U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–951 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–225

BOUNDARIES OF FORT DONELSON BATTLEFIELD; ESTABLISH

THE CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL PARK; HARRY S.

TRUMAN STATUE; AND BOUNDARIES OF HARPERS FERRY

NATIONAL PARK

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 524 S. 1472

S. 1313 S. 1576

OCTOBER 2, 2003

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JON KYL, Arizona 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

THOMAS LILLIE, Professional Staff Member 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky ................................................. 2

Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia ...................................... 1

Fruster, Hattie, President, Lower Richland NAACP, Hopkins, SC ..................... 23

Frye, Dennis E., President, Civil War Adventures, Sharpsburg, MD ................. 18

Hampton-Faucette, Harriet, Columbia, SC ........................................................... 21

Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina .............................. 3

Masica, Sue, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Department of the Interior ............................................... 6

Spencer, Debby, Vice President and Tourism Development Specialist, West 

Kentucky Corporation, Bowling Green, KY ....................................................... 15

Talent, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Missouri ...................................................... 5

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 1

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 29

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 33

(1)

BOUNDARIES OF FORT DONELSON BATTLEFIELD; ESTABLISH THE CONGAREE SWAMP 

NATIONAL PARK; HARRY S. TRUMAN STATUE; AND BOUNDARIES OF HARPERS FERRY 

NATIONAL PARK 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Good morning. We’ll go ahead and get started. 

I want to welcome the witnesses today for the National Parks Subcommittee hearing. 

Our purpose is to hear testimony on four Senate bills: S. 524, a 

bill to expand the boundaries of Fort Donelson National Battlefield, 

Kentucky; S. 1313, a bill to establish the Congaree Swamp National Park in the State of South Carolina; S. 1472, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the construction of 

a statue of Harry S. Truman at Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri; and a bill to revise the boundaries of Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park. 

So I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and 

we look forward to your comments on this. 

Senator Bunning. 

[A prepared statement from Senator Byrd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. BYRD, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks in support of S. 1576, a bill to authorize the boundary 

expansion of the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. 

I am a lifelong student of history. Regrettably, too few citizens today possess a 

full appreciation of history. If our nation is to have any hope of being prepared for 

the future, Americans need a deeper understanding of this nation’s past. History is 

not only a commonly shared memory, a record of the past, but it is also an excellent 

teacher and a guidebook to the future. Our National Park System plays an invaluable role in preserving our history and enabling citizens to be exposed to the great 

moments of our nation’s past. Regardless of size, location, or theme, our nation’s 

2

parks serve as living classrooms. We must do all that we can to protect and maintain them for future generations. 

The Harpers Ferry National Historical Park has been the backdrop for many of 

the nation’s remarkable historic events. Here, in one setting, several themes in 

America’s story converge: exploration, industry and transportation, the question of 

slavery, the Civil War, the early Civil Rights movement, and the natural splendor 

of our nation. 

More specifically, Harpers Ferry contributed an important cache of supplies for 

the Lewis and Clark Expedition that helped sustain these brave explorers as they 

traveled to the Pacific Ocean and back. In 1859, abolitionist leader John Brown and 

a small band of raiders held federal troops at bay in the federal arsenal. The property also includes the Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) train station, and it borders a part 

of the Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) Canal. In September 1862, a total of 37,000 

Union and Confederate troops wrestled for the control of Harpers Ferry. Around the 

turn of the last century, Harpers Ferry served as a meeting place for several important events that helped stoke the early Civil Rights movement. 

Harpers Ferry’s rich history is matched only by its great natural beauty. The park 

is also home to a vast array of outdoor and recreational opportunities. Throughout 

the year, residents and visitors alike can be seen enjoying fishing, hiking, biking, 

horseback riding, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, and much more in this scenic park. 

Originally established in June 1944, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park has 

had three previous boundary expansions. Additionally, in 1988, the National Park 

Service (NPS) was directed by Congress to study lands adjacent to the Harpers 

Ferry National Historical Park to determine whether some lands just outside the 

Park boundary had historical significance and merited federal protection. 

However, starting when the first proposed housing developments threatened the 

historically significant School House Ridge Battlefield, the Harpers Ferry area experienced tension between development interests and preservation interests. Over 

time, outreach by the National Park Service has helped to educate community members about the historic and other values of properties that could be acquired, thus 

dramatically increasing local public support for the expansion. The National Park 

Service further carried out this task by undertaking a study and proposing a new 

park boundary and acreage ceiling increase based on a broad public outreach effort. 

This larger expansion proposal indicated that 94 percent of respondents now strongly support this effort. 

Today, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park consists of 2,505 acres of land, the 

current ceiling of the park. The park cannot accept additional land parcels of historic value that are available without the Congress authorizing an expanded boundary. The National Park Service recommends expanding the acreage ceiling to 3,745 

acres, which will allow the Park Service to acquire an additional 1,240 acres. This 

new ceiling would be sufficient to allow the Park Service to acquire the adjacent, 

historically sensitive lands and incorporate them into the park and would provide 

a 100-acre buffer to the acreage ceiling if additional lands become available. 

Together, the area’s historical, recreational, and ecological significance warrant 

the expansion of the boundaries of the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park, and 

now is the right time to do it. In addition to strong support of local citizens, the 

boundary expansion has the support of a number of groups, including the Friends 

of Harpers Ferry, the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, and the Civil War Preservation 

Trust. 

The Roman orator and statesman Cicero observed that, ‘‘History is the witness 

that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides 

guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity.’’ Cicero’s words from two 

millennia ago hold true today. Again, I thank the Chairman and the Committee for 

consideration of this legislation. The passage of S. 1576 is critically important in 

order to ensure the permanent protection of sensitive properties currently outside 

the park boundary.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR

FROM KENTUCKY 

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m privileged to speak before the committee on an issue of great 

important to Kentucky and the United States. I introduced a bill, 

S. 524, in March, called the Fort Donelson National Battlefield Expansion Act of 2003. This bill is designed to expand the boundaries 

of Fort Donelson to authorize the acquisition of lands associated 

3

with the campaign of the Civil War that resulted in the capture of 

the fort in 1862. Significantly, this bill will preserve Fort Heiman, 

an integral part of the Fort Henry/Fort Donelson campaign of the 

Civil War, for future generations to enjoy. Fort Heiman, along with 

its sisters forts, Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, played an integral 

role in the conclusion of the Civil War. 

Situated on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, Fort Heiman 

controlled the flow of materials and supplies from the South. When 

General Ulysses S. Grant and the Union forces captured and occupied the fort in February 1862, the two major transportation routes 

for the Confederacy, the Tennessee and the Cumberland rivers, became Union highways for the movement of supplies and troops into 

the South. Yet despite this considerable role, Fort Heiman is rarely 

noted or remembered for its historic significance in the Civil War. 

Additionally, parts of Fort Heiman are in danger of being lost to 

real estate development, road constructions, and environmental 

damage. Without the protections of this bill, the United States will 

lose an integral part of its history and its culture. Aside from the 

economic and tourism boom, the preservation of Fort Heiman will 

bring to Kentucky, I believe that the preservation of Fort Heiman 

as a historic and cultural artifact is essential to the preservation 

of our heritage and our sense of pride in our community. It is my 

hope this bill will encourage just that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Hollings, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that the Senator had 

a statement. 

Senator HOLLINGS. That’s all right. 

Senator THOMAS. Go ahead, please, sir. Glad to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman 

and Senator Bunning. 

In the interest of time, let me file, if the committee please, my 

statement in its entirety, along with a series of letters that support 

our Congaree National Park, from the Audubon Society, the Sierra 

Club, the National Parks Conservation Association, and various 

other groups. 

Senator THOMAS. It will be in the record. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Chairman, you have, of course, the wonderful Grand Tetons. We have not moved on the east coast to really 

preserve the trees, fauna, and the wonderful growth that we have. 

Yes, we’ve done it with respect to Yosemite, with respect to Yellowstone, the Tetons. But some 225 years ago, when we started this 

country, we had over 24 million acres of such eastern flood-plain 

hardwood forests. 

Now, when I came to the Senate, some 37 years ago, they were 

taking this particular stand, which is of 22,000 acres now, that 

we’ve made a monument, they were burning it off and cutting it 

and destroying it at the rate of about 500 acres a year. And Mr. 

Harry Hampton, of Columbia, South Carolina, a famous conservationist to us in the State, came to me, and we’ve worked over the 

past 37 years. We, back in the early ’70s, got it created as a naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
4

tional monument, but the thrust now is to make it a national park. 

And Mr. Hampton’s daughter, Ms. Harriet Faucette, that’ll be here 

and will be testifying more in length about the wonderful nature 

of the park itself—we’ve got over 700 different types of plants, 170 

species of different birds there, and everything else. 

But I think to really make the bottom line, we’ve got parks in 

the Piedmont. We’ve got, down in the low country where I live, 

Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, different other parks, but—I mean, 

monuments—but we never have had, as an original-13 State, never 

have had a park. And the entire State now has gotten together on 

this, because it’s really deserving of the characterization by the 

Congress of making this monument a park. 

I’ll be glad to try to respond to any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I introduced legislation that is particularly important to me, in that it culminates nearly 30 years of efforts to preserve the wilderness of South Carolina for future generations of Americans. This legislation proposes to raise the designation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument to the 

Congaree National Park, and to increase its size by 20 percent. 

I know the question that must be answered is whether Congaree is significant 

enough to be put in a league with Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the others that make 

up our 57 national parks? In this Senator’s mind, absolutely, it is. 

Right now, the Congaree is our most underutilized national treasure. Many people 

outside my state have never heard of it, and when they do they think it is a nasty 

swamp with a bunch of standing water. 

So Americans are missing out on a majestic hardwood forest that has more types 

of trees, plants, animals, and birds than a person will see in a lifetime. The best 

thing we could do is to let more people enjoy this treasure by designating it a National Park. 

The Congaree is home to some of the tallest and rarest trees in the Eastern 

United States—some are 400 years old. When the country started 225 years ago, 

there were 24 million acres of eastern, flood plain, hardwood forests like those in 

the Congaree. Now this is the last large remnant. This is it. It’s all we have left. 

It is as important to our history, as the redwood forests are on the west coast. 

The Congaree also is home to 700 different types of plants and 170 species of 

birds. All eight species of woodpeckers can be found here, including the endangered 

red-cockaded variety. This diversity makes it a location important to scientists, who 

can’t find this in cities or farms. 

Even though the Congaree is the best kept secret in America, inside South Carolina it is known and loved. The attendance has ballooned to 120,000 visitors every 

year, including some 12,000 students, who use the forest as their classroom to nature. It has awakened an interest in the environment for these children. They cruise 

the Congaree, learning how to identify trees, birds, animals, and everything like 

that. All kinds of groups take hikes, nature walks and canoe trips. 

Yet, had Congress not acted back in 1976, none of this may be around today. I 

still remember when my friend, Harry Hampton, enlisted my help to protect the big 

trees that were being destroyed 500 acres a year. 

In 1976, Congress set aside 15,000 acres to establish the Congaree Swamp National Monument. In the late ’80s, we expanded it by another 7,000 acres. More recently, we’ve invested in a visitor center and this investment has far exceeded this 

Senator’s and Harry Hampton’s expectations. Harry Hampton’s daughter, Harriet 

Hamptom Fossett, is here today to testify on this. 

Now, we must continue the progress, and re-designate the Monument into a full 

fledged National Park. National parks are regarded as nationally significant if they 

are an outstanding example of a resource—the Congaree is; if they are illustrative 

of our country’s heritage—the Congaree is; and if they provide extraordinary opportunities for recreation and scientific study—and the Congaree does. 

This would be the first National Park in South Carolina. My little state’s number 

one industry is tourism, and this would help our economy, as it provides a growing 

attraction for local, state, national, and international visitors to see America’s finest 

forest on the east coast. 

5

My proposal has received support from a number of organizations—the business 

and environmental community alike. This includes letters from the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Richland County Council, Columbia Mayor Bob Coble, 

Friends of the Congaree Swamp, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League. 

I ask that their statements be put in the Record. 

I hope to work on a bi-partisan basis to gather your support and pass the legislation this session.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Senator. 

Questions? 

[No response.] 

Senator THOMAS. Appreciate your being here, sir. And we’ll have 

other——

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Senator Talent. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM TALENT, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MISSOURI 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to thank you for holding this hearing to discuss, 

among other bills, one that I introduced earlier this year, which 

would authorize the construction of a statue of former President 

Truman at Union Station, in Kansas City, Missouri. 

Mr. Chairman, Union State is one of Kansas City’s truly historical landmarks. It was built in 1914. It features a 95-foot ceiling 

in the grand hall, three 3,500-pound chandeliers, and a six-footwide clock hanging in the station’s central arch. It encompasses 

850,000 square feet, and it was beautifully restored in 1999. It’s 

now a very popular destination, both for folks who live in Kansas 

City, as well as tourists. It’s a complex. It’s filled with restaurants, 

shops, theaters. It has traveling exhibits, special events. They host 

parties and receptions. There’s a science center there that’s very 

popular. 

In the original 1914 plans for Union Station—so this goes back 

to 1914—the central bay of the facade was left with an empty 20-

foot-high limestone pedestal. Suggestions for the statue have included that of one of the city fathers or something that would denote the city spirit. The architect left it that way for city officials 

to install a statue, and despite a number of suggestions through 

the years, the pedestal has remained unoccupied for nearly a century. 

Now the city’s leaders have decided that they want to erect a 

statue to Harry Truman. A statue to President Truman would, of 

course, represent a great historical connection with greater Kansas 

City, because he came from that county. It would pay tribute to 

Missouri’s only President of the United States and Commander in 

Chief. It would have a connection to Liberty Memorial, which is the 

United States’ only World War I memorial. And, of course, President Truman served in World War I. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s appropriate that Kansas City’s native son, 

President Truman, would be a natural choice to honor on this pedestal that’s been vacant for so many years. He actively participated 

in combat in World War I. He later played a role in the dedication 

of the Liberty Memorial that this statue would be facing. 

