about the precedent that would be set by
requiring the federal government to assume the liability for the
contractor's default, particularly in a situation where no contractual
relationship exists.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee might
have.

**STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 1365 TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996 TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH ANY OF THE
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS OF THE BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**NOVEMBER 8, 2007**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1365, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act
of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
cooperative agreements with any of the management partners of the Boston
Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.

The Department has concerns with the bill as written. The Department is
particularly concerned about the use of cooperative agreements for
construction of park facilities by non-Federal partners using
appropriated funds. We would like to follow up with written comments on
how this bill could be modified to address the needs of the park and its
partners while ensuring the appropriate use of Federal funds.

This bill would change the authorizing legislation for the Boston Harbor
Islands National Recreation Area. Section 1029 of Public Law 104-333
authorized the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions to implement
the management plan for the national recreation area. The law did not
authorize cooperative agreements with the non-profit organizations,
named within the Act, that administer the Boston Harbor Islands in
partnership with the Secretary through the Boston Harbor Islands
Partnership (Partnership) established in section (e) of the Act. S. 1365
would explicitly permit the Secretary to enter into cooperative
management agreements with the three non-profit organizations named in
section (e)(2) of the Act: the Island Alliance, The Trustees of
Reservations, and the Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center.
This authority would allow the Secretary to contract with these
non-profit organizations for any goods or services needed in the
administration of the recreation area

Authorized in 1996, the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area
includes 30 islands within Boston Harbor, all located within 10 miles or
less of downtown Boston. Unlike most park units, the National Park
Service does not own any of the islands within the boundary of the
recreation area.

The recreation area has proven itself a model of collaborative park
management. The 13 entities named in the original legislation have
endorsed an ambitious management plan and have realized many of its
goals. Together they have spent \$78.5 million to provide visitor
services, rebuild island infrastructure and protect park resources, and
\$76.6 million to develop new parkland and facilities. Their combined
park operating expenditures total \$7.5 million annually. Federal
dollars total less than one-quarter of park expenditures, with the rest
coming from State and local government and private donations as required
in the enabling legislation. We believe that we can find a solution that
will allow us to work constructively with our partners and we intend to
follow up with further suggestions for amending this legislation.

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 KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUSINESS
SERVICES, 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. 1449, TO ESTABLISH THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN
SCIENCE COLLECTIONS CENTER TO ASSIST IN PRESERVING THE ARCHEOLOGICAL,
ANTHROPOLOGICAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, ZOOLOGICAL, AND GEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS
AND ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTATION FROM THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION THROUGH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ON-SITE, SECURE COLLECTIONS FACILITY FOR THE DENVER
MUSEUM OF NATURE AND SCIENCE IN DENVER, COLORADO.

# NOVEMBER 8, 2007

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 1449, a bill to establish the Rocky
Mountain Science Collections Center to assist in preserving the
archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and
geological artifacts and archival documentation from the Rocky Mountain
region through the construction of an on-site, secure collections
facility for the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in Denver,
Colorado.

The Department opposes S. 1449. Our opposition does not detract from the
significance and importance of the artifacts and documents currently
being housed at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (museum). The
museum is a place of learning and a keeper of important collections that
showcase many of the unique features of the Rocky Mountain region. We
encourage the museum to continue to seek other funding and solutions for
the preservation and protection of the collections in their care
including working with existing programs managed by all of the federal
agencies with collections stored at the museum.

S. 1449 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the
availability of appropriations, to award as much as \$15 million in
grant monies, identified as the federal share, to the museum to pay for
the cost of constructing and furnishing one or more new facilities. The
bill states the museum would, as a condition of receiving this
assistance, match with cash, in-kind donations, or services, any amount
provided to the museum under this Act.

We appreciate the interest the museum has in providing the highest level
of care to the objects in its collection. However, we believe the use of
limited National Park Service (NPS) appropriations to fund the design,
construction, and operation of non-NPS projects of this type is
inappropriate.

Since the mid-1990's, legislation has been passed and signed into law
that authorized several hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to be
passed through the NPS budget for non-Park System projects. Many of
these projects involved support for museums and libraries, similar to
what is proposed in S. 1449. Each time this is done, it reduces the
availability of NPS's limited amount of discretionary funds to address
the needs of our national parks and other important national priorities.
We believe funds are more appropriately directed at this time to
reducing the long list of projects and needs that have been identified
in our national parks.

The museum contains more than 1,000,000 artifacts and documents. Like
many western museums, a large proportion of the collection was recovered
from federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau
of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This impressive collection assists researchers and anybody
interested in finding out more about the West, as do many other similar
museums.

