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

85–338 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–860

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 2623 S. 2880

S. 2640 H.R. 3421

S. 2776 H.R. 3786

S. 2788 H.R. 3858

SEPTEMBER 19, 2002

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

JEFF BINGAMAN and FRANK H. MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel

NANCIE AMES, Bevinetto Fellow

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 1

Anderson, Robert, Deputy Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource

Protection, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior ........... 12

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 3

Daschle, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .......................................... 2

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 4

Giese, Dale, Ph.D., Fort Bayard Historical Society, Silver City, NM .................. 9

Hainer, Michael J., Administrator, Fort Bayard Medical Center, New Mexico

Department of Health, Fort Bayard, NM ........................................................... 7

Radanovich, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California ......................... 4

Stauffer, Max, Chairman, Bass Lake School District, Fish Camp, CA ............... 25

Taylor, Jeffrey K., Assistant Director, Office of Legislative and Congressional

Affairs, National Park Service, Department of the Interior ............................. 15

Zontine, Patricia L., Chairman, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation,

Shenandoah Valley, VA ....................................................................................... 27

(1)

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2002

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka

presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Senator AKAKA. The Senate Subcommittee on National Parks

will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone. The purpose of this

afternoon’s hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks is

to receive testimony on several bills pending before the subcommittee. The bills that we will consider today include: S. 2623, to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield in Virginia and Belle Grove

Plantation National Historical Park in Virginia as a unit of the National Park System; S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, to provide funding for

school facilities in Yosemite National Park; S. 2788, to revise the

boundary of Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota.

We have two bills dealing with lands in New Mexico: S. 2776, to

provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo

Basin; and S. 2880, to designate the Fort Bayard Historic District

as a national historic landmark.

Finally, we will consider two other House-passed bills: H.R. 3786,

to revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation

Area; and H.R. 3858, to modify the boundaries of the New River

Gorge National River in West Virginia.

Although we have a long list of bills on the agenda this afternoon, I think most of them are relatively noncontroversial and

should not take too much time. I am especially interested in hearing more about the two bills authorizing park funds to assist the

public schools in the Yosemite National Park, and I am very happy

that Congressman Radanovich, the chairman of the counterpart

subcommittee in the House of Representatives, is scheduled to testify.

While I understand the problems of the Yosemite schools, I think

it is important that the committee carefully consider whether national parks operational funds should be used, even in part, for

non-national park purposes and whether authorizing park funds

for the schools in Yosemite will lead to similar requests from other

national parks around the country.

2

Two of the bills that we are considering today are sponsored by

the chairman of the full committee, Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have a conflict this afternoon that may

prevent you from staying for the entire hearing, but, please, I will

ask you to proceed with any opening statement you would like to

make at this time.

[A prepared statement from Senator Daschle follows′′]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DASCHLE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Thomas for convening today’s

hearing on the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act (S. 2788). I am

proud to be this bill’s sponsor, which will not only benefit my home state of South

Dakota, but the entire nation by expanding the protection of natural resources near

the park.

Wind Cave National Park, located in Southwestern South Dakota, is one of the

Park System’s precious natural treasures and one of the nation’s first national

parks. The cave itself, after which the park is named, is one of the world’s oldest,

longest and most complex cave systems, with more than 103 miles of mapped tunnels. The cave is well known for its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare, honeycomb-shaped formation that protrudes from the cave’s ceilings and walls. While the

cave is the focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally impressive,

with 28,000 acres of rolling meadows, majestic forests, creeks, and streams. As one

of the few remaining mixed-grass prairie ecosystems in the country, the park is

home to abundant wildlife, such as bison, deer, elk and birds, and is a National

Game Preserve.

I introduced the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act in July in response to an opportunity for the National Park Service to acquire property from

willing sellers neighboring the park. The land in question lies within the southern

‘‘keyhole’’ region, and is a natural extension of the park. It contains the same mixedgrass prairie and ponderosa pine forests found in the rest of the park, including a

dramatic river canyon. The addition of this land will enhance recreation for hikers

who come for the solitude of the park’s back country. It will also improve fire management in the area and protect archaeological sites, such as a buffalo jump over

which early Native Americans once drove the bison they hunted. I understand that

this would be the first site of its kind in the National Park System.

This plan to expand the park has strong support in the surrounding community,

whose views were expressed during a 60-day public comment period on the proposal

earlier this summer. Most South Dakotans recognize the value in expanding the

park, not only to encourage additional tourism in the Black Hills, but to permanently protect these extraordinary lands for future generations of Americans to

enjoy. Understandably, however, some are legitimately concerned about the potential loss of hunting opportunities and local tax revenue.

Governor Bill Janklow, has expressed his support for the park expansion, as long

as it (1) does not reduce the amount of land with public access that currently can

be hunted, (2) there is no loss of tax revenue to the county from the expansion, and

(3) chronic wasting disease issues are dealt with effectively. These are reasonable

conditions that should be met as this process moves forward.

In response to these concerns, the National Park Service modified its original proposal to exclude 880 acres of School and Public Lands property from the expansion.

This will help maintain public hunting access to these areas, and protect local county tax revenues. In addition, the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department

has reached an agreement with Wind Cave officials to monitor the occurrence of

chronic wasting disease in elk and deer herds in the park, which will help officials

better understand the disease. I am satisfied that the proposal put forth by the Park

Service effectively addresses the concerns raised by the Governor.

Wind Cave National Park has been a valued American treasure for nearly 100

years. This legislation provides us an opportunity to expand the park and enhance

its value to the public, so that visitors will enjoy it even more during the next 100

years. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this expansion of the park and

pass this legislation expeditiously.

Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with the

Chairman and the rest of the committee as it considers this legislation.

3

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, for

scheduling the hearing. I very much appreciate you including the

two New Mexico-related bills. We do have two witnesses here from

New Mexico prepared to speak on one of those two bills: Dale

Giese, who is here; and Michael Hainer. I look forward to hearing

their testimony.

The first of the two bills that you referred to relates to the

Galisteo Basin. It is S. 2776. It is a bill that I introduced to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to protect two dozen important archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin. This is an area south of

Santa Fe, between Santa Fe and Albuquerque. These sites contain

the ruins of Indian pueblos dating back almost 900 years and include the largest pueblo ruins ever found.

Some of the sites also include historic artifacts related to the

Spanish colonization of the area in the 1500’s. Because these sites

are close to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, many of the sites are now

threatened from development and increased use of land and erosion

and exposure to elements and vandalism.

S. 2776 directs the Secretary to protect these sites that exist on

Federal land and to work cooperatively with private owners and

pueblos in the State of New Mexico to protect sites located on their

land. We held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe last month. I was

pleased to see the broad support from leaders of the Pueblo community, affected landowners and local community leaders in general. In fact, to date we have not had a single person submit testimony in opposition to the bill.

Let me briefly turn to the other item that relates to New Mexico.

It is S. 2880. This would designate Fort Bayard Historic District

in southwestern New Mexico as a national historic landmark. This

is located a very few miles from my home town of Silver City and

has long been recognized as an historically significant site.

I see one of the other bills on the hearing agenda would designate a Civil War battlefield in Virginia for protection. Fort Bayard has a Civil War connection, a Virginia Civil War connection,

in that the fort was named for General George Bayard, who was

killed at the Battle of Fredericksburg. The fort was built in 1866.

It played an important role in the Apache Wars and the settlement

of southwestern New Mexico, and many of the so-called Buffalo

Soldiers were stationed at Fort Bayard. They served with distinction there, including one who received the Congressional Medal of

Honor.

This is, of course, also a historic medical facility and the administrator of that medical facility, Mr. Hainer, is here to testify, so I

will not steal any of his thunder except to say that I think both

of these are very meritorious bills and I hope we can move ahead

on them this year.

Again, thank you for letting me participate in the hearing.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement.

I would like to ask Senator Domenici for any statement he may

have at this time.

4

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

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

I welcome the New Mexicans who are here and I will be here to

see them, meet, and talk with them. I have a brief comment on the

Fort Bayard National Historic Landmark, S. 2880. I am very hopeful that I can cooperate and help, Senator, and that we will get

that done quickly.

With reference to the archaeological protection area, S. 2776, my

concerns and objections to it remain the same as they were last

year. I do not believe we have to have this much Federal interference in order, with all this property, in order to have a preservation, something that is preserved that we can recognize. But I am

willing to listen again, as I was before, and perhaps more people

from the area are in favor or less opposed, and we will just see

what that yields. But I commend you for introducing it again. What

is behind it is very good, very solid. Whether we have to do it this

way or not, I do not know.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you.

I would like to welcome Congressman George Radanovich, the

chairman of the House Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and

Public Lands, and the sponsor of H.R. 3421. We look forward to

hearing your testimony, Congressman. Your statement will be included in the record in its entirety, so please feel free to summarize

your remarks. Thank you for being here and please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Senator Akaka. I appreciate the

opportunity to describe my bill before the committee and have it

heard. Thank you very, very much.

My bill, H.R. 3421, is unique in that California is one of the only

States where operating funds for schools are based on average

daily attendance. Since the devastating flood of 1997 in the Merced

River Canyon, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number

of park employees and thus fewer schoolchildren attending these

schools. With fewer and fewer children attending these schools,

fewer State dollars are committed.

The result is that the superintendent for the Yosemite National

Park and the concessionaires serving the park visitors are attracting less than qualified candidates to work in the park because families are not provided with adequate schools. Furthermore, other

existing Federal funding sources are inadequate to meet the needs

of the schools. PILT, or payment in lieu of taxes, is available in

both Mariposa and Madera Counties where these schools exist and

impact aid is accessible in Madera County only, but pursuant to

current law very few dollars are actually used to fund these classrooms.

The situation is so bad for the schools that both the superintendent of Yosemite National Park and the president of the concessionaire services have pulled their children from the schools. In

light of these realities, I was able to secure special funding of about

$111,000 in fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations for these

5

schoolchildren. However, going to appropriators every year for this

critical assistance is not the most productive approach, and that is

why I have submitted the bill to make it permanent within the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we should stand by and permit the children of Park Service and concessionaire employees from

being deprived of their education simply because their parents

have been asked by our Government to work in Yosemite. Precedent for assistance to these schools located in national parks does

exist. Yellowstone National Park has such a program that was

adopted I believe in 1942 and is limited in its scope to the national

parks because of the fact that there are not very many where the

schools rely solely upon students from concessionaire or Federal

employee services.

I do work for bipartisan support behind the measure. During the

House subcommittee and committee consideration of the schools, a

number of changes were made to address issues raised by the administration, members of the Resources Committee, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. For example, the measures

make it clear that funds that will be available by the Secretary will

not go towards new construction, construction contracts, or major

capital improvements, and thus would be limited to general upkeep, maintenance, and classroom teaching.

After these modifications, the bill was approved in the House

with bipartisan support earlier this year. After that House passage,

Senator Feinstein and I worked to develop S. 2640, and I support

the Senate measure, which also includes the schools provision, plus

language to authorize the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation

System and an extension of the advisory commission for both the

Manzanar National Historic Site and the Golden Gate National

Recreation Area.

