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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–179 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–93 

MISCELLANEOUS PARKS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 398 S. 1138 

S. 524 S. 1151 

S. 618 S. 1157 

S. 702 S. 1186 

S. 781 S. 1252 

S. 782 S. 1253 

S. 869 S. 1328 

S. 916 S. 1339 

S. 925 H.R. 674 

S. 974 H.R. 885 

S. 995 H.R. 1033 

S. 1044 H.R. 1158 

S. 1071 

JULY 31, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bennet, Hon. Michael, U.S. Senator From Colorado ............................................ 7 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten E., U.S. Senator From New York ................................. 3 

Heller, Hon. Dean., U.S. Senator From Nevada ................................................... 5 

Kaine, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From Virginia ...................................................... 2 

Portman, Hon. Rob, U.S. Senator From Ohio ....................................................... 10 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada ...................................................... 4 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator From Vermont .......................................... 6 

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii ................................................... 9 

Toothman, Stephanie, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships 

and Science, National Park Service, Department of the Interior .................... 11 

Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado ................................................... 1 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator From Massachusetts ............................... 6 

APPENDIX 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 49 

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS PARKS BILLS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM COLORADO 

Senator UDALL. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come 

to order. 

Let me thank all of you for your patience and forbearance. We 

had a cloture vote on the Floor of the Senate that continued for a 

while. We thought there was going to be a second vote. At this 

point it appears that second vote has been postponed. 

So we now have the opportunity to have an important hearing 

on our National Park portfolio. We’re going to consider 25 bills covering a wide range of issues relating to the Department of the Interior including National Park historic preservation and recreation 

issues. Although the agenda is lengthy, I believe many of the bills 

are non-controversial and several have been the subject of previous 

hearings before this subcommittee. 

So I’m hopeful that we can move through the hearing quickly. 

The purpose of this afternoon’s hearing is to hear the Administration’s views on these bills and allow committee members an opportunity to ask any questions they may have. As I’ve referenced, 

there is a large number of bills on today’s agenda. Because of that 

large number I won’t read through the list. But at this time I’ll include the complete list of bills in the hearing record. I have that 

list here. 

Senator UDALL. I know that a few members of the subcommittee, 

Senator Portman, Senator Sanders, Senator Schatz and maybe a 

few others have bills of personal interest to them on today’s agenda 

and I look forward to learning more about their bills during the 

hearing. 

If I could I’d like to take a minute to mention 2 bills of particular 

interest to Colorado before I recognize my colleague, Senator Bennet. 

The first bill is S. 1071, which I introduced to allow the National 

Park Service to make improvements to a visitor’s center located 

outside the boundaries of the Sand Creek Massacre National HisVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
2 

toric Site in Colorado. The Park Service, I know, has been working 

with Kiowa County officials and has identified a building that 

would be appropriate for shared use benefiting both the county and 

the Park Service. But legislation is needed so that the Park Service 

can provide funding since the site is located outside of the park 

boundary. 

I hope to see this bill move quickly. I know Senator Bennet does 

as well because it would provide a real economic boost to a great 

community that’s been hit hard by the challenging economic times 

we’ve been facing. 

The second bill is one that Senator Bennet will share his 

thoughts on. It would authorize the Pike National Historic Trail 

Study. 

I wanted just to say while many people are familiar with Pike’s 

Peak, relatively few people know that it was named after Lieutenant Zebulon Pike. I found it interesting, and I know Senator Bennet does as well, that he never actually climbed the mountain that 

bears his name, although it’s believed he did climb nearby Mount 

Rosa. I will leave the rest of my remarks for the record because I 

want to hear from my colleague, Senator Bennet, and his support 

and his authorship of this important bill. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Bennet, you’re recognized. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Kaine, Gillibrand, Reid, 

Heller, Warren, and Sanders follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA, ON S. 916 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today and for considering S. 

916, a bill I’ve introduced with Senator Thad Cochran, to reauthorize the American 

Battlefield Protection Program. Our states hosted key battles of the Civil War and 

have led the nation in preserving the land on which these defining battles were 

fought. 

I was proud to have supported this program when I was Governor of Virginia, and 

I am proud that 11 bipartisan cosponsors have joined my friend Senator Cochran 

and me on this bill—six Democrats, four Republicans, and one independent. The 

House of Representatives passed identical legislation (H.R. 1033) on April 9 with a 

strong two-thirds majority, which I believe is a testament to the depth of support 

for this program across the country. The program also expires on October 1st of this 

year, making its reauthorization a timely priority. 

America’s battlefields are historic landmarks that help us commemorate what 

made our nation what it is today. Too many of these sites are open to haphazard 

development that could leave no trace of the sacrifices made there. That is why this 

bill continues federal competitive matching grants to protect these historic lands. It 

extends the authorization for the American Battlefield Protection Program for five 

years at the current funding level and adds sites of the Revolutionary War and the 

War of 1812 to the program’s eligibility. These grants have a 1 to1 federal/non-federal match, which is often exceeded on the non-federal side by private contributions. 

The program is strictly voluntary. This bill specifies that land will be acquired 

only from willing sellers and only at fair market value. It also authorizes funding 

solely for land acquisition, incurring no development or maintenance costs for the 

National Park Service. 

It would be worth protecting these battlefields for the historic value alone, but 

these activities also have economic value. Battlefield tourists do not simply pass 

through a region. They pay for guided tours. They stay in hotels and bed and breakfasts. They dine at local restaurants. They browse the shops on town streets. According to a study by the Virginia Tourism Corporation, Civil War tourists in Virginia stay twice as long and spend double the money of the average tourist. Of outof-town visitors interviewed at 20 battlefields, two-thirds were visiting the area specifically to see the battlefield, and three-quarters said they would visit other Civil 

War sites while in the area. 

On these battlefields, American soldiers demonstrated to posterity the meaning— 

and the price—of freedom. To understand this history is to understand ourselves as 

3 

Americans. This effort brings together federal, state, and private sector supporters 

to ensure future generations will be able to visit these sites and appreciate the historic deeds that transpired on this hallowed ground. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, U.S. SENATOR FROM

NEW YORK, ON S. 925 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be the sponsor 

of S. 925, a bill to improve the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, 

and for other purposes. 

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum was founded in 1988; for the past twenty 

five years has worked to preserve and interpret the history of immigration through 

the personal experiences of the generations of newcomers who settled in and built 

lives on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, America’s iconic immigrant neighborhood. 

The Museum forges emotional connections between visitors and immigrants past 

and present through tours of its historic building at 97 Orchard Street, which was 

declared a National Historic Landmark in 1994. The historic site became an affiliated site of the National Park System (NPS) in 1998 in PL l05-378 and is key part 

of the National Parks of New York Harbor, which includes Statue of Liberty, Ellis 

Island, and Castle Clinton. 

The Museum now serves nearly 200,000 visitors per year, including 40,000 school 

children. Visitors explore recreated apartments and hear the stories of real families 

from over twenty nations who lived in the building from 1863 to 1935 when the City 

ofNew York condemned the building as unfit for human occupancy. 

The Museum purchased 103 Orchard Street, an 1888 tenement building, in 2007 

and renovated its lower floors as a visitor and education center. Unlike the Museum’s first historic structure, 103 Orchard Street never closed to residents, and so 

has provided homes to more recent waves of immigration. The Museum is now developing an exhibit to present stories of Jewish Holocaust survivors, post-1965 Chinese families, and 1950s Puerto Rican migrants. Together, these will extend the 

Museum’s immersive historic interpretations beyond 1935, where they now end, into 

the present. 

This project is a direct response to NPS Director Jon Jarvis’s ‘‘Call to Action’’ to 

tell America’s untold stories. The exhibit would be the first at a National Park Service site to interpret the history of Holocaust survivors rebuilding lives in America. 

It would also be one of the few telling the stories of Puerto Rican migrants to the 

mainland and post-1965 Chinese immigrants. The interpretation differs from ethnic 

museums in that it presents the larger narrative of how Americans came to be the 

people they are today. The new exhibit will provide the setting for a powerful narrative about how Civil Rights Era Americans came to embrace non-race-based immigration; the exhibit will reflect the experiences of contemporary Americans in the 

diverse communities that now constitute much of the nation. 

S. 925 aims to expand the boundaries of the National Park Service affiliated site 

at 97 Orchard Street to include this newer tenement building. Including 103 Orchard Street is a direct response to the Department of the Interior’s 2006 General 

Management Plan for the site, which recognized the need for visitor orientation, administrative facilities, and additional exhibit space. It determined that any boundary adjustment include significant features related to the primary purpose of the 

site, address operational issues including access, or protect resources critical to the 

site’s mission. It also required legislation to adjust the site’s boundaries. 

These new exhibits are directly related to the Museum’s mission and allow visitors to see how immigration has continued to evolve into the present. The Museum 

estimates the expansion would allow it to accommodate 50,000 additional visitors 

annually, including 12,000 New York City students. Furthermore, these exhibits 

will be fully ADA accessible which the majority ofthe original exhibits are not. 

This legislation would secure a partnership between the new space and the National Parks ofNew York Harbor. NPS would be able to assist this site with education workshops, tours for New York City school children, and exhibition construction and preservation, just as it has done at the original site. This designation 

would help preserve America’s iconic immigrant neighborhood. It is critical to provide the Tenement Museum with the resources it needs to continue to educate our 

children and tell the important stories of our past immigrant experience. The immigration story is America’s story; New York’s Lower East Side has been ’stop one’ 

for countless generations of new Americans. 

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum has worked for twenty five years to enhance appreciation for the profound role immigration has played and continues to 

play in shaping America’s evolving national identity. Today I ask that you support 

4 

S. 925 and expand the affiliated site boundaries to include this second historic building and help ensure the Tenement Museum’s success for years to come. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA, ON S. 974 

Thank you Chairman Udall and Senator Portman for the opportunity to submit 

testimony on this bipartisan proposal to conserve an amazing piece of Nevada’s natural heritage and create new opportunities for economic development in Southern 

Nevada. 

This May, I sponsored the reintroduction of the Las Vegas Valley Public Lands 

and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act with my colleague Senator 

Heller and the entirety of the Nevada congressional delegation. I would like to take 

this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work together on 

this legislation through a hands-on, ground level approach. 

The heart of this bill, the creation of the 23,000-acre Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, would conserve, protect and enhance the unique and nationally 

important paleontological resources in southern Nevada. 

Efforts to protect the paleontological treasures within the Upper Las Vegas Wash 

stretch back nearly 80 years, when during the first fossil expedition in the area unearthed what was named ‘‘Tule the Baby Mammoth.’’ Since that first discovery, over 

400 paleontological sites have been unearthed in Tule Springs, providing a record 

of human activity dating back 11,000 years ago and a repository of Ice Age fossils 

up to 200 millennia old. Since the 1950s, fossils of Columbian mammoths, ground 

sloths, American lions, Dire wolves, Sabertoothed tiger, and Camelops have been 

found. 

Tule Springs is also home to some of the most sensitive species in southern Nevada including the Las Vegas buckwheat, which is currently being considered for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act, the Merriam’s bearpoppy, the Las Vegas 

bearpoppy, and the halfring milkvetch. Tule Springs is also habitat for the desert 

tortoise, burrowing owls, and kit foxes. 

The fossil beds proposal is the product of over a decade of hard work by the community. Recognizing the threats of development to the area, a coalition of environmentalists, tribes, academics, and retired Park Service employees formed in the 

mid-2000s with a goal of seeking a protected status for Tule Springs. The Protectors 

of Tule Springs collected over 10,000 signatures in support of protection and in 2009 

the National Parks Conservation Association launched a campaign to add the site 

to the National Parks system. A year later, a Park Service reconnaissance report 

found the site suitable for inclusion in the park system. The monument proposal 

was developed in close partnership with local governments and the Clark County 

Commission, the Las Vegas City Council, the North Las Vegas City Council and the 

Nevada State Legislature have all passed resolutions supporting the addition of the 

area to the national park system. 

In addition to protecting the paleontological and natural resources found within 

the site, the monument would be an economic driver in the Las Vegas community. 

The monument would be located a mere 30 minutes of the Las Vegas strip and is 

expected to generate $25 to $50 million for the regional economy within the first 

four years of operation. This economic boost will be welcomed as Las Vegas emerges 

from the recession and one of the worst housing crashes in the country. 

This bill also expands the Red Rock National Conservation Area by roughly 1,700 

acres. Red Rock is one of Nevada’s most treasured outdoor destinations and receives 

well over 1 million visitors every year. In recent years, Red Rock has been celebrated as one of the top climbing destinations in the world. 

The legislation also make several land conveyances in the Las Vegas Valley that 

are vital to the health of the economy and community in Southern Nevada. Approximately 640 acres would be conveyed to each Las Vegas and North Las Vegas to establish ‘‘job creation zones.’’ The cities, after receiving the land, will master plan it 

and then sell it. The proceeds from the sales will be allocated to the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act fund, which provides funding for conservation 

and recreation infrastructure in Nevada. The bill would also convey 80 acres to the 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for construction of an access road to 

their current shooting facility near Sunrise Mountain. Nearly 2,500 acres will be 

conveyed to institutions of higher education for the creation of new campuses in Las 

Vegas, North Las Vegas and Pahrump. Three parcels of land will be conveyed to 

Clark County for flood mitigation infrastructure for the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport. Finally, 410 acres will be conveyed to the Air Force for inclusion 

in Nellis Air Force Base. 

5 

The Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Act will be amended to allow the 

Forest Service to acquire lands from or exchange lands with individuals. The Forest 

Service would also be allowed to sell small parcels of land to residents who are currently in trespass on National Forest lands in the Spring Mountains area. 

Additionally, the bill would amend the SNPLMA boundary to add 4,000 acres in 

Las Vegas and 4,000 acres in North Las Vegas. These expansions are meant to compensate Las Vegas and North Las Vegas for the developable acres they would lose 

as a result of the National Monument designation. 

The bill would release the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area from wilderness 

consideration. The area has been adequately studied and found to have no wilderness characteristics. With the release of the Sunrise ISA, a vital transmission corridor can expand to meet the needs of Southern Nevada and California. 

Section 12 of this bill conveys 1,200 acres of public land in the Nellis Dunes area 

for an off-highway vehicle recreation park managed by Clark County, and designates roughly 10,000 acres of public land surrounding the park as an off-highway 

vehicle recreation area. It also designates an economic support area near the Las 

Vegas Motor Speedway that will generate revenue to help pay for the management 

of the park and recreation. 

Finally, the bill protects the current operations at Nellis Air Force Base, a vital 

part of Southern Nevada’s economy, by allowing military overflights over the Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, which is a critical flight corridor between 

Nellis Air Force Base and Nellis Test and Training Range, and the additions to Red 

Rock National Conservation Area. 

I look forward to working with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this bill forward. I request that my statement be included in the 

record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA, 

ON S. 974 

I first want to thank Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Portman for allowing 

me to be here today, and for holding this hearing. 

Eighty-seven percent of Nevada’s lands are controlled by the federal governmentso the health of our communities is intertwined with our public lands and the actions of land management agencies, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work 

with my colleagues to address the challenges that face public lands states, like Nevada. 

I’m pleased to speak in support of S. 974, Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. This bill is the culmination 

of several years of effort to protect unique areas while providing for job creation opportunities. 

It also plans for critical infrastructure that will be necessary to meet the needs 

of the Valley. The centerpiece of the bill is the designation of the Tule Springs Fossil 

Beds National Monument in the Upper Las Vegas Wash. This area contains fossil 

beds that include Ice Age mammals such as the Columbian mammoth, American 

lion, and ancient horses. The monument designation will protect the unique natural 

values and important scientific resources there. 

In addition to the creation of the Monument, the bill also facilitates economic development in the region, conveys land to the Nevada System of Higher Education 

to expand education opportunities for Nevadans, and transfers additional land for 

other public purposes. Another important aspect of this bill is the facilitation of renewable energy transmission. Releasing the Sunrise Instant Study Area will expand 

opportunities for deployment of renewable energy, which is an important part of Nevada’s future. Additionally, the bill will create a 10,000 acre recreation area to be 

administered by the BLM for use by off-highway vehicles in southern Nevada. The 

legislation would also convey to Clark County approximately 1,000 acres for the development of facilities to support the off-road vehicle recreation. I have worked for 

many years on this important proposal to facilitate shared goals of improving air 

quality, public safety, and OHV recreation while protecting critical desert tortoise 

habitat. 

S. 974 is a great example of how conservation, economic development, and recreational opportunities can be achieved when stakeholders come together to work 

out their differenc Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 

this important legislation. 

6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH WARREN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS, ON S. 1186 

Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to introduce the Essex National Heritage Area Reauthorization Act (S. 1186), and I thank you for the opportunity to offer a few words 

about this wonderful area. The Essex National Heritage Area is special not only to 

the communities north of Boston that it encompasses, but also to the many visitors 

it attracts who go there to hike its network of nature trails and to learn about 17th 

Century settlers, 18th Century seafarers, and 19th Century industrial workers. 

The Essex National Heritage Area received its designation by Congress in 1996 

as place where natural, cultural, and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, 

nationally important landscape. This landscape includes historic homes and industrial architecture, as well as scenic natural resources, including rocky coasts, harbors, marshlands and rivers. It boasts 26 national historic landmarks, 9,968 sites 

on the National Register of Historic Places, 73 National Register Historic Districts, 

two national park sites—Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus Iron 

Works National Historic Site—and a national wildlife refuge. 

What I find so remarkable about the Essex National Heritage Area are the innovative ways that it involves its local communities in its ongoing work. Just one example is the Youth Summer Job Corps. Through a partnership with the National 

Park Service, the Essex National Heritage Area employs 14-18 year-olds from local 

communities to work at the two national park sites in Salem and Saugus, as well 

as at a working farm in Ipswich. For 8-12 weeks in the summer, these teens work 

with National Park Service staff, acquiring skills in historic preservation and natural resource management. At the end of the summer, many of these students come 

away with great job experiences and appreciation of the role of their communities 

in our national story. 

Also notable is how the Essex National Heritage Area is able to make the most 

of its federal funding. As National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has noted, national heritage areas are places where small investments pay huge dividends. Essex, 

like other heritage areas, collaborates with local partners to carry out its mission 

of cultural, historical and natural resource preservation, and in the process, makes 

substantial contributions to its local economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Committee will look favorably on this 

bill to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT, ON S. 1252 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks Hearing 

on Misc. National Parks Bills Senate Dirksen Building, Room 366 at 2:30pm July 

31, 2013 

Thank you Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Portman. 

I speak today in support of The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This bill is endorsed by the entire Vermont Congressional Delegation. The 

Senate bill I introduced is co-sponsored by Senator Leahy, and the House companion 

is sponsored by Congressman Welch. 

Forty states have rivers under the Wild and Scenic System, spanning the country 

from Florida to Alaska. The program was established in 1968 to recognize and preserve rivers for their remarkable scenic and recreational value. Knowing the exceptional value of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers—enjoyed by paddlers, anglers and 

naturalists; communities in northern Vermont sought to add these rivers to the national system. 

The study and designation of these rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

has been a community lead effort from start to finish. This proposed designation is 

the result of a congressionally authorized Wild and Scenic study requested by local 

Vermonters. Over the past few years, the Study Committee worked with local communities, and the National Park Service to evaluate the rivers’ potential for a Wild 

and Scenic designation. 

This year, the committee completed their work. They concluded what Vermonters 

across the state already know. These 46 miles of river offer outstanding resources, 

deep agricultural heritage, rich rural character, extensive recreational opportunities, 

and scenic working landscapes. The committee unanimously recommended that the 

Upper Missisquoi and Trout rivers become Vermont’s first in the Wild and Scenic 

System. 

This proposal enjoys widespread support across Vermont. Residents in Berkshire, 

Enosburg Falls, Enosburgh, Montgomery, North Troy, Richford, Troy and Westfield 

voted on our annual Town Meeting day this spring to proceed with this measure. 

7 

Robust public support is the result of the Wild and Scenic Study Committee’s careful work throughout these past years, involving the people of northern Vermont at 

every step to create a management plan that strikes the right balance between recreational uses of our natural resources, and maintaining a healthy, and beautiful 

environment. 

Inclusion in the Wild and Scenic system will help protect the natural, cultural and 

recreational qualities of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout rivers; maintain good water 

quality within the rivers as well as in Vermont’s beautiful Lake Champlain, where 

the Missisquoi River flows into. 

I want to thank the efforts of the Wild and Scenic Study Committee members in 

Vermont, and my delegation colleagues; Senator Leahy, and Congressman Welch, 

for collaborating on this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 

Committee to report this bill quickly and favorably, to preserve these rivers for the 

people of Vermont. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM COLORADO 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Chairman Udall. It’s a great honor 

to be before you and also before our great colleague from Hawaii, 

Senator Schatz. He’s provided such extraordinary leadership when 

it comes to National Parks since he’s been here. 

But calling you, Mr. Chairman, gives me special satisfaction. So 

thanks for having me today. Thanks for holding this hearing, allowing me to testify for a few minutes in support of S. 524, the 

Pike National Historic Trails Study Act of 2013. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend special thanks for your support 

of this bill as an original co-sponsor. The bill is a simple one, less 

than a page long. 

The legislation would create a feasibility study regarding the establishment of the Zebulon Pike National Historic Trail. 

The trail would recognize Pike’s journey into the West starting 

in Missouri in 1806. 

Crossing acreage in 7 modern day States and Mexico. 

Until ending in 1807 in Louisiana. 

Should the Park Service deem the route worthy of addition to the 

system a separate act of Congress would be needed to formally designate the trail. 

I’m here today just to express support for the study legislation 

and briefly describe why this trail is significant. 

Born 3 years after our country’s independence, Lieutenant 

Zebulon Pike joined the Army when he was 20 years old. It was 

in July of 1806 that the Army tasked him with exploring the 

Southwestern border of the land recently acquired as part of the 

Louisiana Purchase. The expedition started in Missouri, moved 

across Kansas and then into the Southeastern part of our home 

State of Colorado. 

They trudged up the Arkansas River Valley. It was in November 

of 1806 that Pike first saw the peak that would someday bear his 

name. While, as the chairman said, he tried, the Lieutenant never 

actually set foot on the summit of Pike’s Peak, the Easternmost, 

14,000 foot mountain in the United States and one of over 50 

mountains in Colorado above that height, the most in the Nation 

by far. Though the last person I need to tell about that is the chairman of this committee, as he has climbed every single one of them. 

Following the detour to Pike’s Peak, the expedition continued on. 

They ate a Christmas dinner of buffalo meat near the modern day 

8 

city of Salida. Then they continued south over the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains and around what is now the Great Sand Dunes National Park until they hit the Rio Grande River. 

They established a smallish fort, now known as Pikes—just 

south of present day Alamosa. It was there in February 1807 that 

Spanish soldiers captured Pike and his expedition and marched 

them south to Santa Fe and then into the Chihuahua region of 

Mexico. While they were treated fairly by the Spanish it wasn’t 

until June that Pike and most of his men were returned to U.S. 

soil in Louisiana, nearly 1,000 miles from where they were captured. 

Mr. Chairman, Lieutenant Pike’s expedition was the first American led journey through the Southwest. The historical significance 

of the journey to Colorado, to the West and to this nation goes well 

beyond this brief summary. Beyond recognizing the American pioneer in the rich history of the western landscape, the establishment 

of the Pike Trail would provide opportunities for economic development, as the Chairman mentioned, all along the route. 

The legislation is widely supported by local governments across 

5 States. I have letters of support for the bill from 22 county commissions, including 16 in Colorado. With your permission I’d like 

to enter those letters into the hearing record. 

Senator UDALL. Without objection. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

These are local leaders, both Democrats and Republicans seeking 

to diversify the economies of our rural communities. 

I hope the Committee will recognize these worthy goals, see fit 

to promptly and favorably move this bill forward in the process. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify this afternoon. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Bennet. 

When we get this project completed we’ll continue to learn about 

and appreciate the fascinating stories of Pike’s travels. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I’m particularly intrigued with 

one of the theories which is that Pike allowed himself to be captured so that he could both take advantage of Mexico’s resources 

and learn more about what the country south of us was doing. 

There are other historians that think he was not fully aware of the 

danger that he was in. 

But whatever the case may be it’s a fascinating part of the history of our part of the country. I thank you for your authorship. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. I thank the ranking member for allowing this hearing as well. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bennet. 

The ranking member has joined us.—As always. 

I don’t know if the ranking member has a statement or whether 

as he gathers himself, I could turn to Senator Schatz for a statement. 

But Senator Portman, would you like to be recognized? 

Senator PORTMAN. Senator Schatz should go. He was actually 

here before me. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Portman as always is gracious. 

Let me recognize Senator Schatz for any comments he might 

have. 

9 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you to the chairman and the ranking 

member. Thanks, ranking member, for your accommodation. I appreciate all of the pieces of legislation being considered today. 

I’d like to especially thank the committee for considering S. 618, 

the Pacific Islands Park Act, which would direct the Department 

of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies for potential parks in 

Hawaii and Pacific Islands. It will direct studies on Midway Atoll, 

the Northern Marianas Islands, Palau and of course, most important to me, 3 studies in the State of Hawaii. I want to thank the 

National Park Service for its attention to this bill. 

I appreciate the thoughtful comments provided on this legislation. Look forward to working with the National Park Service, the 

Subcommittee Chairman, the ranking member and the full committee to incorporate any input that may be necessary from the 

testimony and to consider any other suggestions that may arise. 

As you know, some of Hawaii’s greatest resources are its globally 

unique mountains, forests, volcanoes, trails and wildlife. These 

studies are a critical step in protecting natural resources preserving history and culture in Hawaii and across the Pacific and 

providing access to residents and visitors, who want to share in 

Hawaii’s breathtaking natural environment. Visitors from all over 

the world travel to Hawaii to experience not only the natural beauty, but also the cultural and historical significance of our national 

parks which have resulted in a significant contribution to our 

State’s growing economy. 

Parks are a wise investment supporting hunting, fishing, camping and other outdoor recreational activities that contribute a total 

of 725 and a half billion dollars annually to the United States economy and a little over 6 million jobs according to the Outdoor Industry Association. It’s particularly important to the Hawaii tourism 

economy which has helped to drive our unemployment below 5 percent. More broadly, outdoor recreation, and I know chairman, that 

you know this, nature conservation and historic preservation contribute a total of about $1,000,000,000 trillion annually to the economy supporting more than 8 million jobs. 

So I thank the Department of the Interior and the National Park 

Service for their collaboration on this matter. 

I thank the subcommittee chair and ranking member and all of 

the members, in advance, for their favorable disposition. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Schatz, for your leadership. 

Thank you for also reminding us that our parks not only add to 

our quality of life, but are key economic drivers. Both Senator 

Portman and I are intrigued with the 5 percent unemployment 

rate. That’s close to where historically it has been in our country. 

We all would like to see it maybe at 3 percent or maybe zero percent. 

But that’s some very good news. It speaks, again, to the importance of protecting these natural landscapes. 

Thank you. We look forward to working with you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

10 

Senator UDALL. Let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator 

Portman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OHIO 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you and I’ll be brief. 

Sorry that I was detained on the Floor. 

It was good to have Senator Bennet before us. I understand he 

testified on the National Park’s—or the National Trail System’s Act 

and wants a study on incorporating Pike Trail which I’m sure the 

chairman has some interest in too, into the National Park System. 

So—or the National Trail System. 

I look forward to hearing about many of the bills today. We have 

24 before us. So we’ve got a busy agenda. There are a couple that 

I have particular interest in. 

One, I want thank the Chairman for including in that is the Ohio 

and Erie Canal bill, S. 1339. This is a heritage area. Ohio and Erie 

Canalway, that I supported when I was in the House and was established to acknowledge the Ohio/Erie Canals historical contribution to the region. 

It’s become quite an attraction for outdoor enthusiasts in our 

area. I think there’s about an 81 mile tow path now running 

through the heart of the canalway. Having recently bicycled on it 

myself with my family, I can attest to the fact that it’s a valuable 

resource. It was full of other bikers. It’s become quite a popular 

area in a highly populated part of our country. 

Another bill on the agenda that I’ve introduced again this year, 

this time with Senator Landrieu, with Senator Lieberman last year 

is the bill S. 1044 which is the World War II Memorial Prayer Act. 

It’s a bipartisan bill that would allow a plaque to be at the World 

War II memorial. Some of you, I’m sure, have visited the World 

War II memorial. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s a terrific tribute to our World War II generation, including my dad. He used to love to go down there. But 

frankly, I think, it could use some more interpretation. This is one 

of the things that I think would add to it. 

On D-Day, June 6, 1944, President Roosevelt gave an incredibly 

powerful message to the Nation in the form of a prayer that helped 

bring the country together. That plaque or inscription we’d like to 

see on the World War II memorial would commemorate that prayer. 

