S. Hrg. 100-866
MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR ACT, CONGA-
REE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANSION AND WILDER-
NESS ACT, AND CHARLES PINCKNEY HISTORIC SITE
HEARINi
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
'•^;?
■•"•^
S. 1643 . ^^^^ ;.^ie^liv
TO ESTABLISH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HfilXAGE CORRIDOR
S. 2018
TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL
MONUMENT, TO DESIGNATE WILDERNESS THEREIN, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
S. 2058
TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARLES PINCKNEY NA-
TIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
lr^'
JUNE 23, 1988
ai^sj,
^■]U>^
GOV DOCS
KF
5635
.A25
1988b x
^esear
Librar
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1988
le by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
90-788 - 88 - 1
S. Hrg. 100-866
MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR ACT, CONGA-
REE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANSION AND WILDER-
NESS ACT, AND CHARLES PINCKNEY HISTORIC SITE
i
u
r
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENEEGY AND NATURAL RESOUECES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION . . „^. -'
HTHDRAV
TO ESTABLISH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HfilXAGE CORRIDOR ' "'
S. 2018
TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL
MONUMENT, TO DESIGNATE WILDERNESS THEREIN, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
S. 2058
TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARLES PINCKNEY NA-
TIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
JUNE 23, 1988
^IWI'
GOV DOCS p . ^ f .u
Printed for the use of the
^^ Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
5635
.A25 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1988bx 1 WASHINGTON : 1988
^esearcir
Library ,
Ip by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
90-788 - 88 - 1
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas JAMES A, McCLURE, Idaho
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut
JOHN MELCHER, Montana PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIMOTHY WIRTH, Colorado DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia CHIC HECHT, Nevada
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota DANIEL J. EVANS, Washington
Daryl H. Owen, Staff Director
D. Michael Harvey, Chief Counsel
Frank M. Gushing, Staff Director for the Minority
.' , Gary G. Ellsworth, Chief Counsel for the Minority
Subcommittee on Pubuc Lands, National Parks and Forests
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas, Chairman
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Vice Chairman
JOHN MELCHER, Montana MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming
BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
CHIC HECHT, Nevada
J. Bennett Johnston and James A. McClure are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
Thomas B. Wiluams, Senior Professional Staff Member
EuzABETH J. NoRCROSS, Professional Staff Member
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
S. 1643 6
S. 2018 18
S. 2058 23
STATEMENTS
Beasley, Barry R., coordinator for State scenic rivers program commission,
South Carolina Water Resources Commission 93
Bernhagen, Hon. John, Minnesota State Senator 119
Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas 3
Crandall, Derrick, president, American Recreation Coalition 120
Derbes, H. Dan, Mississippi River Parkway Commission, accompanied by
John Bernhagen Ill
Devine, Dr. Michael J., director, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 124
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina 61
Hollings, Rita L., "Peatsy", accompanied by Nancy Thurmond 69
Kirby, Peter, southwest regional director, the Wilderness Society 105
Lienesch, William, director of Federal activities, National Parks and Conser-
vation Association 99
Rogers, Jerry, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, accompanied by Robert McDaniel 76
Spratt, Hon. John, U.S. Representative from South Carolina 67
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from South Carolina 26
Thurmond, Nancy 75
Watkins, Richard, conservation chair. South Carolina Chapter, Sierra Club 89
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions 129
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record 135
(III)
MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE COR-
RIDOR ACT, CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL
MONUMENT EXPANSION AND WILDERNESS
ACT, AND CHARLES PINCKNEY HISTORIC SITE
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1988
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:37 a.m. in room SD-366, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dale Bumpers, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Bumpers. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The purpose of the hearing today is to receive testimony on three
measures currently pending before the Subcommittee on Public
Lands, National Parks, and Forests. The three measures are: S.
1643, a bill to establish the Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor; S. 2018, a bill to expand the boundaries of the Congaree
Swamp National Monument, to designate wilderness therein, and
for other purposes; and S. 2058, a bill to authorize the establish-
ment of the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site in the State of
South Carolina, and for other purposes.
I will place a copy of each bill in the hearing record.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks for the pur-
pose of receiving additional materials, statements, and so on.
Before we hear from our first witness today, I want to say a few
words about S. 1643, the Mississippi River National Heritage Corri-
dor bill.