In closing, I would urge support for H.R. 3421 and its Senate version, S. 2640, and am available to answer any questions that you

might have.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your testimony, Congressman.

While we all agree on the goal of your legislation, to ensure a quality education for students attending those schools, there is still a

question why this should be funded by the national park revenues

instead of through the Department of Education or another schoolrelated funding source. Can you give us any of your thoughts on

this as to why you are asking national park revenues to operate

this school facility?

Mr. RADANOVICH. It would be my pleasure, Senator. Primarily

because California allocates its funds based on average daily attendance, which, if the number of students in a school is not very

high the funding that goes toward that school drops dramatically,

and there is a threshold which is needed in order to operate any

classroom. Because of that and because most of the programs that

have been made available to areas such as Yosemite or Mariposa

County with high Federal land ownership are simply not enough

to make up in the budgets in that area. For example, impact aid

is very, very small because the relationship between Federal employees and the rest of the population in the county is not high

enough to provide sufficient dollars for the operation of the classVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
6

room. Also, PILT as a program within the county does not allocate

those resources for educational purposes. It goes right into the general fund and is used to serve a barebones supply of services to the

county.

So for Yosemite the normal funding sources are just not enough

to make it a viable school, and yet we are still expected to attract

people to run one of the crown jewels of the National Park System.

I did mention earlier, too, that there is precedent in Yellowstone

National Park—I believe it was 1942 the provision was made—and

that it would be very narrow in scope. I do not think this opens

the door much to anything, simply because there are very few

schools in the park system where their students are comprised 100

percent of both concessionaire and Federal employees. So I think

that that would limit the scope dramatically.

Senator AKAKA. That was going to be another question of mine,

as to what kind of students will be attending the school.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. The schools in El Portal, Yosemite, and

in Wawona are, as I had mentioned, completely attended by concessionaire and Federal employees. There are no outside students in

those schools. If the schools are not available, they would be forced

to endure a 2-hour bus ride one way to the local schools in

Mariposa and Bass Lake through some pretty windy roads. It is a

dramatically rural area. That would make it very, very difficult to

get qualified employees to manage Yosemite National Park, which

is a big concern of ours.

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much.

Are there any further questions?

Senator DOMENICI. I just wanted to ask, do I understand that

what you would like is to make this an entitlement rather than an

appropriated account that would occur every year?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. Prior to this we were subject to an appropriations and we would like to get it permanentized.

Senator DOMENICI. So it would not be subject to appropriation?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. Yes. There is a cap on it up to $750,000.

Senator DOMENICI. Not very easy to get new entitlements passed

up here, but good luck.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right.

Thank you very much for hearing my bill.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement, Congressman. We look forward to working with you, not only on the

Yosemite bill, but also on the many other park bills that we need

to reach consensus on over the next few weeks.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I make myself available to you any time regarding that.

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Well, thank you for being here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. We only have a few witnesses scheduled to testify this afternoon, so I thought it might be useful to ask all of the

witnesses to come forward at this time.

I know that Senator Bingaman has to leave shortly. We normally

begin with administration witnesses, but I wonder if they would

not mind deferring for a few minutes so that we can call on the

two witnesses from New Mexico, Mr. Hainer and Dr. Giese, so that

the chairman can hear their testimony on the Fort Bayard NaVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
7

tional Landmark bill before he has to leave, and also Senator

Domenici.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all of the witnesses to please

summarize your testimony and limit your oral remarks to no more

than 5 minutes. We will include your entire written statement in

the official hearing record. So at this time, let me call on Mr.

Hainer to proceed, and following him will be Dr. Giese.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. HAINER, ADMINISTRATOR, FORT

BAYARD MEDICAL CENTER, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, FORT BAYARD, NM

Mr. HAINER. Chairman Akaka and to the two great Senators

from New Mexico: Thank you for the honor and opportunity to

speak before you today. I bring all of you greetings, greetings from

the many U.S. armed forces veterans and other residents receiving

health care services at Fort Bayard Medical Center today. I bring

you greetings from the 380 staff of Fort Bayard Medical Center and

the many citizens of the community of Fort Bayard, the mining district of Grant County, and New Mexico. Thank you again for the

opportunity.

I am the administrator of Fort Bayard Medical Center, which is

operated by the New Mexico Department of Health for the management of health care services. My responsibilities are not only for

the operation of the health care services, but for the management

of the entire unincorporated community of Fort Bayard, including

infrastructure.

This is my second post of duty at a health care facility previously

operated as a cavalry fort by the U.S. Army, and previously I was

a member of the Lincoln Historic District Preservation Board appointed by the county commission of Lincoln County, New Mexico.

Why recognize Fort Bayard Medical Center, a hospital and

health care community, as a national historic landmark? Mr.

Chairman, Fort Bayard carried out a pioneering role in tuberculosis and pulmonary disease treatment to veterans of the Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, and many

citizens of New Mexico subsequent. This is of national, if not global, health care development significance.

Fort Bayard today is an intact example of a long period of the

Federal Government’s role in the settlement and development of

the Western United States and the Federal role in the development

of public health care treatments and services to people who are

often underserved by private providers.

The historic district today is accurate. It contains architectural

and cultural treasures, with few intrusions of noncontributing

structures or buildings. The period from the 1920’s to 1930’s remains substantially intact for enjoyment, for provision of services

today, and for the community and for the Nation to view.

Today, the facility is currently operated as a health care community. Uninterrupted health care services have continued since the

order beginning in 1899 and we are in our second century of health

care services. I believe that it is time to recognize, preserve, and

protect this facility and its heritage in both military and health

care development while the opportunity exists.

8

I represent support for this act because it is consistent with the

criteria set forth for national historic landmark designation; that it

is compatible with the current and planned use of the facility by

the New Mexico Department of Health for provision of health care

services. It is well supported by New Mexico’s Office of Cultural Affairs, General Services Department, and Department of Health. All

three of these entities have a vital concern and role with the operation of the facility.

We have a strong relationship with the Fort Bayard Historic

Preservation Society and local citizens and we are unified in our

support, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, sir, this is an opportunity to recognize and protect

a period of Western development and a heroic era of health care

services and treatment that has extended for over 100 years. We

believe this is of national significance. Moreover, sir, today this is

not just a historic relic. This is a property, a culture, a lifestyle,

and a service that continues alive and well through the hundreds

of people who receive services and the hundreds of staff that provide them. We exist today. This is not just an event of the past.

Thank you for the honor of speaking before you today, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hainer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. HAINER, ADMINISTRATOR, FORT BAYARD

MEDICAL CENTER, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FORT BAYARD, NM

Fort Bayard Medical Center is a multifaceted healthcare facility occupying 466 of

the total 704 acres designated as the Fort Bayard Historic District. Sixty-two contributing buildings (and four non contributing buildings), many contributing structures, the military parade grounds, numerous roadways, community infrastructure

systems and other elements that comprise the core of the cultural landscape of the

Fort Bayard Historic District is nominated by this Act for designation as a National

Historic Landmark. The administrator of this NMDOH facility is responsible for operation of numerous healthcare services as well as occupancy of the structures and

operation of the infrastructure and services within the unincorporated community

known as Fort Bayard.

Healthcare services at the facility today include a dually certified nursing home

accepting Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement. The United States Veterans Administration also certifies the nursing home as a State Veterans Home. The nursing

home occupies all of a large hospital building erected in 1922 and formerly operated

as a hospital. It was built as the U.S. Army’s first tuberculosis sanitarium. The

building is now licensed for 250 nursing home residents and operates at an average

census of 185 residents, including the State Veteran’s Home designated portion of

the building. The state’s strategic healthcare role met by this component of Fort

Bayard Medical Center is to provide nursing home services to veterans and other

individuals with challenging healthcare needs that are not well met by private nursing home providers. Inpatient rehabilitation and therapy services are also provided

for many patients leaving area hospitals after injury, accident or surgery.

Fort Bayard Medical Center also provides residential chemical dependency treatment and rehabilitation services. The former hospital administration building built

by the Veterans Bureau in 1909 is used for this purpose. Individuals with limited

healthcare resources including numerous Native American tribal members use this

service.

Fort Bayard has continuously operated as a healthcare facility since 1899 with

the transition from cavalry fort to U.S. Army Hospital. The New Mexico Department

of Health has been the occupant and operator of Fort Bayard since 1965 after transition of the facility from the Veterans Administration to New Mexico control. A second century of continuous health care is now well underway at Fort Bayard. The

Department of Health maintains a commitment to pursuing quality outcomes for

the veterans and other citizens and families receiving these services.

The designation of the facility as a National Historic Landmark has been evaluated by the Department of Health and found to be compatible with the Department’s current and planned use of the facility. A strong working relationship has

been forged between the New Mexico Department of Health, the New Mexico Office

9

of Cultural Affairs, the New Mexico General Services Department and the Fort Bayard Historic Preservation Society to collaborate in the provision of unimpeded

healthcare services concurrent with a commitment to protection of the vast cultural

resource of the historic district. The Department of Health greatly values the public

interest in the district’s history. The tremendous contribution to Fort Bayard to regional protection of settlers during the cavalry fort period, followed by a long period

of pioneering efforts in health care is well recognized. The Department joins the

broad interest in the continued integrity of the district as an intact historic community. The Department is committed to a managed and shared enjoyment of the

stately beauty of the district in a manner that preserves the quality of life enjoyed

by the facility residents living at Fort Bayard today.

As the facility administrator I am acutely aware of the need for intervention to

protect and preserve the buildings and infrastructure of the district. Damage is occurring to many of the buildings. Many of the most valued and historic buildings

are marginally protected and are in need of repair and preventative maintenance

to avoid permanent damage or loss.

I strongly support passage of this important Act. This appeal to the Committee

to support the Act originates from my responsibilities as facility administrator of

Fort Bayard Medical Center. This Act is supportive of an environment with an enhanced quality of life for the Veterans and the hundreds of other residents and families who are, or will receive healthcare services at Fort Bayard.

The Act does not impose any new restrictions or requirements that adversely affect the operation of the healthcare services within the district. Passage of the Act

will provide for deserved recognition and assurances for protection along with continued use of the facility for healthcare services without interference or undesirable

intrusion.

This Act also clearly reflects the desire of many concerned citizens of Grant County and New Mexico to recognize and protect a rare and intact cultural treasure that

accurately portrays a courageous period of western development and healthcare

services improvement. The healthcare history period at this site clearly represents

a pattern of development in treatments that is national, if not global in significance.

Incredibly, this Act will support an ongoing tradition and commitment to health

care that is not only evident in the buildings, structures and landscape of the historic district but also remains vibrant and alive through the hundreds of residents

receiving health care, their families, the facility staff, the numerous volunteers and

the many community members actively involved with Fort Bayard today.

Passage of this Act is an invaluable opportunity to recognize and preserve a significant cultural resource of national significance while it remains intact and occupied with strong state and local support for its management and care.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Hainer.

May I call on Dr. Giese.

