Text: S.Hrg. 112-401 — NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
[Senate Hearing 112-401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-401
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 29 S. 1150
S. 1191 S. 1198
S. 1215 S. 1589
S. 1708 S. 2131
S. 2133 H.R. 1141
H.R. 2606
__________
MARCH 7, 2012
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-296 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia DEAN HELLER, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware BOB CORKER, Tennessee
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Harris, Annie C., Executive Director, Essex National Heritage
Commission, Salem, MA.......................................... 30
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts............. 2
Reagan, Michael J., Member of the Board of Supervisor, Solano
County, CA..................................................... 24
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island.................. 4
Toothman, Stephanie, Associate Director, Cultural Resources,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.............. 7
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 43
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks is
holding a hearing to consider 11 bills, most of which relate to
national heritage areas or national historic parks.
The agenda today includes proposals for new national
heritage areas in California and Pennsylvania, a study of a
possible new heritage area in Connecticut, and extensions of
authorizations for several existing heritage areas.
In addition to those bills, we are also receiving testimony
today on bills to authorize a land exchange at Lowell National
Historical Park in Massachusetts, to establish the John H.
Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park in
Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to authorize the construction
of a natural gas pipeline through the Gateway National
Recreation Area in New York, to extend the authorization for
the Coastal Heritage Trail in New Jersey, and finally, a bill
to authorize a study for a potential national park in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The National Park Service appears to be generally
supportive of several of these bills, but has identified
concerns with a few of the bills. We will hear from the Park
Service witnesses in a few minutes who can explain their
concerns in greater detail.
I look forward to working with the Park Service, and the
sponsors of the bills, to see if we can find a way to address
those concerns, so we can get the bills ready for committee
markup.
At this time, I would like to turn to my 2 illustrious
colleagues, who have joined the subcommittee today, to hear
their testimony in support of their bills. I turn to Senator
Kerry to begin.
Senator Kerry, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much.
Thanks for allowing us to speak on behalf of these bills,
and I am delighted to join my colleague, Senator Reed from
Rhode Island where we share a common interest here with respect
to one of them; an important interest. We have enjoyed, I have
enjoyed working actually, particularly, with Senator Chafee
when he was here on this, and I will speak about it in a
minute.
But I believe the bills that I am addressing here today, I
think, make sense. We certainly are prepared to work with the
Park Service on any of the issues. Obviously, we want to work
these to get them primed for markup and hopefully can move
forward.
But there is no question in my mind that these bills will
help Massachusetts grow its economy, but also, preserve 2 of
the many remarkable historical treasures that we are blessed to
have in our State. I hope the committee will look favorably on
these, and be able to help us move to markup as soon as
possible. I think you will see the basic common sense of them
pretty quickly.
The Lowell National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of
2011 is really simple, it is very straightforward, and it makes
economic sense. It would allow the Secretary of the Interior to
exchange land in Lowell in the National Historical Park, which
we have there, for land currently owned by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the city of Lowell, and the University of
Massachusetts Building Authority. So this bill would simply
allow that land swap to take place with a net plus in revenue
to the Federal Government, I believe.
This bill is supported by the National Park Service, by the
city of Lowell, and by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So
there is no battle over it at all. Everybody is on the page.
The Federal land includes a maintenance facility and
parking lots that are no longer of use to the National Park
Service. So the bill will open up important development
opportunities in Lowell and, as I said, the Federal Government
can hopefully make money from the transaction. So I think it is
good government all around.
On the second issue, the issue that Senator Reed and I
share an interest, is the John H. Chafee Blackstone River
Valley National Historical Park Establishment Act.
Now, I was very pleased to work on this with Senator Reed,
and I think we both have a common excitement about this. I want
to invite you, Mr. Chairman, to come up maybe in the later
spring and early summer here, get you out on the Blackstone
River, and have a chance in a canoe, and get out there, and you
will see the wildlife which may even impress a Coloradan, a
westerner. I do not know; I hope so.
We designated this. I was here when we first worked on
this. I worked on it with Senator Kennedy and Senator Chafee,
and it was designated as a National Historic Corridor. Senator
Reed and I believe it is time now to take the next step, and to
turn this National Heritage Corridor into a National Historic
Park.
Under our legislation, some of the valley, the Blackstone
River Valley, which is this industrial valley, goes back to the
early development of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a slew of
beautiful old mill buildings, and waterworks, and canals, and
other things along the way. It will take some of the most
historic components of that, the Old Slater Mill, the
Blackstone River itself, its tributaries, the Blackstone Canal
will all become part of the Park.
The evidence of the success of this, really, is in Lowell
where, under Senator Tsongas's early leadership, we developed
one of the first urban national parks in America; a remarkable
site. But this will have the benefit of enormous future land
preservation and leverage critical tourism dollars for both of
our States.
Senator Chafee, who was a great champion of open space and
of preservation, a Marine veteran, Secretary of the Navy,
throughout his long political career was one of the most
passionate environmentally committed senators. He had a great
love of history, a love of New England, a love of this region,
and I know he would be excited about this concept of turning
this river valley into this national park.
It is unique to the American experience in its development,
and I think protecting it as a national historical park would
be hugely in the public interest, and a wonderful way to honor
his memory.
Finally, just a quick word about the Essex National
Heritage Area Reauthorization Act; Senator Kennedy and I also
worked together on this through the 1990s together with the
citizens of the region. This is the area north of Boston,
encompassing communities like Salem, and Gloucester, Rockport,
and many others inland. It has a tremendous impact on
conservation in the area, but we recognized the national
significance of this historic area, a 500 square mile region.
We established the National Historic Heritage Area, which has
allowed it to develop a remarkable interconnectedness in terms
of tourism and the preservation of these historical sites.
Mr. Chairman, there are now 9,968 historic structures
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in this
area. There are 400 historic farms. There are 86 significant
museums. There are 26 important National Historic Landmarks, 9
scenic State Parks fit within that area, 2 National Park units
are there now, and one National Wildlife Refuge. It is a
remarkable arena.
Annie Harris, who is the Executive Director of the Essex
National Heritage Commission, is going to be here to testify
today. She will speak in more detail to the successes of the
area, but she will also highlight one of the best parts of the
program there. It is something called ``The Youth Job Corps.''
The Corps accepts between 10 and 25 young people each summer
who work at the Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works National
Historical Sites under the supervision of the National Park
Service employees.
So these kids not only get a great work experience, but
they develop an important sense of history, pride, and loyalty
to the hometown, and that is a wonderful thing to create, I
think, in our citizens.
So thanks for giving me a chance to talk about these 3
areas. We really want to work with this committee to get this
out of here. They should not be controversial and they would
have a profound impact on the long-term historic and economic
development of our State.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator, for that very compelling
statement.
I do very much look forward to working together with you. I
think the emphasis on jobs and our youth, there is nothing
better than that combination. I look forward to getting in a
kayak or a canoe.
Senator Kerry. Yes.
Senator Udall. See, you may remember, I went to school in
western Massachusetts and fell in love with that part of our
great country, and I always looking forward to visiting your
part of New England.
Senator Kerry. Thank you. We appreciate it. We look forward
to it, and I know you love getting out there.
Senator Udall. Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR
FROM RHODE ISLAND
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you particularly for the opportunity to appear
today and to speak on behalf of S. 1708, the John H. Chafee
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park Establishment
Act. I was proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation,
along with Senator Kerry, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Scott
Brown. I particularly want to thank Senator Kerry for his kind
words in support of this legislation, but also he was
instrumental along with Senators Ted Kennedy, John Chafee,
Lincoln Chafee, and others in moving us where we are today. We
are on the verge, we hope, of enacting this legislation and
creating a national park.
Creating this new national park will preserve the
industrial heritage, and natural and cultural resources of the
Blackstone River Valley. It will help provide economic
development opportunities for the local economy, and build upon
the solid foundation that the John H. Chafee Blackstone River
Valley National Heritage Corridor has already established.
Samuel Slater built his mill in 1793 and started the
American Industrial Revolution in Rhode Island along the
Blackstone River. He was an early proponent of taking
intellectual property and bringing it someplace else, and
getting an industry going. He did, and that really was the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the United States,
and the factory system, and it all has its roots there.
But as Senator Kerry has pointed out, the Blackstone River
Valley is a rich concentration of mills and villages. They
illustrate this whole period of American history from the 1790s
and through the mid-part of the 1800s. The Blackstone Valley is
truly a national treasure, thousands of acres of beautiful,
undeveloped land and waterways that have been developed and
made accessible to vacationers and outdoorsmen and women.
The extensive work of the National Park Service and the
tireless efforts of Federal, State, and local officials,
developers, and volunteers in both Rhode Island and
Massachusetts have resulted in the recovery of dozens of
historic villages, river ways, rural landscapes throughout the
Corridor. It is a remarkable success story.
These types of economic redevelopment and environmental
restoration efforts reflect the ongoing story of the Blackstone
River and the whole valley, stretching between Massachusetts
and Rhode Island.
One example is the Ashton Mill in Cumberland, Rhode Island.
With the designation as a National Heritage Corridor, with the
clean up of the Blackstone River that resulted, with the
creation of the Blackstone River State Park in Lincoln very
close to Ashton, and the construction of the Blackstone River
Bikeway, this property was then restored for reuse as rental
apartments.
Once again an old mill, that was on the verge of
demolition, was turned into a vital and vibrant rental property
that has revitalized the entire community. That is one example
of what is happening along the Blackstone River.
We have made progress in environmental restoration. Senator
Kerry invited you to get in a kayak and a canoe and come down
the River. I do not think he would have done that 20 years ago.
You can do it now. In fact, we had Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar up there, and as he was walking along the Blackstone,
the kayakers and the canoers were up and down the river. So it
has been restored.
I have been pleased to help over the years working with
both my colleague John Chafee and our Massachusetts colleagues
with Lincoln Chafee and with Sheldon Whitehouse. Senator
Lincoln Chafee was the one who asked the National Park Service
to conduct a special resource study of the Heritage Corridor.
After extensive local input from stakeholders and historians, a
draft study was released last July and officially transmitted
to Congress this March.
The study recommended the creation of a new, national
historical park whose boundaries would encompass nationally
significant areas in both Rhode Island and Massachusetts
including the Blackstone River and its tributaries; the
Blackstone Canal; and the historic districts of Old Slater Mill
in Pawtucket; the villages of Slatersville and Ashton, Rhode
Island; and the villages of Whitinsville and Hopedale in
Massachusetts.
The Department of Interior officially stated in its recent
letter to Congress about the study that its preferred
management option is the creation of a new, national historical
park since it is the most effective and efficient alternative
for the protection of resources and visitor use and enjoyment,
and is favored by most Blackstone River Valley stakeholders and
citizens, who commented on the study.
The park described in the study and the legislation that I
have introduced, along with Senator Kerry, would be run
collaboratively through a special partnership in which the
National Park Service would manage and operate the facilities,
and provide educational services in the park, in partnership
with regional and local preservation groups who would lead the
efforts to preserve the surrounding rural and agricultural
landscape within the greater Blackstone River Valley.
The partnerships between the Federal, State, and local and
private organizations have a proven track record of success
within the Corridor, and I believe that the communities in
Rhode Island and Massachusetts that have been engaged in this
endeavor for many years will continue to successfully partner
with the National Park Service going forward.
Designating these areas as a national historical park has
important economic and environmental, historical and
educational benefits for the region. It would provide
opportunities for work, opportunities for recreation, and
opportunities to boost economic development while memorializing
the history of this place and its role in the American
Industrial Revolution.
This is a 2 State initiative clearly indicated by the
presence of Senator Kerry and myself today. Mr. Chairman, I,
too am very proud as Senator Kerry that this park has been
chosen to commemorate the work of John H. Chafee, a great
environmentalist.
In 1962 when I was 12 years old, as the Governor of the
State, he introduced the Green Acres Program, which was State
resources acquiring open lands. That was 8 years before the
real dawn of the environmental movement in the United States.
He was a visionary then, a visionary in the Senate, and this
would be a fitting tribute to his service as a Marine, as the
Secretary of the Navy, as the United States Senator, as the
Governor of Rhode Island, and as a great American.
So, I hope that we can move together, work with the Park
Service, come quickly to a conclusion and move this forward.
I would also like to submit a letter* in support of this
legislation from Senator Whitehouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Letter has been printed in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Senator Reed. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I
look forward to working with you, and Chairman Bingaman, and
Ranking Member Murkowski, and Ranking Member Paul, and all the
members of the committee.
Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, gentlemen, for the compelling
testimony. I know you both helm important committees and
subcommittees, but this is one of the reasons I think I have a
great assignment, chairing the National Park Subcommittee is to
reconnect with our heritage and our national landscapes.
I do not think it would surprise you if I told you that in
my family, both my uncle Stewart and my father, Mo, venerated
John Chafee, and it was a real thrill for me to meet him as a
young man because of that vision and that passion. He was Teddy
Roosevelt in our era, you could argue, maybe with a little more
statesmanlike vocabulary. But he was--what, Senator Kerry?
Senator Kerry. Calmer demeanor.
Senator Udall. A calmer demeanor. But he is a hero to all
of us, and this would be very, very fitting and I look forward
to working with you.
One final comment, Senator Kerry. I am not very
competitive, but if Secretary Salazar has been up on the
Blackstone, I have got to get up there as well.
Senator Reed. You can fly into Providence.
Senator Udall. Great. Thanks. Thank you again. I know how
busy you are. Thanks for taking the time to appear before the
subcommittee. Thank you.
We have--now we will be joined by Dr. Stephanie Toothman,
who is the Associate Director of Cultural Resources at the
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Dr. Toothman, I understand this is your first time
testifying before us, and it is wonderful to have you here with
us. I look forward to your comments and again, the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Toothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the opportunity to--thank you.
Senator Udall. There we go.
Ms. Toothman. It is my first time.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before this subcommittee to present the Department of the
Interior's views on 11 bills on today's agenda. I would like to
submit our full statements on each of these bills for the
record and summarize the Department's views.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Ms. Toothman. Thank you.
The Department supports S. 1215. This legislation would
provide for the exchange of land located at Lowell National
Historical Park, and would continue the preservation loan fund
to help finance the restoration and redevelopment of historic
structures through 2036. Both provisions facilitate the Park's
long term goals without requiring any additional appropriation.
The Department supports S. 1708 and H.R. 2606 with
amendments.
S. 1708 would establish the John H. Chafee Blackstone River
Valley National Historical Park as a new unit of the National
Park system.
H.R. 2606 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline
facilities in the Gateway National Recreation Area, and
authorizes a non-competitive lease. Detailed explanations of
these amendments are contained in our full statements. We
request the opportunity to work with the committee on these
amendments.
The Department supports S. 1191 and H.R. 1141.
S. 1191 directs the Department to conduct a study of the
resources of a prototypical New England mill town in the
Naugatuck River Valley in Connecticut, and my apologies if I
did not get ``Naugatuck'' right.
While H.R. 1141 directs the Department to conduct a study
of the prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sights on
Rota located in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. The Department also recommends a technical correction
to H.R. 1141.
The Department supports the goals of S. 29 and S. 1150, but
recommends deferring action on both of these bills.
S. 29 would establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
National Heritage Area. A feasibility study for the area is
underway by the Delta Protection Commission, and the National
Park Service staff is currently reviewing the Commission's
draft study for consistency with the Interim National Heritage
Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. The Department believes it
would be premature to recommend support for establishment of
this National Heritage Area without an evaluation of its
feasibility.
S. 1150 establishes the Susquehanna Gateway National
Heritage Area in the State of Pennsylvania. A 2008 study
determined Susquehanna meets the interim criteria for potential
designation. However, there is currently no program legislation
that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified
national heritage areas, and a process for the designation and
administration of these areas.
We recommend that Congress defer action on S. 1150 until
the heritage area program legislation is enacted by Congress.
The Department supports S. 1198, S. 2131, and S. 2133, 3
bills that would reauthorize Federal funding for 5 National
Heritage Areas where authority for Federal heritage area
program funding sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2012. The
Department recommends extending their authorization until we
have completed an evaluation and report on the accomplishments
of these Areas, and the future role of the National Park
Service, and until heritage area program legislation is
enacted.
S. 1198 would reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area
in the State of Massachusetts.
S. 2131 would reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area,
and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor in the
State of Pennsylvania.
S. 2133 would reauthorize America's Agricultural Heritage
Partnership in the State of Iowa. The Department would like to
work with Congress to determine the future Federal role when
heritage areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility
for heritage program funding. We recommend that Congress enact
national heritage legislation during this Congress.
The Department has no objection to S. 1589, which would
extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the
State of New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Toothman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director, Cultural
Resources, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, on S. 29
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 29, a bill to establish the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area.
The Department recognizes the importance of the natural, historic,
scenic and cultural resources within the proposed Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, but recommends deferring action
on S. 29 until a feasibility study is completed. A Feasibility Study
for a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area is underway
by the Delta Protection Commission. National Park Service staff are
currently reviewing the Commission's draft study for consistency with
the interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. The
Department believes that it would be premature to recommend support for
establishment of this national heritage area without an evaluation of
its feasibility.
S. 29 would establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National
Heritage Area within the counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo, in the State of California, with the Delta
Protection Commission designated as the Heritage Area's management
entity. The Sacramento-San Joaquin is a rare inland/inverse Delta and
the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. Its vast size,
unique shape, and geographic location in the heart of California has
produced a heritage of habitat and community diversity, industry,
innovation, and a unique infrastructure.
A rapid rise in sea level following the last ice age 10,000 years
ago inundated the alluvial valley of the Sacramento River and formed
the Delta landscape. From the confluence of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers emerged a system of freshwater and brackish marshes and
extensive grassland, oak woodland, savannah, chaparral, and riparian
habitat rich with wildlife. Native Americans built villages and trading
posts, and early fur traders such as Jedediah Smith trekked into the
region in search of otter, mink and beaver.
Then, gold seekers on their way from San Francisco to the gold
fields in the Sierra Nevada recognized the fertility of the Delta's
soils. Beginning in the 1880s, with significant contributions from
Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, East Indian, Portuguese and Italian
immigrants and the development of innovative equipment, one of the
largest scale reclamation projects in the United States converted the
vast marshes into the predominantly agricultural landscape that
characterizes the Delta today.
As one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country,
the Delta exports crops throughout the world and contributes billions
of dollars to the California economy. The Delta irrigates over seven
million acres of the State's farmland and also supplies two-thirds of
California's residents their drinking water.
Still an important natural area, the Delta is a key stopover on the
Pacific Flyway and an important anadromous fish corridor. Its waterways
provide leisurely retreats for large, nearby urban populations in the
San Francisco Bay area and Great Central Valley. Agricultural-related
tourism initiatives are springing up to showcase and share the region's
agricultural traditions while wildlife friendly farming practices
demonstrate how Delta farmland and habitat can coexist.
A Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area could promote
a wide range of partnerships among governments, organizations and
individuals to increase public awareness of and appreciation for the
important natural, historic, scenic and cultural resources of the area.
However, the Department would withhold a final recommendation until we
have had an opportunity to review the completed feasibility study.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittees
may have.
s. 1150
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1150, a bill to establish the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania.
The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area, but recommends deferring
action on S. 1150 until program legislation is enacted that establishes
criteria to evaluate potentially qualified national heritage areas and
a process for the designation and administration of these areas.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. We recommend that Congress
enact this legislation during this Congress.
Flowing for 441 miles, the Susquehanna River is the longest river
on the East Coast and the largest contributor of fresh water to the
Chesapeake Bay. The portions of the river flowing through Lancaster and
York Counties in Pennsylvania exhibit exceptional natural and
recreational value and traverse landscapes of historical importance to
our nation.
The region of the proposed Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage
Area was first inhabited by Native Americans who left evidence of their
occupation in a myriad of archeological sites, as well as rock art at
several petroglyph sites. When Captain John Smith journeyed up the
Susquehanna River in the summer of 1608, he sent emissaries to the
Susquehannock town located on the east side of the river near present
day Washington Boro in Lancaster County. Tribal leaders there entered a
trade alliance, opening to the English a trade network extending
hundreds of miles.
In 1668, William Penn set the tone for religious tolerance in
Pennsylvania and brought colonists who settled the great fertile valley
of the Susquehanna Gateway region, beginning its long history as an
abundant agricultural center. Serving as an important transportation
corridor, the river provided opportunities for commerce and invention.
It was here that John Elgar constructed the first iron steamboat in
America. The birthplace of Robert Fulton, the original inventor of
steam powered boats, is a National Historic Landmark in Lancaster
County. Here, too, Phineas Davis designed and built the first practical
coal burning steam locomotive, thereby revolutionizing railroad
transportation.
The region is the home ground of the ``Plain People''.the Amish and
Mennonites. Their religious values, simple way of life, and well-tended
farms speak to the deepest feelings that Americans have about ourselves
and our national experience.
In this region, visitors also find evidence of our Revolutionary
War past. Lancaster and York Counties served as venues for the
Continental Congress when it left Philadelphia upon the British
occupation of that city. In the courthouse in York, the Congress
approved the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the
nation's ``first constitution,'' and sent it forth to the states for
ratification. In the summer of 1781, Continental Army General James
Wood established Camp Security, housing more than a thousand British
soldiers from General John Burgoyne's army, which had surrendered at
Saratoga.
The region also has an abundance of natural resources including
migratory bird nesting sites, remnants of old growth forests, and areas
of both ecological diversity and scenic quality. Ferncliff, known for
its wildflowers, and the Susquehanna Gorge are both designated National
Natural Landmarks. Recreational resources abound in the region,
including the Kelly's Run and Susquehanna River Water Trails, both
National Recreation Trails.
S. 1150 designates the Susquehanna Heritage Corporation, a non-
profit organization, as the proposed management entity for the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area. The area, designated as a
state heritage area in 2001, recently changed its name from the
Lancaster-York Heritage Region to the Susquehanna Gateway Heritage
Area, to reflect the area's expanded focus, which includes the cultural
and economic value of the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna Heritage
Corporation has demonstrated success in coordinating among diverse
partners in Lancaster and York Counties. Over the past nine years, the
Corporation has been effective in facilitating preservation,
interpretative, and educational projects and in leveraging community
participation and funding. The heritage area has strong support from
the public and from a myriad of state, local, federal, and non-
governmental partners throughout the area. In 2008, the Corporation
prepared a national heritage area feasibility study that was reviewed
by the National Park Service and found to meet the interim criteria for
potential designation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the committee.
s. 1191
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee to present the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1191,
a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of
the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Naugatuck River
Valley National Heritage Area in Connecticut, and for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1191. However, we feel that
priority should be given to the 36 previously authorized studies for
potential units of the National Park System, potential new National
Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System
and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been
transmitted to Congress.
In addition, the Department continues to recommend that Congress
enact program legislation for national heritage area studies and
designations. There are currently 49 designated national heritage
areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. We recommend that Congress
enact this legislation during this Congress.
