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

28–401 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–447

DESIGNATE AS WILDERNESS LANDS IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN

NATIONAL PARK; JAPANESE AMERICANS CONFINEMENT

SITES; CONVEY LAND TO LEWIS AND CLARK VISITOR

CENTER; INCLUDING COL. BARRETT FARM IN THE NPS;

DESIGNATE THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WILDLIFE ART;

AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND ADDITION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 1510 S. 1719

S. 1957 S. 2034

S. 2252 S. 2403

H.R. 1492 H.R. 394

APRIL 6, 2006

(

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 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BRUCE M. EVANS, 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 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

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

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 7

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................ 4

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 2

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ........................... 2

Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ...................................... 3

Masica, Sue, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and Lands, National Park Service, Department of the Interior ............................................... 7

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 20

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

Yamada, Gerald H., National Coordinator, Japanese American National Heritage Coalition ...................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 27

APPENDIX II 

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

(1)

DESIGNATE AS WILDERNESS LANDS IN 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK; JAPANESE AMERICANS CONFINEMENT SITES; 

CONVEY LAND TO LEWIS AND CLARK VISITOR CENTER; INCLUDING COL. BARRETT 

FARM IN THE NPS; DESIGNATE THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WILDLIFE ART; AND 

GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND ADDITION 

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.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. Thank you all for being here. This, of course, 

is the Subcommittee on National Parks. We have several pieces of 

legislation to talk about today. I want to welcome, of course, Ms. 

Sue Masica from the National Park Service and Mr. Gerald Yamada from the Japanese American Heritage Coalition here today. 

And, of course, welcome my friend and partner, Senator Enzi from 

Wyoming. 

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on six Senate 

bills and two House bills. S. 1510, a bill to designate as wilderness 

certain lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park in the 

State of Colorado. S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 are bills to provide for 

the preservation of the historic confinement sites where JapaneseAmericans were detained during World War II and other purposes; 

S. 1957, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 

to the Missouri River Basin’s Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center 

and Visitor’s Center Foundation certain Federal lands associated 

with the Lewis and Clark historic trail in Nebraska to be used as 

a historical interpretive site; S. 2034 and H.R. 394, bills to direct 

the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to evaluate the significance of the Colonel James Barret Farm in the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts and assess the suitability and the feasibility of 

2

including the farm in the National Park System as part of the Minutemen National Historical Park; S. 2252, a bill to designate the 

National Museum of Wildlife Art, located in Jackson, Wyoming, as 

the National Museum of Wildlife Art for the United States; and, finally, S. 2403, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

include in the boundaries of the Grand National Teton Park an interest in the lands at Grand Teton subdivision and for other purposes. 

So these are the bills that we have today. I’m glad to be joined 

by my friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar. Do you have any 

comments, sir? 

[The prepared statements of Senators Inouye, Kennedy and 

Kerry follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

on September 19, 2005, I introduced S. 1719, a bill that provides for the preservation of historic confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during 

World War II. I was initially approached by the Japanese American community to 

preserve these sites, and worked on S. 1719 on their behalf. 

More recently, a question was raised on the applicability of the bill to German 

and Italian Americans who were also confined. The purpose of this bill is to recognize and teach us that prejudice and wartime hysteria should never again be allowed to justify the violation of human dignity and the fundamental freedoms afforded under the Constitution. Created under this purpose, and based upon my 

reading of the bill, S. 1719 would also provide the Secretary the discretion to award 

grants for similar efforts by German and Italian American groups seeking to preserve sites where they were interned. I believe that the German and Italian Americans also have a stake in telling and preserving their internment history. 

S. 1719 is a bill that will help Japanese, German, and Italian Americans lead the 

way in teaching our country important lessons in civics. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, thank you for your time 

and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS

I greatly appreciate Chairman Thomas and Senator Akaka’s scheduling this hearing and for the opportunity to support the House-passed bill that Congressman Meehan proposed. John Kerry and I have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The bill is an essential step in preserving a very sacred part of the nation’s history, Colonel James Barrett’s Farm in Concord, Massachusetts. The bill asks the 

Secretary of Interior to conduct a boundary study of Minute Man National Park to 

evaluate the suitability of adding the Farm to the Park, and I also greatly appreciate the Park Service’s support for the legislation. 

The Farm is already listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but it 

ought to be part of the National Park itself. It’s located two miles from the Old 

North Bridge, where the famous battle took place at the beginning of Revolutionary 

War. The bridge is part of the Park, and Emerson immortalized it in his famous 

poem, ‘‘The Concord Hymn,’’ which I’m sure the Subcommittee is familiar with, and 

which was originally a hymn and was later sung at the dedication of the Concord 

Battle Monument in 1886 after Emerson had died. I’d like to include it in today’s 

hearing record.

‘‘Concord Hymn’’

By Ralph Waldo Emerson

By the rude bridge that arched the flood, 

Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled; 

Here once the embattled farmers stood; 

And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept; 

Alike the conqueror silent sleeps, 

And Time the ruined bridge has swept 

3

Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream, 

We place with joy a votive stone; 

That memory may their deeds redeem, 

When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare 

To die, and leave their children free, 

Bid Time and Nature gently spare 

The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

Barrett’s Farm was very much a part of that moment. Colonel James Barrett was 

one of the principal figures in battle and was the commander of the Middlesex militia regiment in the battle. 

He used his farm to store large supplies of cannons, gun powder and other munitions, and he oversaw the storage of other weapons in the town. 

The objective of the British troops in Boston that day was to march to Concord 

and seize the colonists’ arsenals, and Colonel Barrett’s farm was the principal target. Paul Revere’s ride alerted the colonists to what was happening, and gave Barrett enough time to hide most of the munitions. 

In Lexington, on the way to Concord, the colonial militia briefly engaged the British forces and withdrew. 

When the British forces arrived in Concord, they occupied the town, sent detachments to search the farm and other sites, and stationed troops at the North Bridge. 

When the British set fire to the local courthouse and a blacksmith ship, Colonel 

Barrett gave the order to the militia to advance, but not to fire unless they were 

fired on. The British opened fired at Concord Bridge, and the patriots joined the battle and changed the course of history by forcing the British to retreat in disarray, 

with militia members rushing to the scene and fighting them all the way back to 

Boston along what is now called the Battle Road. 

Today, two weeks before the 231st anniversary of that famous battle, we have the 

opportunity to begin the process of permanently protecting Barrett’s Farm, which 

is currently in the hands of Save Our Heritage, a conservation organization based 

in Concord. 

Save Our Heritage recently acquired the property and the historic farmhouse 

through private financing so that it could be held safely while Congress and the 

Park Service decide whether it should be included in Minute Man National Park. 

Save Our Heritage won’t be able to maintain ownership of the property indefinitely, 

which is why it is so important for this bill to become law quickly so that the property can receive permanent protection through the Park Service. 

I’m confident that once the study is completed, the Park Service will decide that 

Barrett’s Farm should be added to the Park. Few places are so important in the 

history of our nation. 

By voice vote last September, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 394—

Congressman Meehan’s legislation—on the needed study for Barrett’s Farm. Our 

Senate bill is very similar, and I urge the Subcommittee to approve the House bill 

without amendment, so the full Committee and the Senate can approve it quickly 

and send it to the President. 

We have a rare opportunity to protect a truly unique landmark in our nation’s 

history, and preserve it for future generations to visit and experience. I commend 

the Committee for scheduling this hearing, and I respectfully ask you to support its 

passage. Thank you very much. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS

I would like to thank Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka for holding 

this hearing today. Of particular importance to me is the Subcommittee’s consideration of S. 2034, the Colonel James Barrett Farm Study Act of 2005—a bill that 

Senator Kennedy and I support. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to conduct a boundary study to evaluate the significance of the Colonel James Barrett Farm in Concord, Massachusetts, and to assess the suitability and feasibility 

of including Barrett’s Farm in the National Park System as part of Minute Man National Historical Park. 

There is no question that Colonel Barrett’s farm played a major role in the early 

history of our nation. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places thirty years 

ago, Barrett’s farm is part of not only the history of Massachusetts but of our naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:00 Jun 29, 2006 Jkt 109447 PO 28401 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\28401.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
4

tion. Encompassing the farm into the existing Minute Man National Historic Park 

would be a great addition in the continued preservation of our history. 

As you may know, Colonel James Barrett was the commander of the Middlesex 

militia during the Revolutionary war and his farm was a central depository for 

American revolutionaries’ supplies. On April 19, 1775, General Thomas Gage, the 

commander of all British Forces in North America, ordered 700 of his troops to 

march to Barrett’s Farm and destroy the supplies stored there. Fortunately, the 

colonists learned of the plot ahead of time and sent Paul Revere on his famous ride, 

calling his countrymen to arms. Colonel Barrett and his sons were able to hide their 

supplies in furrows they dug in the fields, saving the supplies that would be vital 

to the survival of the colonials. Ultimately, the colonials and the British met at the 

North Bridge in Concord, where the ‘‘shot heard ’round the world’’ was fired—

launching our war for independence. 

Again, I want to thank you for holding a hearing on S. 2034 today. I look forward 

to working with the Subcommittee and hopefully soon passing this important piece 

of legislation.

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you Chairman Thomas. Let me reserve 

my comments for the legislation on Rocky Mountain Wilderness 

Area when you call up that bill, in accommodation to Senator Enzi. 

Senator THOMAS. Fine. 

Senator SALAZAR. Will that be okay with you? 

Senator THOMAS. We’ll do that, that’s fine. Thank you very much. 

We’re very pleased this morning to have Senator Enzi from Wyoming here. Where is that? Wyoming? We appreciate you being here 

and you wanted to comment, I believe, on the Jackson Hole bill 

that’s in here. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. ENZI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING 

Senator ENZI. Well thank you very much for allowing me to 

speak today on S. 2252 and in answer to your first question, it’s 

that big square State that’s right above our neighbor, Mr. Salazar’s 

State, which is the other big square State, both of which would like 

to have a little bit of change in boundaries so that we can have on 

a lapel pin that’s recognizable. 

But I also want to thank you for co-sponsoring the legislation 

that recognizes the best wildlife art museum in both Wyoming and 

in the Nation. I’m testifying in support of a bill that provides a national designation for the National Museum of Wildlife Art that’s 

in Jackson, Wyoming. And, as it should, a national designation signifies something unique that belongs to all the people of our Nation. 

Just as President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the uniqueness 

of Devil’s Tower in Wyoming when he proclaimed it the first national monument, my bill recognizes the uniqueness of the National 

Museum of Wildlife Art in Jackson. Wildlife museums aren’t unusual in the United States, art museums aren’t unusual in the 

United States. This museum, however, sets itself apart from all the 

others because it focuses on wildlife art. This interdisciplinary approach fosters education as the museum uses are to teach people 

about wildlife and encourages wildlife lovers to explore art. The 

museum’s educational focus is clear in their motto, which is bringing people, wildlife, and fine art together. 

It’s my understanding that the National Park Service is taking 

no position on the bill. I can understand their concern that we assure that there is not another National Museum of Wildlife Art 

that would object to this designation. In my exploration I have not 

5

found one. I would mention that the museum is currently called 

the National Museum of Wildlife Art and no one has objected to 

that. It just didn’t have the national recognition of the name. So 

I’m certain that that’s the only one. 

However, Congress, through its committee hearings and deliberations, can explore the justification for providing a national designation to the National Museum of Wildlife Art. The first question 

should be, is this a reputable museum. The strongest voice answering yes to that question is the museum’s accreditation with the 

American Association of Museums. Any serious museum strives for 

this accreditation and the National Museum of Wildlife Art is the 

only museum specifically focused on wildlife art that is accredited 

by the AAM. In addition, the designation accurately represents the 

museum. They have a broad, comprehensive and national collection 

that considers the entire history of wildlife art in America and does 

not focus on any one type of animal, even though they’re right 

across the road from the elk pasture in Jackson. 

This bill is not an attempt to provide an avenue for Federal appropriations to the museum. This testimony will provide a record 

that I do not intend to seek funding for the museum to accompany 

the designation. However, this designation will ensure the national 

reputation, the awareness, and the future of the museum. The designation would be significant on the State, national, and international levels because it would mean no other institution can 

claim the name National Museum of Wildlife Art. It’s currently the 

premiere museum dedicated to enrich and inspire public appreciate 

and knowledge of fine art related to nature and wildlife. The museum’s mission is to explore humanity’s relationship with nature by 

collecting fine art and presenting exceptional exhibitions and educational programs. The national designation would acknowledge 

that a major museum in Wyoming is the most important museum 

in the Nation of its kind. 

The National Museum of Wildlife Art was founded in 1987 with 

a private gift of a collection of art and is accredited with the American Association of Museums. I’d also ask consent that pictures of 

the museum and the surrounding area be a part of the record. 

Senator THOMAS. They will be made part of the record. 

Senator ENZI. The National Museum of Wildlife Art features a 

collection of over two thousand pieces of art portraying wildlife dating from two thousand B.C. to the present. The collection chronicles much of the history of wildlife art focusing primarily on European and American painting and sculpture. The collection of American art from the 19th and 20th centuries is particularly strong, recording European exploration in the American West. Many of these 

works predate photography, making them vital representations of 

the frontier era in the history of the United States. 

