S. HRG.

108638

AVALANCHES IN NATIONAL PARKS; UINTA RESEARCH AND

CURATORIAL CENTER; MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK;
BARATARIA PRESERVE UNIT; AND TO AMEND THE
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON

S. 931
S. 2140
S. 2469

S. 1678
S. 2287

JUNE 8, 2004

(
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON

96296 PDF

2004

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ALEX FLINT, Staff Director
JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel
ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director
SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

NATIONAL PARKS

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming Chairman

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
THOMAS LILLIE, Professional Staff Member
DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel

(II)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

CONTENTS
STATEMENTS
Page

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

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................................
Hamre, David, Avalanche Expert, Alaska Railroad Corporation ........................
Krieger, Karen, Heritage Resource Coordinator, State of Utah Division of
Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................................
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana ........................................
Matthews, Janet Snyder, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior ..........................................................
Nau, John L., Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ................
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska .......................................................
Talent, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Missouri ............................................
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ...............................................
Thompson, Tom L., Deputy Chief, National Forest System, USDA Forest
Service ...................................................................................................................

2
4
20
35
33
18
9
26
2
25
1
7

APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I
Responses to additional questions ..........................................................................

41

APPENDIX II
Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................

45

(III)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

AVALANCHES IN NATIONAL PARKS; UINTA

RESEARCH AND CURATORIAL CENTER;
MOUNT
RAINIER
NATIONAL
PARK;
BARATARIA PRESERVE UNIT; AND TO
AMEND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2004

U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD
366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. The committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome to all of you.
This is kind of an unusual week, but we intend to go ahead with
our usual process here. I want to welcome the representatives from
the Department of the Interior and Agriculture and other witnesses
to the National Parks Subcommittee hearing.
Our purpose is to hear testimony on five bills: S. 931, the bill to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program to reduce the risk from and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors in units of the National Park System and other recreational
users of public lands; S. 1678, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Uinta Research and Cultural Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the States of Colorado and Utah, and for other
purposes; S. 2140, a bill to expand the boundaries of the Mount
Rainier National Park; S. 2287, a bill to adjust the boundaries of
Barataria Preserve unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park, and to change the name if we can, in the State of Louisiana,
and other purposes; S. 2469, a bill to amend the National Historic
Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improvement for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
So I want to thank the witnesses and we look forward to your
testimony and the opportunity to deal with these five bills. Let me
turn to my friend from Hawaii.
Senator.
(1)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

2
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII

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

you for holding this hearing.
I have briefly reviewed the bills on todays agenda and they seem
to be for the most part noncontroversial. Earlier this Congress the
Senate passed a bill that I introduced to provide for a national policy to protect the fossils and other prehistoric resources on Federal
lands. I am interested to learn more about this curatorial center
that Senator Bennetts bill would authorize outside of the Dinosaur
National Park.
I also want to hear the testimony of my friend Senator Stevens
on avalanches. It is something that Hawaii does not have, for now
anyway, but we certainly want to help our friend from Alaska on
that.
All of the other bills are sponsored or co-sponsored by members
of this committee and I look forward to helping in their efforts to
move those bills through.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the witnesses to the subcommittee this afternoon and look forward to hearing more about
each of these bills. Thank you.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.
We are pleased to have Senator Stevens here from Alaska. Senator, do you care to go ahead?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka. I appreciate your taking the time, particularly during
this period, to carry out this hearing on these bills.
I appear with regard to S. 931. Across avalanche-afflicted States,
government agencies such as the Department of Transportation,
private organizations, and mining companies spend large sums
each year on avalanche mitigation. Depending on the severity, the
season cost per State may range from $3 to $10 million annually.
While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member.
The majority of avalanche fatalities are the result of recreational
activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. In 2002 to 2003, 58 people lost their lives in avalanches across North America. 23 of these
individuals were caught in slides while snowmobiling, a common
and necessary activity in my home State of Alaska. In April, Richard Staley, captain of the Fairbanks Ice Dogs hockey team, was
killed when his snow machine caused an avalanche that left a debris pile 150 feet long and 13 feet deep.
We can help avoid such tragedies by assisting in minimizing the
accessibility of accurate forecastsby maximizing the accessibility
of accurate forecasts and providing increased grant opportunities
for research.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination
with the Secretary of Agriculture, to establish an avalanche protection program which will provide early identification of the potential
for avalanches and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

3
recreation users, transportation corridors, and neighboring communities. In this effort, the program will maximize the resources of
the National Avalanche Center of the Forest Service and establish
an advisory committee to assist in the development and implementation of the program.
I would ask that my full statement appear in the record, Senators, and I would just tell you this. My home is in Girdwood, Alaska, which is 38 miles south of Anchorage. I am awakened when I
am home by the sound of artillery, and that is artillery shells that
are being fired at the mountain to try to dislodge the overhangs
that develop when intensive winds push snow and ice to the point
where those peaks can, as they start to melt, they can cause avalanches.
We do our best to avoid avalanches, but it is a difficult thing to
do. We need better assistance from the governments where we can
have the sharing of information that this bill would bring about.
So I would urge that you give it early consideration and I look forward to working with you in that regard. If you have any questions
I will be glad to answer them.
By the way, in some areas those artillery pieces were recently
called back because those pieces were needed in the current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. So those communities are
somewhat in danger now.
Senator Akaka, you just have to think of this. We share volcanoes with you, but these avalanches are just as bad as volcanoes
when they start causing enormous snow slides coming down those
mountains.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA,

ON S. 931

Across avalanche-afflicted States, government agencies such as the Department of

Transportation, private organizations and mining companies spend large sums each
year on avalanche mitigation. Depending on the severity of the season costs per
State may range from $3 to $10 million annually.
While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can
compare with the loss of a friend or family member. A majority of avalanche fatalities are a result of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. In 20022003, 58 people lost their live sin avalanches across North America23 of these individuals were caught in slides while snowmobiling. A common and necessary activity in my home State of Alaska. In April, Richard Staley, Captain of the Fairbanks
Ice Dogs hockey team was killed when his Snowmachine caused an avalanche that
left a debris pile 150 feet long and 13 feet deep. We can help avoid such tragedy
by assisting in maximizing the accessibility of accurate forecasts, and providing increased grant opportunities for research.
S. 931 directs the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Secretary of
Agriculture, to establish an avalanche protection program which will provide early
identification of the potential for avalanches and mitigate the effects of avalanches
on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors and neighboring communities. In this effort the program will maximize the resources of the National Avalanche Center of the Forest Service and establish an advisory committee to assist
in the development and implementation of the program. This advisory committee
will be comprised of 11 members from Federal land management agencies, concessionaires or permittees, State Departments of Transportation and individuals from
Federal or State-owned railroads, such involvement will ensure the vital cooperation
between the Federal Government and local communities that is necessary in successfully mitigating the potentially devastating effects of avalanches.
Avalanche mitigation cannot be based solely on forecasts and research. Many communities require specific means, including hard to come by artillery, to remove avalanche hazards posing an increased risk of damagethese tools are a vital part of

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

4
the avalanche mitigation effort. Just last month, the U.S. military notified two resorts that five 119-A Howitzers must be returned for use in the war in Iraq. This
artillery was on loan to the Sierra-Nevada ski resorts of Alpine Meadows and Mammoth Mountain, which were using them to knock down loose snowpack threatening
the two resorts. Artillery is an effective and valuable safety tool. S. 931 directs the
Secretaries to work with the Secretary of the Army to establish a central depository
for artillery and ammunition for avalanche control. This provision opens an avenue
for those Federal and non-Federal entities to seek valuable resources that are not
currently readily accessible. In maintaining essential transportation and communication corridors and minimizing the tragic accidents that occur every year, it is
imperative that we assist, to the greatest extent possible, in the prevention and
forecasting of avalanches. This bill brings those resources to the entities tat need
them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much, Senator. Your full statement will be in the record.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you.
Senator THOMAS. Do you have any questions?
Senator AKAKA. No.
Senator THOMAS. You do not have snow problems?
Senator AKAKA. No. We have got to prepare for that.
Senator THOMAS. I see.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you.
Senator THOMAS. We will certainly look forward to working on
your bill.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.
Senator THOMAS. Senator Bennett, I see that you are here, sir.
Thank you for being here, Senator. Please go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

opportunity to be with you. I am here to testify in behalf of S. 1678.
It is the Uinta Research and Curatorial Center Act, which I introduced late last year. The bill would authorize the Park Service to
construct a research and curatorial facility for the Dinosaur National Monument and its partner, the Utah Field House of Natural
History Museum. That is a Utah State park unit that is located in
Vernal, Utah.
Now, since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones in the area
in the early 1900s, the Dinosaur National Monument has been a
tremendous tourist attraction and haven for both amateur and expert dinosaur enthusiasts and has produced over 600,000 items
that are now in its museum collection. Unfortunately, these items
are currently stored in 17 different facilities throughout the park.
I have visited the park and seen the condition of this storage and
it runs the whole range of suitability, but unfortunately it is usually at the bottom end of the range of suitability for the storage of
these artifacts.
Many of the resources are at risk because of the failure of the
scattered facilities to meet National Park Service standards at the
minimum. So they are below existing minimum standards or, as we
might say in the building trades, they do not meet code. But they
are stored nonetheless because we have to keep them somewhere.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

5
A new research and curatorial facility is greatly needed to bring
the parks collections up to standard, to meet code, if you will, and
ensure its protection. Otherwise we run the risk that these resources will be permanently damaged and some of them may even
be lost forever.
So I believe this legislation represents a model of how the Federal Government can meet these challenges by utilizing its relationships with State and local governments. This will not be a
purely Federal activity. By sharing facilities as proposed by my bill,
taxpayer dollars can be saved and the mission of the Park Service
to preserve these resources for future generations can be met.
So the State has stepped forward and built, at a cost of $6.5 million, a newly completed and now dedicated State museum, with the
proposed Federal facility co-located at the State museum, on the
same piece of real estate. The National Park Service staff, visiting
scholars, interns, volunteers would have access to the States museum space for exhibits, classrooms, conferencing, education, and of
course public services such as restrooms, parking, and the other
things, that would not require any Federal investment. That portion of the infrastructure is already there. The Federal project that
my bill would authorize would be built immediately adjacent to it
and connecting with it.
Now, Vernal City and Uintah County have stepped forward with
their support, because they are providing the land, valued at approximately $1.5 million, to be donated to the Park Service for the
construction of the proposed facility. In other words, the Federal
money would go entirely into bricks and mortar and not into acquiring any land, that having been provided by the city and county.
Because of the significant local commitment, enthusiasm in the
community is very high. A few weeks ago at the dedication of the
state museum, approximately half of the countys 26,000 residents
were in attendance. Those of you who come from rural areas know
how difficult this can be, to get that many people in one place at
one time, and that demonstrated the amount of local support.
I have a stack of letters of support from both the city and the
county and I would ask consent that they be included in the record
following my statement.
Senator THOMAS. They shall be included.
Senator BENNETT. Now, there is an additional partner, private
partner, in this project along with the State, the county, and the
city, the Intermountain Natural History Association. They have
agreed to fund and carry out the soil and environmental testing
necessary to permit the Park Service to accept this donation. Other
Federal agencies, such as the BLM and the Forest Service, who are
also in need of collection storage have become minor partners and
would be able to take advantage of this storage facility.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe its imperative that we care for the
paleontological resources and ensure their availability to further
generations both for scientific study as well as the enjoyment of the
public. This legislation is a proactive approach to accomplishing
those objectives. I think it is an excellent example of a cost-effective
partnership between the Park Service, the State of Utah, the city
of Vernal, Uintah County, and private organizations. It is the kind

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

6
of cooperative activity I think the Congress ought to applaud and
support.
I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH,

ON S. 1678

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to

appear before you today regarding S. 1678, the Uintah Research and Curatorial
Center Act, which I introduced late last year.
The bill would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to construct a research
and curatorial facility for Dinosaur National Monument and its partner, the Utah
Field House of Natural History Museum, in Vernal, Utah. The facility would be colocated with the Museum while helping to preserve, protect, and exhibit the vast
treasures of one of the most productive sites of dinosaur bones in the world.
Since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones by the paleontologist Earl Douglass
in 1909, and the subsequent proclamation as a national monument in 1915 by President Woodrow Wilson, the Dinosaur National Monument has been a haven for both
amateur and expert dinosaur enthusiasts. At present, Dinosaur National Monument
has more that 600,000 items in its museum collection. Unfortunately, these items
are currently stored in 17 different facilities throughout the park. Many of these resources are at risk due to the failure of the scattered facilities to meet minimum
National Park Service storage standards. A new research and curatorial facility is
greatly needed to bring the parks collection up to standard and to ensure its protection.
The curatorial facility will also fill a critical role as a collection center for the park
and partners fossil, archaeological, natural resource operations and collections, and
park archives. Moreover, in these days of limited budgets, the decision to co-locate
this facility with the states museum will also save taxpayer dollars. The state of
Utah has just completed and dedicated its new Field House Museum at a cost to
the state of $6.5 million dollars. Because of the co-location, NPS staff, visiting scholars, interns and volunteers would have access to the state museums space for exhibit, classroom, conferencing, education, restrooms, public access, parking, and
other needs not included in the curatorial facility.
The 22,500 square foot facility will be built outside the boundaries of the park
on land donated to the Park Service by the City of Vernal and Uintah County. The
legislation will also permit the Park Service to accept the donation of the land, valued at approximately $1.5 million dollars.
Other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service, who are also in need of collections storage, have become minor partners and
would utilize a small portion of the storage facility. An additional partner in the
project, the Intermountain Natural History Association, has agreed to fund and
carry out the soil and environmental testing necessary to permit the Park Service
to accept the donation.
Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we care for these paleontological resources
and ensure their availability to future generations, both for scientific study and the
enjoyment of the public. This legislation is a proactive approach to accomplishing
those objectives and is an excellent example of a cost effective partnership between
the National Park Service, the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, the
City of Vernal, and Uintah County of which this Congress ought to applaud and
support.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.