The proposed study area includes a part of Connecticut following
the Naugatuck River Valley between Torrington and Shelton in the
counties of Litchfield and New Haven. The Naugatuck River Valley
contains a collection of historic and natural resources relating to the
industrial, intellectual, political, and architectural heritage of the
United States. The proposed study area includes numerous properties
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and three National
Historic Landmarks: the Litchfield National Historic Landmark District;
the Tapping Reeve House and Law School, which was the first law school
in the United States; and the Oliver Wolcott House, which was the home
of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Many of the fourteen
communities identified in the bill are prototypical New England mill
towns that represent one of the main manufacturing centers of the
nation during the 19th and 20th centuries and a crucial hub of
industrial innovation. The valley's principal industries were rubber
(Charles Goodyear developed the rubber vulcanization process here),
brass (first developed in the valley), and clock making. The story of
the immigrants who worked in these industries and contributed to the
cultural mosaic of the country is equally compelling. The river flows
for over forty miles through landscapes of historical importance to our
nation.
The proposed study area has extensive recreational resources in
place or under development, including the Naugatuck River Greenway, the
Derby Greenway, and the Steele Brooke Greenway. Through the efforts of
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the support
of the local communities, considerable progress has been made to
restore water quality along the length of the proposed study area. It
is an area worthy of study for potential designation as a national
heritage area.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
s. 1198
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1198, a bill to reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area.
The Department recognizes the important work of the Essex National
Heritage Area to preserve heritage resources in Essex County,
Massachusetts. We recommend that S. 1198 be amended to authorize an
extension for heritage area program funding until we have completed an
Evaluation and Report on the accomplishments of the area and the future
role of the National Park Service; and until heritage area program
legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding for
designated national heritage areas. Consistent with congressional
directives in the 2009 and 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the
Administration proposed focusing most national heritage area grants on
recently authorized areas and reducing and/or phasing out funds to
well-established recipients to encourage self-sufficiency in the FY
2013 Budget. The Department would like to work with Congress to
determine the future federal role when heritage areas reach the end of
their authorized eligibility for heritage program funding. We recommend
that Congress enact national heritage legislation during this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas.
Essex National Heritage Area (Essex) was established in 1996 by
Public Law 103-333. Essex was established to recognize, preserve,
promote, and interpret the historic, cultural, and natural resources of
the North Shore and lower Merrimack River valley in Essex County,
Massachusetts. The early settlement history, maritime history, and the
imprint of the early industrial era on the landscape, in particular,
were considered to be nationally distinctive and met the criteria for
Heritage Area designation. Essex preserves and interprets a rich
cultural landscape that includes historic homes, small family farms,
and historic industrial architecture. Additionally, Essex contains an
array of scenic and natural resources such as rocky coasts and harbors,
marshlands, and rivers. Essex spans 500 square miles in northeastern
Massachusetts, and includes 34 cities and towns.
Essex is managed by the Essex National Heritage Commission
(Commission), which facilitates public private partnerships for the
preservation of heritage resources and works closely with National Park
Service (NPS) staff at Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus
Iron Works National Historic Site, both of which are within the
boundary of Essex. The Commission's work focuses on regional
initiatives for heritage programming, interpretation, and education,
preservation and resource stewardship, heritage development and
infrastructure, and planning and design.
During its 15 years of existence, Essex has a significant record of
achievement. Essex has worked closely with NPS staff at Salem Maritime
and Saugus Iron Works on a variety of educational and interpretive
programs to educate visitors and students about local heritage
resources. One successful example is the Trails & Sails weekend, a
county-wide event that involves more than 50 host organizations at more
than 140 host locations in Essex County in providing interpretive
tours, hikes, walks, sail trips and special events at no charge to
participants. The Essex Local History In a National Context program has
also successfully brought the main themes of Essex into area
classrooms.
Essex has played a significant role in local communities in helping
to inventory and research historic resources. Working with the
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Essex created
a catalog of heritage landscapes that communities had identified as
being valuable and worthy of protection. In all, communities identified
1,320 resources in 24 of the 34 municipalities included within the
boundary of Essex. Additionally, the inventory articulated strategies
for preserving these historic resources and landscapes.
Essex has also implemented a successful public information and
wayfinding campaign for promoting tourism within the Heritage Area.
More than 80 directional highway signs have been installed within Essex
that point visitors toward regional visitor centers and historic and
natural visitor destinations. These signs not only have helped visitors
find tourism destinations within Essex, they have also helped create a
regional identity for the heritage area. Essex also plays a significant
role in leveraging federal dollars. For every Federal dollar Essex
received, it leveraged approximately $5 of non-federal funds in fiscal
year 2011 ($671,000 Federal vs. $3,574,139 non-federal). In total,
Essex has received over $12 million in Federal funding.
S. 1198, as written, would extend the authorization of federal
funding for Essex for an additional 15 years and increase the
authorization of appropriations by $5 million. Currently, Essex is one
of the nine heritage areas now being evaluated by the NPS pursuant to
Public Law 110-229. We anticipate the Essex evaluation will be
transmitted to Congress this year, and will include recommendations on
what the future role of the National Park Service should be in the
area.
We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to
make it clear that the bill would extend the authorization for Federal
funding for the heritage area instead of reauthorizing the heritage
area. While the Essex National Heritage Area faces a sunset for its
Federal funding, its National Heritage Area designation will not
sunset.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
s. 1215
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1215, a bill to authorize the exchange of land or interest in land
between Lowell National Historical Park and the city of Lowell in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation. S. 1215
would enable Lowell National Historical Park to acquire land by means
of exchange with public entities and to continue beyond 2018 the
successful use of the Preservation Loan Fund to help finance the
restoration and redevelopment of historic structures. Both of these
provisions would facilitate the park's long-term goals without
requiring any additional appropriations.
Public Law 95-290, enacted in 1978, established Lowell National
Historical Park to preserve and interpret the city's nationally
significant historical and cultural sites, structures, and districts
associated with the city's role in the 19th Century American industrial
revolution. Along with the park, the law established the Lowell
Historic Preservation Commission to complement and coordinate the
efforts of the park, the Commonwealth, and local and private entities
in developing and managing the historic and cultural resources and to
administer the Lowell Historic Preservation District. The law
established an arrangement that requires a high level of cooperation
between the Federal, Commonwealth, and local governments, and the
private sector. The General Management Plan (GMP) and the Lowell
Preservation Plan were designed to be supportive of local government
preservation and community development efforts and to encourage
substantial private investment in the redevelopment of the city's vast
19th-century urban resources.
Over the past three decades, the park and the commission have
played a key role in the city's revitalization. Working in cooperation
with the city, Commonwealth, and other public entities and private
partners, the National Park Service has contributed to the
rehabilitation of over 400 structures and the creation of extensive
public programs to preserve and interpret the city's cultural
resources. An estimated $1 billion in private investment has occurred
within the park and preservation district since the creation of the
park. To date, 88 percent of the 5.2 million square feet of vacant mill
space within the park and preservation district has been renovated or
is in the process of being renovated in accordance with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Because of changes in the vicinity of the park as these
preservation and redevelopment efforts have occurred, the National Park
Service would like to shift the use, management, or ownership of some
park lands in order to facilitate their redevelopment for other uses.
The park's maintenance facility and visitor center parking lot sites,
which are not historic, have been identified by the University of
Massachusetts-Lowell, and the City of Lowell, respectively, as critical
to their master plan redevelopment programs. The university and city
seek to acquire these sites from the park, have proposed to develop
them in ways consistent with the mission, intent and purposes of the
park, and have expressed a willingness to work with the park to help
facilitate the equitable exchange and relocation of these facilities.
The park's September 2010 GMP Amendment specifically recommended the
Visitor Center Parking Lot exchange with the city. The University's
request to exchange the park's maintenance facility came after the GMP,
but is in the park's long-term interest. The National Park Service
supports the exchange of both the Visitor Center Parking Lot and the
park's maintenance facility.
Under current law, the park has authority to acquire property from
the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions only by donation. S.
1215 would give the park the authority to acquire land by exchange from
the Commonwealth, the city of Lowell, or the University of
Massachusetts Building Authority. This authority would enable the park
to conduct both proposed land exchanges. The legislation ensures that
if the value of land to be acquired by the park is lower than the value
of the land exchanged, the city or Commonwealth would be required to
make a cash payment to equalize values and the park would have use of
those funds for the purpose of replacing exchanged facilities and
infrastructure. At this time, the National Park Service has not
identified potential exchange properties.
The Preservation Loan Fund was also authorized in Public Law 95-290
and formally established in 1983. The purpose of the fund is to
stimulate private investment in nationally significant historic
buildings to meet the historic preservation mandate within the Lowell
National Historical Park and Preservation District. The law directed
the commission to loan the funds to the non-profit Lowell Development
and Financial Corporation, to create a revolving loan fund to
accomplish historic preservation goals. The program has funded twenty-
one nationally significant historic building projects with loans
totaling approximately $2.5 million. The original Federal appropriation
of $750,000 leveraged non-federal project investments totaling
approximately $130.3 million to date, representing over $173 in non-
federal investment for each Federal dollar appropriated.
The Preservation Loan Fund was initially authorized for a 35-year
period expiring in 2018. S. 1215 would extend the program for an
additional 25 years. The extension of the program would enable existing
funds to continue in a revolving fund for the purposes identified in
the original authorization. No additional appropriations would be
needed. Despite what has been accomplished in Lowell, numerous historic
structures still require rehabilitation, and this program is an
important catalyst for generating the private and non-federal funding
needed to ensure the preservation of these structures. Extending this
authorization would greatly enhance the park's efforts to assure the
integrity of the park and preservation district.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have
regarding S. 1215.
s. 1589
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 1589, a bill to extend the
authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New
Jersey.
The Department does not object to S. 1589, but notes that the
National Park Service is no longer providing technical assistance since
the authorization of funding expired on September 30, 2011. This bill
would extend the trail's authorization to September 30, 2016.
Public Law 100-515 enacted on October 20, 1988, authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to designate a vehicular tour route in
coastal New Jersey and to prepare an inventory of sites along the
route. An interpretive program was also mandated to provide for public
appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of important fish
and wildlife habitats, geologic and geographical landforms, cultural
resources, and migration routes in coastal New Jersey. The Secretary
was authorized to provide technical assistance, prepare and distribute
information, and erect signs along the route. The resulting New Jersey
Coastal Heritage Trail Route links national wildlife refuges, national
parklands, National Historic Landmarks, and National Register sites
with important historic communities, state parks, natural areas, and
other resources to tell the story of New Jersey's role in shaping U.S.
history and in providing internationally important habitats for bird
and other migrations.
The trail was envisioned as a partnership among the National Park
Service (NPS), the State of New Jersey, and many local government and
private non-profit partners. Through interpretation of five themes
(Maritime History, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migration, Relaxation &
Inspiration, and Historic Settlements), the trail brought attention to
important natural and cultural resources along coastal New Jersey. The
trail had a variety of accomplishments that have continued to provide
enjoyment and education to visitors even after the trail's
authorization expired including a wayside exhibit program, welcome
center partnerships in several communities, a successful publications
and brochure program, and a highway directional signage program. All of
these accomplishments were the result of partnerships with state, local
and other entities and helped meet the trail's core mission of natural
and cultural resource preservation along with interpretation and public
education in a cost-efficient manner through technical assistance while
reducing operational responsibilities. No NPS funds were used for
maintenance, repair, or operation of any road or road-related
structure.
Prior to the expiration of the NPS authority for assistance for the
trail in 2011, the NPS completed a strategic plan for the trail. The
strategic plan identified four options for the continuance of the
trail's mission: 1) No further NPS management of the trail after the
sunset date of September 30, 2011; 2) Limited time for NPS management,
in order to transition to a new management framework; 3) A new federal
role for or within the trail project area; and 4) Permanent
authorization for the trail. With the exception of option 1, all
identified options required legislative action.
With the expiration of the trail authorization on September 30,
2011, the NPS moved forward with implementing option 1 from the
strategic plan and commenced an orderly conclusion of NPS management of
the trail. The NPS closed its trail office in Newport, New Jersey,
relocated staff assigned to work on the trail to other NPS offices and
ended direct NPS involvement in the operation of the trail. If
assistance is reauthorized, the NPS does not intend to reopen its trail
office, reassign staff to work on the trail or otherwise change its
current management structure. The NPS would support the trail through
the work of appropriate regional staff.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the committee.
s. 1708
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1708, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park.
The Department supports S. 1708, if amended in accordance with this
testimony.
S. 1708 would establish a new unit of the National Park System, the
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park (Park)
within the existing, bi-state, Blackstone River Valley National
Heritage Corridor (Corridor) that extends from Worcester, Massachusetts
to Providence, Rhode Island. The bill directs the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to administer the Park in accordance with the laws
applicable to the National Park System and authorizes the Secretary to
enter into cooperative agreements with state and local governments as
well as the coordinating entity for the Corridor and others, for the
purpose of collaborating on programs, projects and activities that
further the purposes of the Park.
The bill also authorizes the Secretary to acquire land for the Park
from willing sellers with donated or appropriated funds, transfer from
another federal agency, or exchange. Lands owned by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts or the State of Rhode Island, or their political
subdivisions, may only be acquired by donation or exchange. Finally,
the Secretary is directed to complete a General Management Plan for the
Park within three years after funds are made available. Among other
things, the plan must seek to make maximum practicable use of certain
named visitor facilities in the Corridor that are operated by Corridor
partners, many of which were developed with significant investment of
federal funds.
S. 1708 is consistent with the findings of the Special Resources
Study (SRS) that the National Park Service (NPS) completed in
accordance with Public Law 109-338 of 2006, which directed the NPS to
conduct the SRS to ``evaluate the possibility of (A) designating one or
more sites or landscape features as a unit of the National Park System;
and (B) coordinating and complementing actions by the [Corridor]
Commission, local governments, and State and Federal agencies, in the
preservation and interpretation of significant resources within the
Corridor.'' The SRS evaluated a broad range of sites, features and
resources throughout the Blackstone River Valley and concluded that the
following meet the criteria for designation as a unit of the National
Park System: Old Slater Mill National Historic Landmark district in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, the historic mill villages of Ashton and
Slatersville in Rhode Island, and Hopedale and Whitinsville in
Massachusetts; the Blackstone River and its tributaries; and the
Blackstone Canal. S. 1708 proposes to include these sites and features
in a new unit of the National Park System.
The SRS also evaluated various management alternatives with
different scopes and levels of National Park Service involvement. The
preferred alternative, from both an environmental and park management
perspective, is a new unit of the National Park System that consists of
the aforementioned sites and features, and that would partner with the
coordinating entity for the Corridor and others to undertake the
protection and interpretation of these resources. S. 1708 reflects that
recommendation, as it proposes to create a National Historical Park in
the Blackstone River Valley of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The Park
would be granted the necessary authorities to continue to work with the
Corridor and other partners to optimize protection, management, and
public enjoyment of these resources. We believe that the NPS, working
in partnership with local groups within the Corridor is the most
effective and cost efficient management model for a new unit of the
National Park System in the Blackstone River Valley.
If established based upon the management alternative recommended in
the SRS, we estimate that the cost to create the Park would be $6.1
million in one-time expenditures on research, planning, construction
and/or rehabilitation, and exhibits. When the Park is fully
established, operational costs are estimated to be $3.5 million
annually for salaries, supplies and equipment. All funds would be
subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations.
We recommend several amendments to S. 1708 to clarify authorities
and conform the bill to similar legislation establishing new National
Park System units.
First, we recommend changing the name of the Park to Blackstone
River Valley National Historical Park. While we have the greatest
respect for the late Senator John H. Chafee and recall his strong
support for the protection of our national parks and his efforts to
preserve the resources of the Blackstone River Valley, we know of no
instances of national parks being named after their congressional
sponsors nor do we wish to set this precedent. Naming the Park after
the late senator would divert attention from the important resources
and values that Park visitors learn about at national park sites, and
could cause confusion between the park and the surrounding national
heritage corridor that bears the senator's name.
As an alternative, we recommend that the committee consider
dedicating the Park to Senator Chafee, naming the main visitor center
in his honor, or providing some interpretive exhibits or materials
about his work.
Second, we recommend that parcels for Federal land acquisition be
prioritized in order to establish a base for NPS ownership and
management and that NPS be authorized to acquire a limited amount of
land for administrative purposes outside the boundary of the Park. NPS
currently has office space outside of the park boundary in Woonsocket,
RI, and being able to continue to use this space for purposes of the
park will save money and allow a central location that will better
serve the urban communities of the park. We also recommend language
that creates a matching requirement for the expenditure of Federal
funds under cooperative agreements for any natural, historic or
cultural resource protection project in the Park or the Corridor that
is consistent with the general management plan. There is approximately
$1 million in unexpended funds for the heritage corridor that remains
available for these types of projects. The use of this cooperative
agreement authority for any future projects would be subject to further
appropriations for this purpose and Administration priorities. We will
be happy to work with the committee on drafting these suggested
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
s. 2131
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 2131, a bill to reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage
Area, the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, and the Delaware
and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.
The Department recognizes the important work of the three national
heritage areas to preserve historic, cultural, natural, and
recreational resources in Pennsylvania. We recommend that S. 2131 be
amended to authorize an extension for heritage area program funding
until we have completed an Evaluation and Report on the accomplishments
of the area and the future role of the National Park Service; and until
program legislation is enacted that standardizes timeframes and funding
for designated national heritage areas. Consistent with congressional
directives in the 2009 and 2010 Interior Appropriations Acts, the
Administration proposed focusing most national heritage area grants on
recently authorized areas and reducing and/or phasing out funds to
well-established recipients to encourage self-sufficiency in the FY
2013 Budget. The Department would like to work with Congress to
determine the future federal role when heritage areas reach the end of
their authorized eligibility for heritage program funding. We recommend
that Congress enact national heritage legislation during this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas.
Created by Public Law 104-333 in 1996, the Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area (Rivers of Steel) is made up of eight counties in
southwestern Pennsylvania known for their significant contributions to
the steel industry in America. The mission of Rivers of Steel is to
preserve and interpret the history of the region and share the dynamic
story of the evolution of southwestern Pennsylvania from a small
colonial settlement to the flourishing of the steel industry in the
area.
The Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area (Lackawanna) was
established by Public Law 106-278 in 2000. The Lackawanna includes four
counties in northeastern Pennsylvania with historical ties to the
anthracite coal industry. These counties preserve nationally
distinctive resources related to Pennsylvania and America's industrial
history, including the history of major labor unions and the struggle
to improve working conditions of mine workers. The mission of the
Lackawanna is to conserve, interpret and develop the historical,
cultural, natural and recreational resources associated with the area's
significant history.
The Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor (Delaware and
Lehigh) was established by Public Law 100-692 in 1988, one of the
earliest National Heritage Areas created by Congress. The Delaware and
Lehigh follows the historic Delaware Canal and Lehigh Navigation Canal
through eastern Pennsylvania. Completed in 1834, the Delaware Canal was
an important early transportation route that transformed eastern
Pennsylvania from an agrarian region to an industrialized society. The
Delaware Canal is a designated National Historic Landmark and portions
of the Lehigh Navigation Canal are on the National Register of Historic
Places. The purpose of the Delaware and Lehigh is to provide an
integrated management structure that will preserve and interpret the
canals and their history.
The bedrock of the National Heritage Area concept has always been
building partnerships for achieving goals. All three of these non-
profit heritage areas, with government funding assistance since their
establishment, have shown significant success in working with partners
and the Federal government to preserve, interpret, and promote the
significant resources in their local areas. Every Federal dollar has
been matched with non-federal funds. For example in fiscal year 2011,
Lackawanna's Federal appropriation was $446,112 while the amount of
leveraged non-Federal dollars was $1,361,235. For the same fiscal year,
Rivers of Steel received $682,000 in Federal funding and received
$734,313 in leveraged dollars, while Delaware and Lehigh received
$625,000 in Federal funding and received $1,566,395 in leveraged
dollars, which equals an average of $2 in non-federal funds for every
dollar of Federal funds. In total, Lackawanna has received nearly $6
million in Federal funding, Rivers of Steel has received approximately
$12.2 million in Federal funding, and Delaware and Lehigh has received
about $11.5 million in Federal funding.
S. 2131, as drafted, would extend the authorization for federal
funding for these three heritage areas for an additional ten years.
Currently, the Evaluation and Report required by Public Law 110-229 is
being completed for Rivers of Steel and we anticipate the evaluation
will be transmitted to Congress this year. There is no legislation
requiring an Evaluation and Report for Lackawanna. To be consistent
with other national heritage areas, we recommend the bill be amended to
include Evaluation and Report language similar to Sec. 462 of Public
Law 110-229 for Lackawanna. The NPS and the Delaware and Lehigh
completed an evaluation for the Delaware and Lehigh, however, this
evaluation did not include recommendations on what the future role of
the National Park Service should be in the area. The National Park
Service will take another look at the evaluation and include
recommendations on the future role of the National Park Service prior
to transmitting it to Congress in order to be consistent with the other
reports.
We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to
make it clear that the bill would extend the authorization for federal
funding for the heritage areas instead of reauthorizing the heritage
areas. While the three heritage areas face a sunset date for their
federal funding, their national heritage area designation will not
sunset.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
s. 2133
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 2133, a bill to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage
Partnership in the State of Iowa.
The Department recognizes the important work of the America's
Agricultural Heritage Partnership, better known as Silos and
Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in northeast Iowa. We recommend
that S. 2133 be amended to authorize an extension for heritage area
program funding until we have completed an Evaluation and Report on the
accomplishments of the area and the future role of the National Park
Service; and until heritage area program legislation is enacted that
standardizes timeframes and funding for designated national heritage
areas. Consistent with congressional directives in the 2009 and 2010
Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration proposed focusing most
national heritage area grants on recently authorized areas and reducing
and/or phasing out funds to well-established recipients to encourage
self-sufficiency in the FY 2013 Budget. The Department would like to
work with Congress to determine the future federal role when heritage
areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage
program funding. We recommend that Congress enact national heritage
legislation during this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas.
America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership, better known as Silos
and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in northeast Iowa, was
established in 1996 by Public Law 103-333 to interpret farm life,
agribusiness and rural communities-past and present. Silos and
Smokestacks National Heritage Area preserves and tells the story of
American agriculture and its global significance through partnerships
and activities that celebrate the land, people, and communities of the
area. The heart of America's agricultural revolution still exists in
the Silos and Smokestacks region, and the national heritage area is
telling the breadth and scope of this story in a compelling, meaningful
way.
The heritage of American agriculture and its influence on the
global agricultural revolution were considered to be nationally
distinctive and met the criteria for national heritage area
designation. American agriculture is one of the primary sources of this
country's wealth and world leadership and should be preserved and
interpreted. Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area preserves and
interprets a rich cultural landscape that includes family farms and
historic industrial architecture and rural communities across a 37-
county region in Northeast Iowa covering over 20,000 square miles.
The national heritage area is managed by the America's Agricultural
Heritage Partnership, which facilitates public private partnerships for
the preservation and interpretation of heritage resources. The
Commission's work focuses on regional initiatives for heritage
programming, interpretation, and education, preservation and resource
stewardship, heritage development and infrastructure, and planning and
design.
During its 15 years of existence, the Silos and Smokestacks
National Heritage Area has a significant record of achievement. It has
worked closely with the regional business community, county and state
governments and multiple non-governmental organizations to build a
network of partner sites dedicated to preserving and interpreting the
past, present and future of America's agricultural story. Working
together, the network has developed a successful public information and
way-finding program for promoting tourism that welcomes visitors along
the major highway corridors surrounding the region and identifies the
more than 100 partner sites in the heritage area. The new signs serve
as a connecting thread for this network of sites, while letting
visitors know they can discover a piece of America's agricultural story
being preserved at the site.