Using the collection as a base, the central themes to the museum’s programming are connections between people, wildlife and 

fine art. Even before this designation, people from across the 

United States had discovered the National Museum of Wildlife Art. 

Since its inception it’s become an American West destination attraction with an annual attendance of 92,000 visitors from all over 

the world and an award-winning website that receives more than 

ten thousand visits per week. 

6

These visitors fine wildlife on the walls of the museum, but also 

outside its doors. The National Museum of Wildlife Art is housed 

in an architecturally significant and award-winning 51 thousand 

square foot facility that overlooks the 28,000 acre National Elk Refuge and is adjacent to Grand Teton National Park. The museum 

displays and interprets this wildlife art in one of the few remaining 

areas of the United States where native wildlife roams abundantly. 

The works in the museum are united by their subject and their 

quality. The permanent collection of the National Museum of Wildlife Art has grown to more than three thousand works by important historic American artists, including Edward Hicks, Anna 

Hyatt, Anna Hyatt-Huntington, Charlie M. Russell, William Merritt Chase, Alexander Caldwell, as well as contemporary American 

artists, Steve Kestrel, Bart Walter, Nancy Howe, Jamie Wyeth, and 

a number of others. In fact, Conrad Schwiering has quite a collection there. He designed the Wyoming stamp. And they’re getting 

ready to put together an exhibit by Thomas Moran whose paintings 

made Yellowstone Park famous. 

The National Museum of Wildlife Art seeks to educate a diverse 

audience through collecting fine art focused on wildlife, presenting 

exceptional exhibitions, providing community, regional, national, 

and international outreach and presenting extensive educational 

programming for adults and children. A national designation presents a great opportunity to use this invaluable resource of the National Museum of Wildlife Art to teach the Nation’s school children 

through onsite visits, traveling exhibits, classroom curriculum, online distance learning and other educational initiatives. It expands 

the goals of the wildlife museum. 

I look forward to officially recognizing the renown of the National 

Museum of Wildlife Art through this bill. And I thank you for this 

opportunity. I’ll take any questions. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much, Senator. We’re all very 

proud of that facility in Wyoming. It’s unusual in that you can go 

in there and look out the window and see about two, three dozen 

elk out there grazing around and so on, as well as the Tetons. So 

thank you sir, for your——

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator THOMAS. Yes sir? 

Senator SALAZAR. May I make a comment prior to the departure 

of Senator Enzi on this bill? 

Senator THOMAS. Yes sir. 

Senator SALAZAR. I just want to—Mr. Chairman, to you and to 

Senator Enzi, make a quick point on the common heritage that we 

share in Colorado and Wyoming with respect to wildlife and water 

and whole host of issues that so effect our two States. And, even 

though we are the two rectangle States of the Nation, I think that 

your statement about a national wildlife museum puts its finger on 

the very serious opportunity that we have in both Colorado and 

Wyoming with respect to wildlife. For us in the West who struggle 

every day for trying to find jobs in rural America, we know the tremendous contribution that hunting and wildlife watching make to 

our communities. And so I think you have your hands on legislation that makes a lot of sense as we move forward to try to preserve and celebrate the wildlife heritage of Wyoming and the West. 

7

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, sir. 

Senator THOMAS. Senator Akaka, do you have any comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR

FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask whether you would want to excuse Senator Enzi or have him listen to my statement? 

Senator THOMAS. Oh, I think he certainly ought to listen to your 

statement. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing, which includes bills of particular interest to several members of this committee. I would like to take a minute to 

briefly discussion S. 1719, Senator Inouye’s bill to establish a program within the National Park Service to help preserve historic 

confinement sites where Japanese-Americans were detained during 

World War II. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. The House of Representatives has already passed a companion measure sponsored by Congressman Bill Thomas of California. Both bills have brought bi-partisan support, including both 

Senators from Utah and one of the 14 cosponsors of the Housepassed bill. 

I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues in the 

House and Senate for their support to ensure that these historic 

sites are appropriately protected. These bills will help acknowledge 

the experience of Japanese-American citizens that were detained, 

and also help educate the public on a very sad but important chapter in our Nation’s history that all citizens, the elderly, the young, 

must continue to learn from. 

I think it’s important to make clear that this bill will only involve sites on private land, if the land owner consents. And that 

this bill does not provide for any Federal management or special 

designation. The bill also limits the use of Federal funds to assist 

in land acquisition at four specific sites where there is strong local 

support for potential land acquisition. The other sites could not be 

acquired with funds from this act. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome our two witnesses today, 

Sue Masica from the National Park Service and Mr. Gerald Yamada with the Japanese- American National Heritage Coalition to 

the committee today. And I look forward to hearing from both of 

them as we discuss the bill. Thank you very much. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you Senator. Now, if our witnesses will 

take their place, please. Why don’t you both come to the table. Ms. 

Masica, nice to have you from the Park Service, and Mr. Yamada, 

glad to have you, sir. 

Sue, if you’d begin please. 

STATEMENT OF SUE MASICA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK 

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

Ms. MASICA. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to be here 

today to present the administration’s position on a series of bills. 

8

Since my written statements are all part of the record, I’ll summarize briefly the prepared response. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. MASICA. S. 1510, the Rocky Mountain Wilderness bill would 

designate approximately 250 thousand acres of Rocky Mountain 

National Park back country as wilderness. These lands are currently managed as wilderness and have been since 1974. Present 

road and water corridors and all developed areas are excluded from 

the recommended wilderness. The wilderness designation would 

not alter activities or access within the park. The administration 

supports this bill if amended to reflect the recent discussions that 

have been ongoing with the town of Grand Lake, Grant County and 

other interested parties. 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, having to do with the Japanese-American 

confinement sites will establish a grant program to provide a system for the preservation of historic confinement sites. The Park 

Service is actively involved in preserving resources associated with 

the experiences of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and 

collecting and disseminating information on this unfortunate chapter in our Nation’s history. Since 1992, two units have been added 

to the National Park System to help us learn from our history, 

Manzanar in California and Minidoka in Idaho. 

The Park Service is also completing a National Historic Landmark theme study of sites associated with the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Two internment camp sites 

received National Historic Landmark designations this past February—Tule Lake in California and Granada in Colorado. Because 

of the financial implications of the proposed $38 million grant program, the administration does not support the approach taken by 

these two bills. 

S. 1957 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 

to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and 

Visitor Center Foundation certain Federal land associated with the 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. The transfer would involve two parcels of land in Nebraska City, Nebraska. The site contains a visitor center recently constructed with a combination of 

Federal and non-Federal funds. The Department supports enactment of the bill with an amendment to substitute a map reference 

for the metes and bounds description presently contained in the 

legislation. 

S. 2034 and H.R. 394, the Barrett Farms study, would authorize 

the Park Service to conduct a study to evaluate the significance of 

the Colonel James Barrett Farm in Massachusetts, and to assess 

the suitability and feasibility of including the farm in the Park System. We would conduct a boundary study of the property and its 

significance with respect to the Revolutionary War. The study 

would also examine the feasibility of administering the farm as 

part of the Minute Man National Historical Park. Colonel Barrett 

was one of the leading figures in the events that began the American Revolution in April of 1775. Barrett’s farm was the impetus 

for the British excursion to Concord on April 18, 1775. And the vigorous work of Colonel Barrett and his militia was the key reason 

for the British retreat following the encounter at the north bridge 

in Concord. The Department supports enactment of this legislation. 

9

S. 2252 would change the name of the museum in Jackson, Wyoming from the National Museum of Wildlife Art to the National 

Museum of Wildlife Art of the United States. The legislation involves the renaming of a private museum that is not located within 

the boundaries of any federally owned property and is not under 

Federal jurisdiction. As a result, the Department has no position 

on S. 2252. 

Lastly, S. 2403, the Grand Teton boundary modification, would 

authorize the Park Service to include within the boundaries of 

Grand Teton National Park approximately 49 acres adjacent to the 

park and to adjust the boundary accordingly. The lands would be 

donated at no cost to the Federal Government except for closing 

and other costs, which are estimated to be about $300 thousand. 

The Park Service does not anticipate any additional costs associated with the management or administration of the lands to be donated. The Department supports S. 2403 with an amendment to 

clarify the terms under which the Secretary of the Interior may accept the donation. We recommend donation language be used that 

is similar to other donation transactions. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, any questions I would be happy 

to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Masica follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUE MASICA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, 

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

S. 1510

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1510, a bill to designate 

as wilderness certain lands within Rocky Mountain National Park. 

The Department supports S. 1510 if amended to reflect recent discussions with 

the Town of Grand Lake, Grand County, and other interested parties. 

S. 1510 would designate approximately 249,339 acres of Rocky Mountain National 

Park’s (park) backcountry in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This 

represents approximately 95% of the park’s total acreage, lands that currently are 

managed as wilderness. 

In 1964, Congress designated Rocky Mountain National Park as a wilderness 

study area. In 1974, President Nixon recommended to Congress 239,835 acres for 

immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential designation as wilderness in 

the park. S. 1510 increases the recommended acreage amount based on modifications brought about by land acquisition and boundary adjustments since 1974. 

Present road, water, and utility corridors, and all developed areas, are excluded 

from recommended wilderness. Wilderness designation would not alter any current 

visitor activities or access within the park, and would allow visitors to utilize the 

park in the same ways and locations that they presently enjoy. 

Federal reserved water rights for park purposes are not an issue related to wilderness designation as water rights for the park have been adjudicated through the 

State of Colorado water courts. Consequently, no water rights claims for wilderness 

purposes are needed or desired by the National Park Service (NPS). 

After holding public meetings on the proposed designation in June 2005, the gateway communities of Estes Park and Grand Lake, and the counties of Grand and 

Larimer endorsed wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain National Park, subject 

to specific boundary modifications on the west boundary of the park. These modifications would provide an area of non-wilderness around the Town of Grand Lake in 

order to ensure that the park could continue to actively manage hazardous fuels and 

other uses that might affect the Town. The proposed modifications would also reserve a corridor along Shadow Mountain and Granby reservoirs for the possible 

building of a non-motorized hike/bike trail along the east shore of these two reservoirs. The building of this trail would be subject to the normal NPS planning process for such proposals including analysis under the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

10

We would be happy to work with the Committee on amendments to the bill that 

would reflect the proposals made by the local communities. 

That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or other members of the subcommittee might have. 

S. 1719 AND H.R. 1492

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the 

views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, legislation to provide for the preservation of the historic confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. H.R. 1492 was passed by the House on 

November 16, 2005. 

The Department recognizes the importance of taking steps to more fully preserve 

the history of the experience of Japanese Americans during World War II, when 

many were forcibly removed from their homes and sent to live at internment camps. 

However, we do not support the approach taken by S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 to preserve this history. For many years, the Department has opposed legislation authorizing appropriations for grants for specified non-National Park Service projects. 

Many of these projects represent an important contribution to the preservation of 

our Nation’s history, as would be the case with projects associated with the Japanese American internment camps. Each time such legislation is enacted and appropriations follow, it further reduces a limited amount of discretionary funds available 

to address the priority needs of our national parks and other programs administered 

by the National Park Service. With the emphasis we have placed on fulfilling our 

core mission of operating units of the National Park System and on the President’s 

initiative to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, it has become more important 

than ever to avoid authorizing funding for non-National Park Service projects that 

would draw funds from the National Park Service’s budget. 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, which contain identical provisions, would require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program within the National Park Service to 

administer grants to public and private entities to protect, restore, interpret, acquire 

and take other actions with respect to the ten internment camps and other historically significant locations where Japanese Americans were detained during World 

War II. The grants would be made in consultation with the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition, an umbrella organization of groups that are involved in 

efforts to preserve one or more of the Japanese American detention sites. The bill 

would authorize appropriations of $38 million for this purpose. 

The Department is actively involved in preserving resources associated with the 

experience of Japanese Americans during World War II and collecting and disseminating information on this unfortunate chapter of our Nation’s history. As recently 

as 1990, the National Park Service had virtually no role in preserving and interpreting this story. That changed in 1992, when Congress (1) authorized the establishment of Manzanar National Historic Site in central California, (2) directed the 

National Park Service to conduct a National Historic Landmark (NHL) theme study 

of sites associated with the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, 

and (3) authorized a memorial in the Nation’s Capital to honor Japanese American 

patriotism in World War II. 

Today, the National Park Service administers two of the ten internment camps. 

In addition to Manzanar, the Minidoka Relocation Center in Idaho was added as 

a unit of the National Park System in 2001 following a presidential proclamation 

that designated the site as Minidoka Internment National Monument. Manzanar is 

a now a well-established unit; its visitor center was opened two years ago and its 

annual visitation is about 78,000. Minidoka is preparing a General Management 

Plan and is still under development. 

In 1999, to provide the documentation needed for the NHL theme study authorized by Congress, the National Park Service’s Western Archeological and Conservation Center published an extensive compilation and analysis of resources associated 

with these sites. This compilation, Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World 

War II Japanese American Relocation Sites, has proven to be an invaluable source 

of information about this subject not only for the National Park Service but also for 

the many organizations that are involved in the efforts to preserve these sites. 