Senator THOMAS. All right, sir. Thank you very much, Senator.
Any questions?
Senator AKAKA. No.
Senator THOMAS. No questions. All right, sir. Thank you. We appreciate your being here.
Senator BENNETT. Thank you.
Senator THOMAS. We will be prepared now for panel one: Mr.
Tommy L. Thompson, Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest Service, USDA; and Ms. Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

7
We thank you both for being here. We look forward to your testimony and your insight into these bills. According to the way they
are listed, we will start with Mr. Thompson if that is all right.
STATEMENT OF TOM L. THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

for the opportunity to appear before this committee to present the
views of the administration on S. 931, the Federal Lands Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003. It is a bill that would establish a program to reduce the risks from and mitigate the effects
of avalanches on recreation users and of visitors to public lands.
The U.S. Forest Service supports the concepts contained in this
bill. However, we cannot support S. 931 unless amended to delete
the formation of a grants program and to designate the Secretary
of Agriculture as the lead for this bill. At a time when we are trying to reduce backlogs and maintain National Forest System lands,
we cannot afford to take on new funding responsibilities under the
grants program.
We support a coordinated and improved avalanche protection
program on public lands. Visitors to public lands that are threatened by avalanches fall roughly into three categories: those folks
who are driving on mountain highways, people visiting developed
sites like ski areas, and people who are going in the back country
to either crosscountry ski or snowmobile.
Much of the back country and developed winter recreation that
takes place in avalanche terrain occurs on national forests. Over
the past 50 years, the vast majority of avalanche fatalities have occurred on National Forest System land. The Forest Service plays
an important role in avalanche coordination and safety and the expertise that the agency can bring to developing an avalanche program as envisioned in this legislation is significant.
The Forest Service, working with the National Park Service, has
a long history of addressing avalanche protection on all Federal
lands. The Forest Service began permitting ski areas on national
forests in the 1930s and soon recognized that avalanches threaten
skiers safety both traveling to and within permitted ski areas.
To reduce the threat, the Forest Service established the Snow
Ranger program in 1938 to provide Forest Service winter sports
personnel with rigorous snow science expertise, avalanche forecasting, and training in the use of explosives for avalanche control.
Since the 1950s the Forest Service has played a significant role in
furthering research on avalanches.
To further public safety, the Forest Service established the National Avalanche Center in the early 1990s. The National Avalanche Center manages the military artillery program for avalanche control, coordinates a network of back country avalanche
education advisory centers, transfers state-of-the-art avalanche
technology to advisory centers, facilitates avalanche research, and
develops and distributes avalanche safety products. There are 17
avalanche back country centers located in various locations in Alaska, Washington, California, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

8
The Forest Service manages 16 of these centers and the State of
Colorado manages one of them. Many of these centers operate
through voluntary efforts and donations. The Forest Service typically provides about 50 percent of the operating funds for each of
these centers and community friends organizations and other agencies typically provide the other 50 percent.
In light of these past and ongoing efforts that the Forest Service
has contributed toward avalanche awareness and protection, we
recommend that the bill designate the Secretary of Agriculture to
lead the establishment of a coordinated avalanche program in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior.
In addition, we recommend that the formation of a new grants
program under section 3(e) be deleted from the bill. The Departments of Agriculture and Interior must focus existing funding on
effectively managing Federal lands, including avalanche awareness
and protection. Creating a new responsibility to fund grants could
divert available funds away from these operational needs.
S. 931 establishes a central depository for ordnance that is used
for avalanche control. A central depository is important because all
the military artillery assets appropriate for avalanche control could
be stored in a single location and could be better managed, including assuring optimum climatic storage conditions.
At the same time, we must be aware of the need to look for alternatives to this military ordinance. It is estimated that there is a
10 to 15-year supply of usable assets remaining in the United
States and the technology exists to develop a system that could replace and outperform the military artillery.
We appreciate the efforts that the committee is extending to reduce the risk of avalanche hazards to the public. I want to thank
you for this opportunity to share our views on S. 931 and would
be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM L. THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE, ON S. 931
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to present the views of the administration on S. 931, Federal Lands Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003, a bill to establish a program to reduce the
risks from and mitigate the effects of avalanches on recreational users of and other
visitors to public lands. The USDA Forest Service supports the concepts contained
in this bill. However, we cannot support S. 931 unless amended to (1) delete the
formation of a grants program and (2) designate the Secretary of Agriculture as the
lead for this bill. At a time when we are trying to reduce backlogs and maintain
National Forest System lands, we cannot afford to take on the new funding responsibilities under this grants program.
S. 931 describes several goals that would be favorable to the public. These include
improved program coordination and development to reduce the risk of avalanche to
visitors of public lands, the creation of an advisory committee to assist in development and implementation of an avalanche protection program, and the establishment of a central depository for ordnance used for avalanche control purposes. We
support a coordinated and improved avalanche protection program on public lands.
Visitors to public lands that are threatened by avalanches fall roughly into three
categories: people driving on mountain highways; people visiting developed sites like
ski areas; and people going into the backcountry to cross country ski or ride a snowmobile. Much of the backcountry and developed winter recreation that takes place
in avalanche terrain occurs on National Forests. Over the past 50 years, the vast
majority of avalanche fatalities have occurred on National Forest System lands.
The Forest Service plays an important role in avalanche coordination and safety,
and the expertise that the agency can bring to developing an avalanche program as

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

9
envisioned in this legislation is significant. The Forest Service, working with the
National Park Service, has a long history of addressing avalanche protection on all
federal land. The Forest Service began permitting ski areas on the National Forests
in the 1930s and soon recognized that avalanches threatened skiers safety both
traveling to and within permitted ski areas. To reduce the threat, the Forest Service
established the Snow Ranger Program in 1938 to provide Forest Service winter
sports personnel with rigorous snow science expertise, avalanche forecasting, and
training in the use of explosives for avalanche control. Since the 1950s, the Forest
Service has played a significant role in furthering research on avalanches.
To further public safety, the Forest Service established the National Avalanche
Center in the early 1990s. The National Avalanche Center manages the military artillery program for avalanche control, coordinates a network of backcountry avalanche education and advisory centers, transfers state of the art avalanche technology to the advisory centers, facilitates avalanche research, and develops and distributes avalanche safety products. There are 17 avalanche backcountry centers located in various locations in Alaska, Washington, California, Colorado, Utah, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire. The Forest Service manages 16 of the
centers and the State of Colorado manages one. Many of these centers operate
through volunteer efforts and donations. The Forest Service typically provides about
50% of the operating funds for each of their centers and community friends organizations, and other agencies typically provide the other 50%.
In light of these past and ongoing efforts that the Forest Service has contributed
towards avalanche awareness and protection, we recommend that the bill designate
the Secretary of Agriculture to lead the establishment of a coordinated avalanche
program in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, we recommend that the formation of a new grants program under section 3(e) be deleted
from the bill. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior must focus existing
funding on effectively managing Federal lands, including avalanche awareness and
protection. Creating a new responsibility to fund grants could divert available funds
away from these operational needs.
S. 931 establishes a Central Depository for ordnance that is used for avalanche
control. A Central Depository is important because all of the military artillery assets
appropriate for avalanche control could be stored in a single location and could be
better managed including assuring optimal climatic storage conditions. At the same
time, we must be aware of the need to look for alternatives to military ordnance.
It is estimated that there is a 10 to 15 year supply of usable assets remaining in
the United States. The technology exists to develop a system that could replace and
outperform military artillery.
We appreciate the efforts that the committee is extending to reduce the risk of
avalanche hazards to the public. Thank you, for the opportunity to share our views
on S. 931. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. You did not wish to
comment on the other bills that are before us? You do not wish to
comment on the other bills before us?
Mr. THOMPSON. Not today.
Senator THOMAS. Ms. Matthews.
STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Ms. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to present comments on the five bills before your subcommittee today. In the interest of time, may I briefly
summarize our position on each bill and submit full testimonies for
the record?
Senator THOMAS. Thank you.
Ms. MATTHEWS. First, S. 931 would direct a coordinated avalanche protection program, as you have heard. The Department
supports the concepts, however cannot support the bill unless
amended to delete the formation of a new grants program; second,
designate the Secretary of Agriculture as the lead for the bill. At
a time when we are trying to reduce backlogs to maintain lands for

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

10
which we currently hold responsibility, we cannot afford to take on
new funding responsibilities under this grants program.
Second, S. 1678 would establish a research and curatorial center
and interpret the resources of Dinosaur National Monument collections in accordance with National Park System museum standards.
The Department of the Interior supports this bill with a technical
amendment to accurately reflect the correct spelling of the name of
the center, Uinta, the project partners choosing that spelling in
conjunction with the mountains themselves rather than the county.
We also submit a current map detailing the location for the center,
on the site relative to the partners structures on the site.
With regard to S. 2140, that would expand the boundaries of
Mount Rainier National Park, the Department supports enactment,
but would like to work with the committee on an amendment described later in this statement. This legislation would enable acquisition of a new campground site and other facilities to replace the
Carbon River campground that exists but is frequently inaccessible
due to flooding. This proposal is consistent with the administrations priority to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, make
parks more accessible, and implement the only boundary expansion
in Rainiers general management plan adopted in 2002.
With regard to S. 2287, it would adjust the boundary of the
Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park
and Preserve in Louisiana. The Department supports the bill with
amendments included in this testimony. The bill would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to acquire more than 3,900 acres by
transferring existing federally owned lands to the park system,
which would expand the authorized acreage of the preserve from
20,000 acres to approximately 23,000 acres.
The bill would also make clarifying amendments to title 9 of the
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, the legislation that established the park.
With regard to S. 2469, which would provide appropriation authorization and aims to improve the operations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, the Department supports this
bill, but, with the understanding that certain provisions will be
amended to incorporate changes proposed by the Department and
the Advisory Council in testimony.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, a post-World
War II coming-of-age of middle class representation in Congress,
created the Advisory Council as a key actor in the Federal historic
preservation partnership program. The council is the principal advisor to Federal agencies as well as to State and tribal governments on many aspects of public policy.
The 20-member council includes Federal agencies, State and
local government officials, private citizens, and qualified professional experts in the fields within historic preservation. It advocates full consideration of historic places in Federal decision-making and oversees section 106 of the Act.
S. 2469 proposes: One, additional membership to this sitting
council, a designee option for the Governor member, and amends
the existing quorum requirement. The Department supports these
proposals.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

11
Two, improves the councils financial and administrative services,
a proposal also supported by the Department.
Three, authorizes the council not only to obtain or receive property, facilities and services, but also to solicit such from Federal or
non-Federal entities.
Four, would strike the councils current annual appropriation authorization, authorizing such amounts as may be necessary to carry
out this title, a provision that supports the Presidents 2005 budget.
S. 2469 last proposes a new section 216 to the 1966 Act, increasing authority to work with Federal grant-making agencies to improve effectiveness in meeting the purposes and policies of the Act.
Section 216(a) as drafted would specifically confer on the council
the authority to modify grant selection criteria, to administer jointly grant or assistance programs, with the proviso that it would not
be inconsistent with the statutory authority of the program.
This section mirrors a provision in the House companion bill,
H.R. 3223, introduced last year in October. At that point the Department worked closely with the council to draft amendments.
These amendments, which we support, are attached to our testimony and included in the testimony of John Nau, the chairman of
the Advisory Council. Were the committee, the subcommittee, to
amend S. 2469 to reflect those amendments, the Department could
fully support this bill. The Department is concerned that section
216(b) is duplicative of the provisions in section 202 of the 1966
Act.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee
have on this or the other four bills.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Matthews follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET SNYDER MATTHEWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ON S. 931

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 931, a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a coordinated avalanche protection
program that would provide early identification of the potential for avalanches, and
reduce the risks and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational
users, neighboring communities, and transportation corridors.
The Department supports the concepts contained in S. 931. However, the Department cannot support the bill unless amended to (1) delete the formation of a new
grants program, and (2) designate the Secretary of Agriculture as the lead for this
bill. At a time when we are trying to reduce backlogs and maintain what we already
own, we cannot afford to take on the new funding responsibilities under this grants
program.
The history of avalanches influencing visitor safety on public lands is significant
and well-documented. Three hundred and ninety-two people have perished in avalanches on public lands in the past twenty years and as winter sport activities continue to rise, so will avalanche incidents. Avalanche fatalities on National Park
Service (NPS) managed lands account for about six percent, whereas avalanche fatalities on National Forest lands account for about ninety percent of the total. Avalanches kill more people on public lands than any other natural event.
The National Park Service and United States Forest Service have actively managed a coordinated aggressive avalanche protection program since the late 1930s.
Although the National Park Service provides limited funding and extensive data collection to the Forest Service, it should be noted that the Forest Service is the lead
agency with regard to avalanche awareness and mitigation efforts. The Forest Service program includes managing the National Avalanche Center in Ketchum, Idaho,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

12
as well as fifteen regional backcountry avalanche centers. These avalanche centers
issue avalanche danger advisories for limited and specified geographic areas
throughout the west, the northeast, and Alaska.
Currently these programs include snow pack and climate analysis, provide avalanche awareness information via publications, visitor centers, weather radio, and
internet sites, teach avalanche awareness classes to the public, and develop and provide avalanche control work using explosives and passive control devices. It is recognized that these centers only exist in and serve a limited number of geographic
areas, and all have limited resources. However, they continue to provide information
to millions of recreation users and to other government and private agencies.
The primary avalanche control method includes hand and aerial projected explosive charges. However, many areas are using passive control measures such as the
spreading of charcoal on avalanche prone slopes and manually triggered releases.
Although the bill prescribes the use of artillery, the National Park Service is prohibited from using this method in congressionally designated wilderness areas, where
the majority of avalanche hazard zones exist in the National Park System. The artillery systems that are used in NPS areas were not designed to trigger avalanches
or to be used in very cold environments. In 1999, Yellowstone National Park experienced several difficulties with unexploded ordnance resulting in risk to park visitors
and our employees. Military systems other than the ones currently employed have
been carefully analyzed and none appear to be applicable as avalanche control systems.
To further complicate this issue the U.S. military recently requested the return
of five howitzers that cooperators were using to prevent avalanches, including the
one at Yellowstone, to be used for active military service. Of the many benefits of
the bill, developing alternatives to military artillery for avalanche control would be
very desirable.
We recognize that there is much room for improvement in avalanche management
methods, and the Department respectfully urges this committee to consider the following suggestions for strengthening S. 931 and making its implementation more
efficient and effective.
First, we recommend that the bill designate the Secretary of Agriculture to lead
the establishment of a coordinated avalanche program. The U.S. Forest Service has
considerable experience in avalanche control and data gathering, oversight of National Avalanche Centers, and a greater percentage of incidents that warrant the
designation of the Department of Agriculture as the best department to develop and
manage the program.
Secondly, we recommend that the formation of a new grants program under section 3(e) be deleted from the bill. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
must focus existing funding on effectively managing Federal lands, including avalanche awareness and protection. Creating a new responsibility to fund grants could
divert available funds away from these operational needs.
We believe that this bill will provide the appropriate Federal support for services
such as avalanche forecasting, munitions management, and public information to
ensure visitor protection on public lands.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
ON S. 1678

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interiors views on S.
1678, a bill to establish the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center in the city of
Vernal, Utah. We thank Senator Bennett and the other members of the Utah delegation for their interest and support in protecting the resources of Dinosaur National Monument, the site for which the Center is intended.
The Department of the Interior supports this bill with a technical amendment, to
accurately reflect the correct spelling of the name of the centerUinta. The partners have chosen to spell the name of the center in the same way the Uinta Mountains are spelled and not the County of Uintah. We also have a current version of
the map that more accurately shows the location of the center in its relationship
to other partner structures on the site.
S. 1678 would authorize the National Park Service to establish the Uinta Research and Curatorial Center on land outside the boundary of Dinosaur National
Monument. The land would be acquired by donation from the city of Vernal, Utah
and be no more than five acres. S. 1678 would authorize the center to be used for
the curation, storage, and research of the museum collection of Dinosaur National

