Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2623, a bill to authorize the Secretary to establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park within the existing Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating a Cedar Creek – Belle Grove unit of the National Park System, we recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 2623 during the remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet the President’s initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to continue to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. Park units of a similar size, once fully operational, can have annual operational costs of $1 - 2 million, which is a significant amount compared to the $9.3 million that was requested in FY 2003 for park base operational increases across the entire National Park System.

S. 2623 would establish an approximately 3,000-acre Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park in the Shenandoah Valley of Northwestern Virginia. The new park would encourage partnerships and build on years of local preservation efforts. Although originally conceived as a battlefield park, the local partners expanded the purpose of the new park to include a much broader scope of history, while embracing the key goal of promoting the Civil War heritage of the Shenandoah Valley. S. 2623 would establish a boundary for the National Historical Park within which the existing key partners will continue to own, operate, and manage visitor “anchor” sites within the park boundary. The Park Service would be authorized to acquire the remaining property from willing landowners completing preservation of the historic and natural landscape.

The bill would also establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory Commission to ensure local, regional, and national involvement in the preparation and implementation of a management plan for the national historical park and to identify additional sites of significance outside the park boundary. Finally, S. 2623 would authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with private landowners, non-profit organizations, governmental entities, and others for the purpose of preserving, interpreting, operating, maintaining, and managing park resources.

For over 135 years there have been local efforts to protect the Civil War heritage of the Shenandoah Valley. Numerous States have acknowledged the importance of the Shenandoah Valley by placing monuments and memorials on the historic landscape to honor the lives lost in battle.

The Battle of Cedar Creek, also known as the Battle of Belle Grove, was a major event of the Civil War and the history of this country. It represented the end of the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. This victory by Union forces had major political implications, as well in contributing to the reelection of President Abraham Lincoln. With President Lincoln’s reelection, the resolve of the Union side to continue the war was assured.

The Plantation of Belle Grove was at the center of the decisive battle of Cedar Creek. In addition to the value of the site itself, the Belle Grove Plantation permits the story of the battle, the Shenandoah Valley, and the way of life in America before, during, and after the Civil War to be told. The site also includes a significant Manor House and a slave cemetery, among many other important elements. As such, the recognition in this legislation of both the battle and the way of life at that time enormously adds to our appreciation of the significance and meaning of the Shenandoah Valley and the Civil War. The park boundary represents portions of the historical core of the battlefield and includes the remaining earthworks, the Vermont Monument, and the New York Monument.

The Belle Grove Plantation Manor House was built in 1797 with design assistance from President Thomas Jefferson. The Manor House was saved by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and has been open to the public as a National Trust Historic Site and private museum since 1967. Several other private historic homes within the boundary are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Historic Register. In addition, in 1969, the National Park Service formally honored the national significance of the Shenandoah Valley in the Civil War with the designation of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Landmark.

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

The legislation would permit the Belle Grove Plantation and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to continue to privately own their respective resources critical to the story of Cedar Creek, while permitting the National Park Service to acquire adjacent lands within the boundary from willing sellers only. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation may continue to conduct its reenactments, a primary purpose of the Foundation. It is anticipated that these organizations will remain as full partners within the boundary, working together with the National Park Service and other partners in a regional collaboration.

The legislation also fully implements the purposes of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333, Title VI, Section 606) and strengthens the already valuable partnership between the National Park Service and the recently created Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. It responds to the findings of the previous Special Resources Study, prepared by the National Park Service, and the Foundation’s approved management plan for the National Historic District.

After the Civil War Advisory Commission recognized the significance of and threats to a great number of battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley, Congress responded with legislation to establish a national park unit that could have potentially included 12 battlefield units in excess of 100,000 acres. The National Park Service, at that time, opposed this as the wrong approach to protecting this historic landscape, and recommended a heritage partnership instead. As a result, Congress established both a National Historic District to function as the heritage partnership, and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a Special Resource Study to determine “whether the District or components thereof meet the criteria for designation as a unit of the National Park Service.”

The Special Resource Study analyzed an approximately 93,000-acre region including 10 battlefield sites. It determined that that there is a current need for direct National Park Service management on core portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield within a study area for that battlefield that consisted of 15,000 acres. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation and other non-profit and public entities will preserve lands at other battlefield sites in the National Historic District.