This way-finding program has not only helped visitors find tourism
destinations within the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area,
but has also helped the heritage area develop a regional identity.
The bedrock of the National Heritage Area concept has always been
building partnerships for achieving goals. Silos and Smokestacks
National Heritage Area, with minimal government funding assistance
since its establishment, has shown significant success in working with
partners and the Federal government to preserve, interpret, and promote
the significant resources of northeast Iowa. Every Federal dollar has
been matched with non-federal funds. For example, in fiscal year 2010,
Silos and Smokestacks received $609,000 in Federal funding while the
amount of leveraged non-Federal dollars was $626,000. Since its
establishment, Silos and Smokestacks has received $8,847,107 million in
Federal funding.
S. 2133, as is written now, would extend the authorization for
federal funding for the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area
for an additional 10 years. Currently, Silos and Smokestacks National
Heritage Area is one of the nine heritage areas being evaluated by the
National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 110-229. We anticipate its
evaluation will be transmitted to Congress this year.
We recommend a technical amendment to the long title of the bill to
make it clear that the bill would extend the authorization for Federal
funding for the heritage area instead of reauthorizing the heritage
area. While the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area faces a
sunset for its Federal funding, its national heritage area designation
will not sunset.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.
s. 1141
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's testimony regarding H.R. 1141, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest
sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit
of the National Park System.
The Department supports H.R. 1141 with a technical amendment.
Priority should be given, however, to the 36 previously authorized
studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new
National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails
System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet
been transmitted to Congress.
H.R. 1141 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete
a Special Resource Study of sites on the Island of Rota for potential
inclusion in the National Park System. We estimate that this study will
cost approximately $250,000 to $300,000.
Rota, where the indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian people have
retained their cultural heritage in its natural environment, is the
southernmost island of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI). Spared the population displacement of other colonial islands
and largely bypassed during World War II, Rota preserves striking
examples of the three thousand-year-old Chamorro culture surrounded by
the best remaining expanse of this island chain's native limestone
forest. The Mochon Latte Village, the Chugai Pictograph Cave, the Taga
Latte Stone Quarry, and the Alaguan Bay Ancient Village prehistoric
sites include architectural features unique to the ancient Chamorro
culture and represent outstanding examples of the territory's cultural
resources. These sites possess a high degree of integrity in location,
materials, workmanship and association.
The limestone forests of Rota are the most intact and most
extensive examples of primary, native limestone forest remaining on any
island in the Mariana Archipelago. The forest provides and sustains
habitat for endangered bird species, a threatened species of fruit bat,
and numerous species of invertebrates that are proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered. Several of these species are endemic to Rota.
The significance of this unique biotic community cannot be overstated.
Rota's residents and legislative delegation have demonstrated an
extraordinary commitment to the protection of the island's environment,
including establishment of marine protected areas on Rota. In 2004,
Senator Diego M. Songao, Chairman of the Rota Legislative Delegation of
the Fourteenth Commonwealth Legislature, formally requested planning
assistance from the National Park Service (NPS).
In response to this request, the NPS completed a reconnaissance
survey of Rota's natural and cultural resources in September of 2005.
The reconnaissance survey found that the natural and cultural resources
of the island of Rota are significant to island residents, the CNMI,
and the entire nation and merit protection. It also made a preliminary
finding that these resources are likely to be suitable and feasible for
inclusion in the park system.
At present, the people of Rota and their political leaders find
themselves at a crossroads regarding the uses to which their lands are
being put. Major land use changes are continuing to take place in the
form of residential and agricultural lots being subdivided out of the
island's public lands and transferred into private ownership.
Congressional authorization to conduct a Special Resource Study
will provide a public process to determine the suitability and
feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest
sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit
of the National Park System. The NPS would be pleased to actively
engage organizations, residents and others in discussions of how best
to preserve Rota's significant cultural and natural resources.
The NPS recommends a technical correction to clarify the intent of
section 2(a)(2) of the bill. We interpret this section to apply to
areas identified as suitable and feasible for designation as a unit of
the National Park System. It is possible, however, to read this section
more broadly to imply that the National Park Service should examine
alternatives for management of the entire island of Rota. We would like
to work with the committee to clarify the intent of this section.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have.
h.r. 2606
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
2606, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the
construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in the
Gateway National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 2606 with amendments described later
in this statement.
H.R. 2606 addresses the need for expansion of the current gas line
operated by the firm National Grid. The last expansion was over 40
years ago and the line is at capacity. This legislation would authorize
the Secretary to allow for a natural gas pipeline right-of-way to pass
through Gateway National Recreation Area. Further, it authorizes a non-
competitive lease that will facilitate the adaptive use of two historic
aircraft hangar buildings on Floyd Bennett Field to house facilities
needed for operation of the pipeline. Use of the buildings would be
subject to restoration of the buildings and the collection of payment
for their use at fair market value.
Numerous alternative routes were considered by National Grid as
part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission compliance process.
However, the most feasible route considered would be to use an
underground pipeline that traverses lands within Gateway National
Recreation Area. It would require a 60,000-square-foot facility to
house the metering station and equipment needed to move the gas from
the supply lines into smaller, lower-pressure distribution pipelines.
One option considered is to build the facility outside of the park.
If built outside of the park, the National Park Service believes that
the metering station and required security structures, which would be
the approximate size of a football field with 20-foot high walls, would
impact park resources, particularly the park viewshed.
The option of constructing a new facility within the park would
also cause impacts. New construction for pipeline facilities within the
park would be contrary to the National Park Service's goals of reducing
infrastructure and carefully managing existing facilities. Floyd
Bennett Field and its associated buildings are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places as a historic district, and such new
construction could additionally jeopardize this status.
The option that appears to be most feasible with least impact to
the park is the one that H.R. 2606 would allow: the rehabilitation and
use of two currently deteriorated historic airplane hangars on Floyd
Bennett Field. If these are used to house the metering station, then
neither the 20-foot-tall security structure that would be required
around the facility outside of the park nor new construction within the
park would be needed. Additionally, the use of these historic hangars
on Floyd Bennett Field would allow for operation of the pipeline
without impacting the historic landscape, while also providing for
long-term care of the structures and providing annual income from rent,
which the Secretary would be authorized to retain for infrastructure
needs, resource protection, and visitor services at the park.
As passed by the House on February 7, 2012, H.R. 2606 contains
provisions to help ensure that the leasing and permitting authorized at
Gateway National Recreation Area will be conducted in a way that
protects park resources and that revenue derived from the leasing will
be retained by the park, consistent with National Park Service law and
policy. These are important changes that were made to the bill when it
was reported by the House Natural Resources Committee and on the House
floor. However, there are two additional amendments we would like to
recommend: one to clarify that the equipment housed in the leased
hangar will not be subject to both a lease and a permit, and the other
to ensure that the National Park Service has the appropriate authority
to make any necessary modifications to the lease before renewing it.
Proposed language for both of these amendments is attached to this
statement.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or any other committee member may have
concerning this bill.
Proposed amendments to H.R. 2606, New York City Natural Gas Supply
Enhancement Act, as received in the Senate
Page 2, line 18: Strike ``natural gas.'' and insert ``natural gas
(but not including the metering and regulating station)''.
Page 4, lines 14-16: Strike ``with any changes to its terms and
conditions mutually agreed upon.'' and insert ``upon review,
evaluation, and modification, if necessary, of its terms.''.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Dr. Toothman.
I do have a series of questions, but let me start with S.
29, the proposed national heritage area in California.
Ms. Toothman. Yes.
Senator Udall. As I understand your testimony, the Park
Service's principle concern with the bill is that you are still
reviewing the study prepared by the Delta Protection
Commission, so that the designation at this time would be
premature. Is that a correct analysis on my part?
Ms. Toothman. It would be premature for us to make a
recommendation without having completed that review.
Senator Udall. That review. When do you expect to have that
review completed?
Ms. Toothman. We have provided initial comments to the
Commission and they are working on them. We expect to have them
finalized before they meet in May to make their own decision on
whether they concur with the recommendations. So I would say by
the end of May.
Senator Udall. That is helpful.
Let me turn to S. 1150, the proposed Susquehanna Gateway
National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania. In this case, you have
recommended that we defer action on the bill until
comprehensive heritage area legislation is enacted, which, I
believe, has been the Agency's recommendation----
Ms. Toothman. Yes.
Senator Udall. For all recent heritage area proposals.
Apart from that concern, does the Susquehanna proposal
appear to meet the criteria for national heritage area
designation?
Ms. Toothman. Yes. We feel it is a very good candidate.
Senator Udall. You feel it is a very good candidate?
Ms. Toothman. Yes.
Senator Udall. Let me move to the Essex National Heritage
Area, which we heard testimony and comments from both Senator
Reed and Senator Kerry, and that is S. 1198.
It extends the authorization for the Essex National
Heritage Area to receive Federal funding, and I think we can
include the Iowa Heritage Area, and the 3 Pennsylvania Heritage
Areas in this question, since they all raise the same issue.
Your first recommendation is that the authority for these
areas be extended long enough to allow the Park Service to
complete an evaluation of the areas.
Do you have a timeline that you can give us for when you
expect to have each of these evaluations completed for the
individual heritage areas?
Ms. Toothman. Yes, I do, but I also want to clarify one
point.
Senator Udall. OK.
Ms. Toothman. They remain heritage areas at the end of
fiscal year 2012. What is expiring is their authority to
compete for financial support from the appropriation we receive
for heritage areas. So what we are asking for is an extension
of their eligibility to compete for that funding
Senator Udall. So the heritage areas themselves and their
authorizations do not expire.
Ms. Toothman. Right.
Senator Udall. It is the authorization to compete for
funding.
Ms. Toothman. Yes, to be eligible for that Federal funding.
We are in the midst of completing the evaluations, and we
expect to have them done by the end of the year.
Senator Udall. End of the year. Let me bring a follow on
question, and you may have already answered this, but I want to
ask it for the record.
So the larger policy issue may be if a heritage area has
completed its initial authorization period, and has been
successful, would additional Federal funding be appropriate, or
should each area only get a one-time funding authorization?
Does the Park Service have a position on the issue?
Ms. Toothman. May I just confer?
Senator Udall. Oh, sure; of course.
Ms. Toothman. OK. We do not have an official position on
that right now, but we are supporting the interim extension
until we can work with the committee on that issue.
Senator Udall. All right. So you want an interim, you would
support an interim extension.
Ms. Toothman. Right.
Senator Udall. But as far as a long term policy, you would
like to discuss that and come up with a clear position from the
Park Service's point of view.
Ms. Toothman. Yes. Excuse me. I think they could also, in
terms of those discussions, be part of the discussions of a
national heritage program legislation. That might be one area.
Senator Udall. I look forward to the fruits of your labor
and perhaps we will have a continuing conversation on what you
recommend through the analysis you will do.
Let me turn to the Blackstone National Historical Park, and
I want to ask you to clarify for the record that Senator Reed,
I believe, did not speak to the Essex National Heritage Area;
Senator Kerry did as it is exclusively in Massachusetts. But
the 2 of them did discuss the Blackstone National Historical
Park. I have one question.
As I understand it, the area is currently designated as a
National Heritage Corridor, but it is different from the more
recent heritage area models in that it also has a Park Service
presence. Is that not correct? Would that summarize it?
Ms. Toothman. Yes, that is correct. Most of the recent
designations have involved a non-profit entity rather than a
commission. So that is one difference.
In addition, their funding was different in that they had
several streams of funding that were related to the National
Park Service presence in its early creation, one of which was
related to an appropriation for projects, one of which was
related to, an in which there is still funding available,
development. Then they also received an allocation, initially
individually by law now from the competitive pool from which we
now provide funding. So we would like to see that the $1
million that they still have preserved as this legislation
moves forward.
Senator Udall. Let me follow up. I said I had one question,
but I actually have 2 or 3 questions that make up one question.
So this subcommittee had considered a number of proposed
national historical parks this Congress that are within the
same NPS region. One of the issues we have had to address is
whether the Park Service will have a sufficient management
role, one that is consistent with a National Park designation.
Your testimony on the Blackstone bill noted that the new park
is envisioned as a partnership with the Heritage Corridor and
other local entities.
Do you expect the Park Service to have direct management
responsibilities here, or will the other partners be primarily
responsible for management of the Park?
Ms. Toothman. Within the areas designated for the Park and
potential acquisition by the Park Service, we would expect to
have National Park Service management authority. It would be
our expectation and desire that we would continue to partner on
issues affecting the larger corridor within which the Park
would be located.
Senator Udall. I know we are coming at the question from
some different directions, so thank you for elaborating.
Let me move to the Gateway National Recreation Area and
pipeline right of way. That is H.R. 2606, which would authorize
the Park Service to issue a right of way for a natural gas
pipeline across the Gateway National Recreation Area in New
York. I understand the Park Service needs legislative authority
to allow for a natural gas pipeline to cross through a national
park.
If the bill is enacted, what criteria will the Park Service
use to determine whether it is appropriate for a pipeline right
of way to cross national parklands?
Ms. Toothman. We would use the same criteria that we would
apply to any such proposal. We would be looking at it both
through the NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Office.
The National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 process. I
just came from the NCSHPO meeting, so that is on my mind, but
so we would do----
Senator Udall. Better you than me.
Ms. Toothman. Full compliance, and public scoping, and
review.
Senator Udall. Thank you for keeping all those acronyms
separate. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, so we have a
lot of acronyms over there as well.
So following on, earlier in this congress, the committee
considered similar legislation, which authorized a pipeline
through a portion of Denali National Park in Alaska. In that
case, the legislation provided that the right of way could only
be issued if following appropriate analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, quote, ``The route through the
Park was the one with the least adverse environmental effects
for the Park,'' end of quote.
Should we consider including a similar provision in this
bill? If you want to take that under advisement or for the
record, feel free to do so.
Ms. Toothman. I think we would address that, again, through
the NEPA process, preferred option and we would look at the
most environmentally--one that we felt was not an adverse
impact and which would be selected under the NEPA process. So I
am not sure that it needs to be in your legislation, I think,
would be the best response I can give you.
I have seen the 2 hangars that are proposed to house the
monitoring-metering facility, and they are 2 hangars that we
have not found an appropriate use for. It would be a major
boost for the park to have a compatible, acceptable reuse of
those facilities as part of this project. So that is one reason
why we would also be looking at it through Section 106 in terms
of whether this is an appropriate adaptive reuse.
Senator Udall. That is the end of my questions. Let me
thank you for taking the time to come to appear today before
the subcommittee. Thank you for all you do to enhance and
protect our national heritage areas, and our historical park,
and our national recreation areas. We are fortunate as
Americans to have such a bounty of public lands, and access,
and opportunities.
Ms. Toothman. I agree with you, and I thank you for your
support.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you so much, and I know you
are busy, so you are welcome to stay and listen, or to leave as
your schedule dictates.
Ms. Toothman. I will be glad to stay. A number of these
bills are very important to us.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Ms. Toothman. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Dr. Toothman.
I would like the panel to come forward. We are looking
forward to your testimony.
Before I introduce the witnesses, I want to include in the
record, a statement from Senator Joseph Lieberman on the
Naugatuck River Valley National Heritage Area Study Act. We
will do that without objection.
Congressman Sablan from the Mariana Islands has submitted a
letter to the committee, and we will, with unanimous consent,
also see that that is included in the record.
So we have been joined by the Honorable Michael J. Reagan,
Supervisor of Solano County, California and by Ms. Ann Harris,
Executive Director of the Essex National Heritage Commission
from Salem, Massachusetts.
Mr. Reagan, if you want to start. Generally 5 minutes is
what we appropriate. We look forward to your statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. REAGAN, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, SOLANO COUNTY, CA
Mr. Reagan. Thank you, Chairman Udall.
It is a pleasure to come here and testify. When I used to
be an Air Force Legislative Liaison, I used to skull others to
come over and do this. This is the first time I have had the
opportunity to do it myself.
I am Mike Reagan, a member of the Board of Supervisors,
Solano County and today, we were asked by Senator Feinstein to
testify in support S. 29 to establish the Sacrament-San Joaquin
Delta Heritage Area. I will abridge my comments for the sake of
the time, and I have submitted my entire remarks for the
record.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Mr. Reagan. Thank you.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a unique and vital
place both within my county and the State of California. It
includes portions of the counties of Solano, Sacramento, Yolo,
San Joaquin, and Contra Costa in northern California. We
believe it is highly appropriate and justified that we
collectively recognize what a treasure it is, and do everything
we can to preserve and enhance its future.
Senator Feinstein's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National
Heritage Area Establishment Act, S. 29, is a strong step in
this direction, and for this reason, Solano County is pleased
to support this important bill.
I thought I would cover a little bit about why we think
this area merits the designation. California's delta, there is
an amazing natural system and a major contributor to
California's vitality and its evolution.
The vast size, we are talking about an area over 700,000
acres. Unique shape, it is an inverted delta, one of the only
ones in the world where the major river systems come in to a
delta and then it passes through a series of inland, a coastal
range of mountains through a series of bays and out into the
ocean. So the delta is actually pointed inland.
The geographic location has contributed to its importance
in an ecological and a cultural landscape. The Delta is
essentially the center of California, from which the rivers and
streams flowing hundreds of miles from the north, south, east,
and west all drain through the Delta and into the Carquinez
Strait, and then into the San Francisco Bay.
The Bay Delta region is the largest estuary in the West
Coast of the Americas, North and South. It is the second
largest in the United States after the Chesapeake Bay.
This region is home to more than 3.5 million residents. It
serves a $36 billion agricultural industry, mostly comprised of
family farms, and supplies water through Federal and State
water projects to more than 23 million Californians and another
3 million acres of agricultural land.
Historically, the Delta has a multicultural landscape with
Native American Indian settlements, and a lot of history dating
from California's Gold Rush. Most of the towns and cities were
formed at that time.
There are a number of minority groups including Chinese,
Japanese, Filipinos, East Indians, Portuguese, and Italians
established communities in the Delta and have made significant
contributions in shaping the Delta into the vibrant
agricultural landscape that it is today.
The high fertility of the Delta's soils and an abundant,
high quality water supply has enabled the Delta to be an
extremely productive agricultural region since reclamation.
There have been, and are, a large variety of specialty crops
grown in the Delta. I will just name maybe a dozen of them:
peaches, plums, cherries, tomatoes, onions, peas, celery,
spinach, melons, wine grapes, olives, blueberries, pears, sugar
beets, seed crops, more. We have a lot of cattle and sheep also
raised in the area. Crops from the Delta have been shipped
throughout the Nation as well as to other parts of the world
for quite some time.
In addition, the rare Mediterranean climate of the Delta
supports unique plant and animal species, and provides habitat
for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife, and 55
species of fish.
The State of California's legislature has long recognized
the importance and significance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta, and passed the Delta Protection Act of 1992, which is a
unique approach to large scale protection of valuable multi-
resource landscape, and led to the establishment of the Delta
Protection Commission that you spoke about earlier, who you
heard the National Park Service speak about earlier.
That State Commission is governed by 15 members who have
representatives from cities, counties, special districts, and
different agencies of the State of California. I am a member of
that Commission. I am also serving, currently, as the Vice
Chair. I am not here testifying for the Commission because we
have not yet had a chance to review the National Park Service's
comments, which I understand are generally favorable
suggestions to strengthen the application. Our staff is
readying an amendment that we will adopt here within the
quarter.
I do want to indicate that the entire State's level of
involvement and commitment to keeping the Delta as a unique and
viable region in California is very high.
It is also worth noting that just getting into my county,
within the proposed national heritage area in this legislation
is the 116,000 acre Suisun Marsh which is the largest
contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the West Coast of
North America. We have been maintaining that for over 100
years.
The Marsh is carefully managed for habitat, and it includes
considerable threatened and endangered species, and duck
habitat, a number of hunting clubs, and a unique herd of
introduced tule elk reintroduced into the area. We have also
included within the proposed boundaries of the National
Heritage Area, the main waterway for transportation and
commerce into this part of the California, the Carquinez
Straits, which shares its rich history with the Delta.
Agricultural goods produced in the Delta were processed and
stored in grain warehouses and mills that basically supplied
the Gold Rush and California's development since.
It is home to numerous fishing fleets and canning
facilities, which supported the Delta's fishing industry. Today
the Strait continues to support a unique and diverse Bay Delta
ecosystem by providing passage for native fish species and
thousands of migratory birds traveling along the Pacific
flyway, as well as ships traveling to and from international
ports into the 2 inland seaports that are located in the city
of Stockton and the city of West Sacramento.
A review of the description of a national heritage area
reveals how clearly the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Area fits
under the description and criteria necessary for this national
heritage designation. It embraces a defined place where, quote,
``Natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources
combine to form cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape
arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography.
These areas tell nationally important stories about our nation
and are representative of the national experience through both
physical features that remain and the traditions that have
evolved within them,'' end quote. The Delta of today contains
all of the requisite elements and the landscape tells the
story.
When asked to travel down the spine of the Delta through
legacy communities such Hood, Courland, and Clarksburg, and
Walnut Grove to get a sense of the meshing of culture and
natural landscape, the story just unfolds before your eyes as
you are going through it.
The establishment of a national heritage area in this Delta
would further our efforts to protect and restore the valuable
natural, esthetic, cultural, recreational, and historic
attributes in the Delta including recognition that the Delta,
as a place, merits national recognition.
I would also like to thank Senator Feinstein for
introducing and Senator Boxer for co-sponsoring S. 29.
Additionally, I would also like to extend my appreciation to
the House members who introduced companions Delta NHA
designation legislation including Representatives John
Garamendi, George Miller, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney, and
Mike Thompson. We in the Delta are grateful for their efforts
and we look optimistically for a successful conclusion to this
process after the NPS has had a chance to review the completed
application and come back to this committee in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reagan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Reagan, Member of the Board of
Supervisors, Solano County, CA, on S. 29
Good afternoon, Chairman Bingaman, and members of the committee. My
name is Michael J. Reagan and I am a member of the Board of Supervisors
of Solano County, California. Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to testify today in support of S. 29, to establish the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Heritage area.
We have long recognized the Delta as a unique and vital place both
within my County and to the State of California. It also extends over
portions of the Counties of Sacramento, Yolo, San Joaquin and Contra
Costa, in Northern California. It is highly appropriate and justified
that we recognize what a treasure it is and do everything we can to
preserve and enhance its future. Senator Feinstein's Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Establishment Act (S. 29) is a
strong step in this direction, and for this reason Solano County is
pleased to support this important bill.
My supervisorial district includes part of Solano County's portion
of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. I have actively engaged in Delta
related activities during my 8 years on the Board of Supervisors and
for several years prior to that as a Senior Policy Advisor to a State
Senator representing the area. I am currently the County's
representative on the State's Delta Protection Commission, serving as
Vice Chair. I also serve, on behalf of the County, on the Delta County
Coalition (DCC). The DCC is a coalition of five counties: Sacramento,
Yolo, San Joaquin, Solano and Contra Costa, cooperatively representing
our collective local interests in discussions with the State and the
Department of Interior officials.