Many of you know that I have been interested in the resources of
the Mississippi River region, especially the delta and the poverty
therein, for many years. It is my view that we need to take every
opportunity to promote and enhance the tremendous resource base
that we have along the river. While the Mississippi River Parkway
Commission and other entities have done an excellent job in pro-
moting the scenic, historic, environmental, economic and cultural
resources of this region, more needs to be done.
Some mechanism needs to be found to focus the spotlight on
these important values and to make people both inside and outside
of the region aware of this significant national asset.
(1)
I feel that S. 1643 can provide a good starting point for such an
effort.
I also want to note for the record that I am currently pursuing
some of the economic development potential of this region through
another measure, S. 2246, the Lower Mississippi Delta Develop-
ment Act.
And I will insert the rest of my remarks in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bumpers and the texts of the
bills follow:]
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE DALE BUMPERS
The purpose of the hearing today is to receive testimony on three
measures currently pending before the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests. The three measures are:
S. 1643, a bill to establish the Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor;
S. 2018, a bill to expand the boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National
Monument, to designate wilderness therein, and for other purposes; and
S. 2058, a bill to authorize the establishment of the Charles Pinckney
National Historic Site in the State of South Carolina, and for other
purposes .
At this point, I will place a copy of each bill in the Hearing
Record. The Hearing Record will remain open for two weeks for the
purpose of receiving additional materials, statements, etc..
Before we hear from our first witness today, I would like to say a
few words about S. 1643, the Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor bill.
As some of you know, I have been interested in the resources of
the Mississippi River region, especially the Delta region - for many
years. It is my view that we need to take every opportunity to promote
- 2 -
and enhance the tremendous resource base that we have along the
Mississippi River. While the Mississippi River Parkway Commission and
other entities have done an excellent job in promoting the scenic,
historic, environmental, economic, and cultural resources of this
region, more needs to be done. Some mechanism needs to be found to
focus the spotlight on these important values and to make people, both
inside and outside of the region, aware of this significant national
asset. I feel that S. 1643 can provide a good starting point for such
an effort .
I also want to note for the record that I am currently pursuing
some of the economic development potential of this region through
another measure I have introduced, S. 2246 - the Lower Mississippi
Delta Development Act .
This legislation would establish a Mississippi Delta Development
Commission that will be given a one-year charge to study the ten-year
education, housing, health, transportation, recreation, infrastructure,
capital enhancement and credit availability, energy, small business and
industrial development needs of the Mississippi Delta region. This
nine-member Commission, composed of one member from each of the seven
states in the region plus two federal appointees, will, within one
year, make comprehensive recommendations in its report to the Congress,
the President, and the various governors concerning what we do now to
begin to fully develop the Mississippi Delta economy by the year 2000,
thereby eliminating the persistent and pervasive poverty that has
- 3 -
plagued our region.
I see a real opportunity for these two measures to work in tandem
for the region, and I urge all the witnesses today to give some
thought to how this might be achieved.
n
100th congress
1st Session
S. 1643
To establish the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor.
m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
August 7 (legislative day, August 5), 1987
Mr. Simon (for himself, Mr. Stennis, Mr. Bond, Mr. Beeaux, Mr. Bumpers,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Durenberger, Mr.
Ford, Mr. Gore, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnston, Mr.
Kasten, and Mr. Sasser) introduced the following bill; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
A BILL
To establish the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "Mississippi River Nation-
5 al Heritage Corridor Act of 1987".
6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
7 The Congress finds the following:
8 (1) The Mississippi River Corridor stretches
9 through 10 States from the headwaters of the Missis-
10 sippi River in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of
2
1 Mexico and contains nationally significant historic, eco-
2 nomic, recreational, scenic, cultural, natural, and scien-
3 tific resources.
4 (2) The national interest would be served by the
5 preservation, protection, enhancement, and coordina-
6 tion at all levels of government of such resources in
7 the Mississippi River Corridor for the benefit of the
8 people of the United States.
9 (3) Despite efforts by the States through which
10 the Mississippi River Corridor stretches, poHtical subdi-
11 visions of such States, and volunteer associations and
12 private businesses in such States, the preservation,
13 protection, and enhancement of such resources of the
14 Mississippi River Corridor have not been realized fully.
15 (4) The Mississippi River Corridor is located in
16 the heartland of the United States and has the poten-
17 tial for further economic, industrial, and agricultural
18 development.