I’ve worked with the Park Service on this over the last couple 

years. We’re not trying to disrupt the memorial, or bypass the 

Commemorative Works Act process which governs monuments in 

Washington. 

So this would be assigned to a commemorative works approval 

and review process. It makes it consistent with how the legislation 

has been passed by previous Congresses. I’ve had good conversations with Secretary Jewell regarding this legislation, actually on 

the 69th anniversary of D-Day earlier this year. 

So I hope this ever gets the same reception here as it did in the 

House last year where a companion legislation, introduced by Congressman Bill Johnson, overwhelming passed by a vote of 386 to 

26. After 70 years this prayer still has the power to bring us toVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
11 

gether and to remind us that although we may have our differences 

there’s also a lot that unites us as a country. So, again, I hope my 

colleagues will join us in encouraging that this extraordinary prayer, this example of faith in our nation’s history, be added to the 

memorial. 

I want to thank the witnesses who are before us today. Again, 

we have a number of different bills I look forward to hearing more 

about. 

Again, apologize for my tardiness and look forward to getting 

into the specific bills before us. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Dr. Toothman, if you would come forward. I think you will be 

joined by Mr. Spisak as well. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Dr. Stephanie Toothman is the Associate Director for Cultural 

Resources, Partnerships and Science at the National Park Service. 

Dr. Toothman, we will include for the full written—we will include your full written statement for each of the bills in the hearing record. So it would be helpful if you could briefly summarize 

the Interior Department’s views on each of the bills. 

Then after you finish summarizing we’ll begin a round of questions. 

Welcome. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, PARTNERSHIPS AND SCIENCE, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I’ll start again. 

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

the subcommittee to present the Department of the Interior’s views 

on the 25 bills on today’s agenda. 

I am accompanied by Tim Spisak, who is the Bureau of Land 

Management’s Deputy Assistant Director for Minerals and Realty 

Management. He will be happy to answer any questions regarding 

S. 974, as they relate to lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

I would like to submit as requested our full statements on each 

of these bills for the record and summarize the Department’s views. 

The Department supports the following 10 bills. 

S. 524, which would authorize a study of the Pike National Historic Trail. 

S. 618, which would authorize special resource studies at 5 Pacific island locations, although we have some concerns about the 

Midway Island study as outlined in our testimony. 

S. 702 would rename the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley 

National Heritage Area as ‘‘The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor.’’ 

S. 781, which would modify the boundary of Yosemite National 

Park. 

S. 782, which would revise the boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park. 

S. 925, which would expand the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site. 

12 

S. 995, which would authorize the establishment of a National 

Desert Shield and Desert Storm commemorative work in the District of Columbia. 

S. 1328, which would authorize a special resource study of the 

New Philadelphia site in Illinois. 

H.R. 674, which would authorize a special resource study of sites 

on the Island of Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

H.R. 885, which would expand the boundary of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. 

H.R. 1033 and S. 916, which would expand the American Battlefield Protection Act to include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 

battlefields. 

The reasons for our support for these bills are explained in our 

full statements. For several of these bills we are requesting amendments. Explanation of these amendments are contained in our full 

statements. We would be happy to work with the committee on 

them. 

The Department could only support if amended S. 1071. This bill 

would allow the National Park Service to use existing funds to 

make improvements to support facilities for National Historic Sites 

that meet certain criteria. However, we know of only one site, the 

Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, that meets these certain criteria. We believe it is better for Congress to provide specific 

authority to individual parks on a case by case basis. 

The Department recommends amending S. 1138, S. 1151, S. 

1157, S. 1186 and S. 1339 which would extend the authorization 

for Federal funding for 8 National Heritage Areas: Hudson River 

Valley, American’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership, Rivers of 

Steel, Lackawanna Valley, Delaware and Lehigh, Schuylkill River 

Valley, Essex, and Ohio and Erie. We recommend Congress only 

authorize funding until an evaluation and report has been completed for each of the Heritage Areas and reviewed by Congress, 

and until National Heritage Areas Program legislation has been 

enacted. 

The Department recommends deferring action until the studies 

are complete on the following 3 bills. 

S. 869, which would establish the Alabama Black Belt National 

Heritage Area. 

S. 1252, which would designate certain sections of the Missisquoi 

and Trout River in Vermont as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

S. 1253, which would designate certain sections of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in Connecticut as Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. 

The Department does not oppose S. 398, which would establish 

a commission to study and report on the potential creation of a national woman’s history museum. The amendment we are requesting is described in our prepared testimony. We ask that the bill be 

amended by deleting the specific location within the reserve as a 

potential site for the museum. 

Regarding S. 1044, which would direct the Secretary to install in 

the area of the World War II Memorial, a plaque or an inscription 

with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer. The DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
13 

partment supports retaining the Commemorative Works Act as the 

vehicle for siting and designing the plaque or inscription. 

The Department does not oppose, if amended, H.R. 1158. The bill 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades complex. We ask that the bill be 

amended to allow rather than require the stocking of fish. 

Regarding S. 974, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act, the Department supports some of the provisions of the bill and has concerns about others as explained in our prepared testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Deputy Assistant 

Director Spisak and I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Toothman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL

RESOURCES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR, ON S. 398 

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 398, a bill to establish 

the commission to study the potential creation of a National Women’s History Museum, and for other purposes. 

The Department does not oppose S. 398, but recommends the amendment discussed below. 

S. 398 would establish a Commission to study and report on the potential creation 

of a national women’s history museum. S. 398 directs the Commission to submit to 

the President and Congress a report containing recommendations on the availability 

and cost of collections to be acquired and housed in the museum, the impact the 

museum may have on regional women’s history-related museums, possible locations 

within Washington, D.C. or its environs, whether the museum should be part of the 

Smithsonian Institution, the governance and organizational structure from which 

the museum should operate, how to engage women in the development and design 

of a museum, and the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the museum. 

The Commission, consisting of 8 members appointed by the congressional leadership, would convene a national conference on the museum no later than eighteen 

months after its appointment and submit recommendations for a plan of action for 

the establishment and maintenance of a museum no later than eighteen months 

after their first meeting. 

Section 4(a)(2)(C) of S. 398 directs the Commission to recommend potential locations, including the location on land bounded by Independence Avenue SW., 14th 

Street SW., 15th Street SW., and Jefferson Drive SW., in Washington, D.C. This 

area has several constraints. First, it is located on the Washington Monument 

grounds, an area treasured for its open space and natural setting. Second, the museum’s development potential will likely be significantly constrained by the area’s size 

and configuration. Third, this location is also within the Reserve as defined by the 

Commemorative Works Act (CWA), 40 U.S. Code, Section 89 (Section 8908(c)). In 

the 2003 Amendments to the CWA, Congress declared the Reserve a ‘‘substantially 

completed work of civic art,’’ where no new memorials may be located. The Reserve 

continues to protect the National Mall’s historic open space character enjoyed by 

millions of Americans and visitors. Museum development on this site is also precluded in the 2001 Memorials and Museums Master Plan (Chapter 3, page 32), 

which continues to guide the location of new memorials, museums, and related 

structures in the Nation’s Capital. This plan was the result of a multi-year effort 

by the National Capital Planning Commission, the US Commission of Fine Arts, the 

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission and the National Park Service. We 

recommend amending the bill by deleting this specific location as a potential site 

for the museum. There are a number of sites within the monumental core that are 

worthy of consideration for a museum of this importance, as identified in the Monumental Core Framework Plan which identifies preferred sites for new museums. 

We support, in concept, the proposal to further the education and interpretation 

of significant segments of American history and culture. However, we feel strongly 

that this Commission move forward in a way that does not contravene the CWA. 

14 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on S. 398. We would like the opportunity 

to work with the subcommittee to address our proposed amendment, and we urge 

the subcommittee to consult with other relevant agencies as the bill moves forward. 

ON S. 524

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

to appear before you today and present the Department’s views on S. 524, a bill to 

amend the National Trails System Act to provide for a study of the Pike National 

Historic Trail. 

The Department supports S. 524. However, we feel that priority should be given 

to the 30 previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National 

Trails System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been 

transmitted to Congress. 

S. 524 would amend Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act by directing 

the Secretary to conduct a study of the Pike National Historic Trail for consideration for inclusion in the National Trails System. We estimate the cost of this study 

to be approximately $800,000. 

The Pike National Historic Trail is a series of routes extending approximately 

3,664 miles, which follows the route taken by Lt. Zebulon Montgomery Pike during 

the 1806-1807 Pike expedition that began in Fort Bellefontaine, Missouri, extended 

through portions of the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Texas, and ended in Natchitoches, Louisiana. 

U.S. Army General James Wilkinson launched the 1806-1807 Pike expedition to 

provide an escort for Osage Indians traveling from St. Louis back to their villages, 

make contact with Native American groups on the plains, explore the headwaters 

of the Arkansas and Red Rivers, and collect information about the Spanish along 

the southwestern border of the Louisiana Purchase. Lt. Pike and his men explored 

the headwaters of the Arkansas and Platte Rivers in Colorado before crossing the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains, near both the present-day Great Sand Dunes National 

Park and Preserve, and the headwaters of the Rio Grande River. Pike’s group built 

a small stockade near modern-day Alamosa, Colorado, where they were captured by 

the Spanish and taken back to Mexico. Pike and the majority of his men were returned to U.S. territory at Natchitoches, Louisiana, on June 30, 1807. While not as 

famous as the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Pike expedition was the first American-led effort to explore the Rocky Mountains and is an important part of the history of Colorado and the American Southwest. 

A study produced by the National Park Service would not only look at the national significance and eligibility of the trail, but also its feasibility and suitability 

as a unit of the National Trails System. We envision the Pike National Historic 

Trail study to focus on exploring recreational opportunities, defining historical aspects of the trail, and establishing methods for a working relationship with partners 

in order to identify facilities on adjacent lands that would contribute to the purposes 

of the trail. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 618

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

Interior’s testimony regarding S. 618, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior 

to conduct certain special resource studies. 

S. 618 requires that the Secretary conduct special resource studies at five Pacific 

island locations: the Ka’u Coast on the island of Hawaii, Hawaii; the northern coast 

of Maui, Hawaii; the southeastern coast of Kauai, Hawaii; historic sites on Midway 

Atoll; and the island of Rota in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands (CNMI). The legislation also requires an update to a prior special resource 

study on World War II sites in the Republic of Palau. 

The Department supports conducting the new studies with the exception of the 

study of historic sites on Midway Atoll. We also support updating the existing special resource study on World War II sites in the Republic of Palau. We recommend 

one technical amendment to the Rota study authorized in this legislation. 

Section (3)(a)(A) of S. 618 requires the Secretary to conduct a special resource 

study of the Ka’u Coast on the big island of Hawaii. The National Park Service 

(NPS) conducted a reconnaissance survey of the Ka’u Coast in 2006. The survey indicated that significant cultural features, geological forms and coastal-marine natural resources of the study area are each represented to some extent within other 

national parks in the state of Hawaii. However, in no other location do these feaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
15 

tures coexist in such a long and uninterrupted coastal landscape with continuous 

scenic, interpretive, and recreational integrity. Compared to existing coastal managed areas within the state, it is uniquely wild, yet accessible. 

Based upon the significance of the resources in the Ka’u study area, and the current integrity and intact condition of these resources, the reconnaissance survey resulted in a preliminary finding of national significance and suitability. The Department supports a special resource study of the Ka’u coast. 

Section (3)(a)(B) of S. 618 requires the Secretary to conduct a special resource 

study of the north coast of the island of Maui. The NPS has not conducted a reconnaissance study of that area, and therefore, has a limited understanding of the resources. Clarification of the extent of the area to be examined would be helpful prior 

to undertaking this study. In order to better understand the resources of the area 

and their significance to our nation, the Department supports a special resource 

study of Maui’s north coast. 

Section (3)(a)(C) of S. 618 requires the Secretary to conduct a special resource 

study of the southeastern coast of the island of Kauai. In 2006, the NPS conducted 

a reconnaissance survey of Mahaulepu and nearby areas of Kauai. Mahaulepu is a 

historic Hawaiian land division and watershed stretching from Kauai’s Haupu 

mountain range to the island’s southeast shore. This preliminary survey indicates 

that there are nationally significant resources within the study area that are suitable for inclusion within the framework of the National Park System (System), and 

that are not otherwise adequately preserved elsewhere in the nation. Furthermore, 

the study area’s significant natural and cultural resources are of a collective size 

and configuration that they could be feasibly managed for resource protection and 

public enjoyment, and could be potentially administered at a reasonable cost if managed under a partnership arrangement. 

The Department supports conducting a special resource study of the Mahaulepu 

area, including Kauai’s southeast coast, to determine feasibility for its inclusion in 

the System, and that focuses on non-traditional management alternatives that include options for continued farm and ranch operations on private agricultural lands. 

Section (3)(a)(D) of S. 618 requires the Secretary to conduct a special resource 

study of the historic sites on Midway Atoll. The cultural resources on Midway Atoll 

were previously evaluated for National Historic Landmark (NHL) designation. A 

portion of the islands associated with the battle of Midway was designated as the 

World War II—Military Facilities Midway Island NHL Other protections are also 

in place for Midway Atoll. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages Midway Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge, and like all Federal agencies is subject to the provisions 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. FWS has prepared an historic preservation plan that addresses the preservation of the islands’ cultural resources. In addition, as a result of Presidential action in July 2007, the Refuge was included as part 

of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. 

Considering these designations already covering Midway Atoll, the Department 

does not support conducting a special resource study of the area for inclusion in the 

System. 

Finally, Section (3)(a)(E) of S. 618 requires the Secretary to conduct a special resource study of the island of Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands. The NPS completed a reconnaissance survey of certain natural and cultural resources on Rota in 

September 2005. The reconnaissance survey found that certain natural and cultural 

resources of the island of Rota are significant to island residents, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and the entire nation, and merit 

protection. The survey also made a preliminary finding that these resources are 

likely to be suitable and feasible for inclusion in the System. 

Rota was the only major island in the Mariana Archipelago to be spared the destruction and large-scale land use changes brought about by World War II and its 

aftermath. The best remaining examples of this island chain’s native limestone forest are found on Rota. Rota is also regarded as the cultural home of the indigenous 

Chamorro people and contains the most striking and well-preserved examples of 

their three thousand-year old culture. The Department supports a special resource 

study to provide a public process to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, CNMI, as a unit of 

the System. 

We recommend a technical amendment to Section 3(a)(E) to clarify the study 

would cover prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites instead of the entire island of Rota. Similar language is found in H.R. 674, which is also the subject of 

this hearing. 

Section 3(b) of S. 618 also requires an update of the special resource study conducted on World War II sites in the Republic of Palau. In 2003, the NPS conducted 

a special resource study of sites related to the Battle of Peleliu, the major battle 

16 

fought in the Palau Islands during World War II. The study found that the Peleliu 

battlefield met significance and suitability criteria for inclusion within the System, 

but there were other obstacles that made such inclusion infeasible at the time. Additionally, this study did not include public scoping or other essential components of 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

It is our understanding, based in part on communication from the Republic of 

Palau to the Department in 2012, that the obstacles to feasibility may no longer be 

present. Additionally, there has been a substantial shift in support by the local people for the site becoming a unit of the System and an updated study would allow 

for a reexamination of the findings of the previous study. In light of these changes, 

the Department supports conducting a revised and more thorough special resource 

study of World War II sites in the Republic of Palau to include public scoping and 

an environmental assessment. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have. 

ON S. 702

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 702, a bill designate 

the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor as ‘‘The 

Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor.’’ 

The Department supports enactment of S. 702. This legislation would change the 

name of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor to 

‘‘The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor.’’ It has been proven over the 

years that the current name of the heritage corridor is both difficult for people to 

remember and to spell. This change would help improve the identification of the corridor for the many partners involved with the heritage area and would be consistent 

with how the area is promoted in and beyond the region. 

The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor was designated a National Heritage Area by Congress in November 1994 through P.L. 103- 

449. At that time, Congress recognized that the valley represents one of the last traditional upland farming and mill village communities in the Northeastern United 

States. In 1999, Congress passed P.L. 106-449 to enlarge the corridor to include 

river valley towns in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. Now forest and farmland 

make up 78 percent of its 695,000-acres, yet it lies only an hour from three of New 

England’s four largest urban areas. This relatively undeveloped rural island, in the 

midst of the most urbanized region in the nation, makes it a resource of local, regional, and national importance. 

The Department first became involved in the area in 1992 when the National 

Park Service (NPS) undertook a feasibility study. The name ‘‘The Last Green Valley’’ was coined by a NPS historian and was later used in a NPS brochure. People 

in the area have been associating the river corridor with the term ‘‘The Last Green 

Valley’’ ever since. 

The NPS has provided technical assistance and managed an agreement with the 

management entity of the heritage area from the time it was designated, and continues to do so today. That management entity started using the name, The Last 

Green Valley, informally in 2001, and the board decided to officially change the 

name of its nonprofit through the Secretaries of State in both Massachusetts and 

Connecticut in November 2008. 

Changing the name of the corridor through this bill will be consistent with how 

people in the region refer to the area and with the name of the management entity 

with which the NPS has an official agreement—The Last Green Valley, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 781

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

present the views of the National Park Service on S. 781, a bill to modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports S. 781, with an amendment to update the map reference. S. 781 would adjust the boundary of Yosemite National Park (park) by 1,575 

acres. The modification would help the National Park Service (NPS) protect the 

western boundary from potential development and also help to preserve the scenic 

and biological resources of these properties. 

The proposed modification includes 793 acres of land owned by the Pacific Forest 

Trust (PFT) adjacent to the western boundary of the park and near the Yosemite 

West Subdivision. The 793 acres includes two tracts: the 713-acre Ransome Ranch 

17 

and the 80-acre Sparling tract. In 2004, the PFT purchased the parcels with the intent to add them back into the park. 

It also includes 782 acres of land, adjacent to the PFT properties, owned by Yosemite West Associates, the original developers of the Yosemite West Subdivision. 

The Yosemite West Associates have indicated to the PFT that they would also like 

to participate in the boundary adjustment, and eventually sell their property to the 

federal government for inclusion in the park. 

The PFT and the Yosemite West Associates parcels were originally part of the 

park from 1890 until 1905, when the park’s western boundary was adjusted eastward. The parcels remained in federal ownership as part of the Sierra National Forest until they were patented out to the Yosemite Lumber Company in 1916. 

The acquisition of these parcels would allow for continuous protection of forests, 

meadows, and rocky ridges with the Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests. The 

area is prime habitat for many rare species that include the Pacific Fisher, Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox, Goshawk, and Great Grey and Long-eared Owls as well as rare 

plant species such as Congdon’s Woolly Sunflower, Congdon’s Lewisia, and Yosemite 

Popcorn Flower. Acquisition of these properties would help to preserve the headwaters of Indian and Zip creeks, which flow into the main stem and the south fork 

of the Merced River, a National Wild and Scenic River. It would also help conserve 

key winter and spring migratory corridors used by large predatory species such as 

mountain lion and bear. 

This acquisition would open up the area to recreational uses that are currently 

inaccessible to the public. Located midway between Yosemite Valley and Wawona, 

the area would provide an alternative destination for those seeking to avoid highly 

congested areas in the park. The property could relieve some of the visitation in Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and Tuolumne Meadows by providing an alternative, highquality, destination with recreational opportunities. The properties are in close proximity to existing infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.), which would reduce the cost 

of development of future campgrounds or other visitor service facilities. 

Because an appraisal of these properties has not been completed, we do not have 

an estimate of acquisition costs. The costs of immediate improvements will be minimal as existing logging roads could be adapted for horseback riding, cross-country 

skiing, snowshoeing, and mountain biking and reestablished trails would connect 

visitors to the Sierra National Forest trail system and its recreational services. The 

properties could also provide rustic or dispersed camping opportunities by adding 

new areas for backpacking, horse camping, and group campsites that are currently 

in high demand in the park. The tracts have numerous outstanding viewpoints for 

sightseeing, photography and picnicking. Lastly, the unique habitat would provide 

visitors with bird-watching and other wildlife-viewing opportunities. 

The PFT properties are adjacent to the Yosemite Environmental Education Campus (EEC), which is currently under construction at the intersection of Wawona 

Road and Henness Ridge Road. The project is a partnership between the NPS and 

NatureBridge; NatureBridge is funding the construction with outside donors 

through a capital fundraising campaign. The EEC would benefit from the boundary 

expansion and land acquisition as it would allow increased accessibility to recreational resources that would greatly enhance the educational opportunities for 

students. 

The boundary modification is supported by the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, members of the California State Assembly, the California State Senate and 

the Governor. 

The Department recommends that the map reference in Sec. 3(1) be updated to 

reference the map entitled ‘‘Yosemite National Park Proposed Addition,’’ numbered 

104/113,969A, and dated May 2013. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 782

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 782, a bill to amend Public 

Law 101-377 to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to 

include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports S. 782 with amendments described later in this statement. This legislation would revise the boundary of Gettysburg National Military 

Park to include two distinct sites: the historic Gettysburg Train Station, and 45 

acres of an environmentally important tract of land at the base of Big Round Top. 

Gettysburg National Military Park protects major portions of the site of the largest battle waged during this nation’s Civil War. Fought in the first three days of 

18 

July 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg resulted in a victory for Union forces and successfully ended the second invasion of the North by Confederate forces commanded 

by General Robert E. Lee. Historians have referred to the battle as a major turning 

point in the war—the ‘‘High Water Mark of the Confederacy.’’ It was also the Civil 

War’s bloodiest single battle, resulting in over 51,000 soldiers killed, wounded, captured, or missing. 

The Soldiers’ National Cemetery within the park was dedicated on November 19, 

1863, when President Abraham Lincoln delivered his immortal Gettysburg Address. 

The cemetery contains more than 7,000 interments including over 3,500 from the 

Civil War. The park currently includes nearly 6,000 acres, with 26 miles of park 

roads and over 1,400 monuments, markers, and memorials. 

Gettysburg’s Lincoln Train Station was built in 1858 and is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. The station served as a hospital during the Battle of 

Gettysburg, and the wounded and the dead were transported from Gettysburg 

through this station in the aftermath of battle. President Abraham Lincoln arrived 

at this station when he visited to give the Gettysburg Address. 

Gettysburg National Military Park’s 1999 General Management Plan called for 

expanding cooperative relationships and partnerships with the Borough of Gettysburg and other sites ‘‘to ensure that resources closely linked to the park, the battle, 

and the non-combatant civilian involvement in the battle and its aftermath are appropriately protected and used.’’ In particular, the plan stated that the National 

Park Service would initiate ‘‘cooperation agreements with willing owners, and seek 

the assistance of the Borough of Gettysburg and other appropriate entities to preserve, operate and manage the Wills House and Lincoln Train Station.’’ 

The Borough of Gettysburg Interpretive Plan called for the Lincoln Train Station 

to be used as a downtown information and orientation center for visitors—where all 

park visitors would arrive after coming downtown—to receive information and orientation to downtown historic attractions, including the David Wills House. This is 

the house where Lincoln stayed the night before delivering the Gettysburg Address. 

The Interpretive Plan also called for rehabilitation of the Wills House, which was 

added to the park’s boundary through Public Law 106-290 in October 2000, and is 

now a historic house museum in the borough and an official site within Gettysburg 

National Military Park. The David Wills House is currently operated jointly by the 

Gettysburg Foundation and the National Park Service. 

The Lincoln Train Station is next to the downtown terminus of Freedom Transit, 

Gettysburg’s shuttle system, which started operations in July 2009 with a grant 

from the Federal Transit Administration in the Department of Transportation. 

In 2006, the Borough of Gettysburg completed rehabilitation of the Lincoln Train 

Station with funds from a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grant. Due to a lack of 

funds, however, the borough has been unable to operate a visitor information and 

orientation center there. Through formal vote of the Borough Council, the Borough 

of Gettysburg has asked the National Park Service to take over the ownership and 

operations of the train station. While the borough originally intended to sell the 

train station to the National Park Service, the Gettysburg Foundation is currently 

in negotiations to acquire the property, which would in turn be donated from the 

Foundation to the National Park Service. 

The park has a preliminary commitment from the Gettysburg Convention and 

Visitor Bureau (CVB) to provide all staffing requirements for operations of an information and orientation center in the train station, thereby avoiding staff costs for 

the park. Anticipated National Park Service operating costs for the train station are 

limited to utilities; the rest would be paid by the Gettysburg CVB. In the event that 

the Gettysburg CVB is unable to provide staffing and funding for operations, the 

National Park Service would seek another park partner to cover these costs and requirements. 

This legislation would also add 45 acres near Big Round Top along Plum Run in 

Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania, to the boundary of the park. The 45-acre tract 

of land is adjacent to the Gettysburg National Military Park and is within the Battlefield Historic District. The land is at the southern base of Big Round Top at the 

southern end of the Gettysburg battlefield. There were cavalry skirmishers in this 

area during the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, but the real significance is environmental. The tract contains critical wetlands and wildlife habitat related to Plum 

Run. Wayne and Susan Hill donated it to the Gettysburg Foundation in April 2009. 

The Gettysburg Foundation plans to donate fee title interest in the parcel to the 

National Park Service once it is within the park boundary. It abuts land already 

owned by the National Park Service. 

We recommend that the committee amend S. 782 to reference an updated map 

of the two properties proposed for inclusion in the park boundary. In addition, we 

would recommend providing the usual language requiring that the map referenced 

19 

in the bill be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 

National Park Service. We would be happy to provide the committee with recommended language for these amendments. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or members of the committee may have. 

ON S. 869

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

to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

on S. 869, a bill to establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, and 

for other purposes. 

The Department recommends deferring action on S. 869 until the National Park 

Service (NPS) completes a final review of the feasibility study for the proposed Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area. The NPS has reviewed the current feasibility study, submitted by the Center for the Study of the Black Belt at the University of West Alabama, and determined that there are nationally significant resources and stories associated with the Alabama Black Belt. However, the study 

needs to be revised before the NPS can determine that it meets the interim criteria 

for designation as a national heritage area. We recommend that the Center for the 

Study of the Black Belt continue to work with the NPS National Heritage Area Program to refine the statement of national importance, contributing resources, supporting themes, and boundary for the proposed heritage area, as well as other key 

sections of the study associated with these assessment topics. 

In addition, the Department recommends that Congress enact program legislation 

that establishes criteria to evaluate potential qualified national heritage areas and 

a process for the designation, funding, and administration of these areas before designating any additional new national heritage areas. 

Geographically, Alabama’s Black Belt is part of a larger crescent-shaped area 

known as the Southern Black Belt, which extends from Virginia to Texas. The term 

refers to the fertile black soil of the region. This soil drew pioneers to settle the 

lower-central portion of Alabama in the 1820s and 1830s where they established 

and operated a network of cotton plantations using the labor of enslaved African 

Americans. During the Antebellum era, the Alabama Black Belt became one of the 

wealthiest and most politically powerful regions in the United States. 

Throughout the Twentieth Century, this area gained fame as the site where the 

Tuskegee Airmen trained during World War II, and as a center of the civil rights 

movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Montgomery County was the site of the 1955- 

56 bus boycott that challenged segregation of public transportation. Highway 80 in 

Dallas, Lowndes, and Montgomery counties shaped the route taken by participants 

of the historic march for equal rights from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. The 

Lowndes County Freedom Organization, later the Black Panther Party, was an outgrowth of that march. 

S. 869 would establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area within 

nineteen counties in the State of Alabama. The Center for the Study of Black Belt 

would be designated as the Heritage Area’s local coordinating entity, and the bill 

defines the duties of the Center for the Study of Black Belt, including the preparation and implementation of a management plan. S. 869 also provides a process for 

review and approval of the management plan by the Secretary of the Interior. 

If the committee decides to move forward with S. 869, we would like to work with 

the committee to provide the appropriate map reference for the national heritage 

area and to ensure that the language of the bill is consistent with previously enacted national heritage area designations. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or any members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 925

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

present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 925, a bill to improve the 

Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 925, which would add a nearby property to the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site. 

The Lower East Side Tenement at 97 Orchard Street in New York City was designated a national historic site and made an ‘‘affiliated site’’ of the National Park 

System on November 12, 1998 (Public Law 105-378). The Lower East Side Tenement is owned and operated by the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, a nonprofit 

organization. Similar to many other affiliated areas of the National Park Service, 

20 

the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site receives financial and technical assistance from the National Park Service, as authorized by law. 

After being shuttered for over 50 years, the property at 97 Orchard Street was 

carefully restored by the museum to depict the lives of immigrants who lived in the 

five-story tenement between 1869 and 1935. The Lower East Side Tenement is the 

continuation of the story of the experience of immigrants after they arrived in the 

United States. It explains what happened once after they were processed at Ellis 

Island and, before that, at Castle Clinton. Many immigrants lived in dwellings in 

New York’s Lower East Side similar to 97 Orchard Street. The museum’s efforts to 

expand the stories it tells that represent the contemporary immigrant experience 

complement the interpretive work the National Park Service is doing at the Statue 

of Liberty, Ellis Island, and Castle Clinton. 

