29–010 

Calendar No. 737 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT

" ! SENATE 2d Session 108–378 

JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY 

ADJUSTMENT ACT 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3706] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the Act (H.R. 3706) to adjust the boundary of the John 

Muir National Historic Site, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommends that the Act do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of H.R. 3706 is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 0.2 acres of land adjacent to the John Muir National Historic Site and to adjust the boundary of the historic site 

to include the newly acquired land. The acquired land is to be developed as a parking lot to improve access to the historic site. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The home of John Muir, noted naturalist and a founder of the 

Sierra Club, became a National Historic Site in 1964 (78 Stat. 753; 

16 U.S.C. 461 note). The home is located in Martinez, California, 

approximately 32 miles northeast of San Francisco. The John Muir 

National Historic Site (Historic Site) preserves the Victorian residence, the historic Martinez adobe, Mt. Wanda, and a part of the 

fruit ranch where John Muir lived from 1890 until his death in 

1914. While living in Martinez, Muir laid the foundation for the 

creation of the National Park Service in 1916. 

The Historic Site provides valuable open space for the San Francisco Bay area and includes the John Muir Nature Trail, abundant 

bird life, and scenic vistas of the Carquinez straits. John Muir’s 

2 

nearby grave site was acquired by the National Park Service in 

2000. 

In 1988, Congress authorized an expansion of the Historic Site 

which included a 3.3-acre parcel of land owned by the city of Martinez, California. The area was donated by the city to the National 

Park Service for inclusion in the Historic Site. In 1991, the general 

management plan for the Historic Site proposed that the acquired 

land be developed as a visitor parking area and maintenance facility. A boundary survey of the Historic Site was conducted in 1994. 

The survey indicated that a small triangle of land (approximately 

0.2 acres or 9500 square feet) was found to be outside of the parcel 

donated by the city of Martinez. Further investigation by the National Park Service found that no one was listed with the county 

tax assessor parcel number, and thus no taxes had been collected 

or paid on the 0.2 acre since the 1960s. 

Without issuance of a clear title for the 0.2-acre parcel, development cannot proceed on the parking lot expansion and maintenance facility. H.R. 3706 would authorize the acquisition of the 

land so that the parking facility may be constructed. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 3706 was introduced by Representative George Miller on 

January 20, 2004. Similar legislation, S. 2397, was introduced by 

Senators Boxer and Feinstein on May 10, 2004. H.R. 3706 was favorably reported by the House Resources Committee on May 5, 

2004 (H. Rept. 108–555) and passed the House of Representatives 

by a voice vote on June 21, 2004. The Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on S. 2397 and H.R. 3706 on July 15, 2004. At the business 

meeting on September 15, 2004, the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources ordered H.R. 3706 favorably reported. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an open 

business session on September 15, 2004, by a unanimous voice vote 

of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 3706. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 entitles this bill the ‘‘John Muir National Historic Site 

Boundary Adjustment Act.’’ 

Section 2 defines key terms used in the Act. 

Section 3(a)(1) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to acquire the land or interests in land as depicted on the 

map described in section 2(b). 

Paragraph (2) allows the land described in paragraph 3(a)(1) to 

be acquired by donation, purchase from a willing seller or through 

exchange. The land may be acquired with donated or appropriated 

funds. 

Subsection (b) requires that the John Muir National Historic Site 

(Historic Site) boundary be adjusted to include the newly acquired 

land. 

Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to administer any land acquired under subsection (b) as a part of the Historic Site and in 

accordance with any applicable laws. 

3 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of the cost of this measure has been provided by the Congressional Budget Office. 

H.R. 3706—John Muir National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act 

H.R. 3706 would adjust the boundary of the John Muir National 

Historic Site and authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire the added 0.2-acre parcel of land by purchase, donation, or 

exchange. Based on information provided by the NPS, we expect 

the agency to condemn the small tract to establish its current ownership, which is unknown. Depending on the outcome of the condemnation proceeding, CBO expects that the NPS would then: (1) 

annex the property without further cost to the government (if no 

owner is located), (2) accept donation of the tract (if the owner is 

another government agency), or (3) purchase the property (if a private owner is located). CBO estimates that the cost of acquiring the 

property would be less than $50,000, assuming availability of appropriated funds. Enacting H.R. 3706 would not affect revenues or 

direct spending. 