19 (5) The estabUshment of the Mississippi River Na-
20 tional Heritage Corridor will focus national attention
21 on the available resources of the Mississippi River Cor-
22 ridor and provide a means and a stimulus for coordina-
23 tion for the preservation, protection, enhancement, en-
24 joyment, and utilization of the resources of the Missis-
25 sippi River Corridor.
"•■g 1643 IS'' " ""
8
3
1 (6) The establishment of the Mississippi River Na-
2 tional Heritage Corridor Commission would provide a
3 national entity to gather, assess, and disseminate infor-
4 mation on the recreational, cultural, historic, and eco-
5 nomic opportunities in the Mississippi River Corridor.
6 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
7 In this Act—
8 (1) the term "Commission" means the Mississippi River
9 National Heritage Corridor Commission, previously referred
10 to as the Mississippi River Parkway Commission;
11 (2) the term "Corridor" means the Mississippi River
12 National Heritage Corridor;
13 (3) the term "political subdivision of a State" means a
14 political subdivision of a State, any part of which is located in
15 or adjacent to the Corridor, including counties, parishes,
16 townships, cities, towns, villages, park districts, and forest
17 preserve districts;
18 (4) the term "Mississippi River Corridor" means the
19 area included in the Corridor;
20 (5) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the
21 Interior; and
22 (6) the term "State" means the State of Arkansas, Uli-
23 nois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
24 Missouri, Tennessee, or Wisconsin.
S 1643 IS
4
1 SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT; BOUNDARIES.
2 (a) Establishment. — There is established the Missis-
3 sippi River National Heritage Corridor.
4 (b) Boundaries. — (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
5 Corridor shall consist of the area within boundary lines de-
6 picted on the map entitled "Great River Road Inventory
7 1985". Such map shall be—
8 (A) on file with—
9 (i) the Commission;
10 (ii) the Mississippi River Parkway Commis-
11 sion; and
12 (iii) the Department of the Interior; and
13 (B) available for public inspection.
14 (2) The Commission may revise the boundaries of the
15 Corridor. Any such revision shall be published by the Secre-
16 tary in the Federal Register.
17 SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.
18 There is established the Mississippi River National Her-
19 itage Corridor Commission.
20 SEC. 6. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION.
21 (a) Number and Appointment. — The Commission
22 shall be composed of 101 members as follows:
28 (1) The Director of the National Park Service;
24 and
S 1643 IS
10
5
1 (2) 10 individuals from each State, one of whom
2 will be designated by the Governor of that State to
3 serve on the Executive Board —
4 (A) nominated by the Governor of that State;
5 and
6 (B) appointed by the Secretary.
7 (b) First Appointments. — Members of the Commis-
8 sion required by subsection (a) to be appointed shall be first
9 appointed not later than 90 days after the date of the enact-
10 ment of this Act.
11 (c) Vacancies. — A vacancy in the Commission shall be
12 filled in the manner in which the original appointment is
13 made.
14 (d) Terms. — (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2)
15 through (4), members of the Commission shall be appointed
16 for terms of 4 years.
17 (2) Of the members of the Commission first appointed
18 under subsection (a)(2), 50 members shall be appointed for
19 terms of 2 years.
20 (3) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
21 before the expiration of the term of the predecessor shall be
22 appointed only for the remainder of such term.
23 (4) Members may continue to serve on the Commission
24 after the expiration of their terms until the date on which a
25 successor is appointed.
11
6
1 (e) Pay. — (1) Except as provided in para^aph (2),
2 members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
3 (2) Members of the Commission who are full-time offi-
4 cers or employees of the United States shall receive no addi-
5 tional pay by reason of their service on the Commission.
6 (f) Reimbuesement of Expenses. — While away
7 from their homes or re^lar places of business in the perform-
8 ance of services for the Commission, members of the Com-
9 mission shall be allowed travel expenses, including a per
10 diem allowance in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as
11 persons employed intermittently in Government service are
12 allowed travel expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United
13 States Code.
14 (g) QuOBUM. — (1) 51 members of the Commission shall
15 constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
16 hold hearings.
17 (2) A member of the Commission may vote by means of
18 a signed proxy exercised by another member of the Commis-
19 sion, but any member so voting shall not be considered
20 present for purposes of establishing a quorum.