S. 925 would revise the national historic site’s 1998 designation to include 103 Orchard Street, which the museum purchased in 2007 to serve as a visitor center and 

provide exhibition and classroom space. The need for the kinds of administrative 

functions and visitor services that would be addressed by adding a property to the 

national historic site was recognized in the General Management Plan that the National Park Service prepared for the site in 2006. The bill would not provide any 

funding authority beyond that which current law already provides. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions you or members of the committee may have. 

ON S. 916

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 916 and H.R. 1033, to 

authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American 

Battlefield Protection Program. 

The Department supports S. 916 and H.R. 1033 with an amendment described 

later in this statement. This legislation would expand the American Battlefield Protection Program to include both the War of 1812 and Revolutionary War battlefields 

in addition to Civil War battlefields, which are covered under the current program. 

It would authorize a total of $10 million in grants for the American Battlefield Protection Program for both Civil War battlefield sites and Revolutionary War and War 

of 1812 battlefield sites, for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. 

In March 2008, the National Park Service transmitted the Report to Congress on 

the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Sites in the 

United States, which identified and determined the relative significance of sites related to the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The study assessed the short 

and long-term threats to the sites. Following the success of the 1993 Civil War Sites 

Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, this study similarly provides alternatives for the preservation and interpretation of the sites by 

Federal, State, and local governments or other public or private entities. 

The direction from Congress for the study was the same as for a Civil War sites 

study of the early 1990s. As authorized by Congress for this study, the National 

Park Service looked at sites and structures that are thematically tied with the nationally significant events that occurred during the Revolutionary War and the War 

of 1812. The result was a more thorough survey that represents twice the field effort 

undertaken for the Civil War study. 

Building upon this recent study, S. 916 and H.R. 1033 would create a matching 

grant program for Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 sites that closely mirrors 

a very successful matching grant program for Civil War sites. The Civil War acquisition grant program was first authorized by Congress in the Civil War Battlefield 

Protection Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359), and was reauthorized by the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11). That grant fund has 

been tremendously successful in allowing local preservation efforts to permanently 

preserve Civil War battlefield land with a minimum of Federal assistance. 

With the release of the Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Sites in the United States, communities interested 

in preserving their Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 sites can take the first 

steps similar to those taken by the Civil War advocates 20 years ago. If established, 

this new grant program can complement the existing grant program for Civil War 

battlefields and, in doing so, become a benefit to the American people by providing 

for the preservation and protection of a greater number of sites from the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. 

The NPS is currently finalizing its update to the 1993 Civil War Sites report, 

which reviews the conditions of 383 Civil War battlefields, and which we plan to 

21 

transmit to Congress in 2013. As currently drafted, S. 916 and H.R. 1033 require 

another update of the condition of these same Civil War battlefields in five years, 

in addition to an update of the 677 sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 

1812 identified in the Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Sites in the United States. The NPS feels that 

updating information for all of these sites, most of which are not within the National Park System itself, will not be feasible in five years. Therefore, the NPS suggests one change in the reporting language of the bill so that the reporting requirement for the Civil War update is not later than 10 years after the date of enactment. 

The Department recommends an amendment to S. 916 and H.R. 1033 to include 

language for combined funding of $20 million for both the Civil War and the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 acquisition grant programs in each of fiscal years 

2014 through 2018. Under current law, $10 million is authorized for the Civil War 

battlefields alone. With the addition of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields to the program, we believe that a $20 million annual authorization would 

be appropriate. We would be happy to provide language for this amendment. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions from you and members of the committee. 

ON S. 995

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

Interior’s testimony regarding S. 995, a bill to authorize the National Desert Storm 

Memorial Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports S. 995 with an amendment. 

S. 995 would authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial as a commemorative 

work, on Federal land in the District of Columbia. This memorial would commemorate and honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield. This bill also prohibits 

the use of federal funds to establish this memorial, and directs the Association to 

be solely responsible for accepting contributions for, and paying the expenses of, the 

establishment of the memorial. 

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded and occupied Kuwait. Fearing an Iraqi 

invasion of Saudi Arabia and a loss of control of Saudi oil fields, the United States 

launched Operation Desert Shield on August 7, 1990. This defensive buildup was 

intended to deter further Iraqi aggression and to persuade Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait. After diplomatic efforts failed, U.S. and other coalition forces began military 

actions against Iraq on January 17, 1991, in what is known as Operation Desert 

Storm. The aerial bombardment and the ensuing ground invasion of Iraq resulted 

in the destruction of Iraqi forces and their retreat from Kuwait, and hostilities concluded on February 28, 1991. A total of 294 Americans lost their lives over the 

course of the conflict, including 114 from enemy action. There is currently no national memorial to Operations Desert Shield or Desert Storm. 

The National Desert Storm Memorial Association is a 501(c)(3) corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas whose mission is to establish a national memorial to these conflicts. 

The Department notes that Section 3(b) of this bill requires the establishment of 

the memorial to comply with Chapter 89 of Title 40, United States Code, commonly 

known as the ‘‘Commemorative Works Act’’. The Commemorative Works Act establishes a process for the establishment of new memorials on certain Federal lands 

within the District of Columbia. 

On November 7, 2012, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission 

(NCMAC) reviewed the previous version of this bill, H.R. 5914, which was introduced in the 112th Congress. On December 20, 2012, after confirming with the Department of Defense that Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm were major 

military operations, the Commission informed the House Natural Resources Committee of its unanimous support for the proposal. 

Although S. 995 provides for the deposit of excess funds, the Department recommends that Section 3(d) of the bill be amended to clarify the disposition of excess 

funds should the authority to establish the memorial lapse. We would be glad to 

work with the Subcommittee to amend the existing language. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have. 

22 

ON S. 1044

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1044, a bill which directs 

the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial 

in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed with the United States on D-Day, June 

6, 1944. 

The Department appreciates the importance of faith in the lives of Americans 

across this country, the leadership of President Roosevelt, and the courage and sacrifices of Americans during World War II and today. The World War II Memorial 

recognizes a period of unprecedented national unity during the defining moment of 

the twentieth century, and is devoted to the service, commitment, and shared sacrifice of Americans. 

The Department appreciates the efforts by the sponsor, Senator Rob Portman, to 

work with the National Park Service (NPS) on this legislation. S. 1044 proposes 

adding a commemorative work in the area of the existing World War II Memorial. 

We support the continued application of the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). Section 2 of this bill states that the Secretary of the Interior shall design, procure, prepare, and install the plaque or inscription, thus allowing the NPS to determine the 

placement and design of the plaque. However, section 3 of the bill requires a different method of designing and locating the plaque or inscription than is provided 

in the CWA. The CWA process incorporates important design reviews and public 

consultation. We support retaining the CWA as the vehicle for siting and designing 

this plaque or inscription. 

The World War II Memorial was authorized on May 23, 1993, by Public Law 103- 

32. In 1994, Congress approved its placement in the area containing the National 

Mall in Public Law 103-422. Its location at the site of the Rainbow Pool was approved in 1995 by the NPS on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). 

In July 1997, the CFA and the NCPC reaffirmed prior approvals of the Rainbow 

Pool site in recognition of the significance of World War II as the single-most defining event of the 20th Century for Americans and the world. Even so, there were 

challenges to the establishment of this memorial. The design we see today was 

painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate. 

The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) reviewed a proposal similar to the one before the committee today at its meeting on September 

14, 2011, and determined that no additional elements should be inserted into this 

carefully designed Memorial. The American Battle Monuments Commission 

(ABMC), charged by the Congress in Public Law 103-32 to design and build the 

World War II Memorial, is represented on the NCMAC, and thus concurred with 

that determination. 

If directed by Congress pursuant to this legislation, the NPS will work to find an 

appropriate location for the plaque in accordance with the CWA process, as directed 

in section 3 of this legislation. 

That concludes our prepared testimony on S. 1044, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

ON S. 1071

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

to present the views of the Department on S. 1071, a bill to authorize the Secretary 

of the Interior (Secretary) to make improvements to support facilities for National 

Historic Sites operated by the National Park Service (NPS), and for other purposes. 

The Department could only support this legislation if amended to apply specifically to Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. The bill as introduced would 

apply to any national historic site that meets certain criteria. We are only aware 

of one site, Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, to which this bill could 

apply. We believe it is better for Congress to provide specific authority to individual 

parks on a case-by-case basis, rather than to appear to provide broad authority that 

only applies to one unit of the National Park System and that could have unintended consequences. 

This legislation would authorize the Secretary to make improvements to a nonFederal support facility, including a visitor center, at a national historic site operated by the NPS if the project is: (1) conducted using amounts included in the budget of the NPS in effect on the date on which the project is authorized; (2) subject 

to a 50 percent non-federal cost-sharing requirement; and (3) conducted in an area 

23 

in which the NPS was authorized by law in effect before the date of enactment of 

this Act to establish a support facility. 

This bill would only allow the NPS to use existing funds to make improvements 

to support facilities at national historic sites that meet these criteria at the time 

that the bill is enacted. The bill would not authorize any new appropriations, and 

Federal spending would not increase as a result of the enactment of this legislation. 

S. 1071 would also authorize the Secretary to operate and use all or part of such 

a support facility to carry out duties associated with operating and supporting the 

national historic site, but only in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary and the unit of local government in which the support facility is located. 

This legislation would allow national historic sites that meet the bill’s criteria to 

partner with State and local governments to leverage non-Federal funding to improve facilities that are mutually beneficial to the National Park Service and to the 

local community. For example, Kiowa County, Colorado, purchased a historic building in 2007. They plan to use a portion of this building as a senior citizens center. 

The remainder of the building would be an ideal location for a visitor center and 

administrative facility for the nearby Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. 

The local community has already raised matching funds for renovations, and would 

like to partner with the NPS to make improvements to the building so that it can 

be used as both an NPS facility and a senior citizens center for the local community. 

The Department recognizes the need to use Federal funds responsibly and we believe that national parks should, on a case-by-case basis, be authorized and allowed 

to partner with State and local governments to make capital investments in a nonFederally owned building that directly benefits the park, the local community, and 

the American people. In this case, allowing the NPS to partner with Kiowa County 

to make improvements to this support facility would provide much needed facilities 

for the park. In other cases, however, NPS could be expected to use its limited capital improvement resources for improvements that do not directly benefit the park. 

The legislation that established Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site (Pub. 

L. 106-465) authorizes a support facility to be located outside the park boundary, 

in Kiowa County, Colorado. We urge the committee to amend that provision to allow 

Federal funds to be used to make improvements to a facility for that purpose. We 

would be happy to work with the committee to develop the appropriate amendments. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may have. 

ON S. 1138

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1138, a bill to reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. 

The Department recognizes the important work of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area to preserve heritage resources in the Hudson River Valley between Yonkers and Troy, New York. We recommend that S. 1138 be amended to 

authorize an extension for heritage area program funding until we have completed 

an evaluation and report on the accomplishments of the area and the future role 

of the National Park Service; and until national heritage area program legislation 

is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding for designated national heritage areas. Consistent with congressional directives in the FY 2009 and FY 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration proposed, in the FY 2014 budget, focusing most national heritage area grants on recently authorized areas. The Department would like to work with Congress to determine the future federal role when 

national heritage areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage legislation during this Congress. 

There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and administration of these areas. Program 

legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas, offering guidelines for successful planning and management, 

clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes 

and funding for designated areas. 

S. 1138, as introduced, would extend the authorization of federal funding for the 

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area for an additional 9 years. The Hudson 

River Valley National Heritage Area was established in 1996 by Public Law 104- 

333. The national heritage area includes 250 communities in ten counties bordering 

the Hudson River for 154 miles of tidal estuary along with three million acres of 

the Hudson Highlands, the Catskill Mountains, rolling farmland and compact vilVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
24 

lages, as well as small cities and hamlets. The region extends from the confluence 

of the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, south to the northern border of New York City. 

The mission of this national heritage area is to recognize, preserve, and promote 

the natural and cultural resources of the Hudson River Valley. This is accomplished 

through a voluntary partnership with communities and citizens, and local, state, 

and federal agencies emphasizing public access, economic development, regional 

planning, and interpretive programs. 

Public Law 104-333 designated the Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities 

Council and the Greenway Heritage Conservancy, Inc., as the local coordinating entities for the national heritage area. The heritage area local coordinating entities facilitate public private partnerships for the preservation of heritage resources and 

work closely with National Park Service staff at Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites. The national heritage area’s work focuses on regional initiatives for heritage programming, interpretation, and education, preservation and resource stewardship, heritage development and infrastructure, and planning and design. 

During its 16 years of existence, the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area 

has a significant record of achievement and, with government funding assistance 

since its establishment, has shown significant success in working with partners and 

the federal government to preserve, interpret, and promote the significant resources 

in their local areas. Every federal dollar has been matched with non-federal funds. 

In total, Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area has received nearly $9 million 

in federal funding, and every federal dollar has been matched at least once with 

non-federal funds. 

The Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area has taken the lead on numerous 

initiatives to engage the public. One such initiative, Heritage Weekend, gives visitors the opportunity to discover—or rediscover-many historic, architectural, and natural treasures in the state. The national heritage area staff also works tirelessly to 

connect sites and schools to create unique place-based curriculum; this curriculum 

can be replicated and used by others through a website that provides academic resources regarding the heritage and culture of the Hudson River Valley. Moreover, 

the staff facilitates the creation of region-wide ‘‘shows’’ focusing on nature and culture sub-themes. On a more fundamental level, the staff prints map and guides, and 

advances a graphic identity at partner sites. The staff also continues to help communities and trail groups establish a system of trails that link cultural and historic 

sites, parks, open spaces, and community centers. This trail system provides public 

access to the Hudson River as well. 

We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to make it clear 

that the bill would extend the authorization for federal funding for the national heritage area instead of reauthorizing the national heritage area. While the Hudson 

River Valley National Heritage Area faces a sunset for its Federal funding, its national heritage area designation will not sunset. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

ON S. 1151

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1151, a bill to reauthorize the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership in the State of Iowa. 

The Department recognizes the important work of the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership, better known as the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage 

Area, in northeast Iowa. We recommend that S. 1151 be amended to authorize an 

extension for heritage area program funding until Congress has had time to consider the recently completed evaluation and report on the accomplishments of the 

heritage area and the future role of the National Park Service that was recently 

transmitted to Congress this past month; and until heritage area program legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding for designated national 

heritage areas. Consistent with congressional directives in the 2009 and 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration proposed, in the FY 2014 budget, focusing most national heritage area grants on recently authorized areas. The Department would like to work with Congress to determine the future federal role when 

heritage areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage program 

funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage area legislation during this Congress. 

There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and administration of these areas. Program 

legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas, offering guidelines for successful planning and management, 

25 

clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes 

and funding for designated areas. 

The Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area was established in 1996 by 

Public Law 103-333 to interpret farm life, agribusiness and rural communities, past 

and present. It preserves and tells the story of American agriculture and its global 

significance through partnerships and activities that celebrate the land, people, and 

communities of the area. The heart of America’s agricultural revolution still exists 

in the region, and the national heritage area is telling the breadth and scope of this 

story in a compelling, meaningful way. 

The heritage of American agriculture and its influence on the global agricultural 

revolution was considered to be nationally distinctive and met the criteria for national heritage area designation. American agriculture is one of the primary sources 

of this country’s wealth and world leadership and should be preserved and interpreted. The Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area preserves and interprets 

a rich cultural landscape that includes family farms, historic industrial architecture, 

and rural communities across a 37-county region in northeast Iowa covering over 

20,000 square miles. This broad agrarian landscape is rare in today’s pattern of 

urban and suburban expanding into rural areas. 

The national heritage area is managed by the America’s Agricultural Heritage 

Partnership (Partnership), this local coordinating entity facilitates public private 

partnerships for the preservation and interpretation of heritage resources. The Partnership’s work focuses on regional initiatives for heritage programming, interpretation and education, preservation and resource stewardship, heritage development 

and infrastructure, and planning and design. 

During its 16 years of existence, the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage 

Area has a significant record of achievement. It has worked closely with the regional 

business community, county and state governments, and multiple non-governmental 

organizations to build a network of partner sites dedicated to preserving and interpreting the past, present, and future of America’s agricultural story. Working together, the network has developed a successful public information and way-finding 

program for promoting tourism that welcomes visitors along the major highway corridors surrounding the region and identifies the more than 100 partner sites in the 

heritage area. The new signs serve as a connecting thread for this network of sites, 

while letting visitors know they can discover a piece of America’s agricultural story 

being preserved at the site. This way-finding program has not only helped visitors 

find tourism destinations within the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, 

but has also helped the heritage area develop a regional identity. 

The bedrock of the National Heritage Area concept has always been building partnerships for achieving goals. The Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, 

with minimal government funding assistance since its establishment, has shown significant success in working with partners and the federal government to preserve, 

interpret, and promote the significant resources of northeast Iowa. Since its establishment, the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area has received almost 

$9.5 million in federal funding, and every federal dollar has been matched at least 

once with non-federal funds. 

S. 1151, as is written now, would extend the authorization for federal funding for 

the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area for an additional 10 years. The 

Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area is one of the nine heritage areas 

evaluated by the National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 110-229. The completed evaluation for the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area was recently transmitted to Congress this past month, and included recommendations on 

the future role of the National Park Service in the area. 

We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to make it clear 

that the bill would extend the authorization for federal funding for the heritage area 

instead of reauthorizing the heritage area. While the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area faces a sunset for its federal funding, its national heritage area 

designation will not sunset. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

ON S. 1157

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1157, a bill to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National 

Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the 

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area. 

26 

The Department recognizes the important work of the four national heritage 

areas to preserve historic, cultural, natural, and recreational resources in Pennsylvania. We recommend that S. 1157 be amended to authorize an extension for heritage area program funding until we have completed an evaluation and report on the 

accomplishments of the national heritage areas and the future role of the National 

Park Service; and until program legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes 

and funding for designated national heritage areas. Consistent with congressional 

directives in the 2009 and 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration 

proposed, in the FY 2014 budget, focusing most national heritage area grants on recently authorized areas. The Department would like to work with Congress to determine the future federal role when national heritage areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for national heritage program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage area legislation during this Congress. 

There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and administration of these areas. Program 

legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas, offering guidelines for successful planning and management, 

clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes 

and funding for designated areas. 

All four areas have lengthy records of leadership and accomplishment. All four are 

recognized for their important histories and rich and distinctive historic and natural 

resources. At each, numerous partner organizations and local, state, and federal 

agencies work together through the singular opportunity for collaboration that the 

national heritage area model provides. Each area developed a thoughtful plan with 

the community and has made enormous strides in saving historic resources, developing trails, preserving open space, building community pride, enhancing education, 

and promoting economic development that responds to these essential elements of 

their quality of life. 

Created by Public Law 104-333 in 1996, the Rivers of Steel National Heritage 

Area (Rivers of Steel) is made up of eight counties in southwestern Pennsylvania 

known for their significant contributions to the steel industry in America. The mission of Rivers of Steel is to preserve and interpret the history of the region and 

share the dynamic story of the evolution of southwestern Pennsylvania from a small 

colonial settlement to the flourishing of the steel industry in the area. 

The Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area (Lackawanna) was established by 

Public Law 106-278 in 2000. The Lackawanna includes four counties in northeastern Pennsylvania with historical ties to the anthracite coal industry. These 

counties preserve nationally distinctive resources related to Pennsylvania and 

America’s industrial history, including the history of major labor unions and the 

struggle to improve working conditions of mine workers. The architecture, ethnic 

traditions, and infrastructure of the anthracite region tell the story of the Lackawanna Valley and its role in the industrial development of the United States. The 

mission of the Lackawanna is to conserve, interpret, and develop the historical, cultural, natural, recreational, and economic development resources associated with the 

area’s significant history. 

The Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor (Delaware and Lehigh) was 

established by Public Law 100-692 in 1988, the third National Heritage Area created by Congress. The 150-mile spine of the Delaware and Lehigh is the historic 

Delaware Canal and Lehigh Navigation Canal through five counties in eastern 

Pennsylvania. The Delaware and Lehigh commemorates the historic routes of rivers, 

canals, and railroads-and the people and communities involved-that brought anthracite coal from the mines to market in the early nineteenth century, fostering the 

development of vibrant towns and culture. The purpose of the Delaware and Lehigh 

is to provide an integrated management structure that facilitates preservation, 

recreation, education, and economic development. 

The Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area (Schuylkill River Valley) was 

established by Public Law 106-278 in 2000. The Schuylkill River Valley conserves, 

interprets, and develops the historical, cultural, natural, recreational, and economic 

resources related to the heritage of the area, encompassing five counties in southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia. The area is rich in Revolutionary War 

history, and the anthracite, charcoal, iron, and textile industries of the region grew 

here. 

The bedrock of the national heritage area concept has always been building partnerships for achieving goals. All four of these non-profit national heritage areas, 

with government funding assistance since their establishment, have shown significant success in working with partners and the federal government to preserve, interpret, and promote the significant resources in their local areas. In total, Lackawanna has received approximately $6.7 million in Federal funding, Rivers of Steel 

27 

has received about $13.4 million in Federal funding, Delaware and Lehigh has received almost $12.7 million, and Schuylkill River Valley has received nearly $5.9 

million in Federal funding, and every federal dollar has been matched at least once 

with non-federal funds. 

S. 1157, as drafted, would extend the authorization for federal funding for these 

four heritage areas for an additional ten years. Currently, the Evaluation and Report required by Public Law 110-229 is being completed for Rivers of Steel and we 

anticipate the evaluation will be transmitted to Congress this year. The NPS and 

the Delaware and Lehigh completed an evaluation for the Delaware and Lehigh; 

however, this evaluation did not include recommendations on what the future role 

of the National Park Service should be in the area. The National Park Service will 

take another look at the evaluation and include recommendations on the future role 

of the National Park Service prior to transmitting it to Congress in order to be consistent with the other reports. 

We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to make it clear 

that the bill would extend the authorization for federal funding for the four heritage 

areas instead of reauthorizing the heritage areas. While the four heritage areas face 

a sunset date for their federal funding, their national heritage area designation will 

not sunset. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

ON S. 1186

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1186, a bill to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. 

The Department recognizes the important work of the Essex National Heritage 

Area to preserve heritage resources in Essex County, Massachusetts. We recommend that S. 1186 be amended to authorize an extension for heritage area program funding until Congress has had time to consider the completed evaluation and 

report on the accomplishments of the area and the future role of the National Park 

Service that was recently transmitted to Congress during this past month; and until 

heritage area program legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding for designated national heritage areas. Consistent with congressional directives 

in the 2009 and 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration proposed, in 

the FY 2014 budget, focusing most national heritage area grants on recently authorized areas. The Department would like to work with Congress to determine the future federal role when heritage areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility 

for heritage program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage 

legislation during this Congress. 

There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and administration of these areas. Program 

legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas, offering guidelines for successful planning and management, 

clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes 

and funding for designated areas. 

Essex National Heritage Area was established in 1996 by Public Law 103-333. 

This national heritage area was established to recognize, preserve, promote, and interpret the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the North Shore and lower 

Merrimack River valley in Essex County, Massachusetts. The early settlement history, maritime history, and the imprint of the early industrial era on the landscape, 

in particular, were considered to be nationally distinctive and met the criteria for 

national heritage area designation. Essex National Heritage Area preserves and interprets a rich cultural landscape that includes historic homes, small family farms, 

and historic industrial architecture. Additionally, it contains an array of scenic and 

natural resources such as rocky coasts and harbors, marshlands, and rivers. Essex 

National Heritage Area spans 500 square miles in northeastern Massachusetts, and 

includes 34 cities and towns. 

The Essex National Heritage Area is managed by the Essex National Heritage 

Commission (Commission), which facilitates public private partnerships for the preservation of heritage resources and works closely with National Park Service staff 

at Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus Iron Works National Historic 

Site, both of which are within the boundary of the national heritage area. The Commission’s work focuses on regional initiatives for heritage programming, interpretation, and education, preservation and resource stewardship, heritage development 

and infrastructure, and planning and design. 

28 

During its 16 years of existence, Essex National Heritage Area has a significant 

record of achievement. The national heritage area has worked closely with National 

Park Service staff at Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works on a variety of educational and interpretive programs to educate visitors and students about local heritage resources. One successful example is the Trails & Sails weekend, a countywide event that involves more than 50 host organizations at over 140 locations in 

Essex County in providing interpretive tours, hikes, walks, sail trips, and special 

events at no charge to participants. The Essex Local History In a National Context 

program has also successfully brought the main themes of the Essex National Heritage Area into area classrooms. 

The national heritage area has played a significant role in local communities in 

helping to inventory and research historic resources. Working with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Essex National Heritage Area 

created a catalog of heritage landscapes that communities had identified as being 

valuable and worthy of protection. In all, communities identified 1,320 resources in 

24 of the 34 municipalities included within the boundary of the national heritage 

area. Additionally, the inventory articulated strategies for preserving these historic 

resources and landscapes. 

Essex National Heritage Area has also implemented a successful public information and wayfinding campaign for promoting tourism. More than 80 directional 

highway signs have been installed within the national heritage area that point visitors toward regional visitor centers and historic and natural visitor destinations. 

These signs not only have helped visitors find tourism destinations within Essex 

National Heritage Area, they have also helped create a regional identity for the national heritage area. Essex National Heritage Area also plays a significant role in 

leveraging federal dollars. In total, Essex National Heritage Area has received approximately $13.2 million in federal funding, and every federal dollar has been 

matched at least once with non-federal dollars. 

S. 1186, as written, would extend the authorization of federal funding for Essex 

National Heritage Area for an additional 15 years and increase the authorization 

of appropriations by $10 million. The Essex National Heritage Area is one of the 

nine national heritage areas identified for evaluation by the National Park Service 

pursuant to Public Law 110-229. The completed Essex National Heritage Area evaluation was recently transmitted to Congress this past month. The evaluation report 

includes recommendations on the future role of the National Park Service in the 

area. 

We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to make it clear 

that the bill would extend the authorization for Federal funding for the heritage 

area instead of reauthorizing the heritage area. While the Essex National Heritage 

Area faces a sunset for its federal funding, its national heritage area designation 

does not sunset. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

ON S. 1252

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

today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1252, a bill to 

amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the 

Missisquoi River and the Trout River in the State of Vermont, as components of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

The Department has preliminarily determined through the National Park Service’s draft study of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout rivers that the segments proposed for designation under this bill are eligible for inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. However, the study report is only in the preliminary internal review stage. We recommend that the committee defer action on S. 1252 until 

the study is completed, which is consistent with the Department’s general policy on 

legislation designating additions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System when a study 

of the subject is pending. 

S. 1252 would designate two segments of the Upper Missisquoi River totaling 35.1 

miles and the entire mainstem of its tributary, the Trout River, totaling 11 miles, 

as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to be administered by the Secretary 

of the Interior as recreational rivers. The segments would be managed in accordance 

with the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan (March 2013) prepared as a part of the study, with the Secretary coordinating administration and 

management with a locally based management committee, as specified in the plan. 

The bill would authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with the 

State of Vermont, the adjoining communities, and appropriate local planning and 

29 

environmental organizations. The legislation follows the model of other recent New 

England Wild and Scenic River designations based on a ‘‘partnership’’ model emphasizing locally based management solutions and a limited federal role. 

S. 1252 would exclude from designation the property and project boundaries associated with the Troy and North Troy hydroelectric projects, both of which are small, 

run-of-river projects that have Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exemptions-permanent authority to operate under existing terms. A third hydroelectric 

facility, the Enosburg Falls project, lies immediately downstream of the lower endpoint of the Missisquoi mainstem proposed designation. The Department does not 

view these projects as being in conflict with the proposed designation. 

S. 1252 also contains language that would allow the Secretary to designate an additional 3.8 mile segment at the headwaters of the Missisquoi within the Town of 

Lowell, subject to a finding of sufficient local support. This provision would allow 

the Town of Lowell, which did not support designation at its March 2013 Town 

Meeting, to opt into the designation at some future point without the need for additional congressional action. 

The study of the Upper Missisquopi and Trout was authorized by P.L. 111-11, the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The National Park Service has conducted the study in close cooperation with the adjoining communities, the State of 

Vermont, the Missisquoi River Basin Association, and other interested local parties. 

Technical assistance provided as a part of the study made possible the development 

of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan (March 2013). This 

plan is based primarily around local partner actions designed to guide the management of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout rivers with or without a National Wild and 

Scenic River designation. Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of a comprehensive river management plan within three years of the date 

of designation, it has become the practice of the National Park Service to prepare 

this plan as part of a study of potential wild and scenic rivers when much of the 

river runs through private lands. This allows the National Park Service to consult 

widely with local landowners, federal and state land management agencies, local 

governments, river authorities, and other groups that have interests related to the 

river prior to any recommendation for designation. Early preparation of the plan 

also assures input from these entities as well as users of the river on the management strategies that would be needed to protect the river’s resources. 