6

Additionally, and we were surprised to find this out, there are 

only a few statues of President Truman in the world. There’s one 

in Athens, Greece, where the Truman Doctrine was signed. There’s 

another small one in Missouri, but there are none in Kansas City, 

and none of this size. 

Because Union Station is still a working train station, a statue 

of President Truman is historically significant, because he traveled 

the country via rail during his famous ‘‘Whistlestop’’ campaign in 

1948. He used Kansas City’s Union Station on numerous occasions 

when traveling home to Independence. In fact, he was the last U.S. 

President to use the train as his principal means of travel on the 

campaign trail. When he returned home to Kansas City from 

Washington as Mr. Citizen 50 years ago, a big welcoming crowd 

was there for him. 

The statue would mean a great deal to the citizens of Kansas City. They believe in it. They’ve raised $275,000 to finance it. We 

had authorized only $50,000 as our contribution. 

I appreciate your hearing me on it, and the subcommittee’s consideration. I think it would be very appropriate. The connection to 

Kansas City is very strong, and, to Missouri, is very strong; and, 

of course, President Truman played a key role, a pivotal role, in the 

development of our post-Cold War foreign policy. 

So I’d urge the subcommittee to consider the bill favorably, and 

I’ll be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Senator. 

Appreciate it. 

Senator TALENT. Okay. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, let’s move on to our first panel, then. 

Ms. Sue Masica, Associate Director of Park Planning, Facilities, 

and Lands, National Park Service, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF SUE MASICA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK 

PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. MASICA. Thank you very much. 

Senator THOMAS. Appreciate it very much. 

Before you begin your statement, I believe you have a list of 

technical corrections the committee has prepared. Are these consistent with the technical corrections provided by the committee in 

the 107th Congress? 

Ms. MASICA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. Then we’ll enter them in the record 

for this hearing. 

Thank you. 

Ms. MASICA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here this morning. 

We’ve submitted our written testimony, and ask that it be included in the record, and I’ll just summarize the four bills and our 

position on them, if that’s okay with you. 

Senator THOMAS. It will be included. 

Ms. MASICA. The first bill, S. 524, expands the boundaries of Fort 

Donelson National Battlefield, and authorizes the acquisition and 

interpretation of lands associated with the campaign that resulted 

in the capture of the fort in 1862. The bill would add approximately 

7

1,400 acres to the park, and also provide for a memorandum of understanding between the Park Service regarding Fort Henry with 

the Park Service to assist with visitor services, resource protection 

and interpretation. There are estimated costs of only about 

$150,000 for land acquisition because of the donations that would 

be associated with this park. I estimate its startup operational 

costs of about a million dollars in the first year, and then about 

850,000 annually after that. And the Department does support S. 

524. 

On S. 1313, the Congaree Swamp bill would change the designation from Congaree Swamp National Monument to Congaree National Park, and also expand the boundary of the park with an estimated 4,600 acres identified for acquisition, with three primary 

tracts at this time. The estimated cost for those acquisitions are in 

the $9- to $10-million range, and, as a result, the Department recommends that action be deferred on S. 1313 for two primary reasons. One, we believe that the bill is premature, because the Park 

Service has not had an opportunity to study whether the lands 

identified in the bill are suitable and feasible for addition to the 

park. Such a determination, along with the consideration of re-designation from a national monument to a park is typically done 

through the GNP process for an existing unit of the park system. 

Secondly, deferral would allow the Park Service to continue to 

focus our resources on caring for existing areas within the system 

as we address the deferred maintenance backlog. 

On S. 1472, the bill to authorize for a grant by the Secretary of 

the Interior for construction of a statue to Harry S. Truman at 

Union State, in Kansas City, the Department opposes enactment 

due to the financial implication of the bill on national parks and 

park programs. We believe the use of limited Park Service appropriations to fund the design and construction of non-NPS projects 

of this type is inappropriate. Just last year, in fiscal 2003, nearly 

$25 million in grants were directed to be passed through the Park 

Service budget for construction of non-park-system projects, and 

that’s why we have this concern. Admittedly, the cost of the bill is 

only $50,000 for the Federal share of the statue’s estimated 

$325,000 cost. 

S. 1576 provides for additional lands to be included in the boundary of Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park, and it would authorize an estimated 1,200 acres to be added to the park. Most of 

that is the transfer of lands presently in Federal ownership from 

two other jurisdictions to the Park Service—to the park, and then 

also a donation from the Civil War Preservation Trust. And the bill 

authorizes acquisition from some private property owners. The estimated cost of the willing-seller acquisitions is about $3.7 million. 

The Department’s position is that we would support the bill, but 

only if amended to include only the transfer of the Federal parcels 

and the donation from the Civil War Preservation Trust that’s also 

a part of the bill. We recognize the importance of the remaining 

lands to be acquired, but recommend deferring action on those to 

allow us to continue to address the maintenance backlog and to devote our resources to other things. And if those amendments were 

adopted, that would also reduce the costs of the capital improveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
8

ments that are anticipated in the bill that would be done on the 

property to be acquired. 

Mr. Chairman, that summarizes our position on those four bills. 

I’ll be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Masica on S. 524, S. 1313, S. 

1472, and S. 1576 follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUE MASICA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON S. 524

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 524, a bill to expand the boundaries of the Fort Donelson 

National Battlefield and to authorize the acquisition and interpretation of lands associated with the campaign that resulted in the capture of the fort in 1862. 

The Department of the Interior supports S. 524. Although the Administration’s 

priority is to focus our resources on caring for existing areas within the National 

Park System, there are cases where an acquisition or expansion is needed to realize 

an existing park unit’s mission and can be accomplished with reduced costs. This 

is such a case. This legislation would enable the National Park Service (NPS) to protect and interpret historical resources that are critical to the Civil War story concerning the surrender of Fort Donelson to Union forces. 

Fort Donelson National Battlefield (Battlefield), currently consisting of 558 acres, 

is located in Stewart County, Tennessee. The battlefield includes the fort, the Dover 

Hotel (Surrender House), and Fort Donelson National Cemetery. S. 524 would allow 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to expand the boundaries of the battlefield 

and acquire additional lands as long as the total acreage included in the battlefield 

does not exceed 2,000 acres. New lands may be acquired by purchase from willing 

sellers or by donation or exchange. Lands that would be added would include a detached unit of the battlefield at Fort Heiman, in Calloway County, Kentucky and 

various historical resources in and around Dover, Tennessee. In addition, S. 524 

would require the Secretary and the U.S. Forest Service to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the protection and interpretation of remaining vestiges 

of Fort Henry and other Civil War resources in the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. 

There will be no anticipated NPS land acquisition costs for the acquisition of Fort 

Heiman. West Kentucky Corporation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky have entered into a partnership to secure more than $1,000,000 for land appraisals and purchase of approximately 300 acres at the Fort Heiman site. On September 23, 2003, 

Calloway County, Kentucky acquired approximately 200 acres of the site and intends to hold it in trust. The remaining 100 acres will also be purchased by this 

partnership. The intent is for the Fort Heiman site to then be donated to the NPS 

for inclusion into the battlefield once the boundary is adjusted through this legislation. 

The U.S. Forest Service administers the lands on which the outer earthwork fortifications of Fort Henry remain—the fort itself is under Kentucky Lake. Thus, since 

the land is in current federal ownership, and would continue to be managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service, land acquisition funds would not be required. However, visitor 

services, resource protection, and interpretation could be enhanced, and undetermined costs might result, based upon the memorandum of understanding between 

the Secretary and the U.S. Forest Service regarding the protection and interpretation of this land. 

First year personnel costs associated with this proposal are estimated to be 

$676,000, which would primarily be used to provide staffing for the detached unit 

that will be created at Fort Heiman. Additionally, a one-time development expenditure of about $325,000 is anticipated to cover maintenance equipment, vehicles, and 

miscellaneous start up supplies. Operational costs for future years are estimated to 

be approximately $850,000-$900,000 annually. Since that is roughly equal to the 

battlefield’s current funding, the expansion would require doubling the annual appropriation for this unit. 

Murray State University in Kentucky has approached the park with the offer of 

office space, telephones, computers, and other office equipment if it is needed. 

In addition to the lands at Fort Heiman that will be purchased by the West Kentucky Corporation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Civil War Preservation 

Trust (Trust) has purchased about 100 acres near or contiguous to Fort Donelson 

National Battlefield and holds an option for the purchase of an additional 105 acres. 

These two parcels contain the portion of the battlefield where 70% of the Union casVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
9

ualties took place. These properties would be included within the expanded boundary and we look forward to the possibility of working with the Trust to preserve 

and interpret these important lands. The Trust and the State of Tennessee are 

working on a cooperative venture to purchase another critical site consisting of approximately 7 acres near the current visitor center. There are an additional four 

sites of historical relevance and integrity near Fort Donelson that could be purchased from willing sellers, should they become available. Together, these parcels 

consist of approximately 20-23 acres and are estimated to cost less than $150,000. 

The capture of the forts (Heiman, Henry and Donelson) that guarded the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers constituted the first major Union victory in the Civil 

War. The outcome earned Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant his promotion to 

Major General, the nickname ‘‘Unconditional Surrender Grant’’, and prominence 

that led to the Presidency of the United States. 

The Confederate capitulation forced the evacuation of Nashville, Tennessee, virtually all of middle Tennessee, and much of western Tennessee. With the capture 

of the three forts the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers became Union highways 

for the movement of men and material into the Deep South. The battles at Fort 

Henry and Fort Heiman were the first time in the Civil War where ironclad gunboats were used and the surrender of the forts ensured that Kentucky would remain 

in the Union. 

The American Battlefield Protection Program has classified the Fort Donelson National Battlefield area as a collection of Priority I sites implying a critical need for 

coordinated nationwide preservation action. Fort Henry and Fort Donelson are also 

designated as two of the principle battles of the Civil War and Fort Heiman, listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places, derives part of its significance from its 

direct association with them. 

The NPS is currently conducting a boundary study of Fort Donelson. Public response has been overwhelming in support of preserving the three forts under an 

umbrella of federal protection. The draft study is currently under agency review and 

is expected to be finalized by the end of calendar year 2003. 

We suggest some technical amendments to S. 524 that provide the map references 

that are missing from the bill and will provide overall clarification to the bill language. Our suggested amendments are attached to this testimony. 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

S. 524, FORT DONELSON NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD EXPANSION ACT OF 2003

Page 2, line 11, strike ‘‘The Fort Donelson National Battlefield shall consist of the 

site of’’ and insert ‘‘The boundary of the Fort Donelson National Battlefield is revised to include the site of’’. 

Page 2, line 18, strike ‘‘map entitled ‘lllll’ numbered lllll, and dated lllll.’’ and insert ‘‘map entitled Fort Donelson National Battlefield Boundary 

Adjustment, numbered 328/80024, and dated September 2003.’’

Page 5, line 5, strike ‘‘2 through 7’’ and insert ‘‘2 through 4, 6 through 8, and 10’’. 

Page 5, line 14, strike subparagraph A and insert, ‘‘(A) in section 5 (16 U.S.C. 

428d), by striking ‘Provided’ and the last sentence.’’

Page 6, line 19, strike paragraph 3 and insert, ‘‘(3) 1960 Law. Public Law 86-738 

is amended

(A) in section 1 (16 U.S.C. 428k) by striking ‘Fort Donelson National Military 

Park’ and inserting ‘Fort Donelson National Battlefield’ and by striking ‘‘, but 

the total area commemorating the battle of Fort Donelson shall not exceed 600 

acres’’; and 

(B) by striking section 3 (16 U.S.C. 428m).’’

S. 1313

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 

1313, a bill to establish the Congaree Swamp National Park in the State of South 

Carolina, and for other purposes. 

The Department of the Interior recommends that the subcommittee defer action 

on S. 1313 at this time. First, we believe that S. 1313 is premature since the National Park Service (NPS) has not had an opportunity to study whether lands identified in the bill are suitable and feasible for addition to Congaree Swamp National 

Monument (Congaree). Such a study, as well as an evaluation on the appropriateness of redesignating a site as a National Park is typically done for an existing park 

unit through a new General Management Plan (GMP) or an amendment to an existing GMP. Congaree has submitted a request for funding for a new GMP in fiscal 

10

year 2005. The new GMP would take three to four years to complete. Second, a deferral of S. 1313 would allow us to focus our resources on caring for existing areas 

within the National Park System. The estimated cost associated with acquiring the 

lands proposed for the boundary expansion under this bill are high and would detract from our efforts to support the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred 

maintenance backlog in our national parks. 

S. 1313 would authorize the establishment of Congaree National Park (Park) consisting of the lands currently included within the monument plus an additional 

4,600 acres. Acquisition of new lands would be from willing sellers and the new 

park would have an acreage ceiling of 30,000 acres. The existing Congaree Swamp 

National Monument Wilderness would be redesignated as the Congaree National 

Park Wilderness and the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) would be directed to 

complete a GMP for the new park within three years including within the GMP any 

recommendations for expansion of the wilderness area. The Secretary would allow 

sport fishing to continue on land and water within the new park boundary, in accordance with federal and State laws. 

Congaree Swamp National Monument covers 22,200 acres of the Congaree River 

floodplain and is located 15 miles southeast and downstream from Columbia, South 

Carolina. The monument protects the largest remaining stand of southern, old 

growth bottomland hardwood forest in North America. 

S. 1313 would expand the park’s boundary by 4,576 acres. These lands are privately owned timberland contiguous to, and downstream from, the current monument boundary. There are three tracts: the 1,886 acre Kingville tract, the 2,420 acre 

Bates Fork tract and a 270 acre tract recently acquired by a private individual for 

private recreational purposes. 