However, the financial implications of the bill on national parks and
park programs at a time when all federal agencies must work harder to be
responsible stewards of the resources of American taxpayers causes us to
oppose S. 1449. The Department is willing to work with all of the
involved agencies and the museum to thoroughly assess all possible
alternatives for providing the highest level of care to the objects
currently housed at the museum, including, if necessary, the
transferring of collections to federal repositories.

This completes my formal remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

**STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, CONCERNING S.
1921, TO AMEND THE AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION ACT OF 1996 TO EXTEND
THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**NOVEMBER 8, 2007**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the
Interior on S. 1921, a bill to amend the American Battlefield Protection
Act of 1996 and extend the authorization for that act, and other
purposes.

The Department supports enactment of this bill.

S. 1921 would extend the authorization from fiscal years September 30,
2009 through September 30, 2013 for battlefield preservation grants
under the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002. The purpose of
this act is to: (1) to protect battlefields and sites associated with
armed conflicts that influenced the course of our history, (2) to
encourage and assist all Americans in planning for the preservation,
management, and interpretation of these sites, and (3) to raise the
importance of preserving battlefields and related sites for future
generations, through the upcoming sesquicentennial commemoration of the
Civil War, 2011-2015.

[American Battlefield Protection Program]{.underline}

The National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program
(ABPP) is a small, cost-effective program that promotes the preservation
of battlefields and related sites of all wars on American soil through
"planning and partnerships." The ABPP promotes battlefield preservation
strategies for protecting sites of armed conflict that cannot or should
not be preserved by federal ownership, but must nonetheless be saved in
order for future generations of Americans to understand the importance
of these irreplaceable sites.

In order to achieve these goals, the ABPP provides a range of financial
and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local partners on issues
of battlefield landscape identification, documentation, planning,
interpretation, and economic development. The program encourages states,
communities, non-profit organizations, and individual citizens to become
the stewards of battlefields. By empowering local communities and
private landowners to make the best decisions possible, the ABPP enables
these communities and owners to develop local solutions for balanced
preservation approaches.

The ABPP provides yearly battlefield preservation project grants to
assist communities and organizations striving to save our battlefields.
The project grants have helped States, Tribes, and local communities
identify and document historic battlefield resources, nominate historic
battlefields to the National Register of Historic Places, plan for
resource stewardship and conservation, interpret the battlefields for
the visiting public, and develop heritage tourism programs that
encourage battlefield preservation.

Over the life of the program, ABPP has awarded 329 project grants
totaling over \$7.7 million to organizations in 37 States, the District
of Columbia, and the Republic of Palau.

[Acquisition Grants]{.underline}

In 2002, P.L. 107-359, the Civil War Battlefield Protection Act, amended
the original ABPP authorization to establish the battlefield acquisition
grant program. It directed the Secretary to submit to Congress a report
on updates of the battlefield preservation activities, and authorized
appropriations to the Secretary from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for each fiscal year 2004-2008. These grants help State and local
governments acquire Civil War battlefield lands outside of the
legislative boundaries of units of the National Park System. In order to
be eligible to receive these grants, Congress established the following
three requirements: (1) the battlefield must be among the 384 identified
by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission; (2) the land to be acquired
must not be within the exterior boundaries of any unit of the National
Park System; and (3) any land acquired with the assistance of the grant
program may not be subsequently converted to a non-conservation use
without the prior written permission of the Secretary of the Interior.
In addition, the ABPP set two additional requirements: (1) any grant
awarded must be supported by an appraisal of the property's value in
accordance with federal standards for property appraisals; and (2) any
land acquired with the assistance of the grant program must be protected
by a perpetual easement sufficient to protect the significant
above-ground features of the battlefield landscape as well as the
battlefield's archeological resources.

The grant fund has been tremendously successful in allowing local
preservation efforts to permanently preserve Civil War battlefield land
with a minimum of federal assistance. Grants of \$26.3 million from ABPP
have leveraged a total of \$52 million in nonfederal funding. To date,
the grant program has assisted in the permanent protection of 15,705
acres at 72 Civil War battlefields.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer
any questions you or other committee members may have regarding this
bill.

**STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 1941, A BILL TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO STUDY THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF
DESIGNATING THE WOLF HOUSE, LOCATED IN NORFORK, ARKANSAS, AS A UNIT OF
THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM**

**November 8, 2007**

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. 1941, a bill to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the
Wolf House, located in Norfork, Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park
System.