While the study has not been finalized, the data collected and presented in the 

preparation of the Management Plan support the conclusion that the segments proposed for designation by S. 1252 exhibit free-flowing character and the presence of 

outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural and recreation resource values consistent with Wild and Scenic River eligibility. The study process, which culminated 

in town meeting votes supporting both the Management Plan and Wild and Scenic 

River designation, has also demonstrated strong local, state and partner support 

crucial to successful long-term management and protection of partnership-based 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Resource values of note include the Northern Forest Canoe 

Trail which utilizes a portion of the Upper Missisquoi, and is developing substantial 

momentum as a regional and national canoe route. Big Falls State Park on the 

Missisquoi is home to Vermont’s largest undammed falls and is one of numerous 

spectacular falls and gorges exhibited by the river and its tributaries. The Trout 

River in Montgomery is also the location of a collection of National Register-listed 

covered bridges considered one of the most significant assemblages in the State of 

Vermont. 

If S. 1252 is enacted, the Upper Missisquopi and Trout would be administered as 

a partnership wild and scenic river, similar to several other designations in the 

Northeast, including the upper Farmington River and the Eightmile River in Connecticut, and the Lamprey River in New Hampshire. This approach emphasizes 

local and state management solutions, and has proven effective as a means of protecting outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural, and recreational resource values 

without the need for direct federal management or land acquisition. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you or other committee members may have regarding this bill. 

ON S. 1253

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

today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1253, a bill to 

amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut as components of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

30 

The Department has preliminarily concluded through the National Park Service’s 

draft study of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook that the segments 

proposed for designation under this bill are eligible for inclusion into the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, we recommend that the committee defer 

action on S. 2286 until the study is completed, which is consistent with the Department’s general policy on legislation designating additions to the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System when a study of the subject is pending. Our process is nearly complete, and final transmittal to Congress is likely in the very near future. 

S. 1253 would designate 35.3 miles of the Farmington River and the entire 26.4 

miles of its major tributary, Salmon Brook, as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. The segments would 

be managed in accordance with the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook 

Management Plan (June 2011) with the Secretary coordinating administration and 

management with a locally based management committee, as specified in the plan. 

The bill would authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with the 

State of Connecticut, the adjoining communities, and appropriate local planning and 

environmental organizations. S. 1253 would also make an adjustment to the upper 

Farmington Wild and Scenic River, which was designated in 1994, by adding 1.1 

miles to the lower end of that 14-mile designation. 

S. 1253 would complete the wild and scenic river designation of the Farmington 

River in Connecticut by designating all of the mainstem Farmington River segments 

found to meet the criteria of eligibility and suitability. At the same time, S. 1253 

would provide for the continued operation of one existing hydroelectric facility-Rainbow Dam in Windsor-and allow for potential ydroelectric development of existing 

dams in the Collinsville stretch of the river, which is currently the subject of an active Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing proceeding sponsored 

by the Town of Canton. However, we have concerns regarding the potential future 

FERC licensing of Rainbow Dam. If the committee acts on this legislation, we would 

like to ensure that if operations were to be changed, wild and scenic river values 

upstream and downstream of the hydro project would be protected. We would be 

pleased to provide recommended language to the committee to address this issue. 

P.L. 109-370, the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Study Act of 2005, 

authorized the study of the segments proposed for designation in S. 1253. The National Park Service conducted the study in close cooperation with the adjoining communities, the State of Connecticut, the Farmington River Watershed Association, 

the Stanley Black & Decker Corporation (owner of Rainbow Dam) and other interested local parties. Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of a comprehensive river management plan within three years of the date of 

designation, it has become the practice of the National Park Service to prepare this 

plan as part of a study of potential wild and scenic rivers when much of the river 

runs through private lands. This allows the National Park Service to consult widely 

with local landowners, federal and state land management agencies, local governments, river authorities, and other groups that have interests related to the river 

prior to any recommendation for designation. Early preparation of the plan also 

assures input from these entities as well as users of the river on the management 

strategies that would be needed to protect the river’s resources. 

Technical assistance provided as a part of the study made possible the development of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan (June 

2011). This plan is based primarily around local partner actions designed to guide 

the management of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook with or without 

a National Wild and Scenic River designation. 

While the study has not been transmitted to Congress, it has preliminarily concluded that the proposed segments of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon 

Brook are eligible and suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System because of their free-flowing nature and outstandingly remarkable geology, 

water quality, biological diversity, cultural landscape, recreation values and local 

authority to protect and enhance these values. These findings substantiate the widely held view of the Farmington River as Connecticut’s premier, free-flowing river resource for a diversity of natural and cultural values, including one of New England’s 

most significant whitewater boating runs, regionally unique freshwater mussel populations, and outstanding examples of archaeological and historical sites and districts spanning Native American, colonial and early manufacturing periods. Salmon 

Brook is, in its own right, highly significant for outstanding water quality and significant cold water fishery. 

If S. 2286 is enacted, the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook would be 

administered as a partnership wild and scenic river, similar to several other designations in the Northeast, including the upper Farmington River and the Eightmile 

River in Connecticut. This approach emphasizes local and state management soluVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
31 

tions, and has proven effective as a means of protecting outstandingly remarkable 

natural, cultural and recreational resource values without the need for direct federal 

management or land acquisition. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other committee members may have regarding this bill. 

ON S. 1328

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

Department of the Interior’s views on S. 1328, a bill to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the archeological site, and surrounding land of the New Philadelphia town site in the State of Illinois, and for 

other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 1328. However, we believe that priority 

should be given to the 30 previously authorized studies for potential units of the 

National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic River System that 

have not yet been transmitted to the Congress. 

S. 1328 authorizes a special resource study to evaluate the national significance 

of the New Philadelphia, Illinois town site and to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the archaeological site and the surrounding land as a unit of 

the National Park System. The bill directs the Secretary, in the course of the resource study, to also consider other alternatives for the preservation, protection and 

interpretation of the archeological site of New Philadelphia, Illinois and the surrounding land by Federal, State or local government entities, private nonprofit organizations or any other interested individuals. We estimate the cost of the resource 

study to range from $200,000 to $300,000, based on similar types of studies conducted in recent years. 

The New Philadelphia town site, located near Barry, Illinois, was founded in 1836 

by Frank McWhorter, an enslaved man from Kentucky, who bought his own freedom 

and the freedom of 15 family members. New Philadelphia is the first known town 

platted and officially registered by an African-American before the Civil War. The 

rural community situated near the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers flourished at first, 

but later fell into decline when the railroad bypassed the community in 1869; it was 

eventually dissolved in 1885. The New Philadelphia town site is a 42-acre archeological site with no visible above-ground evidence. It was designated a National Historic Landmark on January 16, 2009. 

In 2012, the National Park Service completed a reconnaissance survey of the New 

Philadelphia town site. The survey found that the site is nationally significant and 

would likely meet the criteria for suitability to be added to the National Park System. The survey also found, however, that the New Philadelphia town site is not 

likely to be feasible for addition to the National Park System due to the challenges 

of providing for public enjoyment, including associated operation and staffing costs. 

However, a special resource study also would examine alternatives to National Park 

Service management for the preservation and interpretation of the New Philadelphia town site. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you or other committee members may have regarding this bill. 

ON S. 1339

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1339, a bill to reauthorize the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway. 

The Department recognizes the important work of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway to preserve heritage resources in northeast Ohio from Cleveland to 

New Philadelphia and its role in linking Cuyahoga Valley National Park to the residents of Cleveland, Akron, and other communities through the preservation and 

maintenance of the canal’s towpath that runs through the heart of the park. We recommend that S. 1339 be amended to authorize an extension for heritage area program funding until we have completed an evaluation and report on the accomplishments of the area and the future role of the National Park Service; and until national heritage area program legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes 

and funding for designated national heritage areas. Consistent with congressional 

directives in the FY 2009 and FY 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration proposed, in the FY 2014 budget, focusing most national heritage area 

grants on recently authorized areas and reducing and/or phasing out funds to wellestablished recipients to encourage self-sufficiency. The Department would like to 

work with Congress to determine the future federal role when national heritage 

32 

areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage program funding. We 

recommend that Congress enact national heritage legislation during this Congress. 

There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and administration of these areas. Program 

legislation would provide a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas, offering guidelines for successful planning and management, 

clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes 

and funding for designated areas. 

S. 1339, as introduced, would extend the authorization of federal funding for the 

Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway for an additional 9 years. The Ohio & Erie 

National Heritage Canalway, originally called the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, was established in 1996 by Public Law 104-333. This national heritage area includes the counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas in 

northeast Ohio. The region extends from Lake Erie along the Erie Canal through 

Cleveland to New Philadelphia. 

The mission of this national heritage area is to preserve and interpret and celebrate the rails, trails, landscapes, towns and sites that grew up along the first 100 

miles of the Ohio & Erie Canalway that helped Ohio and our nation grow. This is 

accomplished through a voluntary partnership with communities and citizens, and 

local, state, and federal agencies emphasizing public access, economic development, 

regional planning, and interpretive programs. 

Public Law 104-333 designated the Ohio & Erie Canal Association as the management entity for the national heritage area. The heritage area management entity 

facilitates public private partnerships for the preservation of heritage resources and 

works closely with National Park Service staff at Cuyahoga Valley National Park. 

The national heritage area’s work focuses on regional initiatives for heritage programming, interpretation and education, preservation and resource stewardship, 

heritage development and infrastructure, and planning and design, all linking the 

canal communities together through the canal’s towpath trail. 

During its 16 years of existence, the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway has 

a significant record of achievement and, with government funding assistance since 

its establishment, has shown significant success in working with partners and the 

federal government to preserve, interpret, and promote the significant resources of 

the local communities along the Ohio & Erie Canalway. In total, the Ohio & Erie 

National Heritage Canalway has received almost $13.3 million in federal funding, 

and every federal dollar has been matched at least once with non-federal funds. 

The Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway has taken the lead on initiatives 

such as the development of 73 miles of the multi-use recreational Towpath Trail 

from Cleveland to New Philadelphia, Ohio, that is used by thousands of visitors 

each year. The management entity has worked tirelessly to connect sites, communities and parklands, resulting in the creation of thousands of new national park 

and towpath trail users. They continue to help communities and trail groups establish a system of county trails and green spaces, with over 400 miles of trails that 

link cultural and historic sites, parks, open spaces, and community centers as well 

as providing public access to the Ohio & Erie Canalway. 

We recommend two technical amendments to the long title of the bill to make it 

clear that the bill would extend the authorization for federal funding for the national heritage area instead of reauthorizing the national heritage area and to correct the name of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway. While the Ohio & 

Erie National Heritage Canalway faces a sunset for its federal funding, its national 

heritage area designation will not sunset. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

ON H.R. 674

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

Interior’s testimony regarding H.R. 674, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and 

limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as 

a unit of the National Park System. 

The Department supports H.R. 674 with a technical amendment. Priority should 

be given, however, to the 30 previously authorized studies for potential units of the 

National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic River System that 

have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

H.R. 674 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete a Special Resource Study of sites on the Island of Rota for potential inclusion in the National 

33 

Park System. We estimate that this study will cost approximately $250,000— 

$300,000. 

Rota, where the indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian people have retained their 

cultural heritage in its natural environment, is the southernmost island of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Spared the population displacement of other colonial islands and largely bypassed during World War II, Rota 

preserves striking examples of the three thousand-year-old Chamorro culture surrounded by the best remaining expanse of this island chain’s native limestone forest. 

The Mochon Latte Village, the Chugai Pictograph Cave, the Taga Latte Stone 

Quarry, and the Alaguan Bay Ancient Village prehistoric sites include architectural 

features unique to the ancient Chamorro culture and represent outstanding examples of the territory’s cultural resources. These sites possess a high degree of integrity in location, materials, workmanship and association. 

The limestone forests of Rota are the most intact and most extensive examples 

of primary, native limestone forest remaining on any island in the Mariana Archipelago. The forest provides and sustains habitat for endangered bird species, a 

threatened species of fruit bat, and numerous species of invertebrates that are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Several of these species are endemic 

to Rota. The significance of this unique biotic community cannot be overstated. 

Rota’s residents and legislative delegation have demonstrated an extraordinary 

commitment to the protection of the island’s environment, including establishment 

of marine protected areas on Rota. In 2004, Senator Diego M. Songao, Chairman 

of the Rota Legislative Delegation of the Fourteenth Commonwealth Legislature, 

formally requested planning assistance from the National Park Service (NPS). 

In response to this request, the NPS completed a reconnaissance survey of Rota’s 

natural and cultural resources in September of 2005. The reconnaissance survey 

found that the natural and cultural resources of the island of Rota are significant 

to island residents, the CNMI, and the entire nation and merit protection. It also 

made a preliminary finding that these resources are likely to be suitable and feasible for inclusion in the park system. 

At present, the people of Rota and their political leaders find themselves at a 

crossroads regarding the uses to which their lands are being put. Major land use 

changes are continuing to take place in the form of residential and agricultural lots 

being subdivided out of the island’s public lands and transferred into private ownership. 

Congressional authorization to conduct a Special Resource Study will provide a 

public process to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, 

historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System. The NPS would be pleased to 

actively engage organizations, residents and others in discussions of how best to 

preserve Rota’s significant cultural and natural resources. 

The NPS recommends a technical correction to clarify the intent of section 2(a)(2) 

of the bill. We interpret this section to apply to areas identified as suitable and feasible for designation as a unit of the National Park System. It is possible, however, 

to read this section more broadly to imply that the National Park Service should 

examine alternatives for management of the entire island of Rota. We would like 

to work with the committee to clarify the intent of this section. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have. 

ON H.R. 885

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

to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 885, to expand the boundary of San 

Antonio Missions National Historical Park (Park), and for other purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 885 with amendments described later in this 

statement. 

H.R. 885 would expand the boundary of the Park by approximately 137 acres, all 

of which are currently being managed by the National Park Service (NPS). Of the 

137 acres, 102 acres are either owned by the United States and managed by the 

NPS or are being managed by the NPS under a cooperative agreement and are in 

the process of being donated to the Park. Nineteen acres are currently, and will continue to be, managed through a cooperative agreement with the landowners, the city 

of San Antonio and Bexar County that protects the cultural landscape, ensures public access, and provides for greater interpretation of the historical and architectural 

values of the Park. The additional 16 acres will continue to be managed by Bexar 

County. 

34 

The Park’s authorizing legislation allows for the acquisition of new lands outside 

the Park boundary and allows the Park to enter into cooperative agreements to preserve historic properties and provide for visitor access and interpretation. However, 

the Park has only limited authority to revise the Park boundary to include additional lands, which is why this legislation is necessary. Because the park currently 

manages 121 acres of the lands that would be included in the new boundary and 

Bexar County will continue to manage the additional 16 acres, H.R. 885 will not 

result in increased operational costs. 

The Park preserves a significant link to Mexico and Spain that has influenced the 

culture and history of the United States since before its inception. San Antonio, 

Texas, is now the seventh-largest, third-fastest growing city in the United States. 

The city grew 68 percent between 1980 and 2007 and now almost entirely surrounds 

the Park with urban development, threatening areas that contain significant Spanish colonial resources historically associated with the Park. Based on the Park’s 

General Management Plan and Land Protection Plan, which found that numerous 

areas containing significant Spanish colonial resources historically associated with 

the Park were outside the boundary, the Park acquired the additional lands that 

now need to be included in the boundary. 

This legislation enjoys the support of officials from Bexar County, Wilson County, 

the City of San Antonio, the City of Floresville, the San Antonio River Authority, 

the San Antonio Conservation Society, Los Compadres, and others. It would help 

guarantee the preservation, protection, restoration, and interpretation of the missions for current and future generations. 

The Department recommends that the bill be amended to address the bill’s park 

boundary, land acquisition, and buffer zone provisions: As passed by the House, 

H.R. 885 prohibits acquisition by condemnation of any land or interests in land 

within the boundaries of the park. The NPS has consistently opposed changing a 

park’s existing land acquisition authority when boundary adjustments are made. 

While condemnation is rarely used, it can be a critical tool during a friendly condemnation, where the value of the land is in dispute, or when title to the property 

is in doubt or cannot be cleared. If the intent of this legislation is to prohibit the 

acquisition by condemnation of the new 137 acres that would be included in the 

park boundary, we recommend amending the bill to eliminate the general prohibition on condemnation, and to provide specifically that acquisition of the 137 acres 

brought within the boundary by this legislation may not be accomplished through 

condemnation. 

The bill makes the establishment of the expanded boundary subject to the written 

consent of the owners of properties that would be included within the new boundary. This places landowners, rather than Congress or the Administration, in the position of determining the boundary of a federal park, which we believe is inappropriate. This provision has the potential to create legal and practical confusion over 

the boundary since it is possible that a landowner could give consent, then change 

his or her mind and withdraw consent or convey the property to another owner who 

withdraws consent. If the intent of this language is to ensure that only willing sellers convey lands to the NPS, we recommend amending the language to include such 

a provision, instead of investing members of the public with the ability to determine 

park boundaries. 

The bill also includes language that says that an activity outside the boundary 

shall not be precluded because it can be heard or seen inside the park boundary. 

The Department has concerns about this language. It is misleading, as it suggests 

that the NPS may have authority to preclude activities outside the boundaries, 

which it does not. Of even greater concern, however, is that the language could discourage park managers from addressing threats to park resources from external 

sources. Even though the NPS does not control what happens outside of its boundaries, park managers have a responsibility under the NPS Organic Act and other 

laws to work with owners of properties outside of park boundaries to resolve problems that could negatively impact the resources the NPS is responsible for protecting. Therefore, we recommend removing paragraph (4) on page 3 of the bill by 

striking lines 1 through 15. 

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

ON H.R. 1158

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

Interior’s views on H.R. 1158, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
35 

tional Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (hereafter referred to as ‘‘North Cascades Complex’’). 

The Department does not oppose H.R. 1158 if amended in accordance with this 

testimony. 

The National Park Service collectively manages North Cascades National Park, 

Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area as 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex. All of the 245 mountain lakes in 

the North Cascades Complex area were naturally fishless. Fish stocking in this area 

began in the late 1800s. During this period, approximately 91 lakes were stocked 

at one time or another and 154 lakes were never stocked. This fish stocking provided the opportunity to fish in these mountain lakes. The issue of continued fish 

stocking arose in 1968 when the proposal to create the park was introduced. Although the enabling legislation does reference the requirement for a Washington 

state fishing license, it is silent regarding fish stocking. Stocking continued after the 

park was established. However, concerns over the ecological impacts of fish stocking 

in naturally fish-free waters continued. Soon after the park complex was created, 

the National Park Service policy regarding fish stocking was revised to provide that 

fish stocking in naturally fish-free waters should not occur. Fish stocking was 

phased out in many national parks across the country to restore natural conditions 

and to preserve native species. In 1988, Congress designated ninety-three percent 

of the North Cascades as the Stephen Mather Wilderness, and 90 of the 91 lakes 

that had historically been stocked are within the wilderness area. At the time the 

wilderness was designated, Congress did not address the issue of stocking the lakes. 

The 2006 Management Policies of the National Park Service (NPS) allow for the 

management of fish populations when necessary to restore resources to their natural state or reestablish a native species that has been extirpated. Stocking of other 

plants or animals is also allowed under certain circumstances. Specifically, the policies provide that ‘‘In some special situations, the Service may stock native or exotic 

animals for recreational harvesting purposes, but only when such stocking will not 

unacceptably impact park natural resources or processes and when: 

• the stocking is of fish into constructed large reservoirs or other significantly altered large water bodies and the purpose is to provide for recreational fishing; 

or 

• the intent for stocking is a treaty right or expressed in statute, applicable law, 

or a House or Senate report accompanying a statute. The Service will not stock 

waters that are naturally barren of harvested aquatic species.’’ 

The NPS appreciates the collaborative partnership with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at North Cascades Complex and throughout the 

State of Washington. Despite this strong working relationship, a number of challenges have historically arisen when trying to reconcile the missions and policies of 

the WDFW and NPS on this stocking program. However, multiple attempts have 

been made to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome on this issue. For example, 

in 1987 the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife and Parks negotiated an agreement allowing fish stocking to continue in certain lakes while research into the ecological impacts of stocking was conducted. In a 1991 Consent Decree resolving litigation challenging the fish stocking program, NPS agreed to conduct research into the ecological impacts of fish stocking at North Cascades and a 

National Environmental Policy Act review of the stocking of naturally fish-free 

lakes. 

A decade of research, conducted in the North Cascades Complex through Oregon 

State University and the USGS Biological Resources Division, documented lakes 

where fish had been stocked in low numbers and could not reproduce. No statistically significant ecological effects to native aquatic species were detected. However, 

in self-sustaining populations, non-native trout can have significant effects on native 

aquatic organisms such as amphibians and zooplankton. 

In 2002, the NPS in collaboration with WDFW began development of a comprehensive Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement (Plan/EIS). The purpose of the planning effort was to apply the results 

of the research and resolve the longstanding conflict over fish stocking in the mountain lakes. 

On November 26, 2008, the NPS issued a Record of Decision for the final Plan/ 

EIS and selected the preferred alternative, which would stop stocking and remove 

fish from lakes where significant impacts were occurring (49 lakes) but allow stocking of non-reproducing fish at low densities to continue in up to 42 lakes, subject 

to additional monitoring. The EIS found that such stocking would not unacceptably 

impact park natural resources or processes in those lakes. 

36 

However, the Record of Decision (ROD) also notes that fish stocking in the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness does not meet the minimum requirements analysis conducted under section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act. In addition, the ROD recognizes 

that the NPS would need legal authority to implement the preferred alternative. 

The ROD further provides that if such legal authority was not provided to the NPS 

by July 1, 2009, the NPS, consistent with NPS policy, would discontinue the stocking program in its entirety and work to restore the natural ecology of all the mountain lakes. In the majority of lakes this would be accomplished through continued 

fishing without further stocking. Over time, natural mortality would remove the remainder. In lakes where naturally reproducing populations were found, the NPS 

would work to remove these fish. Realistically, at least ten lakes are so large that 

no known removal techniques will work and fish populations will remain for the 

foreseeable future. 

The NPS is interested in ensuring that any legislation regarding fish stocking is 

guided by science and an understanding of the impact that such policy decisions 

would have on park resources. We note that the bill directs the Secretary to continue monitoring the impacts of fish stocking in order to determine if further adjustments are needed to protect aquatic resources. 

Fish stocking has not occurred in any lakes within the North Cascades Complex 

since 2007. During that time, there have been no requests for additional stocking 

from either the public or from the WDFW, as they no longer consider fish stocking 

a priority. 

Since non-native fish removal efforts began in 2009, we have seen an almost immediate return of native amphibians, which is an indicator of a more resilient ecosystem. With our improved awareness of the negative resource impacts of climate 

change, we now understand the importance of eliminating environmental stressors, 

such as non-native fish species. Thus, we feel that NPS needs the management 

flexibility to respond to changing environmental conditions, including climate 

change. 

To ensure the NPS has the management flexibility to respond appropriately 

should monitoring and scientific research indicate negative impacts to resources 

from fish stocking, we strongly recommend one amendment. We ask that Section 3 

(a) be amended to read as follows: ‘‘Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may authorize the stocking of fish in lakes in the North Cascades National Park Service 

Complex.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

ON S. 974 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 974, the 

Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument 

Act. The Department generally supports S. 974 and would welcome the opportunity 

to work with the Sponsor and Committee on modifications to provisions of the bill. 

Background 

The Las Vegas Valley is home to nearly 2 million people, the famous Las Vegas 

Strip, spectacular desert landscapes, and historic, cultural, and paleontological 

treasures. Balancing the protection of these important natural, cultural, and scientific resources with economic development and growth is a challenge embraced by 

Senator Reid and the Nevada delegation. Over the last 20 years, a number of laws 

have been enacted to help maintain that balance. Among these are: the Red Rock 

Canyon National Conservation Area Establishment Act (P.L. 101-621); the Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act (P.L. 105-263); and the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act (P.L. 107-282), several of which 

are the subject of today’s hearing. 

S. 974 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument (Section 2) 

S. 974 would designate a new unit of the National Park Service (NPS)—the Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. This bill would transfer administrative jurisdiction of approximately 22,650 acres of public land from the Bureau of Land 

Management to the National Park Service. The bill would establish the Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Commission to provide guidance 

for the management of the Monument. 

The Department supports the establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument and the Advisory Council. The NPS does not currently have a 

37 

park designated specifically to protect and interpret Pleistocene fossils and the creation of this site would comprise the most significant Pleistocene paleontological resources in the American southwest. However, since a special resource study has not 

been completed, there are many outstanding questions regarding the most efficient 

and effective means for managing this area. 

The NPS completed a Reconnaissance Report for the Upper Las Vegas Wash/Tule 

Springs area in June 2010. Preliminary findings from this report indicated that the 

resources in this area appeared to be nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the national park system but further study would be needed to compare the 

resources of Tule Springs to other similar areas that represent nationally significant 

resources of the late Pleistocene epoch. Preliminary findings also indicated that the 

area is potentially feasible but that the initial determination would greatly benefit 

from a full study of alternatives that would more fully examine site issues such as 

vandalism, unauthorized removal of fossils, and ORV use that may affect future options for management and protection of the area. Additionally, the report recommends an analysis of operational costs, particularly those associated with an active paleontology management program involving the preparation and curation of 

fossils, such as collection storage equipment, materials and supplies, dedicated 

curation space, and staff time to prepare fossils. 

Section 2(d)(5)(B)(IV) directs the NPS to include a travel management plan for the 

national monument that may include existing public transit. Although it is unclear 

what is being proposed by this language, this proposed monument is on the border 

of the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas and transit options for existing residents will be taken in account during the planning process. 

Finally, section 2(e) provides for a renewable energy transmission corridor to be 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on the north side of the new 

National Monument. The BLM recommends that this narrow strip of land be withdrawn from the mining and mineral leasing laws, and that access to these lands 

be limited to administrative uses in order to avoid incompatible activities. 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Additions (Section 3) 

First established by an Act of Congress in 1990, the 196,000-acre Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) is located 17 miles west of the Las Vegas 

Strip. The NCA welcomes over one million visitors annually who are looking to explore the natural wonders beyond the traditional Las Vegas experience. The Red 

Rock Canyon NCA offers opportunities for hiking, rock climbing, horseback riding, 

biking, and photography. A 13-mile scenic drive provides an up close look at this 

spectacular desert landscape. 

The BLM supports the provisions of S. 974 (Section 3) which propose to expand 

the boundaries of the NCA by approximately 1,540 acres. We would like to work 

with the Sponsor and the Committee on some minor boundary modifications to improve manageability of the NCA addition. 

Conveyances to the Cities of North Las Vegas & Las Vegas (Sections 4 & 5) 

S. 974 (Sections 4 & 5) provides for the conveyance of public lands to the city of 

North Las Vegas (645 acres) and the city of Las Vegas (660 acres) respectively at 

no cost. The lands proposed for conveyance are within the Southern Nevada Public 

Land Management Act (SNPLMA) (P.L. 105-263) boundary established by Acts of 

Congress. Under these provisions of the bill, the two local governments would then 

be able to sell, lease, or otherwise convey these lands at fair market value to third 

parties. All revenues derived from these conveyances would be distributed consistent with direction under SNPLMA as if the conveyances had been undertaken 

by the BLM under its existing authorities. Additionally, the bill would allow these 

governments to retain some of the lands for uses consistent with those allowed 

under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, such as for schools, parks 

and fire stations. All costs related to the initial transfer of land to the city governments or from them to third parties would be the responsibility of the cities of North 

Las Vegas and Las Vegas. 

SNPLMA identified these lands for disposal, and specified the use of the proceeds 

from the sale of these lands. By transferring the lands to the cities of North Las 

Vegas and Las Vegas, the bill will allow those communities to determine the development of the lands within their boundaries, while requiring fair market value for 

subsequent conveyances. The BLM does not oppose these transfers, but recommends 

amending this section to eliminate the leasing option. Such leases are difficult to 

oversee and manage; by only allowing reconveyance by the cities through sale or 

R&PP conveyance, we can better protect the integrity of the process. 

38 

Expansion of Police Shooting Range (Section 6) 

The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 

(P.L. 107-282) transferred 176 acres of BLM-managed public land to the Las Vegas 

Metropolitan Police Department for a shooting range. S. 974 (Section 6) would 

transfer an additional 80 acres of BLM-managed lands to the Las Vegas Police Department. 