The Kingville tract (1,886 acres) and Bates Fork tract (2,420 acres) are currently 

for sale either for the timber they contain or as small hunting preserves. The owners of these tracts have expressed a willingness and desire to work with NPS on 

the preservation of these lands. Although formal appraisals have not been completed, it is estimated that the cost of acquiring these two tracts would be between 

$9 and $10 million. If these lands are acquired, it is anticipated that they would 

be maintained in an undeveloped condition and therefore have minimal operational 

costs. The owner of the third tract (270 acres) is willing to have his land included 

within the park boundary, but is not interested in selling at this time. The anticipated uses of this tract would be compatible with park objectives. 

The GMP that would be considered for funding in 2005 and that we would like 

to complete prior to consideration of this bill would examine the suitability and feasibility of including these tracts within the boundary of the monument. Studies of 

the area have been completed by third parties and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in the early 1970’s as a potential location of a new National Wildlife Refuge. 

While these studies all concluded that the lands proposed for addition should be preserved, none of them examined these lands against NPS criteria. 

The Department has increasingly sought to engage in partnerships to increase 

protection of natural and cultural resources. The 2005 GMP could examine how expanding the boundary might support and complement a large-scale protection effort 

undertaken by the State of South Carolina called the Fork Swamp Large Area 

Project, located at the confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers and covering 

approximately 67,915 acres. Current NPS lands are close to, and could become a 

component of, this project. 

NPS management policies and practice indicate that a unit designated as a national park be of sufficient size with unique natural qualities and superlative scenery, as well as recreational opportunities. The NPS cannot support a change in 

designation merely for the sake of greater status within the system. To qualify for 

national park status, a wide range of resources must be present, all of which have 

been determined to be nationally significant. 

The monument is designated as a National Natural Landmark and International 

Biosphere Reserve and was recently designated a Globally Important Bird Area, 

noteworthy in particular as a sanctuary for over-wintering birds. A nomination has 

been prepared to designate Congaree Swamp as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. The monument also contains 10 structures 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

The lands S. 1313 proposes to add would increase the monument’s size, but could 

also add to its diversity of resources. We understand the land includes more of the 

green ash mixed bottomland hardwood community that is uncommon within the 

monument as well as Sampson Island, likely to have been used by American Indians 

as a temporary settlement or hunting camp. Only two other such ‘‘islands’’ are 

known to exist in the Congaree River floodplain, and none of these are located within the present monument boundary. Also included are the remnants of the south 

11

approach road to McCord’s Ferry, site of troop movements in the Revolutionary War 

and also a diversionary skirmish during Sherman’s march on Columbia. 

Finally, the 2005 GMP would provide a recommendation if a redesignation for the 

monument to national park status is warranted. 

In the future if this bill moves forward there are a few technical amendments that 

we would like to suggest and that we would be happy to share with subcommittee 

staff. 

S. 1472

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1472, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

provide a grant for the construction of a statue of Harry S. Truman at Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri. 

The Department opposes the enactment of S. 1472 at this time due to the financial implication of this bill on national parks and park programs. The Department 

is committed to supporting the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks. We believe funds are more appropriately directed at this time to reducing the long list of necessary but deferred construction 

projects that have been identified in our national parks. 

Our opposition does not detract from the significance and importance of constructing a statue in honor of our nation’s thirty-third president in his home state 

of Missouri. However, we believe the use of limited National Park Service appropriations to fund the design and construction of non-National Park Service projects of 

this type is inappropriate. In FY 2003 alone, various pieces of legislation were 

passed and signed into law that authorized over $24.9 million in grants to be passed 

through the National Park Service budget for construction of non-Park System 

projects. 

S. 1472 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to award a grant to pay for the 

Federal share of the cost of constructing a statue of Harry S. Truman to be placed 

at Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri. The bill states that the Federal share 

of the costs shall not exceed $50,000 and that the eligible entity shall submit a proposal for the use of the grant funds. It also states that the Federal government will 

not be responsible for the maintenance of the statue after it is constructed and 

erected. 

Union Station, built in 1914, is a Kansas City historical landmark. The complex 

is filled with restaurants, shops, theaters, traveling exhibits, special events, and a 

science center. The statue would be placed on the 20-foot high limestone pedestal 

under the center arch on the south facade of Union Station, facing the Liberty Memorial. President Truman passed through Union Station on numerous occasions and 

was the last president to use the train as his principle means of travel on the campaign trail. While we recognize this is an appropriate place in which to erect a statute of President Truman, we believe that National Park Service funds should not 

be authorized for this purpose. 

S. 1576

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1576, a bill to provide for additional lands to be included 

within the boundary of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park in the state of West 

Virginia. 

The Department supports enactment of this legislation if amended in accordance 

with this statement. S. 1576 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand 

the boundary of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park to include lands that are 

critical to preserving resources that tell the stories there. The Department recommends that the legislation be amended to include in the boundary only the transfer of lands from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Appalachian National 

Scenic Trail to Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and the donation of 177 

acres of private lands from the Civil War Preservation Trust. The Department recognizes the importance of including in the boundary the remaining private lands, 

but we recommend that the committee defer action on authorizing the acquisition 

of these lands during the remainder of the 108th Congress. To meet the President’s 

Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to continue to 

focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. 

Located at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, Harpers Ferry 

has a history that has few parallels in the American drama. The park commemorates a diverse number of people and events, decisions, and actions that influenced 

the course of our nation’s history over 230 years. In 1944, Congress established 

12

Harpers Ferry as ‘‘a public national memorial commemorating the historical events 

that occurred at or near Harpers Ferry.’’

This bill would add nine parcels of land to the boundary of the park to provide 

permanent protection of resources that are integral in commemorating historical 

events that occurred at Harpers Ferry. These include properties on School House 

Ridge, which was the position of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson during the 

strategic battle for Harpers Ferry in 1862; the Werner tract, which protects the 

southern viewshed of the park; a portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail 

that contains Civil War campgrounds; several small properties that protect park 

viewsheds between Bolivar Heights and the Murphy Farm; and Potoma Wayside 

that protects part of the view Thomas Jefferson described in his Journals on the 

State of Virginia as ‘‘stupendous’’ and ‘‘worth a trip across the Atlantic.’’ The wayside is also used as the take-out for whitewater rafting companies and paddlers 

using the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers near Harpers Ferry. 

In 2001, at the direction of Congress, the National Park Service undertook extensive outreach efforts and public meetings in and around Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, to explain the options for expanding the boundary of Harpers Ferry National 

Historical Park. These options were drawn from 12 years of public debate centered 

on the expansion of the park and were incorporated into documents that were widely disseminated to the public. 

During the 2001 public outreach efforts, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park 

worked with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, private non-profit organizations, conservation organizations, state and local 

leaders, tourism and business interests, land developers, private landowners, and 

the public. Four public meetings were held throughout Jefferson County, West Virginia, and one or more meetings were held with each private landowner identified 

in the report. The National Park Service transmitted the results of the outreach efforts to Congress in a report titled ‘‘Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee 

of the United States Congress on the Public Outreach Program at Harpers Ferry 

National Historical Park, in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, to Explain the Options 

to Expand the Park’s Boundary and Determine if there is a Public Consensus for 

Expansion’’ (September 2002). The report concluded that there exists an overwhelming public consensus (94 percent) for expansion of the park. Support for the 

expansion is equally strong among outreach participants at the local, regional and 

national levels. 

The land in the proposed park expansion is largely federal. Lands held by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which the 

park currently manages through agreements, would be transferred to the Harpers 

Ferry National Historical Park to be administered directly. The total federal acreage 

in the proposed legislation is 772 acres. There are also 368 acres of private land 

in the bill’s proposed park expansion that the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to acquire from willing sellers. The Civil War Preservation Trust owns 177 

acres, which they want to donate to the Park, with the remaining 191 acres split 

among six individual owners. For the National Park Service to acquire these lands, 

the current park acreage ceiling of 2,505 acres needs to be increased to 3,745 acres, 

which includes a margin of 100 acres within the new ceiling for survey and acquisition corrections. 

No appraisals have been done on the properties included in the proposed park expansion; however, based on recent comparable sales of property adjacent to the 

park, the National Park Service believes that the land acquisition costs would total 

approximately $3.7 million to acquire all 191 acres of private land. With our proposed amendment, land acquisition costs would be negligible since it would be acquired through donation or transfer. 

The land in the proposed expansion is mainly forest or agricultural farmland that 

contains a few structures. The National Park Service proposes to manage the forested lands as protected viewsheds, and the agricultural lands under the park’s agricultural leasing program with an overlay of public trails and interpretive exhibits 

for public use and enjoyment. We originally estimated development costs to be less 

than $500,000 including projects such as building small parking areas, restoring 

battlefields, developing trails, and creating exhibits. We also had estimated operational costs to administer all the land would add $150,000 annually to Harpers 

Ferry’s $5.7 million dollar operational costs, an increase of less than one percent. 

With our proposed amendment, development costs would be reduced to approximately $350,000 and operational costs would be reduced to approximately $100,000. 

That concludes my prepared statements, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have.

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you. 

13

In the Donelson one, why, it adds 1,400 acres, but—let’s see, 

what did you say the cost would be? 

Ms. MASICA. Because most of that acreage would be donated. 

Senator THOMAS. Donated, I see. 

Ms. MASICA. The cost for acquisition is estimated only at about 

$150,000. 

Senator THOMAS. I see, okay. And what about private owners 

and so on, are they affected? Will you be taking residential——

Ms. MASICA. It would all be on a willing-seller basis. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. 

Ms. MASICA. There are—of the roughly 700 acres that we know 

about at this point that there’s active interest in having become a 

part of the park, about 20 to 23 of those are in private hands, and 

we would have to negotiate, again, on a willing-seller basis, with 

those landowners as funds become available. 

Senator THOMAS. And then this—your operating costs would go 

up $850,000. 

Ms. MASICA. Right, because of the fort—as I understand it, the 

Fort Heiman parcel is on the other side of the river. So because it’s 

not contiguous, there would be some—we’d have to put an operating presence there, and that’s where the costs are a little bit 

higher. 

Senator THOMAS. Have to get a canoe. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MASICA. Part of our Wellness Program. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. 

So this one in South Carolina, you don’t support because of the 

cost. Is that the idea? 

Ms. MASICA. That’s correct. 

Senator THOMAS. What it is now? It’s maintained now as a National monument. 

Ms. MASICA. It is managed by the Park Service. Its status is a 

national monument. It’s about 22,000 acres. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. So it is managed by the park now. 

Ms. MASICA. Yes, sir. 

Senator THOMAS. And the area is controlled by the park. 

Ms. MASICA. The parts that are within the boundary—it’s about 

22,000 acres—that is managed and controlled by the Park Service. 

Senator THOMAS. Who owns the land, then? 

Ms. MASICA. The Park Service. 

Senator THOMAS. So this is really just designation change, largely? 

Ms. MASICA. Designation change and an expansion is also recommended. The cost is associated with the expansion, not with the 

designation change. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. 

The Truman statue, they ask in the bill for an authorization. 

That’s just for an authorization to spend the money, is that right? 

Ms. MASICA. Authorization for us to make a grant. We do not 

have any money budgeted for that. 

Senator THOMAS. Nor would you have anything to do with it before or after, is that right? 

Ms. MASICA. Correct. 

14

Senator THOMAS. This is just authorizing the expenditure. I see. 

Okay. 

Then the land transfer in Harpers would be Federal land, under 

your proposal. 

Ms. MASICA. The bill would authorize about 1,200 acres to be 

added to the park. Of that 1,200 acres, almost 800 is already 

owned by the Federal Government, so it would just be transferred 

from the Appalachian Trail and from the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. So there would be no 

acquisition cost associated with that. 

Senator THOMAS. And your proposal, your recommendation, is to 

transfer that? 

Ms. MASICA. Allow for the transfer—to the inclusion of that in 

the park. And then there’s another parcel of 177 acres that is 

owned by the Civil War Preservation Trust, a nonprofit, who has 

expressed a willingness to donate that acreage to the park. So, 

since that would be at no cost, also to allow for that. 

Senator THOMAS. So it would end up being around—less than 

thousand acres instead of the 1,240 under your recommendation. 

Ms. MASICA. In round numbers, yes. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Senator Bunning. 

Senator BUNNING. I’m going to inquire about the Kansas City 

statue of Harry Truman—if that was done with all private funds—

in other words, if the $50,000, in addition to the $275,000 that’s 

already been raised—that was done with total private funds, would 

the Park Service have any objection? 

Ms. MASICA. No. There wouldn’t be a need for an authorization 

then. 

Senator BUNNING. There wouldn’t be a need for an authorization. 

Ms. MASICA. No, because it would be a totally private——

Senator BUNNING. In other words, if we can convince our good 

colleague from Missouri, or our two colleagues from Missouri, that 

if they could get an additional $50,000 donated for that statue, we 

wouldn’t be coming to you for anything. 

Ms. MASICA. That’s my understanding, correct. 

Senator BUNNING. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator THOMAS. Any further questions? 

[No response.] 

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. MASICA. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Appreciate your being here. 

Ms. MASICA. All right. 

Senator THOMAS. And I look forward to working with you. 

Ms. MASICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. On our second panel, we have Debby Spencer, 

vice president, West Kentucky Corporation, Bowling Green, Kentucky, Ms. Harriet Hampton-Faucette—I hope that’s close—Columbia, South Carolina, Mr. Dennis Frye, president, Civil War Adventures, Sharpsburg, Maryland, and Hattie Fruster, president, Lower 

Richmond NAACP, Hopkins, South Carolina. 

Senator, would you care to introduce——

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

15

I am pleased to introduce, before the Committee, Ms. Debby 

Spencer, from West Kentucky Corporation. Ms. Spencer’s testimony 

will further illuminate the importance of preserving Fort Heiman 

for Kentucky and for the United States, and I am honored she 

could join us today. 

