```

[Senate Report 106-331]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 665
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-331

======================================================================

 
                    FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

                                _______
                                

                 July 10, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1670]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 1670) to revise the boundary of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                         purpose of the measure

    The purpose of S. 1670 is to expand the boundary of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument in the State of Florida by 
approximately 70 acres.

                          background and need

    Fort Matanzas National Monument was established by 
Presidential Proclamation in 1924 under the authorities of the 
Antiquities Act. S. 1670 would adjust the boundary of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument by approximately 70 acres. Two 
tracts of land, which are currently adjacent to the Monument's 
boundary, were donated to the United States in 1963 and 1965. 
No legislative authority existed at the time to include these 
tracts within the Monument's boundary, nor has any effort been 
made since that time to do so.
    The third tract of land was intended to be donated to the 
Monument in the 1920's but was erroneously omitted from the 
legal description of a larger parcel of donated land. This 1.6 
acre tract has been managed as part of the Monument, and 
despite the fact that the United States does not hold title to 
the tract, the tax assessor in St. John's County, Florida, 
regards it as Federal property. The National Park Service would 
seek to clear title to the tract once it is included within the 
Monument's boundary.
    S. 1670 would include the three tracts within the boundary 
of Fort Matanzas National Monument.

                          legislative history

    S. 1670 was introduced by Senator Graham on September 30, 
1999. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic 
Preservation, and Recreation held a hearing on S. 1670 on May 
11, 2000. At its business meeting on June 7, 2000, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 1670 
favorably reported.

            committee recommendation and tabulation of votes

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on June 7, 2000, by a unanimous vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1670 as 
described herein.

                      section-by-section analysis

    Section 1 defines the term ``Map'' as the map entitled 
``Fort Matanzas National Monument'', numbered 348/80,004 and 
dated February, 1991; the term ``Monument'' as Fort Matanzas 
National Monument in Florida, and; the term ``Secretary'' as 
the Secretary of the Interior.
    Section 2 revises the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
Monument in the State of Florida by adding land totaling 
approximately 70 acres, as depicted on the Map.
    Section 3 authorizes the Secretary to acquire the lands by 
donation, purchase, transfer or exchange.
    Section 4 directs the Secretary to administer the lands 
described in section 2 as part of Fort Matanzas National 
Monument, subject to applicable laws.
    Section 5 authorizes appropriations necessary to carry out 
the Act.

                   cost and budgetary considerations

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowkski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1670, a bill to 
revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for 
other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         Robert A. Sunshine
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 1670--A bill to revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
        Monument, and for other purposes

    S. 1670 would expand the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
Monument to include three additional parcels of land totaling 
about 70 pages. The bill would authorize the National Park 
Service (NPS) to acquire the additional acreage by purchase, 
donation, transfer, or exchange.
    Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates 
that implementing S. 1670 would have no significant effect on 
the federal budget. The bill would not affect direct spending 
or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply. S. 1670 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local or tribal governments.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 1670 would involve only 
minor expenses typically associated with boundary revisions, 
such as the costs of surveying and mapping. We expect that the 
NPS would not have to purchase any of the lands that the bill 
would add to the Fort Matanzas National Monument because, even 
though this land was never officially included in the monument, 
the NPS has held title to and managed all three parcels for 
many years. Two of the three parcels were donated to the 
government during the 1920s and 1960s, and the third parcel was 
intended for donation but was inadvertently omitted from the 
legal description of a large parcel of land donated during the 
1920s. The agency could incur legal expenses to establish clear 
title to that parcel, but CBO estimates that such expenses 
would not add significantly to the total cost of implementing 
the legislation because it is unlikely that anyone would 
contest the government's claim of ownership to the 1.6-acre 
site. Finally, because the NPS already manages the three 
parcels, CBO estimates that the agency would not incur any 
additional operating or maintenance costs as a result of the 
boundary revision.
    The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was 
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                      regulatory impact evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 1670. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards of 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of S. 1670, as ordered reported.

                        executive communications

    On June 6, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of 
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting 
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 1670. These 
reports had not been received at the time the report on S. 1670 
was filed. When the reports become available, the Chairman will 
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for 
the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the 
National Park Service at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

 Statement of Denis P. Galvin, Deputy Director, National Park Service, 
                       Department of the Interior

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1670, a bill to revise 
the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other 
purposes.
    The Department strongly supports S. 1670, which involves no 
cost and corrects long-standing technical problems with the 
park's boundary. This bill is similar to a proposal the 
Administration sent to Congress on March 3, 1999. This bill is 
drafted differently. However, its effect would be the same.
    The bill would resolve long-standing boundary and 
acquisition issues involving three tracts of land, totaling 
approximately 70 acres. This action is consistent with the 1996 
Statement of Management, which stems from the monument's 1982 
General Management Plan.
    In 1963 and 1965, the Johnson family donated to the United 
States two tracts of land adjacent to monument grounds. 
Although this land was donated to the United States, no 
legislative authority existed then, or now exists, to make 
these tracts part of Fort Matanzas National Monument. No 
attempt at the time nor since then has been made to include 
these beachfront tracts within the monument's boundary.
    A third tract was originally intended for donation to the 
United States, but was erroneously omitted from the legal 
description of a larger parcel of donated land. Although the 
United States does not hold title to this tract, the St. Johns 
County tax assessor regards it as Federal property. Again, no 
authority existed nor now exists to include it within the 
boundary of the monument. The National Park Service will seek 
to clear title once it is included within the monument's 
boundary. To the best of our knowledge, this bill would not 
adversely affect any private landowners.
    The Presidential Proclamation of October 15, 1924, 
established the Fort Matanzas National Monument in St. Johns 
County, Florida. The purpose of the monument is to preserve the 
rehabilitated Spanish fortification named Fort Matanzas, and to 
interpret for the visiting public the architectural, political, 
military, and social history of the fortification.
    The inclusion of these three tracts within the boundary of 
Fort Matanzas National Monument would ensure that the National 
Park Service could legally protect the resources on the tracts 
and ensure visitor safety.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be 
pleased to respond to questions from you or other committee 
members.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 1670, as 
ordered reported.

                                

```