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

13
Monument and provide for curation of other collections held by other federal agencies, tribes, and universities under the guidelines of cooperative agreements with
the Secretary. The State of Utah, local agencies, academic institutions, and appropriate private nonprofit entities may also enter into agreements to manage and use
the site. The bill requires that the land not become part of the Monument or be subject to laws and regulations applicable to the Monument. This language is common
when Congress has authorized NPS administrative sites in the past.
Dinosaur National Monument was established on October 9, 1915 to protect an
extraordinary deposit of dinosaur remains of the Jurassic period. While the park
contains many other significant resources, the centerpiece continues to be the paleontological specimens for which the park was originally established. They are considered by the scientific community as internationally significant and represent the
single best window into the life of Jurassic dinosaurs. The collection contains type
specimens from which specific dinosaurs are named, as well as many one-of-a-kind
specimens. The collection is heavily used by outside researchers as well as the NPS.
The collection also contains significant archeological, biological, archival, and historic objects that preserve the cultural and natural history of the park.
The 1986 General Management Plan identified a need for a collections building
and upgraded lab facilities under the preferred alternative. In the late 1990s Utah
State Parks began planning for the construction/reconstruction of the Utah Field
House Museum in Vernal. The park began working with the State to develop a partnership to provide collections space for the state as well as the park. The Field
House Museum received $5.5 million from the State of Utah for the reconstruction,
to be co-located with the collections building on property acquired by the City of
Vernal and Uintah County. The portion of the property for the Uinta Research and
Curatorial Center is being donated to the National Park Service (approximately 14
of the lot, estimated value of approximately $375,000).
The 2001 Collection Management Report identified 609,000 items in the collection. The collections are currently stored in 11 different facilities throughout the
park, including garages, most of which meet few NPS museum standards. Maintenance and curation has been deferred due to lack of space or proper facility to prepare for storage. Of the 957 museum standards currently applicable to the park, the
park barely meets 50% of them.
This new facility would allow the park to meet nearly 98% of those standards.
Of particular importance are the health and safety concerns from radon gas production in the enclosed areas where radioactive specimens are currently stored. Due to
lack of space, park staff must conduct their duties in the aisles of the old paleo lab
at the Quarry Visitor Center. This lab, as well as the entire Center, is in serious
need of rehabilitation, having suffered extensive structural distress since its construction in the 1950s. As such, the Quarry Visitor provides neither adequate storage space nor a suitable environment for staff to work in. The NPS has a project
planned to stabilize and rehabilitate the historic Quarry Visitor Center in FY 2007
as part of the five-year line-item construction program.
The Uinta Center will provide for approximately 22,500 square feet of work and
storage space and cost approximately $8.8 million, which covers only the construction of the building. Funding for the construction is currently programmed for FY
2007. In addition, one-time costs for moving the collection, equipping the laboratory,
furnishing offices, and meeting IT needs are estimated to be approximately
$400,000. Additional recurring costs for the operation of the centereither through
direct additional NPS funding, or partnerships with other agencies that have expressed an interest in using the facility, are estimated to be approximately $250,000
to $300,000 per year. This includes additional staffing to perform administrative
and maintenance functions as well as basic operational costs (utilities, necessary
supplies, materials and equipment).
A decision was made early in the process not to include the site as part of the
monument. The site is not contiguous with the present park boundary and is nearly
fourteen miles from the closest park entrance. However, it is in the City of Vernal,
Utah and is the site for the newly constructed Utah Field House of Natural History
Museum. The State will be the primary partner with the NPS. The Field House will
provide visitors and residents access to the museum and programs on the natural
history of the area, while the Uinta Center will provide the storage and research
function of a world-class museum. Other partners in the project include the City of
Vernal, Utah and Uintah County who have donated the land for the project. Both
communities see this venture as an economic benefit and an enhancement to the
surrounding regions tourism efforts. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Ashley National Forest will also work with us and store their collections here.
The Uinta Research and Curatorial Center is another example of the goal of the
Department and the National Park Service to meet the needs of the agency while

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

14
working with partners. The Center will provide proper storage for irreplaceable artifacts, improve working conditions for staff and visiting scientists, partner with the
state to provide educational opportunities, and give visitors the chance to discover
the many wonders of eastern Utah.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to any
questions you and the committee may have.
ON S. 2140

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interiors views on S. 2140, a bill to expand the boundary of Mount Rainier National
Park.
The Department of the Interior supports enactment of S. 2140, but would like to
work with the committee on an amendment, as described later in this statement.
This legislation would enable the National Park Service to acquire a site for a new
campground and other facilities to replace an existing campground along the Carbon
River that is frequently inaccessible due to flooding, and it would also enhance recreational opportunities and services for visitors in other ways. This proposal is consistent with the Administrations priority to reduce the National Park Systems deferred maintenance backlog and to make parks more accessible.
S. 2140 would authorize the acquisition from willing sellers of up to 800 acres of
land near the Carbon River entrance to Mount Rainier National Park in the northwestern corner of the park. It would implement the only recommendation for a
boundary expansion contained in the parks new General Management Plan, adopted in 2002. The plan identifies the addition of these lands as a means to allow the
National Park Service to replace the Ipsut Creek campground, picnic area, and dayuse parking for access to the popular Carbon Glacier and Wonderland Trail. These
facilities, and the two-lane gravel Carbon River Road that serves them, are located
within or close to the Carbon River floodplain. They are flooded on average every
seven years, resulting in significant road damage. Repairs to the Carbon River Road
from a 1996 flood cost $750,000. The repairs lasted a month before another flood
damaged the road again. The road now has a facility condition index of .56, a serious rating, worse than poor. The campground, which has a facility condition
index of .31, or poor, has to be closed whenever the washouts occur. It is likely
that a future flood will permanently preclude vehicular access to the campground.
With the addition of the new lands in the Carbon River Valley above the floodplain, the National Park Service could develop a 190-acre recreational-administrative hub that would include a replacement 50-campsite vehicular-accessible campground, picnic sites, and administrative and visitor contact facilities. The new facilities would include a ranger office and housing, allowing a ranger presence in the
area that has been missing since the current ranger facilities were abandoned due
to flooding. Once a major flood event permanently closes the Carbon River Road,
the road would be converted to a hiking and biking trail, and the Ipsut Creek campground would become a backcountry campground accessible by foot or bike.
Acquisition of the nearly 800 acres of land is estimated to cost about $3 to $6 million, although no appraisals have been completed. Development costs for a new 50site campground, a picnic area, associated roads and parking, a water and septic
system, along with modifying an existing home and a small maintenance building,
are estimated to be $4.8 million. Additional operating costs associated with the new
site would be negligible. Funding for the acquisition and line-item construction
projects would be addressed through the prioritization process used by the National
Park Service. A projection cannot be made at this time as to when such projects
would be of sufficient priority to merit their inclusion in the National Park Service
budget.
Adding the new area along the Carbon River corridor to the park would have
other benefits besides facilitating development of new camping and administrative
facilities in a safer location. It would provide additional hiking trails and accessible
riverbank fishing, protect scenic resources of the road corridor entering the park
from the west, and contribute to a comprehensive plan for a large corridor of diverse
outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands along State Route 165. It would
also provide protection for natural resources, including habitat for the marbled
murrelet, northern spotted owl, bull trout, and salmon, which are all listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered species. The new boundary would better reflect the natural ecosystems and processes needed to maintain the health of
the park, which has been impacted by logging along its borders, urbanization, and
population growth since 1899, when the original boundary for Mount Rainier National Park was established.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

15
Lying in between the existing boundary of the park and the area proposed for addition to the park is a mile-long corridor of land that is part of the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest. Section 4 of S. 2140 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to manage that land to maintain the areas natural setting in a manner
consistent with the areas designation as part of a late successional reserve. We are
in discussions with the Department of Agriculture about this provision, and the Departments would like to work with the committee on developing an amendment that
would address management of this area.
S. 2140 would also allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a one-acre site
in the community of Wilkeson for a permanent visitor contact facility, or welcome
center. Having welcome centers in the Mount Rainier gateway communities, including Wilkeson, is supported by the parks General Management Plan as a critical
component of the parks provision of services to visitors. The National Park Service
already operates a welcome center in a leased facility in Wilkeson to serve visitors
headed toward the Carbon River and Mowich areas of the park, as well as Mount
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and state and local recreational areas. The
Wilkeson center will serve an even more critical function if the boundary change
proposed by this bill is fulfilled and recreational opportunities in the Carbon River
corridor are expanded. The authority in this bill simply provides the option, if the
opportunity arises, for the park to own rather than lease a welcome center in
Wilkeson. The cost of the facility, for which we do not have an estimate, would be
offset by savings of $26,000 annually that is currently spent on the leased site.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the other members of the subcommittee have.
ON S. 2287

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to present the Department of the Interiors views on S. 2287. This bill would adjust
the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical
Park and Preserve (Park) in Louisiana.
The Department supports S. 2287 with the amendments included in this testimony. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to acquire
more than 3,900 acres adjacent to the Barataria Preserve (Preserve) unit of the park
by transferring existing federally owned lands to the National Park Service (NPS),
which would expand the authorized acreage of the Barataria Preserve from approximately 20,000 acres, to approximately 23,000 acres. The bill would also make clarifying amendments to Title IX of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, the
legislation that established the park.
The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was established to preserve significant examples of the rich natural and cultural resources of Louisianas
Mississippi Delta region. The park illustrates the influence of environment and history on the development of a unique regional culture. The Barataria Preserve, one
of the parks six units and currently consisting of approximately 18,400 acres, is located in Jefferson Parish, about 10 miles south of New Orleans.
The boundary expansion proposed by S. 2287 would allow the addition of estuarine and freshwater wetlands to the Barataria Preserves boundaries, allowing the
boundary to conform to existing waterways and levee corridors that mark the interface between developable land and estuarine wetlands. The expanded boundary
would also include wetlands that are part of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary, the most biologically productive in North America, which has experienced the
highest rate of land loss of any of our coastal wetlands.
S. 2287 would transfer to NPS primarily wetlands already in federal ownership,
but unavailable for public use at Bayou aux Carpes and Bayou Segnette, two of
the three study areas that a 1996 NPS boundary study found to be appropriate and
feasible for inclusion within the boundary of the preserve. The study also concluded
that adding the two areas would enhance interagency management of the upper
Barataria basin.
S. 2287 would add all of the Bayou aux Carpes area, consisting of approximately
2,905 acres, to the park. Approximately 2,268 acres within this area are wetlands
acquired by the Justice Department in 1996 as the result of the settlement of a lawsuit. Currently, the NPS has constructive possession of the deeds for these lands
but no authority to manage them.
The bill would also add approximately 815 acres of the Bayou Segnette area, also
referred to as the CIT Tract. The CIT Tract consists of wetlands owned by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as the result of a separate lawsuit settled
in 1994. The Corps has indicated its willingness to transfer management authority

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

16
for these lands to the NPS once the Hurricane Protection Levee is complete and an
easement is granted to the local levee district along the boundary of the tract.
S. 2287 would also include approximately 821 acres of private property, in 10
tracts, within the park boundary which could be acquired by the Secretary from
willing sellers. The NPS has contacted all of the owners of these properties, and
none have opposed the boundary change. Four of the tracts, totaling approximately
250 acres, are extensions of wetland properties already within the present boundary. An additional 485-acre tract is entirely jurisdictional wetlands with limited access and no potential for development. The owners of this property have petitioned
members of Congress for legislation that includes them within a new boundary.
While appraisals have not been completed, estimates based on other recently appraised wetlands would result in a potential cost of approximately $170,000 for all
of these wetlands, if they were acquired.
The remaining five tracts of private property, about 86 acres, are not jurisdictional wetlands. The owners of the two largest properties, each just under 40 acres,
have expressed their interest in being included within a new boundary, and a willingness to consider selling to the NPS. One of these properties has a single residence upon it, the owner of which would be granted lifetime occupancy in the event
of federal acquisition, in accordance with the legislation that established the park.
A small swamp tour business is located on the other 40-acre property and the owners of both the property and the business have expressed their support for inclusion
of the property within the boundary. The park does not anticipate acquiring these
lands at this time, and appraisals have not been completed. NPS is also unaware
of any recent nearby sales that could serve as a comparable. However, in the past
NPS has paid between $10,000 and $80,000 per acre for comparable land within the
boundary with the higher figure for lots that included utilities, highway, and waterfront access. These lands are isolated, accessible only by a dirt road and do not include utilities, highway or waterfront access. Although the potential price range per
acre is large, NPS believes that if these lands were appraised the cost per acre
would be in the lower end of the range. If a figure of $25,000 per acre is used, the
cost for these 86 acres could potentially be approximately $2.1 million.
The expanded boundary proposed in S. 2287 would also include a State-owned
highway right-of-way and State-owned hurricane protection levee properties that
run along the current boundary. Although these properties would remain in State
ownership, their inclusion within the new boundary would provide opportunities for
partnerships between the NPS and the State or its subdivisions for law enforcement
and boundary patrol.
Managing the additional lands, consisting of boat patrols conducted with varying
frequency, could have an effect on park operational costs. Because the lands would
remain undeveloped we estimate that it could cost approximately an additional
$100,000 to manage them. A more accurate budget estimate would depend upon
many factors, including the ability of the Park to reallocate resources and future
plans for the addition. The addition of the federal properties would not contribute
to the maintenance backlog because no facilities would be added and the federal
lands would be acquired by direct transfer and would not involve acquisition costs
other than those to process the transfer.
The NPS has had extensive consultations with local governments and taken appropriate steps to increase public awareness on the proposed actions in S. 2287. In
1999, both the Jefferson Parish Council and the Village of Jean Lafitte adopted resolutions that support the Federal land transfers.
S. 2287 would also amend Title IX of the National Parks and Recreation Act of
1978 to make corrections in the name of the park and the Barataria unit and amend
several provisions that are obsolete or need clarification, including removing references to a Park Protection Zone that was never established by local or State government.
We recommend four amendments to S. 2287, which are attached to this testimony. The first corrects the map reference in the bill. The second clarifies that the
lands involved would be transferred to the NPS at no cost, the way similar intergovernmental transfers have typically taken place in other NPS areas. The third and
fourth amendments would ensure that the needs of both the local levee district and
the Service are satisfied with respect to the Hurricane Protection Levee along the
boundary of the tract.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

17
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
S. 2287, JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

On page 2, line 11, strike numbered 467/81000 and insert numbered 467/
80100.
On page 3, line 7, insert at no cost after shall be transferred.
On page 3, line 9, strike and.
On page 3, line 12, strike the period and insert ; and and insert a new subparagraph (iii), as follows:
(iii) the CIT Tract shall be transferred subject to any easements that have been
agreed to by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Army..
ON S. 2469

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the
Interiors comments on S. 2469, the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments
Act of 2004, a bill to provide appropriation authorization and to improve the operations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Department supports
S. 2469, with the understanding that certain provisions will be amended to incorporate changes proposed by the Department and the Advisory Council in this testimony. We applaud the Advisory Councils efforts to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of its operations as it assists our citizens in preserving this Nations important historic places for future generations of Americans.
Almost 40 years ago, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 created the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as a key actor in the Federal historic
preservation partnership program. The Council is the Nations principal advisor to
Federal agencies as well as to State and tribal governments on many aspects of Federal historic preservation public policy. The Council is comprised of 20 members,
representing Federal agencies, private citizens, and experts in the field of historic
preservation. Its mission is to advocate full consideration of historic values in Federal decision-making; to oversee the Section 106 process that requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their programs and projects on places of historic value;
to review Federal programs and policies to further preservation efforts; to provide
training, guidance, and information to the public and Federal entities; and to recommend administrative and legislative improvements for protecting the nations
heritage.
S. 2469 proposes amending the Councils statutory authorization in five key areas.
The first provision would add additional membership to the sitting Council, permit
a designee for the Governor member, and amend the existing quorum requirements.
The Department supports these proposals as efforts to increase overall Council effectiveness and influence. The second provision seeks to improve the Councils financial
and administrative services, a proposal also supported by the Department. The third
area authorizes the Council to not only obtain or receive property, facilities and
services from any Federal or non-Federal entity, but to also solicit these items, a
provision supported by the Department. The fourth area of proposed change would
strike the Councils appropriation authorization of $4 million for each fiscal year
1997 through 2005, and to instead authorize such amounts as may be necessary to
carry out this title, a provision that supports the Presidents 2005 Budget.
S. 2469 lastly proposes a new section (Section 216) to the National Historic Preservation Act by which the Council has increased authority to work with Federal
grant-making agencies to improve the effectiveness of those programs in meeting
the purposes and policies of the National Historic Preservation Act. The bill proposes this in two ways: 1) by authorizing the Council to administer cooperatively
and jointly Federal agency grant or assistance programs; and, 2) to review and to
make recommendations to the Federal agency, the President, and the Congress on
ways to improve these programs or to increase annual funding levels.
Section 216(a) as drafted would specifically confer on the Council the authority
to modify grant selection criteria and the authority to administer jointly the grant
or assistance program with the proviso it would not be inconsistent with the statutory authority of the grant program. By mandating dual agency administration, the
Department is concerned that this section would create confusion and increase processing and oversight time for many programs that are running effectively now.
This section mirrors a provision in the House companion bill, H.R. 3223, introduced on October 1, 2003. Last year, the Department worked closely with the Council to draft amendments to Section 216(a) to address our concerns with the language
of the bill. These amendments, which we support, are attached to our testimony and
are included in the testimony of John L. Nau, III, Chairman of the Advisory Coun-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

18
cil. If the subcommittee was to amend S. 2469 to reflect these amendments, then
the Department could fully support this bill. We would welcome the opportunity to
work with the Advisory Council and the committee to amend S. 2469 to resolve our
concerns regarding Section 216(a).
In addition, the Department is concerned that Section 216(b), which would grant
the Council the authority to review Federal grant or assistance programs and make
recommendations, would be duplicative of Sections 202(a)(6) and 202(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act and thus, is unnecessary.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an invaluable partner of the Department as we both carry out the national vision that created the national historic
preservation program more than 30 years ago. Throughout that time, the Department and the Council have worked effectively and collegially together to enhance
historic preservation efforts across the nation. The Department looks forward to continuing this relationship with the Council as we implement one of the most farreaching and important Federal policies on historic preservation in the next quarter
century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you or members of the committee may have.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO S. 2469,
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS
On page 4, strike line 3 through p. 5, line 16 and insert the following:
(g) EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
IN MEETING THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACTTitle 11 of the Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
SEC. 216. EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTSThe Council may enter into a cooperative
agreement with any Federal agency that administers a grant or assistance program
for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the administration of such program
in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act. Such cooperative agreements may
include provisions that modify the selection criteria for a grant or assistance program to further the purposes of this Act or that allow the Council to participate in
the selection of recipients, if such provisions are not inconsistent with the grant or
assistance programs statutory authorization and purpose.
(b) REVIEW OF GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSThe Council may
(1) review the operation of any Federal grant or assistance program to evaluate
the effectiveness of such program in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act;
(2) make recommendations to the head of any Federal agency that administers
such program to further the consistency of the program with the purposes and policies of the Act and to improve its effectiveness in carrying out those purposes and
policies; and
(3) make recommendations to the President and the Congress regarding the effectiveness of Federal grant and assistance programs in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act, including recommendations with regard to appropriate funding levels..