I am also happy to see Judge Whitaker, from McLean County, 

Kentucky, here, seated over there. Thank you. Judge Whitaker has 

been instrumental in the efforts to preserve Fort Heiman. 

I would like to thank the committee for its time and consideration, and, further, express my sincere hope that the Senate and 

this subcommittee will soon pass S. 524, first out of this subcommittee to the full committee, and then to the floor for final passage. 

Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir. 

We’ll just go ahead, as listed here, and if you could hold your 

comments to approximately 5 minutes, it would be great, and have 

questions. 

So, Ms. Spencer, would you care to begin? 

Ms. SPENCER. Sure. 

STATEMENT OF DEBBY SPENCER, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, WEST KENTUCKY 

CORPORATION, BOWLING GREEN, KY 

Ms. SPENCER. Thank you very much for inviting us here today. 

First of all, I want to tell you that I’m originally from Missouri, 

and I’m really excited to hear what Senator Talent has proposed. 

My grandparents actually live in Blue Springs, and it would be a 

major opportunity for my grandfather to see something like that 

happen, because he thinks very highly of Truman. 

Senator THOMAS. Great. 

Ms. SPENCER. Chairman Thomas and members of the committee, 

I would like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to stand 

before you today to talk about S. 524 in regards to expanding the 

boundaries of Fort Donelson to include Fort Heiman. For over 20 

years, there has been an effort to save Fort Heiman, and it has 

been, actually, in just the last couple of years that it has become 

even more imperative because of a developer who began subdividing the property into individual lots. And the shame of all of 

this is that, where he’s proposing to put the subdivision is actually 

in the heart of the breastworks of the old fort, and this is actually 

where you can still see the indentations of where the Civil War soldiers were buried and also where the cannon once stood. 

This site needs to be preserved for future generations, there is 

no doubt about it, not only to tell the story about Fort Heiman, but 

also, as Senator Bunning mentioned, it’s also the story about Fort 

Donelson and Fort Henry, which is three—the trilogy of the three 

forts is a story to be told to all. 

Nearly 3 years ago, a Save Fort Heiman Committee was formed, 

made up of representatives from the Kentucky Department of Local 

Government, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Heritage Council, Sons of the 

Confederacy, County Judge Executive from McLean County, County Judge Executive from Calloway County, State Senator Jackson, 

16

State Representative Buckingham, Michael Pape, with Congressman Whitfield’s office, has served on that committee, as has T. C. 

Freeman, from Senator Bunning’s office. We have also had Congressman Tanner involved in the effort, and Civil War Trust, and 

the State of Tennessee’s Civil War group has been actively involved. I mean, this just shows you how important this is. They all 

support the initiative, and they’re also supportive of the bill and 

the companion bill that has just come through the House, which is 

H.R. 646. 

We’ve held numerous community-awareness meetings in both 

Calloway County and Dover, Tennessee, in which over 300 people 

attended. We have kept each and every one of them informed, as 

well as people all over the United States who have expressed an 

interest. We’ve done this through e-mail and through an extensive 

Web site. 

We determined that the only way we could save Fort Heiman 

was to raise the money to purchase the property and then give it 

to the national park. We estimated that it would cost over a million 

dollars to do this, to purchase all the land, so we began writing 

grants. In 2002, we actually received a grant for $600,000 from 

transportation enhancement funds, but then we had to come up 

with the 20-percent matching, which was a challenge to us. But 

people came forward. 

Sons of Confederacy, there was an individual who came forward 

and said that he would disk and seed a large portion of the property so we could get it back to the native grasses of what it used 

to look like when it was the Civil War site. 

We also had—Fish and Wildlife came forward and said they 

would provide seed at no cost. They donated that. And the 

Calloway County Fiscal Court came forward, and they said that 

they would provide manpower to actually clear the land and remove the undergrowth and the scrub brush so we could plant the 

seeds and also maintain the roads to the site. 

People are working together to make this happen. We have also 

received a $75,000 grant from Land and Water Conservation. And, 

in 2003, the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund Board, 

which gets their money from license plates in Kentucky, awarded 

the project $105,000 to help pay for surveys and appraisals and 

other incidental costs, with the promise that we could have an additional $250,000, when needed, for land acquisition. We have now 

raised over $1 million. 

On September 23, we actually purchased a major portion of the 

property. We’re now working with each of the individual landowners that had the small lots in the subdivision, to purchase that 

property, as well, and we’re in the process of that. 

West Kentucky Corporation and Murray State University have 

agreed to provide office space within Calloway County for the National Park Service until which time we can build a structure on 

the site. And, I mean, we’re working as best we can to fulfill every 

need. 

S. 524 allows us to give the property to the national park. Please 

do not let this be in vain. We really request that you consider Senator Bunning’s S. 524 with your utmost consideration. Please consider this bill. 

17

Chairman Thomas, all of us who have been involved in this initiative thank you and the committee members for allowing us to 

testify today. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spencer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBBY SPENCER, VICE PRESIDENT AND TOURISM

DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, WEST KENTUCKY CORPORATION, BOWLING GREEN, KY 

Thank you Chairman Thomas and members of the Committee for allowing me the 

opportunity to speak on behalf of S. 524, which is sponsored by Senator Bunning 

and supported by the West Kentucky Corporation, local elected officials and most 

importantly the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

For over 20 years, an effort has been underway to preserve Fort Heiman. 

Nearly three years ago, a ‘‘Save Fort Heiman’’ Committee was formed that included representation from the KY Department of Local Government, KY Department of Transportation, Kentucky Heritage Council, Sons of the Confederacy, Murray State University, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, West 

Kentucky Corporation and included Calloway County Judge Executive Larry Elkins, 

McLean County Judge Executive Larry Whitaker, State Senator Jackson, State Representative Buckingham, Michael Pape with Congressman Whitfield’s office, and 

T.C. Freeman with Congressman Bunning’s office as active members. Representatives of Congressman Tanner, the Civil War Trust, and the Tennessee State Civil 

War group have also been kept abreast and are supportive of this bill and its companion H.R. 646. 

Community Awareness Meetings were held in both Calloway County, Kentucky 

and Dover, Tennessee. More than 300 citizens attending those public meetings have 

expressed their strong support for the initiative in writing and are kept informed 

of any happenings through e-mails and West Kentucky’s website developed through 

cooperation with our other offices at the campus of Western Kentucky University 

in Bowling Green, Kentucky. 

In addition, three grants written as well as site visits conducted by numerous 

agencies and individuals. 

In 2002, a grant of $600,000 from TEA-21 funds was received for land acquisition. 

The 20% match came in the form of land donation as well as donated labor for 

disking and seeding the primary property of 25 acres (with a value of $25,000); Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife agreed to donate seed to return the area to 

native grasses and the Calloway County Fiscal Court has promised assistance in removal of scrub trees, undergrowth and road maintenance to the site. 

An additional $75,000 grant was received from Land and Water Conservation and 

in 2003, the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund Board awarded $105,000 

for surveys, appraisals and land acquisition with the understanding that an additional $250,000 would be available in the future for additional land acquisition. 

West Kentucky Corporation and Murray State University have agreed to provide 

office space until which time a structure can be built on site. 

Most recently, on September 23rd, tentatively, a check presentation was held in 

Murray for the purchase of the land from Dr. Jackson. 

West Kentucky Cooperation has been and continues to be the synergy at the local 

level behind this initiative to save Ft. Heiman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am applaud the spirit and intent of federal policy that the committee has promulgated over the years in its effort to both establish and preserve 

those lands which are of such national significance. It is with that thought that I 

come before you today, asking the Committee to give favorable consideration to this 

bill. Last November, with the passage of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act 

a federal precedence was given that recognizes the true historic treasures that these 

historic sites pose for our nation. I respectfully defer the more pertinent historic information attributed to S. 524 to the National Park Service and Senator Bunning’s 

remarks. Rather, my testimony and appearance this afternoon is directed toward 

the example of cooperation that can exist between government, all levels of government, and our respective constituency. The opportunity to build upon that cooperative spirit is present at this very moment with the Committee’s passage of S. 524. 

We ask that the federal government, through its representation on this Senate 

Committee, as well as the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and 

Public Land to partner with entities of local, regional, and state government; thereby furthering the interests of the general public through the long-term preservation 

and interpretation of Ft. Heiman and Ft. Henry. 

Passage of S. 524 conveys the federal government’s approval of local governments 

cooperating, regionally, without regard to geo-political or socioeconomic differences 

18

and the responsibility we both must acknowledge when such an initiative arises 

from the a local initiative that has garner overwhelming public support. 

The boundary expansion of Ft. Donelson so stated in S. 524 to include Ft. Heiman 

will enable this Committee to acknowledge the response to a local initiative, which 

they has already garnered overwhelming public support. Please give S. 524 your 

greatest consideration. 

Thank you, Chairman Thomas, and each member of the Committee for hearing 

my testimony today on behalf of Senator Bunning’s bill, S. 524, Judge Elkins and 

Calloway County Fiscal Court, West Kentucky Corporation, and the people of Kentucky.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being 

here. 

Mr. Frye. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. FRYE, PRESIDENT,

CIVIL WAR ADVENTURES, SHARPSBURG, MD 

Mr. FRYE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I’m here to 

speak on behalf of S. 1576, introduced by Senator Byrd and cosponsored by Senator Rockefeller, which involves the expansion of the 

boundary at Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park. 

I, personally, feel very gratified to be here today and be asked 

by Senator Byrd’s office to be here, because I have 20 years of my 

life invested in Harper’s Ferry National Park, working there as a 

ranger and historian and, eventually, the chief historian. And so 

today I’m in the private sector, and I’m pleased to be able to be 

here to speak in support of this bill. 

The administration noted that much of the land is Federal property, and that is true. And they also noted that they had an objection to bringing in various private parcels that are not part of this 

Federal property at this time. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that would be like going to the Gettysburg Battlefield 

and taking a huge chunk out of Cemetery Ridge—or Seminary 

Ridge in the heart of the battlefield, and not including it simply because it was private property, completely ignoring the significance 

of the history that occurred at that site. 

This bill will complete the battlefield, it will protect it in its entirety, and it will do a fine job of opening it up for public visitation 

and giving us very—excellent interpretation of that site. 

So I hope that you will consider the bill that has been submitted 

by Senator Byrd, cosponsored by Senator Rockefeller, in its entirety, because if we don’t take care of that ground now and include 

it in the park boundary, the potential expense in the future will be 

much greater—much, much greater than it is today. 

Jefferson County is one of the fastest-growing counties in the 

State of West Virginia, and we are very fortunate that this area 

still retains so much of its historical integrity. So I do urge you to 

move in support of this bill so that we may see the completion of 

the battlefield, and to protect it for our future. 

I would like to add, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that this has 

been a effort that’s been conducted on a very broad scale. It’s been 

a very democratic process. We like to think of the creation of our 

national parks being democratic, and this one of the best examples 

that I can think up. We have worked, for the last 15 years, diligently in the community to raise awareness of the significance of 

this site, and we’ve had tremendous success in building a consensus on behalf of the protection of this battlefield. Not only have 

19

we been successful locally, in working with the county, county officials, and State officials, but we also have been very, very successful in bringing nationally significant groups, such as the National 

Parks and Conservation Association, the National Parks Trust, and 

the Trust for Public Lands. 

And, finally, I’d like to state that two organizations have been 

very active in supporting this and have been non-failing in their 

persistence to bring about success here, and that would be the 

Friends of Harpers Ferry Park and the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, representatives which we have here today. I want to acknowledge their excellent help in bringing this to the attention of 

our West Virginia representatives and having the opportunity to 

bring it to you here today. 

We look forward to including this in the park, opening it up to 

future public interpretation, and finally having a boundary around 

Harpers Ferry, Mr. Chairman, that will truly preserve the significant historical resources that are there, especially these Civil War 

resources. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frye follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. FRYE, PRESIDENT, CIVIL WAR ADVENTURES, 

SHARPSBURG, MD 

Dear Senator Thomas and fellow members of the Committee: I am extremely honored to appear before you today to testify on behalf of S. 1576 a bill to revise the 

boundary of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. 

Appreciation to Senator Byrd 

First, however, I must acknowledge the vision and persistence of Senator Byrd in 

introducing this significant legislation. Senator Byrd has worked tirelessly to preserve and protect Harpers Ferry Park for nearly fifty years. Senator Byrd was the 

first to appreciate that threatened historic resources existed just west and south of 

the present park boundary in Jefferson County, West Virginia. In 1988, Senator 

Byrd mandated that the National Park Service conduct a Special Boundary Study 

to identify these historic sites and make the public aware of their existence. 

Through the leadership of Senator Byrd, Harpers Ferry received national attention 

as a Priority I Civil War battlefield in 1993, spotlighting the uncertain future of 

Harpers Ferry’s threatened historic resources. In 2000, the Senate Appropriations 

Committee (through Senator Byrd) instructed the National Park Service to conduct 

public hearings to determine the will of the people regarding the expansion of the 

park boundary to preserve and interpret these historic sites. The overwhelming affirmative response from the public inspired Senator Byrd to introduce S. 1576. We 

are grateful. 

My Involvement 

As former Staff Historian and later Chief of Interpretation & Cultural Resources 

Management at Harpers Ferry NHP, I am intimately familiar with the park’s complex and layered history. I worked at Harpers Ferry Park for 20 years, and during 

that time, my research discovered nationally significant historic resources that were 

excluded from park protection and interpretation. To inform the public about these 

resources and potential threats to their integrity, I wrote articles for publication in 

national Civil War magazines and news journals; lectured to interest groups across 

the nation; offered guided tours and visits to the sites; engaged national preservation organizations; and sought opportunities for positive media coverage. I also inaugurated an educational program for Jefferson County grade school students that culminated in an annual field trip to one of the principal historic sites. In addition, 

I initiated land preservation opportunities with the Civil War Trust, the Association 

for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, and the Civil War Preservation Trust, which 

resulted in the acquisition of nearly 230 acres of pristine battlefield adjacent to the 

park boundary. 