The bill is supported by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle Grove Incorporated, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and the Counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren, as well as the towns of Strasburg and Middletown, demonstrating that the park proposal has broad local backing.

Should the Committee proceed with the legislation, we believe some amendments are needed to clarify various provisions and to conform the language to that used for other units of the National Park System. We look forward to working with you and the sponsors if this bill moves forward.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any question that you or members of the subcommittee might have.

S. 2640/H.R. 3421

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2640 and H.R. 3421. Both of these bills would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding that is necessary to assist the State of California or local school districts in providing educational services and facilities for students attending schools located within Yosemite National Park. In addition, S. 2640 would authorize the expenditure of park funds in support of a regional transportation system outside Yosemite National Park, and would extend the advisory commissions for both Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Manzanar National Historic Site. On December 10, 2001, the Department presented testimony on H.R. 3421 before the subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands of the House Resources Committee.

The Department supports S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, as we believe that students who attend schools in Yosemite National Park should have access to the same educational services and facilities found elsewhere in the State of California. However, we do not want this to set a precedent that parks should take over responsibility for schools or create an NPS school system. The Department also supports the other provisions in S. 2640 regarding the expenditure of funds outside Yosemite National Park and if amended, the continuation of the two advisory commissions.

Schools have been located within Yosemite National Park for over 125 years to serve the needs of park employees and their children. At present, two elementary schools are located within the park at Wawona and in Yosemite Valley. A third elementary school and a small high school are located in El Portal, the park’s administrative site located on federal property just outside the park boundary. Most students attend the larger county high school in Mariposa because of the lack of opportunity for a comprehensive program at the El Portal school.

The Yosemite Valley School has about 46 students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade, divided into three classes. The amount of funding from the State of California, according to a formula based on average daily attendance, actually supports only two teachers.

The elementary school in El Portal has 50 students in seven grades, divided into multi-graded classrooms. The Wawona school is like the old “one-room” schoolhouse, with 20 children in grades K-8, and one teacher. Because the current funding formula provides for only one teacher, and the maximum teacher/student ratio has been reached, the school is unable to serve more than 20 students. Consequently, there have been instances in which parents were left with the choice of either home-schooling their children or transporting them on their own to schools elsewhere. Some parents have elected these options voluntarily because of the conditions at the Wawona school.

Because the schools in the park are located long distances from the administrative offices of their school districts, there has been limited access to services that are normally available to students that attend schools elsewhere. For example, access to teachers to serve students with special needs is very limited, and road and weather conditions can often further restrict teachers’ abilities to reach the park. Subjects such as band, art, music, choir, or even physical education are provided only if parents are able to find additional funding to hire an aide. Many facilities are in need of repair or do not meet state or federal standards.

The quality of education that students receive in these schools suffers as a result of lack of funding and staffing. For example, teachers who teach only one grade level can focus on curriculum and standards for that grade, while teachers in the Yosemite schools are responsible for multiple grade levels. In addition to their educational duties, they must also tend to administrative duties normally performed by other employees. As a result, teachers at the Yosemite schools are unable to give the time or attention necessary to provide the quality of education that the students deserve.

Recruitment and retention of employees at Yosemite National Park is also adversely affected by the quality of the park schools. Many highly qualified NPS employees with school age children who might otherwise be interested in applying for jobs at Yosemite are discouraged from doing so because of the school situation. Recently, a highly qualified individual declined to accept an offer for a division chief position at the park after realizing that the schools could not meet the special needs of his child. Park employees often cite the schools as a major factor in their decision to transfer from Yosemite to other assignments.

Both S. 2640 and H.R. 3421 authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with the local school districts for the maintenance and minor upgrades of facilities, and the transportation of students to and from school. The Secretary may adjust the amounts made available to local school districts if State and local funding of schools fall below current funding levels. While we strongly believe that the responsibility for providing educational services rests with the State of California, we realize that the quality of education received by the children of park employees and others who attend the Yosemite schools is dependent on the resources of the local school districts. We believe that this legislation is a start at providing the means to improve the schools in Yosemite National Park.