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

We have been joined by Senator Landrieu and Senator Cantwell.
Senator Landrieu, do you have a statement, a comment?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I

do have a statement I would like to submit for the record.
Senator THOMAS. It will be included.
Senator LANDRIEU. But I just have a comment, just to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for the support of S. 2287, which expands the
boundaries of the Jean Lafitte National Park. It has been a beautifully developed park in the New Orleans metropolitan area. It is
quite unique, Mr. Chairman, in that it establishes within only 30
minutes of downtown New Orleans just an excellent place for mil-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

19
lions of visitors to be able to see the great expanse of the wetlands
that this committee has done so much to try to protect.
So I just came today to thank you, to urge passage of this bill,
to thank the Department and the administration for their support,
and to submit some other testimonies from interested parties in
Louisiana to the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA,

ON S. 2287

I would like to thank the Chairman for scheduling this hearing today on a number of items including one that I have introduced, S. 2287, the Jean Lafitte National
Historic Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004. In addition to my
statement, I would also like to introduce into the record a statement in support of
the legislation by the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.
The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was established in 1978
to preserve for present and future generations significant examples of the rich natural and cultural resources of Louisianas Mississippi Delta region. The park seeks
to illustrate the influence of environment and history on the development of a
unique regional culture. It is named for Jean Lafitte who was a pirate (or privateer
as he like to be called) that fought alongside U.S. forces in the Battle of New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812.
The park consists of six physically separate sites and a park headquarters located
in New Orleans. The sites in Lafayette, Thibodaux and Eunice interpret the Acadian culture of the area. The Barataria Preserve (in Marrero) interprets the natural
and cultural history of the uplands, swamps and marshlands of the region. Six miles
southeast of New Orleans is the Chalmette Battlefield and National Cemetery, site
of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans and the final resting place for soldiers from the
Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II and Vietnam. The parks
visitor center, which is located in the historic French Quarter, interprets the history
of New Orleans and diverse cultures of Mississippi Delta region.
It is the Barataria site that is the focus of our attention today. The Bill before
us would merely adjust the boundary of the Barataria preserve unit of Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve and by doing so, protect a crucial component
of one of the largest and most productive expanses of coastal wetlands in North
Americacoastal Louisiana or as they are known: Americas Wetlands.
The Barataria preserve is the only part of our coastal wetlands preserved in the
National Park System. As we strive to find ways to stem the tide of coastal erosion
in Louisiana, and bring about the restoration of wetlands already lost, it is equally
important that we protect those areas that remain such as the Barataria preserve
so that Americans can experience, first hand, the amazing beauty and fertility of
Louisianas bountiful coastal wetlandsthe most threatened wetland ecosystem in
the countrydisappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles a year.
Located on the outskirts of New Orleans, where it is accessible not only to the
people of New Orleans but also to the millions of tourists from around the world
that visit New Orleans and south Louisiana, Barataria serves as an interpretive experience of this greatest of coastal wetlands.
This bill expands this national treasure without any cost to the federal government while preserving private property rights. It simply transfers to the Park over
3,000 acres of wetlands already in Federal ownership, already paid for by the American people. These lands, which are adjacent to the Preserve, became Federal as a
result of the settlement by the Justice Department of two lawsuits brought by the
landowners against Federal agencies. However, because these acres are not managed by the park, they are presently unavailable for public use. An Act of Congress
is necessary to allow inclusion of these lands into a new boundary.
My bill does just that, opening these lands for canoeing, wildlife viewing, exploration, fishing, and hunting, all under the management and protection of the park
service. The bill grants long-term protection to crucial resources that the Park Service has found suitable and feasible for inclusion within a new boundary through a
1996 boundary study.
The Park is immediately adjacent to the developed areas of the Westbank of Jefferson Parish along much of its boundary while the Barataria unit in particular Is
right next door to a hurricane levee. Making more of the park boundary contiguous
with the levee that divides developed land from undeveloped wetlands enhances op-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

20
portunities for direct cooperation between these communities and the Park for management of shared concerns. These concerns include the routing of storm-water runoff; the discharge of treated sewage; estuarine water quality and its effects on fisheries and recreational uses; wetland restoration and mitigation; and a number of
other problems and opportunities. The Park has worked with Jefferson Parish in
seeking creative solutions to these problems and will continue to do so. The addition
of these properties will only enhance their chances for success.
It is for all of these reasons that I am hopeful the Committee will approve of this
measure in the near future. The expansion we seek in this Bill benefits us today
as well as tomorrow.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like

to thank you for holding this important hearing, because today we
will hear testimony on S. 2140, which deals with the expansion of
the Mount Rainier National Park. I introduced this along with Senator Murray, and it is a bipartisan effort, with legislation introduced in the House that is almost identical, championed by my colleague Representative Jennifer Dunn. That legislation has been
moving in the House.
We in Washington are incredibly fortunate to live near such a
pristine, beautiful public land. Mount Rainier, which anybody who
has visited the Northwest understands, towers over all Washingtonians. The park is really an important part of our economy, with
over a million visitors from all over the world coming on an annual
basis.
However, without this legislation the park and the expense of repairs on the park are going to continue to be a challenge. That is
because the Carbon River keeps washing out the road at the northwest corner of the park. This is the access entrance where people
have a day hike and launch point. But when that resource is
washed out, as frequently it is because of where it actually situates
in regard to the Carbon River, we continue to pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars every time the river washes out the camp area
and the entrance to the park.
So to ensure that visitors will continue to have the camping and
hiking experiences, this bill authorizes a small but critical boundary expansion for Mount Rainier National Park to allow the National Park Service to acquire 800 acres. And I might add that this
is 800 acres from willing landowners who want to sell their land.
The bill would allow the National Park Service to rebuild the
campground in a replacement area on lowland hiking trails and
would alleviate the need for this consistent repair every time the
river washes out the campground.
So I am pleased that the private landowners have supported this
expansion and I would like to also enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from community and business leaders, including city
and county government officials, outdoor industrial retailers, and
other local tourist businesses that also support this expansion.
I would again just like to thank you for this hearing and the
promise of moving this legislation swiftly through the legislative
body so that we can actually save the taxpayers money in the future from constant repairs that are needed in this particular area

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

21
and continue to give access to just an incredible resource that the
national park at Mount Rainier is today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator THOMAS. We will have time for a couple of questions
then. Chief, I guess everyone seems to agree that this ought to be
in the hands primarily of the Forest Service. You say out of 17 centers now 16 of them are Forest Service-operated?
Mr. THOMPSON. That is true, 16 are managed by the Forest Service.
Senator THOMAS. You spend almost half a million then, I think,
on the program?
Mr. THOMPSON. We spend about close to half a million dollars,
and then cooperators, communities and other agencies put up
about the same amount of money. So it is about a million dollars
being invested in those 17 centers right now.
Senator THOMAS. Do you expect there would need to be more centers to accomplish your mission?
Mr. THOMPSON. It is possible, as we look at the expansion into
back country use, that there may be the need for more centers, and
there are some areas that are not covered by centers presently. So
it is possible. At this time we do not have information that would
say exactly where those ought to be, should be, if there were more.
Senator THOMAS. If this were to change the responsibility for implementing the bill, what would that do to the cost to the Forest
Service?
Mr. THOMPSON. It obviously depends upon the grant portion of
it right now, and if the grant program remained in the bill that
would add significant costs, depending upon what the expansion of
that. Without the grant program in the bill, there may be some
need for extra commitment of resources. Right now that 400 to
$500,000 from the Forest Service standpoint is coming out of our
recreation budget, and so that would have to be prioritized based
upon other needs at this point in time.
Senator THOMAS. I do not think I understand the grant thing. If
it were grants, what does that mean?
Mr. THOMPSON. Well, the grant program as described in the bill
would give grants to the States or entities to help support their
costs in carrying out the program. The grant would come from the
Federal Government.
Senator THOMAS. I see, OK.
Then, Ms. Matthews, Interior is in agreement with the Forest
Service as to how this ought to be managed?
Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, because the percentage is so much higher
than what is currently the program of the Forest Service in comparison to ours, 6 percent versus 90.
Senator THOMAS. I see. So it would be done in cooperation, but
the responsibility would lie with the Department of Agriculture.
Ms. MATTHEWS. The lead agency.
Senator THOMAS. Would there be a financial obligation for Interior?
Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, we have existing programs for avalanche
control within the zones and the areas in Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Olympic, North Cascades, and those would
be continued.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

22
Senator THOMAS. I believe the Uinta research thing suggests $8
million or something. But I believe it authorizes the necessary
funding. What do you think the funding would be here for the Dinosaur National Monument?
Ms. MATTHEWS. I think our estimate is $8 million, $4.8 million
for the facility itself. That is our estimate, an existing home and
a small maintenance building, estimated to be about $4.8 million.
Of course, the public benefit underlined on top of the 8O0 acres of
land, $3 to $6 million, is immense.
Senator THOMAS. OK. I am always a little concerned when it just
says authorizes the necessary funding, because it is hard to tell
what that would be.
Mount Rainier adjustment, how much has been the expenditure
on this road repair and so on; do you know?
Ms. MATTHEWS. The road repair cost has been about $785,000
over a period of time; that has been roughly what we have spent
over a 10-year period for clearing away the debris, the build-up, the
flood waters, and repairing the roadway. Of course, getting rid of
that expense in the future and constructing campsites in an area
that will not be subject to flooding will be a cost savings ultimately.
Senator THOMAS. This is an expansion of approximately 1,000
acres?
Ms. MATTHEWS. Eight hundred acres.
Senator THOMAS. Eight hundred.
Ms. MATTHEWS. It is for 50 campsites, and I think the other visitor facilities are also maximized and added to significantly.
Senator THOMAS. Then the cost of the 800 acres, do you have a
notion what that will be?
Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, I do.
Senator THOMAS. I guess they talk about there could be donations or sales, changes.
Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, there could be.
I am sorry, we will get that to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
We estimate that acquiring this land will cost about $3 million to $6 million.

Senator THOMAS. Yes, if you do not mind.

Senator Akaka.
Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Matthews, I have two questions. One question for you is on
S. 2469, the bill reauthorizing the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. One of the provisions, and sort of repeating the question that was just asked, one of the provisions in the bill would
give the advisory council the authority to solicit contributions and
donations. I understand from your testimony that the Department
supports this authority.
I am not familiar with many Federal agencies that have a similar authority to solicit funds or donations. So how does this work
in the Department of the Interior? Which of your agencies or bureaus are authorized to solicit contributions?
Ms. MATTHEWS. We were discussing that on our way out of the
main Interior Building and anticipating that answer, and actually,
Senator, we will have to get back to you on that because we have
not done a survey of who, if anyone, can solicit funds at this point.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

23
So I am really not prepared to give you an answer, but we will provide it, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Although several bureaus in the Department of the Interior have express authority to accept gifts, no bureau has express authority to solicit donations. The Department has historically interpreted these authorities not to allow solicitation, although we are aware that certain other governmental agencies have interpreted acceptance authorization in their statutes to include the authority to solicit. The Take
Pride in America Program is the one program in the Department that has an express authorization to solicit. In addition, Congress has chartered foundations, including the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to solicit donations to benefit Departmental bureaus, including the National
Park Service.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you.

The other question is on S. 1678, which authorizes the curatorial
center outside of Dinosaur National Monument in Utah.
Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir.
Senator AKAKA. According to your testimony, the site for the new
center will be donated and the cost to build the new facility will
be approximately $8.8 million. Is the proposed curatorial center different from the new Utah Natural History Museum, or will they
share the same building?
Ms. MATTHEWS. Our responsibility and the testimony you heard
this morning was that the actual expenditure for the Utah Field
House of Natural History State Park Museum was $5.5 million. We
had indication that $5.5 million had come from the State of Utah.
Our part in that is the curatorial facility and the curatorial facility
cost iswe will submit it. It is part of our testimony. We will provide that for you.
Our approximation is $8.8 million for a 22,500 square foot building, the curatorial facility, which incorporates what we showed in
our record as 11 different storage centers, warehouses, and incorporates all that material together under acceptable National Park
System standards. That ranges from everything, everything from
climate control to whether it has windows or not, earthquake protections depending on what part of the country you are in, and
whether you need, what you need. There are certain standards for
that and it would get these up to the curatorial standards that we
require in optimal conditions for other facilities, and provide
through the partnerships facilities to show how those collections
are curated. Curation is a big part of the professional standards required. They all require certain things. For a public facility where
it shows the curation, it can be a really effective educational standard and really educational exhibit for students and others to learn
how tedious this work is done to preserve these materials for future generations.
[The information referred to follows:]
The proposed curatorial center is a separate structure from the new Utah Natural
History Museum, however they are both located within the same site.

Senator AKAKA. Will they be sharing the same building?

Ms. MATTHEWS. The curatorial facility is not in the same building. The Field House of Natural History is a State park, a museum
that is already constructed and under way. It just opened. But all
within the same area.
Senator AKAKA. Thank you.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

24
Senator THOMAS. Senator Talent, can you wait? I have one more
question.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Matthews, just a process question first. If Senator Thomas
sought to move the Senate bill or the House bill or we moved S.
2140 or the companion bill and we passed that this year, would the
Park Service put acquisition dollars into next years budget cycle?
Is that what would happen?
Ms. MATTHEWS. For 2006 or beyond.
Senator CANTWELL. I think the committee probably would benefit
from the historical repairs and improvements and an estimation of
how often that washout actually occurs. So a projection, if you
could, of what the expense to the National Park Service would be,
say in the next 5 to 10 years, if we did not improve the road as
well, because I think that that is what you are trying to get at with
your numbers.
Ms. MATTHEWS. Right.
Senator CANTWELL. I think the last repair was $750,000, but I
think that there have been some repairs in between there and I
think that there are more projected for the future. Could you provide the committee with some estimates?
Ms. MATTHEWS. We will provide that, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
While we cannot predict how much damage will occur to the road during the next
five to ten years, on the basis of recent weather patterns and the erosion of natural
barriers between the river and the road, we could expect to spend about $175,000
to $230,000 during that period if a decision was made to keep the road open to vehicular traffic.