21 (h) Chaiepeeson. — The chairperson of the Commis-
22 sion shall be elected by the members of the Commission.
23 (i) Meetings. — (1) The Commission shall meet at the
24 call of the chairperson or a majority of the members.
S 1643 IS--
12
7
1 (2) The Commission shall hold its first meeting not later
2 than 45 days after the members of the Commission are first
3 appointed.
4 SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE BOARD.
5 (a) Establishment. — There shall be an Executive
6 Board of the Commission. The Executive Board shall be
7 comprised of 11 members, 10 of whom are designated as
8 such under section 6(a)(2) and 1 of whom shall be the Direc-
9 tor of the National Park Service.
10 (b) Functions. — The Executive Board shall be respon-
11 sible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of the Com-
12 mission, including —
13 (1) appointing and fixing the pay of staff;
14 (2) procuring temporary and intermittent services;
15 (3) accepting personnel detailed to the Commis-
16 sion;
17 (4) contracting for goods and services; and
18 (5) any other duty delegated by the Commission.
19 (c) Quorum. — Six members of the Executive Board
20 shall constitute a quorum.
21 (d) Chairperson. — The chairperson of the Commis-
22 sion shall serve as chairperson of the Executive Board.
23 SEC. 8. STAFF OF COMMISSION; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS;
24 PERSONNEL OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
25 (a) Staff. — Subject to —
S 164S IS
13
8
1 (1) the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
2 governing appointments in the competitive service; and
3 (2) the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
4 m of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification
5 and General Schedule pay rates,
6 the Commission may appoint and fix the pay of such staff as
7 the Commission considers appropriate.
8 (b) ExPEETS AND CONSULTANTS. — The Commission
9 may procure temporary and intermittent services under sec-
10 tion 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
11 (c) Personnel op States and Political Subdivi-
12 siONS. — The Commission may —
13 (1) accept the services of personnel detailed from
14 a State or a political subdivision of a State; and
15 (2) reimburse such State or such subdivision for
16 such services.
17 (d) Personnel of Federal Agencies. — At the re-
18 quest of the Commission, the head of any Federal agency
19 may detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of
20 such agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in
21 carrying out its duties under this Act.
22 SEC. 9. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
23 (a) Hearings and Sessions. — For the purpose of car-
24 rying out this Act, the Commission may hold such hearings,
25 sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
* •
" S 1643 IS
14
9
1 receive such evidence as the Commission considers appropri-
2 ate.
3 (b) Powers of Members and Agents. — Any
4 member or agent of the Commission may, if so authorized by
5 the Commission, take any action which the Commission is
6 authorized to take by this section.
7 (c) Obtaining Official Data. — The Commission
8 may secure directly from any agency (as defined in section
9 5520(c)(4) of title 5, United States Code), from a State, and
10 from any political subdivision of a State information neces-
11 sary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act. Upon
12 request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of
13 such agency shall furnish such information to the Commis-
14 sion,
15 (d) Mails. — The Commission may use the United
16 States mails in the same manner and under the same condi-
17 tions as other departments and agencies of the United States.
18 (e) Administrative Support Services. — The Ad-
19 ministrator of General Services shall provide to the Commis-
20 sion on a reimbursable basis such administrative support
21 services as the Commission may request.
22 (f) Gifts. — The Commission may accept, use, and dis-
23 pose of gifts or donations of services, moneys, and other
24 property.
6' i643 IS
15
10
1 SEC. 10. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
2 (a) Prepaeation of Plan. — Not later than 2 years
3 after the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission
4 shall, in consultation with the Secretary, prepare a plan
5 which shall provide an inventory and assess the preservation,
6 protection, enhancement, enjoyment, and utilization of the
7 historic, economic, recreational, scenic, cultural, natural, and
8 scientific resources of the Corridor. The plan shall —
9 (1) provide an inventory and assessment of the
10 historic, economic, recreational, scenic, cultural, natu-
11 ral, and scientific resources of the Corridor;
12 (2) contain a description of economic opportunities
13 in the corridor and proposals to expand economic de-
14 velopment in the Corridor; and
15 (3) include recommendations to encourage eco-
16 nomic development which is balanced with historic
17 preservation, tourism, and environmental protection
18 and enhancement.
