STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 584 AND H.R. 432, THE BETTY DICK RESIDENCE PROTECTION ACT.

JULY 28, 2005

________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 584 and H.R. 432, bills that would require the Secretary of the Interior to permit continued occupancy and use of certain lands and improvements within Rocky Mountain National Park. 

The Department supports the general goal of S. 584 and H.R. 432 to allow the National Park Service (NPS) to resolve the merits of Mrs. Betty Dick’s desire to continue to live in the home inside Rocky Mountain National Park where she has lived for more than 25 years.  Currently, the NPS does not have clear statutory authority to address these unique situations.  In this testimony, we recommend certain amendments that will address both Mrs. Dick’s needs while recognizing the public’s purchase and ownership of this property. 

As drafted, the pending legislation will only address Mrs. Dick’s unique situation.  The Department also would be willing to work with the Committee to develop a broader solution, one that would provide NPS with clear statutory authority to address expiring reservations of use and occupancy in other situations with similar merit.  We look forward to working with the Committee on this issue. 

On April 14, 2005, the Department testified in opposition to H.R. 432 at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on National Parks.  However, since that time, the Department has recognized the need for a broader solution in light of the several hundred reservations of use and occupancy that will expire over the next 10 years.  Some of these existing reservations may present circumstances similar in merit to Mrs. Dick’s. 

S. 584 and H.R. 432 would allow the continued use and occupancy of land within Rocky Mountain National Park by Betty Dick for the remainder of her life.   The bills also state that the use and occupancy of the land would be governed by the conditions stated in the 1980 settlement agreement.  Under these conditions, Betty Dick would be required to make an annual payment of $300 to the Secretary of the Interior and she would be prohibited from constructing any new structures on the property.

We regret the difficult situations that sometimes arise from the expiration of private use and occupancy leases located within National Parks.  Mrs. Dick has been a model tenant in Rocky Mountain National Park.  The park has always enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, a congenial relationship with her, and she is a familiar summer resident of the Grand Lake community opening her home to park staff and residents of the community alike.  Park staff always feel welcome in Mrs. Dick’s home and have frequently stopped by to discuss this issue and other items of mutual interest relating to the park. 

The situation that is the subject of these bills is the result of a commitment made by Mr. Dick, Mrs. Dick’s late husband, to vacate the property that he sold to the NPS 25 years ago.  We understand and appreciate that this commitment has caused anxiety and stress for Mrs. Dick.

In 1977, the NPS purchased 66.5 acres from Marilyn Dick, the ex-wife of George Fredrick Dick for $214,000.  The title company that handled the transaction overlooked the fact that Mr. Dick had retained a right of first refusal to purchase the property if his ex-wife ever decided to sell.  Mr. Dick sued the NPS and his former wife in U.S. District Court.  In a legally binding Memorandum of Settlement Agreement, signed by the parties in 1980, the NPS retained ownership of the property and agreed to lease approximately 23 acres to Mr. Dick and his heirs for a period of 25 years for $7,500, which equates to $300 per year.  Mr. Dick died in 1992.  His second wife, Betty Dick, survives him and now occupies the premises during the summer months.  As the heir of Mr. Dick, Betty Dick had a leasehold interest in the property that expired July 16, 2005.

Mrs. Dick has contacted the NPS about extending her use and occupancy on a preferential basis for the remainder of her life.  The NPS lacks the authority to grant such an extension either through existing leasing authority or special use permit authority.  NPS does have the authority to issue leases competitively in most circumstances; issuing leases noncompetitively is limited to leases to units of government or non-profit organizations under certain circumstances.  NPS is also is required to charge rent at least equal to fair market value, and the rent payment is kept by the park. 

NPS cannot issue special use permits to extend use and occupancy for a life term under current authorities.  However, NPS does have authority under certain circumstances to issue a two-year special use permit, with the possibility of re-issuance as long as the justifying circumstances apply, that would allow an individual with an expired use and occupancy to remain on the premises.   Some of the criteria include situations in which NPS would be unable to remove the structure for a significant period of time (e.g., because of the need to complete planning requirement or the lack of available funds); the structure has or may have historical significance that would be endangered if vacated; or termination of residency would create undue hardship to the occupant (this provision requires the structure to be the primary residence of the individual).  Special use permits also may only be issued for rent equal to the fair market value rent for the property, and the rent would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury.  Under our current authority, we have offered Mrs. Dick such a special use permit that allows her to remain on her property for a period of time while NPS conducts a planning process to consider the options and determine an appropriate use for the property taking into account the interests of American taxpayers and park visitors, and park resources.