STATEMENT OF DALE GIESE, PH.D., FORT BAYARD

HISTORICAL SOCIETY, SILVER CITY, NM

Dr. GIESE. Chairman Akaka, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, committee members: I am Dale Giese. I have worked for the

National Park Service for more than 8 years, mostly in the field of

history, mostly military history, at Fort Union, a military post in

New Mexico, and Petersburg Battlefield in Virginia. I have also

served more than 30 years as a professor of history at New Mexico

State University and Western New Mexico University, and I am

testifying for S. 2880.

In 1866, Major John Pope, commanding officer of the Military Division of Missouri, recorded: ‘‘I have established only one new post

on the frontier’’—on the Apache frontier, ‘‘—that is located near the

headwaters of the Mimbres River, about 150 miles west of the Rio

Grande. This post, with Fort Cummings at Cook Spring, Fort Selden on the Rio Grande, Fort Stanton on the Bonito River between

the Rio Grande and the Pecos, form a line of posts covering the

southern frontier of New Mexico.’’

10

Because of the Indian danger, there were small ranching and

mining settlements in the Fort Bayard area before 1866. With a

great deal of native resistance, the Spanish had begun developing

the Santa Rita copper mine 60 years previously, 1804. Silver City

and Pinos Altos were rich in minerals. Mexican miners worked the

arroyos and canyons for placer gold as early as 1850.

As word of gold and silver spread, miners and settlers began

pouring into the area beginning in 1863. Apache Indians viewed

these activities as an encroachment upon their lands and they offered stiff resistance to these invaders of their hunting grounds.

Conflicts began to escalate.

The California Volunteers captured the Apache leader Mangas

Coloradas near Pinos Altos and took him prisoner to Fort McLane

near the Grant County Airport. Fort Bayard was established to

combat this threat to settlement. Conflicts occurred as far as

Deming, Glenwood, Pinos Altos, and the Silver City mining district.

Fort Bayard’s soldiers, of which hundreds were Buffalo Soldiers,

and their Navajo and Apache scouts on the side of the soldiers, participated in many engagements against famous Apache war leaders

such as Victorio, Nana, and Geronimo. Expedition after expedition

departed from Fort Bayard to capture these Apaches or kill them,

and it was no easy task to combat these tough, dedicated fighters

who were so well adapted to their native land.

The usual story prevailed time and again in the reports of lieutenants who found only traces of the Indians. The rain and snow,

they said, were extreme. The soldiers ran out of supplies. Their

horses gave out during the chase. Often reports of these soldiers

concluded with the number of deer or turkey they killed. The Indian threat finally ended when Geronimo surrendered at Skeleton

Canyon in New Mexico in September 1886.

Fort Bayard as a military post was no longer needed. An unusual

sequence of events helped to preserve the integrity of Fort Bayard

when the post was abandoned in 1899.

In the same year, Surgeon General George Sternberg proposed

transferring the post of Fort Bayard to the Army medical department because of its healing qualities in the high altitude and the

dry, sunny climate.

David Kammer, historic surveyor of Fort Bayard Historic Preservation Society, for that society recently completed his historic survey of the fort in April 2001. The purpose of his survey was to include Fort Bayard on the State and National Historic Sites register. In his research he came to an interesting conclusion. The

first 30 years of Fort Bayard was very important. However, he

began to realize the far-reaching influence and importance of the

army hospital established in 1899 and lasting until the period of

1923.

Kammer’s research began focusing on the housing and healing of

personnel during the sanitorium of the hospital era. In 1899, the

fort became the first sanitorium dedicated to the treatment of U.S.

Army officers and enlisted men suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. Under Major D.M. Appel and Major George E. Bushnell’s

jurisdiction, outstanding research discoveries and procedures were

developed and implemented.

11

Kammer received recognition for his outstanding work as well as

Bushnell. Their care and treatment of this dreaded disease set

world standards for successfully controlling tuberculosis until modern medicines were developed. Under these physicians’ guidance,

the post became a self-sufficient community with an orchard, dairy

cows, cattle, hogs, vegetable farm, and bakery. Hundreds of trees,

bluegrass, and flower beds were planted on or near the parade

ground just to freshen the air. There was also a small research center with guinea pigs. The doctors believed tuberculosis could be

held at bay or even cured with a strict regimen of fresh fruits,

vegetables, and exposure to air 24 hours a day.

During World War II, German prisoners of war were housed at

Fort Bayard. They were employed in the physical care of the buildings and they built and repaired the irrigation system, worked on

the roads, planted trees, and worked on the cemetery.

Again, the role of the post changed. The Veterans Administration

took over and the military post and sanitorium became a central

hospital for the care and treatment of veterans. The post’s adjoining military cemetery, dating back to 1866, became a national cemetery. Then in 1965 the State of New Mexico assumed control of

the post as a long-term health care facility and presently employs,

as Mike said, 380 people.

Kammer states that: ‘‘Although many of the facilities the Army

physicians instituted are no longer in existence, the present hospital building today is over 80 years old and stands as a tribute to

their work. It is a remarkable example of turn of the century architecture.’’ And to this day, Fort Bayard continues to play a vital role

in the surrounding communities. Its continuous use through the

years has ensured the post’s fair state of preservation.

Some of the buildings date to the late nineteenth century and

many of them to the early twentieth century. Fort Bayard is a tribute to all those civilians and officers and enlisted men since its beginning in 1866. Today it continues to offer visitors a rare opportunity to see a military post as it would have appeared 100 years

ago while it continues to grow and change with the times.

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Giese, your time is expired.

Dr. GIESE. I have concluded, except I do have 25 letters of support from mayors and city councils, etcetera.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much.

At this time I would like to ask for any questions from Senator

Bingaman and Senator Domenici to the two witnesses. Senator

Bingaman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions. I appreciate very much the two witnesses testifying. I think their testimony is excellent. I appreciate particularly the photos that are included in Mr. Hainer’s testimony. I think they give a very good feel

for the condition of the facility at this point and I think that is very

useful, and also the detailed history that Dr. Giese has gone

through for us.

So I hope we can move ahead with this legislation. I think designating this a national historic landmark would be an appropriate

thing to do and would be good for the long term future of Fort Bayard. So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for letting this be part of

the hearing.

12

Senator AKAKA. Senator Domenici, any questions?

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. Senator Bingaman, I would like to join

as a cosponsor.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good.

Senator DOMENICI. I thank you. But I do think before we vote

the bill out I would like to have somebody that would interpret this

language tell me what are the limits and obligations of the Federal

Government? The concept of a national historic landmark is one

thing, but when you have facilities that are still operating ongoing,

what does the Federal Government have to do or what can they not

do? I do not think you are talking about us taking it over and running it as a medical facility. I do not see that anywhere here. I

think it could be understood in that way, perhaps.

Who would be a person in the Federal Government that would

interpret this and tell us what it would do?

The CHAIRMAN. I believe the other witnesses we have today can

probably give us good testimony on that, the Park Service and

BLM witnesses.

Our intent—let me just say for the record, we have tried here to

provide a designation which in no way interferes with the continued ownership or operation of the facility as it now exists, and I

think we have done that and that certainly is the purpose.

Senator DOMENICI. I thank you very much for letting me understand it better and I hope we can pass it soon.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much.

We will continue with the witnesses. Mr. Anderson, please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the committee with the administration’s views

on S. 2776, the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act.

The legislation would enable Federal agencies to work cooperatively with private landowners, pueblos, State and local governments, and other interested parties to help preserve and protect

the nationally significant archaeological resources of the Galisteo

Basin in New Mexico.

The Bureau of Land Management is currently working to develop

a comprehensive community-based management program for the

Galisteo Basin in keeping with Secretary Norton’s four C’s: consultation, cooperation, communication, all in the service of conservation. S. 2776 is consistent with this effort and therefore the

Department of the Interior supports the legislation.

There are three important provisions of S. 2776. First, the bill

would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into voluntary cooperative agreements with willing owners of archaeological sites on

private lands if the private landowners are interested in preserving

and maintaining the sites. This is essential to development of a

community-based management plan for the basin.

The second major provision directs the Secretary of the Interior

to work with the Governor of New Mexico, the New Mexico State

13

Land Commissioner, affected Native American pueblos, and other

interested parties to develop a general management plan for the

archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin. This direction is also

consistent with the current BLM management activities in that

basin.

Of the 24 sites referenced in S. 2776, nine are currently managed

in whole or in part by BLM. Our archaeologists have done extensive research on these sites and have developed longstanding positive working relationships with the local Pueblo Indian communities, the affected State agencies, the University of New Mexico,

and local conservation organizations on all aspects of the protection

of the archaeological resources of the Galisteo Basin.

The Department supports the third major provision of S. 2776,

which allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands from

property owners willing to donate, sell, or exchange their land and

explicitly provides that the Federal Government cannot acquire

lands under S. 2776 without the full consent of the property owner.

The Bureau of Land Management is the only Federal agency currently managing any of the sites identified in S. 2776 and we encourage the committee to consider designating the BLM as the lead

Federal land managing agency for the preparation and implementation of the management plan for the sites referred to in section

59(b).

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this bill and

I would be glad to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with the Administration’s views on S. 2776, the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act. S.

2776 would enable Federal agencies to work cooperatively with private land owners,

Pueblos, State and local governments, and other interested parties to help preserve

and protect the nationally significant archaeological resources of the Galisteo Basin

in New Mexico. The Bureau of Land Management is currently working to develop

a comprehensive community-based management program for the Galisteo Basin in

keeping with Secretary Norton’s 4 C’s—consultation, cooperation, communication,

all in the service of conservation. S. 2776 is consistent with this effort, and, therefore, the Department of the Interior supports the legislation.

The lands surrounding Santa Fe and the area known as the Galisteo Basin contain a rich cultural heritage of national significance. The first Spanish explorations

in this area found thriving Pueblo Indian communities dating back to prehistoric

times. Today, the ruins of these pueblos commemorate both the achievements of the

ancestral Pueblo people and the events which shaped the early history of New Mexico and the Southwest.

Lands to the north of Santa Fe are Pueblo Indian reservations, while the lands

to the east and west are largely public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S.

Forest Service. Portions of this land, such as the Pecos Wilderness and the La

Cienega Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), have been set aside for

special protection; other areas are managed under the principle of ‘‘multiple use’’

and other laws, such as the National Historic Preservation Act.

The southern part of Santa Fe County has a pattern of mixed ownership, with

private lands predominating. Development of this area is proceeding at a rapid pace

as the population of Santa Fe County continues to grow. Both the State of New

Mexico and the BLM manage key parcels in this area.

Natural processes take a toll on the cultural resources, but the threats posed by

human uses are potentially more serious. Vandalism and careless excavations in the

prehistoric and early historic ruins are a source of great concern to modern Pueblo

peoples and threaten some of the most important archeological sites with wholesale

destruction. Development of both residential and commercial real estate presents

14

risks to the ruins, trails, petroglyphs, and other traces of history and prehistory that

remain in this landscape. Illegal trash dumping and other activities of this type

have had a serious adverse impact on the natural and cultural resource values.