Section 4 of S. 2640 addresses regional transportation at Yosemite National Park. The Department has long supported the concept of public transportation providing access to Yosemite National Park. The 1980 General Management Plan identified the development of a regional transportation system as the long-term approach for transporting people to Yosemite National Park. In 1999 Mariposa, Merced, and Mono counties created a Joint Powers Authority as an entity to implement the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and entered into a Cooperative Agreement with Yosemite National Park. YARTS provided an attractive alternative for visitors and employees without having to replace the use of private cars. NPS participated in the initial funding of this project using fee demonstration program authority. In 2001, YARTS carried over 38,000 passengers, including park employees, during Yosemite’s prime visitor season (May through September). Many of these visitors chose to leave their cars at their motels or other locations outside the park. By choosing YARTS to access the Yosemite Valley, over 11,000 parking places were made available during the summer. YARTS has been successful in providing a quality alternative to automobile travel.

Entering into its third year of operations, YARTS has had to reduce the number of runs it provides due to funding shortfalls. Funding is no longer coming from appropriated funds because the agency lacks the authority to expend funds outside the park boundary. The authority provided through previous appropriations bills has expired. Nonetheless, YARTS has been enormously successful again this summer and the demand for the service continues to grow.

The regional transportation system is an important means to solve Yosemite’s parking and congestion issues by reducing the amount of infrastructure development within the park, and thus substantially reducing the funding requirements for implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan. This bill amends existing legislation by adding Yosemite National Park to an authorization that allows Zion National Park to enter into agreements and expend funds outside the boundaries of the park for transportation purposes.

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

The Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission has been composed of 11 members appointed by the Secretary. The commission advises the NPS on development issues and on the interpretation of the site. Some of the members were internees at Manzanar during World War II. Others are prominent citizens of the East Side of the Sierra. The commission expired last spring at a critical time as the Manzanar National Historic Site is completing the interpretive design work for the visitor center in the former auditorium of the camp.

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area commission is composed of 18 members nominated primarily by the counties in which the park is located. The purpose of the Golden Gate NRA advisory commission is to advise on general policies and matters related to planning, administration and development for this 30-year-old park. The commission has worked side by side the park staff for these 30 years. Its role as a public hearings board is crucial to the numerous projects and management decisions that are being considered by this large urban park. We would like to work with the committee on an amendment regarding the representation of recreational users on the commission.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or any members of the subcommittee may have.

S. 2788

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

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

Wind Cave National Park, established in 1903, is one of the Nation’s first national parks and the first cave set aside for protection. The cave itself, after which the park is named, is one of the world’s oldest, longest, and most complex cave systems with more than 104 miles of mapped passages. The cave is well-known for its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare honeycomb-shaped formation protruding from the cave’s ceilings and walls. While the cave is the focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally impressive with 28,295 acres of rolling prairie, majestic forests, and pristine creeks. Legislation passed in 1912 established the Wind Cave National Game Preserve creating a permanent national range for buffalo and other Native American game animals as may be placed therein. In 1935, the Wind Cave National Game Preserve was transferred into Wind Cave National Park.

This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 5,675 acres adjacent to Wind Cave National Park. A ranching family currently owns 5,555 acres of the land and has indicated they would be willing to sell the property to the United States as a lasting legacy to their father. Another 40 acres of land from a willing seller would preserve a viewshed for the park. The last 80 acres would be an administrative jurisdiction transfer from the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to the Director of the National Park Service. The acquisition cost for the proposal is estimated at $5 to $6 million although actual costs will not be known until the land appraisals are completed. In many cases, non-profit groups are willing to purchase the properties and hold them for a short period of time until the National Park Service is able to designate land acquisition funding.

S. 2788 would help protect the mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest and provide recreational opportunities for day-hikers and backpackers who seek solitude in the park’s backcountry. The additional land will preserve a viewshed and improve wildland fire management, helping to reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Archaeological sites, such as a thousand year-old buffalo jump over which early Native Americans once drove the bison they hunted, exist on the land presently owned by the ranching family.

The current annual base funding for Wind Cave National Park is $1.892 million. If enacted, additional funding would be required due to anticipated increases in the number of FTEs needed for increased wildlife and interpretive responsibilities. In addition, construction-funding of $1.817 million would be necessary for the removal and installation of fencing.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.

S. 2880

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 2880. This bill would designate Fort Bayard Historic District as a National Historic Landmark and would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance for protecting the Landmark.