20

Superintendent Campbell’s Leadership 

Donald W. Campbell, the masterful and incomparable Superintendent of Harpers 

Ferry Park for the past 24 years, embraced my research and discoveries, and he 

quickly grasped the value and potential threats to the historic resources located adjacent to the park’s present boundary. For the past 15 years, Superintendent Campbell has responded to Senator Byrd’s mandates to:

1) publicly identify these resources; 

2) assess their condition and significance; 

3) inform and educate both local and national communities about their existence; 

4) consult with constituent groups (such as Friends of Harpers Ferry Park, 

the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, the Jefferson County NAACP, and national 

preservation organizations); 

5) meet and work directly with private landowners to accommodate their interests and concerns; 

6) apprise elected officials at local, state, and national levels about ongoing 

preservation efforts.

This mammoth task has required dozens of meetings, hundreds of hours, and 

thousands of people. But Superintendent Campbell’s extraordinary persistence, leadership, and vision generated the momentum and consensus necessary to permit Senator Byrd to introduce legislation to expand the Harpers Ferry Park boundary. 

Current Boundary Acreage Maximized 

Inclusion of the Murphy Farm and several smaller tracts within the Harpers 

Ferry NHP boundary in 2003 maximized the park at its acreage ceiling of 2,505 

acres. 

Superintendent Campbell cooperated with an extensive local and national coalition that produced the recently concluded acquisition of the Murphy Farm. This extraordinary 100-acre site, comprising the southern portion of Bolivar Heights, is the 

location of Confederate General A. P. Hill’s flanking maneuver that ensured the 

largest surrender of United States troops during the Civil War on September 15, 

1862. It also served as home to the relocated John Brown Fort from 1895-1909, 

where Civil Rights activist W.E.B. Dubois and 100 members of the 1906 Niagara 

Movement conference made a pilgrimage in 1906. 

Through Superintendent Campbell’s diligent and protracted relationship with Jim 

Murphy and his mother Josephine Murphy Curtis who tirelessly worked to preserve 

their farm and the memory of their ancestors the National Park Service completed 

acquisition of the Murphy Farm in 2003, whereupon it was included within the 

park. 

Expanded Boundary Will Protect Additional Historic Sites 

The National Park Service boundary report, completed in September, 2002 (and 

since revised), recommends adding 1,240 acres to the park. This will expand the 

boundary to a total of 3,745 acres. 

Of the 1,240 acres, nearly 63% (772 acres) already are owned by the federal government. This acreage is adjacent to, but not within, the present park boundary. 

The historic resources within this federal acreage are located on the southern end 

of School House Ridge and on Loudoun Heights. 

The School House Ridge federal property has been identified as ‘‘Jackson’s right 

flank.’’ On September 13-14, 1862, during Stonewall Jackson’s siege of Harpers 

Ferry, Confederate General A. P. Hill’s division occupied this position, and from 

here, it embarked on its successful flanking maneuver to the Murphy Farm. The 

federal government owns 267 acres at this site, all of which will be included within 

the expanded park boundary. 

The Loudoun Heights tract consists of 375 federally-owned acres, currently administered by the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. This property, which is rich 

in Civil War archeological resources, was donated to the United States, ultimately 

to be included within Harpers Ferry NHP. The expanded boundary will permit these 

sensitive Civil War resources to receive appropriate protection and preservation 

treatment, as well as honor the original intent of the donor. 

Of the remaining 368 private acres to be included within the new boundary, 48% 

(177 acres) is owned by the Civil War Preservation Trust on School House Ridge. 

CWPT acquired this property in 2002 for the express purpose of donating it to Harpers Ferry NHP. The boundary expansion will permit this donation as well as permit 

public access to and interpretation of Stonewall Jackson’s 1862 siege battlefield. 

This leaves 291 acres of private land (or 23% of the 1,240-acre boundary expansion). The bulk of this is included within five tracts, and property owners have been 

21

made aware of the expansion proposal and the historical significance of their lands. 

Most of this land is located on School House Ridge, where Stonewall Jackson placed 

nearly 15,000 men during his 1862 investment of Harpers Ferry. Inclusion of this 

property within the expanded boundary is necessary to protect Jackson’s battlefield 

and eventually offer a complete interpretation of the military actions that transpired 

here. 

Conclusion 

I urge the members of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks to support S. 

1576, co-sponsored by Senators Byrd and Rockefeller. Both senators recognize the 

importance of including the nationally significant resources on School House Ridge 

and Loudoun Heights within the protection of Harpers Ferry National Historical 

Park. Both senators understand the economic benefits West Virginia derives from 

the preservation of Harpers Ferry. Both senators have witnessed the public support 

for expansion of the boundary by 1,240 acres to a maximum of 3,745 acres. Thank 

you for offering your support to Senators Byrd and Rockefeller and S. 1576.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Hampton. 

STATEMENT OF HARRIET HAMPTON-FAUCETTE,

COLUMBIA, SC 

Mrs. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. Chairman Thomas and the rest of the 

committee, I’m very honored to be invited to speak here today in 

support of S. 1313, Senator Hollings’ Congaree National Park Act, 

which expands the boundary of Congaree Swamp National Monument and changes the designation to the Congaree National Park. 

I’m here today not only as a lifelong resident of Richland County, 

but also as a board member of Friends of the Congaree Swamp, 

which is a very active and passionate support group for this park. 

In fact, the Friends have raised a great deal of money and have 

just completed building a substantial picnic shelter for visitors to 

the park, and that did not cost the National Park Service any 

money to put that up. And we continue to raise money. And everything that we contribute is, of course, to National Park specifications. 

Since we began this journey 2 years ago, I’ve been amazed at the 

outpouring of support from business and environmental communities in the State of South Carolina and nationally. I’d like to 

present these letters from people in South Carolina. 

As Senator Hollings mentioned, this legislation is also supported 

by Richland County Council, the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, the S.C. Department of Parks, Recreation, and 

Tourism, Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club, 

South Carolina Wildlife Federation, the University of South Carolina Department of Geology, and others. 

This area is a personal passion of mine, because I have been in 

all of the majestic trees there since I was a child and went there 

with my father. My father, the late Harry Hampton, fought for decades, long before environment and wilderness preservation were 

popular causes, to have this unique area preserved for future generations. He fought a one-man battle, made a lot of enemies, met 

a lot of opposition to try to raise public interest in this largest tract 

of virgin, old-growth hardwood bottomland forest on North America. 

I witnessed my father, when I was growing up, driving his little 

yellow Ford all over the State, making speeches to sportsmen’s 

groups, and they were often hostile. He would come home exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
22

hausted. He was sometimes even booed after his speeches. But he 

never gave up. Even his own family thought of him as ‘‘crazy old 

Harry, the family eccentric.’’ He’s now recognized as a visionary 

that left a lasting legacy. 

In the 1970s, a younger group of environmental activists joined 

the fight, and, thanks to them, in 1976 Congress passed a bill declaring the Congaree Swamp National Monument a reality. My father passed away in 1980, but he had lived to see that his beloved 

Congaree would be preserved. Subsequently, the visitor’s center 

there was named for my father in response to a petition signed by 

thousands of people who knew of his efforts. 

The swamp is actually a floodplain and was designated as a 

monument due to the small land mass initially included. With the 

expansion in 1989 and this proposed additional acreage, it is only 

right to appropriately designate the area as a national park. It has 

the historical, cultural, ecological, and geographical criteria to warrant national park status. 

The proposed acquisition of this additional approximately 4,600 

acres voluntarily offered for sale by private landowners would be 

invaluable in protecting this unique and pristine ecosystem. Studies for the National Park Service have found no other area in the 

Southeast of comparable geological and biological significance. 

I understand that Hattie Fruster is here today testifying on behalf of some landowners in Richland County, and their opposition 

to this. Believe me, nobody understands better than I do the desire 

to keep long-held family land in private ownership. No one is being 

targeted to give up their land. These people who are offering their 

land for acquisition came forward willingly, wanting their land to 

be added to the preserve, the park, and wanting their property to 

be part of the legacy for future generations. 

I cannot stress enough the importance of this legislation to the 

State of South Carolina and the Nation as a whole. Crazy Harry 

is definitely smiling down on us today. 

Again, I thank you for holding the hearing today, and I do urge 

the Committee’s support. I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Hampton-Faucette follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRIET HAMPTON-FAUCETTE, COLUMBIA, SC 

Good morning. Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka, I am honored to 

be invited to address you in support of S. 1313, Senator Hollings’ Congaree National 

Park Act, which expands the boundary of the Congaree Swamp National Monument 

and changes the designation to the Congaree National Park. I am here today as not 

only a lifelong resident of Richland County but a Board Member of the Friends of 

the Congaree Swamp. Since we began this journey two years ago, I have been 

amazed at the outpouring of support from the business and environmental communities both in the State of South Carolina and nationally. 

This area is a personal passion of mine. My father, the late Harry Hampton, 

fought for decades—long before the environment and wilderness conservation were 

popular causes—to have this unique area preserved for future generations. He 

fought a one-man battle, writing newspaper editorials and in his outdoor column, 

‘‘Woods and Waters,’’ pleading to raise public interest in the largest tract of virgin, 

old-growth hardwood bottomland forest in the East. Growing up, I witnessed my father writing newspaper articles, letters to officials, and driving his little yellow Ford 

all over the state to make speeches to various sportsmen’s groups, returning late 

at night in a state of exhaustion after speaking to audiences that were so often hostile. But he never gave up. My father received almost no support in his efforts, even 

from his own family; I recall family dinners where my uncles ridiculed him for his 

passionate speeches on behalf of the need to preserve the Congaree. The family 

23

treated him like ‘‘crazy old Harry,’’ the family eccentric whereas he is now recognized as a man who left a lasting legacy and was a pioneer in the field of wildlife 

and environmental conservation. 

For many years, a hunting and fishing club my father belonged to had leased 

rights from the timber company that owned the Congaree. Some of my father’s 

hunting buddies told me that it was obvious Harry’s main interest was not in bagging game. When a covey of birds or flock of ducks flew over, someone would say, 

‘‘Where’s Harry?’’ My father would be out wandering among the champion trees, admiring them and pondering how to save them from becoming coffee tables or night 

stands. It’s not surprising that other members of the club were violently opposed 

to my father’s desire to have their playground taken away and made a federally protected wilderness. I am now in awe of my father’s vision and commitment and his 

refusal to give up, despite the abuse heaped on him by many; he was even ‘‘booed’’ 

after some of his speeches. 

Thanks to younger environmental activists who appeared on the scene in the 

1970s, my father’s dream became a reality when in 1976 Congress passed a bill creating the Congaree Swamp National Monument. My father passed away in 1980 but 

he lived to see that his beloved Congaree would be preserved and to celebrate with 

his fellow environmental conservationists! In response to a petition signed by several thousand people who knew of my father’s efforts, Congress passed legislation 

in 1984 approving the naming of the monument’s guest and staff facility the Harry 

Hampton Visitors Center. 

The Congaree Swamp, which is actually a flood plain, was designated as a monument due to the small land mass initially included. With the expansion in 1989 and 

this additional acreage, it is only right to appropriately designate this area as a National Park. The proposed acquisition of this additional 4,600 acres would be invaluable in protecting this unique, pristine ecosystem—recognized as part of the international biosphere reserve. Studies by the National Park Service have found no 

other area in the Southeast of comparable geological and biological significance. The 

properties involved are being offered for sale by private landowners who have come 

forward requesting their properties be conserved as part of the park. Should the additional acreage be added to the park, this acquisition would in no way affect adjacent land owners property rights. 

The worldwide significance of the Congaree was brought home to me recently 

when I had breakfast with a friend from Tennessee who had recently returned from 

a trip with other naturalists to the Amazon. Around their campfire one night, they 

were discussing biodiversity and the international biosphere. My friend asked, ‘‘Isn’t 

there ANY place in the Southeast that qualifies?’’ The answer from a companion 

who lives on the West Coast : ‘‘Remember the Congaree Swamp!’’

Thank you for holding this hearing today. I urge the Committee’s support.

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you very much. 

Ms. Fruster. 

STATEMENT OF HATTIE FRUSTER, PRESIDENT,

LOWER RICHLAND NAACP, HOPKINS, SC 

Ms. FRUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you very 

much for letting me and others come before you today to speak 

about the Congaree Swamp. 

My name is Hattie Fruster. I’m president of the Lower Richland 

Chapter of the NAACP. I was born and reared in Richland County, 

Lower Richland County. I also own property in Lower Richland 

County. I have traveled here today from a rural community in 

Lower Richland County, outside the State capital, to ask you to oppose changing the designation of the Congaree Swamp from a national monument to a national park, as well as to oppose changing 

the size or scope of the swamp. If you allow these changes to take 

place, you will threaten our homes, churches, farms, rights, and 

children’s inheritance. You will affect an area that is already under 

siege by county council. It is trying to grab 330 acres—330 square 

miles of our private property through restriction, down-zoning in 

the name of preservation. They’re doing it with a land-use plan 

24

called Town and Country. This plan named all 330 square miles of 

our land in Lower Richland the Congaree Preserve. 

Young, old, black, white, Democratic, Republican, Liberals, and 

Conservatives, and people from all income levels have come together to oppose this park. 

The land the national park will affect is the same land we are 

fighting to save from the county. It was acquired by families as 

freed slaves. Lower Richland is the largest contiguous land mass 

on the east coast that is still predominantly Afro-Americans-owned. 

It is also the largest mass of nearly all farmland that is within a 

15-mile drive of the metropolitan city, State capital, and on the 

east coast. There is a gold mine in the real estate in Lower Richland, and it’s not for sale. 

We appreciated being heard by you today. We did not bring a 

crowd, but we do have representatives here from South Carolina 

Property Rights, Moving Forward, Lower Richland NAACP, and we 

also have some with us today have already lost their land that they 

inherited from slavery, to the Congaree Monument. 