The Department of the Interior supports the three main provisions of S. 2776.

First, the bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into voluntary cooperative agreements with willing owners of archeological sites on private lands, if the

private land owners are interested in preserving and maintaining the sites. This is

essential to the development of a community-based management plan for the Basin.

The second major provision directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the

Governor of New Mexico, the New Mexico State Land Commissioner, affected Native

American pueblos, and other interested parties to develop a general management

plan for the archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin. This direction is consistent

with current BLM management activities in the Galisteo Basin. Of the 24 sites referenced in S. 2776, nine (9) are currently managed in whole or in part by the BLM.

The other sites are on state or private land. BLM archaeologists have done extensive research on these sites, and have developed long-standing, positive working relationships with the local communities of La Cieneguilla and La Cienega, Pueblo Indian communities, the affected state agencies, the University of New Mexico, and

local conservation organizations on all aspects of the protection of the archaeological

resources of the Galisteo Basin.

Through its planning process, the BLM has set aside land near La Cienega for

special protection in its Resource Management Plan. The area encompassed by this

plan includes the BLM-managed portions of La Cienega Pueblo and Petroglyphs, La

Cienega Pithouse Village, and La Cieneguilla Petroglyphs. Management prescriptions for the BLM sites include grazing exclusions, withdrawal from mineral entry,

and a No-Surface-Occupancy stipulation for oil and gas development. These management prescriptions were developed by the BLM in consultation with Native American tribal governments, state and local governments, stakeholders, and the general

public, through participation opportunities afforded by land use planning and environmental review processes.

The BLM manages additional sites in the Galisteo Basin: 68 acres at Burnt Corn

Pueblo; 40 acres at Petroglyph Hill; 190 acres at Pueblo Blanco; 70 acres at Pueblo

Galisteo/Las Madres; and 80 acres at San Lazaro Pueblo, a National Historic Landmark. The BLM’s decisions on appropriate uses of the areas must take into consideration the impact of approved activities on the rich cultural and archaeological resources which are present there.

The Department supports the third major provision of S. 2776, which allows the

Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands from property owners willing to donate,

sell, or exchange their land—and explicitly provides that the Federal government

cannot acquire lands under S. 2776 without the full consent of the property owner.

The BLM’s Taos Field Office has been very involved with local government, stakeholders, and interest groups over the past several years to improve our resource

management efforts in the Basin. The BLM is working with the Trust for Public

Lands, Santa Fe County, the county lands commission, and local community groups

to acquire critical lands within a 5,000 acre green belt, to protect its open space and

natural resource values. The BLM, Santa Fe County and the local community have

been working together to develop a management strategy for the Cerrillos Hills, a

prehistoric/historic mining district in the west-central part of the Basin. The BLM

plans to continue these efforts to protect the cultural resources of the Galisteo

Basin.

The Bureau of Land Management is the only Federal agency currently managing

any of the sites identified in S. 2776. For this reason, we encourage the Committee

to consider designating the BLM as the lead Federal land managing agency for the

preparation and implementation of the management plan for the sites referred to

in Section 5(b).

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the Committee with the Administration’s views on S. 2776. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Jeffrey Taylor from the National Park Service, will you

please proceed.

15

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY K. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to represent the administration on six of the bills that are before the subcommittee today. The first one I would like to speak on is S. 2623,

which is a bill authorizing the Secretary to establish the Cedar

Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical

Park within the existing Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National

Historic District in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating a Cedar Creek-Belle Grove unit of the National Park System, we do recommend that the committee defer action on S. 2623

during the remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet the President’s initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we

need to continue to focus our resources on caring for the existing

areas in the National Park System. Park units of a similar size,

once fully operational, can have annual operational costs of between $1 million and $2 million. That represents a significant

amount compared to the $9.3 million that was requested in fiscal

year 2003 for park base operational increases across the entire National Park System.

S. 2623 would establish an approximately 3,000-acre Cedar

Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical

Park within the Shenandoah Valley of northwestern Virginia. It

would establish a boundary for the national historical park within

which the existing key partners would continue to own, operate,

and manage visitor anchor sites within the park boundary. The

Park Service would be authorized by this bill to acquire the remaining property from willing landowners, completing preservation

of the historic and natural landscape.

This bill would also establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and

Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory Commission to ensure local, regional, and national involvement in the

preparation and implementation of a management plan for the national historical park.

The legislation would also permit the Belle Grove Plantation and

Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to continue to privately own

their respective resources critical to the story of Cedar Creek, while

permitting the National Park Service to acquire adjacent lands

within the boundary from willing sellers only. The Cedar Creek

Battlefield Foundation may continue to conduct its reenactments,

a primary purpose of the foundation. It is anticipated these organizations would remain as full partners within the boundary, working together with the National Park Service and other partners in

a regional collaboration.

The second bill I would like to speak on today is the companion

bills of S. 2640 and H.R. 3421. Both of these bills authorize the

Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding that is

necessary to assist the State of California or local school districts

in providing educational services and facilities for students attending schools located within Yosemite National Park.

In addition, S. 2640 would authorize the expenditure of park

funds in support of a regional transportation system outside YoVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
16

semite and would extend the advisory commissions for both Golden

Gate National Recreation Area and Manzanar National Historic

Site.

The Department supports both S. 2640 and H.R. 3421 as we believe that students who attend schools in Yosemite should have access to the same educational services and facilities found elsewhere

in the State of California. However, we do not want this to set a

precedent that parks should take over responsibility for schools or

create an NPS school system.

The Department also supports the other provisions in S. 2640 regarding expenditure of funds outside Yosemite and, if amended, the

continuation of the two advisory commissions.

The next bill that I would like to speak on is S. 2788. This is a

bill that revises the boundaries of Wind Cave National Park in the

State of South Dakota. At this time the Department does not support S. 2788. The Department is committed to eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog, which of course is a high priority of

the President. We need to continue to focus our resources on existing areas in the National Park System. For this reason, the Department will only support additions to existing parks that involve

no new costs or minimal costs to the Federal Government for land

acquisition, operations, and maintenance.

This legislation does authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 5,675 acres adjacent to Wind Cave National Park. A ranching

family currently owns 5,555 acres of the land and has indicated

they would be willing to sell the property to the United States. Another 40 acres of land from a willing seller would preserve a

viewshed for the park. The remaining 80 acres would be an administrative jurisdiction transfer from the Director of the BLM to the

Director of the National Park Service.

The acquisition cost for the proposal was estimated at $5 million to $6 million, although actual costs will not be known until the

land appraisals are completed.

The next bill is S. 2880. This bill, as you have heard already

today, would designate Fort Bayard Historic District as a national

historic landmark and would authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to provide technical and financial assistance for protecting the

landmark.

The Department recommends that the bill be amended to direct

the National Park Service to conduct additional research to evaluate whether Fort Bayard is eligible for national historic landmark

designation. National historic landmarks designated by the Secretary of the Interior share two essential qualities: they are places

that illustrate a nationally significant theme, trend, event, or person; and they retain a high degree of integrity, that is authenticity,

to the period to which the property was significant.

The national historic landmarks program has an established and

time-tested process for nominating properties of exceptional importance in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United

States. This process includes an evaluation by the National Park

System Advisory Board to ensure that designated historic places

possess the highest level of significance and historical integrity.

Because of this important evaluation process, it is extremely rare

for a national historic landmark to be designated through legislaVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
17

tive action. It is also rare to authorize financial assistance to a single non-NPS site. It would be more appropriate to apply for funding

through the Save America’s Treasures grant program, which is well

suited for historic properties such as this one.

We would be happy to continue working with the New Mexico

State Historic Preservation Office to evaluate the property’s potential national significance.

I do see my time is up. I do have one more bill if that is all right,

Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Taylor, since you have so many bills to

speak about, you may exceed the time.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The final bill is H.R. 3858, a bill to expand the boundary of the

New River Gorge National River by 1,962 acres and to exchange

approximately one quarter acre of private land with an adjacent

private landowner for a quarter acre of Park Service land.

The Department is unable to support H.R. 3858 in its entirety

at this time. The Department would ask that Congress defer action

on subsection (a), regarding a boundary adjustment, until additional planning addressing the acquisition and cost of additional

lands at New River Gorge National River has been completed. The

Department does, however, support subsection (b) of this bill as it

provides for an even land exchange involving no cost or nominal

cost.

The legislation proposes to adjust the boundary of New River

Gorge to include seven tracts of land encompassing 1,962 acres.

The addition of these lands within the park’s boundary would complete the rim to rim acquisition of lands on both sides of the gorge,

permanently protecting its outstanding scenery in accordance with

the legislation that originally designated the park. However, we

have not yet completed a formal study with public involvement to

determine the appropriateness of including these lands within the

park.

The last provision of this bill, as I mentioned before, exchanges

a small quarter acre for a quarter acre; that we do support.

New River Gorge was established in 1978 to conserve and protect

53 miles of the New River as a free-flowing waterway. It is located

within the National Coal Heritage Area and the New River is one

of 14 rivers designated as an American Heritage River. Completion

of the planning process at New River Gorge National River will ensure that there is adequate public review regarding our land acquisition needs.

I have one more bill here we go. This is H.R. 3786, Mr. Chairman. It is a bill that would revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon

National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona. We

do support H.R. 3786. The revision of the boundary would not contribute to the National Park Service maintenance backlog because

the exchange would not result in any additional facilities, increased

operating costs, or additional staffing.

The current owner of the private property to be exchanged initiated this proposal and, although the Service has not yet appraised

the parcels involved, the owner’s appraisal indicates that the Service will receive lands with a higher value than those the Service

would exchange.

18

This bill would amend Public Law 92-593 and give the Secretary

the authority through an exchange to change the boundary of Glen

Canyon by adding 152 acres and deleting 370 acres in Kane County, Utah. It would also revise the authorized acreage of the park

from 1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000 acres. This is needed to correct

the total acreage within the park boundary that was incorrectly

identified in the park’s enabling legislation. Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling also would not add any new facilities, increase operating costs, or require additional staffing.

H.R. 3786 enjoys a broad cross-section of support. The nearest

communities to the lands proposed for exchange, Big Water, Utah,

and Page, Arizona, recognize the importance of protecting the national recreation area.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I would be happy

to entertain any questions you may have.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Taylor follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY K. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

S. 2623

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2623, a bill to authorize the Secretary to establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National

Historical Park within the existing Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating a Cedar

Creek Belle Grove unit of the National Park System, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 2623 during the remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet

the President’s initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to

continue to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park

System. Park units of a similar size, once fully operational, can have annual operational costs of $1-2 million, which is a significant amount compared to the $9.3 million that was requested in FY 2003 for park base operational increases across the

entire National Park System.