Senator CANTWELL. The historical number and some estimates

for the next, say, 10, 15 years of what we might also be expecting.
Ms. MATTHEWS. Yes. What I have here is that the 1998 flood repair by itself cost $750,000.
Senator CANTWELL. Yes. OK, if we could get that, that would be
great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you.
Ms. MATTHEWS. Happy to provide that.
Senator THOMAS. Senator Talent.
Senator TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions for this
panel.
Senator THOMAS. I just have one more and it has to do with the
Historic Preservation Act. It indicates the council has had about $4
million operating funds with a specific ceiling. Now, instead of carrying a specific ceiling, why, they are interested in having an authorization for unlimited appropriation.
How do you see this cost change?
Ms. MATTHEWS. Well, I am not sure that I am really as prepared
to go into the specifics of that as your second panel would be. Mr.
Nau has been a great leader in historic preservation and has initiated the Preserve America executive order and the program to designate communities around the country, and I think he is well prepared to discuss that, if I may defer to our chairman of the Advisory Council, sir.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

25
Senator THOMAS. All right, we will defer then.
So thank you very much to you and we will seat the next panel
and then, Senator, if you have a statement you can just go right
ahead.
Mr. John Nau is chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, from Houston, Texas; Ms. Krieger, heritage resource
coordinator, State of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation; and
David Hamre, avalanche expert, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska, who flew here.
Now, Senator, if you would care to go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MISSOURI

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much, and thank you also for allowing me to sit
in on your subcommittee. I am not going to repay your generosity
by reading my entire statement.
I do want to thank you for holding this hearing so quickly on S.
2469, which is legislation to reauthorize and expand the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. In Missouri we are well familiar
with the councils work and grateful to the council for that work
because it has been involved with restoration of Union Station, rehabilitation and expansion of Liberty Memorial in Kansas City,
preservation of World War II stonework at Fort Leonard Wood, the
Market Street redevelopment project in St. Louis, and many other
historic projects in Missouri.
I am pleased to be sponsoring the reauthorization of the advisory
council. It would simply reauthorize the agency largely as is, Mr.
Chairman, with a few changes. One of them you mentioned, having
a permanent authorization for the appropriation level rather than
periodic lifting the cap so that the appropriation can be as needed,
rather than within an artificial cap.
I think we need to do that to accommodate the Presidents request for this year, and generally support what the council has
been doing, particularly in the area of heritage tourism. I really
want to recognize Chairman Nau, who is here before the subcommittee today, and his work with regard to things like the historic courthouse preservation program in Texas, which has done a
wonderful job of preserving courthouses around the State of Texas
and linking that to heritage tourism.
We are very interested in that in Missouri because it is such a
big tourism State and because we have concerns about how we are
going to preserve these wonderful buildings which are such an important part of our State. Really, one way to do that is to link them
up to the tourists who are interested in looking at the history of
Missouri, and the council has been a leader in that. Mr. Nau has
been a great chairman of the council.
So I have been pleased to sponsor this legislation, grateful to you
and the ranking member for holding this hearing so quickly on it,
and looking forward to the testimony of the panel. I have a statement to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Talent follows:]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

26
STATEMENT

OF

JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI,

ON

S. 2469

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today and thank you for including a bill which I recently introduced S. 2469. This legislation will reauthorize
and expand the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
The Council has been closely involved with historic preservation cases in Missouri
including the restoration of Union Station and rehabilitation and expansion of Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, the preservation of World War II stonework at Fort
Leonard Wood, the Market Street Redevelopment Project in St. Louis and many
other historic projects in my state. I am grateful for your involvement, interest and
leadership.
It is also a pleasure to see my good friend John Nau today. Mr. Nau serves as
Chairman of the Advisory Council. Thank you, Mr. Nau, for coming to Washington
to appear before this committee. You have an amazing commitment to historic preservation and a vision for the future of the agency.
For example, your historic court houses program in the state of Texas is a shining
example of how historic preservation should work. The program was a great economic stimulus and thanks to your leadership, these rural areas will reap the benefits of the program for years to come. On a larger scale, your Preserve America program will bring together federal state and local governments to stimulate a better
appreciation for our historic buildings and resources.
The ACHP plays a pivotal role in the National Historic Preservation Program.
Founded as a unique partnership among Federal, State, and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to advance the preservation of Americas heritage while
recognizing contemporary needs, the program has matured and expanded over time.
S. 2469 makes some needed changes to the Council to allow for it to continue serving the nation.
S. 2469 would amend the Act to provide the Council appropriation authority, expand its membership and improve operations. In 1998, the Councils reauthorization
provided for $4,000,000 annually through 2005. S. 2469 omits a specific dollar ceiling, allowing instead for an amount necessary to carry out its responsibility. It
would also provide a permanent appropriation authorization instead of periodic reauthorization periods.
As an independent agency, the Council plays a key role in shaping historic preservation policy and programs at the highest levels of the Administration. They have
the ability to coordinate a national program, assisting Federal agencies in meeting
their preservation responsibilities. The Council also works with States, tribes, local
governments as well as the private industry.
I cant stress how important these historic preservation programs are thought-out
the nation. I am honored to have introduced the legislation to allow the good work
at the council to continue and improve. I look forward to Mr. Naus testimony today.
Additionally, both Mr. Nau and the National Park Service have included a suggested amendment in their testimony regarding the federal grant programs. I am
supportive of these clarifying changes to the legislation.

Senator THOMAS. Fine. Submit it and it will be included.

Welcome. Thank you very much for being here. Mr. Nau, would
you care to begin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. NAU, III, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY
COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Mr. NAU. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and particularly thank you,
Senator Talent.
It is a pleasure to testify before you this afternoon regarding the
reauthorization proposal for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the vital importance of historic preservation programs to our Nation and the
essential role that the advisory council plays in this effort.
The National Historic Preservation Act, which created the
ACHP, is a strong demonstration of the collective wisdom of the
U.S. Congress in three vital regards: first, the importance of preserving Americas heritage; second, the necessity of building upon
the foundation of our past to create a better future; third, the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

27
strength of linking Federal, State, tribal, and local efforts in partnership with the private sector to accomplish these goals.
The ACHP is actively involved in pursuing these goals on behalf
of the Congress, the President, and, most importantly, the American people. It is also actively involved in changing itself to better
meet the needs through wise stewardship of the Federal Governments historic assets that can stimulate economic development
through activities such as heritage tourism.
The ACHP has focused its energies on reestablishing the leadership role that the framers of the 1966 Act envisioned. As part of
that effort, on March 3, 2003, the President signed Executive Order
13287, Preserve America. That same day, Mrs. Laura Bush announced the administrations Preserve America initiative, which is
a government-wide effort to recognize and celebrate our joint heritage.
Since January 15 of this year, we have designated 80 Preserve
America communities across the Nation and have more than 100
applications waiting for approval. Last month the President and
Mrs. Bush presented the first four Preserve America Presidential
awards for projects that spur heritage tourism and highlight notable privately funded preservation projects.
The ACHP has been recast to more effectively accomplish and efficiently implement its mission in accordance with this executive
order. We are leveraging our resources and building partnerships
to promote the benefits of preservation across this Nation. The benefits are many: educational, cultural, environmental, social, and,
importantly, economic, with the most immediate benefit being economic development opportunities available to communities, especially rural communities, through their participation in heritage
tourism.
Now, we all know that the Federal Government works best when
it works in partnerships with States, counties, communities,
tribesin short, when it works in partnership with the constituents that you represent. Preserve America initiative promotes such
activity and the executive order directs Federal agencies to actively
engage in such partnerships.
Our job is to encourage this process and program. We are building successful partnerships with Federal agencies and we will continue to build on those relationships to maximize our efficiency and
effectiveness.
Now, Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am a businessman and I would not be here if I did not believe that there is a
clear return on this investment. My experience as chairman of the
Texas Historical Commission tells me that this works. I have seen
it work.
We are before the committee today because your assistance is essential to allow us to realize this evolving role. Section 106 is a
very important and significant responsibility. However, we believe
ACHPs mission is broader and we have adopted several proposed
changes: First, amend the current time-limited authorization and
replace it with permanent appropriations authorization. Next, authorize the President to add the heads of three additional Federal
agencies to the ACHP membership. Third, authorize several technical amendments that would allow us to function more rationally

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

28
and efficiently and provide us with the authority and direction to
work cooperatively with Federal funding agencies to assist them in
using their existing grant program to more effectively advance the
purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act.
With regard to that last change and based on the testimony you
have already heard, I would like to request that the committee accept some minor revisions to the language of S. 2469 as introduced.
This clarifying language, which is appended to my written statement, will address a concern raised by the Department of Interior
that you have heard, and they do concur with this amendment.
I would also like to bring to the committees attention the testimony the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers has prepared in support of this bill. The SHPOs, as you know,
are our principal partners carrying out preservation activities at
the State level. We value their support and appreciate their letter.
I hope that the subcommittee will favorably consider our request.
I thank you for the time and welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nau follows:]
STATEMENT

OF

JOHN L. NAU, III, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COUNCIL

PRESERVATION, ON S. 2469

ON

HISTORIC

SUMMARY STATEMENT

An independent Federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP) promotes historic preservation nationally by providing a forum for influencing Federal activities, programs, and policies that impact historic properties. In
furtherance of this objective, the ACHP seeks reauthorization of its appropriations
in accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (NHPA). The ACHP also offers amendments to
its authorities that we believe will strengthen our ability to meet our responsibilities
under NHPA and provide leadership and coordination in the Federal historic preservation program.
BACKGROUND

The ACHP was established by Title II of NHPA. NHPA charges the ACHP with
advising the President and Congress on historic preservation matters and entrusts
the ACHP with the unique mission of advancing historic preservation within the
Federal Government and the National Historic Preservation Program. In FY 2002,
the ACHP adopted the following mission statement:
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our Nations historic resources, and advises
the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy.
The ACHPs authority and responsibilities are principally derived from NHPA.
General duties of the ACHP are detailed in Section 202 (16 U.S.C. 470j) and include:
Advising the President and Congress on matters relating to historic preservation;
Encouraging public interest and participation in historic preservation;
Recommending policy and tax studies as they affect historic preservation;
Advising State and local governments on historic preservation legislation;
Encouraging training and education in historic preservation;
Reviewing Federal policies and programs and recommending improvements;
and
Informing and educating others about the ACHPs activities.
Under Section 106 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f), the ACHP reviews Federal actions
affecting historic properties to ensure that historic preservation needs are considered and balanced with Federal project requirements. It achieves this balance
through the Section 106 review process, which applies whenever a Federal action
has the potential to impact historic properties. As administered by the ACHP, the
process guarantees that State and local governments, Indian tribes, businesses and

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

29
organizations, and private citizens will have an effective opportunity to participate
in Federal project planning when historic properties they value may be affected.
Under Section 211 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470s), the ACHP is granted rulemaking
authority for Section 106. The ACHP also has consultative and other responsibilities
under Sections 101, 110, 111, 203, and 214 of NHPA, and in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is considered an agency
with special expertise to comment on environmental impacts involving historic
properties and other cultural resources.
The ACHP plays a pivotal role in the National Historic Preservation Program.
Founded as a unique partnership among Federal, State, and local governments, Indian tribes, and the public to advance the preservation of Americas heritage while
recognizing contemporary needs, the program has matured and expanded over time.
The Secretary of the Interior and the ACHP have distinct but complementary responsibilities for managing the National Historic Preservation Program. The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, maintains the national inventory of historic properties, sets standards for historic preservation, administers financial assistance and programs for tribal, State, and local participation,
and provides technical preservation assistance.
The ACHP also plays a key role in shaping historic preservation policy and programs at the highest levels of the Administration. It coordinates the national program, assisting Federal agencies in meeting their preservation responsibilities.
Through its administration of Section 106, the ACHP works with Federal agencies,
States, tribes, local governments, applicants for Federal assistance, and other affected parties to ensure that their interests are considered in the process. It helps
parties reach agreement on measures to avoid or resolve conflicts that may arise
between development needs and preservation objectives, including mitigation of
harmful impacts.
The ACHP is uniquely suited to its task. As an independent agency, it brings together through its membership Federal agency heads, representatives of State and
local governments, historic preservation leaders and experts, Native American representatives, and private citizens to shape national policies and programs dealing
with historic preservation. The ACHPs diverse membership is reflected in its efforts
to seek sensible, cost-effective ways to mesh preservation goals with other public
needs. Unlike other Federal agencies or private preservation organizations, the
ACHP incorporates a variety of interests and viewpoints in fulfilling its statutory
duties, broadly reflecting the public interest. Recommended solutions are reached
that reflect both the impacts on irreplaceable historic properties and the needs of
todays society.
New Directions. Since assuming the Chairmanship in August 2001, I have taken
steps to ensure that the ACHP fulfills the leadership role envisioned for it in NHPA.
In doing so, we have focused the ACHP on pursuing the broader policy goals of the
National Historic Preservation Program.
In creating the ACHP, Congress recognized the value of having an independent
entity to provide advice, coordination, and oversight of NHPAs implementation by
Federal agencies. The ACHP remains the only Federal entity created solely to address historic preservation issues, and helps to bridge differences in this area among
Federal agencies, and between the Federal Government and States, Indian tribes,
local governments, and citizens. While the administration of the historic preservation review process established by Section 106 of NHPA is very important and a significant ACHP responsibility, we believe that the ACHPs mission is broader than
simply managing that process.
NHPA established a national policy to foster conditions under which our modern
society and our prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony
and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations. Among other things, the statute directed Federal agencies to foster conditions that help attain the national goal of historic preservation; to act as faithful
stewards of federally owned, administered, or controlled historic resources for
present and future generations; and to offer maximum encouragement and assistance to other public and private preservation efforts through a variety of means.
To promote this policy and to exercise its intended leadership, the ACHP has
taken the following steps:
Developed an Executive order to promote the benefits of preservation, improve
Federal stewardship of historic properties, and foster recognition of such properties as national assets to be used for economic, educational, and other purposes. President Bush issued this as Executive Order 13287, Preserve America, on March 3, 2003.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

30
Created an initiative for the White House to stimulate creative partnerships
among all levels of government and the private sector to preserve and actively
use historic resources to stimulate a better appreciation of Americas history
and diversity. The initiative is known as Preserve America and was announced by Mrs. Laura Bush on March 3, 2003.
Used ACHP member meetings to learn from local government and citizens how
the Federal Government can effectively participate in local heritage tourism initiatives and promote these strategies to Federal agencies and tourism professionals.
Undertook a major new initiative to improve the participation of Native Americans in the National Historic Preservation Program.
The ACHPs 20 statutorily designated members address policy issues, direct program initiatives, and make recommendations regarding historic preservation to the
President, Congress, and heads of other Federal agencies. ACHP members meet four
times a year to conduct business, with two meetings in Washington, DC, and two
in other communities where relevant preservation issues can be explored. However,
the ACHP members and I are actively involved in ACHP business on a continual
basis, particularly since January 2004 when the Administrations Preserve America
initiative began to gain momentum.
In 2002, we reorganized the ACHP membership and staff to expand the members
role and enhance work efficiencies as well as member-staff interaction. To best use
the talents and energy of the ACHP members and ensure that they fully participate
in advancing the ACHPs goals and programs, three member program committees
were created: Federal Agency Programs; Preservation Initiatives; and Communications, Education, and Outreach.
In addition, we created an Executive Committee comprised of myself, the ACHP
vice chairman, and the chairman of each of the other committees to assist in the
governance of the ACHP. Several times a year, we appoint panels of members to
formulate comments on Section 106 cases. Member task forces and committees are
also formed to pursue specific tasks, such as policy development or regulatory reform oversight. On average, three such subgroups are at work at any given time
during the year. Each meets about five to six times in the course of its existence,
is served by one to three staff members, and produces reports, comments, and policy
recommendations.
The ACHP has a leading role in both the Preserve America Steering Committee
and its operational subgroup. In coordination with the White House, the Preserve
America Steering Committee sets policy and oversees the initiative. The operational
subgroup works with State, regional, local, and private interests and across all involved Federal Agencies to coordinate the daily efforts involved with the Preserve
America Community and Preserve America Presidential Award programs. The
ACHPs Office of Federal Agency Programs works with each Federal agencys newly
created Senior Policy Official, who focuses on Section 106 and Preserve America
within his or her agency.
We have further committed and tasked a staff member, under the direct supervision of the Executive Director, to coordinate our Native American Program. As
part of that program, we held our first formal meeting of the Native American Advisory Group two weeks ago, from May 26-27. The group seeks to improve relations
and coordinate efforts with tribes and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers on issues
of historic preservation, which are of particular and unique importance to tribes
from both economic and cultural perspectives.
The staff carries out the day-to-day work of the ACHP and provides all support
services for the ACHP members. To reflect and support the work of the committees,
the Executive Director reorganized the ACHP staff into three program offices to
mirror the committee structure. Staff components are under the supervision of the
Executive Director, who is based in the Washington, DC, office. There is also a
small field office in Lakewood, Colorado.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Background to Reauthorization. The ACHP has traditionally had its appropriations authorized on a multi-year cycle in Title 11 of NHPA (Section 212, 16 U.S.C.
470t). The current cycle runs through FY 2005 and authorizes $4 million annually.
These funds are provided to support the programs and operations of the ACHP.
Title II of NHPA also sets forth the general authorities and structure of the ACHP.
The ACHP seeks to amend its appropriation authorization for two reasons. First,
the authorization extends only through FY 2005 and must be renewed for FY 2006
and beyond. Of more immediate concern, however, is the relationship of the current
authorization to our FY 2005 budget request now pending before Congress. For FY