CBO has generally found that when legislation is expected to result in condemnation of property, it contains a mandate, as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). In this case, however, because the NPS cannot identify the current owner of the 

parcel, CBO cannot determine whether this mandate would fall on 

a government, on the private sector, or on both. Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that the value of the 

property is less than $50,000, so the cost would be well below the 

thresholds established in UMRA. (The thresholds in 2004 are $60 

million and $120 million per year, respectively, for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, adjusted annually for inflation.) 

On May 13, 2004, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 3706 

as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on May 

5, 2004. The two versions of the legislation are identical, as are the 

estimated costs. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis (for 

federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and local impact), and 

Selena Caldera (for the private-sector impact). The estimate was 

approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 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 H.R. 3706. 

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing 

Government-established standards or 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 H.R. 3706. 

4 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On July 6, 2004, 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 H.R. 3706. These reports 

had not been received when this report was filed. The testimony 

provided by the Department of the Interior at the Subcommittee 

hearing on H.R. 3706 follows: 

STATEMENT OF A. DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before your committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2397 and H.R. 3706, bills to adjust the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site. 

The Department supports enactment of this legislation, 

which was submitted to Congress as an Administration 

proposal last year. Passage of the legislation would enable 

the National Park Service to fulfill one of the General 

Management Plan objectives for the park by facilitating 

construction of a visitor parking area. As explained later 

in the testimony, we recommend that the committee approve H.R. 3706 rather than S. 2397. 

John Muir National Historic Site was established in 

1964 by Public Law 88–547 in recognition of John Muir’s 

efforts as a conservationist and a crusader for national 

parks and reservations. The site includes the home where 

John Muir lived from 1890 until his death in 1914, the historic Martinez adobe, Mt. Wanda, and the Muir gravesite. 

Included in the 1988 boundary expansion (Public Law 

100–563) that added Mt. Wanda to the park was a 3.3-acre 

parcel owned by the city of Martinez. Following passage of 

the legislation, the city donated the parcel to the National 

Park Service to be administered as part of the national 

historic site. 

At the time of the transfer, both city and National Park 

Service staff believed that the 3.3-acre parcel, located between the south side of Franklin Canyon Road and the 

Santa Fe Railroad line, encompassed all of the land between the street and the railroad line. However, in 1994, 

while surveying the area, the National Park Service discovered that a 0.2-acre (9,500 square foot) tract abutting 

the south edge of the road had not been part of the parcel 

donated by the city. Furthermore, it was determined that 

no one was listed as the owner of the tract with the county 

tax assessor, that it lacked a tax assessor parcel number, 

and that no taxes had been collected or paid on the parcel 

since the 1960’s. All efforts to trace the ownership of the 

property have been unsuccessful. 

This 0.2-acre parcel is needed for a new 32-car/2-bus visitor parking area, as called for by the park’s 1991 General 

Management Plan. The park’s existing 17-space parking 

area regularly fills to capacity, causing visitor parking to 

overflow onto the adjoining neighborhood streets. The city 

5 

of Martinez has sought the additional off-street visitor 

parking to respond to residents’ concerns. Construction of 

the parking area is estimated to cost about $200,000, and 

funds from the National Park Service’s Recreation Fee 

Demonstration Program (the 20 percent fund for which 

non-fee-collecting parks are eligible) have been set aside 

for this purpose. Because of the steep terrain of the area, 

there are no suitable alternatives within the boundary for 

a parking lot that excludes this 0.2-acre tract. Work cannot proceed on the parking lot until the park acquires the 

tract. 

Despite the tiny size of this parcel, the National Park 

Service cannot use minor boundary adjustment authority 

under 16 U.S.C. 460l–9 to add the property to the boundary. One of the criteria for use of that authority is that the 

National Park Service obtain written consent from the 

owner of the affected property. In this case, as mentioned 

previously, the owner cannot be located. 

Both S. 2397 and H.R. 3706 provide for adoption of a 

new boundary map that places the 0.2-acre parcel in question within the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site, and both authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to acquire the tract and administer it as part of the park. 

However, S. 2397 provides for acquisition only from a willing seller. Since the owner cannot be located, we anticipate 

acquiring title through condemnation, which S. 2397 would 

not allow. H.R. 3706 does not include a ‘‘willing seller’’ provision and therefore would allow acquisition through condemnation. For that reason, we urge the committee to approve H.R. 3706, which was passed by the House on June 

21, rather than S. 2397. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you or other members of 

the subcommittee may have. 

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 Act H.R. 3706, as ordered reported. 

Æ