The NHL theme study directed by Congress is nearly complete. Based on that 

study, two internment camps were designated in February as National Historic 

Landmarks: Tule Lake in California, and Granada in Colorado. National Historic 

Landmark designation is the highest level of historic significance our Nation 

bestows on a place. As designated sites, they are eligible for technical assistance 

available through our NHL program and they have an advantage in competing for 

public and private preservation grants. 

11

In addition to its designation as a NHL, Tule Lake received a Save America’s 

Treasures matching grant of $200,000 in the Interior appropriations act for Fiscal 

Year 2006. The grant will be co-managed by the Tule Lake Committee for Preservation of the Tule Lake Camp and the National Park Service and used to stabilize 

the carpenters’ shop and to correct drainage problems. The National Park Service 

is providing historic preservation assistance to the Bureau of Reclamation, which 

has administrative jurisdiction over part of the Tule Lake property, and to State 

agencies, which own the remaining part. The National Park Service is also providing technical assistance to Departmental bureaus and others to help preserve 

Heart Mountain in Wyoming, Topaz in Utah, and Granada in Colorado. 

The National Park Service is also close to finalizing and transmitting to Congress 

a special resource study of Bainbridge Island, Washington, which was the first location from which Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes following the issuance of Executive Order 9066, which provided the authority for the 

detention of Japanese Americans. This study, which was authorized by Congress in 

2002, analyzes different alternatives for memorializing, preserving, and interpreting 

this important site. Our Pacific West Regional Office, through the National Park 

Service’s Preservation Partnership programs, has also provided technical assistance 

to the Bainbridge Island community to document the community’s internment experiences and the history of the Japanese on Bainbridge. That office also provided 

funding to train Asian-American students in documenting sites important to the history of their communities. 

In addition, the National Park Service, through its National Mall and Memorial 

Parks unit, administers the memorial to Japanese American Patriotism in World 

War II, which is located about two blocks north of the U.S. Capitol Building. Our 

National Capital Region office assisted in establishing the memorial. We helped secure an appropriate site for the memorial, assisted in its design, and facilitated the 

approval process for it. The memorial honors the approximately 120,000 Japanese 

Americans who were relocated to the internment camps. It incorporates the names 

and locations of the camps, as well as the names of Japanese Americans who died 

in military service to the United States during World War II. 

A few examples of other activities we have engaged in include:

• Establishing a lesson plan on the War Relocation Camps of World War II on 

the National Park Service’s ‘‘Teaching with Historic Places’’ web site; 

• Conducting oral history recording projects that entailed recording the histories 

of internees and other individuals associated with the World War II internment; 

and 

• Providing technical assistance to the Jerome County Historical Society, Idaho, 

to copy original newspapers from 1942-1945 onto microfilm for reference and research purposes, and technical assistance to develop methods to preserve internment-related materials for long-term preservation.

The Department would like to continue and build on the efforts we are already 

involved in on this subject. In addition to the activities already mentioned, there are 

other ways the National Park Service could enhance the role we play in protecting 

resources and interpreting the history of the Japanese American experience in 

World War II at a relatively small cost. For example, working in partnership with 

other entities that own and administer the internment camp sites, we could develop 

a comprehensive interpretative plan for all ten sites. We could designate a staff person to coordinate the preservation and interpretation activities among the different 

sites. Another possibility would be to publish a handbook on the internment camps 

that would be available at National Park Service bookstores. We could also develop 

a web-based travel itinerary on the sites. 

To summarize, we believe there are appropriate ways for the National Park Service to expand upon its already significant role in increasing public awareness and 

understanding of the Japanese American experience during World War II. But we 

do not believe it is appropriate for the National Park Service budget to be used as 

a funding source for grants to non-Federal entities to undertake costly restoration 

and other types of projects at the sites of these camps. We therefore cannot support 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to respond 

to questions from you or other members of the committee. 

S. 1957

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

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

1957, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey to the Missouri River 

12

Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. certain Federal land associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in 

Nebraska, to be used as an historical interpretive site along the trail. The Department supports enactment of S. 1957, with an amendment. 

S. 1957 would convey without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the 

United States in two parcels of land at 100 Valmont Drive, Nebraska City, Nebraska to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor 

Center Foundation, Inc. (Foundation). The Foundation would bear all the costs associated with the conveyance. If the Foundation determines to discontinue use of the 

land as a historic site and interpretive center, the land shall be conveyed back to 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

The three-story Missouri River Basin Lewis & Clark Interpretive Trail & Visitor 

Center (Center), authorized by the National Trails System Act (NTSA), was designed and constructed by the National Park Service (NPS). The Center is located 

on the Federally owned 78-acre site acquired for this purpose, and focuses on the 

flora and fauna and scientific discoveries recorded by the Lewis and Clark expedition and the Native American people’s role in the success of the Corp of Discovery. 

There is a Keelboat Exhibition Room on the entry level with an authentic replica 

of the 55-foot-long keelboat used on the journey, and the lower walkout level houses 

a Theater Educational Room and the Young Explorer’s Discovery Wing. There also 

is an outdoor classroom and an unobstructed view of the Missouri River, part of the 

route used by Lewis and Clark as they pulled upriver and walked the banks to 

make the scientific observations and collect specimens of flora and fauna. There are 

11 other historic and interpretive facilities along the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 

The NTSA specifies that, wherever possible, the facility is to be operated by a 

non-federal entity. The Foundation was established as the non-federal operating 

partner and raised the necessary funds. The NPS has provided approximately $1.1 

million to purchase the land, to provide design and construction supervision services, and to develop the facilities and exhibits. The Foundation raised about $2.2 

million toward the cost and development of the visitor center. Construction of the 

facility began in the spring of 2003 and was completed in July 2004. The Foundation has operated the Center since July 2004, with a substantial Federal subsidy. 

The Midwest Region of NPS currently subsidizes the Center out of ONPS base 

($150,000), contingency ($32,000), and cyclic ($18,000) funding, for about $200,000 

per year. This helps pay salaries, utilities, routine maintenance, and other needed 

expenses. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $574,000 per year for the 

NPS to operate the Center for a traditional 7-day per week schedule. 

By owning the Center, the Foundation could collect entrance and special use fees 

to supplement donations for operations and maintenance. Annual visitation for calendar year 2005 was 27,105; based on a typical $5 entrance fee, that could result 

in $135,525. The Foundation projects it could collect approximately $88,000 in special use fees per year. The two fee types could thus generate about $223,525 per 

year. 

The passage of S. 1957 would authorize $150,000 a year for 10 years to assist in 

the operation of the facility. The NPS spends approximately $50,000 more than this 

amount to subsidize current operations. The savings would then be used to assist 

with other trail partnerships and perhaps contingency issues in other national park 

units of the Midwest Region. 

The Department recommends that section 1(a) be amended to include a map reference to replace the metes and bounds description of the two parcels to be conveyed. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members 

of the subcommittee may have. 

S. 2034 AND H.R. 394

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2034 and H.R. 394, to 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to evaluate the significance of the Colonel James Barrett Farm in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

and to assess the suitability and feasibility of including the farm in the National 

Park System as part of the Minute Man National Historical Park, and for other purposes. The Department supports the enactment of this bill. 

If enacted, the bill would direct the Secretary to conduct a boundary study to 

evaluate the significance of Barrett’s Farm, and to assess the suitability and feasibility of including the Farm as part of the Minute Man National Historical Park, 

13

a unit of the National Park System. The study, which is to be completed within two 

years after funds are made available for it, is to include an analysis of Barrett’s 

Farm’s significance with respect to the Revolutionary War. It must also analyze opportunities for public enjoyment of the property as part of Minute Man National 

Historical Park, and any operational, management, and private property issues that 

must be considered if the farm is added to the park. In addition, the study must 

include a determination by the Secretary of the feasibility of administering the farm 

as part of the Minute Man National Historical Park, taking into account its size, 

configuration, costs and any other appropriate factors, as well as an evaluation of 

other alternatives for management and resource protection of the property. 

The Colonel James Barrett Farm is located at 448 Barrett’s Mill Road, Concord, 

Massachusetts, two miles from the town center and from Minute Man National Historical Park. The Barrett House was the home of Colonel James Barrett (1710-

1779), commander of Middlesex County militia and one of the leading figures in the 

events that began the American Revolution in April, 1775. The property comprises 

six acres and includes land that has been farmed continuously since the 18th century as well as the historic 1705 farm house. Much of the surrounding acreage is 

owned by the Town of Concord and managed as agricultural conservation land. 

The proposed study area of six acres is coterminous with the property listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places and includes abutting properties that once 

were part of the original farm. In addition, the National Park Service recommends 

that approximately 40 acres of the town-owned lands which directly abut the farm 

(and which were once part of the original farm) also be included in the study area. 

Inclusion of these lands in the study area would allow the NPS to explore the options for increased collaboration with the town and for ways to support long-term 

management should Barrett’s Farm be acquired and managed by the National Park 

Service in the future. The Town of Concord has expressed its support for inclusion 

of these resources in the study. 

Colonel Barrett’s Farm was a major hiding place for the colonists’ stores of arms 

and ammunition. It was the farthest point that was targeted by the British expeditionary force sent from Boston to seize these weapons. The British troops headed 

there on April 19, 1775 but found nothing, the residents having been alerted by 

Paul Revere several days earlier, in time to hide muskets, cannons and powder in 

the nearby fields. On that same day, Colonel Barrett ordered the advance to Concord’s North Bridge that resulted in ‘‘the shot heard ’round the world’’ and the start 

of the Revolutionary War. 

Minute Man National Historical Park encompasses 971 acres and includes the 

North Bridge, Lexington Green and the Battle Road trail, where the British both 

advanced and retreated. Including Barrett’s Farm within the boundaries of Minute 

Man National Historical Park appears to offer many opportunities for resource preservation and interpretation. Barrett’s Farm was the impetus for the British excursion to Concord on April 18, 1775 and the vigorous work of Colonel Barrett and his 

militia was the key reason for the British retreat following the encounter at the 

North Bridge. 

The farm was considered for inclusion when Minute Man National Historical Park 

was established in 1959, but was at that time in private ownership and not available for acquisition. It has since been purchased by Save Our Heritage, a local nonprofit organization, which seeks to preserve it. The group has been working closely 

with the Town of Concord and has raised $2 million to acquire and stabilize the 

property. 

We believe that this study would allow the Secretary to explore further the feasibility of adding this important historical property to the National Park System. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee 

members might have. 

S. 2252

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2252, a bill to designate 

the National Museum of Wildlife Art as the National Museum of Wildlife Art of the 

United States. 

The Department has no position on S. 2252 since it involves the renaming of a 

private museum that is not located within the boundaries of any federally owned 

property and is not under federal jurisdiction. However, the Administration would 

not support future federal funding for a newly designated National Museum of Wildlife Art of the United States as proposed in this bill. Also, while we are not aware 

of one, prior to moving forward with this bill we would encourage the subcommittee 

14

to determine that there is not another National Museum of Wildlife Art that might 

object to the redesignation of this museum. 

The National Museum of Wildlife Art is a private, non-profit entity located just 

outside of Jackson, Wyoming, across from the National Elk Refuge and only a short 

distance from Grand Teton National Park. Although the museum is not affiliated 

with the park, it supports the park’s mission to preserve and protect wildlife and 

serves many of the same visitors. 

Grand Teton National Park has a relationship with the National Museum of Wildlife Art. Currently, the park and the museum are working together on a special exhibition of the works of Thomas Moran, one of the premier painters of the American 

West, and the artist who accompanied the Hayden Expedition into Yellowstone in 

1871. Moran is perhaps most widely known for his monumental paintings of Yellowstone, works that showed the American people for the first time the spectacular natural treasures of the area and inspired them to preserve it as the world’s first national park. The area that was to become Grand Teton National Park was also the 

subject of Moran’s brush, and the park has several of his works in its museum collection. This summer, those works will be on loan to the National Museum of Wildlife Art and displayed as part of an exhibition celebrating the 125th anniversary of 

the Hayden Expedition that first explored and documented the region that is now 

Yellowstone National Park. Additionally, we expect to continue our close relationship with the museum in other ways that are of interest and benefit to both parties. 

That concludes my testimony, I would be glad to answer any questions that you 

or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

S. 2403

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2403, a bill to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to include in the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park land and interests in land of the GT Park Subdivision, and for other 

purposes. The Department supports S. 2403 with one amendment. 

S. 2403 would direct the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to accept, by donation, approximately 49 acres adjacent to Grand Teton National Park, and upon donation, adjust the park boundary to include these lands within the park and to administer the acquired lands in accordance with all applicable laws. In addition, the 

Secretary would be prohibited from selling, donating, exchanging, or otherwise 

transferring the acquired land without authorization from Congress. The lands 

added to the boundary would be donated at no cost to the federal government, and 

no additional costs would be associated with management or administration of the 

donated lands. Costs that would be associated with the conveyance of the land include closing and other associated costs. We estimate those costs to be approximately $300,000, and we currently do not have a funding source identified for these 

costs. 

The privately owned land that is the subject of S. 2403 is located approximately 

one mile from the major road through the park and is visible from that road. The 

land consists of eight lots that total 49.67 acres and are located near the Lost Creek 

Ranch, adjacent to the park’s eastern boundary. Similar in character and quality to 

adjacent park lands, the lots are primarily grassland and sagebrush meadow and 

provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife including elk, deer, antelope, bison, 

coyotes, and wolves. The lots offer spectacular and unobstructed views of the Teton 

Range across the broad valley of Jackson Hole. 