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

31
2005, the Presidents budget seeks $4.6 million for the ACHP. Because this is over
the authorization limit, the Executive Office of the President directed the ACHP to
propose any legislation required to modify its authorization to be consistent with the
Presidents budget.
The ACHP is therefore seeking amendments to the authorizing legislation at this
time. At its February 2003 and May 2003 member meetings, the ACHP endorsed
an approach to the reauthorization issue. The approach addresses the immediate appropriations authority issue and also seeks amendments to the ACHPs composition
and authorities to better enable the ACHP to achieve its mission goals.
The bill S. 2469, to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improve the operations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, was introduced by the Honorable James M. Talent on May
20, 2004. A companion bill, H.R. 3223, is pending before the House Resources Committee.
The changes proposed by the ACHP and contained in S. 2469 are explained in
this overview.
Appropriations Authorization. This provision (Section 1(f)) would amend the current time-limited authorization and replace it with a permanent appropriations authorization.
When the ACHP was created in 1966, its functions were exclusively advisory and
limited, and the agency was lodged administratively in the Department of the Interior. Since then, Congress has amended NHPA to establish the ACHP as an independent Federal agency and provide it with a range of program authorities crucial
to the success of the National Historic Preservation Program.
Not unlike the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC), the ACHP now functions as a small but important Federal
agency, carrying out both advisory and substantive program duties. Specific language creating a permanent appropriations authorization would draw upon the
similar statutory authorities of the CFA and NCPC. No ceiling to the annual appropriations authorization would be included in the authorizing legislation, but rather
the appropriate funding limits would be established through the annual appropriations process.
Expansion of Membership. This provision (Section 1(c)) would expand the membership of the ACHP by directing the President to designate the heads of three additional Federal agencies as members of the ACHP.
The ACHP has been aggressively pursuing partnerships with Federal agencies in
recent years and has found the results to be greatly beneficial to meeting both Federal agency historic preservation responsibilities and the ACHPs own mission goals.
Experience has shown that these partnerships are fostered and enhanced by having
the agency participate as a full-fledged member of the ACHP, giving it both a voice
and a stake in the ACHPs actions. The amendment would bring the total number
of Federal ACHP members to nine and expand the ACHP membership to 23-an administratively manageable number that preserves the current majority of non-Federal members. A technical amendment to adjust quorum requirements would also
be included.
Authority and Direction to Improve Coordination with Federal Funding Agencies.
This provision (Section 1(g)) would give the ACHP the authority and direction to
work cooperatively with Federal funding agencies to assist them in determining appropriate uses of their existing grants programs for advancing the purposes of
NHPA.
For example, it is our experience that programs such as the Historic Preservation
Fund (HPF) administered through the States by the Department of the Interior
have the flexibility to provide matching seed money to a local non-profit organization to support a heritage tourism program.
The ACHP would work with agencies and grant recipients to examine the effectiveness of existing grant programs, evaluate the adequacy of funding levels, and
help the agencies determine whether changes in the programs would better meet
preservation and other needs. Any recommendations would be developed in close cooperation with the Federal funding agencies themselves, many of which sit as
ACHP members, and with the States. The proposed amendment would also allow
the ACHP to work cooperatively with Federal funding agencies in the administration of their grant programs.
Please note that, after the original bill was drafted and introduced, the National
Park Service recommended to the ACHP that the provision be slightly reworded to
clarify the ACHPs authorities. We concur with those changes and have appended
revised language for Section 1(g) to this statement.
Technical Amendments. These provisions would provide four technical changes
that would improve ACHP operations:

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

32
1. Authorize the Governor, who is a presidentially appointed member of the
ACHP, to designate a voting representative to participate in the ACHP activities in
the Governors absence. Currently this authority is extended to Federal agencies
and other organizational members. The amendment would recognize that the personal participation of a Governor cannot always be assumed, much like that of a
Cabinet secretary (Section 1(c)(2)).
2. Authorize the ACHP to engage administrative support services from sources
other than the Department of the Interior. The current law requires the ACHPs administrative services to be provided by the Department of the Interior on a reimbursable basis. The amendment would authorize the ACHP to obtain any or all of
those services from other Federal agencies or the private sector. The amendment
would further the goals of the FAIR Act and improve ACHP efficiency by allowing
the ACHP to obtain necessary services on the most beneficial terms (Section 1(d)).
3. Clarify that the ACHPs donation authority (16 U.S.C. 470m(g)) includes the
ability of the ACHP to actively solicit such donations (Section 1(e)).
4. Adjust the quorum requirements to accommodate expanded ACHP membership
(Section 1(c)(3)).
CONCLUSION

The ACHP has reached a level of maturity as an independent Federal agency and
as a key partner in the National Historic Preservation Program to warrant continued support from Congress. As demonstrated by its recent program accomplishments-including the Presidents Executive Order 13287, the Preserve America initiative, and the Native American Program-the ACHP is a vital component of the Federal historic preservation program.
We believe that the legislation we seek, coupled with periodic oversight by this
Subcommittee and the annual review provided by the Appropriations Committees,
is fully justified by our record of accomplishment. We hope that the Subcommittee
will favorably consider this request, including our recommended technical amendments.
We appreciate the Subcommittees interest in these issues, and we thank you for
your consideration and the opportunity to present our views.
APPENDIX
REVISED PROVISION RELATING TO ACHP ROLE IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS
JANUARY 15, 2004

(g) EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

IN MEETING THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACTTitle II of the Act is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
SEC. 216. EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTSThe Council may enter into a cooperative
agreement with any Federal agency that administers a grant or assistance program
for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the administration of such program
in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act. Such cooperative agreements may
include provisions that modify the selection criteria for a grant or assistance program to further the purposes of this Act or that allow the Council to participate in
the selection of recipients, if such provisions are not inconsistent with the grant or
assistance programs statutory authorization and purpose.
(b) REVIEW OF GRANT AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSThe Council may
(1) review the operation of any Federal grant or assistance program to evaluate
the effectiveness of such program in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act;
(2) make recommendations to the head of any Federal agency that administers
such program to further the consistency of the program with the purposes and policies of the Act and to improve its effectiveness in carrying out those purposes and
policies; and
(3) make recommendations to the President and the Congress regarding the effectiveness of Federal grant and assistance programs in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act, including recommendations with regard to appropriate funding levels.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Let us see. I believe in our listing here Mrs. Krieger, Ms.
Krieger.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

33
STATEMENT OF KAREN KRIEGER, HERITAGE RESOURCE
COORDINATOR, STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS AND
RECREATION

Ms. KRIEGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. I am here representing the State of Utah Division
of Parks and Recreation to give testimony on S. 1678. In 1996 the
State of Utah began planning the new Utah Field House of Natural
History State Park Museum in Vernal, Utah. The old Field House
Museum was built in 1950 and has outdated, inefficient heating
and cooling systems and electrical systems and very inadequate
space for new collections. Many specimens have to be stored in old
mechanical chase areas just below the buildings ceilings. These
areas are difficult to clean, impossible to maintain proper climate
control, and have limited access due to their very low ceilings and
overall cramped spaces. The museums public spaces and exhibits
were equally as outdated.
As we planned for the museum, discussions with the staff at Dinosaur National Monument revealed that we share many needs in
common: appropriate storage space for specimens, space for researchers, curation areas, and education areas for the general public. We quickly realized that by joining together we could enhance
both of our projects and further both missions while reducing our
individual projects square foot requirements.
A partnership was born and both agencies worked together to
create building programs that could come together, provide a whole
scientific and educational facility built by two separate agencies,
one State, one Federal. As both agencies discussed our needs with
the leaders of Vernal, Utah, and Uintah County, Utah, they recognized the benefits to their community of having state-of-the-art
educational and scientific facilities in the heart of their region.
They too joined the partnership.
Uintah County purchased property and the four partners worked
together to develop a site plan that would accommodate
everybodys needs and expectations. As of May of this year, Vernal
City expanded sidewalks, provided curb and gutter, street lighting,
and extended the sewer lines to the property, and also provided
funding for the educational components of the field house museum.
The county, in addition to purchasing property, has built and paved
the parking lot, and the State, as Senator Bennett described, has
brought power, water, sewer, and data lines to the property and
built a new museum, complete with classroom, theater, and 10,000
square feet of new exhibits that tell the story of the Uinta Mountain regions rich paleontological and fossil resources.
The museum opened May 22, 2004, to the delight of over 13,000
visitors. In our first week of operation we had over 30,000 visitors.
The part of the property adjoining the new museum to the east
awaits our Federal partners contribution to the partnership. When
the partnership began, the State eliminated curatorial spaces, specimen storage areas, specimen study areas, processing areas, and
the paleontological lab that is meant to be viewable and open to the
public. These spaces were put into the National Park Services
building program, and we do have a map that we can submit for
your review to see how the two facilities would join together.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

34
The State has built the elevator, we have put in the classroom,
and we have located our staff offices at the point where the two
buildings would join so that we could share office space, we could
share the educational facility, we could share the elevator, and so
that the paleontology lab would look right into our two-story volume lobby area, a very exciting area for visitors.
These spaces were put into the Park Services building program.
Until the Uintah research and curatorial facility is built, we are
left using the old, inadequate storage spaces, now three blocks
away from our new museum, for our curatorial activities. In addition, we have stopped accepting new materials and are closed as
a Federal repository.
Demand for oil and gas leases on Federal lands in the Uinta
Mountain region continually grows, spurring economic development
in the rural communities of this region while generating more and
more cultural and paleontological specimens for excavations required as part of the permitting process. Also a part of the process
is the deposit of these specimens in Federal repositories that can
care for them and make them available for study. As demands
grow, area facilities are filling up and closing their doors to new
collections.
Keeping these specimens in the area from which they were excavated is of prime interest to all the partners. The ability to study
them in close proximity to other associated resources really increases the value of the collection to scientists and to visitors alike.
The State of Utahs public extrication programs in the new Utah
Field House of Natural History State Park Museum are dependent
on the collections and the knowledge those collections contain. The
specimens and their stories inspire and direct the exhibits, public
programs, and outreach activities the citizens of the region and
those visiting the region expect and desire. The paleontological resources of this region are well known by researchers worldwide and
yet are not fully studied because their current inaccessibility.
Bringing together the collections of both Dinosaur National
Monument and the Utah Field House in one, appropriately suited
facility in their area of origin would create a popular and productive scientific center with immediate educational outlets. These collections are the documents of change, the fragmentary archive on
which we base our knowledge of the natural world. Encoded within
these collections is the past of our planet. Continued deciphering
of that past by scientists working alongside our public program
specialists is essential to the States and the National Park Services educational missions.
In addition, our visitors demand and deserve current authentic
information delivered in engaging ways. The field house provides
a safe place for families to enjoy spending meaningful time together. It provides economic benefits to the Uintah Basin by generating valuable tourism dollars and offers a way to link science with
the public. Without the ability to collect, properly care for, or to
study the vast record of the Earths history, so available in the
Uinta Mountain region, our opportunities for providing these quality services will dramatically diminish.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

35
We cannot complete our mission without the collections and the
information they hold and we cannot appropriately link the collections without the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hamre.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HAMRE, AVALANCHE EXPERT,
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION

Mr. HAMRE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: Thank

you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of S. 931. Natural hazards are prevalent throughout the United States, with hurricanes
on the eastern seacoast and the Gulf Coast, tornadoes in the heartland, and earthquakes in California. Avalanches plague the Western States and Alaska.
There has been a considerable amount of Federal expenditure
which has improved our ability to forecast hurricanes, tornadoes,
and earthquakes, but there has been no corresponding expenditures on avalanches, even though the majority of avalanche terrain
lies on Federal land. The fatality rate continues to rise nationally.
In the last 15 years it was worst in Colorado, followed closely by
Alaska, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Idaho. But
seven other States have also suffered losses, including New Hampshire with five deaths and Arizona with one.
Most fatalities occur on Forest Service land, but 15 fatalities in
the last 15 years have occurred on national park lands as well.
The avalanche fatality rate at this point in the United States is
higher than in any other country. Existing programs include the
forecast offices as identified by the Forest Service, but they also include site-specific risk mitigation programs that are run by Park
Service, ski areas, highways, and railroads. No comprehensive
analysis of needs has been conducted on a broad base to identify
programs that might assist in reducing risk nationally.
S. 931 would address this lack through the identification of problems and potential solutions and the coordination of efforts nationally. Available funds dispersed proportionate to the magnitude of
avalanche problems in each State through the formula grant mechanism would help to identify and solve some of the problems that
are occurring nationally.
I have detailed in my written testimony some of the detailed examples of the problem areas around the country and how funding
might help some of these problems. An example of this occurred
last winter on Marias Pass in Montana, where avalanches occurred
off national park lands on one side, wilderness study areas on the
other side, onto U.S. Highway 2 and also onto the Burlington
Northern Railroad. There was a derailment of a train, knocked 15
cars off the tracks, spilled grain into the wild and scenic river area,
and it was about an hour before that that an Amtrak train with
300 passengers on board had passed through that same area.
The solutions to the problems in this particular case are fairly
intractable and difficult because there are a lot of national value
public lands in the area, wilderness lands and national park lands,
that it is difficult to do risk mitigation on.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

36
The proposed bill also establishes a central depository for military artillery and to support the military artillery program in avalanche work. Currently the military artillery and for the past 50
years has been the backbone of avalanche control. There has been
no good substitute developed which could take the place of military
artillery in the short term. The bill would propose to set up some
kind of a revolving fund which would forward base identification
and procurement of assets, surplus assets out of the military that
are suitable for long-range avalanche use. It could also be used to
fund alternatives development to military artillery. In the case of
the revolving fund, a grant might be set up to establish that fund
and then the users could reimburse the costs of that grant.
The loss of the 105 howitzer system nationally right now could
very much affect our transportation corridors and lead to much
longer closure times on transportation corridors throughout the
country, such as U.S. 2 in Montana, I-90 in Washington with
22,000 cars a day, I-70 in Colorado with 15,000 cars a day, Seward
Highway in Alaska with 7,000 cars a day, and Utah 210 with 8,000
cars a day. I believe another example of that is the Teton Pass location in Wyoming that goes over the hill where a lot of the work
force that drives to Jackson every day comes from Driggs, Idaho.
This bill will help to create a comprehensive approach toward avalanche education and risk management and implement programs
that safeguard the future of our existing mitigation efforts. So I
would urge you to pass it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamre follows:]
STATEMENT

OF

DAVID HAMRE, AVALANCHE EXPERT, ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION,