The BLM supports this conveyance, which will allow the Police Department to establish long-range shooting and training facilities. We recommend that the legislation specify that the transfer will be subject to valid existing rights. 

Spring Mountain National Recreation Area Withdrawal (Section 7) 

The Department of the Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture on the 

Spring Mountain National Recreation Area provisions of S. 974 (Section 7), which 

affect lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. 

SNPLMA Boundary Modification (Section 8) 

The SNPLMA, as amended, was designed to provide for the responsible disposal 

of BLM-managed public land within the Las Vegas Valley. Under the Act, funds 

generated from the sale of these lands are deposited into a special account to be 

expended consistent with the provisions of the Act. Funds from SNPLMA lands 

sales have been used for a variety of purposes as stipulated by the Act, including: 

acquisition of high value environmentally-sensitive lands; establishment of parks, 

trails, and natural areas; creation of new conservation initiatives; and a number of 

other projects. To date, nearly 45,000 acres have been conveyed out of Federal ownership under the provisions of SNPLMA, and approximately 39,500 acres remain to 

be considered for disposal under SNPLMA. 

S. 974 (Section 8) proposes to modify the SNPLMA disposal boundary by removing 

approximately 9,950 acres of public land currently inside the boundary and by adding approximately 6,795 acres of public land currently outside the boundary, resulting in a net reduction of lands within the SNPLMA boundary of approximately 

3,158 acres. Total public land acres within the SNPLMA boundary would be 36,890 

acres if S. 974 is enacted. The acres proposed for removal are lands that S. 974 

would transfer (Section 2) to the National Park Service for inclusion in the Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. The acres proposed for addition to the 

boundary are primarily on the northeast and northwest sides of the Las Vegas Valley, and the most significant current uses are for the mining of aggregate materials 

for construction. The BLM supports section 8 of S.974. 

Conveyances to Nevada Colleges & Universities (Section 9) 

The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), a subdivision of the State of 

Nevada, provides for the education for over 125,000 students throughout the state 

at eight different colleges and universities. The NSHE is seeking to expand the capacity of three of those schools in southern Nevada in order to improve higher education opportunities. 

S. 974 (Section 9) provides for the conveyance of three parcels of public land for 

three of these colleges and universities in southern Nevada at no cost and for uses 

consistent with those allowed under the Recreation & Public Purposes Act (R&PP). 

All costs associated with the transfers would be paid by the NSHE. The three conveyances include approximately 285 acres for the Great Basin College in Pahrump, 

Nevada, 41 acres for the College of Southern Nevada, and 1,886 acres for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV). 

The R&PP Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey public 

lands at nominal costs for recreational and public purposes, including for educational facilities. The BLM generally supports appropriate legislative conveyances 

at no cost if the lands are to be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, 

and if the conveyances have a reversionary clause to enforce this requirement. 

The BLM supports these conveyances for higher education in S. 974 and would 

like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on minor and technical modifications to these provisions. Specifically, we recommend the addition of a clause allowing the Secretary to add reasonable terms and conditions to the transfer. For example, the lands proposed for transfer for the Great Basin College are adjacent to the 

BLM’s Pahrump Fire Station. In the conveyance documents we may want to include 

building height restrictions in areas closest to the helipad to ensure safe aerial fire 

activities. The addition of a ‘‘terms and conditions’’ clause would allow the agency 

to address this and similar situations. 

Ivanpah Airport Conveyance (Section 10) 

The Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act (P.L. 106-362) provided for 

the sale of approximately 5,750 acres of public land to Clark County for the conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
39 

struction of a future airport. The completion of the sale of the land and construction 

of the airport is contingent on a number of factors, including approval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). S. 974 (Section 10) provides for the conveyance, 

at no cost, of approximately 2,350 acres to the east of the proposed airport for flood 

mitigation projects related to the airport. The land would not be conveyed unless 

and until the FAA approves the airport project. 

S. 974 also reserves to the Federal government the mineral estate (potentially valuable sand and gravel) of the 2,350 acres to be conveyed for the airport, except that 

the County may construct flood control facilities and remove aggregate following 

flood events under the bill. The BLM supports these provisions. However, provisions 

providing that the County pay all costs associated with this transfer and a terms 

and conditions clause (similar to those in Section 9 of S. 974) should be added to 

this section as well. 

Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area Release (Section 11) 

The Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area (ISA) lies to the east of Las Vegas. The 

9,700-acre area has been managed by the BLM to protect these lands for possible 

future wilderness designation as required by law. Over the last decades, and most 

recently in 2009, the Congress has legislatively released portions of the Sunrise 

Mountain ISA from those protections, but the BLM does not have the independent 

authority to release the remaining acres. 

The BLM supports the provisions of S. 974 (Section 11) which would release the 

entire Sunrise Mountain ISA from interim protected status, thereby allowing the 

consideration of a full range of multiple uses. The Sunrise Mountain ISA does not 

possess significant wilderness characteristics. Furthermore, it is the assessment of 

the BLM that this area is appropriate for the expansion of high-voltage transmission lines, including those for renewable energy transmission, as well as a possible interstate natural gas and water pipelines. 

Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Area (Section 12) 

The Nellis Dunes OHV area is a popular recreation area with over 100,000 visits 

annually. S. 974 (Section 12) would promote the further development of this area 

as a destination OHV site. OHV use is a popular and growing activity in Nevada 

and across the West. The BLM welcomes opportunities to support this type of recreation in appropriate locations. 

Studies conducted by the UNLV at the request of the BLM have indicated that 

there are high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in the Nellis Dunes area. While 

the area is presently open to OHV use, the BLM makes visitors aware of these potential health concerns. Currently, the UNLV is conducting a health risk assessment of the area in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s human 

health risk assessment processes and protocols. The BLM expects to receive a completed study by late 2014, and believes that it is premature to make permanent decisions about the Nellis Dunes area prior to receiving the final report. Therefore, 

the BLM recommends deferring sections 12(a), (b), and (c) until the final report is 

available. 

However, if Congress elects to move forward with these provisions of S. 974, the 

BLM recommends a number of substantive modifications. The bill (Section 12) allocates uses in Nellis Dunes in three parts. First, it establishes a BLM-managed 

Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area on approximately 10,000 acres 

of public land. Second, it transfers approximately 960 acres of public land to Clark 

County for a more intensively managed OHV Recreation Park. Third, it establishes 

an ‘‘Economic Support Area’’ adjacent to the other two areas. 

The BLM could support the establishment of the Nellis Dunes OHV Recreation 

Area if our safety concerns are appropriately addressed. Likewise, we could support 

the transfer of land to Clark County for an OHV Recreation Park if the transfer 

and management of those lands is done consistent with the R&PP Act, and if the 

transfer addressed issues outlined in our discussion of Section 9 regarding similar 

no cost conveyances. Finally, the BLM does not object to the establishment of an 

Economic Support Area; however, we strongly urge that these 290 acres be sold to 

the County at fair market value, rather than setting up a system of revenue sharing 

between the County and Federal government for private enterprises on these lands. 

The BLM does not typically participate in commercial activities such as these and 

we do not believe that it would be appropriate in this case. 

The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor and Committee on perfecting these 

sections of S. 974, provided the human health risk assessment determines that establishing an OHV park in this area is appropriate. 

40 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Toothman for that concise and 

also substantive summary. 

Let me recognize myself for 5 minutes for a first round of questions. 

It wouldn’t surprise you, I want to turn to 1071, my bill, which 

would authorize the Park Service to make improvements to support 

facilities at certain National Historic Sites. 

As you’ve noted in your testimony, the specific situation in Colorado that the bill addresses is the proposed shared visitor’s center 

and park administrative facility that would be located outside the 

boundary of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. That 

is located in Kiowa County. 

I’d like clarification on one point in the Park Service’s testimony. 

I introduced this bill to help the Park Service locate its park offices 

and visitor center in a shared use building outside the park boundary. With the remote location of the Sand Creek site it’s my understanding that the Park Service wanted to be able to enter into a 

shared use agreement with Kiowa County. 

Is there any concern that the bill does not give the Park Service 

the authority that it needs to accomplish this? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. The Park Service does believe it gives us the authority to accomplish it. We strongly support being given that authority. Our concern is the precedent being set by a bill that’s 

somewhat ambiguous in terms of its application to more than one 

park. We’re concerned about that precedent. 

But we do support giving Sand Creek Massacre National Historic 

Site that authority. 

Senator UDALL. We want to work with you to clarify and simplify 

the approach so that it doesn’t set a precedent, but it also doesn’t 

potentially run afoul of rules in the House, in particular, as in the 

House of Representatives. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. We’re happy to continue working with you because we do believe it’s important. 

Senator UDALL. This is a very important site. We want to take 

the steps necessary to encourage more people to be able to visit it, 

learn from it. It was a tragic event, but it’s one from which we can 

learn a great deal. 

In the process help Kiowa County which is a wonderful part of 

the Eastern Plains of Colorado. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I look forward to seeing it someday. 

Senator UDALL. Will you come out and visit? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I would love to. 

Senator UDALL. Alright. 

We will invite Senator Campbell who played a key role in the 

designation of this site as well. 

Let me turn to S. 398, the National Women’s History Museum 

Commission. The bill would establish a commission to study the 

feasibility of a National Women’s History Museum right here. I understand from your testimony that your concern with the bill is 

that it authorizes the commission to evaluate a potential site for 

the museum near the Washington Monument which is an area 

where new memorial museum construction is prohibited by the 

Commemorative Works Act. 

41 

If the bill was amended to remove that particular site would that 

address the Park Service’s concerns? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes, it would. 

Senator UDALL. It would. 

Alright, let me move next to S. 869, the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area. Your testimony recommends that the committee defer action on the bill until the Park Service completes a 

final review of the feasibility study which apparently needs to be 

revised. 

Can you give us an estimate of when the revised study will be 

completed and will you please inform the committee when the Park 

Service has finished its review including your recommendations of 

whether the area is appropriate for a National Heritage Area designation? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes. We do believe that the area contains some 

very significant, nationally significant sites. We are working very 

closely with the center right now to review their present submission and identify some of the issues that remain in terms of their 

current draft. We anticipate getting them the actual written comments after we’ve had a pretty thorough discussion by mid to late 

August. 

As soon as they’ve made their revisions we’re committing to a 

very quick turnaround so that we can move this forward. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that update. I look forward to the 

further update. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. OK. 

Senator UDALL. Let me turn next to Desert Storm/Desert Shield 

memorial, S. 995. Your testimony recommends that the bill language should be clarified regarding the disposition of funds if legislative authority expires before the memorial is built. 

What does the Park Service recommend should happen to any 

funds that have been raised in support of the memorial if the legislative authority expires? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Our recommendation would be to follow previous 

precedent and that would be to deposit the money that’s not used 

in an account with the National Park Foundation to benefit the 

protection and preservation of all of the monuments on the Mall. 

Senator UDALL. OK. 

Then the final question before I turn to my friend and Ranking 

Member. This is a general question about memorials and other 

commemorative works relating to intellectual property rights. 

It’s my understanding that on at least one occasion the artist designing a memorial or the group which was authorized to construct 

a memorial has asserted that it owns the copyright to the memorial 

design. That the United States can’t use images of the memorial 

without its permission and presumably some kind of compensation. 

When commemorative works are constructed and transferred to 

the National Park Service does the Park Service have the right to 

produce images of the memorial for its own use and to allow park 

concessioners and operating associations to sell authorized merchandise with images of the memorial? 

If I could I’m going to throw two more questions at you. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. OK. 

Senator UDALL. Related to this. 

42 

Then are all the memorials that are currently on the National 

Mall considered to be in the public domain? 

Then a third question. 

Should we consider including provisions in authorizing legislation that would require the intellectual property for the memorial 

to be held by the Federal Government or otherwise be in the public 

domain? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. It’s my understanding that, before the Commemorative Works Act was passed, memorials that were transferred to the National Park Service did come with their intellectual 

property rights. So that would include memorials such as the Lincoln and the Jefferson memorials and the Washington Monument. 

Under the Commemorative Works Act as presently written, the 

transfer to the National Park Service is of the physical property 

but not the intellectual property rights. So there are several memorials that have been transferred under the CWA that did not transfer the intellectual property rights, the Martin Luther King Memorial, for example, did not. 

So we would strongly support any effort by the Congress to clarify that situation. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that. 

Let me turn to Senator Portman for his questions. 

Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Toothman, I have a number of questions for you about some 

of the bills you just talked about. 

Starting with the modifying boundaries or expanding boundaries. 

We had a good discussion here in this committee, full committee, 

last week regarding some of the deferred maintenance issues at the 

parks. The question is to whether we should be expanding boundaries at a time when we’re having a difficult time finding the funding to maintain the parks for proper stewardship of the parks is 

been a focus of Senator Udall and myself. 

We have a few bills here that expand boundaries or modify them. 

There’s the San Antonio Mission National Historic Park that’s H.R. 

885 then S. 781 which is Yosemite, S. 782, which is Gettysburg. 

These all expand these park units. 

I wonder if you could answer these questions. 

How much of the land involved in these proposed expansions are 

currently in private ownership versus public ownership? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I don’t have the specific acreage in that case. I 

can say that with Gettysburg those properties are in the process 

of being acquired by the Gettysburg Foundation from a willing seller. In the case of the train station from the community with their 

full support. 

In the case of Yosemite, which again, I would have to get back 

to you on the specific acreage. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. But the land that is being considered is largely 

in the hands of non-profits, some of which would be donated, most 

of which would have to be acquired. 

Let me ask you again on San Antonio Mission, we’re already 

have the authority under the San Antonio legislation to work collaboratively to manage properties outside of our boundary. At least 

that’s my understanding of the legislation, so that by expanding 

43 

the boundaries we’re clarifying that but we’re not taking on additional costs beyond what we’re already expending there. 

Excuse me, what was the fourth one? 

Senator PORTMAN. That was it, just San Antonio, Yosemite and 

Gettysburg. 

Mr. TOOTHMAN. OK. 

Senator PORTMAN. So you’re saying with regard to San Antonio 

there’s no additional cost that’s incurred. With regard to Gettysburg and Yosemite, will expanding the boundaries require additional costs? Will it require additional personnel? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I’ve been advised for Gettysburg that they’ll be 

no acquisition costs because they’ll be donated by the Foundation 

and that there will be minimal operational costs in the case of the 

train station. The community is committed to continuing to run 

that operation. So that additional operational costs will be minimal. 

The addition to, I think it’s Little Round Top, that’s already immediately adjacent to our boundaries. So the additional operational 

costs would be pretty minimal. 

Senator PORTMAN. Any sense of how many additional personnel 

will be required at Yosemite and Gettysburg? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. My recollection is in terms of the briefing that 

I had on it is that because it’s again, immediately adjacent to the 

park and primarily back country area that the costs would be minimal. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. We talked about the maintenance backlog 

earlier. Any sense of whether this encourages further backlog in 

terms of deferred maintenance? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. In the case of the Gettsburg train station you 

are acquiring a building but it is in excellent condition. It was recently rehabilitated. So there wouldn’t be, other than normal maintenance costs. 

In the case of Yosemite, I’m not aware that there’s any structures within those boundaries. But we can certainly check that. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. In the case of San Antonio we’re already involved in working with the city and other owners—and again I 

would have to get back to you in terms of what structures would 

be within that boundary. 

Senator PORTMAN. On 647, do you have any sense there of what 

the deferred maintenance cost increases might be? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I’m sorry, which one is 647? I don’t have that. 

Oh, I have 674? 

Senator PORTMAN. I’m sorry, I mean 674. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. For the Rota National Park Study? 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. There’s an estimate of cost in my briefing of just 

the special resource study. Until we know what resources we’re 

looking at it would be difficult to estimate. 

We do already have a presence in CNMI at the American memorial and a little further away at Guam, so that there would be, very 

likely, a sharing of administrative costs. 

44 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. That would be interested for the Committee to know just so we have a sense of what maintenance costs 

there might be. 

Senator PORTMAN. On the amending the National Wild and Scenic River System legislation there’s 2, I guess, S. 1252 and S. 1253. 

How many of those additions go through public land? Do you have 

the answer to that? 

How much of the addition flows through private land? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I don’t have that. I will have to get that back 

to you. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I do know that the study has gone through extensive public review and is supported by the communities along 

the course of those rivers. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you have any sense, if it’s on private land, 

whether it will affect any of the proposed uses of the river or the 

surrounding area? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Those would be outlined in any authorization, 

but no, not normally. It wouldn’t affect private uses of their lands. 

Senator PORTMAN. You wouldn’t mind getting back to us on that 

just so we know the answer to that? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. These were not included, these 2 areas, in the 

original Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. If we could also—if 

you could also let us know in the process of researching that why 

those weren’t included in the original designation. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. OK. 

Senator PORTMAN. On the protecting and authorizing the acquisition of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites, it would be H.R. 

1033 and S. 916. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you have any sense of how that land is 

being utilized now? How that acquisition by the Park Service might 

change the use of that land? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. At this point we would be conducting and we are 

in the point of completing, I believe, for the Revolutionary War 

sites, evaluations similar to what we did at your request, Congress’ 

request, for the Civil War sites. So I would have to go back to the 

battlefield group and ask where they are on those studies and get 

back to you. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. That would be very helpful for the committee as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. Go back to the chairman for a couple other 

questions. But I’m over my 5 minutes. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

I have a couple of questions. Then a comment and I’ll turn back 

to Senator Portman for the remainder of his questions. 

Before I do begin I wanted to, for the record, include statements 

from Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Warren, 

Senator Kane and Senator Sanders. Without objection we’ll include 

those in the record. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Toothman, I assume Senator Portman will 

want to discuss this as well, his bill, S. 1044. Has the Park Service 

checked with the Justice Department and if so, were there any 

45 

Constitutional issues or concerns with legislation to authorize the 

specific prayer be included at a national memorial? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. We don’t have a formal opinion from them. But 

their basic consensus is that any time you raise an issue of separation of church and State that you always have the possibility of a 

law suit. 

Senator UDALL. Again, I ask that question with no particular 

point of view and implicitly. I just think it’s important. I know Senator Portman will explore this further. 

Your testimony noted that the National Capitol Memorial Advisory Commission had already considered this proposal. Then they 

decided not to add the plaque. Do you know why the Commission 

declined to add the plaque to the memorial? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I don’t have the minutes of the meeting. So we 

would have to get back to you on that. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. But I believe it has to do with the CWA’s statement that the memorials within the reserve are considered completed works of art so that they regularly will take a position 

against adding anything to it. 

With Congressional direction we’ll continue to work with—under 

the CWA to find an appropriate place. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that insight. Again, I know I look 

forward to Senator Portman’s further questions that he has and 

any other commentary on this because I know it’s important to 

Senator Portman. I felt he made a very strong statement about the 

power of what one of our venerated and greatest Presidents did at 

a very important time in our history. 

Let me move to the North Cascades, H.R. 1158. It would require 

the Park Service to resume stocking fish in certain lakes in the 

North Cascades National Park. 

Now your testimony asked for an amendment to allow rather 

than require—— 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. The Secretary of the Interior to stock fish in the 

North Cascades lakes. Why is that change necessary? Could you 

explain that to us? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. We believe the management decision involved 

there should be based on the best and most current science. This 

has been a long standing issue. There’s been several research 

projects done where we’ve seen some of the lakes thathave not been 

stocked recently and are beginning to show significant recovery of 

other species. 

So we think it would be best to allow the best science to govern 

that decision. 

Senator UDALL. Are those species that are recovering indigenous 

species or would these studies explore the nature of those species 

that are being recovered and are expanding? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. My understanding is that the species that are 

recovering are indigenous species. But I would be happy to get 

back to you with more specific information. 

Senator UDALL. OK. 

Senator UDALL. Before I turn back to Senator Portman I did 

want to comment on the question that he was asking you with 

46 

some regulatory and consistency which is one of the maintenance 

costs of additional land additions. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Right. 

Senator UDALL. I think that those are very important questions 

to ask in a time of constrained budgets. I would imagine that the 

Park Service has a set of formulas at hand when land exchanges 

are considered or suggested to understand the long term caring 

costs of those lands. Of course if you buy lands or transfer lands 

that have infrastructure, roads, buildings, water treatment systems, those sorts of things, you certainly are going to have maintenance obligations. 

If you buy open space, pristine lands, lands that aren’t developed, my gut tells me they would be less expensive to maintain. 

But my gut is one thing, the numbers are another thing. I think, 

as the committee moves forward on this very important discussion 

of LWCF and the centennial of the Park Service and our National 

Parks on which Senator Portman, by the way, served on that commission. He’s very well informed and very passionate about the National Parks. 

It would be really important to have those tools at hand so we 

can make informed decisions. We all want to preserve and protect 

our parks wherever they are and whatever units they’re carried in. 

So again, I appreciate Senator Portman’s interest in this because 

we want to see the parks thrive for many, many decades, if not 

centuries to come. We have some important decisions to make right 

now about the future of the parks. 

Again, thank you for your attendance today. 

Let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, I think as the centennial approaches we’re looking for ways 

to ensure that the backlog can be improved, hopefully cleared at a 

lot of these great facilities. That we can provide some more resources particularly through this innovative public/private partnerships and, you know, following on some of the work of the Centennial Challenge and the Centennial match ideas. This again was debated here in this committee just last week and we had a good conversation. 

On the fish stocking, I had some questions about that too. Most 

of them have been answered by my friend, Senator Udall. But my 

sense is that as you’ve written the bill you’re not mandating that 

the Park Service stock the fish. You are making it discretionary. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. That would be our recommendation, yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. 

Is that adequate to override the park management laws that 

might otherwise prohibit, you know, stocking with fish that would 

be taken into some of these high mountain lakes? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. We’re supporting the bill with the amendment 

that we’re recommending. So, yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. I know this is a result of a lot of years of 

study saying that the low population density of these fish in carefully selected lakes would not lead to impairment of the park resources. Does that mean that there is just no ecological impact at 

all that’s negative? 

47 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. I’m not in a position to say there’s no ecological 

impacts. But this has been reviewed by my counterparts in natural 

resources. I’m a historian. They’re the biologists. 

As I said, we support the bill as written with the amendment 

that would give us the discretion to apply the best science and to 

operate within our management policies. 

So I think having been proximate to the North Cascades through 

many years of residence in Seattle, it is one where we have built 

some—a body of knowledge that would help us make good decisions 

that wouldn’t impair the resource. 

Senator PORTMAN. You have to be careful because you’re talking 

to a Golden Trout fly fisherman to my right which is only found 

in high mountain lakes as I understand. Native that is, Golden 

Trout. 

On S. 1044 you said in your testimony the National Park Service 

supports continued application of the Commemorative Works Act 

which regard to the World War II memorial. Let me ask you this. 

I’m sure you’ve read it. Section III of the bill, as you know, intends 

to address that by subjecting design and placement of the proposed 

plaque to the Congressional Works Act process. Is that your understanding of the legislation? 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. That again is something we’ve worked on for 

a couple years with the Park Service to ensure that it does go 

through the proper process. We appreciate your clarification of that 

position. In terms of a religious significance to the President’s 

statement that day, certainly there is, as there was in S. 57, which 

just passed out of the committee by unanimous consent. That’s the 

Distinguished Flying Cross memorial, Senator Boxer’s bill which 

has religious connotations. 

If you’ve been to the Mall in the vicinity of what we’re talking 

about and been to the Jefferson Memorial you’ve probably seen 

some other prayers. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. Of religious significance or for that matter 

walking further down to the Lincoln Memorial and seeing his references. So it’s certainly not something that would be unusually 

there for the Mall or other commemorations. 

So I do appreciate the fact that Secretary Jewell has, you know, 

spoken positively about this. You have spoken positively about it 

today. I do think it’s something that would add, in my view, a little 

more context to that beautiful memorial. We do want to work, of 

course through the proper commemorative works process because 

that’s valuable real estate along that Mall. 

I know that those works of art, which is what they are, as you 

said, have to be maintained and preserved. So I appreciate you getting back to us with some of the questions we asked today. Again, 

we just want to be in a position to understand better what the implications are, clearly, of the additions to any Park Service unit or 

any change in the boundaries. 

We appreciate your service, both of you and thank you for being 

here today. 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

48 

Before we conclude I want to thank Dr. Toothman for your testimony. I think this may have been a record for the number of 

bills—— 

Ms. TOOTHMAN. That is my understanding. 

Senator UDALL. a witness has had to testify on. 

Ms. Spisak, we apologize for not drawing on your great wisdom 

and knowledge. But we will try and do better next time you’re 

here. 

As I bring the hearing to a close I want to let everyone know that 

some members of the committee may submit additional questions 

in writing. If so, we may ask you to submit answers for the record. 

We’ll keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to receive any additional comments. 

Senator UDALL. The subcommittee is adjourned. 

(49) 

APPENDIX 

Additional material submitted for the record 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

Washington, DC, September 16, 2013. 

Hon. MARK UDALL, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the July 31,2013, hearing on National Park Service-related legislation, during 

which Dr. Stephanie Toothman provided testimony for the Department of the Interior, several requests were made for additional information. This letter provides that 

requested information. 

Senator Portman asked how much of the Missisquoi River and the Trout River 

proposed for Wild and Scenic River designation run through public lands and how 

much through private lands, and whether the designation will affect the private use 

ofland. The Missisquoi River and the Trout River flow through mostly private lands. 

Since there are no plans for federal land acquisition and the Wild and Scenic River 

designation does not confer any authority for land-use control to the National Park 

Service, private landowners and the use of private lands should not be impacted. 

Private lands will continue to be governed by existing local and state authorities, 

as they are without the designation. 

Senator Portman also asked how much ofthe Farmington River and the Salmon 

Brook proposed for Wild and Scenic River designation run through public lands and 

how much through private lands, whether the designation will affect the private use 

of the land, and why these additional miles were not included in the original designation. Similar to the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, the Farmington River and the 

Salmon Brook flow through mostly private lands. Since there are no plans for federal land acquisition and the Wild and Scenic River designation does not confer any 

authority for land-use control to the National Park Service, private landowners and 

the use of private lands should not be impacted. Private lands will continue to be 

governed by existing local and state authorities, as they are without the designation. 

Regarding the question about the original designation, 14 miles of the Upper Farmington River were designated in 1994 based on the findings of a congressionally authorized study (P.L. 99-590) of the segment ending at the New Hartford-Canton 

town line. A second congressionally authorized study (P.L. 109-370) assessed the remainder of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook. S. 1253 is based on the findings of this subsequent study. 

Senator Portman asked how battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary 

War and the War of 1812 are being used now and how that would change if any 

of the lands were acquired under the American Battlefield Protection Program. At 

this time, it is unknown which properties would be acquired; therefore, we cannot 

say how the land is currently being used nor how it would change after being acquired. However, any lands that would be acquired are those lands that have been 

identified for protection under the American Battlefield Protection Program and 

must have retained its historic character and integrity. The purpose of a Battlefield 

Protection grant is to preserve the historic landscape. This is done by purchasing 

the land in fee simple or purchasing the development rights and placing a protective 

easement on the property. Once the property or interest is purchased, the land use 

is frozen to the current use at the time of purchase. The property may still be in 

private ownership, but if it is a farm, it would remain a farm; and if it is open 

space, it would remain open space. Land purchased in fee simple may be restored 

to a more historic appearance. 

Senator Portman asked how much of the land involved in three park boundary 

expansion bills is private, and how much is public. All of the land proposed to be 

included in the boundary of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park under 

H.R. 885 is publicly owned, either by the National Park Service or by local governVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
50 

mental entities. All of the land proposed to be included in the boundary of Yosemite 

National Park under S. 781 is in private ownership, with 793 of the acres owned 

by the Pacific Forest Trust and 782 acres owned by West Yosemite Associates to 

be transferred through fee simple acquisition. Regarding the land proposed to be included in the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park under S. 782, the 45 

acres at the base of Big Roundtop are privately owned (by the Gettysburg Foundation), and the Gettysburg Train Station is publicly owned (by the Borough of Gettysburg) but is expected to be purchased by the Gettysburg Foundation in the near future. The Gettysburg Foundation plans to donate both properties to the National 

Park Service if S. 782 is enacted. 

Senator Portman also asked if the three park expansion bills will add to the maintenance backlog. They will not add to the maintenance backlog. The San Antonio 

Missions bill will not result in additional lands being owned or managed by the National Park Service; therefore, there will be no new maintenance costs associated 

with the boundary adjustment. The land that would be added to Yosemite National 

Park is undeveloped and expected to remain undeveloped. Of the land that would 

be added to Gettysburg National Military Park, the 45-acre tract at the base of Big 

Roundtop would remain undeveloped and the historic Gettysburg Train Station is 

in excellent condition and so will only require normal maintenance. 