Mrs. Dick has verbally indicated that she will not accept the offer of a special use permit because it does not address her request for a life estate.  A written offer has been sent to her that asks for her reconsideration of the NPS offer.  While she has not yet responded to the request for reconsideration, she has accepted our offer to remain at her summer home for the remainder of this season as we await the outcome of the pending legislation.  In accepting this offer, Mrs. Dick has stated her appreciation to park staff for allowing her to continue her normal routine for this summer.

The Department would support S. 584 and H.R. 432, if amended in a way that balances the merits of Mrs. Dick’s situation with the public’s interest in this property, which was purchased and is owned for the benefit of the American people.  First, the Department would recommend that the bills be amended to reduce the acreage she occupies from 23 acres to approximately three to five acres that contain the house and outbuildings and her access to the Colorado River.  The balance of the property would then be available for park visitors, including access to the river.  This would require producing a new map, which we would be happy to provide to Mrs. Dick and to the public. 

In addition, we suggest that Mrs. Dick’s continued occupancy of the property should be subject to fair market value rent, based upon an appraisal of the property, with the rent being retained by the park. 

Finally, we suggest that the bill be amended to name Mrs. Dick as the sole beneficiary of the legislation, and that language be added to allow the termination of the lease in the event that Mrs. Dick is no longer able to use the property in the summer or is unable or unwilling to pay the annual fees.  We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee staff to develop these amendments.

Throughout the country, there are many instances where the NPS has purchased private inholdings and permitted former landowners to remain on the property for a period of time, usually 25 years, through a “Reservation of Use and Occupancy.”  The United States pays a reduced purchase price to account for the value of the retained use.  This acquisition tool saves taxpayer dollars and allows the former owner to continue to enjoy the property for a set period of time.  As we noted earlier, the Department also would like to work with the Committee to develop a broader solution – one that would provide the NPS with clear statutory authority to address the expiring reservations of use and occupancy in situations where there is merit.  We look forward to working with the Committee on this effort.

That concludes my remarks.  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 652, TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300^th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.  The Department does not support this bill.

This bill would authorize financial assistance in the form of a grant to the Franklin Institute to rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial, and to develop an interpretive exhibit relating to Benjamin Franklin to be displayed at a museum adjacent to the memorial.  An amount not to exceed $10,000,000 would be authorized to be appropriated for these purposes, with the Franklin Institute required to provide matching funds.

For many years, the Department has opposed legislation authorizing appropriations for non-National Park Service construction projects.  Many of these projects, like the rehabilitation of the Ben Franklin National Memorial, represent an important contribution to the preservation of our Nation’s history.  However, each time such legislation is enacted and appropriations follow, it further reduces a limited amount of discretionary funds available to address the priority needs of our national parks and other programs administered by the National Park Service.  With the emphasis we have placed on the President’s initiative to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, it has become more important than ever to avoid authorizing funding for non-National Park Service projects that would likely draw funds from the National Park Service’s budget.  We are committed to supporting initiatives to commemorate the 300^th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin and the interpretation of his legacy, especially at Franklin Court, a unit of Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, but given the current demands on National Park Service funds, we cannot support this legislation.

The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial is an affiliated area of the National Park System that is owned and administered by the Franklin Institute.  The Memorial includes a colossal seated marble statue of Franklin carved by sculptor James Earle Fraser, which stands in the Rotunda of the Franklin Institute’s main building at 20^th Street and the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia.  The statue and surrounding Memorial Hall was designated as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial on October 25, 1972 (P.L. 92-551) and made no provision for appropriated funds to be used for acquisition, development, operation or maintenance of this Memorial.  The House committee report on P.L. 92-551 anticipated that the Franklin Institute would continue to operate and maintain the Memorial at no cost to the government.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into on November 6, 1973, falls under the administrative authority of Independence National Historical Park.  The MOA outlines the major responsibilities of each party regarding the operations of the national memorial.  The Franklin Institute agreed to preserve the memorial in perpetuity, that no substantial alterations or repairs be taken without Secretarial approval, that the public shall be admitted without charge to the memorial, and that there will be equal employment opportunities.  In turn, the Secretary agreed to include the memorial in publications, to make appropriate references to it in the interpretive and information programs of Independence National Historical Park, and to cooperate with the Institute in all appropriate and mutually agreeable ways on behalf of the memorial.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment.  This concludes my prepared remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee members might have.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 958, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER TRAIL IN THE STATES OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS A NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.

July 28, 2005

________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 958, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail as a National Historic Trail.