The Delta, a Rare and Unique Place
The Delta is an amazing natural system and a major contributor to
California's vitality and evolution over many decades. The vast size,
unique shape, and geographical location of the Delta have contributed
to its importance as an ecological and cultural landscape. It is a rare
inland/inverse Delta, at the confluence of five rivers, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Mokelumne, Cosumnes, and Calaveras, through which waters flow
from a vast watershed covering about 40% of California's land area. The
impressive Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is essentially the center of
California from which rivers and streams flowing hundreds of miles from
the north, south, east and west . . . from the far reaches of the
Cascades and Sierra Nevada to the Coast Range . . . ALL drain through
the Delta and Suisun Marsh to the Carquinez Strait and into the San
Francisco Bay.
The sheer size and distinctive shape of the Delta's landscape is
unmatched anywhere in the world. The Delta's flat landscape includes
about 1,000 miles of channels and levees protecting islands, and is the
only inland delta in the United States. The Bay-Delta region is the
largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas, and the second
largest in the United States after the Chesapeake Bay.
Today it is home to more than 3.5 million residents, serves a $36
billion agricultural industry comprised of family farms and supplies
water to more than 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of
agricultural land. The entire area is supported by more than 1000+
miles of levees protecting 60 distinct islands.
Historically, the Delta has a multi-cultural landscape with Native
American Indian settlements and history from the California gold rush
era. A number of minority groups including Chinese, Japanese,
Filipinos, East Indians, Portuguese, and Italians have established
communities in the Delta and made significant contributions in shaping
the Delta into the agricultural landscape that it is today.
The high fertility of the Delta's peat soils, the high water table,
and an available water supply, has enabled the Delta to be an extremely
productive agricultural region since reclamation. There have been and
are a variety of crops grown in the Delta including peaches, plums,
cherries, tomatoes, onions, peas, celery, spinach, melons, wine grapes,
olives, blueberries, pears, sugar beets, seed crops and more. Crops
from the Delta have been shipped throughout the nation, as well as
other parts of the world for quite some time.
In addition, the rare Mediterranean climate of the Delta supports
unique plant and animal species and provides habitat for more than 750
species of plants and wildlife and 55 species of fish.
State Legislative Support for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
The State of California Legislature has long recognized the
importance and significance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
passed the Delta Protection Act of 1992 delineating a Primary and a
Secondary Zone of the Delta which consist of approximately 500,000
acres and 238,000 acres, respectively. The Primary Zone is the area
protected by State law from urban development, and includes waterways,
levees, and farmed lands, extending over portions of five counties:
Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa. The Delta
Protection Act is a unique approach to large scale protection of a
valuable multi-resource landscape and lead to the establishment of the
Delta Protection Commission.
The Delta Protection Commission is governed by 15 members, with
representation from cities,, counties, special districts, and the state
of California. While I am a member of the Delta Protection Commission,
I am not here testifying on their behalf I do want to indicate the
State's level of involvement and commitment to keeping the Delta a
unique and viable region in California.
Specifically the 15 members of the delta Protection Commission are
as follows:
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Central Delta Reclamation Districts
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
North Delta Reclamation Districts
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
South Delta Reclamation Districts
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
Department of Food and Agriculture
Cities of Contra Costa and Solano Counties
Natural Resources Agency
Cities of Sacramento and Yolo Counties
State Lands Commission
Cities of San Joaquin County
In the fall of 2009, the California State Legislature passed a
comprehensive package reforming governance of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and related aspects of statewide water management. In
Section 85301 of Senate Bill X7-1 (SBX7-1), the Legislature charged the
Delta Protection Commission (DPC) with developing:
A proposal to protect, enhance, and sustain the unique
cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural, and economic
values of the Delta as an evolving place . . . The Commission
shall include in the proposal a plan to establish state and
federal designation of the Delta as a place of special
significance, which may include application for a federal
designation of the Delta as a National Heritage Area.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is both a hard working landscape
and a place of great environmental sensitivity. It features highly
productive farmlands, unique historical communities of diverse cultural
roots, urban centers, miles of serene and wandering waterways, a
complex levee and flood control system, key water distribution
infrastructure both large and small, a myriad of fish, bird, animal and
plant species along with unique habitats, traditional drawbridges,
distinctive architecture and beautiful vista. It is truly the
convergence zone of California's majestic mountains, sea and valley
areas; a land where you can be in an urban center one moment and 10
minutes away feel like you are reconnected to nature. It is difficult
to comprehend the Delta landscape in one drive through. I have been in
the region for years and continue to discover new opportunities and
adventures in the Delta.
Why should the Delta be a National Heritage Area?
Why is this important to the State and the five counties covered by
the proposed National Heritage Area? The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
is in the heart of one of the most productive agricultural areas. The
climate and soils of our area allow for growth of many crop varieties
over a long growing season. The county's agricultural sector is a vital
part of the county's overall economic base. Many of our communities
directly serve the agricultural activities and are critical to their
existence and agriculture is essential to Solano County.
It is also worth noting that within Solano County and with the
proposed National Heritage area is the 116,000 acre Suisun Marsh, the
largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of
North America. The marsh is carefully managed for habitat, and includes
considerable bird and duck habitat, a number of hunting clubs, and a
unique herd of introduced Tule Elk and a number of protected species.
Also included within the proposed boundary area under consideration
is the Carquinez Strait. A main waterway for transportation and
commerce, the Carquinez Strait shares a rich history with the Delta.
Agricultural goods produced in the Delta were processed and stored in
grain warehouses and mills that once flourished on the shores of the
strait. It was also home to numerous fishing fleets and canning
facilities which supported the Delta's fishing industry. Today the
Strait continues to support a unique and diverse Bay/Delta ecosystem by
providing passage for native fish species and thousands of migratory
birds traveling along the Pacific Flyway.
There is a strong interconnectedness between our agricultural
economy and other economic sectors. We believe the current efforts of
the delta counties to support agritourism initiatives to further
showcase the Delta's agricultural and wildlife friendly farming
practices are demonstrating how Delta farmland and habitat can coexist.
As important as the Delta is, it is subject to many stressors,
including environmental, as well as lying at the center of California's
water resource challenges. There is much debate on how to restore the
Delta's health into the future. These deliberations will be carried out
over time and accompanied by volumes of analysis. How the communities
and ecosystem of the Delta will evolve in the future will depend on a
strong National and State commitment to the needed investment and
reinvestment. That said, we believe the legislation you are considering
(S 29) transcends that debate and represents a clear and constructive
way to do something positive for the Delta, and within a reasonable
time frame. We are hopeful that establishment of a National Heritage
Area will provide further enlightenment and recognition of the Delta as
a unique and valued place; and that studies provide a better
understanding of its socio-economic complexity; and can serve as a
catalyst for investing in its future.
A review of the description of a National Heritage Area reveals how
clearly the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area fits under the
description and criteria necessary for a NHA designation. The
designation of a National Heritage Area embraces a defined place where:
natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources
combine to form cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape
arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography.
These areas tell nationally important stories about our nation
and are representative of the national experience through both
physical features that remain and the traditions that have
evolved within them.
The Delta of today contains the requisite elements and the
landscape tells the story. One only has to travel down the spine of the
Delta through legacy communities such as Hood, Courtland , Clarksburg,
and Walnut Grove to get a sense of the meshing of culture and natural
landscape. The story unfolds before your eyes.
We fully recognize the potential benefits of a National Heritage
Area designation. We acknowledge the fact that it has a local
orientation and allows the various local entities to retain land use
jurisdiction. Additionally, we like that it reinforces the regions
identity under a unifying theme while respecting the variables that
exist between various areas of the Delta. Even the ability to use the
National Park Service Arrowhead symbol has a symbolic significance and
value.
We recognize that funding associated with this designation would be
limited. Nonetheless, we do appreciate the immense value of federal
investment as we look for ``seed'' money and to leverage opportunities.
We truly believe that if we target those dollars in a strategic way we
can generate many multipliers that will benefit the region. The
educational opportunities alone could provide many returns to our
efforts.
The establishment of a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National
Heritage Area would further efforts to protect, and restore, the
valuable natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historic attributes in the
Delta, including recognition that the Delta as a place merits national
recognition.
Status of Feasibility Study
As the committee members are aware, there has been a National
Heritage Area designation feasibility study, funded in part by grants
from the California Endowed Fund of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation and the California State Parks Foundation. In January of
this year a draft feasibility study was released by the California
Delta Protection Commission for a five week public review after which a
revised draft was transmitted to the National Parks Service for their
review. The California Delta Protection Commission has received their
response and is incorporating their suggestions. We anticipate formal
adoption of the revised Study by the Commission within this quarter.
Upon acceptance of this feasibility study by the Delta Protection
Commission, it will be submitted to our Congressional Representatives
for presentation to Congress for consideration.
Furthermore as part of the continuing local efforts on behalf of
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region numerous letters of support and
partnership commitment were acquired from a wide variety of
organizations including: historical societies, chambers of commerce,
county boards of supervisors, recreation groups, historic preservation
organizations, city councils, and more. There is a desire and
willingness for us to work as partners in the region.
In closing, the merits of a Sacramento-San Joaquin NHA are clear.
NHA designation would bring significant added value to our collective
efforts. Recognition and validation of the significance of the Delta's
nationally through the NHA designation will bring focus and leadership
to new partnerships and collaborations that would otherwise not take
place. On behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors I come as
their representative today share that we strongly support S.29 and urge
approval of this legislation.
In concluding, I would like to thank the Chairman and other members
of the committee for conducting this important hearing. I also would
like to thank Senator Feinstein for introducing and Senator Boxer for
cosponsoring S. 29. Additionally, I would also like to extend my
appreciation to the House members who introduced companion Delta NHA
designation legislation, including Representatives John Garamendi,
George Miller, Doris Matsui, Jerry McNerney, and Mike Thompson. We in
the Delta are grateful for their efforts and we look optimistically for
a successful conclusion to this process.
Thank you. Have a good afternoon.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Supervisor Reagan.
Miss Harris, I look forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANNIE C. HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ESSEX
NATIONAL HERITAGE COMMISSION, SALEM, MA
Ms. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
Senator Udall. I think you may need to turn on your mic.
Ms. Harris. Sorry. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify. My name is Annie Harris, and I am the Executive
Director of the Essex National Heritage Commission. I have
submitted my full, written testimony today, but I think you
will be happy to know, I will just be summarizing it.
Many of my remarks today also pertain to the other National
Heritage Areas whose bills are before you today and looking for
reauthorization. They have asked me to request that the record
be kept open so they can submit their written testimony too.
Senator Udall. Without objection, we will do so.
Ms. Harris. Thank you.
During these challenging economic times, every program that
receives Federal funds needs to justify its worth, and must
deliver substantial public benefits. I am proud to say that the
national heritage areas do this. Since our designation in 1996,
Essex Heritage, along with the other heritage areas, have
proven that the National Heritage Area Program is one of the
most effective and efficient of the external programs in the
National Park System.
At Essex Heritage, we work to conserve, promote, and
develop our region's nationally significant resources using
these heritage assets to revitalize our communities, and
strengthen our economy. We promote cultural tourism sites that
support the third largest job producing industry in
Massachusetts. We provide grants in conservation and
preservation that create jobs in construction and tourism. We
create summer jobs for urban youth and much more.
From our experience, we know that jobs and heritage
development go hand in hand. Strong economies occur where there
is deep community pride and dedicated stewardship.
In the last 14\1/2\ years, Essex Heritage has achieved a
great deal, but there is still much more to be done. Let me
cite 3 examples of our accomplishments and the work that lies
ahead.
One, creating regional trails takes decades. In Essex, the
idea of our regional trail network began about 45 years ago,
but it took the unique management and partnership skills of
Essex Heritage to secure the rights of way and to see that some
of the first miles of trails were built.
With the growing need for safe roads to schools and youth
obesity on the rise, these trails are much more than just
recreational routes. When this trail network is complete, there
will be 58 miles of safe pedestrian and bike access connecting
one-half of our region's communities. What is most important is
that these trails will link many of our town centers and our
schools and our libraries, not just our parks and recreation
areas, but our work is not done here.
Two, our Summer Youth Job Corps with the National Park
Service has been highly successful, but for every young person
hired, there are 10 more looking for work. We employ the
disadvantaged urban youth who live near our parks, providing
them with job skills and counseling, along with their summer
work. When a young person such as Daniel Mondragon says, and I
quote, ``This program has taught me responsibility,
appreciation for the city and its history, and has opened new
doors for my future,'' end of quote. How can we afford to let
this program go?
Three, the Essex Coastal Scenic Byway is a strategy for
improving the economies of the region's underserved urban
communities, as well as our affluent towns. Under the
leadership of Essex Heritage, the recently completed Byway Plan
is setting the course for new ways in which the 13 coastal
communities can collaborate for their mutual benefit. The way
is forward, but we need to continue.
The work of the national heritage areas is important not
only for our regions, but for the National Park Service. In my
written testimony, I cite numerous National Park reports that
make this case.
But the support that I think I most appreciate is the
comments of Director Jon Jarvis who, on numerous occasions, has
said that he is a diehard fan of the National Heritage Areas
because the Heritage Areas, and I quote, ``Offer an alternative
model, more versatile, and inclusive, a new iteration of the
classic model of parks.''
In closing, national heritage areas have proven to be one
of the most effective ways for the National Park Service to
engage with local citizens, and the conservation of nationally
significant places. This work happens without the Park Service
having to bear all the costs of owning, maintaining, and
managing these places.
Also, national heritage areas involve people where they
live in long term, multi-partnership, large landscape, and
community conservation projects. The residents and businesses
do not have to vacate these landscapes because heritage areas
do not require public ownership for their success.
In summary, the value of the national heritage areas lies
in their ability to amplify their limited Federal funding, to
leverage the public investment with private funds, to promote
the principles of conservation and preservation from the
grassroots up, to create jobs and revitalize communities, and
to assist the National Park Service in meeting its mission.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. If you
come to Blackstone, we are only about 1 hour north, come visit
us.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annie C. Harris, Executive Director, Essex
National Heritage Commission, Salem MA
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testifytoday regarding S. 1198, a bill to
reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. Many of my comments also
pertain to two other bills before you today S. 2131 to reauthorize the
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna Valley National
Heritage Area and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
and S. 2133 to reauthorize the America's Agricultural Heritage
Partnership in the State of Iowa. I have been asked to speak on their
behalf and also to request that the record be held open so that these
National Heritage Areas may be allowed to submit written testimony as
well.
My name is Annie Harris, and I am the Executive Director of the
Essex National Heritage Commission. The Commission is the regional non-
profit organization that manages the Essex National Heritage Area, a
500 square mile region located north of Boston, rich in in historic,
cultural and natural resources. I also serve, in a volunteer capacity,
as the Vice President of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would like to speak
to you about the importance of reauthorizing the Essex National
Heritage Area, and the other National Heritage Areas whose bills are
before you today, in advance of our September 30, 2012 sunsets.
During these challenging economic times, every program that
receives federal funding needs to justify its worth and deliver
substantial benefits to the American public. The National Heritage
Areas do this. Since our designation by Congress in 1996, the Essex
National Heritage Area along with Rivers of Steel, Delaware & Lehigh
Canal, Lackawanna Valley and America's Agricultural Heritage have
proven that the National Heritage Area program is one of the most
effective and efficient ``external'' programs in the National Park
System.
In the Essex National Heritage Area, our work is to conserve,
promote and develop the nationally significant stories and resources of
the region. From the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692 to the
``Perfect'' storm of 1991, we have a robust network of public and
private partnerships that rely on the heritage resources and stories to
revitalize our communities and strengthen our economy. We promote
cultural tourism sites and programs, supporting the third largest job
producing industry in Massachusetts. We provide grants in conservation
and resource stewardship that not only preserve the historic fabric of
our region, but also create jobs in construction and tourism.
Currently, it is estimated that we have created 1,488 jobs through our
grants programs. For the past three summers, we have provided summer
jobs for disadvantaged youth at two park sites. To date, 56 youth jobs
have been created. We develop trails and bikeways for recreation and
healthy living. Fourteen miles of trail were recently completed and are
now providing safe recreation opportunities. We create regional events
that build community pride and last year alone we assisted in
attracting 1.3 million visitors to the region. We know that jobs and
heritage development go hand in hand. Strong economies occur in places
where there is deep community pride and dedicated stewardship.
I am here today to request the reauthorization of Essex Heritage
and my fellow National Heritage Areas in Pennsylvania and Iowa.
Although, I have visited my companion areas and have been very
impressed with their work, I speak now only on the accomplishments of
Essex Heritage and the work we have before us. I respectfully ask this
committee to permit the other Areas to submit their own testimony with
their accomplishments.
In the last fourteen and a half years, Essex Heritage has achieved
a great deal but there is still much more to do. Let me cite some
examples of our accomplishments and the work that lies ahead:
Trail Development--Creating regional trails takes decades.
In the case of the Essex Heritage Border-to-Boston Rail Trail
and the adjacent Coastal Trail, the ideas for these trails
began 45 years ago, but it took the unique management and
partnership skills of Essex Heritage to secure the rights-of-
way and see that the first miles of trail were built. With the
growing need for safe roads to schools and youth obesity
rising, these trail are much more than recreational routes.
When the Coastal Trail and the Border to Boston Rail Trail are
complete, there will be 58 miles of trails connecting half of
the Area's communities, providing safe pedestrian and bike
access to town centers, libraries and schools as well as parks
and natural recreation areas. This goal is within reach
provided the coordination and guidance provided by the Heritage
Area continues.
Youth Job Corps--Our summer youth corps with the National
Park Service has been highly successful but for every young
person whom we have hired, there are 10 more still looking for
work. We have made a point to hire the disadvantaged urban
youth who live near our parks, providing them with jobs skills
and career counseling along with their summer work. When a
young person such as Daniel Mondragon says, ``This program has
taught me responsibility, appreciation for the city and its
history, and opened new doors for my future,'' how can any of
us afford to let this program disappear?
Stimulating the local economy--The Essex Coastal Scenic
Byway is a strategy to highlight the historic, cultural and
natural assets along the region's coastline for the benefit of
improving the local economies in the Area's underserved urban
communities as well as its affluent towns. Under the leadership
of Essex Heritage, the recently completed plan sets a course
for new ways in which the 13 coastal communities can
collaborate for their mutual benefit. The promise is clear, but
for success, Essex Heritage needs to continue.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as I testify for our
reauthorization, you may be questioning why we deserve your attention
when there are so many other needs especially within the National Park
Service. Therefore, I would like to direct you to what the National
Park Service, the National Park System Advisory Board and the National
Parks Second Century Commission say about the National Heritage Areas
and our importance to the National Park Service.
In 2006, Douglas P. Wheeler, then Chairman of the National
Park System Advisory Board, wrote: ``National Heritage Areas
represent a significant advance in conservation and historic
preservation: large-scale, community-centered initiatives
collaborating across political jurisdictions to protect
nationally-important landscapes and living cultures.''
(Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas; Foreword).
In 2009 the Second Century Commission Report--Advancing the
National Park Idea--states that ``National Heritage Areas
provide a collaborative model that fits well within a large-
landscape-scale preservation and conservation framework.
Recognizing them as long-term assets to the national park
system, we recommend that Congress pass authorizing legislation
creating a system of National Heritage Areas providing for
permanent funding and directing full program support from the
National Park Service to designated areas.'' (Advancing the
National Park Idea ; page 23).
In April 2010, President Obama launched America's Great
Outdoors and in the report issued in February 2011--America's
Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations--ten major
priorities were identified from ``providing quality jobs,
career paths and service opportunities'' to ``making the
federal government a more effective conservation partner.'' In
the goals and recommendations that follow on from these
priorities, Essex Heritage has identified 30 areas of our work
which directly support the AGO (Essex Heritage and its
Relevancy to America's Great Outdoors, 2011). I am confident
that my colleagues' work in their National Heritage Areas also
supports and enhances the priorities of the AGO.
In August 2011, the National Park Service Call to Action:
Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement,
states that the ``parks'' described in the report ``connote not
only the 394 units of the National Park System but national
heritage areas . . . as well.'' (Call to Action; page 6)
Most recently, in January 2012, the National Park Service's
Northeast Region published the Report of Impacts and Operational
Strategy for Sunsetting National Heritage Areas. The report discusses
the value that the National Heritage Areas provide to the National Park
Service and lists five major impacts on the National Park Service if
the Areas sunset (Report of Impacts; page 3)
1. NPS parks located within a heritage area will lose the
opportunities and resources that enlarge understanding of the
park resources and themes through the NHA.
2. NPS identity is key to attracting and keeping other
partners engaged in NHAs. The NPS will lose the leverage that
its contributions to NHAs, proportionately modest but essential
to operational support, create.
3. NHAs act as conveners for many other partners within the
region. The NPS parks and programs would have difficulty
replacing this partnership facilitation.
4. NHAs will have to curtail programs and events that
highlight the distinctive cultural and natural assets of the
region for lack of funding once NPS leverage ends.
5. NHAs bring numerous organizations and volunteers to the
NPS mission within the communities they serve. The NPS will
lose these connections.
The NPS NER report further states that the ``National Heritage
Areas have an impressive body of accomplishment in conservation,
cultural and educational preservation and programming, economic
development, recreation, and heritage tourism. They have provided the
NPS regions the means by which to organize diverse communities around
shared history and culture.'' It then refers to Director Jon Jarvis
conversation with the directors of the National Heritage Areas in
February 2011, when he described the National Heritage Areas as ``an
alternate model, more versatile and inclusive, a new iteration of the
classic model of parks.'' (Report of Impacts: page 2)
National Heritage Areas have proven to be one of the most effective
ways for the National Park Service to engage and partner with local
citizens of every background in the preservation and interpretation of
their nationally important and significant resources--and this work
happens without the National Park Service having to bear all the costs
of owning, maintaining and managing these places. National Heritage
Areas involve people where they live in long-term, multi-partnership,
large landscape and community conservation projects without requiring
that the residents and businesses vacate the area because National
Heritage Areas do not require public ownership for their success. The
value of the National Heritage Areas lies in their ability:
To amplify their limited annual federal funds with matching
dollars many times over;
To leverage the public investment with private funding,
volunteer time, in-kind donations, and local and state
contributions;
To promote the principles of conservation and preservation
from the grassroots and in harmony with the goals of the
National Park Service;
To create jobs and revitalize communities using the Area's
indigenous resources;
To assist the National Park Service in meeting its mission
by proving a bridge to local communities, underserved
populations, youth and diversity.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today, and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Miss Harris, thank you for your
compelling summary. You would make Jon Jarvis proud. You also
helped educate the committee, and those who are here today, to
listen as to the value, and the purpose, and the structure of
the national heritage area approach.
Let me, if I might, I have one question for each of you. I
will start with you, Miss Harris, if that is alright.
One of the fundamental policy issues that we need to
resolve is whether a national heritage area should be given
additional authorization, receive Federal funds after its
initial authorization has expired. You have heard me talk about
this with the previous testifier.
What is your best argument why an additional authorization
is good public policy?
Ms. Harris. First of all, I think there are long term
investments, and to reach the full benefit of the Federal
investment, they need to be seen that way. Certainly, when we
went into this project, the Greater Heritage Area, we knew
there was a 15-year sunset. Actually, we did not know going in,
but then we realized when the legislation was passed. But also,
we expected if we did well, we would have a shot at being able
to be reauthorized because these are long term projects.