You asked why the National Capitol Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) 

declined to endorse adding President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer to the 

World War II Memorial. During the NCMAC meeting on September 14, 2011, the 

Commission members voiced a concern for the proliferation of plaques at the memorial and stated that, as designed, the memorial accomplishes very w ll its mandate 

to pay tribute to the Armed Forces’ service and sacrifice. At that meeting, the Commission voted unanimously that the World War II Memorial is a completed work 

of civic art and that no additional elements should be added into the design. You 

also asked if the species recovering in the lakes that were previously stocked with 

fish in the North Cascades National Park Complex are indigenous. Yes, the species 

recovering are indigenous. Since nonnative fish removal efforts began in 2009, we 

have seen a return of native amphibians in those lakes. 

We appreciate having the opportunity to respond on these matters. 

Sincerely, 

JONATHAN B. JARVIS, 

Director. 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY FANCHER, INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING

ASSOCIATION, ON S. 364 

The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is submitting additional 

testimony to express our support for the proposed Rocky Mountain Front Heritage 

Act (S.364). This proposal permanently protects 275,000 acres through Wilderness 

and a Conservation Management Area that provides continued access to historically 

important bicycle trails in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The proposed bill 

also authorizes the agency to conduct a study to improve non-motorized recreation 

trail opportunities including mountain biking on lands within the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest. In contrast to S.37 Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, this bill was 

crafted by local communities and in the interest of local communities. The result 

is a land protection bill that balances conservation and recreation. 

We greatly appreciate the concerted effort by Senator Baucus to include IMBA 

and local mountain bicycling interests in the development of this proposal. We have 

participated in numerous meetings and conversations with the Senator over the last 

few years where we have worked collaboratively to provide input about mountain 

bike trails that may be impacted by the wilderness protections in the proposal. 

There has been a genuine effort to address access issues we have referenced with 

the proposal and we are excited to support the final outcome. 

51 

THE MOUNTAINEERS, 

Seattle, WA, August 1, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. ED MARKEY, 

U.S. House of Representative, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN, CHAIRMAN HASTINGS, RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI

AND RANKING MEMBER MARKEY, 

On behalf of The Mountaineers, I am writing to express our support for H.R. 908/ 

S. 404, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, introduced earlier this 

year by Representatives DelBene and Larsen and Senators Murray and Cantwell. 

For nearly forty years, The Mountaineers has worked to preserve and maintain 

Washington’s historic fire lookouts. Our Everett Branch Lookout and Trail Maintenance Crew dedicates hundreds of hours of skilled labor each year to three primary 

lookouts: Three Fingers, Pilchuck and Heybrook. In addition to the ongoing roofing, 

glazing, custom wood milling painting and general repairs performed at these lookouts, our volunteers have contributed labor and technical assistance to the maintenance of over 30 fire lookouts across the Pacific Northwest, including the Green 

Mountain Lookout. 

H.R. 908/S.404 would allow for the continued presence and maintenance of the 

Green Mountain fire lookout and we urge you to support this bill. During a time 

when lookouts are being removed or closed to the public due to disrepair, the recently-restored Green Mountain fire lookout offers an increasingly rare opportunity 

for hikers and equestrians to experience an important part of Washington’s history. 

The Green Mountain lookout provides an educational destination for visitors to 

the Glacier Peak Wilderness and its preservation will serve to bolster support for 

wilderness areas across the state. We urge you to ensure passage of the Green 

Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act to ensure the permanent preservation of 

this important resource. Thank you for your leadership. 

Sincerely, 

LEANN AREND, 

Interim Executive Director. 

CITY OF LAS VEGAS NEVADA, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, July 30, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources, 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources, 709 Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: 

On behalf of the city of Las Vegas, I write to whole-heartedly support the Las 

Vegas Valley Public Land and Title Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 

2013 (S.974/H.R. 2015). We worked closely with the Nevada Congressional Delegation to designate the Tule Springs area as a National Monument in the 112th Congress, and we look forward to moving the bill forward in this Congress. 

As you may know, this legislation enjoys broad support in Southern Nevada and 

would result in many mutually beneficial outcomes. The city of Las Vegas supports 

swift passage of S.974/H.R.2015 as it is imperative to protect paleontological and 

sensitive plant resources. We also believe that the legislation would create opportunities for economic development and job creation while providing for responsible 

urban development of adjacent lands, and allowing for necessary infrastructure to 

service existing developed areas. 

Again, we strongly support S.974/H.R.2015 and look forward to its successful passage. 

Respectfully, 

CAROLYN G. GOODMAN, 

Mayor, City of Las Vegas. 

52 

1Letters from Michael G. Conley, Director of Public Affairs, The American Battle Monuments 

Commission, Complaint letters to The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) from 

the public and/or members of Congress concerning battle monuments 3, http:// 

www.governmentattic.org/docs/ABMClComplaintLettersl2006-7.pdf (ABMC Response Letters). 2 Id. at 3, 25, 37, 50. 

3 Id. 

4 Id. at 3. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS LONG, PRESIDENT OF OHIO CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE AND

CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE OF AMERICA, AKRON, OHIO, ON S. 1044 

Chairman Udall and distinguished Members of the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Subcommittee on National Parks: 

We are honored to submit this letter of support for S. 1044, legislation that will 

include FDR’s D-Day Landing Prayer at the WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C. 

We would like to express appreciation to Senator Rob Portman, sponsor of this legislation. 

Sixty-nine years ago, on the morning of June 6, 1944, as Allied forces were landing on the beaches in Normandy, President Roosevelt went to the airwaves and 

prayed with our nation for God’s blessing and protection upon our brave fighting 

men. He prayed, ‘‘Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set 

upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our 

civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . . ’’ 

President Roosevelt’s prayer articulated the great crusade that was underway to 

liberate millions suffering under tyranny. He honored the war effort and paid tribute to the fallen and those veterans who fought courageously in the conflict. It is 

only fitting that succeeding generations learn of this prayer that was offered at that 

most poignant moment in our nation’s history. We are encouraged by the support 

that this legislation is receiving. Veterans and veterans groups across the nation are 

in support of adding FDR’s D-Day Landing Prayer to the WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C. This prayer represents an important piece of American history. Historians indicate that President Roosevelt hand wrote the prayer which was an inspiration to a nation engaged in a great world war of which the outcome was still very 

much uncertain. The prayer gave hope to millions of Americans and to those listening on the radio in occupied Europe anticipating the Allied advance. 

We therefore urge members of the U.S. Senate to support the FDR D-Day Prayer 

inclusion and pass the legislation that will allow its placement at the WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C. We commend Senator Portman and the Senate co-sponsors 

of this historic legislation. 

STATEMENT OF AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, 

(AUSCS), ON S. 1044 

Founded in 1947, Americans United is a nonpartisan educational organization 

dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the 

only way to ensure true religious freedom for all Americans. We fight to protect the 

right of individuals and religious communities to worship as they see fit without 

government interference, compulsion, support, or disparagement. Americans United 

has more than 120,000 members and supporters across the country. 

We submit this written statement to express our objections to S. 1044, which calls 

for the installation of a plaque or inscription with a prayer at the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia, which was dedicated in May 2004. We believe 

that inserting the prayer acts contrary to the Memorial’s goal of uniting Americans, 

and it defies the designers’ judgments, which were reached through a rigorous process. 

It is true that ‘‘each visitor views the memorial through their own experience, 

which sometimes results in their questioning aspects of the design.’’1. But this questioning, no matter how heartfelt, should not reopen the design process. For example, 

since the Memorial’s dedication, soldiers have requested amendments to add the 

Battles of Cassino, Bougainville, and New Georgia; asked for changes to recognize 

the Canal Zone; and advocated for the inclusion of campaign ribbons.2 These requests were denied.3 As explained in a letter written in 2006 by the American Battle Monuments Commission, ‘‘The government agencies for the design of the memorial . . . consider it complete, recognizing that the full story can never be captured 

in a memorial.’’4. 

53 

5Thomas B. Grooms, U.S. General Services Administration’s Design Excellence Program in 

the Office of the Chief Architect,World War II Memorial Online Book 25 (2004), http:// 

www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/docs/WWIIlMemoriallBooklCompleted.pdf (WWII Memorial 

Online Book); see also id. at 56 (explaining that the Memorial design was chosen because it ‘‘created a strong sense of unity-the bringing together the nation-with the two colonnades representing the states); id. at 65 (during the design process, ‘‘overall, the peers sought to keep 

the site as ‘green’ as possible while ensuring the integrity of the design vision, particularly the 

theme of national unity... ’’). 6 ‘‘Portman Commemorates D-Day with WWII Memorial Prayer Act on Senate Floor,’’ June 

6, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsTPINh9WHY; see also ‘‘Portman Renews Effort to 

Commemorate FDR’s D-Day Prayer with the National at the WWII Memorial,’’ Press Release, 

May 23, 2013, http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/5/portman-renews-effort-tocommemorate-fdr-s-d-day-prayer-with-the-nation-at-the-wwii-memorial (We should not underestimate the power of prayer through difficult times, and I encourage the Senate to take it up 

and pass it quickly.’’). 7 Id. 

8 Bob Smietana, Buddhist Chaplain is Army First, USA TODAY, Sept. 8, 2009, http:// 

www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-09-08-buddhist-chaplain—N.htm. 9 Hearing on H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070, H.R. 2621, and H.R. 3155 Before the Subcomm. on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 112th Congress 

(2011) (testimony of Robert Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land Management). 10 ABMC Response Letters at 3. 11World War II Online Book at 76-79. 12 Id. at 76-79. 13 Id. at 76. 

Inserting This Prayer Contradicts the Main Message of the Memorial-Unity. 

One of the main themes of the World War II Memorial is unity: ‘‘The memorial 

serves as a timeless reminder of the moral strength and the awesome power of a 

free people united in a common and just cause.’’5. Adding a prayer to the completed 

Memorial, however, does not serve the theme of unity. Instead, it introduces an element to the design on which many Americans disagree-religion. 

When Senator Rob Portman and Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced the identical bill last Congress, they both spoke on the House floor and noted the religious 

significance of adding the prayer. Senator Portman explained that the new inscription will be a ‘‘permanent reminder of... the power of prayer through difficult 

times.’’.6 And Senator Lieberman stated his belief that the prayer will ‘‘remind us 

that faith in God has played a pivotal role in American history every day since the 

Declaration of Independence.’’.7

But America’s military, like the nation itself, is extraordinarily religiously diverse. 

Our veterans-like our currently serving troops-come from many different religious 

traditions and some follow no spiritual path at all. Indeed, a 2009 report by the Department of Defense ‘‘tracks 101 faiths for active-duty personnel’’ and noted that ‘‘almost 281,710 claim[ed] no religion.’’.8

Adding a prayer that represents some, but not all veterans and members of the 

military, defies the theme of unity, making many feel unrepresented by the Memorial. The current Memorial represents all 16 million service members who served 

in our armed forces during World War II. There is no need to alter the Memorial 

to depict one particular view of God, which would cause some veterans to feel excluded. 

The Designers of the Memorial Called for Fewer Inscriptions, Not More. 

The process of choosing the inscriptions for the World War II Memorial was exhaustive and done with expertise, and should not be reopened. In 2011, Robert 

Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, testified at a House subcommittee hearing that ‘‘the design we see today was painstakingly arrived upon 

after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate.’’.9 Indeed, ‘‘the inscription selection and review process involved two American Battle Monuments Commissions (one appointed by President Clinton, one appointed by President Bush), 

the Memorial Advisory Board, military service and civilian historians, the Library 

of Congress, the National Park Service, and the Commission of Fine Arts.’’.10During 

this process, ‘‘the number, locations, words, and authors to be represented [on the 

memorial] changed often.’’.11

As part of the inscription approval process, the American Battle Monuments Commission created a Review Commission, whose membership included historians and 

retired Army Generals, to review proposed inscriptions for the monument.12 This 

Review Commission called for ‘‘Fewer Words-Less Inscriptions.’’.13 The Review Commission ‘‘decided to reduce the number of inscription locations from 25 to 20 and 

54 

14 Id. at 79. 15 Id. AT 65. 16 In addition, actions to fix spelling errors and misquotes or to add names to the Vietnam 

Memorial are also easily distinguishable. Also clearly different is eliminating an incorrect quote 

from the Memorial to Martin Luther King Jr., which was dedicated in 2011. Indeed, the Department of the Interior chose to remove an inaccurate quotation from the Memorial to Martin Luther King Jr., rather than add the full quotation to ‘‘ensure that the structural integrity of the 

monument was not compromised.’’ Secretary Salazar Provides Update on Resolution to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial, Press Release, Dec. 11, 2012, <http://www.doi.gov/news/ 

pressreleases/secretary-salazar-provides-update-on-resolution-to-dr-martin-luther-king- jr-memorial.cfm>. 

to emphasize evocative quotations from World War II participants-including Roosevelt, Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Nimitz.’’.14

Adding additional inscriptions to the monument, therefore, goes against the vision, expertise, and design of those who designed the Memorial. And, it surely contradicts the Commission’s goal to have ‘‘Fewer Words-Less Inscriptions.’’ 

The Commemorative Works Act 

S. 1044 defies the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). The original design process 

included ‘‘more than two dozen public reviews,’’ and ‘‘numerous informal design review sessions with members of the evaluation board and design competition jury.’’.15

And, as explained above, the inscriptions themselves were also subject to significant 

review. Adding additional inscription disrespects the original process and the current design. 

That S. 1044 calls for the design of the new inscription or plaque to also go 

through the CWA process does not undo the fact that the Memorial’s design is being 

reopened and altered or that the painstaking decisions made in the original process 

are being overruled. The bill demands that a specific inscription be added. Even if 

the exact location and the font of the inscription will be reviewed under the CWA, 

it does not cure the fact that the insertion of the plaque violates the original design 

process and, at a minimum, the spirit of the CWA. 

Changing the Content of Such a Prominent Monument a Decade after Its Dedication 

is Nearly Unprecedented. 

Redesigning critical aspects of a Memorial more than a decade after its dedication 

is nearly unprecedented. Proponents of S. 1044 claim that adding the prayer to the 

World War II Memorial is akin to Congress choosing to add an inscription at the 

Lincoln Memorial to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘‘I Have a Dream 

Speech.’’ They also claim it is similar to adding a plaque to the World War II Memorial to thank Former Senator Bob Dole for his ‘‘tireless support of’’ the Memorial. 

But adding these plaques was wholly different.16

The plaque added at the Lincoln Memorial merely commemorated that spot as the 

site for an important historical event. In just a few words, the inscription commemorated Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech: the inscription includes the words ‘‘I HAVE 

A DREAM,’’ and acknowledges the speaker, the event, and the date. It does not add, 

detract, or change any aspects of the monument that reflect upon Lincoln. 

The plaque honoring Bob Dole also does not change any reflections upon World 

War II. It was not even embedded into the World War II Memorial. Instead, it was 

placed at the Memorial’s visitor center, approximately 25 yards away from the 

World War II Memorial itself. Indeed, you must turn away from the Memorial to 

even see the plaque. 

Neither the King nor the Dole plaque changed the content and message of the 

Memorial to which they were added: they did not alter, remove, or add language, 

images, or emblems relating to the honoring of President Lincoln or World War II 

Veterans. Neither second guessed the designers, historians, architects, or public 

input regarding the best way to honor Lincoln or veterans at the memorials. Instead, they left the memorials intact. 

Inserting the prayer at the World War II Memorial, in contrast, alters the content 

of the memorial and the message of the monument itself. 

Conclusion 

Our forefathers were wise when they called for our nation to separate church and 

state. It protects the autonomy of religious institutions and ensures that Americans 

have the right to believe-or not-as they choose without government intrusion or influence. A quick search on the internet on S. 1044 demonstrates why passing legislation imposing civil religion is dangerous for religious liberty-articles, blogs, and 

emails are riddled with inflammatory statements challenging the religion of government officials who opposed changing the Memorial and demonizing some as antiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
55 

17 In 2004, false information was also spread that the designers of the World War II Memorial 

purposefully deleted the words, ‘‘so help us God’’ from a sentence inscribed on the Memorial. 

In truth, the sentence from the speech that included those wordswas never even included on 

the Memorial and so claiming the words were omitted is misleading and false. ABMC 

ResponseLetters at 46 (‘‘The inclusion or exclusion of religious references was never an issue, 

nor was it ever discussed’’). But that falsehood is still being circulated today and is used to disparage certain officials as anti-religious, and hostile to God. Unfortunately, some of this rhetoric 

is being mixed into the messages pushing for the prayer inscription. 18 Its goal ‘‘was supposed to be a memorial to inspire, not a museum to teach.’’ World War 

II Online Book at 66. 19The monument quotes Walter Lord: ‘‘Even against the greatest of odds, there is something 

in the Human Spirit-a magic blend of skill, faith, and valor-that can life men from certain defeat 

to incredible victory.’’ World War II Online Book at 97 (emphasis added). 1See Misc. National Parks Bills Hearing Before the Subcomm. on National Parks of the S. 

Comm. Energy & Natural Resources, 112th Cong. (2012) (Statement of Senator Rob Portman) 

available at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=a64e4f88-18d3-4489-96a0-b1a89b2b51e6 (86:15). 2 Religious Diversity in the U.S. Military, Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, Issue Paper 

No. 22 (June 2010). 3Press Release, Sen. Rob Portman, Portman Renews Effort to Commemorate FDR’s D-Day 

Prayer with the Nation at the WWII Memorial (May 23, 2013), http://www.portman.senate.gov/ 

public/index.cfm/2013/5/portman-renews-effort-to-commemorate-fdr-s-d-day-prayer-with-the-nation-at-the-wwii-memorial. 4 American Battle Monuments Commission (AMBC), National WWII Memorial, Facts, http:// 

www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=facts.asp&subpage=intro (‘‘Above all, the memorial 

stands as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral 

strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded 

together in a common and just cause.’’). 

prayer and anti-Christian.17 Even when unintended, such results are neither good 

for religious freedom nor our nation as a whole. 

The Memorial, as designed, is purposely short on words yet certainly evokes a 

powerful message of unity.18 And, in contrast to some of the rhetoric that is being 

generated by this debate, the monument already acknowledges that faith was important to many soldiers during the war.19 There is no need to take extraordinary 

steps to reopen the Memorial to add a prayer. 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), 

July 29, 2013. 

Hon. MARK E. UDALL, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. ROBERT J. PORTMAN, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy & Natural 

Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN UDALL AND RANKING MEMBER PORTMAN: 

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our concerns about S. 1044, 

the ‘‘World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013.’’ This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to add an inscription of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s DDay prayer to the WWII Memorial. 

Religious freedom is a fundamental and defining feature of our national character. 

Given our robust, longstanding commitment to the freedom of religion and belief, 

it is no surprise that the United States is among the most religious, and religiously 

diverse, nations in the world. Our religious diversity is one of our nation’s great 

strengths. 

This bill, however, shows a lack of respect for this great diversity. It endorses the 

false notion that all veterans will be honored by a war memorial that includes a 

prayer proponents characterize as reflecting our country’s ‘‘Judeo-Christian heritage 

and values.’’1 In fact, Department of Defense reports show that nearly one-third of 

all current members of the U.S. Armed Forces identify as non-Christian.2 Likewise, 

many of our veterans and citizens come from a variety of religious backgrounds, or 

have no religious belief; thus, it is inappropriate to honor the ‘‘power of prayer’’.3

in a national memorial. 

Memorials are designed to bring our country together in a unified reflection of our 

past. Indeed, the WWII Memorial’s stated purpose is national unity.4 Instead of 

uniting us as we remember the sacrifice of those who served, the inclusion of this 

prayer on the memorial would be divisive: It would send a strong message to those 

56 

5Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309-10 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 

465, U.S. 668, 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see also, e.g., Trunk and Jewish War Veterans 

v. City of San Diego, 629 F. 3d 1099, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 567 U. S. (2012). 6 AMBC, National WWII Memorial Inscriptions, http://wwiimemorial.com/archives/factsheets/ 

inscriptions.htm. 7 National Parks Service, World War II Memorial Inscription Controversy, http://www.nps.gov/ 

wwii/photosmultimedia/upload/WWII%20Memorial%20Inscription%20Controversy%20web.pdf. 8Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070, H.R. 2621, and H.R. 3155 Before the Subcomm. 

on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands of the H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 112th Cong. 

(2011) (Statement for the Record from National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior) 

available at http://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/112/HR2070l110311.cfm. 9 Id. 

who do not share the same religious beliefs expressed in this prayer that they are 

excluded and ‘‘‘not full members of the... community.’’’5. 

The memorial, as it currently stands, appropriately honors those who served and 

encompasses the entirety of the war. The World War II Memorial Commission and 

the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) carefully chose the thirteen 

inscriptions already included on the memorial. The inscriptions contain quotes spanning from the beginning of U.S. involvement in the war following the attacks on 

Pearl Harbor to the war’s end, and already include a quote about D-Day and two 

quotes from President Roosevelt.6 These commissions thoroughly deliberated which 

inscriptions to include, selecting quotations that honor those who served and commemorate the events of World War II.7 As the National Park Service explained at 

a hearing on this legislation in the 112th Congress, ‘‘The design we see today was 

painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate.’’.8 The ABMC and National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which 

was designated by Congress to consult on the design of the Memorial, have stated 

that ‘‘no additional elements should be inserted into this carefully designed Memorial.’’9

The First Amendment affords special protections to freedom of religion. Because 

of these protections, each of us is free to believe, or not believe, according to the 

dictates of our conscience. The effect of this bill, however, is to co-opt religion for 

political purposes, which harms the beliefs of everyone. 

Thank you for allowing us to share our concerns with S. 1044. 

Sincerely, 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), 

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC), 

AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, 

HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION, 

INTERFAITH ALLIANCE. 

STATEMENT OF FAITH & FREEDOM COALITION, DELUTH, GA, ON S. 1044 

In a letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams wrote these words regarding what we 

now call Independence Day, ‘‘I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.’’ 

Those words were written in 1776 when the founders were convinced that, through 

the hand of God, they had delivered this fledgling nation from a great tyranny. We 

were to be a nation dedicated to the God of the Word, and the Word of God. Our 

Founding Fathers, and Statesmen that followed, emphasized the importance of religious obedience to a thriving and successful nation. 

• ‘‘ . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality 

can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.’’ George Washington 

• ‘‘ . . . Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty 

and happiness.’’ Samuel Adams 

• ‘‘The great pillars of all government and social life are virtue, morality, and 

religion . . . ’’ Patrick Henry 

• ‘‘We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion... our Constitution was made only 

for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of 

any other.’’ John Adams 

This statement by John Adams is powerful. He acknowledges the corrupting influence of power and the only force strong enough to curtail those passions as being 

morality and religion. 

57 

Where do we stand today? Have we clung to the only power and authority our 

founders acknowledged would prosper and protect our nation? On the other hand, 

have we fallen into the trap we were warned of, abandoning God, abandoning his 

principles and still expecting His blessing and protection? A quick glance at any 

day’s headlines gives us the obvious answer. An honest look at today’s culture tells 

us the results. 

Christianity is deeply engrained America’s history, from the founding of the nation through today. Prior to the invasion of Normandy by American, British, and 

Canadian forces on June 6, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt empowered the 

country with this prayer. The burdens of war remain unchanged between generations; President Roosevelt’s prayer for the troops and their families continues to 

serve as a reminder that American is a blessed nation that will unwaveringly stand 

resolute in the face of adversity. Its enduring message should be recognized. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY DAMEROW, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AND STATE AFFAIRS, SECULAR COALITION FOR AMERICA, ON S. 1044 

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

to submit testimony on the behalf of the Secular Coalition for America and the 25 

million nontheistic Americans the Secular Coalition represents. We have grave concerns about S. 1044, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in 

the area of the World War II Memorial an inscription with President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt’s prayer on D-Day, June 6, 1944. 

According to the American Battle Monuments Commission, the preeminent purpose of the WWII Memorial is to ‘‘stand as an important symbol of American national unity.’’ The inscriptions currently etched into the memorial reaffirm this notion, celebrating our country’s collective efforts and sacrifices in conquering tyranny 

and defending liberty. 

Rebuffing the unifying purpose of the monument, the prayer this bill proposes to 

add is inherently divisive. The defining characteristic of our religious freedom is not 

our unity, but our diversity. We are proudly a religiously pluralistic society. The 

freedom to make our religious choices is our own and the vast majority of Americans 

agree that ‘‘religion is a private matter that should be kept out of public debates.’’ 

There is no secular motivation behind this bill. It does not seek to correct inaccuracies or further the unifying purpose of the monument. The 13 inscriptions were 

thoughtfully chosen by experts for their historical significance and this prayer was 

not one of them. Even with a professor and expert on Judaic studies on the advisory 

board, no religious quote was chosen. Overruling this carefully weighed decision by 

a panel of experts would send a strong message. The impact of returning to a finished monument to add this prayer would clearly be granting special treatment for 

religious statements. 

The unnecessary addition of a religious prayer shows great disrespect for our current military service members and veterans who come from a variety of religious 

backgrounds, many with no religious or theistic belief. Currently, nontheistic 

servicemembers are the largest non-Christian religious affiliation, and 23% of 

servicemembers indicate no religious preference. The permanent and unnecessary 

action this bill proposes only solidifies to these servicemembers the discrimination 

they continue to face on a daily basis. 

If this monument stands to renew faith, let it renew our faith that this legislative 

body will respect the growing religious diversity of its constituents and 

servicemembers. 

If this monument stands to reaffirm belief, let it reaffirm our belief in the constitutional principles that separate religion and government as the best guarantee 

of freedom for all. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE SCHUYLKILL RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, 

ON S. 1157 

I am pleased to offer these comments in support of S. 1157 which will reauthorize 

the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area until September 30, 2022. First 

authorized by Public Law 106-278 on October 6, 2000 and operating under a management plan entitled Living with the River approved by the National Park Service 

in 2003, the Schuylkill River Heritage Area is eager to continue our work in five 

counties of southeastern Pennsylvania. Our Heritage Area uses conservation, recreation, education, cultural and historic preservation, and tourism as tools for community revitalization and economic development. In keeping with our management 

58 

plan, the Schuylkill River Heritage Area has developed three major initiatives: The 

Schuylkill River Sojourn, our signature event; the Schuylkill River Trail, our signature project; and The River of Revolutions Interpretive Center which is part of the 

Schuylkill River Academic and Heritage Center being developed in partnership with 

Montgomery County Community College and the Borough of Pottstown, Pennsylvania. 

The Schuylkill River Sojourn: Our Signature Event 

The Schuylkill River Sojourn has been our signature event since it was initiated 

in 1999 in partnership with the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Since its inception, participants have traveled from 20 states, Washington, 

D.C. and two provinces in Canada to paddle the river and over 3,000 people have 

registered for this weeklong, 112-mile guided paddle. In addition, the Schuylkill 

River Heritage Area engages more than 70 partners each year to provide food, educational programming, entertainment and funding. The sojourn’s popularity has 

grown steadily over the years. In 2013, we had a record number of people (59) make 

the full trip, and 226 for the entire trip. 

The sojourn addresses the multiple goals of the SRHA management plan: educating people about the region, encouraging recreational use of the river, instilling 

an appreciation for nature, facilitating community revitalization and promoting heritage tourism. 

The sojourn spawned the publication of a Schuylkill River Water Trail Map and 

Guide, which improved paddling safety and directly led to the river’s designation as 

an American Canoe Association Recommended Water Trail. It has also attracted a 

great deal of media attention, raising awareness of the river as a valuable recreational resource and as a source of drinking water for over 1.5 million people 

through both regional and national media platforms. Since it incorporates educational programs that are open to the public at evening campsites, it has taught 

thousands of non-sojourners to value of the river, as well. 

The Schuylkill River Trail: Our Signature Project 

Development of a 130-mile Schuylkill River Trail from Philadelphia to Pottsville 

has been a primary goal of our organization since the Schuylkill River Greenway 

Association was founded in 1974. Our motivation in building the trail has always 

been about bringing people to the river, so that they value and conserve its resources. 

Early on, our role consisted of supporting a vision, in partnership with others, of 

a trail that ran the length of the river. In 1991, the Schuylkill River Greenway Association officially acquired 10.5 miles of abandoned Pennsylvania Railroad right-ofway in southern Berks County and formulated a plan to build a 19-mile trail from 

Pottstown to Reading. Gradually, through a variety of funding sources and partnerships, we built that entire 19 miles, filling a major gap in 2005 with the completion 

of the Lancaster Avenue Bridge in Reading, and closing the final gap in 2008 by 

constructing a .68-mile piece in Birdsboro. A four mile section remains as a signed, 

on-road trail. In 2006, the Heritage Area received a two-year, $600,000 grant from 

the William Penn Foundation and became the lead organization in unifying the 

trail’s various sections, creating a uniform sign system and improving accessibility. 

In 2007, we completed 6.5 miles of trail from Hamburg to Auburn, and in 2010 we 

posted signs for a 20-mile on-road Route from Reading to Hamburg. Our work with 

the trail is on-going as we regularly reprint and distribute trail maps and maintain 

a website dedicated to the trail. 