The Department supports S. 958, which would designate an approximately 290-mile land and water trail extending from southern Maryland through the District of Columbia and Virginia along the Chesapeake Bay.  The land routes would follow existing public roads, along which British and American troops traveled.  The bill would require the Secretary to encourage public participation and consult with landowners, Federal, State, and local agencies on the administration of the trail.  The bill would prohibit land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area from being acquired for the trail without the consent of the owner. 

The proposed National Historic Trail would commemorate the events leading up to the writing of  “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812.  These events include the British invasion of Maryland, the Battle of Bladensburg, the burning of the White House and the Capitol, the burning of the Washington Navy Yard, and the Battle for Baltimore in the summer of 1814.  The route of the invasion is known and documented, and the proposed trail would follow it as closely as practical. 

The War of 1812 and the Chesapeake Campaign of 1814 had long-lasting and far-reaching effects on the United States and American culture.  It represented the first major test of our infant democracy, contributed to the formation of a national identity, and demonstrated the importance of a strong military and the need for coastal defenses.  During the campaign, other events occurred that are significant to our nation’s heritage, particularly the writing of the poem commemorating a key battle -- the Battle for Baltimore.  Francis Scott Key’s poem, the words of which comprise our National Anthem, celebrated the resiliency of the young nation and the flag he described as “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the successful defense of Fort McHenry.  The events provide important testimony, too, about the roles of the enslaved and civilians in the early defense of the nation.

Should S. 958 be enacted, the National Park Service, subject to availability of funds, would prepare a comprehensive management plan with widespread public participation to identify the goals and objectives for trail preservation, research, interpretation, public use, trail marking, and cooperative management.  The bill recognizes the advantages offered by the regional nature of the trail and the many organizations interested in and associated with the history of the Chesapeake Campaign.  Several key trail-related resources, such as Fort McHenry and the White House, are owned by the Federal government.  We anticipate that other trail-related resources such as structures within Old Town Alexandria in Virginia or Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum in Maryland will primarily remain in local or private ownership. 

In 1999, the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Study Act (Public Law 106-135) was enacted authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to study the potential route of a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail.  The history, background, integrity, and national significance of the trail were researched and analyzed.  The criteria for national trails, set forth in the National Trails Systems Act, were applied, and five of the eight trail study segments were found to meet the necessary criteria.  The proposed 290-mile trail would only include these five segments.

Providing conservation and enjoyment of, public access to, and interpretation of the historic route and its resources has been a growing focus of both public and private initiatives in recent years as the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 approaches.  In Maryland, a grassroots initiative was undertaken to raise public awareness of the important events that occurred in the Chesapeake region in the summer of 1814 during the War of 1812.  Historians and regional groups recognized the untold stories and legacy of the events of the Chesapeake Campaign and the need for protection and interpretation of related historical resources.  

The proposed trail represents an opportunity for an effective partnership among Federal, State, and local governments, a dedicated trail organization, and the many public and private site managers to administer and maintain a federally designated commemorative trail along the historic routes of the Chesapeake Campaign.  Because of its emphasis on partnerships, this approach provides the greatest flexibility for resource protection while creating a framework for interpretation and visitor experience.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would be happy to respond to any questions that you and the committee may have.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE BELKO, MANAGER OF THE MICHIGAN LIGHTHOUSE PROJECT, BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE, CONCERNING S. 1346, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF MARITIME SITES IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

JULY 28, 2005

Mr. Chairman and fellow subcommittee members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the position of Michigan's lighthouse interests, both governmental and nonprofit, regarding S. 1346, entitled the "Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act," a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites in the state of Michigan.

I must emphasize from the very start of my testimony, that Sen. Stabenow's bill is the most important piece of legislation to date aiding and facilitating the preservation of Michigan's rich maritime heritage and providing an unparalleled opportunity for continued economic growth in our state.  As an expert both on lighthouse preservation efforts and on comprehensive heritage studies, such as proposed under S. 1346, I cannot express enough how critical this bill is to the people of our state, to our maritime heritage, and to our local economies.

It is no secret that the state of Michigan -- the Great Lakes state -- is one of this nation's premier maritime destinations, with a rich maritime heritage and culture stretching back long before European colonization and settlement.  From Native American fishermen and French fur traders, to Great Lakes shipping supporting the great copper, iron ore, and lumber legacy of Michigan, to pristine and rugged shorelines, the people of Michigan have indeed a maritime heritage worthy of treasuring and exhibiting for all to enjoy.  The state contains twelve maritime-related national landmarks, two extensive national lakeshores, and the only fresh water national maritime sanctuary.  Our state's history -- its settlement, its development, its economy, and its culture -- cannot be told without emphasizing first and foremost our extensive maritime legacy.