National Parks can condemn land. All across the country, property rights and property values are being threatened by National 

Parks, and the extreme conservatives are allowed to make decisions concerning them. 

The Congaree National Monument is already a national wilderness area. There is no vehicle, roads, or we cannot cut our trees. 

We have seen the Nature Conservancy map and maps of South 

Carolina farmland. It’s a program that both shows miles of restricted buffer zones on the private property around—that allows 

extending around preserve areas across a river of Calhoun and 

Lexington Counties, plus huge areas called ‘‘corridors.’’ They go all 

the way from the core area of Columbia and to the Sumter County 

line. Restricting these areas that would wipe out more counties of 

private property. 

We just learned that, years ago, the Congaree Monument was 

designated as a United Nations Biosphere Reserve. This was done 

without citizens’ input and without the approval of the Congaree, 

who mostly ultimately gave up authority over the preserve. 

The Biosphere Reserve Program clearly calls for the taking of 

private property. According to the United Nations, land must be 

available through appropriate zoning for a preserve core. The 

parks—are often restricted areas, a buffer zone of private property 

around the reserve. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fruster follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HATTIE FRUSTER, PRESIDENT, LOWER RICHMOND NAACP, 

HOPKINS, SC 

First, I would like to thank Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Dorgan, and the 

other distinguished members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak here 

today. 

I’m Hattie Fruster, President of the Lower Richland NAACP. I have traveled here 

from Hopkins, SC, a rural community in Richland County, outside our state capital 

of Columbia, to ask you to OPPOSE changing the designation of the Congaree 

Swamp from a National Monument to a National Park, as well as to oppose changing the size or scope of the swamp. If you allow these changes to take place, as are 

provided in Senator Hollings’ bill, S. 1313, you will threaten our homes, churches, 

farms, rights, and children’s inheritance. You will also increase federal presence in 

an area that is already under siege by Richland County Council who, guided by local 

extreme environmentalists, is already seeking to grab 330 square miles of our priVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
25

vate property through restrictive zoning, under the guise of ‘‘preservation.’’ This is 

being done by passing an intrusive comprehensive land use plan, called the Town 

and Country Plan, which will be implemented by downzoning our land in Lower 

Richland. They have named our entire area ‘‘the Congaree Preserve.’’

Even though it was passed in 1999, we have held up the restrictive zoning associated with our Plan for nearly 5 years. 

In addition, the SC legislature just passed a law, the Conservation Bank Act, to fund designated land trusts with $50 million per year to grab up more land from 

us (by acquiring title) and land rights (by acquiring conservation easements). That’s 

a million dollars a week for at least 10 years. 

Our comprehensive land use Plan targets minorities, and will result in segregation and gentrification, but it will also negatively affect every property owner in the 

county. That’s why our people—YOUNG, OLD, BLACK, WHITE, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, AND people from ALL INCOME 

LEVELS, have come together to oppose it. 

The land the National Park will affect is the same land we are fighting to save 

from the County, much of which was acquired by families as freed slaves. That 

someone wants our land is no accident. Lower Richland is the largest contiguous 

land mass on the East Coast that is still predominately African-American owned. 

It is also the largest mass of nearly all pristine farmland that is within a 15 minute 

drive of a major metropolitan city, or state capital, on the east coast. There is a gold 

mine in real estate, and it’s NOT FOR SALE. 

Turning the Congaree Swamp into a National Park will add the power of the federal government to the bitter struggle that is already going on in SC over land 

which we have been loving stewards of for centuries. 

We appreciate being heard by you. Unfortunately, we were not told we could 

speak until it was too late to get together a crowd of our people to come with us. 

We work, sometimes two and three jobs, and a trip to Washington with two days 

notice is difficult. Still, I have brought some of those today who have been involved 

for years in our fight for property rights. I wish you could hear from them all. But 

since that’s not possible, you will be hearing their voices when I speak, because we 

are all of one accord. Kay and Bill McClanahan are here with the SC Property 

Rights Watch and Richland Landowners Association. Lilly Bates, our Vice President 

of the Lower Richland NAACP, is here. We have members of the Moving Forward 

Association. We also brought someone who has already lost the land her family acquired as freed slaves, when the swamp became a National Monument, and we have 

people here who most assuredly will lose their family land once the Monument becomes a Park. Please don’t believe others when they say that this will not happen. 

We are the proof. 

Changing the Congaree Swamp from a Monument to a National Park involves 

much more than changing the name. National Parks can condemn land. If you allow 

this change to take place, it is just a matter of time before they take our farms and 

homes around the swamp. 

All across this country, property rights and property values are being threatened 

by National Parks and the extreme environmentalists who are being allowed to 

make key decisions concerning them. 

The Nature Conservancy is involved in this. We’re told they are the ones making 

the arrangements for the expansion of the swamp. Nature Conservancy is under 

Congressional investigation because of their Enron-like business practices with land 

they have acquired, often using our tax dollars. The Sierra Club is already applauding this bill and asking for expansion of the park. They do not care what the impact 

will be on the people who live beside or near it. They just pushed to ban all commercial harvesting of trees on all national forest land, including SC’s Sumter and 

Francis Marion National Forests. They are opposing the bill before this Senate to 

allow the Forestry Service to protect our nation’s trees from wildfires, like those 

which are ravaging the West. 

The Congaree National Monument is already a National Wilderness area, where 

no motorized vehicles are allowed, no roads, and no tree cutting. We have seen a 

map prepared by the Nature Conservancy showing great big buffer zones on our private property around the swamp, and another which is an official part of the SC 

Forestland Legacy Program which shows the core area of the swamp and miles of 

buffer zones around it, plus huge areas called ‘‘corridors’’ which go all the way into 

the City of Columbia and into Sumter county, all of which will be restricted. Some 

core and all the buffer and corridor land is private property. The core area found 

in Calhoun County, Lexington County, and Richland County and it’s buffer zones 

and corridors could easily wipe out several counties of our private property. 

Things have already happened at the Congaree Swamp which should have been 

shared with the people who live down there, and with our Congress. We just learned 

26

that, years ago, the Congaree Monument was designated as a United Nations Biosphere Reserve (The South Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve) through the 

Man and Biosphere (MAB) Program of UNESCO. This should never have been allowed to happen. It was done without citizens’ input and without the approval of 

Congress, who must ultimately give up authority over the property in it. Please do 

not let anyone tell you that the UN does not control these areas. Yellowstone National Park has nearly been put OFF LIMITS to the American people, and the 

American government must now report to the United Nations every year in order 

for it to be able to continue to function. This can happen to us in SC. 

The Biosphere Reserve program clearly calls for the destruction of private property rights. Some states have opposed it outright. We oppose it as well. According 

to the UN, in order to qualify to be a biosphere reserve, land must be available 

‘‘through appropriate zonation’’—that’s a quote—for: a preserved ‘‘core,’’ which is the 

Park or other restricted area; a ‘‘buffer zone’’ or zones around the core, which includes private property, where according to the UN, human activities are to be managed, and finally; an area outside the buffers where sustainable ‘‘Smart Growth’’ 

management practices’’ are used. The Town and Country Comprehensive Land Use 

Plan will clearly provide the zoning necessary to extend the tentacles of the swamp’s 

biosphere reserve out into our private property. 

We need your help, not to further weaken us, but to save us. If you change anything at the swamp right now, you’ll be helping the other side. 

Sustainable development or ‘‘Smart Growth,’’ as it is called, is an elitist, radical 

environmental policy which has become a cancer to this nation. Sustainable development, buffer zones on private property, restriction of our lives and futures—is all 

part of a UN Treaty that was rejected by this U.S. Senate in 1994. Surprisingly, 

even though YOU refused to embrace this radical concept, we are seeing its implementation everywhere. 

Everything I am saying today is documented. Our proof came from the United Nations, Congaree Swamp, National Parks, official governmental maps, leading experts’ commentary, media news, and some of the many citizens’ groups who have 

been affected by similar land-use restrictions. I will also be happy to provide you 

with names of people from other states who have fallen victim to a National Park. 

Please oppose this measure and end ALL designations at the Congaree Swamp 

that could erode Congress’ own authority over it, or the rights of people who own 

property around it. 

This bill is finally the explanation for us why all our private property in Lower 

Richland County has been designated as the ‘‘Congaree Preserve,’’ and why we have 

been targeted for the most aggressive land-grab and social engineering project in the 

history of America. 

Our Plan will purge an entire income level of people from our county, many of 

whom will be African American families who have owned their land since slavery. 

Surely you don’t want to be a part of that. 

Please don’t do this. Don’t spend another dime on it. We have so many truly worthy causes that need your attention. The children, the poor, and the elderly of SC 

and across our country need your help. The Congaree Swamp does not. 

Thank you for allowing me and my friends and neighbors to join you today. 

God bless you and God bless America.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Ms. FRUSTER. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Thanks to all of you. 

Just a couple of short questions. Ms. Spencer, some of this land 

that you’re talking about, then, has been set up for subdivisions in 

the future. Is that correct? 

Ms. SPENCER. That’s correct. 

Senator THOMAS. What arrangements? Is this all willing-buyer 

arrangement? 

Ms. SPENCER. There’s about 20 landowners that own lots in 

there. We have talked to a number of them, and they are willing 

sellers. Right now, we’re trying to appraise the properties to find 

out what the appraisal price will be, and then we will negotiate 

with them. But, as of, you know, thus far, we’ve had some willing 

sellers. 

27

Senator THOMAS. And so the cost to the Park Service is just 

going to be the subsequent management of that. 

Ms. SPENCER. Right. We will give them all of the property that 

we are able to acquire. 

Senator THOMAS. And that will be a park. All of it will be a park. 

Ms. SPENCER. Yes. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Frye, how long has the Harpers Ferry Park 

been there? 

Mr. FRYE. Harpers Ferry Park was established, Mr. Chairman, 

in 1944, so we’re coming up on the 60th anniversary next year. 

Senator THOMAS. And you’ve felt, the whole time, that you 

weren’t complete? 

Mr. FRYE. That is correct, yes, sir. The park has actually expanded numerous times from it’s original boundary, so this will not 

be the first. It’s not unprecedented to——

Senator THOMAS. Will it be the last? 

Mr. FRYE. I hope, in West Virginia, that’ll be the case, yes, sir. 

We certainly hope so. 

Senator THOMAS. I’m a little more sensitive, I guess, about that 

than most people. I live in a State that’s already 50 percent federally owned, and at some point I think, you know, we’re going to 

have to have some—either some tradeoffs or something so that 

Federal land ownership doesn’t continue to grow. Now, in your 

State I suppose that’s not as much of an issue. 

Mr. FRYE. It is not. This represents a very small percentage of 

the overall land mass in Jefferson County, as well, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, we’ve worked very hard to build public consensus 

there, locally and regionally, in support of this. 

Senator THOMAS. So that would be willing sellers, as well. 

Mr. FRYE. That’s correct. All the private-property parcel-owners 

have been contacted, and we’ve been working with them over the 

last, as much as, 10 years to try to negotiate and preserve these 

properties. Yes, sir. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. 

Ms. Faucette, it’s already a monument, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. That’s correct. 

Senator THOMAS. Is it the whole area that you’re talking about 

is now a monument? 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. Well, the 22,000 acres that we already 

have is the national monument. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. And they were hoping to acquire the 

4,600, approximately, additional acres that have been offered for 

sale by private landowners which would give more of a buffer. 

Senator THOMAS. What’s the particular advantage to having it a 

park, as opposed to what it is now? 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. Well, to be honest, I think it’s more 

prestigious. Maybe that is why. It would give it more attention, because the Congaree is not that widely known, except for people who 

are experts in the field of biodiversity. And we have researchers 

coming from all over the world to study it. 

Senator THOMAS. Now, this is an international biosphere reserve. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. Reserve, right. 

28

Senator THOMAS. What will that have to do with the—what impact will the change have to do with that? 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. It won’t have any. Sorry about that. 

Senator THOMAS. No, that’s fine. 

Ms. Fruster, how many property owners are there, private property owners, within the proposed expansion? 

Ms. FRUSTER. Lower Richland is a predominantly Afro-American 

community, and our income in Lower Richland is approximately—

average of $20,000 or $25,000 a year. It would be hard and a burden on the Afro-American community if they will have to relocate, 

because most of the people in Lower Richland live in manufacturer’s homes. They already own their own property. This is why some 

of the—means that the young people can’t afford to buy a home or 

come to ownership until they are able to build their own houses. 

We also have a lot of people in Lower Richland that is on fixed incomes, such as myself, that is disabled, and it would be hard for 

us to relocate. And so we will lose all our inheritance, because the 

land, the majority of the land, in Lower Richland was inherited 

through slavery, and we would not like to lose our land. 

Senator THOMAS. How many people are there impacted? Do you 

know? 

Ms. FRUSTER. Well, we only have the map. They have never had 

a community meeting with us, with the people in Lower Richland. 

Other organizations have endorsed the plan, but we, in Lower 

Richland, the citizens, have never had the opportunity to sit down 

and discuss this plan with them, how it will affect us. They’ve 

never done the impact study. So we don’t know where we stand, 

no more than what we read in the maps and what they already 

have written down how it will affect us. 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. There’s another community meeting 

planned for this coming Monday. 

Senator THOMAS. Let me go back to you. Now, there’s already 

22,000 acres set aside, is that correct? You’re talking about additional 41⁄2 thousand. 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. Yes. Four-thousand-——

Senator THOMAS. And that’s the 4,000 that these people——

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. I guess. But this is not to pressure 

other landowners to sell their land. This is offered, you know, on 

the map, just these bits, by private landowners who want to sell. 

Senator THOMAS. All right, thank you. 

Senator Bunning, no questions? 

Well, we thank you very much for your input. We’ll be considering these proposals before the full committee. So thank you so 

much for being here. 