 

The Department opposes S. 1941. While the Wolf House is an impressive
historical structure, it is not distinguished beyond that of many other
historical log structures in cities all over the United States.  It is
currently operated by the Wolf House Memorial Foundation, Inc.,
(Foundation) with the backing of Baxter County, Arkansas. Even though
the Wolf House has significance for the political history of the state
of Arkansas, we believe it may be more suited for inclusion in the State
Park system, either separately or as part of Bull Shoals-White River
State Park. Finally, we believe that priority should be given to the 35
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.  

S. 1941 would authorize a study of the Wolf House, a two-story dogtrot
log structure dating back to 1829. It is a relic of the Arkansas
territorial period, the oldest territorial courthouse west of the
Mississippi River, and is located on Highway 5 in Norfork, Arkansas. It
also would study the Wolf House property, several outbuildings, and
portions of several city lots, all located within the city of Norfork.
The study would be conducted in accordance with the criteria contained
in Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)). A report that
includes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future
management of the study area would be required to be transmitted by the
Secretary to Congress no later than one year after enactment of this
legislation. S. 1941 states that the Wolf House is located in the city
of Norfolk; the correct location is the city of Norfork.

The Wolf House became the property of the city of Norfork in the 1930s
and was maintained and opened to the public by interested citizens who
eventually formed the Foundation. The Wolf House was placed on the
National Register of Historic Places on April 13, 1973. In the 1990s,
controversies over management of the property led the Foundation to
approach the Arkansas State Parks to assume responsibility for the
property. They were told that the State Parks could not acquire new
properties at the time. In 1999, the Foundation and the city of Norfork
quit claimed their ownership of the property to Baxter County. At the
same time, the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program acquired a
historic preservation easement on the property.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony.  I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or the subcommittee may have.

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUSINESS
SERVICES, 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. 1961, A BILL TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY OF
THE LITTLE RIVER CANYON NATIONAL PRESERVE IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

# NOVEMBER 8, 2007

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. 1961, a bill to revise the boundary of
the Little River Canyon National Preserve in the State of Alabama, and
for other purposes.

The Department supports S. 1961. S. 1961 would expand the boundaries of
the Little River Canyon National Preserve (Preserve) to add
approximately 1,656 acres that would be acquired by purchase from
willing sellers or through donation. Appraisals have not been completed
on any of the involved properties so the costs associated with the
potential acquisitions are unknown. The Preserve currently includes
13,797 acres, and the NPS roughly estimates acquisition costs to be
between \$9 million and \$12 million. No funding has yet been identified
for any of the acquisitions proposed in this bill. Funding for any of
these acquisitions would be subject to the budget prioritization process
of the National Park Service.

Little River Canyon National Preserve was established as a unit of the
National Park System by Public Law 102-427, to protect and preserve the
natural, scenic, recreational and cultural resources of the area and to
provide for public enjoyment of those resources. The Little River Canyon
is located in northeast Alabama between Gadsden, Alabama and
Chattanooga, Tennessee. Birmingham, Alabama is approximately 100 miles
southwest of the Preserve and Atlanta, Georgia is about 110 miles to the
southeast.

The Preserve contains an outstanding example of an Appalachian Plateau
Province Canyon System and the canyon and the Little River together form
one of the extraordinary natural features of Alabama. The Preserve is
biologically diverse and home to a number of rare plants and animals.
Numerous recreational pursuits are also available within the Preserve
boundaries including a 23-mile canyon rim drive, which provides easy
access to superlative scenic views.

The Preserve also includes important scenic, natural, cultural,
recreational, and scientific resources. Little River Canyon's stream
resources are excellent and the Little River is classified by the State
of Alabama as an Outstanding National Resource Water providing an
opportunity for world-class whitewater boating. Little River is one of a
very few river systems with most of its length atop a mountain, in this
case, Lookout Mountain.

The Preserve lies at the southern limits of the Cumberland Plateau and
Little River Canyon is the deepest canyon in Alabama and one of the
deepest in the eastern United States. As such, the Preserve contains
some of the most rugged scenery in the southeast which contributes to
significant biological diversity including habitat for a unique
assemblage of plants and animals. In addition, the Preserve includes a
wide assortment of archeological resources and historic sites.

The acquisitions proposed in S. 1961 would help the National Park
Service (NPS) meet the requirements established in the Preserve's
enabling legislation, which direct the NPS to protect and preserve the
scenic resources of Little River Canyon. Additionally, in the northeast
portion of the Preserve the current boundary is narrow and many of the
Preserve's recreational trails cross private property in that area.
Expanding the boundary as proposed in S. 1961 would allow the NPS to
purchase lands from willing sellers and enhance recreational resources
for Preserve visitors by ensuring that these trails no longer cross
private property.