The National Park System includes countless examples of philanthropic efforts 

that have added immeasurably to the preservation of our Nation’s natural and cultural treasures. Nowhere is this more evident than at Grand Teton National Park, 

where the gift of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1949, of more than 38,000 acres, helped 

to ensure the creation of the park. Today, the spirit of philanthropy is very much 

alive at Grand Teton, and a prime example is the extraordinary generosity of Gerald 

T. Halpin and his family. Of the eight lots which are the subject of this bill, one 

is owned by the Halpin family, and the other seven were previously donated by the 

Halpins to several foundations with the understanding that they would ultimately 

be donated to the federal government for inclusion in Grand Teton National Park. 

These foundations include the National Park Foundation, the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, and the Grand Teton National Park Foundation. 

Inclusion of these lands within Grand Teton National Park cannot be accomplished without this legislation. When Congress established the park in 1950, it included a provision in the park’s enabling legislation that prohibited any expansion 

of national parks or monuments in the State of Wyoming without the express authorization of Congress. 

15

We recommend one amendment to the bill. Section 3(a) as written may imply that 

the Secretary shall accept the donation of the land regardless of any potential environmental hazards on the land or the condition of the title. We recommend donation 

language that has been used in other similar donation transactions and is attached 

to this testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank you for your efforts in sponsoring and introducing this legislation. It is the product of many generous and forward-looking people working together to continue protecting Grand Teton National Park for the 

American people. 

That concludes my statement. I would be glad to answer any questions that you 

or other members of the subcommittee might have. 

Proposed Amendment for S. 2403

Page 2, strike lines 18-20 and insert the following: ‘‘(a) The Secretary is authorized to acquire, by donation, lands and interests in land in the Subdivision.’’.

Senator THOMAS. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Yamada, 

would you like to make your statement please? 

STATEMENT OF GERALD H. YAMADA, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, JAPANESE AMERICAN NATIONAL HERITAGE COALITION 

Mr. YAMADA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

invitation to testify before this subcommittee. I ask for the subcommittee’s unanimous consent to have my full statement entered 

onto the record. 

Senator THOMAS. It will be included. 

Mr. YAMADA. I will summarize it. 

My name is Gerald Yamada. I am appearing on behalf of the 

Japanese American Heritage Coalition in support of S. 1719 and 

H.R. 1492. The Heritage Coalition represents 28 national and community organizations. S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 embody a fundamental principle that is unique to America. This principle is that 

the strength of America lies in its openness to recognize our national mistakes. 

In 1942 the U.S. Government made a horrific national mistake. 

This mistake is epitomized in Executive Order 9066, signed by 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. This 

Executive Order was used to forcibly exclude and evacuate 120 

thousand persons of Japanese ancestry from California, Alaska, 

Hawaii, portions of Arizona, Oregon and Washington to government-controlled assembly centers and, later, to internment camps 

and other secured facilities. 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 refer to these sites as confinement sites. 

In our bicentennial year of 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued 

Proclamation 4417 on February 19, 1976 to rescind Executive 

Order 9066. In issuing this presidential proclamation, President 

Ford affirmed the American promise that he described with these 

words. ‘‘We have learned from the tragedy that long ago experienced, forever to treasure liberty and justice for each individual 

American and resolve that this kind of action shall never again be 

repeated.’’. 

That brings me too why S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 are important. 

The internment experience for the vast majority of Japanese Americans took a tremendous toll in human sacrifice and hardships on 

families and individuals during and after World War II. Many demonstrated within the confinement sites to protest the injustice of 

16

their treatment. Yet Japanese Americans remain law-abiding citizens and families proudly sent more than 25,000 of their sons and 

daughters to serve in the U.S. military during World War II while 

they remained behind, confined against their will and imprisoned 

without due process. These soldiers served with legendary distinction and honor in the European and Pacific campaigns. Over 800 

of these soldiers gave their lives defending America. 

The ordeal suffered by Japanese Americans in confinement sites 

will not have been in vain if their sacrifices and hardships can be 

preserved in ways so that the lessons of the past will not be forgotten and can be used to benefit future generations. This is the legacy of S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. This is the legacy that those who 

were interned want to leave in their twilight years. 

Most Japanese Americans who were evacuated and interned are 

today in their 70s, 80s or older. Their recollections are crucial to 

ensure the accuracy of preservation projects. This is the reason 

why we urge expeditious passage of S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. This 

legislation would make the American promise a reality. Racially 

motivated government actions and policies such as those taken 

under Executive Order 9066 must never be repeated. S. 1719 and 

H.R. 1492 would fund preservation projects to provide physical 

teaching venues to demonstrate that this Nation’s commitment to 

the fundamental principles of due process and equal protection 

must not be compromised by prejudicial and discriminatory governmental actions. 

They teach that patriotism and citizenship founded in our constitutional system of governments and tradition of justice will transcend prejudice and discrimination. These lessons deserve to be 

preserved as a part of the American promise made to the American 

public and future generations of Americans. 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 accomplish this by creating a framework 

that would give the initiative to committee groups and organizations. This framework is carefully created in terms of a partnership 

arrangement with the National Park Service and would impose a 

sense of provision, a sensible patch requirement, limited authority 

to acquire real property and the needed level of authorization for 

appropriation. The Heritage Coalition urges that this framework be 

kept in tact. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this testimony and I would be happy to respond to any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yamada follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD H. YAMADA, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, JAPANESE

AMERICAN NATIONAL HERITAGE COALITION

My name is Gerald H. Yamada. I am submitting this statement on behalf of the 

Japanese American National Heritage Coalition (‘‘Heritage Coalition’’) in support of 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. 

HERITAGE COALITION MEMBERS

The Heritage Coalition has 28 organization members. The members are the Go 

For Broke Educational Foundation, Go For Broke National Veterans Association, 

Japanese American Citizens League; Japanese American National Museum; Japanese American Veterans Association; National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Japanese American Historical Society; National Japanese American Memorial Foundation; National 

Japanese American Veterans Council; Organization of Chinese Americans; Amache 

17

Preservation Society; Committee to Change ‘‘Jap’’ Road, TX; Densho: The Japanese 

American Legacy Project, WA; Denver Central Optimists; Colorado River Indian 

Tribes; Friends of California Civil Liberties Public Education Program; Gila Reunion 

Committee; Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation; Japanese American Service 

Committee, Chicago, IL; Japanese American Historical Society, San Diego, CA; Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii; Life Interrupted Program (Arkansas Camps); 

Nisei Farmers League, CA; Poston Restoration Project; Topaz Museum Board, UT; 

and Tule Lake Preservation Committee. 

The Heritage Coalition appreciates this Subcommittee’s consideration and work in 

holding this hearing on S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. 

IMPORTANCE OF S. 1719 AND H.R. 1492

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 are important to the Japanese American community and 

American public because they would provide federal partnerships with public and 

private entities to preserve the historic significance of ‘‘confinement sites’’ used during World War II to imprison Japanese Americans. These ‘‘confinement sites’’ are 

individually unique but have one common thread: these sites were the results of 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signing Executive Order 9066 in 1942. 

The federal government used EO 9066 as the authority to forcibly exclude and 

evacuate 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from California, Alaska, Hawaii, and 

portions of Arizona, Oregon, and Washington to government-controlled assembly 

centers and later to ‘‘internment camps’’ and other secured locations. S. 1719 and 

H.R. 1492 refer to these sites as ‘‘confinement sites.’’

CONFINEMENT SITES

There were ten (10) ‘‘internment camps,’’ and they are commonly referred to as 

Gila River, Granada (or Amache), Heart Mountain, Jerome, Manzanar, Minidoka, 

Poston, Rohwer, Topaz, and Tule Lake. Their locations are depicted respectively in 

Figures 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.4, 9.2, 10.6, 11.2, 12.2, and 13.2 in Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of World War II Japanese American Relocation Sites, Publications in Anthropology 74 of the Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 1999. In addition 

to these 10 internment camp sites, approximately 42 other confinement sites are 

identified in Confinement and Ethnicity. 

Examples of confinement sites identified in Confinement and Ethnicity include:

• Gila River Relocation Center, Arizona • Poston Relocation Center, Arizona • Leupp, Arizona—Citizen Isolation Center • Mayer, Arizona—Assembly Center • Tucson, Arizona—Catalina Federal Honor Camp • Granada Relocation Center, Colorado • Honolulu, Hawaii—Sand Island Detention Center • Oahu, Hawaii—Honouliuli Internment Camp • Camp Livingston, Louisiana—Detention Center • Santa Fe, New Mexico—Internment Camp • Fort Stanton, New Mexico—Department of Justice Camp • Portland, Oregon—Assembly Center • Crystal City, Texas—Department of Justice Camp • Camp Forrest, Tennessee—Held Japanese Hawaiians • Heart Mountain Relocation Center, Wyoming

All the above examples are described in Confinement and Ethnicity and are illustrative of sites that are within the definition of ‘‘confinement sites.’’

WRONGFULNESS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066 ESTABLISHED

We need not take the time here to establish that the actions taken under the authority of Executive Order 9066 were wrongful. The wrongfulness of those actions 

have already been established. 

In the Bicentennial Year of 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Proclamation 

4417 on February 19, 1976 to terminate Executive Order 9066. In issuing this Presidential Proclamation, President Ford affirmed the ‘‘American Promise’’ that he described with these words: ‘‘[W]e have learned from the tragedy of that long-ago experience forever to treasure liberty and justice for each individual American, and resolve that this kind of action shall never again be repeated.’’

The 1982 Report of the U.S. Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment 

of Civilians, created by legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter, concluded 

that ‘‘Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity’’ and that ExecuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:00 Jun 29, 2006 Jkt 109447 PO 28401 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\28401.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
18

tive Order 9066 decisions were shaped by ‘‘race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.’’

President Ronald Reagan stated ‘‘Here we admit a wrong. Here we affirm our 

commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law’’ when he signed the Civil 

Liberties Act of 1988 into law. 

The Civil Liberties Act provided the federal government’s formal apology for the 

imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The Civil Liberties Act 

showed the strength of our system of government. By publicly admitting a wrong, 

the federal government reconfirmed its faith in the principles of democracy and the 

protection of rights provided by our Constitution. 

‘‘AMERICAN PROMISE’’—PRESERVING CONFINEMENT SITES

The Civil Liberties Act authorized the President to make a formal apology and 

give a redress payment to each Japanese American imprisoned during World War 

II. S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would go further by fulfilling the ‘‘American Promise’’ to 

the American public and future generations of Americans. 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would use preservation projects to remind us that racially 

motivated government actions and policies such as those taken under Executive 

9066 must never be repeated. Preserved confinement sites would provide physical 

teaching venues to demonstrate that this Nation’s commitment to the fundamental 

principles of due process and equal protection must not be compromised by prejudicial and discriminatory governmental actions. They would teach that patriotism 

and citizenship founded in our constitutional system of government and tradition of 

justice will transcend prejudice and discrimination. These lessons must be preserved 

for the American public and for future generations of Americans. 

DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

Sadly, the internment experience is still unknown to many Americans. That is 

why it is important to enact S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 into law and keep the carefully 

crafted framework embodied in these bills intact. The Heritage Coalition supports 

S. 1719, as introduced by Senator Daniel K. Inouye, and H.R. 1492, as passed by 

the US House of Representatives. To this end, I want to highlight certain provisions 

in S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 and state the Heritage Coalition’s reasons why they 

should be kept intact. 

Sunset Provision 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 contain a carefully crafted sunset provision. The sunset 

provision is needed to provide time to develop projects based on the personal recollections and first hand experiences of those who were interned. Their recollections 

are important to ensure the accuracy of these preservation projects. The internment 

experience for the vast majority of Japanese Americans took a tremendous toll in 

human sacrifice and hardships on families and individuals during and after World 

War II. Many demonstrated within the confinement sites to protest the injustice of 

their treatment. Yet, the Japanese Americans remained law-abiding citizens, and 

families proudly sent more than 25,000 of their sons and daughters to serve in the 

US military during World War II while they remained behind, confined against 

their will, and imprisoned without due process. 

Those soldiers served with legendary distinction and honor in the European and 

Pacific campaigns. Over 800 of these soldiers gave their lives defending America. 

The ordeal suffered by Japanese Americans in confinement sites will not have 

been in vain if their sacrifices and hardships can be preserved in ways so that the 

lessons of the past will not be forgotten and can be used to benefit future generations. 

The strength of America lies in its willingness to recognize our national mistakes 

as well as our national achievements. In developing projects to preserve the historic 

significance of the Japanese American story during World War II, ample time 

should be afforded so that the story can be developed accurately and in ways 

deemed important to the internees. The sunset provision provides the needed time. 

Partnership With the National Park Service, 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 do not preempt or impose National Park Service unit designations on behalf of any of the confinement sites. These bills do not mandate a 

formula for disbursing funds. Rather, this legislation would create a partnership 

with the National Park Service to provide resources to community groups, non-profit 

organizations, local and state governments, and Indian Tribes. 