Today, more than 56 miles of the Schuylkill River Trail has been built by a number of partners. Of this, the Heritage Area operates and maintains, through volunteers, 28 trail miles without the benefit of state, county or local funds. We are currently working towards building an off-road trail from Reading to Hamburg, and 

have begun using the trail as an economic development tool with our Heritage 

Towns and Tours program, which assists communities in linking the trail to downtowns and attractions. 

River of Revolutions Interpretive Center 

It has been a long-term goal of the Schuylkill River Heritage Area to create a visitors center for the entire region. In 2012 we achieved that goal, opening the River 

of Revolutions Interpretive Center in our Pottstown headquarters. The center features interactive exhibits, maps, videos, informative wall panels, and family-friendly 

displays to tell the fascinating history of the Schuylkill River region through the 

American, Industrial and Environmental Revolutions. It also includes brochures and 

maps that encourage visitors to explore the region’s many historic and recreational 

sites. 

59 

The River of Revolutions Interpretive Center has been well received by visitors 

of all age groups and backgrounds. It will eventually be part of the Schuylkill River 

Academic and Heritage Center that the Heritage Area is creating in partnership 

with Montgomery County Community College. Plans call for revamping a 5,000- 

square-foot undeveloped section of the building which houses our offices and transforming it into an environmental education center for the college, with four classrooms, a lab and office space. When the college facility is complete, the site will become a regional hub for river education, history and recreation. 

Since being authorized by Congress in 2000, the Schuylkill River Heritage Area 

has undertaken many additional projects. The following list is a sampling of dozens 

of initiatives, projects and programs we have presented to the region. 

• The Schuylkill River Water Trail was designated a National Recreation Trail 

by the United States Department of the Interior, the first in Pennsylvania. 

• The Schuylkill River National Heritage Area Management Plan was approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. 

• Completed a master sign plan, to help brand the Schuylkill River Heritage Area 

and to provide visitors and residents with a uniform sign system for the Schuylkill River Land and Water Trails. 

• Reprinted The Schuylkill, by J. Bennett Nolan in partnership with the Martin 

Foundation. This long out-of-print book, first published in 1951, is considered 

the premier source of historical information on the Schuylkill River. 

• The Schuylkill River Water Trail was selected by the American Canoe Association as a Recommended Water Trail, then one of only 12 water trails in the US 

and Canada to receive that designation. 

• Organized the first Scenes of the Schuylkill Juried Exhibition, featuring 31 

original works by artists celebrating the beauty of the Heritage Area. This year 

we will host the 10th annual exhibition, which includes 83 works. 

• Entered into an agreement with Exelon Nuclear to establish the Schuylkill 

River Restoration Fund. To date, Exelon has donated over $1.4 million for 

projects that improve water quality in the river and its tributaries. 

• Participated in several Upward Bound programs introducing high school students from inner city areas to kayaking, bicycling and lessons about the Heritage Area. 

• Produced a full color brochure of the Schuylkill River Heritage Area aimed at 

encouraging people to explore the region’s cultural and recreational attractions. 

• Received a $735,000 two-year grant from the William Penn Foundation for 

projects that increase public awareness and accessibility to the Schuylkill River 

Trail. 

• Published Along the Schuylkill River, a pictorial history of the river that featured over 200 vintage photographs of the Schuylkill River, the canal and the 

communities along it. 

• Premiered a new PBS documentary, The Revolutionary River, about the history 

of the Schuylkill River to enthusiastic audiences at several events. The film was 

also broadcast on WHYY. 

• Introduced the Heritage Towns and Tours program, providing municipalities 

along the Schuylkill River Trail with grant funding and how-to information on 

making their towns into destinations for trail users. 

• Produced and distributed a new full-color brochure for the Schuylkill River 

Trail that includes a map of the entire trail—the first of its kind produced as 

a handout—and information on key towns along the trail. 

• Received a $719,000 grant from the William Penn Foundation to improve the 

Schuylkill River Trail and strengthen its economic development potential. 

• Worked in partnership with the Pottstown Health and Wellness Foundation to 

assume management of Pottstown’s free bike share program, Bike Pottstown, 

and expanded it to Phoenixville and Hamburg, where it is known as Bike 

Schuylkill. The community bike share program has been remarkably successfulin Pottstown alone over 350 bikes are shared per month at no cost to the user. 

• The Heritage Area received national publicity when two short films about the 

Schuylkill River Heritage Area were produced by American Milestone as part 

of a short-form documentary series. 

• Organized the Schuylkill River Trail Bike Tour Series featuring an annual bike 

ride on the Schuylkill River Trail to introduce riders to historic assets and community resources easily accessible via the trail. 

• We introduced a new lecture series with a talk and book signing by local writer 

Chari Towne, whose book, A River Again, focused on the mid-20th century 

cleanup that saved the Schuylkill River. Additional lectures have been held 

throughout the year on a variety of topics of regional interest. 

60 

1The Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site, Saugus, is the site of the first integrated 

ironworks manufacturing complex in North America. The Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, was 

established by Salem sea captains in 1799, and it is considered by most historians to be the 

oldest continuously operating museum in the United States. Lowell’s Boat Shop, Amesbury, is 

the Nation’s oldest working boat shop and the birthplace of the famous Gloucester stackable 

fishing dory. The Endicott Pear Tree, Danvers, (also known also as the Endecott Pear) is the 

oldest known cultivated fruit tree in North America having been brought by Governor John 

Endecott from England on the Arbella in June 1630. 

• Installed 19 Gateway Information Centers at popular destination sites throughout the five-county Heritage Area. Gateway Centers are information booths designed to educate people about the region’s cultural and historic significance. 

The Schuylkill River Heritage Area has developed an excellent network of regional funders that have provided matching support for our federal appropriation. 

Matching funds have been as high as five dollars for every one dollar of federal support. Collectively these funds have supported jobs, as monies are invested in community projects. Since 2000, $5.2 million in matching support has come from the 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and $2.5 million 

from the William Penn Foundation. Another $1.6 million from the Exelon Corporation and $400,000 from the Philadelphia Water Department has been given in support of the Schuylkill River Restoration Fund established by our organization. We 

have also received generous support from the Pottstown Health & Wellness Foundation, the Wyomissing Foundation, the Martin Foundation, Chester, Montgomery, 

Berks and Schuylkill Counties and increasing support from businesses and individuals. 

Should we be reauthorized by Congress until 2022, we are well under the 

$10,000,000 that was authorized to be appropriated to the Schuylkill River Heritage 

Area in Public Law 106-278—October 6, 2000 and every indication we have suggests 

continued matching support from the funders noted above. 

As a National and State designated Heritage Area, we are fortunate to be able 

to partner with three National Parks that are located in our area, Valley Forge National Historical Park, Independence National Historical Park and Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site. We have installed Gateway Information Centers about 

the Schuylkill River Heritage Area and have provided for public educational programming through a variety of events at each of these sites. In the past, the National Park Service has provided programming for our Schuylkill River Sojourn; and 

next year we are sponsoring a three-day bicycle ride on the Schuylkill River Trail 

that begins at Hopewell, stops at the Heritage Area River of Revolutions Interpretive Center, camps at Valley Forge and tours Independence. The National Park 

Service has a representative on our Board of Directors and is recognized on all Heritage Area literature and our website with the iconic National Park Service arrowhead logo. The Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area is implementing our 

management plan, leveraging federal funding, partnering with our National Parks, 

restoring the Schuylkill River, building the Schuylkill River Trail and promoting numerous visitor attractions in the region as we use conservation, recreation, education, cultural and historic preservation and tourism as tools for community revitalization and economic development. 

We respectfully request your support for S.1157 which will reauthorize the 

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area until September 30, 2022. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIE C. HARRIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ESSEX NATIONAL

HERITAGE COMMISSION, ON S. 1186 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for opportunity to submit written testimony for S. 1186—the Essex National Heritage 

Area Reauthorization Act. 

The Essex National Heritage Area is the 500 square mile region located north of 

Boston, Massachusetts. For nearly four hundred years, this region has played a very 

important role in American history, and many of the sites and resources from the 

founding of our Nation still survive intact today. The National Heritage Area was 

established in 1996 by Public Law 103-33 to recognize, preserve, promote and educate the public about three nationally significant themes: early settlement, maritime 

history and the early industrial era. The Essex National Heritage Area has within 

its boundaries the first integrated ironworks in North America, the oldest continuously operating museum, the oldest working boat shop, the oldest cultivate fruit 

tree, and much more.1 The area is rich in manmade and natural resources including 

61 

2 Evaluation of the Essex National Heritage Commission Findings Document; prepared by the 

Center for Park Management for the National Park Service; November 2010. 3The Economic Impact of National Heritage Areas: A Case Study Analysis of Six National 

Heritage Area Sires in the Northeast Region of the United States and Projections on the National Impact of All National Heritage Areas. TrippUmbach. February 18, 2013. 

9,968 sites on the National Register of Historic Places, 73 National Register Historic 

Districts, 26 National Historic Landmarks, 86 historical sites and museums open to 

the public, 400 farms, 9 state parks, 2 units of the National Park Service and 1 National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Essex National Heritage Commission (ENHC) is the regional, non-profit organization that manages the activities of the National Heritage Area. ENHC works 

to conserve and promote the nationally significant stories and resources of the region. At the ENHC, we support a robust network of public and private partnerships 

that rely on the heritage resources and stories to revitalize communities and 

strengthen the local economy. We promote cultural tourism sites and programs, and 

contribute to supporting the state’s tourism economy which is the third largest job 

producing industry in Massachusetts. We provide grants in conservation and resource stewardship that not only preserve the historic fabric of our region, but also 

create jobs in construction and tourism. Currently, it is estimated that we have created nearly 1,500 jobs through our grant programs, and for the past 5 summers we 

have provided 103 jobs for disadvantaged youths. We develop trails and bikeways 

for recreation, healthy living and clean transportation. Twenty-eight miles of trail 

were recently completed and are now providing safe recreational opportunities, and 

another eighteen miles are currently under design. We create regional events that 

build community pride, and last year alone we assisted in attracting 1.3 million visitors to the region. Appreciating that our future lies in engaging residents and visitors of all backgrounds and interests, we have increased our educational programming to include the Latino community and other English language learners. This 

summer, in partnership with our local university and the National Park Service, we 

presented two teacher workshops in place-based learning and a summer enrichment 

program for 40 students for whom English is their second language. 

In the Essex National Heritage Area, as in the other National Heritage Areas, we 

accomplish our work by leveraging the public investment with private funding, volunteer time, in-kind donations, and local and state contributions. We successfully 

match the federal dollars invested in our area many times over. As documented in 

the Evaluation of the Essex National Heritage Area Commission Findings Document, ‘‘between 1998 and 2008, ENHC received $9,327,437 in federal funds which 

were match with $19,702,891 from non-federal sources.’’2 We promote the principles 

of conservation and preservation from the grassroots by involving residents in longterm, multi-partnership, landscape and community conservation projects. Our 

projects like Trails & Sails and the Essex Coastal Scenic Byway engage hundreds 

of people in multiple communities. We accomplish our work in harmony with the 

goals of the National Park Service and without requiring public ownership for our 

success. The value of the Essex National Heritage Area and our fellow heritage 

areas lies in our ability to connect with the area’s historic, cultural and natural sites 

and to utilize these indigenous resources to create jobs, and revitalize communities. 

It is our experience that heritage preservation and jobs go hand-in-hand. Strong 

economies occur in places where there is deep community pride and dedicated stewardship. Our accomplishments in preservation and economic development in the 

Essex National Heritage Area are supported by the findings of TrippUmbach, a nationally recognized consulting firm, engaged by the National Park Service to study 

the economic impact of the National Heritage Areas across the United States. In 

their study on The Economic Impact of National Heritage Areas (February, 2013), 

they conclude that the annual national economic effect of the National Heritage 

Areas is ‘‘$12.9 billion in economic activity which supports approximately 148,000 

jobs and $1.2 billion annually in Federal taxes.’’3

National Heritage Areas, also, enhance the capacity of the National Park Service 

to meet its mission. Within the Essex National Heritage Area, we work closely with 

two national parks—Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus Iron Works 

National Historic Site. We support these park units with programs, community 

projects, and fundraising. As diversity and youth engagement have become ever 

more important, we regularly assist our local national parks in their efforts to reach 

out to our region’s underserved youth and to engage diverse audiences. 

The National Heritage Areas are acknowledged by the leadership of the National 

Park Service to be one of NPS’s most effect external programs. Director Jon Jarvis 

states in Policy Memorandum 12-01 (March 14, 2012), ‘‘the Service also manages 

programs that reach beyond national park boundaries. (and) they form a vital part 

62 

4 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service; Policy Memorandum 12- 

01; Director Jon Jarvis; March 14, 2012. Emphasis is provided by A. Harris. 5 Evaluation of the Essex National Heritage Commission Findings Document; November 2010 

6Letter by Rachel Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, Office of the Secretary, US Department of the Interior; dated April 12, 2013; transmitted 

to the Honorable Ron Wyden. the Honorable Lisa Murkowski, the Honorable Doc Hastings, the 

Honorable Edward Markey, the Honorable Elizabeth Warren, the Honorable William Cowan, 

the Honorable Niki Tsongas and the Honorable John Tierney. Emphasis is provided by A. Harris. 7 Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas: A Report by the National Park System 

Advisory Board, Douglas P. Wheeler, Chairman, 2006; page 25. 8 Advancing the National Park Idea: National Parks Second Century Commission Report; 

Howard H. Bakers, Jr. and J. Bennett Johnston, Co-Chairs; 2009; page 43. 9Policy Memorandum 12-01. 

of the NPS mission and help sustain and enhance the quality of life throughout 

America. These programs rely on a spirit of partnership and cooperation, which I 

believe must be the hallmark of the NPS in the decades that lie ahead. And nowhere is that spirit of partnership and cooperation more fully displayed than in the 

National Heritage Areas.’’ He explains that ‘‘The National Heritage Areas Program 

expands on traditional approaches to resource stewardship by supporting largescale, community centered initiatives that connect local citizens through preservation, conservation, and planning processes.’’4

The value of ENHC’s work is substantiated by a recently released, independent 

evaluation. On May 8, 2008, Congress enacted Public Law 110-229 requiring that 

the nine NHAs established by PL 104-333 be evaluated to assess the progress they 

have made on accomplishing the purposes of their authorizing legislation and 

achieving their management plans, to analyze the investments made in these areas, 

and to review their management structure. The legislation then directed the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report to Congress which ‘‘shall include recommendations for the future role of the National Park Service, if any, with respect 

to the National Heritage Area.’’ The first three of these evaluations along with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s recommendations were submitted to Congress on April 

12, 2013. The Evaluation of the Essex National Heritage Area Commission Findings 

Document—(the Essex Evaluation)5 was one of the three transmitted to the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural 

Resources. The evaluations were performed by the Center for Park Management 

and Westat, consultants to the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service. Based on these independent findings, the Secretary of the Interior states in the 

letter of April 12 that the Essex National Heritage Area ‘‘contributes to the mission 

of the NPS’’. ‘‘successfully engages citizens who work in heritage and conservation 

agencies all across the region’’. ENHC’s ‘‘work demonstrates the ability to successfully provide formal technical assistance and work collaboratively to assist with 

long-term resource protection’’. and has ‘‘more than doubled the requirement for annual matching contributions.’’ In summary, the Secretary of the Interior concludes 

that ‘‘losing federal assistance would have a significant negative impact on the resources, partners, and the NPS’’ and states that ‘‘ENHC is fulfilling its legislative 

mandate’’ and ‘‘recommends a future role with the Essex National Heritage Area.’’6

By enacting S. 1186, the Senate will gain the time it needs to review the evaluation of the Essex National Heritage Area and consider the recommendations of the 

US Department of Interior. The Senate will, also, allow a successful program to continue until the Senate can give due consideration to the comprehensive national heritage area legislation currently filed in the House as H.R. 455—National Heritage 

Area Act of 2013. Comprehensive National Heritage Area legislation has been recommended for many years—including by the National Park System Advisory Board 

in 2006 in Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas7 and in 2009 by the 

National Parks Second Century Commission Report—Advancing the National Park 

Idea8 and most recently by the Secretary of the Interior—National Park Service’s 

spokesperson Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science in her testimony regarding the sun-setting National Heritage 

Areas before this committee on March 7, 2012 and again on July 31, 2013. Lastly, 

in the current era of fiscal constraint and slow job growth, the Essex National Heritage Area, along with the other established National Heritage Areas, has demonstrated the important part we play in regional economic development. As confirmed by NPS Director Jon Jarvis, ‘‘National Heritage Areas are places where 

small (public) investments pay huge dividends, providing demonstrable benefits in 

communities across the county and in partnership with our national parks.’’9

63 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET MINER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RIVERS ALLIANCE OF

CONNECTICUT, LITCHFIELD, CT, ON S. 1253 

Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is the statewide, non-profit coalition of river organizations, individuals, and businesses formed to protect and enhance Connecticut’s 

waters by promoting sound water polides, uniting and. strengthening the state’s 

many river groups, and educating the public about the importance of water stewardship. Our 450 members include almost all of the state’s river and watershed conservation groups, representing many thousand Connecticut residents. 

We much appreciate your care for our country’s great natural resources. In Connecticut, the Farmington River is probably the most beautiful, beloved, and used of 

all our waterways. I may be prejudiced, since Rivers Alliance was founded on the 

banks of the Farmington. But people come from all over the state (and the world, 

actually) to fish, boat, tube, and swim in the river; and to hike, run, and bicycle 

on the pathways along the river. Meanwhile, the river serves to supply drinking 

water and to treat wastewater for the entire Hartford region. 

The Wild and Scenic designations, both existing and now pending, are richly deserved and much needed. We are a densely populated state ih which open space and 

high-quality rivers are keenly appreciated. I am familiar with the fine work done 

by the Wild and Scenic Study Committee in uniting the ten area towns for a plan 

of stewardship and management that will maximize the ecological and economic 

benefits of the river. One reason forthis municipal enthusiasm is the excellent track 

record of the community-based Farmington River Coordinating Committee, which 

serves the Upper Fairmington Wild & Scenic area. People in the Farmington region 

are ever willing to work for their river, and saving its varied natural habitat and 

clean, cold water is a priority. We look forward to enhancing the partnership with 

the federal government, and respectfully ask you to support Senate Bill 1253. 

STATEMENT OF EILEEN FIELDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FARMINGTON RIVER

WATERSHED ASSOCIATION, INC., SIMSBURY, CT, ON S. 1253 

On behalf of the Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA), a non-profit 

citizens’ group founded in 1953, whose mission is to preserve, protect, and restore 

the Farmington River and its watershed through research, education, and advocacy, 

I thank you for the opportunity to submit the following comments in support of S. 

1253. 

In the 1980s and 1990s, FRWA led the campaign to have the West Branch of the 

Farmington River designated a Wild & Scenic River. At the time, the Partnership 

model for Wild & Scenic rivers was un- tried and some feared the designation as 

a threat to local autonomy. But since achieving the designation 1994, FRWA and 

the towns along the West Branch have had no regrets or doubts about its value. 

The Coordinating Committee that was formed to implement the Wild & Scenic management plan on the West Branch brought together diverse public and private partners to work on projects of joint interest. The Committee’s activities enhanced communication, combined resources and expertise in a productive way, and even mellowed deep antagonisms among stakeholders. Federal funding for the W&S management plan attracted local matches of cash, goods, services, and volunteer help for 

river stewardship. Designation helped promote the river as a destination, thus supporting local tourism and recreation-based businesses, as well as enhancing real estate values and general quality of life. 

This success is not unique. In 2007, the National Park Service reported that, of 

all grades of Wild & Scenic Rivers, the Partnership Rivers did best at meeting legislative mandates, external coordination, policy guidance, staff training, and resource 

protection. That same year, the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard’s JFK School of Government named Partnership Wild & Scenic 

Rivers in the top 50 government innovations linking citizens with important public 

services. 

It’s important to understand the nature of the public service. It does not come 

from large infusions of federal money or top-down river management. Modest funding, and access to techni al and advisory resources of the National Park Service, suffice to catalyze local initiatives. As demonstrated on the Farmington’s West Branch, 

the Partnership Wild & Scenic model fosters communication, taps multiple funding 

sources, and leads to creative solutions tailored to local circumstances. 

With S. 1253 we hope to extend these benefits to the rest of the Farmington River 

in Connecticut and to one of its most ecologically valuable tributaries, Salmon 

Brook. Findings in the Lower Farmington Management Plan and Study Report fully 

support the river’s eligibility for designation. So do the ten towns and many stakeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
64 

holder organizations along the lower river. FRWA is fully committed to implementing the management plan in collaboration with all the other stakeholders who 

had a part in producing it. In fact, we have not passively waited for designationwe have already raised considerable local funding and have begun to work with our 

partners on projects recommended in the management plan. Even the promise of 

designation has inspired our communities to action. 

We realize the difficulty of defining the Wild & Scenic reach in a way that protects the river’s outstanding resource values while allowing for the operation and 

possible FERC permitting of a pre-existing hydroelectric facility at Rainbow Dam. 

If it proves necessary, we will support continued effort to draft language that protects the hydro facility’s ability to do needed upgrades, but also supports the National Park Service mandate to protect the reaches upstream and downstream of the 

facility in a way that’s consistent with W&S designation. 

In conclusion, we strongly support S. 1253 as providing a proved, sensible, and 

important means for the citizens of Connecticut to take care of one of their most 

beautiful and valuable rivers. 

Respectfully submitted, 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CASE, PRESIDENT, FARMINGTON VALLEY CHAPTER OF TROUT

UNLIMITED, ON S. 1253 

As President of the Farmington Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited, I respectfully 

request the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to act favorably 

on S 1253, the bill to des-ignate the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook as 

a partnership Wild and Scenic river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Trout Unlimited is an organization with 150,000 members in 400 chapters across 

35 states whose mission is to conserve, protect and restore cold water fisheries and 

their watersheds. The Farmington Valley Chapter is the largest of eight chapters 

in Connecticut with over 600 members. 

I am not sure it is possible to convey to you the passion and devotion anglers have 

for this riv-er. It is also not only a world-class trout stream, but a source of great 

enjoyment for thou-sands of other Connecticut residents and visitors. We enthusiastically support any effort that would provide much needed coordination and resources that will positively benefit the Farm-ington and its tributaries. 

Farmington Valley Trout Unlimited has the greatest respect for the groups who 

act to protect our valuable resource, and we hope that you will support the extensive 

effort put forth by the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic 

Study Committee by awarding the lower portion of the river this designation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Sincerely, 

STATEMENT OF SALLY S. RIEGER, LOWER FARMINGTON RIVER/SALMON BROOK, 

SIMSBURY, CT, ON S. 1253 

As the volunteer chairman of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook 

Wild and Scenic Study Committee, on behalf of the Study Committee I respectfully 

urge the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to act favorably on 

S 1253, the bill to designate the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook as a 

partnership Wild and Scenic river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

A 14 mile segment of the upper Farmington River was designated as Wild and 

Scenic in 1994. The lower river and Salmon Brook towns that are involved in the 

current Wild and Scenic Study want their part of the watercourses designated as 

well, The ten Study area towns have formally endorsed designation because they 

would like to enjoy the economic and conservation benefits for their portion of the 

rivers which a Wild and Scenic designation would bring. 

In addition to requiring such community support, the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act requires that designated rivers have at least one Outstandingly Remarkable Value of regional or national significance. The lower Farmington and Salmon 

Brook surpass that standard, sharing five such values, Geology, Water Quality, Biodiversity, Cultural Landscape and Recreation. These are documented, along with 

priorities for their protection and enhancement, in the Management Plan developed 

by the Study Committee. Development of a Management Plan, a guidance document 

available for public and private use, is yet a third requirement for Wild and Scenic 

designation. Designation would put into action a volunteer advisory group that 

works on implementing the Management Plan priorities for the watercourses as 

whole rather than on a town by town basis as individual municipalities do. This 

65 

would result in better coordinated river protection and more coordination of river 

related economic development efforts. 

The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study has 

brought together more than thirty river stakeholders including volunteers from the 

ten study area towns, and from local community and conservation organizations as 

well as representatives from Stanley Black and Decker, Inc, and the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The Study Committee’s work 

in documenting river resources, in determining potential opportunities to enhance 

river protection, and in promoting a better understanding and appreciation of the 

ecological and economic value of a healthy river has made a strong contribution to 

our local communities. The Study Committee seeks designation for the lower Farmington and Salmon Brook with the hope that the work it has completed will lead 

to an ongoing and successful community-based effort to protect the watercourses for 

today’s citizens and for future generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

Sincerely 

GILA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 

July 26, 2013. 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. Senate, B85 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

U.S. Senate, 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for S. 1300 to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to 

provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects. 

DEAR SENATORS FLAKE AND MCCAIN; 

Gila County has been a stakeholder in the effort to develop and implement landscape scale forested ecosystems restoration for the last decade and has been involved in the creation of the White Mountains Stewardship Project; the Arizona 

Governor’s Forest Health Council’s Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona Forests; the collaborative Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona; and the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

The value and effectiveness of the Stewardship Contracting Authority for forested 

ecosystems and watersheds restoration has been repeatedly demonstrated across the 

nation over the last 10 years, and particularly in Arizona through the accomplishments of the White Mountains Stewardships Contract and the collaborative work 

of the Four Restoration Initiative. 

Simultaneously, Gila County has been deeply involved in addressing and resolving for the Four Forest Restoration Initiative first analysis area contract the cancellation ceiling obligation currently required in Stewardship Contracts. Gila County 

also understands and appreciates the need to align the stewardship contracting fire 

liability provisions with those of other contracting tools available to the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

Gila County is therefore pleased to write in strong support of S. 1300 to amend 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects, introduced by Senators Jeff Flake and John 

McCain, and wants to express its appreciation as a means to prevent catastrophic 

forest fires, and landscape scale forested ecosystems and watershed ecological restoration. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TOMMIE MARTIN, 

District 1 Supervisor. 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ARIZONA CHAPTER, 

July 31, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

Member, U.S. Senate, 241 Russell SOB, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

Member, U.S. Senate, 368 Russell SOB, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS MCCAIN & FLAKE: 

66 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act, S. 1300 (hereinafter the ‘‘bill’’). The Nature Conservancy deeply appreciates the leadership shown by both of our Arizona Senators. 

The reauthorization of Stewardship Contracting is a top priority for the Conservancy and action on this issue is urgently needed. We cannot afford to lose this critical forest management tool, which will expire on September 30, 2013 without Congressional action and support the objectives of this bill. 

As you know, The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization 

dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to conserve the 

lands and waters on which all life depends. Our on-the-ground conservation work 

is carried out in all 50 states and in more than 30 foreign countries and is supported 

by approximately one million individual members. We have helped conserve nearly 

15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada and more than 102 million 

acres with local partner organizations globally. 

The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves throughout 

the United States-the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. We 

recognize, however, that our mission cannot be achieved by core protected areas 

alone. Therefore, our projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human 

uses, and especially in the developing world, to address sustained human well-being. 

As members of the stakeholders group of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, 

known as 4FRI, we know firsthand of the importance of Reauthorization of the 

Stewardship Contracting authority. Specifically, allowing forest managers to continue using innovative contracting methods to achieve forest management objectives, increase and diversify job opportunities, and provide certainty for contractors 

with multiyear agreements while building strong partnerships invested in the future of the forest and community. Treatments completed under the Stewardship 

Contracting Authority promote healthy forests and reduce fire hazards, increase watershed resilience, and expand business and job opportunities. 

Stewardship Contracting is a particularly important tool in Arizona where rebuilding a robust and multi-faceted forest industry is critical to achieving the large 

scale restoration and community protection goals embodied in 4FRI and other collaborative forest management projects. It is essential that we be able to attract forest industry investment that is equal to the scale of our forest management challenge and Stewardship Contracting plays a key role in this equation. 

Again, we thank you for your leadership and great concern over this very important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

PATRICK GRAHAM, 

State Director. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. NEZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NAVAJO COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ON NAVAJO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, S. 1300 

Navajo County has been a stakeholder in the effort to develop and implement 

landscape scale forested ecosystems restoration for the last decade and has been involved in the creation of the White Mountains Stewardship Project; the Arizona 

Governor’s Forest Health Council’s Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona Forests; the collaborative Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona; and, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

The value and effectiveness of the Stewardship Contracting Authority for forested 

ecosystems and watersheds restoration has been repeatedly demonstrated across the 

nation over the last 10 years, and particularly in Arizona through the accomplishments of the White Mountains Stewardship Contract and the collaborative work of 

the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

Simultaneously, Navajo County has been deeply involved in addressing and resolving for the Four Forest Restoration Initiative first analysis area contract the 

cancellation ceiling obligation currently required in Stewardship Contracts. Navajo 

County also understands and appreciates the need to align the stewardship contracting fire liability provisions with those of other contracting tools available to the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

Navajo County is therefore pleased to write in strong support of S. 1300 to amend 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects, introduced by Senators Jeff Flake and John 

McCain, and wants to express its appreciation to the Senators for their continued 

involvement and leadership in addressing the issues of fuel reduction as a means 

to prevent catastrophic forest fires, and landscape scale forested ecosystems and watershed ecological restoration. 