If you have additional questions, we’ll submit them to you. If you 

have comments, we can put them into the record. 

So the committee is adjourned. 

Ms. HAMPTON-FAUCETTE. Thank you very much. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(29)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF DEBBY SPENCER TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Question 1. How many property owners are in the area of the proposed expansion? 

Are any of these property owners opposed to the expansion? 

Answer. The Calloway County Fiscal Court recently purchased a large parcel of 

land to serve as a buffer between Fort Heiman and any development. We have also 

held numerous public meetings in both Calloway County, Kentucky and Dover, Tennessee and there have been numerous articles in newspapers in both states. We 

have had no opposition that I am aware of. In fact, the communities surrounding 

Fort Donelson have actually formed a ‘‘Save Fort Heiman’’ grassroots organization 

to preserve the site. They are very excited about the possibility of it becoming a part 

of the National Park Service. 

Question 2. Fort Heiman is mentioned in the bill under consideration. What is the 

relationship between Fort Heiman and Fort Donelson? 

Answer. The capture of the trilogy of forts (Heiman, Henry and Donelson) that 

guarded the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers by the Union constituted the first 

major Union victory in the Civil War. The outcome earned Brig. General Ulysses 

S. Grant his promotion to major general and the nickname ‘‘Unconditional Surrender Grant’’ and prominence that lead to the Presidency of the United States. 

If decisions had been made differently during this crucial pivot point of the war, 

some say the outcome might have been different. For one to properly interpret Fort 

Donelson, one needs to understand the important role of Fort Heiman. 

Question 3. Fort Heiman has been subdivided for future development. How many 

lots have been sold and how many are still available for sale? 

Answer. There are 45 lots within the subdivision. Twenty-two of the lots have 

been sold to fourteen different property owners. The remaining lots were purchased 

by the Calloway County Fiscal Court on September 23, 2003 when they purchased 

the surrounding 160 plus acres. It is their intent to give all of this property to the 

National Park if Congress allows it. 

There is one home built in the proposed area, which serves as a weekend retreat 

for its owner, and one home partially completed. Both home owners are very supportive of the area becoming a National Park, but have expressed a strong interest 

in retaining their homes. I have also personally spoken to nine of the twelve other 

property owners who would be willing sellers if a fair price were offered. I have left 

messages for the remaining three property owners. I have heard that they are willing sellers, but I have not personally spoken to them. 

CIVIL WAR ADVENTURES, 

Sharpsburg, MD, October 8, 2003. 

Mr. PETE LUCERO, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 1576

DEAR MR. LUCERO: Below are responses to the questions you forwarded to me yesterday. 

30

RESPONSES OF DENNIS E. FRYE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Question 1. How many acres would this legislation authorize for addition to Harpers Ferry? 

Answer. 1,240 acres. 

Question 2. How many private property owners have land within the boundaries 

of the proposed expansion? Are any owners opposed to the expansion? 

Answer. None. Property is outside the boundary until it is acquired, either 

through donation or government purchase. Property can only be obtained from willing sellers. The park superintendent has met individually with each owner to explain the public’s interest in their parcels. To my knowledge, I am unaware of opposition. 

Question 3. Are private property owners within the boundaries of the proposed expansion currently restricted from developing their property? Will authorization to 

purchase the property lead to restrictions or pressure on private property owners? 

Answer. Owners are not restricted from development. This authorization cannot 

produce restrictions or downzoning. There is no pressure on landowners as private 

property can only be obtained from willing sellers. 

October 14, 2003.

TO: TOM LILLIE and DAVID BROOKS

FROM: DABNEY HEGG

Re: S. 1313, Congaree National Park Act landowner information

To follow-up with Chairman Thomas’ request for information on the landowners 

affected by the expansion of the Congaree Swamp National Monument, the following 

is their specific information. All landowners have come forward as willing sellers: 

Santee River Limited Partnership (2,420.4 acres)—The Santee River Limited 

Partnership is managed by and consists of members of a Chicago based family. 

Riverstone Properties LLC (1,886 acres)—Riverstone Properties LLC is a partnership managed by a Richmond, Virginia based individual who is the managing partner. 

Johnston River Tract LLC (270.46 acres)—The Johnston River LLC is managed 

primarily by Otis C. Johnston, who resides in Columbia, SC and is the managing 

partner. 

RESPONSES OF HARRIETT HAMPTON-FAUCETTE TO QUESTIONS

FROM THE COMMITTEE

Question 1. In addition to being a National Monument, the Congaree Swamp is 

also an International Biosphere Reserve. What is the size of the biosphere reserve 

relative to the size of the park? 

Answer. The 15,200-acre Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized by 

Congress on Oct. 18, 1976, and was designated as a Biosphere Reserve on June 30, 

1983. Congress authorized a 7,000-acre expansion of Congaree Swamp National 

Monument to 22,200 acres in 1988. 

Question 1a. Is the Biosphere Reserve under consideration for expansion and has 

that resulted in any confusion over the National Park Service expansion? 

Answer. The Biosphere Reserve is not under consideration for expansion. Legislation to expand and redesignate Congaree Swamp National Monument to Congaree 

National Park is in no way related to the park’s 1983 designation as a biosphere 

reserve. 

There may be some confusion. Ms. Fruster’s Oct. 2, 2003, testimony before the 

National Parks Subcommittee indicated that she has been misinformed. While 

speaking about biosphere reserves, Ms. Fruster stated, ‘‘Yellowstone National Park 

has nearly been put OFF LIMITS to the American people.’’ Yellowstone’s 2002 visitation of approximately 4 million visitors indicates otherwise. The biosphere reserve 

program’s main purpose is to award recognition to sites of exceptional ecological, scientific or cultural importance. Contrary to Ms. Fruster’s testimony, recognition does 

not pose a threat to the sovereignty of American lands; it does not impose management or reporting requirements on public lands; it does not impose land-use or regulatory restrictions on private property owners; and it does not restrict economic 

growth. Biosphere reserves remain under the sovereign jurisdiction of the country 

where they are located. 

Question 2. How many property owners are within the boundary of the proposed 

expansion? 

31

Answer. There are only four tracts of land proposed for the boundary expansion 

in S. 1313. A single entity owns each tract. All four tracts are located on the far 

eastern end of the current Monument within the Congaree River floodplain. The 

tracts include the following:

An 1,886-acre tract owned by a company in Richmond, Va. 

A 2,420-acre tract owned by a large Chicago, III., firm. 

A 29-acre tract owned by a single individual who has been interested in negotiating a selling price with the National Park Service for more than a year. He 

could not do so because his property was outside the park’s authorized boundary.

These three tracts are currently on the market for sale.

The final tract is:

A 270-acre tract owned by an individual who is interested in having his property included within the authorized boundary, but isn’t interested in selling it 

at this time.

Please let me know if you need any further information. 

(33)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 

Columbia SC, October 2, 2003. 

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC. 

Hon. DANIEL AKAKA, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington DC. 

The South Carolina Wildlife Federation and Friends of Congaree Swamp appreciate this opportunity to support S. 1313, the Congaree National Park Act.

S. 1313

• Authorizes addition of approximately 4,600 acres to Congaree Swamp National 

Monument; and 

• Changes Congaree’s designation from National Monument to National Park.

The 4,600-acre expansion extends a portion of Congaree’s eastern boundary to the 

Wateree River. This boundary expansion is a significant step toward implementing 

two visions:

• It implements part of the Conservation Vision of the South Carolina Landscape 

Mapping Project by linking two Core Conservation Areas: the 22,200-acre Congaree Swamp National Monument and the 16,700-acre Upper Santee Swamp 

Natural Area. 

• It implements part of the Fork Swamp Large Area Project, approved almost 

three years ago by the SC Heritage Trust Advisory Board of the SC Dept. of 

Natural Resources.

Congaree Swamp’s significance is affirmed by many studies and by its designations as a National Natural Landmark, a National Monument, and an International 

Biosphere Reserve. A nomination is prepared to recognize Congaree Swamp as Wetlands of International Importance. 

Upper Santee Swamp’s significance is described in the South Carolina Public 

Service Authority’s draft application (2003) for a new license for the Santee Cooper 

Hydroelectric Project:

Perhaps the most important habitat in the project area, in terms of size, ecological integrity, and function are the river floodplain complexes, which contain 

cypress swamps and bottomland hardwoods, a habitat complex most well-represented by the Upper Santee Swamp. . . . These wooded wetland complexes 

are extremely diverse in terms of life forms present and are highly variable 

from one point to another because of variations in topography and hydrology. 

Besides their importance for a wide variety of wildlife, these systems support 

downstream river reaches by contributing valuable organic debris for food-chain 

support, as well as hydrologic support and flood-storage functions.

Part of Upper Santee Swamp is designated as a 16,700-acre Natural Area, further 

described in the Santee Cooper Natural Area Management Plan (1980). 

Again, a key feature of the Congaree boundary expansion in S. 1313 is linking 

Congaree Swamp National Monument (Congaree National Park) and Upper Santee 

Swamp. 

S. 1313 respects property ownership rights. The Congaree boundary expansion in 

S. 1313 consists of lands whose owners have given permission to include their land 

in this legislation. 

34

This boundary expansion was proposed and studied extensively in 1994, but one 

of the two key landowners was not ready at that time to include the tract in legislation. Now, in 2003, both key landowners are willing to sell their tracts for addition 

to Congaree Swamp National Monument. 

However, both key landowners are also willing to sell these tracts to other buyers 

if the Congaree boundary expansion languishes. And both key landowners are considering subdividing and selling their tracts as smaller parcels. One such parcel has 

already been sold. This situation underscores the urgency to authorize the expanded 

boundary and purchase both key tracts before they are subdivided and sold as multiple parcels, especially if the new owners of the multiple parcels are unwilling to 

include their land in the Congaree boundary. 

This area between Congaree Swamp National Monument and Upper Santee 

Swamp is not only an important linkage between Core Conservation Areas. This 

area possesses significant natural and historical attributes which complement the 

resources of Congaree Swamp National Monument. The following historical information is compiled from many sources, and extensive documentation is available. 

The expansion area includes the site of the southern road to McCord’s Ferry. This 

ferry, first chartered in 1766, was situated at the northern tip of ‘‘the great bend’’ 

of the Congaree River. Actually, McCord’s Ferry was preceded in the late 1740s by 

Joyner’s Ferry. McCord’s Ferry is mentioned in accounts of the American Revolution—with combatants of both sides crossing the Congaree River at McCord’s Ferry. 

For example, Gen. Nathanael Greene crossed the Congaree at McCord’s Ferry to 

meet with Francis Marion and Henry ‘‘Light-Horse Harry’’ Lee after the Patriots 

captured the British post at Fort Motte. 

Fort Motte was the plantation house of Rebecca Motte, widow of Jacob Motte, at 

Mount Joseph on the Congaree River. The British seized and fortified Rebecca 

Motte’s house as one of their posts to defend British supply routes during the Revolution. The Patriots succeeded in setting the house roof ablaze in May 1781, thereby 

forcing the British to surrender. The site of Fort Motte (Rebecca Motte’s house) was 

in modern-day Calhoun County, but Motte lands extended into modern-day Richland County—part of this Congaree boundary expansion. 

The charter to operate McCord’s Ferry lapsed during the Revolution. Thereafter, 

citizens petitioned that a ferry be established upriver from McCord’s Ferry at the 

plantation of Isaac Huger. The General Assembly chartered Huger’s Ferry in 1786. 

Congaree Swamp National Monument contains several sites on the National Register of Historic Places, one of which is a remnant of the road to Huger’s Ferry. 

Soon after Huger’s Ferry was established, citizens petitioned to re-establish 

McCord’s Ferry. Isaac Huger objected because he had gone to great trouble and expense to establish Huger’s Ferry and the roads to it. 

Mary Brewton Motte, youngest daughter of Jacob and Rebecca Motte, also objected because she did not want the road to McCord’s Ferry to run through her plantation, known as Buckhead, on the Congaree River. Miss Motte feared the road to 

the ferry would render her plantation useless. 

Eventually, McCord’s Ferry was re-established, which is significant for the Congaree boundary expansion in bill S. 1313. As explained previously, McCord’s Ferry 

was situated at the northern tip of ‘‘the great bend’’ of the Congaree River. Accordingly, the road to McCord’s Ferry from the south was within the boundary expansion area in bill S. 1313, as was part of Mary Brewton Motte’s Buckhead plantation. 

Documents pertaining to the South Carolina General Assembly’s periodic re-chartering of McCord’s Ferry, into the 1840s, provide interesting insights about the Congaree River cutting off its former channel, known today as Bates Old River, the 

longest oxbow of the Congaree River and one of the longest oxbows in South Carolina. Accordingly, two ferries became needed, one to cross the former channel of the 

Congaree, and one to cross the river’s new channel. Thus, we know much more 

about the history of the Bates Old River oxbow than any oxbow within the current 

boundary of Congaree Swamp National Monument. 

McCord’s Ferry became known as Bates’ Ferry before the end of the Civil War. 

Official records from the Civil War mention Bates’ Ferry. In 1865, as the Union 

Army advanced from Orangeburg to Columbia, Union troops staged a diversion by 

skirmishing with Confederate troops at Bates’ Ferry. 

Currently, a railroad is the eastern boundary of Congaree Swamp National Monument. It is the second-oldest railroad in South Carolina, completed in 1842. S. 1313 

extends part of Congaree’s eastern boundary from the railroad to the west bank of 

the Wateree River. 

In 1852, the Congaree River experienced a huge flood. At that time, it was the 

largest flood ever recorded on the Congaree River, and today the 1852 flood remains 

the second-largest flood on the Congaree. The presence of the railroad led to interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
35

esting newspaper reports about 1852 flood damage to railroad structures crossing 

the Congaree River and floodplain. 