The Heritage Coalition recognizes that the National Park Service may not normally work with or fund sites that are not seeking NPS unit status or NPS recognition. However, the National Park Service has a working knowledge of this period 

19

of history since two internment camp sites have been designated as National Park 

Service units and two others have recently received National Historic Landmark 

recognition. The National Park Service’s technical assistance would be invaluable in 

capturing the historic significance of the different confinement sites or the internment experience. 

Also, the lessons that must be preserved from the internment experience are too 

important to be limited to only some of the sites. The whole history must be preserved where the actual events took place. The examples listed above demonstrate 

that confinement sites were spread across the United States and that there were 

different types of confinement sites used to carry out Executive Order 9066. Each 

confinement site has its own unique history and relationships within and outside 

of the site. Confinement site committees should have the opportunity to preserve a 

site’s history in their own way and in ways that the experiences of internees are 

not forgotten. 

A confinement site committee may want to use funding to restore, reconstruct, 

stabilize, or relocate camp site structures; upgrade site infrastructures; build a museum or interpretative center on or off site; erect a monument, marker, or signage; 

sponsor educational programs, document oral histories, refurbish an on-site cemetery, etc. In other words, S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would allow a wide range of preservation projects to be funded, and the scope of those projects would depend upon the 

initiative of community groups or organizations working in partnership with local, 

state, and Indian Tribes; the National Park Service; and other federal agencies. 

25% Match 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would require a 25% non-federal match. The 25% match 

should not be increased because the internees and sites are in a race against time. 

Most Japanese Americans who were evacuated and interned at these confinement 

sites are today in their 70’s, 80’s, or older. Unfortunately, we are losing too many 

of them every day. Their knowledge and experiences are critical to ensure historic 

accuracy. 

Also, Confinement and Ethnicity reported that the internment camp sites are, in 

varying degrees, deteriorating and in disrepair and must have federal support if 

their historic significances and lessons are to be preserved. 

A non-federal match higher than 25% would take longer to raise resulting in delaying the funding and completion of the preservation projects. The price for a higher match requirement would be loss of key persons and possibly physical structures 

at confinement sites. 

Accountability Controls 

There is no need to add accountability controls to S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. Existing 

Federal law and regulations create an accountability framework so that additional 

controls are not needed in this legislation. 

Grant applications would be submitted to the Department of Interior and evaluated by the National Park Service. Presumably, either DOI or NPS would issue 

grant guidance that would define what would be eligible for funding and set priorities for a given fiscal year if available funds are limited. The decisions as to which 

grants to approve and in what amount reside in federal officials. These decisions 

are within the judgment of the awarding official but must be made within the authority defined in the authorizing legislation and appropriations laws. 

In awarding the grant, there are grant conditions that are a part of the grant 

agreement, which forms a contract with the grantee. There are standard grant conditions, which have been issued by the Office of Management and Budget. For 

grants to local and states governments and Indian Tribes, the standard conditions 

are found in OMB Circular No. A-102. For non-profit organizations, the standard 

conditions are found in OMB Circular No. A-110, 2 CFR Part 215. These circulars 

set forth pre-award, post-award, and after-the-award requirements. The post-award 

requirements set forth financial and program management, property, procurement, 

reports and records, and termination and enforcement standards. DOI has adopted 

these circulars by regulation, 43 CFR Part 12. 

In addition to standard grant conditions, a federal agency can impose special or 

additional grant conditions to meet the needs of the project being funded. 

Federal grants are subject to audit. The audit standards for state and local governments are found in OMB Circular A-128. The audit standards for non-profit organization are found in OMB Circular A-133. The DOI Inspector General’s Office 

conducts audits of grants awarded by DOI or NPS. Any misappropriation of funds 

could subject the grantee to administrative, civil, and criminal penalties depending 

upon the circumstances. See Inspector General’s Act, 5 USC App. 3, § 4, False 

Claims Act, 31 USC § 3729, and False Statements Act, 18 USC § 1001. 

20

The standard grant conditions set forth the procedures that need to be followed 

to close out a grant when the project has been completed. 

There should be no difference between the accountability controls imposed on the 

grants that would be made under this legislation and any other grant made by the 

National Park Service or the federal government. 

Limited Authority to Acquire Real Property 

The Heritage Coalition has identified four confinement sites that would need to 

acquire real property as a part of their preservation projects. In recognition of this 

need, S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 provide very limited authority to authorize federal 

funds made available under this legislation to acquire real property. 

S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would limit this authority with three restrictions. First, 

the property must be one of the four sites listed in the legislation. Second, the current owner must give written consent to the acquisition. Third, the use of the authority must be approved by the Secretary of Interior in the form of awarding a 

grant for this purpose. 

Amount of Authorization for Appropriations 

Finally, S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would authorize $38 million for confinement site 

preservation projects. This authorization for appropriations is small when compared 

to the tremendous cost that would be incurred if the same mistakes are not avoided 

in the future. 

At the same time, that authorization for appropriations amount is not large when 

compared to preserving the importance of the ‘‘American Promise.’’ This legislation 

would show the American public, other nations, and other peoples of the world that 

the United States is willing to admit and preserve its wrongs in ways to remind 

us that they must not be repeated. 

The Heritage Coalition asks that the importance of this legislative purpose be supported by maintaining the $38 million authorization for appropriations now provided in S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. 

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Heritage Coalition supports S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 and urges this 

Subcommittee’s favorable and expeditious consideration of this legislation. Again, 

the enactment of this legislation would preserve the historic lesson that government 

action founded in prejudice and discrimination cannot be justified and is not part 

of our democratic way of governing. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this testimony. If you have 

questions, I am prepared to respond to them.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much and we appreciate your 

contribution. 

I just want to mention that we’re very delighted to have a group 

of students from Wyoming here in a close up to participate in our 

hearings here today. Welcome. We’re glad to have you here. 

I know both of you have special issues, particularly Senator 

Salazar. Would you care to make a comment at this point or ask 

questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you Chairman Thomas. I deferred my 

opening statement until this point, so I would like to give that 

opening statement now, please. 

Let me at the outset just thank you, Chairman Thomas and Senator Akaka for holding this very important hearing on S. 1510 and 

thank you, as well, for being one of our leaders in the Levin/Warner CODEL into Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan and I’m still 

recovering from that 50,000 mile journey with you. So thank you 

for being back on the job and focusing on the issues of our parks 

today. 

I want to talk briefly about S. 1510, the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Area Act. I want to welcome Sue Masica 

21

from the National Park Service. I also want to thank the Rocky 

Mountain National Park Superintendent Vaughn Baker for his 

leadership on this issue. 

Congress established the Rocky Mountain National Park on January 26, 1915 on the vision of a man named Ennis Mills, one of 

our Nation’s most committed naturalists whose love for the wild 

Rockies began in 1884 when, at the age of 14, he scaled Long’s 

Peak. Mills saw in the high meadows and the alpine tundra, the 

ranches and the roaring waterfalls that span the continental divide, our Nation’s most prized landscapes, a crown jewel deserving 

the protection as America’s 10th national park. He said in years to 

come, when I am asleep beneath the pines, thousands of families 

will find rest and hope in this park. 

He was right. Thanks to the excellent work of the Park Service 

and its employees over the past 90 years, the 3.2 million visitors 

that come to Rocky Mountain each year experience the same wild 

lands and spectacular vistas that our ancestors enjoyed. 

Our job of protecting the wild character of Rocky Mountain National Park is not complete, however. In 1964 President Richard 

Nixon recommended that Congress designate 239,835 acres within 

the park as wilderness to ensure the continued preservation of the 

park’s values. Though the Park Service has managed these lands 

to preserve these wilderness qualities, Congress has yet to act to 

designate the Rocky Mountain National Park wilderness area. 

Thanks to the tireless efforts of local communities and the dedicated protectors of the park, we now have a broadly support bill 

that is deserving of passage. 

S. 1510 and its companion in the House, H.R. 3193, add 249,339 

acres, nearly 95 percent of the Rocky Mountain National Park to 

the Wilderness Preservation System. It does so in a way that does 

not affect private land owners, existing development or water 

rights. The boundaries for the wilderness area will ensure the continued use of the Grand River ditch and its right of way, the Colorado-Big Thompson project and its gauging stations, and lands 

owned by the St. Vrain and Left Hand water conservancy district, 

including the Copeland Reservoir. Visitors will still be able to drive 

the park roads, including Trial Ridge Road, which leads to the Continental Divide at 12,183 feet. And the bill does not affect areas 

where additional facilities and road work will improve park management and visitor services. 

Wilderness designation for the park will enhance the park’s original mission by permanently protecting the values, vistas and wildlife that have enthralled visitors for generations. In elevating wilderness protections from policy to law we eliminate ambiguity for 

park managers and give them a clear direction on how to protect 

the resource. This added permanency to the protections on the 

park’s values ensures that our children and grandchildren will be 

able to enjoy the same wild character that we enjoy today when we 

visit the park. 

Recently the bill sponsor and I have been working with local 

communities to make some additional modifications of the bill. I 

appreciate the assistance and support of the Park Service in this 

effort. I am submitting for the record an amendment to S. 1510 

that will create a buffer zone around the town of Grand Lake for 

22

wildfire mitigation. The amendment also provides for a bicycle trail 

along the western edge of the park, provided the construction of the 

trail is consistent with the park’s mission and makes a small increase in the size of the nearby Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. 

As one who feels it is critical that local communities participate 

in and support these efforts, I am proud that this bill, with these 

changes, has the endorsement of local communities and organizations including Larimer County, the town of Estes Park, Winter 

Park, the town of Grand Lake, the League of Women Voters, and 

the Headwaters Trail Alliance. The people in local communities understand that protection of the park’s resources is a win-win for 

economic development and conservation. I thank them for their sincere efforts to craft a bill that accommodates the needs of all parties as well as possible. I look forward to and appreciate the Park 

Service’s testimony and cooperation in this effort as we move forward. 

I would also like to briefly recognize Senator Inouye and Senator 

Akaka and their work on S. 1719 on which we will hear and have 

heard testimony today. This bill would protect the historic sites 

where Japanese-Americans were detained during World War II, including Camp Amache in southeastern Colorado. These internment 

sites recall a sad moment in American history and it is important 

that we do all we can to preserve them. We must never forget the 

sacrifices of the brave Americans who were confined at these sites. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Akaka. 

Senator THOMAS. You’re very welcome. Thank you. 

Senator Akaka, I know you have a bill you’re interested in. 

Would you care to make a comment or ask questions? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you Senator Salazar for your remarks. 

I would like to ask a few questions of Sue Masica on S. 1719 and 

H.R. 1492, the Japanese-American internment sites. First of all, I 

understand that the Park Service generally opposes bills authorizing grants regardless of the subject area. Aside from that, however, is there any question as to whether this is an issue of national significance that merits Federal assistance? It would seem to 

me that the proposal such as this, to provide assistance and work 

cooperatively with outside groups who, in turn, will be responsible 

for the preservation and interpretation of these sites is preferable 

to the traditional Park Service role of Federal acquisition and management. And my question to you there, also, is do you agree? 

Ms. MASICA. Senator Akaka, the position that the administration 

has taken on this bill is not driven by the significance question. It 

is the money issue and the overall budget situation and what we’re 

dealing with trying to take care of the parks and programs that are 

already authorized, and struggling to appropriately manage and 

take care of in the budget environment we’re operating within. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Yamada, I don’t really have any questions 

for you. I wonder if you have any response to the administration’s 

concern with this proposal and what options remain if this legislation is not approved. 

Mr. YAMADA. The framework that’s contemplated in S. 1719 as 

well as H.R. 1492 is a—perhaps a different way of doing business 

for the National Park Service. As I understand the National Park 

23

Service, they focus primarily on sites that are seeking National 

Park Service unit designation or some form of formal recognition, 

such as landmark status. And we believe that the expertise, the 

technical assistance that’s available through the Park Service is 

very important to developing these sites. So what we’re asking of 

the Park Service is to create a different way of doing business with 

the public and in dealing with the potentially historic sites. 

The initiative contemplated by the statute is really driven by 

grassroots committees. It’s driven by committees that are composed 

in part by internees. And it’s important that they—that they participate in defining the historical significance of the confinement 

sites. We don’t see that to be the role of the Federal Government. 

This story should not be told by the Federal Government. It should 

be told by the people that were interned in the camps. 

If this legislation fails, the sad part about it is the vast majority 

of internees—I mean, we’ve lost many today, we’re losing some 

every day, and we’re at a critical stage, both from the standpoint 

of a race against time in terms of the age of the internees and the, 

I think, 1990 report that was done by the National Park Service 

says many of these sites are already in general disrepair. So without this legislation, I’m afraid that we will just lose this period of 

history. 

Senator AKAKA. I am very concerned about that question. In case 

it’s not passed, what will happen, what options do you have after 

that? As you pointed out, and as we know, it has been many years 

since this has taken place and we’re trying to be certain that America and the people of the United States know that history and can 

even visit those places. And we look forward to support on this bill. 

As we all know, Senator Inouye has certainly been a huge part of 

this. I would tell you that Congressman Bill Thomas has been 

speaking with us about this and so there is this kind of support 

for H.R. 1492 and S. 1719. 