ON S. 931

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for having me to testify
on S. 931 today. I have prepared a condensed statement for the hearing today, but
would like my entire statement entered into the record.
Natural disasters are suffered throughout our country regularly. Hurricanes take
their toll on the eastern seaboard. Tornadoes plague the heartland. California suffers from earthquakes. Most of the western states and Alaska suffer yearly from the
consequences of snow avalanches. Much effort is put forward by the federal government to mitigate the effects of other natural events, but little is spent on avalanches. The majority of avalanche terrain in the U.S. lies either on National Forest
or Park Service lands. With the current trends toward recreation in the mountains,
and attendant increases in traffic on roads and in ski areas, the death toll from avalanches in the U.S. has surpassed that of any other country as of the latest recording period. With the current trend line in the rise of avalanche fatalities, sometime
in the next 10-20 years they will surpass tornados as the leading cause of natural
hazards fatalities in the U.S. The bill before you proposes to address this rising toll
in two ways.
First, it establishes a system for distributing avalanche funding through a formula grant to avalanche specific projects in affected states. Projects in each affected
state would receive a proportionate share to help solve the difficult problems that
have been created by the publics desire to recreate on federal lands. A few examples
of the problems needing comprehensive solutions:
1. The encounter probability for avalanches hitting a vehicle on Utah highway
#210, which feeds the ski areas of Alta and Snowbird as well as extensive land on
the Wasatch National forest, is currently at 85%. This means any natural avalanche
occurring is almost certain to hit a vehicle. With the explosion of backcountry skier
usage on the forest, the risk continues to rise. There is also great risk of a mass
disaster when a first avalanche stops traffic on the road and is followed closely by
a second avalanche onto the stopped traffic. Alternatives for risk reduction need to
be analyzed and implemented before there is a large disaster.
2. U.S. Highway #2 and the Burlington Northern Railroad through Glacier National Park in Montana have been drastically affected by avalanches in the past two
years. They have suffered extensive shutdowns and business interruption with at-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

37
tendant losses estimated in the millions of dollars. This includes losses to grain
farmers in North Dakota from untimely delivery of their product and diversion of
Amtrak-passenger trains. Implementation of risk reduction strategies could help reduce these lengthy closures as well as assist in earlier springtime openings of the
nearby Going to the Sun highway through Glacier National Park to accommodate
visitors.
3. Increasing numbers of snowmobile riders have been involved in avalanche accidents in the west. With the advent of better technology in the machines, riders are
able to access steep avalanche terrain with increasing frequency. There is a learning
curve to understanding avalanche risks that this community has not embraced.
Some dedicated educational effort such as classes or a video could produce a higher
awareness and thus lower the death rate. There is presently no impetus for the private sector to provide these tools. States particularly hard hit by snowmachine
deaths are Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, and Washington.
4. The access road to the Alpine Meadows Ski Area in California, a county road,
has a high traffic count combined with high avalanche probability. Lack of local zoning laws has resulted in numerous houses being built in the avalanche zones just
below the road. This makes explosive control of avalanches problematic at best. An
alternative would be to build structures in the starting zone to keep avalanches
from beginning in the first place, except the starting zone is on Forest Service land
in a declared wilderness. There is a strong recognition that eventually a major accident could occur here without some solution, but the stakeholders all believe that
someone else needs to fix the problem. A small federal grant could be matched with
funding from the various stakeholders to resolve this issue.
The other mechanism used by S. 931 to assist the avalanche community is the
provision for a central depository for artillery and supplies used for avalanche control. Since its first use on national forest lands in 1947, military artillery has been
the backbone of our defense of lives and property in ski areas, highways, and railroads throughout the country. In that 50 years, no comparable system has emerged
that can take the place of military artillery. Users of artillery work closely with the
U.S. Army, who is authorized to enter into agreements to provide the weapons systems. Over time the military has continued to move towards more sophisticated
weapons that are more complex and difficult to use than is required for avalanche
work. To date this hasnt been an issue because the avalanche program has been
using surplus systems. The end of these systems is now very near, however. There
are few remaining assets suitable for avalanche work, and these few assets are in
poor shape. The attached pictures describe their condition well.
The provision for a central depository, along with a corresponding grant, would
allow us to establish a revolving fund that would acquire the remaining assets from
the Army, refurbish them back to a usable condition, and keep them available for
the avalanche community on a reimbursable basis. The corpus of the revolving fund
would thus stay intact.
A revolving fund grant might also allow for the research and development effort
necessary to establish a suitable alternative to artillery. For the sake of protecting
our transportation corridors such as I-90, U.S. 2, and others, reliance on a single
system should be avoided in case a systemic problem develops with that system and
it is condemned. Viable alternatives need to be developed in the next ten to 20 years
to military artillery. Given the wide range of stakeholders, its difficult to raise the
funding necessary to further this initiative. Users can ultimately pay for this work
through back end reimbursement once a viable product is developed.
One possible language change to the bill would be to allow the director of the program to divert a portion of the formula grant, such as up to 20% of the funding,
to issues of broad national significance. This would allow all locations to benefit
equally from programs aimed at reducing avalanche accidents such as the snowmobile example given.
Its a credit to the efforts of the avalanche community in this country that developed recreations sites, highways and railroads faced with avalanche terrain have so
few fatalities annually. Providing for some simple tools for the future can ensure
this legacy continues, and can also help stop or reduce the growth of avalanche
deaths from recreational use in the backcountry areas of our forests and parks.

Senator THOMAS. Very well. Thank you so much, all three of you,
for being here. Just a couple of quick questions.
Mr. Nau, is there any sort of criteria for what qualifies as a national historic site?
Mr. NAU. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is within the Department
of the Interior, administered by the National Park Service under

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

38
the Secretarys standards. It is clearly outlined. Would you want
me to go into that criteria?
Senator THOMAS. No. Historic sites are another thing. This is
historic preservation. So are there criteria or is itif my little town
wants to do something for the main street, is that what we are
doing? Or are we actually doing it on the basis of its historic value?
Mr. NAU. What is important to your community or communities
around the country I think in terms of creating historic preservation is being able to link those local resources of your community
with the assets that are owned by the State, those assets that may
be near your community that are owned by the Federal Government, both historic sites as well as cultural and natural sites, and
have them become linked through a trails program that either is
a natural trails program, such as the overland stage coach, or a
trail that is put together, so that the story of the people, the sites
themselves, and most importantly they can be linked for economic
development for those communities that are integrated into this
type of trails program.
So I do not think there is a definition of a site so much, sir, as
there is the ability to bring all of those assets that are linked culturally or historically together to make it a good visitor experience
as the tourist comes in. Most of the local people, no matter what
State or region they are in, they know what their history is. The
idea of heritage and cultural tourism and the program that we
think the Federal Government should be talking about helps just
link those resources together.
Senator THOMAS. I see. Well, I am sure that what you say is
true. On the other hand, there is a limit to how much the Park
Service, for examplewhat are there, 389 parks or something now,
plus other things? So there is a limit to that, and I think there has
to be some determination, some separation, some classification of
what logically is Federal and what is not.
I know that is not an easy thing to do, but I am getting more
and more concerned about the fact that you set up these programs
and any time they want some economic activity, why, we call it
something and get some Federal. And that really is not the basic
purpose of it. So I understand what you are saying and appreciate
it.
Now, the funding. When you assist somewhere then, does the
Park Service or someone take on a responsibility for continuing to
fund that, or is it the original costs or both, or how does that work?
Mr. NAU. Well, let me give my experience in Texas, where we put
this type of program together to great success. We used no Federal
money. As a matter of fact, it was less than $100,000 of State funding to kick off this program.
I think now I understand what your original question was. You
do not need to continue to feed this type of program. The revenues
that are generated from the tourists, the heritage tourists that will
come into those communities, in many, many respects, Mr. Chairman, will generate the revenue to integrate the local resources and
the Federal resources.
It is a big, big number. Heritage tourists by the year 2005 are
going to be a $200 billion business in this country. In Texas, for

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

39
every dollar the State has invested we have a documented $23 return. So it is a good business.
The only program that we are pushing forward here is just to
raise the level of awareness of the benefits of heritage tourism.
There is very, veryas far as our bill is concerned, there is no new
money to generate this program.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka.
Senator AKAKA. Mr. Nau, I want to congratulate you and commend you for what you are doing for the communities across the
country. I particularly want to ask about solicitations and would
like to follow up on the proposal to give the advisory council authority to solicit donations. Can you explain to me what it is that
you cannot do now and why the advisory council needs authority
to solicit donations?
Mr. NAU. Certainly, Senator. Right now we can receive donations. Again, based on experience in Texas, going to what Senator
Talent said on the courthouse program, when you create these
partnerships and you begin to talk to the community or the State
or private sector about the benefits, that they will accrue from creating heritage tourism programs. Many times you find people that
want to step forward, be it corporations, individuals, or foundations, that are interested in helping their community or their courthouse or their program, and you are in an embarrassing situation
where you are sitting at the table talking about the program, they
want to be able to provide some resource to you, either time or
money, and you cannot solicit it.
It is a fine line between accepting and soliciting when you are
sitting there and promoting and selling a program. I would not
want to be in the position of being accused of soliciting when I am
selling it and somebody wants to give it to me. That is the reason
for it. I would certainly not want to get out and get in competition
with the National Trust or any, Historic Hawaii or anyone like
that. It is more being able to accept what I am selling.
Senator THOMAS. Senator Talent, do you have any questions?
Senator TALENT. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand it, the idea here is towe are not changing the
standards for what is designated as an historic site or anything
like that.
Mr. NAU. No.
Senator TALENT. And the idea is instead, if a communityand
this is very common in Missourihas for example Civil War battlefields, cemeteries that are already of historic significance, and so
if the council, either in connection with an application to be designated an historic site or otherwise, helps the tourism department
and local authorities in linking up, providing services to prospective tourists, so that they may want to plan a trip and visit the battlefield, visit the cemetery, visit the courthouse, and this of course
helps generate the kind of revenue that we then need to maintain
these historic sites, and the council helps facilitate that; is that
really what you are talking about?
Mr. NAU. That is correct. There are 26 States that have some
form of heritage tourism program, which means there are 24 that
do not. Our job here is to simply point out the benefits. As you ex-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

40
plained, Senator, taking St. Louis, if there would be a way to move
just 10 percent of the people that go through that national park
arch and take them out 20 or 30 miles to St. Charles or other historic sites, that is what the purpose of this is.
It is not to add any more inventory. It is to point out the assets
and integrate them into programs, so that the rural communities,
where the biggest opportunity is, have the biggest benefit.
Senator TALENT. I really want to congratulate you on that, because, as is often the case, there has been a lot of work being done
in this area, both by various Federal agencies, local foundations,
State governments, and yet they are often not working together
and so we lose a lot of the benefits, both in terms of the history
of local communities and also in terms of tourism. The two are
linked, as you pointed out, because if it is sustainable from a tourism standpoint then it really helps in maintaining these buildings.
So you made the council reallyI think this is what it was designed to do, as a kind of facilitator, mediator, agency that puts
partnerships together, and you are already doing that; that is correct, is it not?
Mr. NAU. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator TALENT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you.
Well, thanks to all of you for coming and we appreciate it and
we will look forward to working with these bills and see if we can
move them forward. Thank you so much. There may be other questions in the next few days. If there are, I hope you will respond.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I
Responses to Additional Questions

OFFICE

OF

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2004.

Hon. CRAIG THOMAS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are answers to the follow-up questions from the
hearing held by the Subcommittee on National Parks on June 8, 2004, on S. 931,
S. 1678, S. 2140, and S. 2237. These responses have been prepared by the National
Park Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on this matter.
Sincerely,
JANE M. LYDER,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS
S. 931, FEDERAL LAND RECREATIONAL VISITOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

Question 1a. According to S. 431, the Secretary shall apportion the amount of
funds made available for the fiscal year among States with avalanche zones based
on the ratio that the total area of avalanche zones located in each State bears to
the total area of all avalanche zones in all States. Could you explain avalanche
zones and the breakdown by state of the area occupied by avalanche zones?
Answer. Avalanche zones can best be defined as treeless areas between 30-45
degrees that include open slopes, gullies and bowls. There currently is no nationwide inventory of avalanche zones To gather this information will be problematic.
The number of avalanche zones as defined might be roughly calculated using Geographic Information Systems or a similar technology but that work has not been
completed on a state-by-state basis.
The term avalanche zone, in the context of the bill, appears to be independent
of the avalanche hazard, or risk to the public. A more robust measure of the avalanche potential of each state would also include the number of people exposed to
avalanches by these avalanche zones or to factor in the number of fatalities by
state. Another alternative would be to allow the advisory committee to establish criteria or priorities to direct funding where it is most needed and will be used most
efficiently.
Question 1b. How much of the area occupied by avalanche zones is on National
Park Service land and how much is on Forest Service land?
Answer. Since a mapping of avalanche zones has not occurred on a national basis,
there are no figures to determine how many acres are on National Forest System
lands versus National Park lands. There are countless avalanche zones on NPS
lands and FS lands. At issue is how many of those zones pose a threat to visitors,
and transportation corridors.
Question 1c. How much could each state expect to get if the annual appropriation
is $10 million?
Answer. It is difficult for the NPS to calculate the split among states; however
because of the sire, the amount of Federal lands, and the topography of Alaska, and
(41)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

42
using the definition of an Avalanche Zone, Alaska would likely receive the majority of funding. However if statistics on the number of fatalities per state were to
be used, Colorado would likely receive the most funding with Alaska close behind.
Question 2. What is DOIS role in the existing avalanche monitoring program and
what is the departments annual operating budget for the program?
Answer. Of the agencies within DOI, we believe NPS has the greatest involvement, providing limited funding of approximately $27,000 to the national avalanche
program and raw data to the Forest Services National Avalanche Center such as
snow depth, wind direction etc. In addition, the NPS expends operational dollars in
the following parks to maintain/monitor and protect the visitor and employee from
the threat of avalanches.
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARKThe Road Crew provides mitigation/control
work to several of the winter passes. These services are built into their core program.
GLACIER NATIONAL PARKThe Road Crew provides mitigation/control work
to the winter opening of the Going to the Sun Road.
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARKDuring spring road opening of the Tioga Pass,
Yosemite National Park maintains a staff of two Avalanche Forecasters, who provide training, site monitoring and mitigation/control work that supports the road
crewThe park expends approximately $30,000 annually for the monitoring and
mitigation work.
MT RAINIER/OLYMPIC AND NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARKSThese
three parks collectively contribute $27,000 annually to the Pacific Northwest Avalanche Center. In return the Avalanche Center provides the park with winter and
spring forecasting and training services (limited to awareness courses).
Several other parks have absorbed the cost of avalanche forecasting and limited
control work into their base-operating budget.
S. 1678, UINTAH RESEARCH AND CURATORIAL CENTER ACT

Question 3. How are artifacts from Dinosaur National Monument currently

stored?
Answer. The collections are currently stored in 11 different facilities throughout
the park, including at the Quarry Visitor Center, in sheds, in garages, in the basement of the park headquarters building, and numerous other locations. Of the 957
museum standards currently applicable to the park, the park meets approximately
50% of them.
Question 4. The following questions pertain to funding for construction and operation of a curatorial facility for Dinosaur National Monument:
Question 4a. Approximately how much will it cost to build the curatorial facility?
Answer. In FY07 dollars, $8.8 million for 22,500 square feet.
Question 4b. What is the anticipated annual operating expenses?
Answer. $300,000 per year.
Question 4c. How many employees will be required to run and support the facility
(researchers, security, maintenance, etc.)?
Answer. A minimum of 5 permanent employees will be required to operate and
maintain the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center. Dinosaur National Monument
will move 3 existing permanent employees to the building (Curator, Paleontologist,
and Geologist). In addition to these 3 employees, a minimum of 2 other permanent
employees will be needed to operate the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center, including an Administrative technician and a Maintenance Mechanic.
Question 4d. Will the entire staff consist of government employees or would the
NPS outsource any positions at the facility?
Answer. Several options exist regarding the 2 additional positions that are needed
to operate and maintain the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center. Federal employees could fill these two positions, State of Utah employees could fill them, or
the work could be contracted.
S. 2140, EXPANDING AND MAKING MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK
MORE ACCESSIBLE ACT