The current western boundary of the Preserve meanders back and forth
across state and county roads which make up the Preserve's scenic drive.
The boundary expansion proposed in S. 1961 would relocate the boundary
in this area to the western edge of the state and county rights-of-way.
In addition to including land between the roads and the canyon within
the Preserve boundary, this adjustment would allow the NPS to apply for
federal highway funds in order to improve the roads to help them meet
Federal Highway Administration safety standards. The present condition
of this portion of the scenic drive is characterized by steep hills and
locations where sight distance is limited. As a result, the NPS has had
to install signs warning drivers of motor homes and other large vehicles
to avoid the southern two-thirds of the drive for their own safety.
Including the roads and the lands between them and the current park
boundary within the Preserve would also make it feasible to add
additional scenic overlooks and bicycle lanes.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee might have.

**STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES,** **NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 1991, TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO conduct a study to determine the
suitability and feasibility of extending the Lewis and Clark National
Historic Trail to include additional sites associated with the
preparation and return phases of the expedition**

**November 8, 2007**

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. 1991, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility
of extending the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to include
additional sites associated with the preparation and return phases of
the expedition.

While the Department has some concerns about the need for the study, we
do not object to the enactment of S. 1991. However, we believe that
priority should be given to the 35 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.

S. 1991 would authorize a study to determine whether the routes followed
by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, whether independently or
together, in the preparation phase of the expedition starting at
Monticello, located near Charlottesville, Virginia, and traveling to
Wood River, Illinois, and in the return phase of the expedition from
Saint Louis, Missouri, to Washington, D.C., would meet the suitability
and feasibility criteria for extending the Lewis and Clark National
Historic Trail to include these routes and their associated sites. These
sites and routes are commonly referred to as the "Eastern Legacy." These
routes include designated Lewis and Clark sites in Virginia, the
District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, and Illinois. The study
also would analyze the potential impact that the inclusion of the
Eastern Legacy would have on those sites, as well as on the tourist
visitation to the western half of the trail. The bill would require the
Secretary of the Interior to complete the study and provide its
conclusions and recommendations within two years from the date funds are
first made available for that purpose. We estimate the cost to complete
the study would be approximately \$250,000 to \$300,000.

There have been many discussions in recent years between scholars and
interested individuals concerning whether the Eastern Legacy sites and
routes merit inclusion in the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail.
However, the issue of whether this area is suitable and feasible as an
administrative unit of the National Trails System has not been
addressed. S. 1991 would provide that authority.

Discussions in the past against extending the trail to include the
Eastern Legacy are focused primarily on the common historical
understanding of where the expedition itself began. President
Jefferson's instructions to Captain Meriwether Lewis clearly imply that
the expedition began with the ascent of the Missouri River. The actual
transfer of title to and power over the Louisiana Territory from France
to the United States was not effective until March 10, 1804. Prior to
that date, the Spanish Lt. Governor of Upper Louisiana refused the
expedition's request to proceed up the Missouri; so it is clear that the
journey of exploration could not begin until after that date. The
journals of the expedition by Captains Lewis and Clark are the official
chronicles of the project. On May 14, 1804, the day the expedition left
Camp Wood and began its ascent of the Missouri River, Captain Clark
wrote in his journal "The mouth of the River Dubois is to be considered
as the point of departure." In his journal, Captain Lewis stated that he
had informed President Jefferson, by letter, of the departure; this,
too, would seem to imply that the expedition began that day.

Some believe that important locations in the Eastern Legacy are already
recognized by the trail as certified sites and that they do not need to
be connected to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. There is
also some concern that extending the trail will somehow dilute the
attention to and importance of the existing official trail.

Others point out that the expedition did not simply spring forth from
Wood River, Illinois on May 14, 1804, but involved years of preparation
at other locations. These include the ruminations of westward expansion
and manifest destiny by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello in Virginia, the
acquisition of firearms at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Lewis' training
in medicine and scientific observation in Philadelphia, and taking
delivery of the keel boat in Pennsylvania and struggling through low
water to bring the boat down the Ohio River.

Although the field expedition ended in September 1806 with the Corps of
Discovery's return to Saint Louis, there were still important tasks to
undertake such as reporting to the White House to brief the President on
the findings of the expedition. Some say that Lewis' death was
attributable in large part to the expedition and that his grave on the
Natchez Trace should be a part of the trail. As intended by President
Jefferson, the expedition and manifest destiny had far reaching impacts
and ramifications beyond the West to American society as a whole, and he
certainly considered that his dream of a nation from "sea to shining
sea" had been fulfilled, despite the failure to find the mythical
"Northwest Passage."

A suitability and feasibility study would take into account the reasons
for adding the Eastern Legacy by various interested agencies,
organizations, and individuals and evaluate the merits of including the
additional routes and sites in the Lewis and Clark National Historic
Trail.