So I thank you very much for being here and I also want to 

thank Sue Masica for her statement as well. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you Senator. We have a Hart Mountain 

area in Wyoming that’s also involved in this, as you may know. 

Couple of questions about the Rocky Mountain Park Wilderness. 

Is there an interim management policy restricting the use of the 

Park Service lands which are recommended as unsuitable for wilderness designation? Will this change that? 

Ms. MASICA. No sir. If they’re determined to be unsuitable, 

they’re not managed as wilderness, so this doesn’t change that. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. That’s good. 

Mr. Yamada, in these interim sites, the legislation authorizes 

$38 million to be used at the sites as a grant program. On what 

basis would these grants be awarded? Who has the authority for 

selecting the projects for funding and what are the priorities for 

funding? 

Mr. YAMADA. Well the grants would be awarded by the National 

Park Service. There are potentially 52 sites that are eligible in 

terms of——

Senator THOMAS. 50? 

Mr. YAMADA. 52. 

24

Senator THOMAS. 52. 

Mr. YAMADA. Yes. There are 52 confinement sites that are identified in the National Park Service unit. We don’t contemplate all 52 

being eligible or interested in applying for grants. As I mentioned 

earlier, the grants and the projects themselves would be driven by 

community groups wanting to preserve a particular area or a particular site. 

Let’s just take ten internment camps, which are the most well 

known. Each of the internment camps, I believe, are unique. Each 

camp has a different story to tell. And if you look at the layouts, 

I think, they probably look very, very similar because common 

blueprints were used to build the barracks and the mess hall and 

showers and that type of thing. But in terms of the stories that developed at each of the sites, each was different. And if you look at 

the assembly centers, the Department of Justice camps and some 

of the other secured areas, each of those has——

Senator THOMAS. I guess my question really is what role, for example, does the Heritage Coalition have in the grant? Does the Department make these judgments as to where this money’s spent, or, 

in other words, out of the $38 million, who specifically allocates the 

dollars? 

Mr. YAMADA. The Secretary of the Interior. 

Senator THOMAS. The Interior Department? 

Mr. YAMADA. The Interior Department. That may be allocated to 

the National Park Service, but the ultimate decisions in terms of 

who gets the money and what projects will be funded, the statutes 

contemplate that the National Park Service would make those decisions. 

What we ask for is some daylight, some sunshine in the grant 

process so that there would be a consultation process with the community in terms of what we ask—what we’re being awarded. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. 

Mr. YAMADA. We would hope that there would be some communication and consultation in terms of the priorities that the National Park Service sets. But, again, the ultimate decision as to 

who gets the awards would be the National Park Service. 

Senator THOMAS. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. I grew 

up in Cody, Wyoming, so I’m pretty familiar with the Hart Mountain site and have been there a number of times and share with 

you the enthusiasm for maintaining that historic activity there. 

Ms. Masica, the Lewis and Clark Visitor’s Center appropriation authorizes $150 thousand per year, not to exceed 10 years. How 

much is the park currently spending on these sites? Do you know? 

Ms. MASICA. Senator, we spend about $200 thousand a year in 

mostly operational support. About 25 percent of that is associated 

with some of the facility’s upkeep. It’s a relatively new facility, so 

that’s a modest amount at this point in time. 

Senator THOMAS. So you contemplate some saving for the Park 

Service and does this——

Ms. MASICA. We would. We wouldn’t have the maintenance responsibility and the operational contribution under the terms of the 

legislation would be set at $150 thousand a year. If we had full 

operational responsibility it would be even more than that. So we 

do believe it would be cost-effective. 

25

Senator THOMAS. A cost-saving bill, ooh. 

Barrett Farm, this site is a critical part of the story before. Why 

wasn’t it included in the original boundary of the Minuteman National Historic Park? 

Ms. MASICA. When the park was established in 1959 the property 

was in private ownership and was not available for acquisition. But 

it is, we believe, a critical part of the story and there now is a possibility that it could become available. 

Senator THOMAS. Okay. I see. Well, obviously I don’t need to express my support for the Jackson Wildlife Art Museum. I think 

that is one of the outstanding places in the country and I’m delighted——

Ms. MASICA. It’s a great facility, I’ve been there Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. And, also, the exchange in Teton Park. As some 

of you may understand, this area of the park was acquired after 

the original park area by the Rockefeller Foundation, basically, and 

there were in-holdings and gradually these in-holdings are being 

turned back over or purchased again by the parks. By the way, 

we’re interested in working on that section that belongs to the 

State, making some trade with the Federal Government on that. So 

it could become part of the park again as well. 

The bill directs the Secretary not to transfer the parcel to any 

third parties in the future. Has this type of requirement been included in the transfers in any other parks or is this and will this 

provision protect the land in the future? 

Ms. MASICA. Mr. Chairman, we checked and we can find no 

record of a similar provision in other legislation for other park 

units. But because of the language that would preclude the Secretary from disposing of any of that land, it would keep it in Federal ownership so the likelihood of future development is significantly diminished. 

Senator THOMAS. I see. Well, that’s great. 

We met this morning—yesterday, I guess, with the Director of 

the Teton Park in working on the transportation plan there and so 

on. The gentleman who’s transferring this land was going to be 

here, but I don’t believe he made it today. Sorry. 

Well thank you both for being here. I think these are important 

bills and we needed to have a hearing and we appreciate your 

being here and we’ll move them forward. If any of the other members have questions, we’ll have them submit them to you over the 

next day or so. So if not, thank you very much. 

Mr. YAMADA. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(27)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF GERALD YAMADA TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): The 

bill states that the Secretary of the Interior would award grants in Consultation 

with the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition. 

a. How is the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition structured? 

b. Who belongs to it, how are the members selected, and how frequently do they 

meet? 

c. Mr. Yamada, I see from your title that you are the National Coordinator of the 

Japanese American National Heritage Coalition. How is the National Coordinator 

selected and how long a term does the National Coordinator serve? 

Answer. S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 provide that the Secretary of the Interior, ‘‘in consultation with the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition, shall make 

grants. . . .’’ At the close of the hearing, the Chairman mentioned that he found 

the ‘‘shall make grants’’ language to be different from other grant authorities given 

to the National Park Service (‘‘NPS’’). The Chairman noted that the language for 

such authority generally provides that NPS ‘‘may make grants.’’ Before responding 

to the Subcommittee’s questions, I want to address why the ‘‘shall make grants’’ language must be kept even if it is different from other NPS authorities. 

Because NPS units and non-NPS units would be eligible for funding under this 

legislation, the ‘‘shall’’ language is used to keep a level playing field among all eligible confinement sites. As signaled by its opposition to this legislation, NPS has 

shown a preference for NPS units. The ‘‘may make grants’’ language could be interpreted to allow NPS to fund only NPS units or to use the funds for purposes that 

are not intended by this legislation such as paying for on-going operations at NPS 

units. 

The language ‘‘in consultation with the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition’’ language is a compromise made with NPS on the House bill. Congressman 

William Thomas originally introduced this legislation as H.R. 360, which would 

have created a federal advisory commission composed of 21 members. NPS objected 

to the creation of this federal advisory committee. 

The Heritage Coalition’s position is that the internees have earned the right and 

the Japanese American community should be given the opportunity to shape how 

the Japanese American internment experience is preserved. We are asking for an 

open process and are not wedded to a certain form of participation such as a federal 

advisory committee. 

As one of the concessions made to NPS, Congressman Thomas deleted the Advisory Commission to Preserve World War II Historic Confinement Sites and reintroduced his legislation as H.R. 1492 with the ‘‘in consultation with the Japanese 

American National Heritage Coalition’’ language included. This language was suggested by the House subcommittee as a compromise. 

One reason why the Heritage Coalition would be given this consultation role is 

that it would not be a potential grant applicant. By contrast, each of the member 

organizations would be eligible to submit a grant application. 

The Heritage Coalition believes that it is important to have an open process in 

implementing S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. The need for this openness is demonstrated 

by the recent closing of the More Perfect Union Exhibit within the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of American History. The Congress provided appropriated funds 

to the Museum of American History to create a permanent exhibit on the Japanese 

28

* The resolution and a letter to Congressman Thomas have been retained in subcommittee 

files. 

American internment experience in World War II. The exhibit was called the More 

Perfect Union. In 2005, the Museum of American History unilaterally and, without 

any apparent consultation with anyone in the Japanese American community, 

closed the exhibit. Members of the Japanese American community were not informed until after the exhibit was taken down and artifacts returned to lenders so 

the exhibit could not be reassembled. It is this type of unilateral decision making 

that the consultation language in S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 hopes to avoid. 

The Heritage Coalition has 28 organization members. The members are the Go 

For Broke Educational Foundation, Go For Broke National Veterans Association, 

Japanese American Citizens League; Japanese American National Museum; Japanese American Veterans Association; National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Japanese American Historical Society; National Japanese American Memorial Foundation; National 

Japanese American Veterans Council; Organization of Chinese Americans; Amache 

Preservation Society; Committee to Change ‘‘Jap’’ Road, TX; Densho: The Japanese 

American Legacy Project, WA; Denver Central Optimists; Colorado River Indian 

Tribes; Friends of California Civil Liberties Public Education Program; Gila Reunion 

Committee; Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation; Japanese American Service 

Committee, Chicago, IL; Japanese American Historical Society, San Diego, CA; Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai’i; Life Interrupted Program (Arkansas Camps); 

Nisei Farmers League, CA; Poston Restoration Project; Topaz Museum Board, UT; 

and Tule Lake Preservation Committee. 

To join the Heritage Coalition, organizations adopted the attached resolution * or 

its equivalent. A member organization can withdraw at any time. To date, no member organization has withdrawn from the Heritage Coalition. No organization that 

has adopted the resolution to join the Heritage Coalition has been denied participation. 

I communicate with all Heritage Coalition member contact persons regularly by 

sending them monthly updates by email to keep them informed on the progress of 

our legislative efforts and to ask for their comments on any submissions to Congress 

such as my testimony before the Senate National Parks Subcommittee and this letter. 

I organized the Heritage Coalition and have been coordinating our efforts in support of S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. I volunteered to serve as the Heritage Coalition’s 

National Coordinator on a pro bono basis for two reasons. First, I have a strong interest in seeing S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 enacted and properly implemented since I 

was born at the Jerome War Relocation Authority Center. 

Second, my career experiences with the federal government qualifies me to carry 

out the needed duties for this position. Early in my federal career as the Assistant 

General Counsel for Grants with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I provided legal services to EPA’s 30-plus grant programs including the annual multibillion dollar wastewater construction grant program and the then newly enacted 

Superfund trust fund. As EPA’s Associate General Counsel for Grants, Contracts, 

and General Law, I provided legal services for EPA contracts and general law matters such as Federal Advisory Committee management and public participation in 

regulatory development matters. As EPA’s Principal Deputy General Counsel for 13 

years, I provided legal services for statutory interpretation, appropriations, and program management matters. Throughout my career, I have been substantially involved in numerous legislative initiatives. 

Question 2. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): Who 

on the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition would be responsible for 

making grant recommendations? 

Answer. S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 envision a ‘‘consultation’’ role for the Heritage Coalition. Consultation would cast the Heritage Coalition in the role of facilitating the 

opportunity for member organizations to review and comment on the implementation of the legislation. The Heritage Coalition would not filter out comments submitted by member organizations. 

The consultation role would need to be further refined in discussions with NPS 

after the legislation is enacted. At a minimum, I would expect that NPS would look 

to the Heritage Coalition to facilitate the opportunity for member organizations to 

review and comment on NPS’ implementation of this legislation in terms of program 

guidance and funding levels and on grant applications. 

Question 3. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): The legislation authorizes $38 million for use at former Japanese American Internment 

sites through a grant program. On what basis would these grants be awarded, who 

29

would have authority for selecting projects for funding, and what are some of the 

highest priority items for funding? 

Answer. The challenge is how to best preserve the whole Japanese American experience during World War II as a comprehensive story. Although NPS two internment camp sites are NPS units and two others have been recently recognized as 

National Historic Landmark sites, each of internment camp sites have an unique 

story to tell. Furthermore, there are other confinement sites other than internment 

camp sites that have historically significant parts in this story. 

To meet this challenge, grants should be awarded based on the initiative and creativity of the applicant, how the project would fit into a comprehensive preservation 

of this period of history, and the historic significance of the confinement site. The 

Secretary of the Interior would be the authorized government official who would 

make the final decision on which grants to fund. 

In our letter of July 30, 2004 to Congressman Thomas, the Heritage Coalition outlines projects that were submitted by Internment Camp committees. A copy of this 

letter and budget estimates are attached describing the types of grant projects that 

could be funded under S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. It is important to note that these 

projects are not all-inclusive and that these projects and estimates may have 

changed since July 2004 or may change in the future. Furthermore, our letter to 

Congressman Thomas included descriptions of only a very limited number of 

projects at confinement sites that are not one of the 10 Internment Camp sites. 

Question 4. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): Other 

than the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition, are you aware of any organizations that should have a role in reviewing grant applications and making recommendations? 

Answer. The Heritage Coalition consists of 28 member organizations. Consultation 

between the NPS and the Heritage Coalition would include the opportunity for participation by all of the Heritage Coalition’s member organizations. 