In fact, Congress did pass a bill a few years ago that
asked the Park Service to evaluate us, and we have been
evaluated, and I think you will be very interested in the
evaluations when the Park Service does submit them to you.
Also, all of our work is done in public-private
partnerships, and the Park Service is an important partner with
us. We are able to take the Federal funds and leverage them,
and usually the match--we are required to come up with a
match--usually our match is much better than 1 to 1. That
match, we also can leverage with additional funds, both public,
State and local funds, and also a lot of private funds. But we
need that structure of the partnership. We need all partners to
be at the table.
Last, to be perfectly frank, most philanthropy, most other
sources of funds, public and private funds, only go into
projects, they are really project-specific, the funding from
the Park Service provides a base. That is all it provides. It
provides a base from which we can pay our rent and provide some
staff support. From that, we are able to then apply for grants,
leverage, and do projects. But it is important, what we call,
seed money, to seeding all of the other public and private
investment that we get, which is considerable.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that and I think you have
covered the landscape of the waterfront, whatever image you
want to use.
But if you have additional thoughts on that as well, the
committee would certainly welcome those. Your passion is
apparent, and I very much look forward to keeping my commitment
to Senator Kerry and Senator Reed, and most importantly to you,
to come up and see the Blackstone.
Ms. Harris. Am I allowed to say a few more words?
Senator Udall. Sure, please, yes.
Ms. Harris. I also serve on a subcommittee to the National
Park Advisory Board, and we are looking at the future of the
Park Service for the next 100 years.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Ms. Harris. I must say, I think very strongly that the
future for the Park Service is going to be in partnerships. I
think, you know, there is a desire to have the Park Service
play a much larger role in this country in terms of education,
and interpretation, and conservation, and I think it can play
that role.
But it is going to have to, and need to, and wants to play
it in partnership because we cannot have everything owned by
the Federal Government. We cannot maintain, everything cannot
be within boundaries of parks. They really need these
partnerships and the heritage areas are a very, very effective
model. You have it in place. It is extremely important to keep
it in place, and to move forward.
Also, second point, there is an excellent bill to create a
national heritage area program within the Park Service. It has
been introduced. It was introduced last week in the House. We
all hope that it will pass this session or next.
Senator Udall. Thank you for those additional comments. We
have held hearings on the 100 year anniversary of the National
Parks and the National Park system. I am sure you have studied
what has been said. You have studied the reports that have been
put forth that offer vision, and excitement, and passion.
Ms. Harris. Yes, yes.
Senator Udall. I think, a way in which to further connect
Americans to the parks, and the national heritage areas are
key. So thank you for----
Ms. Harris. Thank you.
Senator Udall. The work you do and for the way in which you
present the potential here, and the opportunities.
Mr. Reagan, I have a question for you.
Mr. Reagan. Sure.
Senator Udall. It is my understanding that local management
entities for most national heritage areas are typically
nonprofit organizations with experiences in coordinating and
promoting the heritage of the region through partnerships with
landowners and local businesses.
Your proposed area is somewhat different, at least in my
analysis with a Government commission managing the heritage
area and with most of the commission members being elected or
appointed State or county government officials; nothing against
elected officials, by the way, county, or Federal, or
otherwise.
In your opinion, will the Delta Protection Commission have
enough time, resources, and expertise available to effectively
administer the heritage area given the competing
responsibilities all the commission members have?
Mr. Reagan. It has a staff.
Senator Udall. I'm sorry?
Mr. Reagan. The Commission has a staff.
Senator Udall. A staff. Please elaborate.
Mr. Reagan. There is actually a three-headed governance
entity that the State has established there: a stewardship
council, a protection commission, and a conservancy. All of us
have partnerships with the nonprofits, the cities, counties,
and landowners. We actually have elected, selected members
representing the property owners in the north, central, and
south Delta who are part of our Commission.
It is a State level priority to protect and preserve this
area. We see this national heritage designation as smart
business for the Federal Government as a means of branding
something that is, and should be, a worldwide recognized
destination for tourism and recreation, as well as the
appreciation of the--everybody knows about how much of
America's specialty crops come out of California. This is the
heart of the ``Slow Food Movement'' in this area here.
Just in my county alone, we have 80 crops, different
agricultural commodities that generate over $1 million in farm
gain. We are small compared to some of the other counties in
the Delta. I mean, this is a tremendously vital, agricultural,
recreational, and ecological treasure. That, I think, this
designation can actually help us brand it appropriately as an
international destination.
Senator Udall. I have to note that your county looks like
it is significantly sized to me, as I study this map.
Mr. Reagan. We are 850 square miles.
Senator Udall. You say there are counties that are much
bigger.
Mr. Reagan. Yes.
Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you, again.
Mr. Reagan. We are only 400,000 people. We are actually the
second most urbanized county in California after San Francisco
as in percentage of the population who lives in an incorporated
city, which actually occupy less than 15 percent of the land
area of the county.
Senator Udall. I really enjoyed learning more about the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. You painted an intriguing picture
of everything that occurs, whether it is the forces of Mother
Nature, or it is those who grow the food that sustains us. I
look forward to working with you.
Mr. Reagan. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Your 2 Senators, who are outstanding
Senators, by the way, I do not have to tell you that, to move
this important initiative forward. So I want to thank you both
for your testimony.
Before we adjourn, I would like to include in the record a
letter from Congressman Garamendi on this very topic we just
discussed. We will do that without objection.
Senator Udall. Let me now say I want to thank you again for
your testimony, for taking the time to join us in Washington.
Some members of the committee may submit additional questions
in writing, and if so, we may ask you to submit answers for the
record.
We will keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to receive
any additional comments.
Senator Udall. Again, thank you, and the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Stephanie Toothman to Questions From Senator Udall
Note on responses--The questions below relate to H.R. 2606, the New
York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act. The responses are based
on the assumption that H.R. 2606 would be enacted in the form the bill
was received in the Senate.
Permits
Question 1. What is the process for approving the initial permits?
Answer. The process for issuing and approving permits is governed
by NPS policy contained in Director's Order #53: Special Park Uses.
[D.O. #53 can be found at http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/D053.htm].
The Regional Director signs all new right-of-way (ROW) permits.
Question 2. What is the process for renewing permits after the
initial 10 year term?
Answer. The renewal process will be identical to the original
approval process, except that the renewal may be approved by the park
superintendent.
Question 3. Who has discretion to cancel permits after 10 years?
Answer. The permits will automatically expire after 10 years.
Question 4. What is the approximate revenue that will be generated
from permits?
Answer. The permit fees will be based upon a Department of the
Interior-approved appraisal identifying fair market value and upon
actual costs incurred by the park to administer and monitor the permit.
Work on the appraisal cannot begin until the legislation is passed.
Question 5. What Right-of-Way permits will be issued?
Answer. A ROW permit will be issued for all portions of the gas
line that cross NPS lands.
Question 6. What is the process for Right-of-Way permit approval/
renewal?
Answer. The process for issuing and approving permits is governed
by NPS policy contained in Director's Order #53 (Special Park Uses).
The Regional Director signs all new ROW permits. The park
superintendent may approve renewal of ROW permits.
Lease
Question 7. Who will the lease the land- Williams or National Grid?
Answer. Williams will lease the hangar and associated land at Floyd
Bennett Field.
Question 8. Will the lease transfer from one to the other at some
point? If so, will the lease berenegotiated at that point?
Answer. Transfer (re-assignment) of the lease cannot take place
without the expresswritten consent of the NPS. The terms and conditions
of the lease will address anyanticipated transfer among parties.
Question 9. What is the length of the lease?
Answer. The length of the lease will be determined through the
negotiation processbetween the NPS and the lessee. The lease will not
exceed 60 years, since that is thelimit for NPS leases under NPS
leasing regulations (36 CFR part 18).
Question 10. What is the approximate revenue that will be generated
from lease fees?
Answer. Lease revenues are not known at this time because a
Department of the Interior-approved appraisal has not been completed.
Rent revenues, at a minimum, must be fair market value rent.
Question 11. Will the lease fees ever increase or be renegotiated
at any point during the lease term?
Answer. Yes, this is possible. Conditions allowing for increases
will be included in the lease terms.
Revenues
Question 12. Will all revenues go directly to Gateway National Park
rather than to Treasury or NPS General Fund?
Answer. Revenues from the lease of the hangar will be retained by
Gateway National Recreation Area, as will the cost recovery to
administer and monitor the ROW permit. Revenues generated from the fair
market value of the ROW will go to the Treasury.
Question 13. What specific projects does NPS plan to use the
additional revenue for?
Answer. H.R. 2606 allows the revenue to be used for infrastructure
needs, resource protection, and visitor services. We anticipate that
the revenue will be used primarily for the restoration of key historic
structures and to improve visitor services.
Question 14. Will all additional revenue be spent on capital
improvements?
Answer. Not all, but we anticipate that much of it will be spent
for that purpose.
Question 15. How can we ensure that revenues from the lease will
not be used to offset cuts tofederal funding for Gateway?
Answer. At national park units that use NPS leasing authority,
there has been no indication of reductions in federal funding as a
result of NPS retention of leasing revenue.
Environmental/Park-Going Experience
Question 16. What is the environmental impact on the park-during
and after construction?
Answer. During construction, impacts, if any, will be minimal and
will be mitigated in accordance with Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) requirements. There are no anticipated environmental
impacts once the project is completed.
Question 17. What is the impact on park visitors-during and after
construction?
Answer. There will be no impact to park visitors after
construction. During certain phases of construction, visitors will not
be able to use a small part of Floyd Bennett Field.
Question 18. What is the impact of the pipeline trenching?
Answer. Except for a 100-foot section between Flatbush Avenue and
the hangar building, the pipeline will be laterally drilled, not
trenched. If there are impacts, they will be resolved through the FERC
compliance process.
Question 19. An artificial reef lies off the Rockaways-will the
pipeline disturb it?
Answer. No. The FERC compliance process has taken the artificial
reef into consideration. The reef will not be disturbed.
Question 20. Can the monitoring station be located somewhere other
than a historic hanger?
Answer. If the metering station is built outside the park, a new
facility would need to be built. The size of the structure would be
approximately that of a football field with 20-foot-high walls. The
most likely location would be adjacent to the park, in a natural area,
which would adversely affect the viewshed of the park. If the metering
station is within the park, it will be located totally within the
confines of the historic hangar. The public will see the restored
building with no indication of the metering station located within the
walls. There will be no visual intrusion on the historic scene.
Question 21. What is the impact on park visitors if the monitoring
station is located in one of the historic hangers?
Answer. The impact to park visitors will be positive. The hanger is
closed to visitors at the current time and will continue to be closed
once it becomes a monitoring station. What will change for visitors is
the visual experience they have when they visit Floyd Bennett Field.
Currently, visitors see a structure in decrepit condition. After the
hanger is rehabilitated, they will see an attractive historic
structure.
Safety
Question 22. What are potential safety hazards?
Answer. FERC will ensure that all safety hazards are identified and
addressed.
Question 23. What safety review will be conducted prior to
construction?
Answer. FERC will review the security and safety measures to be
incorporated into the design of the metering station and pipeline.
These measures will reflect a collaborative effort between Williams,
National Grid, the New York Police Department, the U.S. Park Police,
and New York City Fire Department.
Question 24. What safety standards will be in place after
construction?
Answer. We are not the technical experts on this subject and will
defer to FERC's expertise on safety standards.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator From New
Jersey, on S. 1589
The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is a valuable asset to the
State of New Jersey that promotes the vast cultural resources along the
state's vibrant coastline and helps boost tourism and local economic
development. The trail showcases the rich and diverse resources along
the coast, from the beaches of the Jersey Shore to the wetlands and
wildlife in the Delaware Bay to the museums and state parks in the
region. Since the trail's creation in 1988, the National Park Service
(NPS) has reached important milestones implementing various pieces of
the trail but was unable to complete it before its authorization
expired at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.
In 1993, the National Park Service established an implementation
plan for the trail that included five interpretative themes in eight
counties across 300 miles of coastline. According to the plan, the
trail would stretch through five regions from Perth Amboy to Cape May
and then west to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Along the driving trail,
the plan calls for signs, five welcome centers, promotional brochures
and other visibility and outreach to bring tourists to trail
destinations. Destinations include the Sandy Hook Gateway National
Recreation Area, Island Beach State Park, the U.S. Coast Guard Station
in Atlantic City, and the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, and many
other intriguing sites.
While the plan called for the development of five themes, only
three have been developed. In addition, NPS opened two welcome centers
but have not opened the remaining three. The initial plan called for
more than $10 million to complete the plan, but just $4.5 million was
appropriated from FY 1993 to FY 2011. Lack of funding prevented NPS
from completing the trail before the authorization expired at the end
of FY 2011.
On September 21, 2011 I introduced S. 1589, a bill to extend the
authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New
Jersey. The bill, cosponsored by Senator Menendez, would extend the
authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey
through FY 2016 to give NPS additional time to complete implementation
of the plan.
The New Jersey coastline is a treasure that is a source of pride
for New Jerseyeans and serves as a popular attraction for thousands of
tourists. The beaches, historical landmarks, natural habitats, and
cultural sites lure many people to the shore, supporting local economic
development and enriching New Jersey's heritage. That is why I am proud
to sponsor S. 1589. I urge the committee to approve this legislation so
the National Park Service can fulfill the mission initiated in 1988 and
complete the development of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail.
______
Statement of C. Allen Sachse, Special Advisor and former President/
Executive Director of the Delaware & Lehigh NHC, Incorporated, on S.
2131
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of S. 2131. My
comments will address the reauthorization of the Delaware and Lehigh
National Heritage Corridor (D&L) as established by Public Law 100-692.
However, I support the reauthorization of Lackawanna Valley National
Heritage Area and Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, which are
also included in SB 2131. In addition I also support the
reauthorization of Essex National Heritage Area addressed in S. 1198,
and America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership addressed in S. 2133.
Congress designated the D&L as the nation's third national heritage
corridor in November 1988 to assist the state and local agencies in
preserving and interpreting the corridor's significant historic,
cultural and natural resources, while fostering economic development
focused on those resources. The D&L is located in eastern Pennsylvania
with a population over 1.65 million. The story of the corridor is the
story of America's industrial revolution expediously growing along the
historic transportation system. From the anthracite coal fields of the
Wyoming Valley to the port town of Bristol, the system of overland
railroads and canals moved anthracite coal the early fuel for this
revolution. Along the 165 mile route a diversity of industries
flourished, including iron and steel, cement, transportation, textile,
slate, agriculture, and zinc. This system (the spine of the D&L) was
innovative in its day, and continued to operate for over 100 years. The
Delaware and Lehigh Canals became the nation's longest operating
towpath canal system, and the Switchback Gravity RR was the nation's
first commercial successful railroad.
In 2005, the D&L engaged the services of the Conservation Study
Institute (CSI), Northeast Region of the National Park Service to
assess the accomplishments and future challenges of D&L partnership
network. The findings are detailed in the report titled Connecting
Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh
National Heritage Corridor Partnership. The report was completed and
published in spring of 2006.
The research found that progress had been very significant;
participation and activity of partners was growing expediously each
year; time and momentum are very important; almost half of the projects
were corridor wide in scope; over 40 percent activities were determined
to be ``ongoing'' activities requiring ongoing commitments; telling a
`national story' was both the greatest strength and challenge of the
D&L; and building partner capacity and sustainability were continual
challenges.
The D&L partnership's ability to leverage funding and other
resources has been very impressive. The study substantiated that for
each dollar provided through the National Park Service, the Corridor
was able to directly leverage almost 12 dollars from other sources.
Even today during these challenging economic times the D&L is still
leveraging more than two times our NPS funding each year. Obviously,
this means investments into communities, important cultural and natural
resources, and jobs.
Looking to the future the CSI study team identified critical
ingredients necessary for sustained success of the partnership network.
Foremost among the ingredients necessary to sustain the partnership at
current level was the NPS role. The team concluded, ``The anchoring
state and federal government connections provided by the PA Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and the NPS are extremely
important to the stability and sustainability of the D&L partnership
system. These two partners have played critical and complementary roles
in the Corridor partnership for a long time--the DCNR since it was
formed in 1993 and the NPS since the Corridor's formative stages. They
provide credibility and reinforce the importance of the Corridor
initiative for partners and communities. . . . Other critical
structural ingredients include secure, stable funding from diverse
sources and the ability to leverage funds, resources, and ideas. It is
important to note that the ability to leverage derives primarily from
the funding and participation of the two anchoring state and federal
partners.''
The D&L had asked CSI to examine future management (sustainability)
options both inclusive and exclusive of federal and/or state
participation. All options recognized the importance of a continuing
relationship with the anchoring partners--DCNR and the NPS. However,
one option addressed the possibility of moving forward without a
federally authorized management entity and dedicated federal funding.
If this were to become a reality, the study team concluded, ``this
scenario would be a significant setback for the Corridor initiative and
in all likelihood would substantially slow the progress toward
achieving its broad mandate. Without federal authorization, D&L, Inc.,
and the partnership overall could have reduced stature, clout, and
credibility with government agencies and other stakeholders. Perhaps
more importantly, the loss of dedicated federal funding would leave a
substantial void-both in direct terms for Corridor operations and
management plan implementation, and indirectly in leveraging support
from others.''
Other than the D&L, there is no agency within the five counties
that has a similar multifaceted mission and capacity to continue the
work of the D&L at the same geographic scale and commitment to
community enhancement. To demonstrate this I will provide two brief
examples as to the scale and complexity of the work of the D&L.
D&L Trail--The vision of the D&L Trail (165 mile spine) emerged
during the management action plan (MAP) process. The MAP did challenge
the proponents to secure a public right of way within the first decade
(in principle completed in 2004); then building the trail (underway and
ongoing); creating volunteer support and owners compact (underway and
ongoing); and when the D&L Trail is near completion seek Congressional
designation as a National Historic Trail--(this issue has yet to be
pursued). Because the historic towpath canals were in commercial use
longer than other towpath canals in the United States, parts of the
system maintain a great deal of integrity even today. For instance, the
59+ mile Delaware Canal has been designated a National Historic
Landmark, and several sections of the Lehigh Canal are recognized as
National Recreational Trails.
The D&L Trail is a great recreational resource for it reconnects
the population centers of eastern PA, as well as tremendous
interpretive resource connecting the mines to the markets (industrial
towns). The D&L Trail is also a rallying point for small town
revitalization. With the completion or enhancement of each section of
trail thousands of new users come from near and far. Towns along the
trail are experiencing income growth for existing small businesses and
even the opening of new businesses to serve the trail users.
In the past five years over 20 miles of new trail has been
constructed along the spine of the D&L Trail system. Presently the D&L
has received preliminary approval for an additional $6.5 million in TEA
Enhancement funding for eight construction projects along with DCNR
funding to support the design of these projects. The D&L does not own
the trail. But instead, we assist the more than 20 local agencies who
do own the trail by securing and administering grants, providing design
and construction management of major construction, and developing
volunteer tender and patrol services along the D&L Trail.
Tales of the Towpath is an award winning 4th grade curriculum
written and produced by the D&L staff. The Tales of the Towpath text
book tells of commerce and industry during 1850's along the canals
through the experiences of 10 year old Finn Gorman. The D&L services to
participating schools includes: a text book for each student in the
class; a traveling trunk filled with period items; a teacher's manual
that includes extensive information for local field trips; teachers
training (required) accepted by the PA Dept. of Education for
continuing education certification; a classroom visit by the author;
and an interactive web site.
In just four years the program has grown tremendously. This school
year there are 64 elementary schools using this social studies
curriculum and over 6000 students discovering the history of the
corridor through the reflections of Finn as a child working on his
family's canal boat. The D&L is very proud of the fact that the school
districts of Allentown and Bethlehem area offer the curriculum in all
of their elementary schools. Allentown and Bethlehem are the most
populated cities in the corridor and have the highest numbers of
minority residents. This curriculum provides insights into the history
and heritage of the communities where they live.
The D&L the staff authored the textbook, produced the teacher's
curriculum guide, and gathered all the supportive materials. The Tales
of the Towpath curriculum received a great deal of funding support
through small grants and corporate donations, which were secured by
leveraging a PA Corporate Educational Tax Credit program.
During my introduction, I referenced the purpose for designation as
stated in the act was to assist the Commonwealth and local agencies
with preserving the resources and sharing the story while fostering
sustainable economic development. The D&L addresses sustainable
development in a variety of ways. Landmark Towns, Market Towns and
emerging Trail Towns are D&L assistance programs focused on the
historic towns and cultural resources along the spine of the corridor.
The rural landscape is a focus of our Conservation Landscape Initiate
assistance. Tourism development and marketing is done in partnership
with our four visitors and convention agencies.
In 2008, the D&L conducted a survey of visitors to key partner
sites to help measure the economic impact of heritage tourism within
the Corridor. The Money Generation Model, second edition, (MGM2)
developed for the National Park Service, was the model used to gather
information. The MGM2 is an econometric model designed to provide an
estimate of the economic impact that visitors have on the local economy
in terms of their contribution to sales, income and jobs in the area.
The direct impact of sales resulting from heritage tourism was
$21,874,480 which supported 570 jobs within the Corridor.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I will not repeat the
words of Annie Harris, President of Essex NHA, in her testimony to this
committee presented at the hearing on March 7th. However, I do want to
reemphasis the value of the work being done by the National Heritage
Areas throughout this nation, and their importance to the National Park
System. Ms. Harris noted a number of recent reports examining the
future of the NPS and how best to save and share the story of America.
The National Heritage Areas were recognized as major partners and
contributor to the work of the NPS and each report recommended
continual support to the program.
Cost effective and results oriented, the D&L partnership offers a
time tested model for telling a nationally significant story, saving
the associated cultural and natural resources, and creating employment
opportunities. The scale of this `living landscape park' is huge. The
continual support of the NPS enables the D&L to leverage the collective
richness of many the partners that own and care for the key cultural
and natural resources. Together we can preserve and share this story.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the continued support of
the NPS is vital to the sustainability of the D&L partnership network.
Thus, I ask you to pass S. 2131 and I thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony.
______
Statement for Lackawanna Heritage Valley National and State Heritage
Area, Submitted by Natalie Gelb, Executive Director, on S. 2131
The Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area is located in
Northeastern Pennsylvania. It comprises the cities of Scranton and
Carbondale, as well as scores of other municipalities near the
Lackawanna River. Rich in natural resources, particularly anthracite
coal, the region attracted thousands of immigrants in search of work
and a new life in America in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It
became a major manufacturing hub for coal mining, railroading, steel
production and textile mills. It also was home to America's early labor
movement, the first electric trolley system in the United States, and
the development of distance learning with the creation of courses by
mail to help miners, to prepare for their licensing exams. The mines
produced, and the railroads transported, millions of tons of anthracite
coal, the energy source that fueled the nation during the Industrial
Revolution.
In 2000, the Lackawanna Heritage Valley became a National Heritage
Area, and the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority was designated as
its management entity. This statement urges the committee to support
Senate Bill 2131 to extend until September 30, 2022, the authorization
of the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware & Lehigh
National Heritage Corridor, and the Rivers of Steel National Heritage
Area. As outlined in the March 7, 2012, testimony of Stephanie
Toothman, Associate Director of Cultural Resources of the National Park
Service, the three Pennsylvania national heritage areas preserve the
historic, cultural, natural and recreational resources of their
respective regions. Each designated geographical area has been
recognized for its significant contribution to the history of the
nation. By their very nature, each national heritage is different,
representing an important aspect of the American story.