S. 2623 would establish an approximately 3,000-acre Cedar Creek Battlefield and

Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park in the Shenandoah Valley of Northwestern Virginia. The new park would encourage partnerships and build on years

of local preservation efforts. Although originally conceived as a battlefield park, the

local partners expanded the purpose of the new park to include a much broader

scope of history, while embracing the key goal of promoting the Civil War heritage

of the Shenandoah Valley. S. 2623 would establish a boundary for the National Historical Park within which the existing key partners will continue to own, operate,

and manage visitor ‘‘anchor’’ sites within the park boundary. The Park Service

would be authorized to acquire the remaining property from willing landowners

completing preservation of the historic and natural landscape.

The bill would also establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory Commission to ensure local, regional, and

national involvement in the preparation and implementation of a management plan

for the national historical park and to identify additional sites of significance outside the park boundary. Finally, S. 2623 would authorize the Secretary to enter into

cooperative agreements with private landowners, non-profit organizations, governmental entities, and others for the purpose of preserving, interpreting, operating,

maintaining, and managing park resources.

For over 135 years there have been local efforts to protect the Civil War heritage

of the Shenandoah Valley. Numerous States have acknowledged the importance of

the Shenandoah Valley by placing monuments and memorials on the historic landscape to honor the lives lost in battle.

The Battle of Cedar Creek, also known as the Battle of Belle Grove, was a major

event of the Civil War and the history of this country. It represented the end of the

Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. This victory by Union forces had major political implications, as well in contributing to the reelection of President Abraham LinVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
19

coln. With President Lincoln’s reelection, the resolve of the Union side to continue

the war was assured.

The Plantation of Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive battle of Cedar

Creek. In addition to the value of the site itself, the Belle Grove Plantation permits

the story of the battle, the Shenandoah Valley, and the way of life in America before, during, and after the Civil War to be told. The site also includes a significant

Manor House and a slave cemetery, among many other important elements. As

such, the recognition in this legislation of both the battle and the way of life at that

time enormously adds to our appreciation of the significance and meaning of the

Shenandoah Valley and the Civil War. The park boundary represents portions of the

historical core of the battlefield and includes the remaining earthworks, the Vermont Monument, and the New York Monument.

The Belle Grove Plantation Manor House was built in 1797 with design assistance

from President Thomas Jefferson. The Manor House was saved by the National

Trust for Historic Preservation and has been open to the public as a National Trust

Historic Site and private museum since 1967. Several other private historic homes

within the boundary are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the

Virginia Historic Register. In addition, in 1969, the National Park Service formally

honored the national significance of the Shenandoah Valley in the Civil War with

the designation of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Landmark.

Due to a unique combination of natural features, the area around Cedar Creek

has a nearly uninterrupted history of human occupation, as evidenced by archaeological remains. The park also memorializes the important stories of the area including how Belle Grove Plantation was constructed and operated by African-American slaves who also used caves and caverns in and around Cedar Creek as part

of the Underground Railroad.

The legislation would permit the Belle Grove Plantation and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to continue to privately own their respective resources critical

to the story of Cedar Creek, while permitting the National Park Service to acquire

adjacent lands within the boundary from willing sellers only. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation may continue to conduct its reenactments, a primary purpose of

the Foundation. It is anticipated that these organizations will remain as full partners within the boundary, working together with the National Park Service and

other partners in a regional collaboration.

The legislation also fully implements the purposes of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-

333, Title VI, Section 606) and strengthens the already valuable partnership between the National Park Service and the recently created Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. It responds to the findings of the previous Special Resources

Study, prepared by the National Park Service, and the Foundation’s approved management plan for the National Historic District.

After the Civil War Advisory Commission recognized the significance of and

threats to a great number of battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley, Congress responded with legislation to establish a national park unit that could have potentially included 12 battlefield units in excess of 100,000 acres. The National Park

Service, at that time, opposed this as the wrong approach to protecting this historic

landscape, and recommended a heritage partnership instead. As a result, Congress

established both a National Historic District to function as the heritage partnership,

and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a Special Resource Study

to determine ‘‘whether the District or components thereof meet the criteria for designation as a unit of the National Park Service.’’

The Special Resource Study analyzed an approximately 93,000-acre region including 10 battlefield sites. It determined that there is a current need for direct National Park Service management on core portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield

within a study area for that battlefield that consisted of 15,000 acres. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation and other non-profit and public entities will

preserve lands at other battlefield sites in the National Historic District.

The bill is supported by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National

Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle Grove Incorporated, the Shenandoah Valley

Battlefields Foundation, and the Counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren,

as well as the towns of Strasburg and Middletown, demonstrating that the park proposal has broad local backing.

Should the Committee proceed with the legislation, we believe some amendments

are needed to clarify various provisions and to conform the language to that used

for other units of the National Park System. We look forward to working with you

and the sponsors if this bill moves forward.

20

S. 2640/H.R. 3421

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2640 and H.R. 3421. Both of these bills would authorize

the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding that is necessary to

assist the State of California or local school districts in providing educational services and facilities for students attending schools located within Yosemite National

Park. In addition, S. 2640 would authorize the expenditure of park funds in support

of a regional transportation system outside Yosemite National Park, and would extend the advisory commissions for both Golden Gate National Recreation Area and

Manzanar National Historic Site. On December 10, 2001, the Department presented

testimony on H.R. 3421 before the subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and

Public Lands of the House Resources Committee.

The Department supports S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, as we believe that students who

attend schools in Yosemite National Park should have access to the same educational services and facilities found elsewhere in the State of California. However,

we do not want this to set a precedent that parks should take over responsibility

for schools or create an NPS school system. The Department also supports the other

provisions in S. 2640 regarding the expenditure of funds outside Yosemite National

Park and if amended, the continuation of the two advisory commissions.

Schools have been located within Yosemite National Park for over 125 years to

serve the needs of park employees and their children. At present, two elementary

schools are located within the park at Wawona and in Yosemite Valley. A third elementary school and a small high school are located in El Portal, the park’s administrative site located on federal property just outside the park boundary. Most students attend the larger county high school in Mariposa because of the lack of opportunity for a comprehensive program at the El Portal school.

The Yosemite Valley School has about 46 students in grades kindergarten through

eighth grade, divided into three classes. The amount of funding from the State of

California, according to a formula based on average daily attendance, actually supports only two teachers.

The elementary school in El Portal has 50 students in seven grades, divided into

multi-graded classrooms. The Wawona school is like the old ‘‘one-room’’ schoolhouse,

with 20 children in grades K-8, and one teacher. Because the current funding formula provides for only one teacher, and the maximum teacher/student ratio has

been reached, the school is unable to serve more than 20 students. Consequently,

there have been instances in which parents were left with the choice of either homeschooling their children or transporting them on their own to schools elsewhere.

Some parents have elected these options voluntarily because of the conditions at the

Wawona school.

Because the schools in the park are located long distances from the administrative

offices of their school districts, there has been limited access to services that are

normally available to students that attend schools elsewhere. For example, access

to teachers to serve students with special needs is very limited, and road and weather conditions can often further restrict teachers’ abilities to reach the park. Subjects

such as band, art, music, choir, or even physical education are provided only if parents are able to find additional funding to hire an aide. Many facilities are in need

of repair or do not meet state or federal standards.

The quality of education that students receive in these schools suffers as a result

of lack of funding and staffing. For example, teachers who teach only one grade level

can focus on curriculum and standards for that grade, while teachers in the Yosemite schools are responsible for multiple grade levels. In addition to their educational

duties, they must also tend to administrative duties normally performed by other

employees. As a result, teachers at the Yosemite schools are unable to give the time

or attention necessary to provide the quality of education that the students deserve.

Recruitment and retention of employees at Yosemite National Park is also adversely affected by the quality of the park schools. Many highly qualified NPS employees with school age children who might otherwise be interested in applying for

jobs at Yosemite are discouraged from doing so because of the school situation. Recently, a highly qualified individual declined to accept an offer for a division chief

position at the park after realizing that the schools could not meet the special needs

of his child. Park employees often cite the schools as a major factor in their decision

to transfer from Yosemite to other assignments.

Both S. 2640 and H.R. 3421 authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into

cooperative agreements with the local school districts for the maintenance and

minor upgrades of facilities, and the transportation of students to and from school.

The Secretary may adjust the amounts made available to local school districts if

State and local funding of schools fall below current funding levels. While we strongVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
21

ly believe that the responsibility for providing educational services rests with the

State of California, we realize that the quality of education received by the children

of park employees and others who attend the Yosemite schools is dependent on the

resources of the local school districts. We believe that this legislation is a start at

providing the means to improve the schools in Yosemite National Park.

Section 4 of S. 2640 addresses regional transportation at Yosemite National Park.

The Department has long supported the concept of public transportation providing

access to Yosemite National Park. The 1980 General Management Plan identified

the development of a regional transportation system as the long-term approach for

transporting people to Yosemite National Park. In 1999 Mariposa, Merced, and

Mono counties created a Joint Powers Authority as an entity to implement the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and entered into a Cooperative Agreement with Yosemite National Park. YARTS provided an attractive alternative for visitors and employees without having to replace the use of private cars.

NPS participated in the initial funding of this project using fee demonstration program authority. In 2001, YARTS carried over 38,000 passengers, including park employees, during Yosemite’s prime visitor season (May through September). Many of

these visitors chose to leave their cars at their motels or other locations outside the

park. By choosing YARTS to access the Yosemite Valley, over 11,000 parking places

were made available during the summer. YARTS has been successful in providing

a quality alternative to automobile travel.

Entering into its third year of operations, YARTS has had to reduce the number

of runs it provides due to funding shortfalls. Funding is no longer coming from appropriated funds because the agency lacks the authority to expend funds outside the

park boundary. The authority provided through previous appropriations bills has expired. Nonetheless, YARTS has been enormously successful again this summer and

the demand for the service continues to grow.

The regional transportation system is an important means to solve Yosemite’s

parking and congestion issues by reducing the amount of infrastructure development within the park, and thus substantially reducing the funding requirements for

implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan. This bill amends existing legislation by

adding Yosemite National Park to an authorization that allows Zion National Park

to enter into agreements and expend funds outside the boundaries of the park for

transportation purposes.

Section 5 of S. 2640 would extend the advisory commissions for Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Manzanar National Historic Site. The advisory commissions for these two parks provide the NPS with important input from the local

community on a variety of management issues.

The Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission has been composed of

11 members appointed by the Secretary. The commission advises the NPS on development issues and on the interpretation of the site. Some of the members were internees at Manzanar during World War II. Others are prominent citizens of the

East Side of the Sierra. The commission expired last spring at a critical time as the

Manzanar National Historic Site is completing the interpretive design work for the

visitor center in the former auditorium of the camp.

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area commission is composed of 18 members nominated primarily by the counties in which the park is located. The purpose

of the Golden Gate NRA advisory commission is to advise on general policies and

matters related to planning, administration and development for this 30-year-old

park. The commission has worked side by side the park staff for these 30 years. Its

role as a public hearings board is crucial to the numerous projects and management

decisions that are being considered by this large urban park. We would like to work

with the committee on an amendment regarding the representation of recreational

users on the commission.

S. 2788

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department on S. 2788, a bill to revise the boundary of Wind Cave National Park in the

State of South Dakota.