67 

Thank you for your consideration. 

ARIZONA’S PAYSON COOL MOUNTAIN TOWN, 

Payson, AZ, July 29, 2013. 

Hon. JOE MANCHIN, 

Chairman, Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Sub-Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 

Building, 304 Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MANCHIN AND RANKING MEMBER SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO: 

As the Mayor of Payson Arizona, in the heart of the largest Ponderosa Forest in 

the country, I write to encourage your support for S.B. 1300, the ‘‘Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act, a bill to amend the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects. 

First, I also want to express my appreciation to you for holding this hearing and 

to Senators FLAKE, MCCAIN, CRAPO, RISCH, and HELLER for introducing this 

important and timely piece of legislation. 

The Town of Payson has formally voted to support the Healthy Forest Initiative, 

4-FRI and other measure to improve Forest Health and minimize fire hazards. More 

importantly we have supported efforts of the Congress and the US Forest Service 

to protect and preserve our beautiful western forests. Stewardship contracting is one 

tool the Forest Service can use to treat forests and reduce fuel loads to protect forested communities. It allows a variety of land-management goals to be used to reduce wildfire threats by combining timber harvesting with beneficial public goals 

such as forest thinning. 

The Cancellation Ceiling provision will allow one more tool for proper financial 

accounting and accountability. 

Thank you for your continued service to our communities and the Country at 

large. 

Respectfully, 

KENNY EVANS, 

Mayor. 

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, 

July 26, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 221 Dirksen Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 709 Hart Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI, 

As the Mayor of the City of Scottsdale, I am writing you today to express my 

strong support of S. 1300, the Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act. I would also like to commend Senator Jeff Flake for introducing this 

important bill and thank the bill’s co-sponsors. 

The City of Scottsdale is Arizona’s sixth largest city and is home to approximately 

220,000 residents. Scottsdale’s municipal boundaries encompass 185 square miles 

and it abuts the Tonto National Forest on our northern boundary. 

As you likely know, the current forest health problem is endemic and is affecting 

watershed management, wildlife habitat and increasing the dangers to human life 

and property from catastrophic wildfire events. The poor forest health conditions 

and resulting catastrophic wildfires are having an impact on the City of Scottsdale, 

which is made evident when we experience a reduction of watershed utility, increased water treatment costs due to silt and other fire contaminants or the loss 

of tourist visitation to Scottsdale and the great State of Arizona. 

Scottsdale is not alone from being impacted by poor forest health. Families and 

businesses in rural Arizona communities face severe economic hardship and displacement when fire destroys surrounding forested lands. These wildfires create a 

great and unnecessary risk to the health and safety of the community residents especially the brave firefighters who battle these blazes each year. Tools to restore forest health and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires are much needed and 

should be recognized as a national priority. 

One of the most important forest restoration tools at this time is stewardship contracting established by the Congress to enable the U.C. Forest Service and the BuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
68 

reau of Land Management to enter into long-term contracts with external partners 

to meet forest health objectives. 

Stewardship contracts put into place restoration efforts that produce improvements to forest health and the associated benefits to our communities. I believe it 

is essential that we continue the proper use of this effective and efficient tool which 

will help to better manage our national forests, reduce the risk of catastrophic 

wildfires and offset the costs to taxpayers for forest treatments by utilizing partnerships with the private sector. 

Without the passage of S. 1300, the stewardship contracting authority will expire 

on September 30, 2013. Again, I want to emphasize the importance of this forest 

health tool and feel it is essential that the authority not be allowed to expire. I want 

to thank you for your consideration of S. 1300 and respectfully ask for your support. 

Sincerely, 

W.J. ‘‘JIM’’ LANE, 

Mayor. 

SALT RIVER PROJECT, 

July 29, 2013 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, 

DC. 

Re: Support for S. 1300, Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement 

Act 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: 

I appreciate your continued leadership on forestry issues and write today in support of the Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act (S. 

1300). The Salt River Project (SRP) delivers about 1 million acre-feet of water to 

agricultural, urban and municipal water users and serves nearly 1 million electric 

customers in Central Arizona. Our water supply originates from a 13,000 square 

mile watershed that encompasses the Salt and Verde Rivers. 

Dating back to the early part of the 20th century, the hydrologic values associated 

with healthy forests were recognized by the SRP and the federal government, and 

were a fundamental reason forest lands were initially set aside in Arizona. Today, 

59% of SRP’s watershed lies within U.S. National Forests, which is vital to protecting a renewable water supply for the State. However, fire suppression and other 

management practices on National Forest lands in the last hundred years has resulted in unnatural forest conditions whereby the forests have become dense and 

overgrown, resulting in unhealthy trees that are more prone to insect infestation 

and disease, and the persistent and increasing threat of catastrophic wildfire. Deteriorating forest health and catastrophic wildfires damage our watersheds, ultimately 

impacting the quality and sustainability of our water supply. 

Restoring the health of our forests and improving future management practices 

is critical, and successful efforts in this regard hinge upon the forging of strong public and private partnerships. However, attracting private capital investments are 

protected from unnecessary administrative burdens. 

The Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act (S. 1300) addresses these concerns by outlining practical solutions to ensure forest restoration 

can be accomplished expediently, and reducing the administrative and financial burdens for the Forest Service. 

In addition to improving watershed health, forest restoration also helps protect 

SRP investments in facilities and infrastructure, including C.C. Cragin reservoir, 

power lines and rights of way, and communication sites. For these reasons, SRP 

supports S. 1300 and urges prompt consideration of the bill. The health of our watersheds, National Forests, and local communities ultimately results in a stronger 

economy for the Salt River Valley and the state of Arizona, and I look forward to 

continuing to work with you on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN SULLIVAN, 

Associate General Manager and Chief Resources Executive. 

69 

GRAHAM COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 

July 26, 2013. 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. Senate, B85 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

U.S. Senate, 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for S.1300 to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects. 

DEAR SENATORS FLAKE AND MCCAIN; 

Graham County has been a stakeholder in the effort to develop and implement 

landscape scale forested ecosystems restoration for the last decade and has been involved in the creation of the White Mountains Stewardship Project; the Arizona 

Governor’s Forest Health Council’s Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona Forests; the collaborative Analysis of Small Wood Supply in Northern Arizona; and, the 

Forest Restoration Initiative. 

The value and effectiveness of the Stewardship Contracting Authority for forested 

ecosystems and watersheds restoration has been repeatedly demonstrated across the 

nation over the last 10 years, and particularly in Arizona through the accomplishments of the White Mountains Stewardship Contract and the collaborative work of 

the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

Simultaneously, Graham County has been deeply involved in addressing and resolving for the Four Forest Restoration Initiative first analysis area contract the 

cancellation ceiling obligation currently required in Stewardship Contracts. Graham 

County also understands and appreciates the need to align the stewardship contracting fire liability provisions with those of other contracting tools available to the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

Graham County is therefore pleased to write in strong support of S.1300 to amend 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects, introduced by Senators Jeff Flake and John 

McCain, and wants to express its appreciation to the Senators for their continued 

involvement and leadership in addressing the issues of fuel reduction as a means 

to prevent catastrophic forest fires, and landscape scale forested ecosystems and watershed ecological restoration. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DREW JOHN, 

Chairman of the Board Graham County Board of Supervisors. 

EASTERN ARIZONA COUNTIES ORGANIZATION, 

Show Low, AZ, July 26, 2013. 

Hon. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. Senate, B85 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

U.S. Senate, 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for S. 1300 to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to 

provide for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects. 

DEAR SENATORS FLAKE AND MCCAIN; 

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization is a local government organization 

created in 1993 by joint resolutions of the Boards of Supervisors and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Counties of Apache, Gila, Graham, Greenlee and 

Navajo to implement Presidential Executive Order 12372 Intergovernmental Review 

of Federal Programs related to the clearinghouse process for review of Federal programs which affect the custom, cultures and economic well-being of the Counties. 

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization member counties have been appointed 

by Arizona Governor Executive Order as County Official Reviewers in the Procedures for Arizona Single Point of Contact implementing Intergovernmental Review 

of Federal Programs. 

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization has been a stakeholder in the effort 

to develop and implement landscape scale forested ecosystems restoration for the 

last decade and has been involved in the creation of the White Mountains Stewardship Project; the Arizona Governor’s Forest Health Council’s Statewide Strategy for 

Restoring Arizona Forests; the collaborative Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona; and, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

The value and effectiveness of the Stewardship Contracting Authority for forested 

ecosystems and watersheds restoration has been repeatedly demonstrated across the 

70 

nation over the last 10 years, and particularly in Arizona through the accomplishments of the White Mountains Stewardship Contract and the collaborative work of 

the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. 

Simultaneously, the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization has been deeply involved in addressing and resolving for the Four Forest Restoration Initiative first 

analysis area contract the cancellation ceiling obligation currently required in Stewardship Contracts. The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization also understands 

and appreciates the need to align the stewardship contracting fire liability provisions with those of other contracting tools available to the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization is therefore pleased to write in strong 

support of S. 1300 to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to provide 

for the conduct of stewardship end result contracting projects, introduced by Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, and wants to express its appreciation to the Senators for their continued involvement and leadership in addressing the issues of fuel 

reduction as a means to prevent catastrophic forest fires, and landscape scale forested ecosystems and watershed ecological restoration. Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

On behalf and with the approval of the Board of Directors, 

PASCAL BERLIOUX, PH.D. MBA, 

Executive Director. 

ARIZONA STATE SENATE, 

July 23, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 221 

Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN, 

It’s with great urgency and alarm that I write to urge your support of S1300, the 

Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act. 

For an understanding of why this legislation is critically important to the State 

of Arizona and the western United States, I have one simple recommendation: 

Come to Arizona. 

For the last ten years, the people of Arizona have endured an unprecedented series of catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed hundreds of homes, burned over 

a million areas of forest, and cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. From the 

470,000-acre Rodeo-Chediski Fire in 2002 to the 538,000-acre Wallow Fire in 2011, 

Arizona’s tragic experience with large-scale, destructive wildfires on federal land is 

both expensive and well-documented. 

As a result of these fires, large swaths of rural Arizona are now charred landscapes standing in mute testimony to the catastrophic ineffectiveness of federal forest management policies. 

Unfortunately, my hometown and the district I represent are the latest casualties 

in this struggle. The Doce Fire, which burned 6000 acres, including critical habitat 

for a number of species, and the Yarnell Hill Fire, which claimed the lives of 19 

courageous members of the Prescott Fire Department, both burned within my district, affecting the landscape and lives of my constituents for decades to come. 

It’s time for a change. 

S.1300, sponsored by Arizona Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, is a significant first step in towards changing the way that federal agencies manage the forest 

to prevent wildfire. The bill would extend federal agencies’ authority to enter into 

forest stewardship contracts to reduce the risk of wildfire. The bill also includes significant improvements to the stewardship program to help agencies treat the forests 

on larger scales. 

The importance of these stewardship contracts was vividly and unmistakably 

demonstrated in the summer of 2011 when the 537,000-acre Wallow Fire swept 

through eastern Arizona. In spite of hostile weather conditions and unfavorable terrain, the Fire did not burn through several forested communities in its path-communities around which the Forest Service had conducted thinning as part of the White 

Mountain Stewardship Contract. 

Alpine, Springerville, Eager, and Nutrioso were all largely spared because the 

woods around those communities had been treated by a stewardship contract. 

Significantly, S1300 would also grant the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) flexibility when holding funds in reserve to cover the cost of 

cancelled contracts-a reform that proponents of proactive forest management have 

been advocating for years. Typically, these agencies must hold in reserve the full 

71 

amount of the contract for its duration. This requirement has been a serious impediment to the kind of long-term contracts that are necessary to conduct landscapescale treatments of the forest. 

The urgency of Senator Flake and McCain’s legislation is underscored by the loss 

of Arizona firefighters in the Yarnell Hill Fire. While this specific tragedy was not 

the result of federal forest management policies since the fire occurred on state, not 

federal land, the incident is nevertheless a dramatic reminder of the potential for 

these fires to cause significant loss of life and property. 

In addition to expressing support for S1300, I would like to make a personal appeal for federal fire aviation resources to be permanently positioned at Forest Service Fire Centers, such as the Prescott Fire Center and Aviation Facility. Doing so 

would ensure that critical assets are pre-positioned to quickly respond when local 

fires erupt, as they surely will. 

As a native Arizonan and lifelong rancher, I have personally witnessed the federal 

government’s neglect of Arizona’s national forests and the tragic consequences of 

that neglect. Just a few weeks ago, I stood on my front porch and watched slurry 

bombers desperately work to contain the Doce Fire, which burned only 8 miles from 

the Town of Prescott and a few miles from my ranch. 

The current policies governing forest management in the United States have proven effective at only one thing-promoting wildfires in greater frequency and larger 

scales. If the federal government does not change these policies, there will come a 

day when the fires stop. 

But only because there are no more trees left to burn. 

I ask for your support of S.1300. 

Sincerely, 

STEVE PIERCE, 

Senator, District 1. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MOORE, MAYOR, CITY OF WILLIAMS, ON S. 1300 

Those of us who are fortunate enough to live, work or play in or near Arizona’s 

awesome forests know or have experienced the devastation resulting from wildfires. 

Keeping our forests healthy and our communities and firefighters safe are our responsibilities as good stewards of our natural resources. 

Allowing the Forest Service more flexibility and authority to enter into forest 

stewardship contracts that use private timber companies to thin our forests and sell 

the harvested wood as compensation would seem to be a major component in addressing the above-noted concerns as well as serving as an economic stimulus for 

the private timber companies and their employees. 

The Mayor and Council Members of Williams strongly support the passage of S. 

1300 by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee so that these issues may be 

better addressed. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ALLEN, PH.D., POLICY CHAIR, SOUTHWEST SECTOR OF THE

SOUTHWESTERN SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTS, ON S. 1300 

The Southwestern Society of American Forestry (SAF), a scientific and educational organization representing more than 350 forestry professionals in Arizona 

and New Mexico, is writing to express our thanks to the Committee for considering 

The Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act (S. 1300) during the July 30th Committee Hearing. We also thank Senators Flake, McCain, and 

Baucus for their leadership in promoting timely action on the reauthorization of 

Stewardship Contracting. 

We cannot afford to lose this critical forest management tool, which will expire 

on September 30, 2013 without Congressional action. Reauthorization of the Stewardship Contracting Authority is urgently needed to ensure the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management can continue to use this essential tool to foster 

healthy forest ecosystems and provide stability and employment to rural communities. 

Stewardship Contracting helps address the critical need for restoration activities 

in our national forests by encouraging the collaboration and long-term commitments 

among agencies, contractors, local communities, and other interested stakeholders. 

In Arizona and New Mexico, rural communities and forests benefit from treatments 

completed under the Stewardship Contracting Authority to promote healthy forests 

and reduce fire hazards, increase watershed resilience, protect wildlife habitat, and 

help improve local economies. Stewardship Contracts and Agreements are an effecVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
72 

tive and important complement to traditional timber sales. The efficacy of these instruments is being amply demonstrated in our region—examples include the White 

Mountain Stewardship Contract, Pinaleno Ecosystem Restoration Project, Bluewater 

Stewardship Agreement and the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, Phase I Integrated Resource Service Contract. 

Reauthorization of the Stewardship Contracting authority will allow forest managers to continue using innovative contracting methods to achieve landscape-scale 

forest management objectives, increase and diversify job opportunities, and provide 

certainty for contractors with multiyear projects while building strong partnerships 

invested in the future of our forests and communities of the Southwest. 

As stakeholders, we are concerned that time is short and definitive action has not 

yet been taken to ensure the long-term availability of Stewardship Contracting Authority. We urge careful consideration of this and related legislation that would reauthorize and make permanent this critical forest management tool. Stewardship 

Contracting Authority enjoys the endorsement of SAF and a wide range of forest 

and conservation groups, as well as bi-partisan support in Congress. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH C. ARCHULETA, CHAIR, COCONINO COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, ON S. 1300 

On behalf of Coconino County, we are writing to express our support of S. 1300, 

Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act. S. 1300 will extend 

stewardship contracting for another ten years. 

As you are aware, stewardship contracting has been successfully implement in Arizona, and is a very valuable tool to promote healthy forests and to reduce wildfire 

risks. Large-scale treatment projects are necessary to maintain the health of our forests and this legislation will provide the authority for large projects, such as the 

Four Forests Restoration Initiative, to move forward. 

Expanding the stewardship contracting authority will also allow the ability to include improvements to the stewardship program that would help agencies treat 

larger areas of our forests. The legislation also provides the United States Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management with flexibility in establishing cancellation ceilings and also reduces barriers to stewardship contracting that could 

prove useful for future restoration initiatives. 

While the county is supportive of expanding stewardship contracting authority, 

we would be remiss if we did not relay a request from counties to extend traditional 

receipt sharing to counties, as it currently exists through timber sales. With the decline in receipts and the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act, counties are looking for ways to continue funding critical needs, including 

road maintenance. We request you address this issue as the legislation moves forward. 

Thank you again for introducing S. 1300. Coconino County has seen first-hand the 

devastation that wildfires can bring and the subsequent aftermath. Proper forest 

management and allowing the Forest Service every tool is of utmost importance to 

the health of our forests and of the citizens of Coconino County and the State of 

Arizona. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE KING, DIRECTOR OF THE NEW PHILADELPHIA

ASSOCIATION NATIONAL PARKS

Thank you, Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Charlotte King and I am a Director of the New Philadelphia Association, a grass 

roots organization dedicated to preserve and commemorate the historic town site of 

New Philadelphia, Illinois, its residents and founder Frank McWorter. I appreciate 

your time and the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. 

I hope that by the end of my testimony you will agree that the historic town site 

of New Philadelphia, Illinois qualifies for a place in history as a unit of the nation’s 

cultural crown jewels—the National Park Service (NPS). Senator Mark Kirk and 

Senator Richard Durbin’s legislation, S. 1328, would start the process to do just 

that. It is my hope, and the Association’s hope, that this Committee will move forward with Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk’s bill. 

New Philadelphia, Illinois, is the first known town in our nation platted and officially registered by an African American. 

Born enslaved in South Carolina and moved to Kentucky by his enslaver, town 

founder Frank McWorter purchased freedom for his wife in 1817, thus ensuring 

their soon to be born child and future children would be born free. McWorter purchased his own freedom in 1819 and subsequently freed an additional fourteen famVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
73 

ily members from slavery. McWorter earned the funds for freedom through various 

money making ventures, including being allowed by his enslaver to keep a portion 

of his earnings as a hired hand to other pioneers while enslaved in Kentucky and 

by mining caves for crude niter to produce saltpetre, a component used to manufacture gunpowder—vital for life on the frontier and for the War of 1812. 

With his additional earnings, McWorter also acquired a plot of land in Pike County, Illinois, and moved there in 1830 with his wife, three free-born children and a 

son known as Young Frank. The son Young Frank escaped slavery by fleeing to 

Canada in 1826. Father Frank McWorter exchanged his lucrative saltpetre operation for Young Frank’s freedom in 1829. He purchased an additional plot of land 

and, in 1836, founded New Philadelphia with the intention of applying proceeds 

earned through lot sales to free children and grandchildren who remained in bondage. 

McWorter called the town he founded Philadelphia and sold lots to African and 

European Americans. An integrated town, New Philadelphia, as it came to be 

known, was a place where free-born and formerly enslaved African Americans lived 

alongside European Americans in a region and era of intense racial strife. Archaeological investigations conducted at the site through two 3-year National Science 

Foundation grants found little difference in the material culture of town lots occupied by African and European Americans. 

Situated on fertile prairie land between the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers and 

near major transportation networks, the town grew from a small settlement with 

three dwellings in the 1840s, and peaked in the 1860s with as many as 160 residents. However, when the Hannibal to Naples Railroad bypassed the town in 1869, 

New Philadelphia fell into a decline from which it could not recover. Although a few 

families remained, most of the population moved away by the late 1940s. The once 

thriving town is now an archaeological site with only a few building foundations 

visible on the landscape. Three structures currently located at the town site date 

to the era of New Philadelphia but are not original to the site. The structures were 

re-located from nearby towns to illustrate how the buildings of New Philadelphia 

may have appeared. 

New Philadelphia was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2005 

for its archaeological potential to provide nationally significant information about 

the lifeways and relationships of African Americans and European Americans in a 

pioneer setting. In 2009 the town site was designated a National Historic Landmark 

for its potential to yield information of major scientific importance and to affect archaeological theories, concepts and ideas. New Philadelphia was included in the National Park Service National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program 

in 2013 for its participation in the movement to resist and end slavery by concealing, harboring and sometimes accompanying runaway African Americans seeking freedom to Canada. 

As a unit of the National Park Service, New Philadelphia would further enhance 

the rich historical significance of the geographic corridor extending from Hannibal, 

Missouri, to Pittsfield, Illinois. Hannibal is famed for its association with Samuel 

Clemons, who wrote as Mark Twain and lived in the town from 1839 to 1845, the 

early years of New Philadelphia’s development. Attorney, Abraham Lincoln traveled 

the route of the old Illinois’ 8th Judicial Circuit Court representing clients in the 

county seat of Pittsfield, only fourteen miles distant from New Philadelphia, at the 

time New Philadelphia was growing into a substantial community. New Philadelphia’s recent acceptance in the National Park Service National Underground Network to Freedom Program links the site to Quincy, Alton and Jacksonville and further contributes to the significance of this historical area. 

In addition to contributing to the historical significance of the region, New Philadelphia’s inclusion in the National Park System could provide a source of revenue 

to benefit the economic prosperity of the area. Outdoor enthusiasts as well as visitors attracted by historical attractions would generate funds for local businesses, 

such as restaurants, places of lodging, shops and other services required by tourists. 

Management by the National Park Service could attract visitors from across the 

nation and around the world through the widely distributed promotional material 

available through the NPS and its access to a variety of media. The high standards 

demanded for representation and protection by the National Park Service have 

earned worldwide respect and attention. The historic properties included in the National Park System are regarded as our nation’s cultural crown jewels. As a unit 

of the NPS, New Philadelphia would be among these prestigious sites and benefit 

from the association. 

At New Philadelphia, lack of above ground features does not diminish the impact 

of the national significance of this remarkable historic site. New Philadelphia’s excellent archaeological integrity presents a unique opportunity to understand preVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
74 

Civil War integrated communities. Comparable sites are not adequately preserved, 

interpreted or represented in the National Park System. 

As at New Philadelphia, there are no physical remains present at the Sand Creek 

Massacre site in Colorado, where more than 150 American Indians were killed. Nor 

are physical remains present at the African Burial Ground in New York’s Manhattan, where more than 400 freed and enslaved African Americans buried in the 17th 

and 18th centuries were unearthed during construction of a building at the site. The 

recovered remains were re-interred elsewhere; a monument now memorializes the 

site. At Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed during 

the terrorist attack on our country in 2001, markers commemorate the bravery of 

the passengers and crew. Many battlefield sites protected and preserved by the National Park Service are situated in remote areas and lack physical remains. 

The site’s current setting looks much as it did during its existence as a thriving 

community: rural, agricultural and somewhat remote. The historic town site and the 

gently rolling hills of the surrounding terrain are covered with prairie grasses, agricultural crops and timber. The New Philadelphia town site retains excellent integrity of location, setting and feeling. 

An information kiosk is currently being constructed at the New Philadelphia site, 

funded by a grant from the Illinois Rural Electric Cooperative and in collaboration 

with local businesses and the nearby John Woods Community College. The opensided kiosk is scheduled for completion in autumn 2013 and will shelter metal interpretation panels, National Park Service recognition plaques and informational materials. A self-guided walking tour through the historic portion of the site will also 

be completed by autumn 2013. In addition, plans are underway to develop a 

Smartphone application for information and a self-guided walking tour of the site. 

Maintenance costs of New Philadelphia as a unit of the NPS could be minimized 

by sharing supervision staff with other nearby NPS sites. Sharing oversight responsibility would also reduce the need to construct extensive facilities. 

New Philadelphia’s designation as a unit of the National Park System will guarantee preservation of the historical significance of this unique place to inspire current and future generations with themes important to all Americans: the struggle 

for freedom and opportunity. By including New Philadelphia among the national 

treasures designated units of the National Park Service, of which currently less 

than 5% are predominantly associated with African-American history, the story of 

our country would be more complete and accurate and would give recognition to the 

accomplishments and contributions of African Americans to the development of our 

country. 

Thank you again, Chairman Udall and Subcommittee Members, for the opportunity to address you. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE A. MOORE, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF QUINCY, QUINCY, IL, 

ON S. 1328 

I am pleased to endorse the legislation you and Senator Richard Durbin introduced to the U.S. Senate, S. 1328, The New Philadelphia Study Act, a feasibility 

study to determine the qualifications of New Philadelphia, Illinois for inclusion as 

a unit of the National Park Service for its exceptional national historic significance. 

As a place where formerly enslaved individuals, free born African Americans, and 

European Americans lived together in a region and an era of intense racial strife, 

a National Park unit at New Philadelphia will inspire current and future generations and commemorate themes important to all Americans: the struggle for freedom and opportunity. 

Free Frank McWorter, the founder of New Philadelphia, was remarkable not only 

for his vision of establishing a racially-integrated community in West-central Illinois 

during the early nineteenth century, but also for purchasing freedom for himself, 

his wife and more than a dozen additional family members. Despite lllinois’ Black 

Codes, the slave state of Missouri on Illinois’ border to the west, and intense racial 

discrimination that persisted well after the Civil War, the town of New Philadelphia 

survived until the beginning of the twentieth century. The enduring public memory 

ofNew Philadelphia continues today in West-central Illinois nearly a century after 

most of its residents moved away. 

Archaeological investigations of the town site since late in 2002 have demonstrated that long-forgotten architectural foundations, cellars, cisterns, wells, and 

refuse deposits have survived agricultural activities and other ground surface modifications. New research methods are being applied as ways of locating these archaeological resources. National Park status will ensure that the unique opportunity to 

study nineteenth-century race relations within a small multi-racial community setVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Nov 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\85179.TXT WANDA
75 

ting will be protected by the federal government for the good of the American people. 

By including New Philadelphia among the national treasures designated as National Parks, we have the opportunity to contribute to a more complete and accurate 

account of the people, events, and cultural interactions that shaped our nation’s 

character. Therefore, Iam pleased to support the nomination of the New Philadelphia Town Site for designation as a National Park. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HAYDEN, MAYOR, CITY OF PITTSFIELD, PITTSFIELD IL, 

ON S. 1328 

Dear Senator Kirk: 

I am pleased to endorse the legislation you and Senator Richard Durbin introduced to the U.S. Senate, S. 1328, The New Philadelphia Study Act, a feasibility 

study to determine the qualifications of New Philadelphia, Illinois for inclusion as 

a unit of the National Park Service for its exceptional national historic significance. 

As a place where formerly enslaved individuals, free born African Americans, and 

European Americans lived together in a region and an era of intense racial strife, 

a National Park unit at New Philadelphia will inspire current and future generations and commemorate themes important to all Americans: the struggle for freedom and opportunity. 

Free Frank McWorter, the founder of New Philadelphia, was remarkable not only 

for his vision of establishing a racially-integrated community in West-central Illinois 

during the early nineteenth century, but also for purchasing freedom for himself, 

his wife and more than a dozen additional family members. Despite Illinois’ Black 

Codes, the slave state of Missouri on Illinois’ border to the west, and intense racial 

discrimination that persisted well after the Civil War, the town of New Philadelphia 

survived until the beginning of the twentieth century. The enduring public memory 

ofNew Philadelphia continues today in West-central Illinois nearly a century after 

most of its residents moved away. 

Archaeological investigations of the town site since late in 2002 have demonstrated that long-forgotten architectural foundations, cellars, cisterns, wells, and 

refuse deposits have survived agricultural activities and other ground surface modifications. New research methods are being applied as ways oflocating these archaeological resources. National Park status will ensure that the unique opportunity to 

study nineteenth-century race relations within a small multi-racial community setting will be protected by the federal government for the good of the American people. 

By including New Philadelphia among the national treasures designated as National Parks, we have the opportunity to contribute to a more complete and accurate 

account of the people, events, and cultural interactions that shaped our nation’s 

character. Therefore, I am pleased to support the nomination of the New Philadelphia Town Site for designation as a National Park. 

Æ