The theme of the Lackawanna Heritage Valley is ``Land, People,
Industry.'' Geographically designated as the watershed of the
Lackawanna River, it encompasses Lackawanna, and parts of Luzerne,
Susquehanna and Wayne counties. The area is known today for its
authentic historic sites, stunning architecture, vibrant ethnic
communities, diverse recreational activities, and beautiful mountains,
lakes, and waterways. The Lackawanna River runs for forty miles, and it
is in the Chesapeake watershed.
The Lackawanna Heritage Valley was the destination for thousands of
immigrants who came to the region to find jobs and a better life and
ended up building a new nation. To tell that story, LHV has formed an
award winning partnership with WVIA-TV, its local PBS station, to
create the "Extraordinary Journey" series. Starting with ``Stories from
the Mines,'' a history of the anthracite coal mining industry, several
documentaries have been produced: ``The Extraordinary Journey of the
Eastern Europeans,'' ``The Irish: Two Nations, One Heart,'' ``Paesani:
The Italians of Northeastern PA,'' and ``St. Ubaldo,'' the story of a
festival that is held each year in Jessup, Pennsylvania, a traditional
event that was brought to Jessup, Pennsylvania, by immigrants from
Gubbio, Italy, where it has occurred each year since the 13th century.
In 2012, with the support of a local financial institution, WVIA
created ``Legacy: The Story of the Lackawanna Heritage Valley.'' WVIA
not only airs these documentaries repeatedly, but it also offers them
to PBS affiliates throughout the country and markets the DVDs for
public purchase.
LHV has formed a coalition of federal, state, regional and local
partners who work together to enhance the quality of life and improve
the economic vitality of local communities. Its mission is to educate
the public about the historic, cultural, economic and natural resources
of the region. Small in size, but large in impact, the Lackawanna
Heritage Valley ties the past to the present, always with a connection
to the future. The Lackawanna Valley continues to reinvent itself,
having survived the demise of the anthracite coal industry, the
emigration of the textile industry offshore, and the transition from a
manufacturing to a service economy that is focused on education,
healthcare and a burgeoning bio-tech sector. The link between past
modes of energy production, i.e., coal, to co-generation plants and
natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale, and from the convergence
of major railroads to the confluence of interstate highways, maintains
the region's relevance as times change.
The Lackawanna Heritage Valley ties all facets together in its role
as convener and coordinator of the efforts of federal, state, regional
and local governmental entities working with historic, cultural,
educational and environmental partners and private entities to combine
resources and build capacity. LHV hosts a monthly ``Heritage
Roundtable'' of partners who meet to report on their respective
activities, to share ideas, and to develop collaborative projects and
programs that are strengthened by their collective efforts, expertise
and enthusiasm. The partners rely on LHV not only for technical
assistance and, sometimes, seed money or grant funding, but also as the
catalyst for action. The Heritage Valley is recognized and valued by
the hundreds of organizations with which it works each year for its
role in weaving together the disparate elements and organizations that
create and strengthen the fabric of the community.
Like its counterparts throughout the country, the Lackawanna
Heritage Valley honors its story, stimulates the local economy and
creates stronger communities. It focuses on education, enlightening the
public, creating a sense of place, and engaging the community in its
work to conserve and preserve the region's resources. Please allow me
to outline a few examples of the many ways it meets those goals:
EDUCATION
The Heritage Passport program--LHV works with the Lackawanna County
Library System to provide students enrolled in the summer reading
program free entry to various historic venues and cultural attractions,
including the Scranton Cultural Center, the Everhart Museum, Steamtown
National Historic Site, the Electric City Trolley Museum, the
Lackawanna Historical Society and the Pennsylvania Anthracite Heritage
Museum. This program has allowed thousands of young people and their
families the opportunity to learn about the region's industrial history
and cultural traditions by visiting these important sites. For most, it
is the first and only time that they have been able to afford such a
visit.
Museums as Classrooms--LHV works with professionals from the
regional Northeast Educational Intermediate Unit, to present courses
for teachers that are conducted at local historic and cultural sites.
Teachers participate on site, using primary resources to enhance their
ability to teach their students about the respective venues.
Participants are provided with curriculum guides, developed according
to PA State Standards, for each site, including Steamtown, the Trolley
Museum, Scranton Cultural Center, Lackawanna Historical Society's
Catlin House, Everhart Museum and Pennsylvania Anthracite Heritage
Museum. Teachers receive continuing education credits for this program.
Teacher mini-grants--Each year LHV offers ten mini-grants of $500
to teachers for programs that relate to heritage or environmental
stewardship. A variety of unique activities have been completed, some
of which have resulted in permanent recycling programs, new student
activity groups, gardens, improved park, as well as ethnic cookbooks,
family albums, and artworks reflecting the students' diverse
backgrounds.
CULTURE
Heritage Explorer Train--LHV underwrites this annual journey on a
train from Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton to communities
along the Lackawanna River where passengers have the opportunity to
spend several hours at special events that showcase and celebrate the
unique foods, traditions and businesses of the towns they visit. The
Lackawanna Historical Society provides packets of information for the
train ride, including children's activities and scavenger hunts that
help them learn about the history of that particular city, borough or
township. The Lackawanna Heritage Valley works with Steamtown National
Historic Site, a component of the National Park Service, on a wide
range of programs. In 2004, Steamtown and LHV received a federal
partnership award for their effective working relationship and award
winning projects.
Christmas in a Small Town--In December, the Lackawanna Heritage
Valley sponsors a Steamtown train that brings Santa to communities
along the rail line where LHV has recreated several historic railroad
stations. Thousands of residents, visitors and former residents return
home to enjoy this event. The ``Santa Trai'' has become an honored
tradition, with each community competing to create the best welcome and
the largest crowds.
Festivals and Celebrations--LHV supports and sponsors numerous
cultural events, from Labor Day Weekend's ``La Festa Italiana'', a
feast of Italian Food that attracts 150,000 visitors to Scranton, and
the RailFest at Steamtown, to the Steamtown Marathon, the Scranton
JazzFest, Pages and Places Book Fair, and the other festivals and
events that celebrate the diverse ethnic groups that settled the area.
Most recently, LHV has provided support for newer immigrant groups that
are introducing their own traditions, such as the Diversity Fair at Nay
Aug Park, Latino multi-cultural events and exhibits featuring customs
and traditions from India and Southeast Asia.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Lackawanna River Corridor Association--LHV has worked with the
Lackawanna River Corridor Association for the past twenty years to
restore the Lackawanna River to its current pristine state. Once a
virtual industrial sewer, today the river has sections that have been
designated as Class A Trophy Trout areas, attracting fisherman from
near and far. In May, LRCA holds an annual RiverFest that hosts canoe
and kayak races, and a day of riverside activities and educational
presentations to celebrate the river. LHV has provided funding to
restore the historic building, one of the oldest homes in Scranton,
that houses LRCA. Ambassadors in Action, LHA's active volunteer group,
engages in river and trail cleanups on an increasingly regular basis.
Conservation Alliance--LHV hosts more than seventy environmental
organizations in a group organized to collaborate and coordinate
activities that foster environmental stewardship. Each year, LHV
coordinates the ``Great NEPA Cleanup'' held in April, promoting,
publicizing and leading the efforts of myriad groups, including scout
troops, colleges and universities, businesses and neighborhood
organizations. It also sponsors annual workshops that are led by
professionals in the field to share knowledge and offer valuable
training regarding best practices.
Lackawanna River Heritage Trail--LHV's signature project is the
development of the 70+ mile Lackawanna River Heritage Trail system from
the New York State border to the City of Pittston in Luzerne County.
The multi-purpose trail provides a wide range of recreational and
wellness benefits, as well as alternative transportation opportunities
along the Lackawanna River. It connects people to the river and
communities to each other. The trail also acts as a linear interpretive
park, with directional, safety and interpretive signage and other
amenities that educate users about the industrial, cultural and
community sites that developed along the Lackawanna River. In addition,
the trail provides access to fishing, canoeing and kayaking in summer,
cross country skiing in winter and, in the northern sections,
opportunities for snowmobiling and horseback riding.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Connecting Nature and Commerce--The LHV trail is the spine of the
Lackawanna Greenway which, when complete, will connect at either end
with the Susquehanna Greenway to form a 250 mile loop that will be part
of the Pennsylvania Mega Greenway network. LHV works closely with
communities along the Lackawanna River to connect the trail to economic
development by aligning the trail to travel through or close to the
main streets of communities. LHV assists town officials and business
owners to become ``trail-friendly'' so as to accommodate and encourage
trail users to eat, shop, stay overnight and enjoy the amenities in
each town.
A survey of the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail in 2009 proved that
there were an estimated 128,000 annual user visits to the trail,
resulting in a direct economic impact of approximately $28.3 million.
This number is projected to increase as more sections of trail are
constructed and opened for public use.
Ambassadors Tours--LHV works with regional Convention and Visitors
Bureaus, as well as its fellow Pennsylvania State Heritage Areas and
other governmental entities and media partners, to promote tourism.
Hundreds of individuals have participated in these day-long
``Ambassadors Tours'' of the Heritage Valley, where they learn about
the history of the area and its many cultural, recreational and
economic opportunities. Each year, LHV hosts members of Leadership
Lackawanna, a program of the Scranton Chamber of Commerce for upcoming
community leaders and executives of local businesses, newcomers to the
area, and long time residents, to help them to understand all the area
has to offer.
Although there is no legislation that mandates an Evaluation and
Report to be performed for the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage
Area, Ms. Toothman recommends in her testimony that language similar to
the of Section 462 of Public Law 110-229 be included in an amendment to
S.B. 2131, that would require Lackawanna to have Evaluation and Report.
Lackawanna concurs with that recommendation, and it further endorses
the extension of authorization for federal funding for Lackawanna,
Rivers of Steel and Delaware & Lehigh, so that the important work can
continue.
The testimony before this committee of Annie Harris, Director of
the Essex National Heritage Area, references several reports, as well
as America's Great Outdoors memo, that recognize the National Heritage
Areas as vital to the NPS mission. Subsequent to that testimony,
Jonathan Jarvis, Director of the National Park Service, issued Policy
Memorandum 12-01 on March 16, 2012, to all employees ``to affirm the
NPS's support for the National Heritage Areas Program,'' and to
recognize them as a vital part of the NPS mission. He stated,
``National Heritage Areas are places where small investments pay huge
dividends, providing demonstrable benefits in communities across the
country and in partnership with our national parks. It is important for
us to recognize the benefits that heritage areas have for our parks and
our program, and to find ways to build on their success by integrating
their work with ours and providing support to them in any way
possible.''
Since its designation, the Lackawanna Heritage Valley has received
$6 million of federal funds from the National Heritage Areas program.
Since 1992, LHV has invested more than $37 million in the region, and
it has created 1,649 fulltime jobs. Although it can be difficult to
measure the effects of Lackawanna Heritage Valley on the quality of
life and sense of pride among residents, this ratio proves that the
economic impact has been impressive.
Perhaps most apparent to the people of the region is the degree of
community engagement that LHV has stimulated. Thousands of individuals
use the trail, visit the sites, ride the trains, enjoy the
celebrations, watch the videos and clean up the river. Hundreds of
volunteers have been ``Heritage Partners.'' Through the work of the
Heritage Valley, people who live here have a greater recognition and
appreciation of the importance of their legacy. Children are learning
from a very young age to protect the environment, to have a sense of
place, and to understand that they can plan their futures in their
communities.
This is a great accomplishment for an area that has faced and
overcome tremendous economic challenges over the past half century.
Their work ethic and perseverance were passed on to them by their
forebears. People who grew up here and moved away are returning, and
those who stayed now see the place and themselves with new eyes. The
Lackawanna Heritage Valley must survive if this revitalization is to
continue.
______
Statement of Maureen Finnerty, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, on S. 1708
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present the views of the Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees on a bill currently before you, S. 1708, a bill to
establish the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National
Historical Park, and for other purposes. We are submitting this for the
record, to be incorporated with other testimony of your hearing of
March 7, 2012.
This is important legislation. We are pleased with the committee's
involvement, and know that your consideration can help the get the
balance right for the significant resources of the Blackstone Valley,
and for the National Park Service as a whole. The Coalition of National
Park Service Retirees strongly supports the enactment of an S. 1708
that would create a Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park,
based on its real significance to the nation, and sustained by mutually
supportive partnerships.
On the question of the park name, please consider our letter of
December 13, 2011 to Chairman Bingaman in which we address the
complexity of the question in some detail. So to focus today on the
structural issue crucial to the success of this park we point out only
this: If a family sets out to visit Gettysburg they go to Gettysburg
National Military Park. If they go to visit Yellowstone, they go to
Yellowstone National Park, or if to the Lincoln Memorial they go to the
Lincoln Memorial. A park named for a person as an honorific instead of
the plain name of the resource itself will confuse the potential
visitor.
The primary issue for this legislation is to assure that the park
is fully founded on the resource of significance, anchored solidly on
the resources that tell the story that matters. The concern is the park
during the legislative process will be stripped of the recommended
sites needed to tell the story of national significance. This park will
need to include all representative sites identified by S. 1708 and by
the Blackstone River Valley Special Resource Study (SRS) to retain its
significance and meaning, and work effectively with related resources
outside park boundaries.
We believe appropriate legislation can provide the strategy and
authority needed to protect and interpret the nationally significant
resource. We believe the challenge before the committee for the
Blackstone River Valley is not formidable or risky, but will require
the committee to craft legislation distinctively designed to meet the
need of this specific resource rather than a more compact framework
that works well in most places but will not preserve the resource here.
In this testimony we will identify the nature of the resource and
the reasons why the legislative framework proposed in the SRS makes
sense. We will describe the national significance, as the National Park
Service (NPS) testimony does not address this, but an understanding of
the resource is necessary to provide the needed legislative framework.
We will explain why this park will be affordable and within the order
of magnitude of the existing funding over the past 20 years to the
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor commission, and why
5 small units and parcels along the tributary and main stem of the
Blackstone River, can be founded on a mix of partnership and ownership
and still be sufficiently robust and self-sustaining to be the anchor
and inspiration for cooperative visitor strategies outside the park in
the larger Valley. We believe we will show that experience demonstrates
no concern for federal overreaching beyond the park, and we will
suggest alternatives to the land protection amendments proposed in
their testimony by the NPS.
What is the essential resource and story?
It is certainly much more, and much more interesting to visitors,
than the touted ``the Birthplace of the American Industrial
Revolution.'' Describing these resources as exclusively industrial or
of a narrow period of industrial history truly misses what makes the
Blackstone River Valley significant.
It is the ``wholeness'' of the Blackstone Valley that makes it
significant, the concentration of resources and innovation across an
entire landscape, and the 200-year long extent of the story that is the
key to the need for appropriate legislation.
This is the story of a representative watershed that has witnessed
every phase of industrial development and interaction with the
environment from colonial times to the present efforts of environmental
revitalization. This Valley has high integrity, is compact, and capable
of supporting the very best of interpretation and public programming.
This landscape, particularly the north and west, contains what The
New Yorker magazine called ``large and spectacular wetlands.'' Across
its 45 miles, the streams and tributaries of the Blackstone River
descend 450 feet from the hills in and above Worcester, Massachusetts
to the Narragansett Bay, or 10 feet a mile--a faster descent than the
Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park and the reason why to
this day there is no continuous road along the banks of the Blackstone.
Instead, through the muse of geography and the work of people, the
river and its tributaries became the first place in the United States
to experience the widespread use of waterpower for industry; it became
the center of industrial innovation for the nation, and the first major
area of conflict in America between the environment and industrial
development. This reshaping of the river basin, and its physical and
social response, the creation of sustainable wealth and community, its
economic and environmental decline and more recently its pathway to
restoration is the major significance of the Blackstone River Valley,
and the compelling story it tells America.
In this small area between Worcester and Providence, Rhode Island,
you can still see in successive layers an important concentration of
colonial rural landscapes--the incubator of the essential pre-
industrial skills--including hilltop and crossroads villages, still-
existing rural roadways built in the 1600's atop the trails of Native
Americans and farmlands still bordered by classic stone walls; layered
above that the rise of tiny industrial villages and then cities, the
first rural turnpikes, then the canals and railroads and highways,
including large parts of the 2nd and 3rd largest cities of New England,
a hugely diversified industrial base and 10,000 historic sites with
continued layers right through to our time. Omnipresent in every layer
are features indicating the significance of the waterways of the
Blackstone River Valley.
It is an environmental story of people living on the land, how the
resources sustained the people and how the people sustained the
resources; the story of what happens when the people or the resources
fail, and of the solutions that can bring about the recovery of both
the resources and the people who live with them and depend on them.
Historians have described the Valley as the perfect small
model for interpreting and understanding every phase of
industrial and community development.
But, other than creating a park boundary around an entire living
valley, how can such a place receive the recognition it deserves as a
national historical park? What would be feasible, effective and
affordable?
S. 1708 and the SRS each have determined that, in a living
landscape, the whole valley should be protected and interpreted through
locally-driven partnership, but the national historical park should
itself be a robust presence made up of representative parcels of
national significance, each parcel carefully selected, distributed and
linked as anchors throughout and for the whole Valley.
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees generally supports
this approach as practical and affordable.
We recommend a park not unlike the design in S. 1708 or the
proposed National Park Service amendments, but with key
practical distinctions.
We support a park made up of representative parcels of on
the Blackstone River and its tributaries, with specific sites
at Whitinsville, Hopedale, Slatersville, Ashton and Slater
Mill. Removal of any one of these sites would compromise the
integrity and coherence of the park. In particular we support
legislative authorities for the park to be the anchor to
provide technical and financial assistance to a new 501(c)(3)
partner and other partners as appropriate and in accordance
with a plan, to develop cooperative visitor and preservation
strategies outside the NPS units.
Although small in comparative acreage, this park and park operation
as designed will contain sufficient leverage to enable the NPS to
cooperate successfully with others to preserve the distinctive
character and tell the story of the whole of the Blackstone River
Valley. We strongly urge the committee to avoid a framework of only one
or two units such as the Slater Mill Historic Site or Centennial park
in Slatersville alone. We believe such a park would not be feasible
because by themselves these sites would not be representative of the
whole, and could not serve as the sinews or backbone of the larger and
more important story. The rest of the Valley must see its connection to
and identity with the national historical park.
The National Park Service has broad and deep skills and partnership
strategies found throughout numerous programs and parks. After years of
experience we know these skills and strategies when assembled and
targeted can work as a stable and predictable foundation for unit
preservation and administration, when applied to populated cultural
landscapes through a preservation compact with a highly supportive and
engaged local community.
We believe this resource and issues involved in protecting this
park as proposed by the SRS are of crucial importance to the future of
the National Park Service.
As the NPS approaches its Second Century the question is, will the
National Park Service be permitted to accept the strategic role needed
by America to preserve and protect nationally significant places and
landscapes in the century to come? To do so, the National Park Service
must assemble and use in a strategic way all the wide range of skills
developed in various individual NPS programs or projects and realize
they are actually a time-tested tool kit. These skills and tools can be
taught, are replicable and can be adapted to different circumstances
based on congressional purposes and local needs.
Like the SRS, we recommend that the boundaries for the park
areas of Slater Mill, Ashton, Slatersville, Whitinsville and
Hopedale follow its Historic District or National Landmark
boundary.
The tributaries and the river should be represented by
parcels each identified to include multiple character-defining
elements such as rural, natural, cultural, recreational or
ecological features.
Lands within the park boundaries would be authorized for
donation or willing seller acquisition, or, in lieu thereof,
firm assurances such as by covenant or code or park
administrative agreement that the resource is protected in a
manner consistent with park purposes, as certified by the
Secretary of the Interior.
For lands within park boundaries on which the United States
holds an interest in the land, the Secretary may provide up to
100 percent of preservation costs.
We have seen no legislative maps for the tributaries or
rivers. If no representative parcels for tributaries and river
as described above have been identified for the committee or if
it is not practical to have them identified prior to enactment,
we recommend a provision in the legislation authorizing the
Secretary to incorporate in the park such small and
representative parcels upon notification of the committees and
publication in the Federal Register.
This certification of consistency by the Secretary would be similar
to the Taunton Wild and Scenic River in Public Law 111-11, section
5003. This approach would be ideal for including portions of the state
park at Ashton within the Ashton NPS unit, or the nationally
significant private homes or factories at Slatersville where continued
private use would be the highest and best means of preservation.
We caution critics of partnership who expect the NPS to hold fee
ownership throughout an entire unit, that the critical thing here is to
identify an entire distinctive and character-defining cultural
landscape for each unit. Of necessity when the story is about
development, innovation and landscape, multiple partnerships are
required. The key thing now is to preserve the complete resource with
the involvement of the private interests while the site integrity is
high.
There will be criticism that having park parcels miles apart is not
feasible, for managers or for the Visitor Experience.
In fact, the thing that makes this valley such an exemplar is that
it is small and comprehensible, and extremely susceptible to a wide
variety of interpretive and public programming. ``Disconnected'' sites
usually are not the ideal for a park, but this park would use the river
and its tributaries to ``connect'' the sites, with each other and the
rest of the Valley. The historic transportation routes between sites
enhance the meaning and value of each NPS park destination site. The
partnership projects located between lands to be operated by the NPS--
such as ``the Great Road,'' a tremendously significant series of early
19th Century sites along an ancient trail--will contribute to the park
story.
The river and its tributaries will be the main link. New England
has a very ``local'' sense of place and of local identity, sometimes
with a sense of disassociation from sites very nearby. But each local
place does see itself linked to this common watershed. Through the
watershed, the common links of each local microcosm will be understood
by visitors and residents, and reinforced by canoe trails, greenways
and bikeways through the work of the National Heritage Corridor, the
two states and local communities.
The river and its tributaries enable the visitor to see beyond the
narrow story of one factory or one industry. They link the other rural
or natural resources, and connect the natural and cultural landscape
with the icons of industry, such as mills and canal and railroad and
worker housing. One understands what it took to make this world, and
can see plainly what was sustainable economically and environmentally,
and what was not.
We agree that financial assistance for development outside
the park should be matched by 50 percent.
We do not agree this makes sense within the park unit.
At the very least, NPS should have the authority to provide 100
percent of the funding when the NPS holds an interest in the land; for
some such preservation assistance would be an incentive to donate an
easement or preserve a property in accordance with the Secretary's
Standards. There needs to be a distinction between the NPS assistance
in for programs for the national heritage corridor and for the park.
There needs to be an incentive, in particular, for properties within
the sites identified for NPS administration, or the ability for the NPS
to act in a timely way if the preservation of a resource is at stake.
An NPS General Management Plan is not the right vehicle for
planning for cooperative activities, especially outside park
boundaries, as proposed in the NPS testimony.
We recommend a joint preservation and interpretive plan as
both a framework and a priority setting tool, to be approved by
the Secretary, based on the nationally significant themes
represented at all levels inside and outside the park.