The Department does not support S. 2788. The Department is committed to eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog. We need to continue to focus our resources on existing areas in the National Park System. For this reason, the Department will only support additions to existing parks that involve no new cost or minimal cost to the Federal government for land acquisition, operations, and maintenance.

Wind Cave National Park, established in 1903, is one of the Nation’s first national

parks and the first cave set aside for protection. The cave itself, after which the

22

park is named, is one of the world’s oldest, longest, and most complex cave systems

with more than 104 miles of mapped passages. The cave is well-known for its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare honeycomb-shaped formation protruding from the

cave’s ceilings and walls. While the cave is the focal point of the park, the land

above the cave is equally impressive with 28,295 acres of rolling prairie, majestic

forests, and pristine creeks. Legislation passed in 1912 established the Wind Cave

National Game Preserve creating a permanent national range for buffalo and other

Native American game animals as may be placed therein. In 1935, the Wind Cave

National Game Preserve was transferred into Wind Cave National Park.

This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 5,675

acres adjacent to Wind Cave National Park. A ranching family currently owns 5,555

acres of the land and has indicated they would be willing to sell the property to the

United States as a lasting legacy to their father. Another 40 acres of land from a

willing seller would preserve a viewshed for the park. The last 80 acres would be

an administrative jurisdiction transfer from the Director of the Bureau of Land

Management to the Director of the National Park Service. The acquisition cost for

the proposal is estimated at $5 to $6 million although actual costs will not be known

until the land appraisals are completed. In many cases, non-profit groups are willing to purchase the properties and hold them for a short period of time until the

National Park Service is able to designate land acquisition funding.

S. 2788 would help protect the mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest and

provide recreational opportunities for day-hikers and backpackers who seek solitude

in the park’s backcountry. The additional land will preserve a viewshed and improve

wildland fire management, helping to reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Archaeological sites, such as a thousand year-old buffalo jump over which early Native

Americans once drove the bison they hunted, exist on the land presently owned by

the ranching family.

The current annual base funding for Wind Cave National Park is $1.892 million.

If enacted, additional funding would be required due to anticipated increases in the

number of FTEs needed for increased wildlife and interpretive responsibilities. In

addition, construction-funding of $1.817 million would be necessary for the removal

and installation of fencing.

S. 2880

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on S. 2880. This bill would designate Fort Bayard Historic District

as a National Historic Landmark and would authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to provide technical and financial assistance for protecting the Landmark.

The Department recommends that the bill be amended to direct the National Park

Service to conduct additional research to evaluate whether Fort Bayard is eligible

for National Historic Landmark designation. National Historic Landmarks designated by the Secretary of the Interior share two essential qualities: they are

places that illustrate a nationally significant theme, trend, event, or person, and,

they retain a high degree of integrity, that is, authenticity, to the period in which

the property was significant.

Authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-292) and regulated

under 36 CFR Part 65, the National Historic Landmarks Program has an established and time-tested process for nominating properties of exceptional importance

in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. This process includes an evaluation by the National Park System Advisory Board to ensure that

designated historic places possess the highest level of significance and historical integrity. Because of this important evaluation process it is extremely rare for a National Historic Landmark to be designated through legislative action. It is also rare

to authorize financial assistance to a single non-NPS site; it would be more appropriate to apply for funding through the Save America’s Treasures grant program,

which is well suited for historic properties such as this one.

Located in southwestern New Mexico, Fort Bayard illustrates several important

chapters in American military history and the settlement of the southwestern

United States. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while

its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers

working in nearby mining districts. The area was later developed by the U.S. War

Department as a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium.

Fort Bayard Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic

Places on July 7, 2002 at the state level of significance. In transmitting the nomination to the National Park Service in May 2002, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office requested the opinion of the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places regarding the potential for the property to have national significance.

23

Upon listing the property, the Keeper of the National Register concurred with the

State Historic Preservation Office that, from the documentation presented, there no

longer remains enough of the pre-1922 facility in order to justify a national level

of significance as the first Army TB hospital. Much of the pre-1922 complex was destroyed and replaced with larger and more modern facilities when the Veterans Administration assumed administrative responsibilities in 1922.

This assessment concurs with an earlier opinion developed by National Park Service Historian, Robert Utley, that although Fort Bayard was a ‘‘key outpost’’ in the

Apache Wars from the 1860s through the 1880s, ‘‘expansion and modernization of

the Veterans Hospital has obliterated much of Old Fort Bayard’’ (Fort Bayard, National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings, 1958).

In its review of the documentation this summer, the National Register recommended that the State Historic Preservation Office consider evaluating the property’s national significance for its association with the post-1922 Veterans Administration proposed development of the sanatorium as ‘‘the largest institution of its

kind in the world.’’ At present, we do not have enough information to evaluate the

national significance of the Veterans Administration’s use of the facility. For these

reasons, we urge that S. 2880 be amended to direct the National Park Service to

conduct a study of Fort Bayard to determine if it qualifies for designation as a National Historic Landmark.

We would be happy to continue working with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office to evaluate the property’s potential national significance during the

post-1922 Veterans Administration period. This work would ensure that the site receive the appropriate level of historic recognition.

H.R. 3786

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 3786. This bill would revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona.

The Department supports H.R. 3786. The revision of the boundary would not contribute to the National Park Service (‘‘Service’’) maintenance backlog because the exchange would not result in any additional facilities, increased operating costs, or additional staffing. The current owner of the private property to be exchanged initiated this proposal and although the Service has not yet appraised the parcels involved, the owner’s appraisal indicates that the Service will receive lands with a

higher value than those the Service would exchange. The owner has indicated, however, that no cash payment to equalize values would be required, which should remove the need for any land acquisition funds.

H.R. 3786 would amend Public Law 92-593 and give the Secretary of the Interior

the authority, through an exchange, to change the boundary of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (‘‘Park’’) by adding 152 acres and deleting 370 acres in Kane

County, Utah. The bill would also revise the authorized acreage of the park from

1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000 acres. This change would correct the total acreage within the park boundary that was incorrectly identified in the park’s enabling legislation. Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling also would not add any new facilities, increase operating costs, or require additional staffing.

The 152 acres that the Service would acquire are located east of Highway 89, approximately 5 miles south of Big Water, Utah and are contiguous to the existing

park boundary. The 370 acres that the Service would exchange are located west of

Highway 89 and are adjacent to privately owned lands. Although within the boundary of the recreation area, the 370 acres are physically and visually isolated from

the rest of the recreation area by topographic features.

The owner of the private land has had an appraisal completed on the lands that

are proposed for exchange. If this legislation were enacted, the Service would conduct its own appraisal on the two parcels. However, the owner’s appraisal determined that the 152-acre parcel ($5,500 per acre for a total appraised value of

$836,000), which the Service would receive, was worth approximately seven times

more per acre than the 370-acre parcel ($750 per acre for a total appraised value

of $277,500) the Service would exchange.

H.R. 3786 would also correct the acreage ceiling error stated in Public Law 92-

593, the 1972 enabling legislation for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Public

Law 92-593 incorrectly estimated Glen Canyon National Recreation Area’s acreage

within the boundary to be 1,236,880 acres. Using the same boundary identified on

the map referenced in the 1972 enabling legislation, application of modern map

reading and geographic information system technologies have determined that an

acreage of 1,256,000 acres more accurately reflects the amount of land within the

1972 boundary.

24

H.R. 3786 enjoys a broad cross section of support. The nearest communities to the

lands proposed for exchange, Big Water, Utah and Page, Arizona, recognize the importance of protecting the National Recreation Area. Also, this exchange would provide an opportunity for private development at one of the main access points to

lands held by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

(SITLA). Such private development could enhance the 40,000 acres held by SITLA

and is supported by the State of Utah and Kane County, Utah.

In previous testimony before the House Subcommittee, we recommended two

changes - to correctly identify and date the map, as well as allow the National Park

Service to enter into agreement with the landowner regarding how the exchanged

lands will be managed. Those changes have been incorporated into the bill before

you now.

H.R. 3858

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 3858, a bill to expand the boundary of the New River Gorge

National River by 1,962 acres and to exchange approximately ′ acre of private land

with an adjacent private landowner for a 1/4 acre of park service land.

The Department is unable to support H.R. 3858 in its entirety at this time. The

Department would ask that Congress defer action on subsection (a), regarding a

boundary adjustment, until additional planning addressing the acquisition and costs

of additional lands at New River Gorge National River has been completed. The Department does however support subsection (b) of H.R. 3858 as it provides for an

even land exchange involving no cost or nominal cost.

This legislation proposes to adjust the boundary of New River Gorge National

River to include seven tracts of land encompassing 1,962 acres. The addition of

these lands within the park’s boundary would complete the rim-to-rim acquisition

of lands on both sides of the gorge, permanently protecting its outstanding scenery

in accordance with the legislation that originally designated the park. However we

have not yet completed a formal study with public involvement to determine the appropriateness of including these lands within the park.

The last provision of this bill proposes a land exchange and boundary modification

with an adjacent local landowner for a parcel of land, approximately 1/4 acre in size,

of equal value and equal size. This resolves an issue of private property encroachment and as a result the boundary is slightly altered, but there is no net change

in the authorized acreage.

New River Gorge National River was established in 1978 to conserve and protect

53 miles of the New River as a free-flowing waterway. This unit of the National

Park System encompasses over 70,000 acres of land along the New River between

the towns of Hinton and Fayetteville. The park and surrounding area are rich in

cultural and natural history, with an abundance of scenic and recreational opportunities. The New and Gauley Rivers offer world-class whitewater boating, rock climbing, and fishing. The New River Gorge Bridge is the longest single span arch bridge

in the world, and the second highest bridge in the United States. The New River

Gorge has the most diverse assemblage of plant species of any river gorge in the

southern Appalachians, it possesses considerable animal diversity, and is the state’s

leading warm-water fishery. Cultural resources include significant archeological

sites as well as 19th and 20th century historic resources, towns, and commercial

centers related to mining and transportation of coal, that played an important role

in America’s industrial history. New River Gorge National River is located within

the National Coal Heritage Area (1996), and the New River is one of 14 rivers designated an American Heritage River (1998).

All of the lands included in the proposed boundary adjustment are currently

under private ownership and we understand that all six private landowners are

willing sellers. Two of the tracts proposed for inclusion contain approximately 648

acres of steep, wooded slopes within the gorge, and are adjacent to Hawk’s Nest

State Park. The two other parcels, totaling 52 acres, provide access to an area that

is heavily used by rock climbers and other visitors. The remaining two parcels

would add 1,262 acres along the rim of the gorge. Completion of the planning process at New River Gorge National River will ensure that there is adequate public

review regarding our land acquisition needs.

As you know the Department is committed to the President’s Initiative to eliminate the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog. The planning process would also address the land acquisition, operations, and development costs of

the lands proposed for addition. We estimate that the addition of 1,962 acres within

the boundary would require no less than $2 million in additional land acquisition

funds. It is possible that several of the tracts of land proposed for acquisition would

25

be maintained in an undeveloped condition and therefore have minimal administrative costs associated with them. However one tract may require some development

to provide adequate accommodation for the high levels of public use.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks.