The Department recommends that the bill be amended to direct the National Park Service to conduct additional research to evaluate whether Fort Bayard is eligible for National Historic Landmark designation. National Historic Landmarks designated by the Secretary of the Interior share two essential qualities: they are places that illustrate a nationally significant theme, trend, event, or person, and, they retain a high degree of integrity, that is, authenticity, to the period in which the property was significant.

Authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-292) and regulated under 36 CFR Part 65, the National Historic Landmarks Program has an established and time-tested process for nominating properties of exceptional importance in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. This process includes an evaluation by the National Park System Advisory Board to ensure that designated historic places possess the highest level of significance and historical integrity. Because of this important evaluation process it is extremely rare for a National Historic Landmark to be designated through legislative action. It is also rare to authorize financial assistance to a single non-NPS site; it would be more appropriate to apply for funding through the Save America's Treasures grant program, which is well suited for historic properties such as this one.

Located in southwestern New Mexico, Fort Bayard illustrates several important chapters in American military history and the settlement of the southwestern United States. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in nearby mining districts. The area was later developed by the U.S. War Department as a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium.

Fort Bayard Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on July 7, 2002 at the state level of significance. In transmitting the nomination to the National Park Service in May 2002, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office requested the opinion of the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places regarding the potential for the property to have national significance. Upon listing the property, the Keeper of the National Register concurred with the State Historic Preservation Office that, from the documentation presented, there no longer remains enough of the pre-1922 facility in order to justify a national level of significance as the first Army TB hospital. Much of the pre-1922 complex was destroyed and replaced with larger and more modern facilities when the Veterans Administration assumed administrative responsibilities in 1922.

This assessment concurs with an earlier opinion developed by National Park Service Historian, Robert Utley, that although Fort Bayard was a “key outpost” in the Apache Wars from the 1860s through the 1880s, “expansion and modernization of the Veterans Hospital has obliterated much of Old Fort Bayard” (Fort Bayard, National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings, 1958).

In its review of the documentation this summer, the National Register recommended that the State Historic Preservation Office consider evaluating the property’s national significance for its association with the post-1922 Veterans Administration proposed development of the sanatorium as “the largest institution of its kind in the world.” At present, we do not have enough information to evaluate the national significance of the Veterans Administration’s use of the facility. For these reasons, we urge that S. 2880 be amended to direct the National Park Service to conduct a study of Fort Bayard to determine if it qualifies for designation as a National Historic Landmark.

We would be happy to continue working with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office to evaluate the property’s potential national significance during the post-1922 Veterans Administration period. This work would ensure that the site receive the appropriate level of historic recognition.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

H.R. 3786

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 3786. This bill would revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona.

The Department supports H.R. 3786. The revision of the boundary would not contribute to the National Park Service (“Service”) maintenance backlog because the exchange would not result in any additional facilities, increased operating costs, or additional staffing. The current owner of the private property to be exchanged initiated this proposal and although the Service has not yet appraised the parcels involved, the owner’s appraisal indicates that the Service will receive lands with a higher value than those the Service would exchange. The owner has indicated, however, that no cash payment to equalize values would be required, which should remove the need for any land acquisition funds.

H.R. 3786 would amend Public Law 92-593 and give the Secretary of the Interior the authority, through an exchange, to change the boundary of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (“Park”) by adding 152 acres and deleting 370 acres in Kane County, Utah. The bill would also revise the authorized acreage of the park from 1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000 acres. This change would correct the total acreage within the park boundary that was incorrectly identified in the park’s enabling legislation. Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling also would not add any new facilities, increase operating costs, or require additional staffing.

The 152 acres that the Service would acquire are located east of Highway 89, approximately 5 miles south of Big Water, Utah and are contiguous to the existing park boundary. The 370 acres that the Service would exchange are located west of Highway 89 and are adjacent to privately owned lands. Although within the boundary of the recreation area, the 370 acres are physically and visually isolated from the rest of the recreation area by topographic features.

The owner of the private land has had an appraisal completed on the lands that are proposed for exchange. If this legislation were enacted, the Service would conduct its own appraisal on the two parcels. However, the owner’s appraisal determined that the 152-acre parcel ($5,500 per acre for a total appraised value of $836,000), which the Service would receive, was worth approximately seven times more per acre than the 370-acre parcel ($750 per acre for a total appraised value of $277,500) the Service would exchange.