The cooperative approach to planning will produce the creativity
needed. The required the approval of the Secretary before the
preservation plan can be funded, the joint planning team--perhaps made
up of the new non-profit, the ``Blackstone River Valley National
Heritage Corridor, Inc.'' and the NPS working together--will keep the
plan affordable, targeted and strategic. Targets outside the park that
are consistent with both national historical park and national heritage
corridor purposes would be eligible for matching federal preservation
funding. This plan may require little more than an updating of existing
national heritage area plans that identify natural and cultural sites
that should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or maintained
because of their cultural or natural significance. This joint
preservation plan could be incorporated as a part of the General
Management Plan, but there is no real partnership without partnership
planning.
The park resources should be seen as fully sustainable and powerful
on their own, but also serving as anchors for interpretation and
technical assistance and as exemplars and microcosms of the many other
significant resources that need local leadership and support outside
the parks but inside the Valley. Together, park and partners can tell
the big story, and celebrate their resources, history and
accomplishments.
We do not agree the matches should be by ``project'' as
proposed by the NPS, rather than by ``program'' as we
recommend.
Some projects attract much larger matches than others. Some crucial
expenditures such as advance planning and design or surveys and
biological studies to leverage proper protection, can never by
themselves be expected to be fully matched in all cases, but they are
essential partnership tools to leverage huge third-party contributions.
Of course donations of lands or easements or of in-kind assistance
should be considered as matches. When the complete program, involving
often multiple partnerships, can be considered for matching purposes as
a whole, significant preservation work and participation can result.
Matching the program, rather than by project, is also easier for
bookkeeping purposes and project management purposes, and can enable
each partner to contribute 100 percent of what it does well. The NPS
might, for example, do all the archeological and other advance studies
and planning plus the interpretive work, while a scenic byway
connecting the site could be planned and maintained by the state or
other agency.
While we agree that, in addition to the nationally
significant park sites, a specific and limited acreage should
be authorized to be included in the park for administrative or
visitor contact sites, we do not agree this authority should be
restricted to Woonsocket, RI, as provided in the NPS amendment.
For example, Massachusetts has already obtained $5.5 million in
funding for offices and a contact center just off Route 90 and Route
146. This would bracket access to the park on the two major interstate
highways in New England, Route 95 at Slater Mill and Route 90 at this
site, and encourage access to all sites in between in the Valley. Right
now all the visitor contact centers are either in Rhode Island, or in
the MA town of Uxbridge that borders Rhode Island at the bottom of the
MA portion of the Valley. NPS should be permitted flexibility to work
with the State of Massachusetts if it chooses to include this site of
great potential at the northern end of the Valley.
The proposed NPS amendment requiring identification of
priority land acquisition in advance contradicts NPS experience
and practice.
Land protection planning, and cooperative management agreements
typically all happen after park establishment, for good reason. NPS
negotiators may welcome the additional strength and flexibility, in the
negotiations for the administration agreement for certification by the
Secretary, by including the preservation plan for the non-federal
parcels in the mix with the parcels for NPS acquisition to create one
balanced administration plan for each park site. The robust park as
proposed in this testimony would not require a statutory priority
system. We would yield to the wisdom of the committee if it is seen
that extra assurance of robust park units is desirable.
While the continuation of independent funding authorities to
the national heritage corridor would enhance the park, we
appreciate that may contradict congressional intention for this
legislation, as the alternative to reauthorization of the
existing commission. However, in existing law (Public Law 99-
647 (16 U.S.C. 461 note), section 9) the Secretary has ongoing
projects review authority in consultation with the corridor
commission. For the consultation process, we recommend in lieu
of the existing federal commission, that the successor
organization, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor, Inc., be substituted for the purposes of that
process.
This section 9 provision should not be lost. It has helped other
federal agencies understand the significance of the Valley and led to
much positive cooperation leading to huge budgetary and program
efficiency from many other federal agencies with local communities and
the NPS.
As our final recommended amendment, we believe the park
purposes in Section 2 of S. 1708 could be made simpler and
stronger, and focused more properly on what would make the
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park important to
the nation. We are attaching a proposed amendment that could
help accomplish this.
The industrial story should be seen of one piece with the
environmental story, the story of the creation of wealth and community,
the understanding that the Blackstone Valley as a whole can be seen as
one system.
This understanding of history is well supported as context
throughout the entire SRS, and strongly articulated by the six
historians assembled by the Organization of American Historians to
advise the NPS on park significance. To supplement the committee's
record on this key issue, we recommend including the profound but brief
narrative reports written by these six industrial historians. These
short reports see this big story, state it more clearly than the SRS,
and see the opportunity for a modest but strategic role for a properly
located, scaled and strategic national historical park.
Equally supportive of the big picture, and the proper balance
between the NPS and the partners, and why things work as well as they
do in the Blackstone Valley, we also recommend that the record include
a copy of the 2005 National Park Service report by its Conservation
Study Institute (CSI), ``Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the
Future,'' that gives the best understanding of these issues. This
report was the foundation for Public Law 109-338, ``The John H. Chafee
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Reauthorization Act
of 2006.'' We will forward a copy of this report to the committee.
Readers of this report can see immediately why continuing the existing
level of energy and huge leveraging in the Valley today is essential to
any preservation plan, and why the small federal role in this two-state
valley unlocks the rest. This will be as true for the park as it was
for the national heritage corridor.
The National Park Service is also to be congratulated for the
distinction and insight of the Blackstone River Valley Special Resource
Study. This is as important and as difficult a landscape as may be
found to devise so many elegant and essential resource preservation
solutions. Beyond the interests of multiple federal agencies, it should
be remembered this park plan engaged two sovereign states and over 20
New England towns and cities and 40 historic villages. At one point in
the colonial history of Massachusetts, simply being from Rhode Island
and on Massachusetts soil was legally punishable by death on sight.
More recently, for a period of 40 years, from 1790 until 1830, the
obvious canal between Worcester and Providence was blocked to prevent
mutual benefit and enterprise. As recently as 1989 on a sign on the
Massachusetts border where the river could be seen to continue to flow
into Rhode Island was this notorious marker: ``NOW LEAVING THE
BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY.'' It took personal resilience, a great
willingness to really listen to Americans and an uncommon belief in the
value of the preservation mission of the National Park Service to
produce this masterwork. Most could not think out of this box. Most
would not try to achieve what now can be done here.
To conclude, we would like to address some of the needless final
fears concerning this proposed park.
1. That passing this legislation will lead every national
heritage area to seek NPS status.
In fact, very few of the other heritage areas would be interested
or qualified to be units of the National Park System.
The Blackstone River Valley has always had the closest ties to the
NPS of any heritage area. Unlike all other heritage areas, it has an
ongoing ONPS allocation, and in effect would not require a new ONPS
allocation to be continued as a Unit of the National Park System. On
its own terms, this proposed park has been found after an extremely
painstaking and objective study, to be suitable, feasible and
significant and should be made into an innovative national historical
park on the merits.
2. Something on this scale, with so many thousands of
historic sites and so many dozens of historic villages will be
a money sink.
In fact, as the CSI report demonstrates, if the existing energy and
imagination and partnerships in the Valley from the NPS' past
experience are incorporated into this new national park, the costs will
be very modest. The SRS calls for NPS expenditures on the same order of
magnitude as the last 20 years.
The National Park System Advisory Board after considering this CSI
study for its own 2006 report Charting a Future for National Heritage
Areas, found:
. . . the [Blackstone River Valley] corridor has fostered
restoration of dozens of historic buildings for private and
public use, annual cleanup efforts, regular water-quality
testing, and improved water access. The commission's work has
generated thousands of volunteers and new recreation
enthusiasts. Residents, businesses, and local governments are
reconnecting with the Blackstone River, generating new economic
vitality, valued at 22 times the National Park Service
investment of $24 million over the past 18 years. The
commission has inspired federal, state, and local governments;
historical, recreational, and environmental organizations;
businesses; and private landowners to collaborate on projects
based on shared ideals and goals.
In other words, for an NPS expenditure of $24 million over 18
years, or averaging $1.3 million per year, a total of $528 million was
leveraged from other sources to carry out the Blackstone River Valley
mission.
This would be a great partner, and a great deal, for the national
historical park.
3. Providing NPS partnership opportunities outside park
boundaries will be an intrusion of federal authority over
private lands and local governments.
In fact, after 20 years it is clear from the record that exactly
the opposite happens. No one has cited any loss of their power or
authority. No community has ever asked to be deleted from the area. In
fact, other communities keep asking to join. The overwhelming community
response was in support of the park, with nearly all those who spoke at
the public meetings calling for including the river and its tributaries
in the park.
This is because all the planning is collaborative and voluntary.
The regional umbrella developed by the corridor commission and NPS
empowers local people and communities to have a seat at the table to
voice their priorities effectively the federal government, not the
other way around. Since no one is mandated to participate, and because
the partners participate because of their commitment to the quality of
life in their communities, everything is voluntary. The NPS role on all
these non-federal lands has been to bring the interpretive message to
celebrate the resources and to provide the technical skills, plans and
studies that show that preservation is compatible with economic health.
Thank you for considering this testimony of the Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees.
The more than 800 members of the Coalition of National Park Service
Retirees are all former employees of the National Park Service (NPS)
with more than 24,000 years of stewardship of America's most precious
natural and cultural resources. In their personal lives, CNPSR members
maintain their professional outlook. Just as the national parks are
supported by the broad spectrum of the American people, the CNPSR
members reflect the broad spectrum of political affiliations. CNPSR
members now offer their professional experience and integrity as they
speak out for national park solutions that uphold law and policy. Our
members also support the mission of the National Park Service through
public education.
We would welcome any questions, and would be delighted to provide
whatever level of detail is necessary.
attached--proposed amendment to section 2, s. 1708.
PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD OF THE COMMITTEE
Six Scholars Reports for the Blackstone River Valley Special
Resource Study.
``Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: A Technical
Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley
National Heritage Corridor Commission,'' the Conservation Study
Institute, Woodstock, VT.
Proposed Amendment to S. 1708, section 2.
On page 1 and 2, strike all of SEC. 2 PURPOSE, and insert the
following in lieu thereof:
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to establish the Blackstone River Valley
National Historical Park----
(1) to preserve, protect and interpret for the benefit and
inspiration of future generations certain nationally significant
natural and cultural resources in the Blackstone River Valley that
exemplify the transformation and sustainability of a landscape that was
the first complete river and its tributaries harnessed for industrial
innovation and development in the United States, and that today reveals
every phase of industrial development from colonial times to the
present;
(2) to support and enhance the efforts of the citizens,
organizations, and state and local governments of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, and other agencies, to work cooperatively to protect,
preserve and celebrate the purposes of the John H. Chafee Blackstone
River Valley National Heritage Corridor and the purposes of the
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park.
______
Statement of Robert T. Leavens, Gloucester, MA and Elizabeth M. Ware,
Newburyport, MA, on S. 1198
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present our views on S.1198, a bill to reauthorize the
Essex National Heritage Area.
1. Heritage Commission-arm of the NPS and 501 c (3) non-
profit.
The Essex National Heritage Area (ENHA) was created by Congress in
a vote of the Omnibus Parks Act of 1996. The creation of the HA
included a provision that would allow for the creation of a management
entity of the HA. About a year or so after the Congressional vote, and
around the time that the management plan for the area was being
approved by the National Park Service (NPS), the Essex National
Heritage Commission (ENHC) was created. Additionally, the ENHC filed
papers for non-profit, 501-c-(3) status with the Secretary of State of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
ENHC Executive Director Annie Harris notes in her testimony to the
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Parks
Subcommittee that ``The Commission is a regional non-profit
organization that manages the Essex National Heritage Area, a 500
square mile region located north of Boston, rich in historic, cultural
and natural resources.'' To our knowledge, there is no such entity as a
``regional non-profit organization.'' The ENHC is a Massachusetts non-
profit entity whose Congressional charge is the oversight of a specific
region.
The status of the ENHC as both a Congressionally-designated
management entity of the ENHA and a quasi-arm of the National Park
Service and a Massachusetts non-profit is a dangerous combination. The
ENHC is given a tremendous amount of leeway as a non-profit but can
ultimately use that flexibility to gather information and eventually
team up with the NPS, who has the benefit of enormous and far-reaching
Federal powers. The NPS and the ENHC have ``cooperative agreements'' so
that if the ENHC desires a certain outcome, they can rely on the NPS to
make it happen via its Federal powers. That manifests itself in a
dangerous alliance that allows the NPS to expand its land holdings,
local land use controls and federal controls through secretive
``partnerships'' and ``cooperative agreements.''
It should be noted that these ``cooperative agreements'' and
``partnership agreements'' have been requested from both the NPS and
the ENHC, but have not been made available. Being a non-profit, the
ENHC is not required to provide the information under a Freedom of
Information Act request and the NPS has consistently refused to comply
with FOIA. The only means to get copies of these agreements is to sue
the NPS, which is a daunting and financially-untenable action to an
average citizen.
The chameleon-like status of the ENHC is dangerous to the ENHA as
well. As a non-profit, it is difficult to find out information on their
inner operations and any coordinated efforts they are working on with
the NPS. For example, at present there is a House Bill for funding for
a study of expanding the boundaries the Salem Maritime National
Historic Site, but there is no background or information provided by
the NPS or the ENHC on this initiative. Why such an expansion is viewed
warranted by both organizations and where their target areas are are
unknown to those in the ENHA. Press releases have mentioned several
sites, whose owners and/or overseers have been unaware of the NPS and
ENHC's interest. Alone, the ENHC has no power to exercise eminent
domain powers. In concert with or subject of ``cooperative agreements''
with the NPS, the ENHC has a lot of power and control. This level of
power and control is disturbing and one questions whether it was
intended in the Congressional legislative action of 1996.
2. Funding and ``Making Their Federal Match''
According to the Congressional legislation in 1996, the ENHA is
supposed to match its federal funding dollar for dollar. Since the
creation of the management entity of the ENHC, it is doubtful that the
ENHC has matched its NPS funding on a dollar for dollar basis.
Executive Director Harris notes in her testimony that ``The value of
the National Heritage Areas lies in their ability to amplify their
limited annual federal funds with matching dollars many times over;''
According to the statement to your committee by Stephanie Toothman,
Associate Director of Cultural Resources, National Park Service
concerning S.1198, ``for every Federal dollar Essex received, it
leveraged approximately $5 of non-federal funds in fiscal year 2011
($671,000 Federal vs. $3,574.139 non-federal). In total, Essex has
received over $12 million in Federal funding.''
The statements of Ms. Harris and Ms. Toothman are troubling for
many reasons. Firstly, Congress only initially authorized $10 million
in Federal funding to ENHC. Who authorized the extra $2 million?
Secondly, $10-12 million for a 15-year period does not seem to be
``limited annual federal funds.'' With over three quarters of their
annual allocation being used for salaries and minimal rent (per review
of the Massachusetts Secretary of State tax filing) , only about
$200,000 is actually being spent on initiatives and grant programming
for the area, with a $25,000 grant program having been offered in one
of the last three years and no grant program in each of the other two
years.
Thirdly, there is a serious question as to whether Essex or any
other heritage area makes its match. Senator Kennedy's office and
Congressman Tierney's executive aides were both asked how the ENHC made
its match. While both legislators heavily support the ENHC, neither
office could answer the question of how or if the ENHC made its match.
The ENHC audits do not specify how or if the match of federal funds is
made, with the auditors specifically circumventing that issue by
stating language to the effect that ``if this program qualifies as a
match per federal requirements, then it is a match; however the
auditors would not make that determination. In a discussion several
years ago with Heritage Area Administrator Brenda Barrett, Ms. Barrett
stated that the financials were not really reviewed by her office or by
the NPS and that ``the Heritage Areas could do anything they want''
with little to no oversight by the NPS or her office.
The ENHC grant program papers seem to tell the story of how the
ENHC makes its match. When operative, the grant program requires that
the remaining funds of the project are able to be used as ENHC
``match.'' For example, a local historical society decides it needs to
replace a building roof. Say that this project has a $50,000 price tag.
The local historical society raises $48,000, with ENHC providing the
remaining $2,000 in one of its ``partnership grants'' to the project.
The ENHC is then allowed to use the $48,000 as their ``match,'' noting
that the $2,000 has ``leveraged'' $48,000 in private funds to do the
needed restoration. In actuality, the work would have been completed
without the ENHC grant funds and, in many situations, the bulk of the
donated funds were secured before the ENHC was approached about
donating the final $2,000.
In speaking with an ENHC commissioner who was a member of the grant
selection team, the grant ``match'' theory noted above was confirmed by
him. When faced with a number of grant proposals, the ENHC selection of
grants did not seem to focus on who was most needy but who had the
larger projects and how the ENHC ``could leverage'' the most funds per
year. Additional ``match'' of volunteer time is also included the
ENHC's calculation of how much money and participation is ``leveraged''
in a given year. Having attended several semi-annual meetings (of
course monthly annual meetings could generate a larger match) and being
asked to sign a ``match form,'' I have no idea of what monetary value
my time as an attendee was given. As a non-profit, the ENHC is not
obligated to tell me!
3. What is their area of jurisdiction?
When the ENHA was designated, a specific map, entitled NAR-51-
80,000 and dated August 1994, was created to delineate the area. As
with other elements of the Heritage Area designations, this map seems
to have been either reinterpreted to expand the area or has been just
outright ignored. There are several examples of this lack of clarity of
regional jurisdiction. Recently noted on the ENHC's website, a story of
the idea of possibility of linking the new proposal for the
``Wonderland casinos'' in East Boston and Revere, Massachusetts with
the Essex Coastal Scenic Byway has been proposed. In the article, job
creation and increased revenues to the area were highlighted. It should
be noted that East Boston and Revere are not within the boundaries of
the ENHA, but that does not appear to stop that relationship from being
fostered. What a casino has to do with a scenic coastal byway is not
clear but Ms Harris and the Commission members seem to be doing
whatever is necessary to link the Commission with job creation and
increased revenues to communities located north of Boston, whether they
are technically within the ENHA or not. We do not believe that gambling
was a part of the Cultural Heritage that Congress had in mind when it
created the ENHA.
Likewise, in 2004, the NPS, who funds the ENHC, designated the ENHC
as the new owners of the Baker's Island Light station reservation, a 10
acre ``excessed'' U.S. Coast Guard station, containing a lighthouse,
two keeper's houses and other associated structures. This award was
granted by the NPS to the ENHC under the National Historical Lighthouse
Preservation Act of 2000, and may be one of the first ``partnership''
acts to expand the Salem Maritime National Historic Site to include
Baker's Island, which is not located within the ENHA.
This latter example of NPS/ENHC coordination is particularly
troublesome in that it indicates the ability of the ENHC to act in its
non-profit role (ignoring Federal mandates that most HAs are not
supposed to own real estate, particularly from the entity that funds
them), proves the NPS/ENHC ``partnership'' is without controls or
mindfulness of its Federal limits of area designation and provides an
excellent example of the ENHC's attempts to shape-shift the ENHA. Since
its inception, the ENHC has been particularly vague as to its areas of
jurisdiction, noting in some documents that the ENHA includes all of
Essex County (which it does not!), includes 500 square miles
(unspecified) north of Boston to whatever description of the area is
most beneficial at a given moment. At this point in time the transfer
of the Baker's Island light station to the ENHC has not taken place due
to the fact that the U.S. Coast Guard needs to complete a $1.5M lead
soil remediation project in order for the property to be transferred.
In the meantime, the ENHC and NPS have secured $250,000 in funds
under the Paul Sarbanes Transportation Grant program to have a
specialty boat fabricated so that the NPS can run tours to the light
station, which is to be operated as a privately owned/public park.
Transporting the public from a National Park Historic Site to a private
park is not Paul Sarbanes Transportation in Public Parks grant
eligible. That does not stop the Park Service, who by the way
administers their Paul Sarbanes grants themselves through a
``cooperative agreement'' with the Department of Transportation. Sound
familiar? It is anticipated that these tours will start in summer of
2012, despite the fact that the site has not been remediated and may be
of danger to young children due to the lead levels of the soil.
4. Role in Land Use controls and Decision Making.
The ENHC has been involved in controlling land uses and interfering
with property rights since its inception. In her testimony to your
committee, Ms. Harris states that ``In the case of the Essex Heritage
Border to Boston Rail Trail and the adjacent coastal trail, the ideas
for these trails began 45 years ago but it took the unique management
and partnership skills of Essex Heritage to secure the rights-of-way
and see that the first miles were built.'' Did the Congressional
legislation anticipate or dictate that the ENHC could become involved
in negotiating land ownership transactions? Perhaps not as a
Congressionally-designated area but ``as a non-profit, they can do
anything they want.''
To stress their interest in historic preservation, the ENHC has
recently started holding historic preservation building restrictions.
This authority is supposed to be reserved for entities that have
experience and expertise in formulating and holding such restrictions.
While several individual members may have historic preservation
experience, the ENHC has no such experience or track record in the
preservation of historic properties.
The Essex Coastal Scenic Byway, an 85-mile route through a number
of North Shore communities, is another example of the ENHC's
involvement in meddling in private property rights issues. In the Essex
Coastal Scenic Byway report, prepared by Walker/Brown, consultants to
the ENHC, it is recommended that communities adopt land use controls to
limit development and control aesthetic issues along the byway. The
ENHC represents that the route is entirely within the ENHA, despite
present efforts to now have it start in East Boston and Revere.
5. Heritage Tourism, Job Creation and Role of the Essex
National Heritage Commission.
Ms. Harris' testimony indicates that the ENHC created 1,488 jobs
through the grant program and assisted in attracting 1.3 million
visitors to the region. Both of these figures cannot be confirmed,
particularly since the NPS figures (if those were the ones used)
include ``visits'' to their website as visitors to the park itself.
When website ``hits'' are calculated and included in the ``visitation''
figures, then they are interjected into a marketing model that includes
those website ``hits'' to include expenditures of ``visitors'' to the
ENHA. One might visit the ENHC and NPS Salem Maritime National Historic
Site 500 times annually via the web, but those ``visits'' do not
necessarily equate to area expenditures leading to a false expansion of
tourist feet on the ground and fictitious analysis of visitor
expenditures in the region. Actual visitors to Salem are likely counted
twice if they go to the Visitor's Center and the Salem Maritime
National Historic Site.
The ENHC's claim of the creation of almost 1,500 jobs due to their
grant program is almost laughable, given that the ENHC has either not
operated its grant program in the past five years or has operated it
with such a low amount of funds, that there is no mechanism for their
determination of ``new'' jobs that have been created. An argument can
be made that for those projects that sought grant funds, the work would
have been completed whether the ENHC awarded grants or not . . . hence
the argument that no ``new'' jobs have been created.
The ENHC operates as a regional chamber of commerce for the ENHA,
however that area is defined on a given day. They do not interpret or
preserve historic properties nor do they oversee cultural or natural
resources at any level. They disseminate information on agencies and
organizations that do perform those acts. As one ENHC Commissioner
stated to me, ``If they disappeared tomorrow, no one would miss them.
If the $1M in funds that goes to the ENHC were to be given to select
Chambers of Commerce within Essex County, the Chambers could much
better use the funds for greater impacts than the ENHC, who spends
three quarters of their federal funding on salaries and rent.'' Hardly
a resounding endorsement of the ENHC!