I would be glad to answer any question that you or members of the subcommittee

might have.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. I know you had a number

of bills to make statements on.

Mr. Max Stauffer, chairman of the Bass Lake School District,

you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MAX STAUFFER, CHAIRMAN, BASS LAKE

SCHOOL DISTRICT, FISH CAMP, CA

Mr. STAUFFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. I

appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am here to testify regarding S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, which are authored by Senator

Dianne Feinstein and Representative George Radanovich respectively. Specifically, I want to express my support for the language

in both pieces of legislation that ensures the three schools within

Yosemite National Park have the tools necessary to educate children.

Because the need at these schools is so critical, I urge the Senate

to approve the bills. I am testifying on behalf of the Bass Lake and

Mariposa County School Districts. These districts serve families in

Sierra Nevada Mountain communities stretching over more than

1,500 square miles in and around Yosemite National Park. Three

elementary schools serve Yosemite families, El Portal, Yosemite

Valley, and Wawona. El Portal and Yosemite Valley Schools have

enrollments of about 50 children, while Wawona averages about 20.

These mountain schools are charged with educating children of

National Park Service and concessionaire employees. Because of

their size and geographical location, the Yosemite schools are very

difficult and very costly to serve equitably. Services such as special

education, speech, reading remediation, fine arts, foreign language,

and library services are very limited or not provided at all, while

students at our other sites have these programs available. Because

of the distance and difficulty of travel, particularly in the winter,

staffing of these services is nonexistent.

Our schools exist because Yosemite National Park exists. The

Federal Government through the National Park Service and the

concessionaire requires many employees to live in the park to meet

the mission of the agency, which is to preserve and protect the

park and provide services for park visitors.

These schools are not amenities. They are a basic public service

that all Americans should have a right to. These schools are necessary because, given the terrain, weather, winter driving conditions, transportation costs, and distances from other schools in the

district, it is unreasonable to expect families to go elsewhere.

Good schools are important to recruit and retain good employees.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract quality employees to

Yosemite because our schools cannot provide the educational opportunities larger, more urban schools can. The chief operating officer

of the park concessionaire has purchased a home in an adjacent

city in order to access a better education for his children. The park

superintendent has moved his two children to Mariposa schools beVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:36 Mar 05, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\85-338 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
26

cause he believes that the park schools do not meet the basic

standards and his children would miss out on the extra programs

available to students in the Mariposa schools. This option is not

available to those with lower-paying positions, such as law enforcement personnel, clerks, naturalists, firefighters, housekeeping

workers, and maintenance personnel. Without quality people to

manage the park, the resource and the visitor experience will suffer.

The deficit that the three park schools incur for their districts is about $100,000 each or over $300,000 per year. The California

budget shortfall severely compounds our problem as cuts are already being felt statewide in education. State funding is inadequate because it does not take into consideration the uniqueness

of the school’s location, the small size, and the multi-grade teaching

environments such as exist at Wawona School. With seven grade

levels in a one-classroom school, the teaching principal must prepare and teach seven lessons, seven lesson plans from kindergarten

to sixth grade, follow the rigorous new curriculum standards for

seven grades, all while managing the facility, handling administrative and secretarial duties, and even doing building maintenance.

No alternative education possibilities exist for parents in the

park without major transportation investments. Because the deficit

affects the ability to provide an education to the other students in

the districts, there is pressure from some school board members to

close Wawona School.

This situation is no longer acceptable to the parents of Yosemite

schools or the trustees serving them. Over the past year and a half,

parents, community members, administrators and school board

members from both the Bass Lake School District and Mariposa

School District have been meeting to solve some of the educational

problems facing the schools in Yosemite. With the help of Senator

Feinstein and Congressman Radanovich, we are closer to solving

our problems.

One solution involves a high level of cooperation between the two

school districts and the National Park Service. It involves allowing

funds from the National Park Service to be used to help improve

the educational opportunities of its employees’ children.

Yellowstone Park has been doing this since 1949. Similar legislation would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into voluntary agreements with the two school districts. The additional

funding provided within these agreements would be used to increase the level of service for special education students, make up

the deficit factor that impacts other schools in the districts, provide

for after-school tutorials, implement reading intervention in the

primary grades, gifted and talented programs, and bring in specialists for fine arts, science, and physical education. It would also provide relief for transportation and maintenance costs.

This issue is not about inflating the school bureaucracy, sir, nor

is it about increasing salaries. The issue is all about equity. The

issue is all about the kids in Yosemite. They deserve and have a

right to a quality education.

We need your help now. The families in Yosemite are counting

on you. We respectfully ask for your support of S. 2540 and H.R.

3421. Thank you, sir.

27

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Stauffer. I just want

to tell you that yesterday I received a letter from a school that is

from Wawona in the southern district of Yosemite National Park,

and here I have letters written by the students asking us to favorably consider this.

Mr. STAUFFER. They are as dedicated to the project as their parents are, sir. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. So may we hear now from Ms. Patricia Zontine.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA L. ZONTINE, CHAIRMAN, SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION, SHENANDOAH VALLEY, VA

Ms. ZONTINE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the

Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation on S. 2623, the Cedar

Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historic

Park Act. The foundation supports the creation of the park and this

legislation.

As you know, the foundation is the successor organization to the

Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Commission. The foundation was created in 2000 as the first step in implementing the commission’s management plan for the national historic district. The foundation serves as the management entity for

the district, partnering with local, regional, and national organizations and governments to preserve and promote the Shenandoah

Valley Civil War heritage.

As such, we at the foundation are in a unique position to observe

and experience the deep support that this new park enjoys. This

support reaches across all levels of government and throughout

groups at the local, regional, and national level. I have with me

copies of resolutions from local organizations and governments, all

supporting this legislation, and would ask that they be made a part

of the record.

The Battle of Cedar Creek, fought in October 1864, was one of

the most important battles of the Civil War. It was one of the largest ever fought in the Shenandoah Valley and it was the end of the

Confederacy’s power in the valley for the remainder of the war, and

it strengthened popular support in the North for President Lincoln,

ensuring his reelection several weeks later.

In addition to the importance of the battle itself, Cedar Creek

and Belle Grove are also uniquely positioned to tell the civilian side

of the Civil War story, as are many of the national historic district’s battlefields. Here visitors have the rare opportunity to experience the stories of the families who struggled to survive the war

that swirled around them.

Through the last 140 years, the importance of this battle and the

surrounding area has been widely recognized. Belle Grove Plantation has been preserved by the National Trust of Historic Preservation and Belle Grove, Inc., as a significant historic site since the

1960’s and as a result is largely unchanged since it was built over

200 years ago. In 1969, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove were designated a national historic landmark.

In the late 1980’s, local residents created the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation to protect and interpret the battlefield. About

28

that same time, Congress passed legislation calling for a National

Park Service study of the valley’s Civil War sites. This study, completed in 1992, stated that 15 of the valley’s battlefields, including

Cedar Creek, were eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places and that collectively they met the criteria for national park

status.

The 1992 study led to the creation of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District by Congress in 1996 and the development and completion of the district’s management plan in the

fall of 2000. The 1996 legislation also directed the National Park

Service to prepare a special resources study, SRS, to further assess

the potential for a national park in the Shenandoah Valley. Completed in early 2001, the SRS found that the Cedar Creek Battlefield met Federal criteria for national park status. These findings

supported the recommendation in the district management plan

that a national park unit be created in partnership with local governments and organizations at Cedar Creek.

The point here is that there is great consensus, both locally and

Federally, that protecting the battlefield at Cedar Creek and Belle

Grove is of national importance.

The Battlefields Commission singled out Cedar Creek as having

the greatest potential for hosting a National Park Service unit for

a number of reasons. First, the battlefield itself is still primarily

farm land, where visitors can get a real sense of the progress and

prosecution of the battle and its troop movements. Belle Grove, the

center of the battlefield, anchors the scene today as it did 140 years

ago. The battle holds national significance, not only for its size, but

also as a harbinger of the end of the war and its impact on the

presidential election.

The creation of this park would allow the Park Service to provide

strong technical and other support for the national historic district.

This park will help ensure the success of the district itself. This is

why the park is a key component of the district’s management

plan.

The district and the park also offer a model for future partnership-based public-private endeavors. The mission of both the foundation, as the district’s management entity, and the park has been

to partner with private and public entities at the local, regional,

and national levels to articulate a unified vision for the protection

and interpretation of these national historic resources. This publicprivate partnership model has been successful, bringing together

disparate views to speak with one voice.

The park itself will protect and encourage both the local ownership of the land as well as the living history activities that take

place there. It will continue and expand the preservation efforts

that have been going on privately for almost 40 years. It will help

bolster the Shenandoah Valley’s economy through heritage tourism.

In addition to its unassailable Civil War significance, the site offers extensive opportunities for Americans to experience a wide

scope of their history—Native American sites, a colonial pioneer

homestead, the plantation manor house and grounds, remains of

slave quarters and Underground Railroad sites and stories. Each of

these helps to place the battle itself in the context of the broader

American story.

29

In conclusion, historians and lay people alike intuitively recognize the importance of the lessons of the U.S. Civil War and its impact on the American experience. We were reminded of this last

week as we heard Governor Pataki read President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in New York City. Remembering and experiencing

our history makes us a stronger Nation. We need to protect and

share the places where that history comes alive, and the creation

of this park will offer countless generations of Americans the opportunity to steep themselves in the lessons of the past. It will help

us be better stewards of our future.

Therefore, on behalf of our local, regional, and national partners,

I offer our wholehearted support for this legislation. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zontine follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA L. ZONTINE, CHAIRMAN, SHENANDOAH VALLEY

BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION, SHENANDOAH VALLEY, VA

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

present the views of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation on S. 2623, the

Cedar Crock Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Act.

The Foundation strongly supports the creation of the park and this legislation.

THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE

SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION

I am the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields

Foundation. As you know, the Foundation is the designated management entity for

the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. The District encompasses most of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia—eight counties and four independent cities.

Recognizing the national significance of the Civil War story in the Shenandoah

Valley, Congress created the National Historic District in 1996 to protect, interpret,

and promote 10 key Civil War battlefields in the Valley. At the same time, Congress

also created the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Commission and tasked it with developing a management plan for the District. After three

years of work and almost 100 public meetings, the Commission developed and submitted its Management Plan with tremendous public and private support. It was

approved by the Secretary of the Interior and promulgated in the fall of 2000.

The Management Plan for the National Historic District called for the creation

of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to lead the implementation of the

plan. The Foundation’s mission is to partner with local, regional and national organizations and governments in a coordinated effort to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War heritage and share it with the nation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK AREA

The proposed Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park enjoys wide and deep support across all levels of government and among

groups at the local, regional and national levels. We at the Foundation are in a

unique position to observe and experience this support. As a member of the now

sunset National Historic District Commission, we found that our work was part of

a continuum of interest and support for the preservation of our nation’s Civil War

story in the Shenandoah Valley.