The Confederacy utilized this railroad during the Civil War. The second-largest 

Confederate troop movement by rail during the Civil War utilized this railroad, 

when Longstreet’s First Corps moved from Virginia to north Georgia, arriving at the 

time of the Battle of Chickamauga. Records also describe destruction of railroad 

property (including the Congaree River bridge and Congaree floodplain trestles) and 

structures in the village of Kingville as the Union Army approached and departed 

Columbia. 

Thank you for considering our statement in support of S. 1313, the Congaree National Park Act of 2003. Please contact us if additional information will be helpful. 

Sincerely, 

ANGELA VINEY, Executive Director, 

South Carolina Wildlife Federation.

LABRUCE ALEXANDER, President, 

Friends of Congaree Swamp. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM L. GRAF, EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY

PROFESSOR AND PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

The purpose of this testimony is to support the passage of the Congaree National 

Park Act of 2003 by pointing out the geographic, scientific, and historic significance 

of the park from the standpoint of a practicing researcher. My views derive from 

more than 30 years experience as a researcher, teacher, and public servant specializing in the environmental sciences and policy for public land and water. My experience is national and international in scope, and includes many public land and 

water areas throughout the United States. The following testimony addresses the 

national geographic importance of the Congaree, its scientific significance, and its 

historical importance, with a concluding comment about the name of the unit. 

Geographic Importance 

The high degree of protection and support offered by national park status for the 

Congaree is important from the following national geographic perspectives: 

1. The park represents the only extensive tract of eastern, flood plain, hardwood, 

old growth deciduous forest in the nation, so that it adds to the diversity and representativeness of the park system from a national perspective. The long-term effectiveness of the national park system in achieving its goal of preservation of resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations depends on the inclusion of features that represent the diversity of geologic, hydrologic, and biologic systems across the entire country. Because of the history of economic development and 

the disposition of federal public lands, the park system includes substantial representation of western ecosystems, but it is less complete with respect to eastern 

ecosystems. When the United States became a nation, there were more than 

24,000,000 acres of eastern, flood plain, old growth, deciduous forest. Only small 

remnants of a few hundred to a few thousand acres now remain. The Congaree’s 

11,000 acres is the largest remnant of this east coast ecosystem, and is as much 

a part of our heritage as the redwood forests in the park system on the west coast. 

2. The park’s location in the eastern United States is important because in terms 

of area the national park system is heavily weighted toward western areas: eastern 

additions contribute to regional balance. In terms of total acreage, relatively large 

western parks dominate the national park system. Yet, the natural, non-urban ecosystems of the eastern United States are of equal historic and scientific importance, 

and they are located close to many of the nation’s largest population centers and 

large numbers of potential users. The opportunity for public scientific and historical 

education is greatly enhanced if the park system includes sizeable eastern units, 

and the Congaree offers a unique opportunity in its addition to the system. In a part 

of the nation where public lands are a small percentage of the total surface area, 

the Congaree is relatively large. 

3. The size of the park protects the resource. National parks for environmental 

resources are often relatively large, but absolute size is much less important than 

the relationship between the geographic areas of the park and the resource it is designed to protect. By this yardstick, the Congaree (with its proposed 4,500 acre addition) is at the optimal size, Of the 13,000 acres of old growth forest now in the entire state of South Carolina, 11,000 acres are in the park. 

4. The park’s 15,000 acres of wilderness are especially important from a national 

perspective because of the relative scarcity of wilderness in the eastern United 

States. Although national park space is weighted toward the western half of the naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:51 Dec 19, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90-951 SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
36

tion, wilderness space is even more heavily weighted to the west. Of the nation’s 

105.5 million wilderness acres, 54% is in Alaska, and 90% is in the western portion 

of the country. The 15,000 acre wilderness component of Congaree is one of the largest truly wild areas in the southeast, and my personal experience indicates that it 

is truly wild, pristine, and unique with respect to the existing wilderness system. 

Scientific Significance 

National park status for the Congaree is exceptionally important from the scientific standpoint for the following reasons: 

1. The old growth, flood plain, deciduous forest is a world-class research and education resource. Ecosystem science depends for its understanding of environmental 

dynamics on investigations of areas that have not been significantly affected by 

human activities. Although the understanding of human effects is necessary for good 

management, fundamental analysis requires areas that are as natural as possible. 

These undisturbed areas are especially difficult to find on flood plains (where economic development is focused), and undisturbed, old growth forests are additionally 

rare. The park has some of the tallest trees in the eastern United States with the 

highest forest canopy of its type in the world. The Congaree represents a globally 

significant scientific laboratory that is unequaled for its ecosystem type, a fact recognized by its status as an International Biosphere Reserve. Annually, researchers 

from the United States and other continents use the Congaree as a platform for 

their research, and their published scientific results lead to better management of 

this and other forests. 

2. The forest is a benchmark system and a barometer of ecosystem responses to 

global climate, changes. Of special scientific importance is the fact that most of the 

Congaree is old growth forest, never having been harvested. The Congaree therefore 

represents eastern hardwood forests on flood plains as they were before technological intervention, and it represents a standard ecological yardstick by which 

change in other areas can be measured. When we attempt to restore other systems 

to more natural conditions, the Congaree provides a model toward which we can 

work. When decision makers and the public require an understanding of what the 

goals of forest restoration are, we have an accessible example in the public lands 

of the Congaree. This forest also can be used as a measuring device for assessing 

the effects of global climate change. Often, the effects of such changes are hard to 

gauge in ecosystems where other human influences are overwhelming, such as in 

managed forests. Because the Congaree is in its original, natural state, it records 

and responds to global adjustments and serves as a sort of ‘‘miner’s canary’’ for forest health throughout the eastern United States. 

3. The river is a benchmark system for river restoration. The forest of the Congaree is the unit’s most obvious environmental resource, but the Congaree River 

which forms the southern border of the park, is of equal importance for science. Although there are a few sizeable dams many miles upstream from the park, the flow 

of the river is close to its natural condition in the vicinity of the Congaree, with 

large fluctuations on monthly and annual time scales. As a result, the aquatic habitats and the landforms of the river are nearly natural, something that is exceptionally rare in the United States, where most rivers are dammed and artificially controlled. The Clean Water Act mandates that it is national policy to restore and 

maintain our nation’s water courses, but there are few models to follow when we 

try to modify dam operations and other control mechanisms to simulate more natural conditions. The Congaree River in the vicinity of the park provides one of the 

very few examples that can be used as a benchmark by researchers, managers, and 

decision-makers dealing with the restoration of large eastern American rivers. 

4. The diversity of the system makes it an indispensable wildlife habitat area. 

There are more than 700 species of plants in the Congaree, a remarkably diverse 

basic ecosystem that permits a wide range of wildlife to flourish. Because diversity 

of animal species depends on diversity of plants for survival, the Congaree is particularly important from the perspective of biodiversity. There are no other tracts 

of similar size, public or private, in the Piedmont and coastal plain that are as diverse as the Congaree. This characteristic makes the park a significant gene pool 

and life assemblage very different from the managed landscapes that surround it. 

We do not yet know the extent or ultimate value of this diversity, but we do know 

that biodiversity is becoming an increasingly rare geographic asset in most parts of 

the world. As a result, while development in many parts of the world destroys forests, the Congaree becomes increasingly important for research. 

Historical Significance 

National park status for the Congaree is important because the area is of surprising historical significance for the following reasons: 

37

1. The ancient history of the area is reflected in archaeological evidence. More 

than 10,000 years ago, ancient societies used the Congaree area for life and sustenance. Some of the remains of their activities are found in the general region, including the park area. However, an extensive inventory and assessment of these 

sites has not yet been done for the park. Substantial amounts of future exploration 

and research remain in the area, with the results likely to shed significant understanding on the lives and livelihoods of these ancient peoples. Protection of these 

as yet unstudied sites is essential if we are to learn about them from professional 

investigations. 

2. The area of the proposed park includes a critical gateway for colonial expansion 

from coastal areas into the interior of the southern Piedmont. The 4,500-acre proposed expansion of the existing national monument is absolutely critical because it 

would result in the inclusion of the area at the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree rivers. This area was a funnel for the first extensions of colonial settlement 

upward from the coast and into what is now central South Carolina during the early 

1700s. As an early representative of colonial expansion from coast to Piedmont that 

was occurring all along the east coast, this area was the site of two essential ferry 

crossings, Huger’s Ferry (in the present national monument) and McCord’s Ferry (in 

the extension area). The creation of these ferry crossings, establishment of trading 

posts at the confluence of the two rivers, and conversion of Native American trails 

to primitive roads radiating northward and westward from this confluence were critical components of the early history of this part of the nation. Preservation of these 

sites and development of interpretive mechanisms in a national park will provide 

much needed educational opportunities related to the American story, informing 

visitors about the earliest westward expansions. 

3. The area includes archaeological sites related to early European settlement. 

From records we know that the general Congaree area was one of the first major 

grazing areas of what became the United States. In the late 1600s, long before the 

better known ‘‘wild west’’ of more recent times, cowboys grazed their herds in the 

vicinity of the Congaree. During the colonial period, graziers constructed mounds for 

their cattle to use during flooding periods. The Congaree still contains examples of 

ring dikes, mounds, and levees constructed by some of the nation’s first cowboys. 

Additional research into these features and their associated lifestyles and economy 

is likely to produce important educational opportunities not available in any other 

location. 

The Name ‘‘Congaree National Park’’

Congaree National Park is an appropriate name for this unit of the park system 

for three important reasons: 

1. The present label of ‘‘Congaree Swamp’’ is a misnomer. Congaree Swamp National Monument is a misapplication of the term ‘‘swamp.’’ ‘‘Swamp’’ is a geographical term applied to areas of low, waterlogged ground, often characterized by 

bog or marsh vegetation. The area of this park unit is not a swamp, but rather it 

is a flood plain, periodically overflowed by river waters. Its vegetation is flood plain 

forest rather than swamp marsh grasses. For this reason, the national park name 

should not include the term ‘‘swamp.’’

2. ‘‘Congaree’’ is the name of the occupants of this area before the arrival of AngloAmericans. The Native American tribe that occupied the area of the park called 

itself the Congaree, and the memorialization of their occupancy here is appropriate. 

The Congaree tribe, like most tribes in the coastal Southeast, was small in number. 

Within a few years of their contact with Anglo-Americans, they were decimated by 

disease, and survivors scattered to join other nearby tribes. 

3. From colonial times, Anglo-Americans referred to the area that includes the 

park as ‘‘the Congaree.’’ From about 1700 onward, the area of land between the 

Wateree and Congaree rivers was known as ‘‘the Congaree.’’ The label appears in 

newspapers and books until the formation of present-day Richland County shortly 

before 1800, though ‘‘the Congaree’’ continued in colloquial use for many years. As 

a label for the national park, Congaree (without the additional term ‘‘swamp’’) has 

historical significance. 

In summary, national park status is strongly justified for an expanded version of 

the existing Congaree Swamp National Monument because of the potential role of 

the unit in the nation-wide system of parks. The Congaree is a place of substantial 

scientific significance and historical importance, and its preservation and management as a national park will benefit present and future generations of Americans 

as well as providing protection for a resource of national and international significance.

38

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

COLUMBIA, SC, AUGUST 4, 2003. 

Senator FRITZ HOLLINGS, 

Russell Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: The purpose of this letter is to offer support in the form 

of formal testimony commenting on the scientific importance of your Congaree National Park Act of 2003. My comments stem from my experience of more than 30 

years as a specialist in environmental sciences and policy for public land and water. 

Below, I address the national geographic and scientific importance of the Congaree. 

I close with a brief comment on the appropriate name for the park, a portion of 

which is now known as Congaree Swamp National Monument. 

National Geographic Significance 

Congaree National Park would be an indispensable component of the park system, 

because it would be the only extensive representative in the national system of an 

eastern, temperate, flood plain, hardwood forest. A reasonable goal of the park system is to include a wide range of representative ecosystems, so that the inclusion 

of this example is a foregone conclusion. There are no other examples of this ecosystem in tracts this large available for preservation. Of equal importance, however, 

is the opportunity to protect the Congaree’s 15,000 acres of wilderness. Wilderness 

tracts of any extent are exceptionally rare in the eastern portion of the United 

States, making this area a vital part of a balanced national system with fair representation for the East. I have examined the wilderness area of the Congaree, and 

I find that it is pristine and unique. 

Scientific Significance 

The Congaree is scientifically significant from at least three standpoints: the forest ecosystem, the Congaree River, and wildlife in the area. As part of the International Biosphere Reserve system, the Congaree is a world-class ecology laboratory, and as such, it is critical to global research on ecosystem dynamics. The Congaree forest is a remnant of a forest type that once covered huge areas of the eastern United States, and it offers public visitors and scientific researchers the only 

existing opportunity to see and investigate some of the tallest trees in the eastern 

part of the nation and one of the highest forest canopies in the world. The Congaree 

River on the southern edge of the park largely functions as a natural stream (despite some dams located many miles upstream from the park). The significance of 

this nearly natural behavior is that the stream is one of the few rivers in the East 

that can be used as a benchmark to guide river restoration and maintenance efforts 

mandated by the Clean Water Act. Finally, the more than 170 bird species sighted 

over the past decade in the Congaree include the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The biodiversity of the park, extending from the 700 plant species to remarkably diverse wildlife make the area pivotal as a location for scientific investigations into the complex connections among land, water, and life that are obscured 

elsewhere by agricultural and urban land uses. 

The Name ‘‘Congaree National Park’’

Your bill proposes the name ‘‘Congaree National Park,’’ and I urge you to retain 

this name, avoiding the use of the term ‘‘Congaree Swamp.’’ The area is not a 

swamp, scientifically defined as a constantly wet area with standing water and bog 

or marsh vegetation. The Congaree, on the other hand, is a flood plain, periodically 

inundated by flowing water, with a majestic hardwood forest. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM L. GRAF, 

Educational Foundation University 

Professor 

and Professor of Geography.

Æ