The Heritage Coalition represents only its member organizations. If NPS wants 

also to consult with other organizations or persons or directly with Heritage Coalition member organizations, S. 1719 and H.R. 1492 would not preclude NPS from 

doing so. 

RESPONSES OF FRAN MAINELLA TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. (S. 1510, Rocky Mountain Wilderness): How would wilderness designation change the current management of the lands identified in this bill? 

Answer. In 1964, Congress designated Rocky Mountain National Park as a wilderness study area. In 1974, President Nixon recommended to Congress 239,835 acres 

for immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential designation as wilderness 

in the park. 

In accordance with NPS policy, all parklands that have been formally recommended for wilderness are managed to preserve wilderness resources and character until the legislative process of wilderness designation has been completed. 

Present road, water, and utility corridors, and all developed areas, are excluded 

from recommended wilderness. Wilderness designation would not alter any current 

visitor activities or access within Rocky Mountain National Park and would allow 

visitors to utilize the park in the same ways and locations that they presently enjoy. 

Question 2. (S. 1510, Rocky Mountain Wilderness): Will S. 1510 affect private 

property rights in or outside of the park? 

Answer. No. All private lands and interests have been excluded from the proposed 

wilderness boundaries. 

Question 3. (S. 1510, Rocky Mountain Wilderness): How would the wilderness designation affect water rights? 

Answer. Federal reserved water rights for park purposes are not an issue related 

to wilderness designation. Water rights for the park have been adjudicated through 

the State of Colorado water courts. Consequently, no water rights claims for wilderness purposes are needed or desired by the NPS. 

Question 4. (S. 1510, Rocky Mountain Wilderness): The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires the Park Service to study their lands to determine [they are suitable for wilderness. As of December 31, 2004, the Park Service is protecting approximately 26 

million acres, 2 million of which are in Wyoming, as wilderness while it waits for 

action from the Department of Interior or Congress on Park Service recommendations. Is this interim management policy restricting use of Park Service lands which 

are recommended as unsuitable for wilderness designation? 

Answer. Those lands that were determined to be unsuitable for wilderness designation have been managed in the same fashion as other non-wilderness lands in 

30

a particular park. At Rocky Mountain National Park for example, over the last five 

years on lands that were not recommended for wilderness designation, the park has 

made significant improvements in frontcountry visitor facilities and access to the 

park’s backcountry. Examples include reconstruction of the Bear Lake Road (parking, trailheads), renovation/restoration of the former Hidden Valley ski area (snow 

play area, access point for backcountry skiing, snowshoeing), and relocation of the 

Twin Owls trailhead (access to popular hiking/climbing areas). 

Question 5. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): The legislation authorizes $38 million for use at former Japanese American Internment 

sites through a grant program. On what basis would these grants be awarded, who 

would have authority for selecting projects for funding, and what are some of the 

highest priority items for funding? 

Answer. Since NPS would be setting up a new program to administer these 

grants, we cannot say at this point what the basis would be for warding the grants. 

It seems likely that the grants would be awarded in a similar manner to other grant 

programs, such as Save America’s Treasures, where organizations are invited to 

submit applications for projects that are then evaluated on the basis of a scoring 

system developed by NPS. Both bills require consultation with the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition in making the grants, so that consultation would 

be part of the process as well. The bills give authority to the Secretary of the Interior for making the grants, so the decision about which projects are funded would 

rest with the Secretary or with whomever the Secretary delegates that authority. 

As for projects that would be the highest priority for funding, that, too, would depend on decisions that would be made as the program is established. 

Question 6. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): What 

is the role of Japanese American National Heritage Coalition in the grant program? 

Would they be an advisory or decision-making body? 

Answer. The legislation specifies that the Secretary shall makes grants ‘‘in consultation with the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition,’’ so the organization would be consulted in the decisions about recipients of the grants. The coalition 

would be an advisory body, not a decision-making body. 

Question 7. (S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, Japanese American Internment Sites): Other 

than the Japanese American National Heritage Coalition, are you aware of any organizations that should have a role in reviewing grant applications and making recommendations? 

Answer. It is unusual to give any private organization a role in reviewing and 

making recommendations about grants in a grant-making program administered by 

the NPS. 

Question 8. (S. 1957, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Visitor Center): I 

see this bill will authorize appropriations of $150,000 per year for a period not to 

exceed 10 years. 

a. How much is the National Park Service currently spending to operate the center and is this a cost effective solution? 

Answer. The Midwest Region currently subsidizes the Center for about $200,000 

per year. This helps pay salaries, utilities, routine maintenance, and other needed 

expenses. This is not an effective solution to the operation and management of the 

Center. By owning the Center, the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretative Trail and Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. could collect entrance and special 

use fees to supplement donations for operations and maintenance. 

Question 8b. Will this management transfer save the NPS money in the long run? 

Answer. Yes. The conveyance of these parcels would result in a savings to the 

NPS and allow future funds to be used to assist with other trail partnerships and 

perhaps contingency issues in other national park units of the Midwest Region. 

Question 8c. If so, how much savings do you estimate? 

Answer. We currently subsidize the Center at about $200,000 per year, however, 

the total projected annual operating cost per year to operate the Center is about 

$547,000. At an annual subsidy of $150,000 a year provided under the bill, the savings would be approximately $50,000 a year or $500,000 for the 10-year period. 

Question 9. (S. 2034 and H.R. 394, Colonel James Barrett Farm Study): The arms 

hidden at Colonel James Barrett’s farm sparked the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the first battle of the American Revolutionary War. If this site is such a critical part of the story of Lexington and Concord, why was it not included in the original boundary for Minuteman National Historic Park? 

Answer. The farm was considered for inclusion when Minute Man National Historical Park was established in 1959, but at that time, the farm was in private ownership and unavailable for acquisition. It already has been found to be nationally 

significant and it is a key resource of the story of the beginning of the Revolutionary 

War. 

31

Question 10. (S. 2252, Jackson Wildlife Art Museum): Are any other major museums in the United States dedicated exclusively to wildlife art? How do the collections of wildlife art at the Museum compare with other collections in the United 

States? 

Answer. The NPS does not keep records on private museums throughout the 

United States. We are aware of some other museums that focus on wildlife are such 

as the Ward Museum of Wildfowl Art, in Salisbury, Maryland, which states on its 

website that it is home to the premier collection of wildfowl art, including decoy 

carving, and the Leigh Yawkey Woodson Art Museum in Wausau, Wisconsin, which 

each year hosts a juried ‘‘Birds in Art’’ Exhibition that has been in existence for 

more than 30 years. We do not have an ability to compare collections of private museums through the United States. 

Question 11. S. 2403, Grand Teton): The Grand Teton National Park Act of 1950 

provides that no further extension or establishment of national parks or monuments 

in Wyoming may be undertaken except by express authorization of the Congress. 

a. Has development around Grand Teton National Park impacted the park? If so, 

what is the greatest type of impact and what is the best solution? 

Answer. Impacts from development occur both on private lands adjacent to the 

park, and on inholdings within the park. Currently, there are over 130 tracts of nonfederal land within the park, most of which are in private ownership. These properties may be developed in accordance with the Teton County Land Development 

Regulations, and the NPS does not have regulatory authority over the development. 

Development of these lands could have significant impacts on the scenic views for 

which the park is renowned, on visitor enjoyment, and on wildlife. Acquisition of 

inholdings from willing sellers, or protecting them through the use of conservation 

easements, is a high priority for the park, but is dependent on the availability of 

land acquisition funds, or the generosity of donors. 

Question 11b. This bill directs the Secretary not to transfer the parcel to any third 

parties in the future without the express authorization from Congress. Has this type 

of requirement been included for land transfers at any other park units? If so, 

where? Would this provision help protect the land from future development? 

Answer. The NPS can find no record of a similar provision in legislation for any 

other park units. Because this provision ensures that, without Congressional authorization, the land will remain in federal ownership, the likelihood of future development is diminished. 

RESPONSES OF FRAN MAINELLA TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 1. Will the passage of S. 1510 in any way detract from the National Park 

Service’s ability to protect the resources of the Park? 

Answer. No. In 1964 Congress designated Rocky Mountain National Park as a 

wilderness study area. In 1974 President Nixon recommended to Congress 239,835 

acres for immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential designation as wilderness in the park. 

In accordance with NPS policy, all lands within Rocky Mountain National Park 

that have been formally recommended for wilderness are being managed to preserve 

wilderness resources and character until the legislative process of wilderness designation has been completed. Passage of S. 1510 will not alter the way the park is 

currently being managed, and will enhance the NPS’s ability to protect park resources by defining the wilderness boundaries and affording the legal protections of 

the Wilderness Act. 

Question 2. Will the passage of S. 1510 limit the ability of the Park Service to 

maintain and improve its existing visitor facilities, including roads? 

Answer. No. Present road, water, and utility corridors, and all developed areas, 

are excluded from recommended wilderness. Wilderness designation would not alter 

any current visitor activities or access within Rocky Mountain National Park, and 

would allow visitors to utilize the park in the same ways and locations that they 

presently enjoy. S. 1510 would not limit the ability of the National Park Service to 

maintain or improve existing visitor facilities, including roads. 

Question 3. Will the passage of S. 1510 in any way limit access to, or maintenance 

of, existing water resource facilities in the Park? 

Answer. No. Water resource facilities in the park include the Grand River Ditch, 

the Harbison Ditch, Specimen Ditch, Lily Lake, Copeland Lake, and the Alva B. 

Adams Tunnel. The East Portal and the West Portal of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel 

are located outside the park. All the other aforementioned facilities have been excluded from the recommended wilderness boundaries. 

Question 4. Can I have your assurance that, if S. 1510 passes with the amendment that I have submitted for the record, the National Park Service will work 

32

quickly and closely with local communities and interested parties in the process of 

authorizing construction of the East Shore Bike Trail? 

Answer. Yes. If S. 1510 were enacted, the NPS would work quickly and closely 

with local communities to initiate the planning process for the bike trail. As a federal agency, the NPS must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) before authorizing a non-motorized bike trail. Congress passed NEPA in 

1969 to allow, among other things, public input into the decision making for the use 

of public resources. Two of the major tenets of NEPA are its emphasis on a full and 

open evaluation of environmental costs and benefits before actions are taken that 

may impact the environment, and the development and critical evaluation of alternative courses of action, including the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative. Section 102 of NEPA 

requires a statement of possible environmental effects to be released to the public 

and other agencies for review and comment. A decision on the bike trail will be 

made after analysis of the environmental effects and consideration of public input. 

(33)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

GRAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

Hot Sulphur Springs, CO, August 2, 2005. 

Hon. MARK UDALL, 

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. KEN SALAZAR, 

Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN UDALL AND SENATOR SALAZAR: Please accept this letter as 

support for the designation for Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) for a wilderness area subject to the following conditions:

1. The buffer areas set forth from the Town of Grand Lake’s letter to Congressman Udall dated June 29, 2005, and attached hereto as Exhibit A, should 

be applied 

2. RMNP should designate areas for future expansion of parking, as visitor 

numbers will only increase and parking is essential for a quality visit. 

3. Snowmobiling on the routes currently designated in the Park should be 

maintained. 

4. If the Grand Ditch were to breach in the future, repairs should be allowed 

as well as sedimentation issues caused by this sort of action need to be immediately addressed.

Again, Grand County supports the designation of RMNP as a wilderness area if 

the above restrictions can be applied. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES L. NEWBERRY, 

Chairman. 

NANCY STUART, 

Commissioner. 

DUANE E. DAILEY, 

Commissioner. 

TOWN OF GRAND LAKE, 

Grand Lake, CO, June 29, 2005. 

Hon. MARK UDALL, 

Congressman, Minturn, CO. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN UDALL: The Town of Grand Lake held a Public Hearing on 

the proposed Wilderness Designation for Rocky Mountain National Park on June 13, 

2005 to gather public comment. At the meeting, a clear majority of the citizens in 

attendance were in favor of such designation in order to preserve and manage the 

Park as wilderness. 

The Board of Trustees voted unanimously in favor of such designation for the 

Park with the following requests:

1. A one-fourth to one-half mile buffer be excluded from the designation 

around the border of Grand Lake. The buffer is requested for fire mitigation 

and future development possibilities that are unknown at this time with the 

private property that borders the Park. 

2. A one-eighth mile buffer, including the East Shore Trail and the Range 

Meadows Trail be excluded from the designation along the east shore of Shadow 

Mountain Lake and Lake Granby extending from the northern boundary of the 

Park near Grand Lake to the southern boundary of the Park for the Granby 

to Grand Lake trail. 

34

Headwaters Trails Alliance (HTA) has identified this section of the Park 

(East Shore Trail) as part of the future Granby to Grand Laker non-motorized 

trail. HTA’s mission is to connect each Town in Grand County with non-motorized trails. Currently HTA has completed the Winter Park to Fraser and the 

Fraser to Granby trails. A planning grant has been awarded to HTA to plan 

the Granby to Grand Lake trail and initial analysis of possible routes indicates 

that the East Shore Trail, which lies mostly on National Park Service property, 

is the ideal candidate for the upper section of the Granby-to-Grand Lake Trail.

Thank you for allowing the community of Grand Lake to comment on the Wilderness Designation for Rocky Mountain National Park. 