As you may know, the Battle of Cedar Creek—fought in October 1864—was one

of the most important battles of the Civil War. What started as a bold, sweeping

Confederate attack on Union forces ended, after Sheridan’s fabled ride to rally his

troops, with a crusading Union counter-attack and final victory. It was the end of

the Confederacy’s power in the Shenandoah Valley for the remainder of the war.

And it strengthened popular support for President Lincoln, ensuring his re-election

several weeks later.

Cedar Creek and Belle Grove are uniquely positioned to tell both the military and

civilian sides of the Civil War story—as are many of the District’s battlefields. Here,

visitors have the rare opportunity to experience the stories of the mothers and children who struggle to survive the war that swirled around them.

Belle Grove Plantation is significant for both its history and architecture. Built

by one of the Valley’s founding families and with presidential associations—Thomas

30

Jefferson and James Madison—it is largely unchanged since it was built over 200

years ago.

In recent decades, local and national interest in the history of this specific area

of the Valley has grown. In 1969, shortly after Belle Grove was acquired by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove were designated

a National Historic Landmark. In the late 1980s, local and national support for the

preservation and interpretation of this battlefield was evidenced once again with the

creation of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation. (Together Cedar Creek and

Belle Grove have preserved almost 900 acres of land at this site.) About this time

Congress passed legislation calling for the National Park Service to study the Valley’s Civil War sites. Published in 1992, this study determined that the 15 Valley

battlefields were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and identified

them collectively as potential Park Service units. It was this study that indirectly

led to the 1996 legislation that created the National Historic District and called for

development of the District Management Plan.

This legislation also directed the National Park Service to develop a Special Resources Study. This study was completed early in 2001. Its findings supported the

recommendations from the Management Plan that Cedar Creek and Belie Grove

met the criteria for a National Park unit.

THE PARK AND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT’S MANAGEMENT PLAN

As the Commission was developing the District’s Management Plan, we found

strong local support for the preservation of the battlefield at Cedar Creek as well

as the other nine battlefields in our legislative mandate. Cedar Creek, however, was

singled out as a recommended National Park Service unit. The battlefield itself is

still farmland—visitors can get a real sense of the strategic and tactical maneuvers

of the battle. Belle Grove, at the center of the battlefield, anchors the scene today

as it did 140 years ago. And the battle holds national significance not only for its

size but also as a harbinger of the end of the war.

Further, the Commission felt that the creation of the national park at Cedar

Creek and Belle Grove would allow the Park Service to provide strong technical and

other support to the National Historic District. This Park would help ensure the

success of the District itself. Thus, the creation of this Park is a key component of

the District’s Management Plan.

The District and the Park also offer a model for similar future endeavors. Both

projects are partnership-based concepts. The mission of both the Foundation, as the

District’s management entity, and the Park has been to partner with private and

public entities at the local, regional and national levels to articulate a unified Vision

for the protection Fund interpretation of these national historic resources.

The legislation before you would codify this partnership model by spelling out the

roles of each of the partners: the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle

Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and all levels of government. We support this language with one

exception. We would like to suggest, as an organization specifically created by a congressional mandate, that it would be appropriate that this be reflected in Sec.

13(b)(5) and that the word ‘‘may’’ be replaced with the word ‘‘shall’’ such that the

sentence reads, ‘‘The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation shall continue to

administer and manage the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District . . .’’

THE CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD AND BELLE GROVE PLANTATION

NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK

In addition in its unassailable Civil War significance, the site offers extensive opportunities for Americans to experience a wide scope of their history: native American sites, a colonial pioneer homestead, the plantation manor house and grounds,

remains of slave quarters, and underground railroad sites and stories. Each of these

helps to place the battle itself in the context of the broader American story.

The park will also protect a number of natural resources in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed: land and waterways, wildlife and breathtaking valley and mountain

views.

CONCLUSION

Historians and lay-people alike intuitively recognize the importance of the lessons

of the U.S. Civil War and its impact on the American experience. We were reminded

of this last week as we heard Governor Pataki read President Lincoln’s Gettysburg

Address in New York. Remembering and experiencing our history makes us a

stronger nation. We need to protect and share the places where that history comes

31

alive. And the creation of this park will offer countless generations of Americans the

opportunity to steep themselves in the lessons of the past. It will help us be better

stewards of our future.

Therefore, on behalf of our local, regional and national partners, I offer our wholehearted support for this legislation.

Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statements. I

have a few questions for each of you.

Mr. Taylor, I have questions for you about S. 2640 and H.R.

3421, which would authorize National Park Service funding of

schools serving Yosemite National Park. This afternoon you testified in opposition to two minor park boundary expansion proposals

in another bill establishing a new Civil War battlefield, and in previous hearings this year the administration has opposed virtually

every other park designation or expansion proposal in order to

focus your resources on eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog.

Yet the administration now supports a bill to use up to $750,000

of park operating revenues each year at Yosemite and to use those

funds for non-park purposes. So my question to you is can you explain why this proposal is acceptable, but the others were not?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is a very good question, Mr. Chairman. I think

one of the reasons why we do support Senator Feinstein’s and Congressman Radanovich’s legislation is because, as the Congressman

mentioned, there are really very few other resources to look towards to address the educational needs, and I guess from a purely

self-interested point of view in terms of recruitment, the educational situation has impacted negatively on our abilities to recruit and maintain staff people in the park and to a lesser degree,

of course, concessionaires. The reason for that is because we require staff people to actually reside in the park and it is between

a 1 and 2-hour commute to the nearest local community where

other school opportunities might reside.

So it has affected us directly, this educational system, and that

is what has caused us to look favorably towards this legislation.

Senator AKAKA. There has been a fear that other requests might

come in from other areas on this.

Mr. TAYLOR. We share that fear, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Well, we will think about that.

I have another question for you on the Yosemite bill. You support

the legislation, but say that you do not want to create a precedent,

as I said, putting the Park Service in the business of funding of

small rural schools in the vicinity of the parks. For example, both

Big Bend National Park in Texas and Grand Canyon National Park

in Arizona have small rural schools within their park boundaries.

How is the Yosemite situation different from these other parks?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the specifics to answer your question. I would be glad to get back with you and your

staff on that, on that particular issue.

Senator AKAKA. I have another question for you, Mr. Taylor, on

S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, which authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use revenues from fees, among other sources, to fund Yosemite schools. Yet the legislation also prohibits the Secretary’s use

of fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act,

32

the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, or the National Park

Passport Program.

What fee revenues are left for the Secretary to use for the Yosemite schools?

Mr. TAYLOR. One minute.

[Pause.]

Mr. TAYLOR. I am afraid we are going to have to pass on that

as well, Senator. I would be glad to get back with you.

Senator AKAKA. Fine. Will you provide that for us?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator AKAKA. I have a question for you on S. 2788, the proposed addition to Wind Cave National Park.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator AKAKA. You stated in your testimony that the Department would prefer to spend Park Service resources to reduce the

maintenance backlog in existing Park Service units. It is my understanding that Senator Daschle worked closely with the Park Service in writing this bill. Is it the case that, apart from these funding

concerns, the proposed additions to Wind Cave National Park

would complement the existing park lands and advance the park’s

purposes?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think other than the financial concerns that I have

already expressed, Mr. Chairman, I think we do see the value of

adding this acreage to the existing park.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor, for your responses.

Mr. Anderson, since the BLM supports S. 2776, there are not

many questions to ask. Your testimony states that you would prefer that the BLM be designated as the lead agency for the preparation of the general management plan. The bill simply directs the

Secretary of the Interior to prepare the plan. Are you concerned

that the Secretary might not delegate this to the BLM even though

the sites are on BLM lands?

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not think we are concerned. However, we

just wanted to reiterate the fact that of the 24 sites we do have

9 of them currently, and we are positioned, in terms of our field

offices, we are positioned well there between Santa Fe and Albuquerque. If we were to acquire cooperative agreements or additional land, we are in a good position to administer those sites.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Hainer, the National Park Service’s position

is that the expansion and modernization of the medical center has

essentially destroyed much of the historically significant features of

the site. Would you care to respond about this feeling?

Mr. HAINER. Thank you for an opportunity to respond, Mr.

Chairman. I believe that the comment or the perspective that the

expansion in the early 1920’s under the U.S. Public Health Service

to build a centralized hospital, which was at the time reputed to

be the world’s largest tuberculosis treatment center, is a viewpoint

that does not recognize the continued value and historic efforts beyond 1920 to the present day. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that my

testimony was that the pioneering role in tuberculosis treatment

included both Spanish-American War, World War One, and following World War Two veterans, and I consider the period beyond

33

1920 to be of great historic value as well, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Hainer.

Dr. Giese, if the Fort Bayard is designated as a national landmark, what are the Fort Bayard Historical Society’s plans to be involved with the landmark?

Mr. GIESE. We would like to be very closely involved. Fort Bayard really needs help badly. The buildings are in a bad state of

preservation and we would like to bring a lot of money through

grants, etcetera, to improve those buildings, and that would be our

main role. In addition, we would like to operate a museum for visitors there, a visitors center. But we would not want to in any way

interfere with the hospital operation and I do not think we would.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you.

Mr. Stauffer, I have a question for you. You indicate in your testimony that the Yosemite National Park superintendent has moved

his children to nearby Mariposa County schools.

Mr. STAUFFER. That is correct.

Senator AKAKA. If Federal funding must be used for Yosemite

area schools, would it be more cost effective to close some or all of

the existing schools within the park and instead send the children

to a smaller number of better equipped schools?

Mr. STAUFFER. It may be more cost effective, sir, but it is a 50-

mile one-way drive from Yosemite Valley to Mariposa and in the

winter that route is very treacherous. I cannot even suggest to subject kindergarten kids to an hour and a half bus ride through the

snow to Mariposa. It is just not practical. It is just not something

that I could even recommend or even think about.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you.

Ms. Zontine, my final question is to you. Due to funding concerns, the National Park Service is opposing S. 2623——

Ms. ZONTINE. Yes.

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. Which would provide protection for

Cedar Creek Battlefield. In your opinion from a preservation standpoint, what would happen if we follow the administration’s recommendation and do not designate Cedar Creek Battlefield as a

unit of the National Park Service?

Ms. ZONTINE. I do not know how familiar you are with the Shenandoah Valley, but we are getting a lot of developmental pressure

in our part of the valley, Frederick County, where Cedar Creek and

Belle Grove are located, from the Washington, D.C., metropolitan

area. I think it is the fastest growing county in the Shenandoah

Valley. Because of this developmental pressure, I feel that a delay

in designating this a park will further threaten the historic nature

of both the battlefield and the Belle Grove Plantation, the integrity

of the site.

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much.

I want to thank all the witnesses for your statements and your

responses before the subcommittee this afternoon. Your comments

no question will be very helpful to the committee and hopefully we

will be able to move these bills through the committee and the Senate in the next few weeks.

34

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks if anyone wishes to submit additional comments or materials to be included in the

record. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