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

**STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES,** **NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2098, TO
ESTABLISH THE NORTHERN PLAINS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN THE STATE OF
NORTH DAKOTA**

# November 8, 2007 

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. 2098, a bill to establish the Northern Plains
National Heritage Area in the State of North Dakota.

While the Department appreciates the historic, cultural and natural
features of the area, the Department does not support S. 2098. The
feasibility study produced by the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation
did not meet all of the criteria for designation as a national heritage
area. It did not include the existence of significant levels of public
involvement and support and the local commitments necessary for
successful planning and implementation of a heritage area.

Without further dialog with residents in the region and the support of
current living descendents, we are concerned that the Heritage Area
would not be poised for success and a sustainable future. Success of
this grassroots movement depends upon whether or not there is strong
region-wide support, so we respectfully request the Heritage Area
proponents engage more residents and Mandan-Hidatsa descendents in a
dialog.

We remind the committee that our past support of an amendment to S. 1544
in the 109^th^ Congress authorizing a study did not necessarily mean
that the Department would support designation of this National Heritage
Area.

We generally have asked that the subcommittee defer action on new
designations of National Heritage Areas until program legislation is
enacted. Last year, 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, has been
introduced and reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.

Requiring evidence of broad public support prior to designation is
consistent with the steps and criteria for the National Heritage Area
program that have been informally implemented for many years. The steps
and criteria have been developed with input from Congress, existing
National Heritage Areas, and other experts and are designed to ensure
that an area has the resources, local interest, and other qualities that
are critical in establishing a successful National Heritage Area.

The four critical steps that need to be completed before Congress
establishes a National Heritage Area are:

1\. completion of a feasibility study;

2\. public involvement in the feasibility study;

3\. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation; and

> 4\. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which may
> include governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations,
> in addition to the local citizenry.

S. 2098 would establish the Northern Plains National Heritage Area. The
core area is approximately 80 miles long, anchored at each end by
nationally designated landmarks. Huff Indian Village National Historic
Landmark, an ancient Mandan Indian Village is the southern anchor and
Big Hidatsa Village National Historic Landmark, an ancient Hidatsa
village located within the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic
site at Stanton, North Dakota, is the northern anchor. Huff and Menoken
National Historic Landmarks are also state historic sites preserved and
managed by the State Historical Society of North Dakota. This area
encompasses the ancient homeland of the Mandan and Hidatsa American
Indian nations as well as the Menoken Indian Village, an early Indian
village site just east of Bismarck, North Dakota, which also bears
national historic landmark status.

The bill designates the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation, a
non-profit corporation established under the laws of the State of North
Dakota, as the management entity for the Heritage Area and outlines its
duties. It also authorizes the development of a management plan and
technical assistance to carry out the plan. The bill also requires the
Secretary to conduct an evaluation three years prior to the cessation of
Federal funding under this act.

Long before the Europeans came to the area, Mandan and Hidatsa cultures
flourished along the river in North Dakota. These early people thrived
for centuries in heavily populated agricultural communities along the
fertile floodplains. They also depended on the abundance of fish, game,
and other wildlife throughout the prairies. They were later followed by
pioneers and homesteaders---generations of farmers and ranchers who
continue to cultivate the land and reap the harvest provided by the
abundance of the Northern Plains environment.

The villages of these early settlers served as a central hub in a trade
network that spanned the continent. The Heart River segment of the
Missouri River was the center of the universe for the first people, the
Mandans, who constructed their permanent earthlodge villages along the
Missouri River and its tributaries. The Lewis and Clark Expedition even
benefited from the hospitality and friendship of the Mandan and Hidatsa
when they spent the winter along the Garrison Reach near present-day
Washburn.

Today, the Mandan language is in danger of extinction with only two
conversational speakers able to participate in a preservation project.
Therefore, as part of their preservation initiatives within the Northern
Plains area, the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation's language
initiative is focusing on preserving and archiving language
vocabularies, beginning with the recording of Mandan language materials.
It also is supporting the development of instructional materials for
Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Lakota, French and German language teachers.
Language has always been a key element that characterizes and underpins
the cultural integrity and unique identity of a people or an ethnic
group.

The Department believes that further evaluation and public engagement
would ensure widespread public involvement, and determine local interest
and commitment, thus strengthening the current feasibility study. We
also believe that further examination of the boundaries to include the
current Mandan-Hidatsa homeland and the unique geographical, cultural,
and historical resources of the Northern Plains area would provide other
valuable information as to whether the area qualifies for designation as
a National Heritage Area.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.