Question 5. How much has the National Park Service spent in the past 10 years
to repair and maintain the portion of road affected by S. 2140? How much do you
estimate the National Pail. Service would spend during the next 5 to 10 years if
S. 2140 is not enacted?
Answer. The National Park Service has spent about $785,000 during the last 10
years to repair the portion of the Carbon River Road that frequently washes out.
Of that amount, $750,000 was spent on the major 1998 repair that lasted only one
month because the road was again damaged by a flood.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

43
While we cannot predict how much damage will occur to the road during the next
five to ten years, on the basis of recent weather patterns and the erosion of natural
barriers between the river and the road, we anticipate spending about $175,000 to
$230,000 during that period if a decision was made to keep the road open to vehicular traffic for access to the existing Ipsut Creek campground. Current repairs needed to open the road for two-way traffic would cost about $125,000. Annual repairs
would be about $5,000 and, every fifth year, about $35,000. That would bring the
total to $175,000 for five years and $230,000 for ten years.
Question 6. How will the number of campsites and picnic sites he affected by S.
2140?
Answer. Currently, there are 29 campsites and a picnic area at the Ipsut Creek
Campground. Eventually, unless a decision is made to continue repairing the Carbon River Road, these facilities will not be accessible by automobile. They are already inaccessible by vehicle when the road floods. The park plans to continue to
operate the campground for visitors who hike or ride bicycles to the site.
If S. 2140 is enacted, and if funds are made available for the National Park Service to acquire the new area added to the park by the legislation, plans call for development of 50 auto-accessible campsites and three picnic areas.
Question 7. How much do you expect the acquisition and construction to cost? Do
you expect to use any transportation funds to complete the road portion of the
project?
Answer. We estimate that acquiring the land will cost about $3 million to $6 million and developing it for visitor and administrative use, about $4.8 million. In the
future, we expect only minor repairs to be made to the portion of the Carbon River
Road that leads to the Ipsut Creek Campground, just enough to provide substandard access. It is likely that the funding for those repairs would come from inpark funds redirected from other park operations or the NPS repair and rehabilitation budget.
S. 2287, JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND PRESERVE
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2004

Question 8. A portion of the land being acquired by the National Park Service is
currently administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Will the Corps continue to
have any need for access or be involved in any way with future management and
use of the land?
Answer. It is our understanding, based on conversations with the Corps that, once
the transfer takes place, they would have no further need for access or to be involved in management of the property.
Question 9. What is the anticipated cost to complete the proposed land acquisition?
Answer. There would be no costs associated with the acquisition of the federal
lands. Of the 521 acres of private land added to the boundary, about 250 acres
would have no additional costs because they are already owned by the National
Park Service. Another 485 acres of wetlands would cost an estimated $170,000. The
remaining 86 acres that are not wetlands have not been appraised and NPS does
not anticipate acquiring these lands at this tune. However, in the past NPS has
paid between $10,000 and $80,000 per acre for comparable land within the boundary. These lands are expected to be at the lower end of that range and if a figure
of $25,000 per acre is used the total cost for the entire 86 acres would be $2.1 million.
Question 10. Has the National Park Service surveyed the land for possible hazardous waste?
Answer. Yes, a Level I hazardous waste assessment has been completed. No hazardous materials were found.
S. 2469, NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2004

Question 11. Will S. 2469 allow the Advisory Council to streamline the process
for section 106 consultation or reduce the time required to complete the consultation
process?
Answer. This bill does not directly amend section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Recent revisions to 36 CFR 800 have addressed streamlining the
consultation process under section 106 and reduce the time required. This bill seeks
to improve Council administration and operational efficiency and to ensure the
Council better serves Federal agencies and the Councils stated purposes apart from
the Section 106 process.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

APPENDIX II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record

March 3, 2004
Hon. MARIA CANTWELL,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR CANTWELL: As business and community leaders from the Mount
Rainier National Park region, we recognize the significant role that the national
parks play in our local economies. We appreciate your dedication and support for
this parks protection and proper funding. We particularly support your efforts to
improve and expand Mount Rainier National Park through such actions as the 800acre Carbon River Valley boundary expansion, addressing the parks maintenance
backlog, and fully funding the parks day-to-day operations.
Healthy and vibrant national parks are good for business. Washington states national parks are prime examples of how conservation can enhance the economies of
surrounding communities. According to an economic model developed by researchers
at Michigan State University, more than 7 million visitors to ten Washington national park sites in 2001 spent a total of $204,500,000. This supported 5,362 jobs
and generated more than $87 million worth of wages, salaries, and payroll benefits.
Mount Rainier National Park alone generated roughly $30 million in total visitor
spending and 776 jobs. In local restaurants and bars, Mount Rainier visitors generated $6.75 million in sales. Visitor spending at lodging facilities produced another
$5.5 million.
As Mount Rainier National Park enters its second century of existence, it is more
important than ever that Congress invest in the parks maintenance, protection, and
operations. Investing in our national parks returns even greater benefits for our
local communities and economies.
Thank you for your continued support for national park protection and funding.
Sincerely,
NANCY NEYENHOUSE,
John W. Ladenburg,
Conservation Chair,
Executive,
The Mountaineers.
Pierce County, WA.
JEREMY FOUST,
RUTHIE REINERT,
Executive Director,
Manager,
Tacoma Regional Convention &
Summit Haus.
Visitors Bureau.
DENIS MADSEN,
STEVE LEAHY,
President and CEO,
President and CEO,
Recreational Equipment Inc.
Gr. Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
JOAN MILLER,
CATHY RIGGS,
President,
Executive Director,
Wilkinson Historical Society.
Enumclaw Chamber of Commerce.
PETER WHITTAKER,
DAVID GREYBILL,
Owner,
President and CEO,
Rainier Mountaineering Inc./
Tacoma-Pierce Chamber of Commerce.
Summit Haus.
MARK BAUER,
KEVIN MCCARTY,
Administrator,
General Manager,
City of Enumclaw, WA.
White Pass Ski Area.
ALLAN ZULAUF,
LOU WHITTAKER,
Chairman,
Owner,
Puyallup Watershed Council.
Rainier Mountaineering Inc.
STEVE MILLER,
JOHN KEATES,
President,
Parks & Recreation Director,
Mount Rainier Business Association.
City of Enumclaw, WA.
(45)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

46
STATEMENT OF HEATHER WEINER, DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST REGION,
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, ON S. 2140
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, Senator Cantwell and other honorable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
in support of S. 2140, to extend the boundary of Mt. Rainier National Park. I am
the Director of the Northwest Region of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), which is the only national, nonprofit conservation organization that
advocates exclusively for the national parks. Through public education, advocacy,
and citizen outreach, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and enhance Americas National Park System for present and future generations. Established in 1919 by a
former park superintendent, today we have more than 12,000 members in Washington and Oregon, and more than 300,000 members nationwide.
The Mount Rainier Boundary Adjustment Act, S. 2140, will add approximately
800 acres of the Carbon River valley to this century-old national park. A large coalition of business owners, chambers of commerce, local governments, and gateway
community members join NPCA in supporting Senator Cantwells bill. A letter from
these community members is included with this testimony.
Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, along with most of the Washington delegation, introduced a companion bill, H.R. 265 and this bill passed the House on June 1, 2004.
We support S. 2140 for many reasons. Primarily, the boundary extension will save
taxpayer dollars by preventing the need for road repairs after seasonal washouts
along the Carbon River. (The last major washout was in February 2003). S. 2140
will conserve one of Washingtons last inland rainforests, with tumbling rivers, reflective lakes, and stunning views. It will also protect Mount Rainiers foothills from
encroaching development, salmon habitat loss, and further strain on its natural resources. By improving visitor access and campgrounds in the under-utilized northwest section of Mount Rainier National Park, this bill is good for business, and good
for Washington State.
Mt. Rainier National Park hosts some 1.3 million recreational visits annually.
These visitors spent $29.34 million in 2001, supporting some 776 jobs in the communities outside the park. Senator Cantwells bill will help increase those dollars and
jobs by increasing economic opportunities in near-by gateway communities such as
Enumclaw, Wilkeson, Burnett, South Prairie, Carbonado, and Puyallup.
NPCA believes the best way to improve Mount Rainier National Park is to protect
its foothills and to provide visitors with improved access to all park entrances. The
236,000-acre National Park is quickly becoming a biological island surrounded on
the west by suburban development. The parks proximity to Seattle, Tacoma and
Portland invites more than 1 million visitors annually, most arriving in June, July,
and August. Traffic jams, air pollution from idling cars, and frustrated visitors clog
the Nisqually entrance to the park; in fact, almost half of all park visitors (46%)
use the Nisqually entrance. Mt. Rainier National Park, after a 5-year public planning process, recommended improving visitor access through the Carbon River entrance to the park by extending the boundary.
Unfortunately, time is running out for the Carbon River Valley. The willing land
sellers (Thompsons, Marshes and Plum Creek) have received other offers to buy,
and develop, the valley. Although the two families, and Plum Creek, want their
properties to become part of this icon park, they all face strong pressures to sell to
resort and housing developers.
On behalf of our coalition of businesses, chambers of commerce, local governments
and community leaders, NPCA thanks you for considering this bill and urges the
U.S. Senate to approve this bill.
STATEMENT

OF

COALITION

TO

RESTORE COASTAL LOUISIANA,

ON

S. 2287

My name is Mark Davis. I am the executive director of CRCL, which has its offices in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On behalf of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL) I would like to thank Senator Mary Landrieu for authoring this important bill and I would also like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Thomas and
the other members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony
in strong support of S. 2287. CRCL is a non-profit, non-partisan education and advocacy organization was formed in the mid 1980s by conservationists, local governments, business, environmentalists, civic and religious organizations who shared a
concern about the fate of the greatest coastal wetland and estuarine complex in the
48 contiguous United States and commitment to the responsible stewardship of
those natural treasures.
On a personal note, I am also one of the many people who enjoy the beauty and
educational opportunities of the park. There simply is not another place like this

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

47
where the history and natural heritage of the great Mississippi River delta are so
accessible and visible. It is a true treasure that enriches us all.
The bill before you today provides an opportunity to expand that treasure, the
Barataria unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. Located about
one half hour from downtown New Orleans, the preserve provides a window for exploration of Americas most productive and threatened wetland ecosystemthe vast
coastal and estuarine marshes and swamps of the Mississippi River delta. No other
national park protects and interprets a representative sample of coastal Louisiana
The location of the Barataria unit is convenient not only to the citizens of New Orleans and southeast Louisiana, but also to the millions of American and foreign tourists who visit New Orleans and south Louisiana. This is the one place where they
can get a glimpse of this great resource by walking a system of park service trails
and boardwalks, canoeing along quiet bayous, and being guided by a ranger through
the parks interpretive programs.
This bill makes possible something that is all too rarethe expansion of a national treasure at no cost and with no impact on unwilling private property owners.
The bill transfers to the park land already in Federal ownership, already paid for
by the American taxpayer. This is as it should be. Having paid dearly for the purchase of these wetlands, the American people have a right to gain access to these
lands, and to see them managed by the National Park Service for the public good.
These lands came into Federal ownership as a result of the settlement of two lawsuits brought by landowners against the United States. The issues adjudicated in
those lawsuits: the desire of property owners to profit from the development of wetlands; the desire of the public to see those wetlands protected for their greater societal values; and the optimal location of federally sponsored hurricane protection levees to separate development from the dangers of flooding, are all important issues.
These issues go to the heart of our struggle as a nation to balance competing interests when it comes to protecting wetlands and people at risk-at risk because they
live in wetlands near the coast. In this case, those issues were settled when the lawsuit was settled. The hurricane levee excluded these wetlands, the property owners
have received compensation, and its time now to add these properties to the park.
Doing so will open them to visitation by the public for a multitude of purposes, including hunting, fishing, canoeing, viewing wildlife, and interpretation.
Transferring these properties to NPS management will also enhance opportunities
for partnerships between the park and Jefferson Parish. The location of the
Barataria unit literally right next to the hurricane levee and the subdivisions it protects provides unique challenges and unprecedented opportunities. The park is
working with the parish to find creative solutions for problems faced in every urbanwetland interface: storm-water run-off, sewage discharge, wetland restoration, and
other issues. By having more of that interface between the levee and development
in park management, there will be fewer landowners to satisfy as solutions are devised. Devising solutions for these issues is critical to the future health of our estuaries, and the parish and the park are committed to working together to find those
solutions.
The levee corridor that separates much of the park from developed areas has already been identified by local elected officials and the Corps of Engineers as a potential recreational greenspace and trail corridor, linking communities together and
to the park beyond. Adding these properties enhances the ability of the park and
the West Jefferson Levee District to work cooperatively towards this goal, without
the potential impediment of intervening non-NPS properties.
The new boundary proposed in this bill includes within it several tracts of private
property. These properties were either excluded from the original lawsuits on technical grounds, or are non-wetlands, or are, in a few cases, portions of wetland tracts
that overlap the existing boundary line, leaving small parcels and a difficult to manage boundary. The interests of these owners are protected by the legislation as written. Those that desire to sell may do so if Congress appropriates the funds from
Land and Water Conservation Fund at some future date and if a price can be mutually agreed upon. Those that desire to maintain their ownership are free to do so.
State property to be included within the new boundary, the Highway 3134 rightof-way or the levee rights-of-way, will continue in state ownership and management.
Including it within the boundary enhances opportunities for cooperative management, law enforcement and boundary patrol.
In closing, let me just say that the expansion of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve will be as one of the great gifts of our generation to the generations that follow We enthusiastically support the expansion of the park as called
for in this bill.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6621

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN

48
STATEMENT

OF EDWARD F. SANDERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS, ON S. 2469

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers supports S. 2469

amending Title 11 of the National Historic Preservation Act improving the operation
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
INTRODUCTION

The National Conference has a direct interest in the ACHP for two reasons.
1. The National Conference is, by statute, a voting member of the ACHP.
2. The members of the National Conference-the State Historic Preservation Officers carry out 98% of the work involved in complying with the ACHPs regulations
implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part
800).
The vitality of the ACHP is directly related to the daily work of the State Historic
Preservation Officers.
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

Under President Bush, historic preservation has received an unprecedentedly high

level of attention in the federal government. As the Presidents appointee as Chairman, John L. Nau, III, has aggressively implemented the Administrations policy.
One outcome is the growing interest among federal agencies to participate in historic preservation activities and to be voting members of the ACHP. Adding more
federal agencies to the Council will benefit both the conservation of Americas heritage and communication among agencies concerning the balance of historic preservation values and agency development projects.
Increasing the quorum from nine members to eleven is a logical accompaniment
to the increase in membership.
FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Council is a small agency with a limited budget. It needs to be able to find
the most effective means to handle administrative services. This Section will allow
the Council to identify a cost effective deliverer of these services.
DONATION AUTHORITY

The additions to the Councils donation authority language should make it easier
for the private sector Council Members to solicit donations for important historic
preservation activity.
APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION

The Council has proved its worth over the past four decades. Elimination of the
necessity for reauthorization and of a budget ceiling is appropriate.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND AUTHORIZATION

In closing, I would also like to bring to the Committees attention that the authorization for deposits from the proceeds of off shore oil lease revenues into the Historic
Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. 470h) expires at the end of FY 2005. I am pleased
to note that Rep. Hefley has introduced H.R. 4443 in the House, which will extend
the authorization through 2010. The National Conference is working on the introduction of a companion bill in the Senate and hopes the Committee will support reauthorization through 2010.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

09:32 Oct 15, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

P:\DOCS\96296.TXT

SENE3

PsN: SCAN