Sincerely, 

JUDY M. BURKE, 

Mayor. 

INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION, 

Boulder, CO, March 30, 2006. 

Senator CRAIG THOMAS, Chair, 

Senator DANIEL AKAKA, Ranking Member, 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN THOMAS AND RANKING MEMBER AKAKA: On behalf of the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and our member Colorado bicycle 

clubs, I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of S. 1510, 

the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act. 

IMBA was founded in 1988 and leads the national and worldwide mountain bicycling communities through a network of 32,000 individual members and more than 

550 affiliated clubs. More than 39 million Americans participated in singletrack bicycling and 7.6 million were ‘‘enthusiasts’’ of the sport in 2004, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. 

IMBA teaches sustainable trailbuilding techniques and has become a leader in 

trail design, construction, and maintenance. We promote responsible riding, volunteer trailwork and cooperation among trail user groups and land managers. IMBA 

members and affiliated clubs perform close to one million hours of volunteer 

trailwork and advocacy annually, and are outstanding partners for federal, state 

and local land managers. 

IMBA has formal partnership agreements with the USDA Forest Service, Bureau 

of Land Management and US Army Corps of Engineers. Just last year, we signed 

an official agreement with the National Park Service (NPS) to develop more mountain biking opportunities at NPS units across the country. Currently more than 40 

national parks have mountain biking on dirt roads and trails. 

In Colorado, IMBA has approximately 10,000 supporters through our 2,500 individual members and 50 affiliated bike clubs. More than 30 bicycle retailers are also 

affiliated with IMBA. Colorado is a hub of the bicycle industry, with leaders such 

as Pearl Izumi, Catalyst Communications, Yeti Bicycles, Moots Bicycles, Bicycle Village, Criterion Cycles, Koobi Saddles, SRAM/Rock Shox, USA Cycling, Colorado Cyclist, Peak Bar, Carmichael Training Systems, Velo News, and many others residing 

in the state. 

Bicycling is a billion-dollar industry in the state, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation. Thousands of tourists travel to Colorado each year to 

ride their mountain bikes and experience trails that have become world famous. 

Tourists flock to Durango, Crested Butte, Telluride, Steamboat Springs, Fruita, 

Grand Junction and many other Colorado communities to explore the outdoors by 

bicycle. Colorado tourism communities take trail access very seriously as they know 

that cyclists spend money on lodging, gas, restaurants, and in local stores. In 2004, 

Colorado ranked sixth in the nation for singletrack bicycling participants, with 22 

percent of the population—730,940 people—involved in the sport (Outdoor Industry 

Association). 

As you know, federal agency interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness Act bans bicycle access. Every time a congressional Wilderness bill is proposed, cyclists risk losing access to trails they have ridden for years. Further, they lose the potential to 

build new trails or expand bicycling access in these lands in perpetuity. IMBA members take Wilderness bills very seriously and want to be at the table to help craft 

land protection legislation. For this reason, bicyclists seek modifications of Wilderness proposals that will protect the land while continuing to allow this quiet, lowimpact, muscle-powered recreation on existing trails. When conflict exists, IMBA 

35

suggests boundary adjustments, non-Wilderness trail corridors, grandfathering in 

our existing use, or other land protections such as National Protection Areas or National Conservation areas. 

Senator Salazar has been very inclusive of IMBA and mountain bicyclists in the 

discussions of the proposed Wilderness boundaries as has Congressman Udall in the 

House. We are pleased to see the bill includes a boundary that allows for the possible inclusion of bicycles on the East Shore Trail. This trail will provide a critical 

connector for the Headwaters Trail Alliance (HTA) in their master trails plan to 

connect Grand County with 70 miles of shared-use, non-motorized trails. The Granby to Grand Lake trail is the next leg of their master plan and the best alignment 

is on the western edge of Rocky Mountain National Park and provide spectacular 

views of Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, and Lake Granby. This trail will 

be a beautiful community amenity allowing non-motorized trail users to travel near 

the shore. We are confident that the East Shore Trail will be a draw for trails-based 

tourism and give families, community members and tourists a resource that will be 

highly valued for many years to come. 

There are 359 miles of dirt trails open to hikers in the National Park but only 

paved roads open to cyclists. These paved roads have very narrow shoulders and 

park officials encourage cycling early in the morning to avoid conflict with vehicles. 

IMBA encourages the committee to do more to get visitors out of their cars and experience the park by bicycle. The 16-20 mile East Shore Trail would do just that 

and only remove about 500 acres of land from the approximately 250,000 acre proposal. 

In 1974, the National Park Service determined many of these areas to be appropriate for Wilderness and classified them as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). NPS 

management will not allow the consideration of bicycles in these areas until Congress acts to decide the fate of these lands. Enacting S. 1510 would allow the community and the federal land agencies to begin the environmental process to consider 

opening the East Shore Trail to bicycles. We look forward to working with the National Park Service and the USDA Forest Service on starting this process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this important legislation. 

IMBA looks forward to working with the committee and Senator Salazar and urges 

your favorable consideration. 

Sincerely, 

JENN DICE, 

IMBA Government Affairs Director. 

TOWN OF GRAND LAKE, 

Grand Lake, CO, March 30, 2006. 

Hon. KEN SALAZAR, 

Senator, 400 Rood Avenue, Ste 213, Grand Junction, CO. 

DEAR SENATOR SALAZAR: The Grand Lake Board of Trustees would like to congratulate you on creating the wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain National 

Park. Your time and efforts are truly appreciated. The protective mechanisms being 

put into place to preserve nearly 250,000 acres of wilderness will bring enjoyment 

to future generations. By the same token, the East Shore Trail Area, excluded from 

the recommended Wilderness Area for the proposed Headwaters Trails Alliance trail 

corridor, will help to ensure that visitors to the area and locals alike will have the 

opportunity to access and appreciate such pristine wilderness. We believe that both 

of these measures will be looked upon as forward-thinking when reflected upon 

through the eyes of history. 

The Town is grateful for the opportunity you gave us to be heard; the efforts that 

you made to include our concerns won’t soon be forgotten by the citizens of Grand 

County. Our two major concerns have been addressed by this proposed legislation: 

the buffer around the Town for fire mitigation and growth, and the preservation of 

a Headwaters Trails Alliance trail corridor along the east side of Shadow Mountain 

Lake that, hopefully, will one day allow for bicycles to ride along this beautiful part 

of Colorado. 

The Grand Lake Board of Trustees supports the Rocky Mountain National Park 

Wilderness Act (S. 1510) and hopes that it can be adopted by Congress expeditiously. 

For the Board of Trustees, 

JUDY M. BURKE, 

Mayor. 

36

HEADWATERS TRAILS ALLIANCE, 

March 31, 2006. 

Senator KEN SALAZAR, 

702 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR SALAZAR: Headwaters Trails Alliance would like to take this opportunity to express our support for the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness 

Bill, H.R. 4935, and its companion resolution in the United States Senate. 

Headwaters Trails Alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to the planning, 

construction, and maintenance of trails for all trail users in Grand County, Colorado. The members of the Alliance are the Town of Winter Park, Town of Fraser, 

Town of Granby, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs, Town of Grand Lake, Grand County, 

Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District, Grand Lake Metropolitan Recreation District, and Fraser Valley Partnership for Trails. 

We greatly appreciate the efforts of both Congressman Udall’s and Senator 

Salazar’s staff on this issue. We feel that the bill as it stands will provide Rocky 

Mountain National Park with the long-term protection it deserves, while also providing opportunities for community-based trail construction initiatives along Shadow Mountain Lake and Lake Granby. 

Thank you for all of your hard work on this resolution, and for your consideration 

of the local communities’ needs throughout this process. 

Sincerely, 

DAWN PACKARD, 

Executive Director. 

TOWN OF WINTER PARK, 

Winter Park, CO, April 3, 2006. 

Senator KEN SALAZAR, 

702 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR SALAZAR: The Town of Winter Park is writing to express our support for the S. 1510: Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act. As you know, 

the Town is a funding member of the Headwater Trails Alliance and we support 

the mission of that organization. We appreciate your efforts in designating nearly 

250,000 acres of wilderness that also provides an opportunity for an important trail 

corridor. 

We appreciate your efforts in working closely with the local governments of Grand 

County on this issue. 

Sincerely, 

HAROLD N. TEVERBAUGH, 

Mayor. 

LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

Fort Collins, CO, April 4, 2006.

DEAR SENATORS: If you have had the exhilarating experience of visiting Rocky 

Mountain National Park, then you understand the reasons why ‘‘wilderness’’ designation for the park is most appropriate and greatly needed. Rocky Mountain National Park is a gem and a national treasure. 

Most Coloradans believe the park already has wilderness designation, because 

that is how it has been managed to date. However, to protect this magical place for 

future generations, Rocky Mountain National Parks deserves the wilderness designation reserved for our most pristine habitats. With that designation, the park 

will remain a refuge for wildlife and humans alike, for centuries to come. 

Wilderness areas have a distinct benefit to tourism and to the economic health 

of the region and state. Both the Larimer County Board of Commissioners and the 

Estes Park Board of Trustees have recognized those benefits in advocating for the 

protection of the park under the banner of ‘‘wilderness.’’

It is my particular hope that we preserve the best attributes of our state and our 

nation for the enjoyment of future generations, who will need this treasured park 

for respite, even more than we do today. Rocky Mountain National Park is feeling 

the unintended impacts of today’s society, but will survive and prosper through federal designation as a protected wilderness area. 

37

* The resolution has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Please preserve Rocky Mountain National Park through wilderness designation. 

Sincerely, 

KAREN WAGNER, 

Larimer County Commissioner. 

TOWN OF ESTES PARK, 

Estes Park, CO, April 4, 2006. 

Senator CRAIG THOMAS, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC. 

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: The Town of Estes Park and surrounding community 

supports the proposed Wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain National Park. 

This position was reached after a briefing and public hearing in Estes Park attended by approximately 100 area residents. At the hearing, nearly two dozen citizens spoke in favor of the designation while no one opposed the measure. Following 

the briefing, the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees passed Resolution #17-05 

in support of Wilderness designation for Rocky. I have included a copy of the resolution for your review.* 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN BAUDEK, 

Mayor. 

STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION; 

COLORADO MOUNTAIN CLUB; AND SOUTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

Thank you very much for your leadership toward securing wilderness protection 

for the remarkable scenic and ecological wonders of Rocky Mountain National Park. 

We strongly support that protection and endorse your revised legislation to that 

end. 

While we have reservations about withholding wilderness protection for the portion of the park along the East Shore Trail, we consider your approach to that question, as described in your revised legislation, to be essentially fair. We are pleased 

to continue working with you to clarify provisions affecting that area, and we are 

confident that those last details can be worked out. 

Again, we support your pending legislation and encourage Congress to act on it 

promptly. 

STATEMENT OF S. FLOYD MORI, DIRECTOR, PUBIC POLICY, JAPANESE AMERICAN

CITIZENS LEAGUE (JACL) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am appreciative of being given 

the opportunity of submitting this written testimony to the National Parks Subcommittee on S. 1719 and H.R. 1492. My name is Floyd Mori. I am the Director 

of Public Policy and immediate past national president of the Japanese American 

Citizens League, also known as the JACL. JACL is the oldest and largest Asian 

American human and civil rights organization in the nation. We have a membership 

of over 20,000 and are represented by 113 chapters throughout the country. Our 

mission is to challenge discrimination against any citizen of this country and to protect civil liberties of our community. 

JACL has long been associated with the issues surrounding World war II internment of Japanese Americans. JACL was the lead organization advocating for the 

passage of H.R. 442 in 1988, which provided redress for all living internees and recognized the folly of the WRA program by giving each an apology from the President 

of the United States. 

The latter is extremely important as it was critical that this nation have the courage to recognize its mistakes of the past and in so doing, serve a lesson to the future. In this regard, I believe it is very important that we continue as a nation to 

learn from our past by maintaining the symbols of our history. Hallowed names like 

Gettysburg, Little Big Horn, Valley Forge, Sutter’s Fort, and so many others serve 

as invaluable lessons from our past and speak of both the courage and the tragedies 

of that past. History has little meaning if it does not teach us about ourselves and 

about those who have sacrificed for the greater good of the nation. 

38

If we were to allow the existence of the ten world war II internment sites to be 

removed from our collective memory, we only do the future a disservice. There are 

Americans today who do riot believe that the United States government could possibly have interned its own citizens, do not believe that concentration camps existed 

within the borders of the United States, and equally do not believe that an entire 

segment of our population, though innocent, could possibly have been imprisoned 

solely on the basis of race. 

These internment sites, Manzanar, Topaz, Minidoka, Heart Mountain, Tule Lake, 

Gile River, Poston, Amache, Rohwer, Jerome and what is left of them today stand 

as an important and powerful lesson for this nation. 

If we choose to remove all evidence of that experience from this land, it would 

be akin to denying it ever happened. We are better than that. We are greater than 

that as a nation. 

The Japanese American Citizens League is in strong support of S. 1719 and H.R. 

1492, and we urge the members of this committee to consider the profound implications of this legislation. We urge your approval of this measure to ensure that this 

World War II internments camps stand forever as a lesson for our future. 

Thank you very much for allowing us to submit this statement.

Æ