6. Lack of Heritage Area Planning.
Stephanie Toothman, in her testimony to your committee, has stated
that ``Consistent with congressional directives in the 2009 and 2010
Interior Appropriations Acts, the Administration proposed focusing most
national heritage area grants on recently authorized areas and reducing
and/or phasing out funds to well-established recipients to encourage
self-sufficiency in the FY 2013 Budget. The Department would like to
work with Congress to determine the future federal role when heritage
areas reach the end of their authorized eligibility for heritage
program funding.'' She further notes that ``there are currently 49
designated national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law
that guides the designation and administration of these areas.'' We ask
that your committee not support the additional funds requested in a
lengthening of the sunset provision for the ENHC for the following
reasons:
a. In its roles as the management entity of the ENHA and as a
non-profit agency, the ENHC is responsive to no one. The NPS
does not fully oversee its operations and, as a non-profit, it
is protected from providing certain information to the public,
who might want to understand their roles and operations in
cooperation with the NPS. This element of their operations
needs to be clarified and their records need to be made
available to the public, as they are merely an extension of the
NPS;
b. The ENHA is one of the original heritage areas, created in
1996, has received over $12M and has yet to become self
supporting. It is considered one of the most ``successful''
heritage areas in the program. How much worse are the others?;
c. Congress, OMB and the NPS need to determine what a match
of federal funds is and how that ``match'' is calculated. It
needs to be reasonable and easy to calculate. To date we do not
believe that the ENHC has met its match of Federal funds;
d. Congress did not anticipate the role of heritage
commissions in formulating and administering land use controls.
This issue needs to be addressed;
e. The ENHC needs to stay within the confines of its
federally-designated area-map NAR-51-80,000, dated August 1994.
To stray off shore and into other communities not within its
district cannot be what was intended by the legislation of its
designation;
f. If it is determined that heritage areas are to remain,
Congress, the NPS and other related organizations need to
develop a long range plan of the roles of heritage areas in
federal government. At present the ENHC is a boondoggle,
answering to no one, continually requesting federal dollars and
not providing any service more than, as one ENHC Commissioner
has stated, what a local chamber of commerce would provide.
______
Statement of Caswell F. Holloway, Deputy Mayor for Operations, City of
New York, on H.R. 2606
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
Caswell Holloway, New York City's Deputy Mayor for Operations. On
behalf of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony in support of H.R. 2606, the New York City Natural Gas
Supply Enhancement Act. This legislation is not just about facilitating
the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline-though the
jobs created by the project are certainly a good thing. This pipeline
is critical to building a stable, clean-energy future for New York
City, and dramatically improving the public health of New Yorkers.
As the members of the committee know, H.R. 2606 is will make
possible the construction of a 3-mile, 26'' diameter natural gas line
that will enable National Grid to supply gas consumers in Brooklyn from
an existing bulk pipeline in the Atlantic Ocean that is operated by the
Williams Companies. Congressional action is needed to authorize the
pipeline route to cross beneath the Gateway National Recreation Area
(Gateway), which is operated by the National Park Service. I note that
Mayor Bloomberg is working closely with the National Parks Service on
many initiatives to improve public access to and use of Gateway and
City and National Parks throughout New York City.
As with any pipeline project, the primary concern is public safety-
and Williams and National Grid are taking steps to ensure that this
pipeline is safe, and has a minimal impact on Gateway, as well as
property along the entire route. Foremost among these measures is the
planned use of horizontal directional drilling, a trenchless
construction method, that will install the pipeline at a considerable
depth below ground-from 30 to as much as 80 feet at certain points. And
trenchless technology, which the City has used successfully on our own
water and sewer projects, will minimize the impact of the construction
itself. In addition, the developers have stated that they will: (1) use
piping of a gauge and strength that will greatly exceed the safety
requirements established by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline
and Hazardous Material Safety Administration; (2) undertake rigorous
safety measures beyond those directed by federal regulators at DOT and
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), such as the use of
automatic shut-off valves; and (3) voluntarily meet a number of
additional safety and reliability measures sought by New York City and
by the TriBorough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, including a reinforcing
concrete cap over a portion of the pipeline. The TBTA is part of the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and a portion of the pipeline
route crosses through a right-of-way deep beneath an MTA property.
The City led the environmental assessment for the National Grid
portion of the project, and following a thorough review, the City
issued a Negative Declaration for that segment in December of 2011.
FERC is acting as lead agency for the environmental review of the
Williams part of the line, from the ocean connection point on the
Transco line to the approach of the principal bridge connecting the
Rockaways to the Brooklyn mainland. As you can see from this
description, getting this project done involves a major effort that
includes the private sector, and the City, State, and Federal
governments.
As I noted at the outset, this project is vitally important to New
York City. Energy demand in New York City is increasing, and will
continue to grow. Indeed, in July of last year, the City's electric
utility company, Con Edison, reported that overall demand peaked at
13,189 megawatts, eclipsing the former all-time record for the utility
set in 2006.
And some 90 percent of New York City's electric generation--much of
it located in Brooklyn and Queens--uses natural gas as its primary
fuel. Consequently, there is a very close relationship between the
availability of natural gas, and our ability to ensure adequate and
affordable electricity for New York City's 8.4 million residents, and
the millions more who work in and visit New York City. It has never
been more important to secure clean, reliable, domestic energy sources
to meet this demand.
In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg issued PlaNYC, a comprehensive long-range
sustainability program for the City. Among other ambitious goals, the
plan seeks to achieve a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2030, wider use of repowered electric generation
facilities, and a dramatic reduction in the use of highly polluting
heating fuels-particularly Number 4 and 6 grade oils. When burned, 4
and 6 oil produce carbon dioxide at a rate that greatly exceeds that of
natural gas. In addition, the combustion of these fuels throws off
considerably higher levels of pollutants such as sulfur and nickel, and
particulate matter emissions. We estimate that the elimination of these
fuels alone will save more than 200 lives, and eliminate 100 hospital
visits per year. This is an amazing return on a comparatively small
investment-changing the fuel supply at approximately 10,000 of the
950,000 buildings in NYC. Mayor Bloomberg recently enacted regulations
that mandate phasing out the use of dirty heating fuels by 2030-but to
meet that goal, we have to increase the availability of natural gas in
New York City.
No new bulk gas transmission lines have been built in New York City
for more than forty years, and without new supply, many parts of the
City will have to continue to rely on dirty fuels for heat and
electricity. Natural gas is the most efficient and cleanest-burning
fossil fuel available. The National Grid/Williams pipeline will
significantly increase our access to natural gas, and given the
location of the Rockaways area of Queens that the gas line will serve,
and the geographic position of the Gateway Recreation Area, there is no
practicable alternative to traversing beneath Parks' property.
I might note that there will also be a direct benefit accruing to
Gateway from this legislation. As I understand it, the proposed lease
agreement to be entered into by Williams and the Park Service will
involve payment of funds by the pipeline developer for preservation and
restoration of historically important aircraft hangar buildings at
Floyd Bennett Field.
In sum, I urge your passage of H.R. 2606 as a means of ensuring
that New York City's future energy needs are met in a way that assures
system reliability, reduces our carbon footprint, and protects public
health. Thank you again for the opportunity.
______
U.S. Senate,
State of Rhode Island, March 7, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rand Paul,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, Senator Udall, and
Senator Paul, I write to express my strong support for the John H.
Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park Establishment
Act (S. 1708). This legislation, championed by Senator Reed of Rhode
Island and cosponsored by myself, and Senators Kerry and Brown of
Massachusetts, would create a National Park designation for the
birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. S.1708 will continue
efforts to preserve these historic sites and spur tourism and economic
development in the region. I encourage the committee to approve this
important and bipartisan bill.
The Blackstone River Valley is where the United States took its
first step toward industrialization when, in 1790, Samuel Slater
constructed America's first textile mill. Slater's success in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island brought many others to the Blackstone River
Valley to build their own factories. Soon, mill villages like Ashton
and Slatersville began to spring up across the region, and a canal was
constructed to transport goods along the river. Throughout the 19th
century, manufacturing flouri shed in the valley. People from Ireland,
Quebec, Portugal, Poland, and elsewhere, immigrated to the area to work
in these mills, enriching the region with their vibrant cultures and
traditions.
The importance of the Blackstone River Valley in bringing forth
America's Industrial Revolution is central to our nation's history and
worthy of national recognition. For this reason, in 1986, Congress
designated the area a National Heritage Corridor. The Corridor
designation expires in October of this year. Now is the time to
implement a more permanent and active National Park Service presence in
the area to partner with the strong local private entities dedicated to
preserving this corner of American history.
Under S. 1708, the Old Slater Mill Historic District, the mill
villages of Ashton, Hopedale, Slatersville, and Whitensville, the
Blackstone River and its tributaries, and the Blackstone Canal will
become part of a new National Historical Park. In addition to providing
greater protection for valuable historic resources, the designation
will expand tourism and recreation activities on and along the
Blackstone River, and open new economic opportunities for the region.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, local organizations, state
officials and agencies, and all Congressional representatives from the
region support the creation of this National Historical Park.
The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park
Establishment Act is a critical step in continuing to preserve
America's industrial heritage. I urge the committee to support to this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Sheldon Whitehouse,
United States Senator,
______
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC., March 6, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, Thank you for
your consideration of the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study
Act, H.R. 1141, a bill that authorizes the Secretary of Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of designating areas on the
island of Rota for inclusion in the National Park System. The
Subcommittee on National Parks holds a hearing on H.R. 1141 on March 7,
2012; and I ask that you support the bill for passage.
In 2004, the National Park Service sent a team to Rota, at the
request of then-Northern Mariana Islands Senator Diego Songao of Rota,
to assess the importance of the cultural and natural resources of the
island. The study team surveyed the Mochon Latte Stone Village and
other sites of the ancient Chamorro people of the Marianas. The team
explored the Chugai Cave, containing over 90 pictographs of prehistoric
origin. The Park Service identified the presence of rare species of
plants and animals, such as the critically endangered aga, or Marianas
crow, and the endangered nosa Luta, or Rota bridled white-eye, in the
limestone forests that blanket parts of Rota. Having completed this
field reconnaissance, in September 2005 the Park Service issued a
report that concluded there are cultural and natural resources located
on Rota that are of ``national significance.'' The Park Service further
recommended a study of the ``suitability and feasibility'' of
designating these sites as a unit of the National Park System. H.R.
1141 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the
recommended study.
In the 111th Congress the House of Representatives approved a bill
with the language of H.R. 1141 by voice vote without objection. The
Senate, however, did not have time to act. So I introduced H.R. 1141
when the 112th Congress convened. The House of Representatives has
again approved the bill. Both the Parks Service and the public on Rota
support the bill. The Parks Service testified to the House Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands in May 2011 without
recommending any change in H.R. 1141. In testimony submitted to the
National Parks Subcommittee the National Park Service now recommends an
amendment, clarifying that the areas to be studied are those suitable
and feasible for inclusion and not the entire island. I believe a plain
reading of the bill leads to the more limited conclusion and suggest
that report language reinforce that interpretation. Representatives of
the people of Rota have also testified in favor of H.R. 1141 or offered
letters supportive of having areas of their island added to the
National Park System. I have attached several of these letters and
their enclosures, and I ask that they be made a part of the
Subcommittee's hearing record on the bill. Conducting a suitability and
feasibility study is the established procedure when areas or resources
of national significance have been identified. Eventually,
establishment of a unit of the National Park System on Rota, should
that prove appropriate, would serve the twin purposes of protecting
national treasures, while at the same time freeing up other areas for
development should the people of Rota so choose. For these reasons, I
ask that your committee favorably report H.R. 1141.
Sincerely,
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Member of Congress.
______
Representative Teresita Apatang Santon,
House of Representatives,
Saipan, MP, February 3, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Rota National Park Bill, H.R. 1141
Dear Chairman Bingaman, I am writing this letter to respectfully
seek your consideration and support of H.R. 1141 for the conduct of a
suitability and feasibility study of prehistoric, historic and primary
limestone forests on the island of Rota in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
The island of Rota, amongst the islands within the Mariana Islands
archipelago, which includes the island of Guam, possesses the largest
prehistoric, historic and intact primary limestone forests that are in
critical need of preservation. The preservation of these important
areas through the establishment of a National Park will greatly assist
in the protection of our native cultural heritage and also serve as
critical habitat for native endangered flora and fauna for which the
American people and our future generations may enjoy.
Our past and present legislative delegations and people of the
island of Rota have supported and are enthusiastic about the idea of
establishing a national park on the island to protect the remaining
remnants of our cultural heritage and native wildlife.
With this is mind, the Rota Legislative Delegation and people of
Rota appreciates your taking the time to consider this important matter
and kindly ask your support and passage of H.R. 1141 which would help
us realize one of the largest National Park units in America's
westernmost frontier in the northwestern pacific. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresita A. Santos,
Vice Chairperson.
______
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Saipan, MP, January 27, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman
Chairman, U. S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski:
The purpose of this letter is to express strong support for the
``Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act,'' H.R. 1141 which
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study archaeological,
historical and natural resources on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, for inclusion in the National Park System.
In 2005, the Interior Department field survey found that Monchon
Latte Stone Village, the Chugai Pictograph Cave, and other ancient
sites on Rota have national significance and should be protected. These
sites are crucial to protecting our remains of the ancient Chamorro
people for all time.
I commend Representative Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan for
introducing this legislation which was referred to your committee on
January 24, 2012. The people of Rota are hopeful for the passage of
H.R. 1141. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Paul A. Manglona,
Senate President.
______
Mark Michael,
May 6, 2011.
Hon. Sablan Congress,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Sablan Thank you for your letter in regards to
legislation H.R. 1141.
I personally believe there are some very historically worthwhile
things on Rota that should be protected but I was wondering if the
people of Rota fully understand that when you get a national park
designation that the land it occupies is basically no longer yours but
belongs to the Federal government.
Two things in your letter I just have to comment on. One our CNMI
Senate has failed to act on a lot of things and to me as a group they
are a big disappointment. And two you mention Rota's eco-tourrsm I have
heard this buzz word many times, but I haven't seen anybody practicing
eco-tourism full time here. Our elected officials think that casinos
are eco-tourism.
I think your introduced legislation is a great idea and hopefully
you and I will see it fulfilled.
Sincerely,
Mark Michael.
______
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Office of the Mayor,
Rota, MP, March 30, 2011.
Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Member of Congress, 423 Cannon House Office Building, House of
Representative Washington DC.
Dear Representative Sablan: Thank you for providing me a copy of
H.R. 1141 for which you are asking for my thoughts and comments in your
letter of March 23, 2011. Indeed it is an honor that certain sites on
Rota have historic significance, both modern and pre-historic, which
may qualify as units of the U.S. Natural Park Service. Should the
suitability and feasibility study, as proposed by H.R. 1141 confirm
this, our goal of turning Rota into an eco-tourism destination would be
greatly enhanced. Therefore, I am in support of H.R. 1141 and I am
ready to render oral testimony on this bill if it is scheduled for a
public hearing.
On a minor note, the National Register of Historical Places website
(www.nps.gov) does not list the sites indicated in section I (b)(4) of
H.R. 1141. The web page lists the Japanese Hospital, the Japanese Sugar
Mill, the Japanese WWII Command Post, but none of these is listed in
H.R. 1141. I am not nitpicking, but I am concerned that we are
confusing the public. Perhaps, the web page hasn't been updated.
In closing, our people join me in recognizing your efforts in
having our issues heard in the halls of the U.S. Congress.
Sincerely,
Melchor A. Mendiola,
Mayor.
______
Statement of Hon. Joseph Lieberman, U.S. Senator From Connecticut,
on S. 1191
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer a statement in
support of this significant legislation, the Naugatuck River Valley
National Heritage Area Study Act.
As the first arsenal of American democracy, the Naugatuck Valley
deserves special recognition for its contributions to our nation in
times of war and peace. Fourteen towns and cities along the Naugatuck
River--which flows for forty miles between Torrington and Shelton--are
a part of the valley, which is notable not only for its physical beauty
but for its industrial history shaped by the arrival of numerous
immigrant populations during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Factories
along the Naugatuck River led to the creation of prominent industries
which still shape the fabric of communities today: the brass industry
in Waterbury, the rubber industry in Naugatuck, and the clock industry
in Thomaston, just to name a few. The region is also architecturally
significant, with numerous industrial-era and art deco buildings,
including 88 structures listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. As industry has moved out of the valley, many of our
communities are just now re-discovering the natural beauty and
potential of the Naugatuck River, and I applaud the efforts underway to
reconnect our communities with the River that has inherently shaped
their histories.
As the committee is aware, this legislation would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to complete a study to determine whether the
region is worthy of being a National Heritage Area. This has the
support of all the communities in the study area, the state, and the
civic organizations that have actively preserved the Naugatuck Valley's
unique history, and has been championed by the Greater Valley Chamber
of Commerce. I am encouraged by the support of Senator Blumenthal and
Representatives DeLauro, Larson, and Murphy, and I am confident that if
examined, the Naugatuck River Valley will receive the federal attention
it deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
City of Torrington,
Torrington, Connecticut, March 6, 2012.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Congressman Jim Himes,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Congressman Chris Murphy,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lieberman, Blumenthal and Congressmen Murphy, Himes &
DeLauro,
On behalf of the City of Torrington, I am writing today to express
my full support for S. 1191 the Naugatuck River Valley national
Heritage Area Study Act.
From the City of Torrington to the lower valley, the communities
that line the Naugatuck River share a history that is rich in industry
and production. The Naugatuck River Valley has been the birthplace of
innovation from brass, to rubber, clocks, and more. This area has been
the driving force in manufacturing in the State of Connecticut for
generations.
The historical significance of this are should not be overlooked.
From the first law school in America in Litchfield, to architectural
gems such as the Warner Theatre in Torrington or the Sterling Opera
House in Derby, the Naugatuck River Valley has a wide array of
significant buildings that deserve to be recognized for their
contribution to our communities.
If passed, Senate Bill 1191 has the potential to shed light on the
many aspects of the Naugatuck River Valley that all who reside here
treasure and respect. I urge the passing of this bill and look forward
to being a part of this worthy endeavor.
Respectfully,
Ryan J. Bingham,
Mayor.
______
Valley Chamber of Commerce,
Shelton, Connecticut, March 5, 2012.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Himes,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chris Murphy,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
RE: S.1191; Naugatuck River Valley National Heritage Area Study Bill
It is with great excitement and anticipation that I am writing in
support of Senate Bill 1191, a bill to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to carry out a study regarding the suitability and feasibility
of establishing the Naugatuck River Valley National Heritage Area in
Connecticut, which will be discussed before the U.S. Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, March 7th.
As is outlined in this proposed bill, the Naugatuck River Valley is
comprised of 14 communities along the Naugatuck River, which stretches
for more than 40 miles from its headwaters in Torrington, CT to the
confluence with the Housatonic River in Shelton, CT. This region of
Connecticut has an assemblage of natural, historic and cultural
resources that represent distinctive aspects of American heritage
worthy of recognition, conservation and celebration as a National
Heritage Area. Of particular note is the Valley's prominent role as a
center of three major industries during the American Industrial
Revolution: the Brass Industry centered in Waterbury, CT, which to this
day is known as The Brass City, the Rubber Industry, which was spawned
in neighboring Naugatuck, CT and the Clock Industry, where Seth Thomas
began making the first of millions of clocks in Thomaston, CT in 1813.
In addition to the region's contribution to the Industrial
Revolution, the Naugatuck River Valley has also been a major
contributor to the United States war efforts, from the American
Revolution and Civil War to World War II, a fact noted by Ken Burns in
his 2007 PBS film, ``The War'' in which he characterized Waterbury as
the ``arsenal'' of the war effort because of its high concentration of
industry.
Among the region's notable citizens have been authors, diplomats,
inventors and patriots, among them David Humphreys, Aide-de-Camp to
General George Washington, Commodore Isaac Hull, Commander of ``Old
Ironsides'', Ebenezer Bassett, the country's first black Ambassador and
Pierre Lallement, inventor of the modern two-wheel bicycle.
Most importantly, the Naugatuck River Valley is home to a group of
public-spirited citizens that have been pursuing National Heritage Area
designation for a number of years, and the Greater Valley Chamber of
Commerce has been proud to support their efforts. The Chamber was
pleased to receive funding from The Community Foundation for Greater
New Haven to conduct a preliminary study of the natural, cultural and
historic resources of the Naugatuck River Valley, which we are anxious
to share with the National Park Service as a foundation for their
feasibility and suitability study. What we have documented about this
Valley is truly astounding and worthy of preservation and celebration.
On behalf of the business community in the ``All America City''
Naugatuck River Valley, thank you for your support of this important
bill for the Valley's past, present and future.
Sincerely,
William E. Purcell, CCE, CAE,
President.
______
Borough of Naugatuck,
Naugatuck, Connecticut, March 6, 2012.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. James A. Himes,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher S. Murphy,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Blumenthal, Senator Lieberman, Representative DeLauro,
Representative Himes and Representative Murphy: This letter serves to
acknowledge my support for Senate Bill 1191. The purpose of this
legislation is to commission a feasibility study to create the
Naugatuck River Valley National Heritage Area.
As a lifelong resident of the Borough of Naugatuck, I am honored to
join with the leaders of our neighboring communities from Torrington to
Shelton to support this initiative. The Valley has a rich history of
ingenuity and industrial productivity during times of war and peace.
Throughout the industrial age and continuing to this day, Valley
workers and business owners have manufactured products used throughout
the world.
Together, we are bound not only by our common history, but by the
scenic Naugatuck River which travels through each of our communities.
Once the victim of industrial pollution, the Naugatuck once again runs
clean and strong through the Valley, and the diverse ecosystem
throughout the watershed has returned. Many Valley communities,
including Naugatuck, recognize that the Naugatuck River not only
provides recreational and environmental benefits for Valley residents,
but presents opportunity for responsible economic development as well.
The most valuable resource in the Valley, however, is the people
who call it home. The time-honored traditions of hard work, devotion to
family, service to community and entrepreneurial creativity remain
alive and well.
Designation as a national heritage area would strengthen the
Naugatuck River Valley in many ways. We greatly appreciate your
continued support for our region, and would be pleased to further
discuss support for this important legislation at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Mezzo,
Mayor.
______
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives, March 7, 2012.
Hon. Mark Udall,
SH-328, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rand Paul,
SR-208, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Paul, As your subcommittee
holds a hearing on Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 29, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Establishment Act, I would like to
offer my strong support. This bill would establish a National Heritage
Area in the Delta in order to protect the largest estuary on the West
Coast. I introduced companion legislation in the House, H.R. 486,
because of the Delta's environmental importance, its rich history and
culture, as well as the economic benefits it provides to the State of
California and the Nation.
The Delta is home to more than 3,500,000 residents, 2,500 family
farmers, 750 species of plants and wildlife, and provides drinking
water for 23 million Americans. Furthermore, it supports billions of
dollars in economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs. That said
the Delta is facing escalating challenges from invasive species,
wastewater discharges, and stress from water exports. Establishing a
National Heritage Area in the Delta would help combat these issues and
preserve its vibrant community and fragile resources. This bill
empowers the Delta Protection Commission to build local bottom-up
partnerships for conservation efforts with greater assistance from the
National Park Service.
Both of California's Senators, as well four of my colleagues from
the Delta in the House of Representatives have supported this critical
legislation. I ask for your support in aiding local efforts to protect
this wonderful community and economic engine.
Sincerely,
John Garamendi,
Member of Congress.