H.R. 3786 would also correct the acreage ceiling error stated in Public Law 92-593, the 1972 enabling legislation for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Public Law 92-593 incorrectly estimated Glen Canyon National Recreation Area’s acreage within the boundary to be 1,236,880 acres. Using the same boundary identified on the map referenced in the 1972 enabling legislation, application of modern map reading and geographic information system technologies have determined that an acreage of 1,256,000 acres more accurately reflects the amount of land within the 1972 boundary.

H.R. 3786 enjoys a broad cross section of support. The nearest communities to the lands proposed for exchange, Big Water, Utah and Page, Arizona, recognize the importance of protecting the National Recreation Area. Also, this exchange would provide an opportunity for private development at one of the main access points to lands held by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). Such private development could enhance the 40,000 acres held by SITLA and is supported by the State of Utah and Kane County, Utah.

In previous testimony before the House Subcommittee, we recommended two changes - to correctly identify and date the map, as well as allow the National Park Service to enter into agreement with the landowner regarding how the exchanged lands will be managed. Those changes have been incorporated into the bill before you now.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

H.R. 3858

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 3858, a bill to expand the boundary of the New River Gorge National River by 1,962 acres and to exchange approximately ¼ acre of private land with an adjacent private landowner for a ¼ acre of park service land.

The Department is unable to support H.R. 3858 in its entirety at this time. The Department would ask that Congress defer action on subsection (a), regarding a boundary adjustment, until additional planning addressing the acquisition and costs of additional lands at New River Gorge National River has been completed. The Department does however support subsection (b) of H.R. 3858 as it provides for an even land exchange involving no cost or nominal cost.

This legislation proposes to adjust the boundary of New River Gorge National River to include seven tracts of land encompassing 1,962 acres. The addition of these lands within the park’s boundary would complete the rim-to-rim acquisition of lands on both sides of the gorge, permanently protecting its outstanding scenery in accordance with the legislation that originally designated the park. However we have not yet completed a formal study with public involvement to determine the appropriateness of including these lands within the park.

The last provision of this bill proposes a land exchange and boundary modification with an adjacent local landowner for a parcel of land, approximately ¼ acre in size, of equal value and equal size. This resolves an issue of private property encroachment and as a result the boundary is slightly altered, but there is no net change in the authorized acreage.

New River Gorge National River was established in 1978 to conserve and protect 53 miles of the New River as a free-flowing waterway. This unit of the National Park System encompasses over 70,000 acres of land along the New River between the towns of Hinton and Fayetteville. The park and surrounding area are rich in cultural and natural history, with an abundance of scenic and recreational opportunities. The New and Gauley Rivers offer world-class whitewater boating, rock climbing, and fishing. The New River Gorge Bridge is the longest single span arch bridge in the world, and the second highest bridge in the United States. The New River Gorge has the most diverse assemblage of plant species of any river gorge in the southern Appalachians, it possesses considerable animal diversity, and is the state's leading warm-water fishery. Cultural resources include significant archeological sites as well as 19th and 20th century historic resources, towns, and commercial centers related to mining and transportation of coal, that played an important role in America's industrial history. New River Gorge National River is located within the National Coal Heritage Area (1996), and the New River is one of 14 rivers designated an American Heritage River (1998).

All of the lands included in the proposed boundary adjustment are currently under private ownership and we understand that all six private landowners are willing sellers. Two of the tracts proposed for inclusion contain approximately 648 acres of steep, wooded slopes within the gorge, and are adjacent to Hawk’s Nest State Park. The two other parcels, totaling 52 acres, provide access to an area that is heavily used by rockclimbers and other visitors. The remaining two parcels would add 1,262 acres along the rim of the gorge. Completion of the planning process at New River Gorge National River will ensure that there is adequate public review regarding our land acquisition needs.

As you know the Department is committed to the President’s Initiative to eliminate the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog. The planning process would also address the land acquisition, operations, and development costs of the lands proposed for addition. We estimate that the addition of 1,962 acres within the boundary would require no less than $2 million in additional land acquisition funds. It is possible that several of the tracts of land proposed for acquisition would be maintained in an undeveloped condition and therefore have minimal administrative costs associated with them. However one tract may require some development to provide adequate accommodation for the high levels of public use.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any question that you or members of the subcommittee might have.