It is also no secret that the cornerstone of Michigan's maritime heritage are the numerous historic lighthouses stretched across our great state.  The state of Michigan has over 120 historic lighthouses -- more than any other state.  Many reside along the extensive 3,200 miles of Michigan’s shoreline; some stand miles offshore on remote islands or isolated shoals.  All have historical and architectural significance and are either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.  These architectural wonders once served as crucial beacons to Great Lakes shipping, but now they have yielded to the advance of technology.  The era of global positioning has made the Fresnel lens antiquated to all but recreational boaters and lighthouse enthusiasts.  Simple metal poles supporting computerized navigation instruments have replaced the brick and steel towers with their adjacent keeper’s dwellings and ancillary outbuildings.

Yet these historic structures still attest to the rich maritime history of the state.  Their very presence still commands awe from those who catch sight of them and lighthouse lore never fails to capture the attention of all who pass their way.  Michigan’s lighthouses, many in a state of disrepair and in danger of disintegrating, stand witness to the great age of the lighthouse keepers and their isolated lives struggling to keep the shipping lanes of the Great Lakes safe.  Dedicated groups endeavoring to save this integral part of the state’s history have restored some of Michigan’s lighthouses.  Several of these lighthouses now house museums devoted to lighthouse history and maritime culture, and are open to the public for their pleasure and education.  Many more lighthouses, however, are in dire need of restoration.  Without quality stewards to preserve, maintain, and exhibit these ailing structures, they will certainly vanish from the landscape, only to exist in our collective memory, in old photographs, or in dusty log books.

Michigan’s lighthouses have become the state’s most identifiable icon, gracing tourism guides, welcome centers, city logos, and countless marquees, billboards, business publications, and storefronts.  Travel Michigan, the state's "tourism bureau," has as its logo, a lighthouse, and the State of Michigan's official website likewise sports a lighthouse, the beautifully restored Big Sable Point Light Station residing along the blue waters of Lake Michigan.  Rescuing these historic structures and maintaining them for public enjoyment has obviously emerged as one of Michigan’s most popular endeavors. 

S. 1346 provides the people of Michigan with a comprehensive plan for rescuing and restoring our lighthouses and other maritime structures and landscapes.  The study will assess the needs and outline the costs of preserving our historic lighthouses and maritime resources; it will identify funding sources critical to a successful campaign for restoring and exhibiting our maritime history; and, it will provide the necessary and much-needed direction for implementing preservation projects, for establishing methods of interpreting our rich maritime heritage, and for laying out a long-term strategy for future restoration efforts. And I must add, that this bill will not only benefit Michigan and the Great Lakes region, it will also provide a model for other states to follow as they, too, preserve their own heritage and historical resources.

As important, this study will generate a centralized and complete inventory of our state's maritime resources, by bringing together the knowledge of local, regional, state, and national entities interested in saving Michigan's maritime resources.  The bill will further establish and facilitate healthy partnerships among all levels of government and throughout all the communities lying along our shoreline, and combine their talents and skills in creating a network of organizations and individuals dedicated to preserving and exhibiting Michigan's abundant maritime resources.  The creation of the Michigan Maritime Heritage Destination Network will undoubtedly link all maritime interests and resources in our state into a working cooperative, providing shared information and technical expertise, mapping out future preservation efforts, and guaranteeing the successful exhibition of Michigan's lighthouses and maritime heritage for generations to come.

Passage of S. 1346 is not only imperative for preserving our state's maritime heritage, it is equally critical for boosting the future economic potential of our state.  Tourism is the second largest industry in Michigan, and with our largest industry (the automotive industry) currently facing hard times, we must invest in the state's ability to attract substantial numbers of tourists.  Our maritime heritage can indeed draw great numbers of tourists, and our maritime heritage and resources are indeed the foundation for increasing our tourism base.  As such, S. 1346 will help guide the state of Michigan in implementing a strong and effective plan of action for expanding and capitalizing on the tourist-oriented sector of our state's economy.  Preservation of the state's lighthouses and other maritime structures and resources will bring much-needed dollars into local communities, directly affecting other segments of the local economies, from restaurants, hotels, and gas stations, to retail shops and local attractions.  In short, this bill is imperative for the economic growth and vitality of the local communities directly affected by this legislation, and it will yield significant economic dividends for the state of Michigan and for the Great Lakes region in general.

In closing, the lighthouse and maritime interests within the state of Michigan vigorously support passage of S. 1346, providing the people of Michigan and of the Great Lakes overall with a comprehensive plan for emphasizing the importance of the maritime heritage of the region and for augmenting the economic development of the local communities residing along the extensive Great Lakes shoreline.

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