19 (b) Assistance. — The Commission shall assist States,
20 political subdivisions of States, and tribal governments that
21 undertake activities to preserve, protect, enhance, or utilize
22 the historic, economic, recreational, scenic, cultural, natural,
23 or scientific resources of the Corridor.
24 (c) Information Clearinghouse. — The Commission
25 shall collect information dealing with ongoing activities, man-
26 agement plans, and opportunities regarding historic, econom-
S ■l643' IS -•
16
11
1 ic, recreational, scenic, cultural, natural, and scientific re-
2 sources in the Corridor. Such information shall be made
3 available to Federal agencies. States, political subdivisions of
4 States, tribal governments, volunteer associations, and pri-
5 vate businesses.
6 (d) Great River Road. — The Commission shall coop-
7 erate vdth the Mississippi River Parkway Commission to
8 assist in the continued development, maintenance, and en-
9 hancement of the Great River Road as a continuous scenic
10 highway along the entire length of the Corridor.
11 (e) Biennial Report. — The Commission shall submit
12 a report biennially to the chief executive officer of each State
13 and to the Secretary concerning the activities of the Commis-
14 sion for the years involved.
15 SEC. 11. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY; OTHER FEDERAL
16 AGENCIES.
17 (a) Secretary. — The Secretary —
18 (1) shall assist the Commission in preparing the
19 plan referred to in section 10;
20 (2) shall review such plan;
21 (3) may propose changes in such plan; and
22 (4) shall coordinate v^dth the Commission, and
23 Federal agencies affected by such plan, the process for
24 developing and implementing such plan.
r.
S 1643 IS
17
12
1 (b) Federal Agencies. — Any Federal agency entity
2 conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the Cor-
3 ridor shall, to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or
4 support such activities in a manner that takes the plan re-
5 ferred to in section 10 into account.
6 SEC. 12. RESTRICTIONS.
7 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to invest in the
8 Commission or the Secretary authority to interfere with the
9 activities of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a
10 tribal government.
1 1 SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
12 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Commis-
13 sion $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1989, 1990, and
14 1991 to carry out this Act.
S 1643 IS
18
n
100th congress
2d Session
S.2018
To expand the boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National Monument, to
designate wilderness therein, and for other purposes.
m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 1, 1988
Mr. Thurmond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
A BILL
To expand the boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National
Monument, to designate wilderness therein, and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "Congaree Swamp Na-
5 tional Monument Expansion and Wildnerness Act".
6 TITLE I— WILDERNESS
7 DESIGNATION
8 SEC. 101. NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS.
9 (a) Designation of Wilderness. — The lands de-
10 scribed in subsection (b) are hereby designated as wilderness
19
2
1 in accordance with section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (78
2 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1132(c)) and shall be administered by
3 the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the applica-
4 ble provisions of the Wilderness Act.
5 (b) Description of Lands. — The lands designated as
6 wilderness under subsection (a) consist of the area comprising
7 15,138 acres withm the boundary as generally depicted on
8 the map entitled "Wilderness Proposal, Congaree Swamp
9 National Monument", dated September 1987, including ex-
10 isting monument areas on such map designated as potential
11 wilderness.
12 SEC. 102. MAP AND DESCRIPTION.
13 A map and description of the boundaries of the areas in
14 section 101 shall be on file and available for public inspection
15 in the Office of the Director of the National Park Service,
16 Department of the Interior, and in the Office of the Superin-
17 tendent of the area designated. As soon as practicable after
18 this title takes effect, maps of the wilderness areas and de-
19 scriptions of their boundaries shall be filed with the Commit-
20 tee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States
21 House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
22 Natural Resources of the United States Senate, and such
23 maps and description shall have the same force and effect as
24 if included in this title: Provided, That correction of clerical
•S 2018 IS
20
3
1 and typographical errors in such maps and descriptions may
2 be made.
3 SEC. 103. CESSATION OF CERTAIN USES.
4 Any lands described in section 101(b) which represent
5 potential wilderness additions upon acquisition of non-Federal
6 interests in land and publication in the Federal Register of a
7 notice by the Secretary of the Interior that all uses thereon
8 prohibited by the Wilderness Act have ceased, shall thereby
9 be designated wilderness. Lands designated as potential wil-
10 demess additions shall be managed by the Secretary insofar
11 as practicable as wilderness until such time as said lands are
12 designated as wilderness.
13 SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATION.
14 The areas designated by section 101 as wilderness shall
15 be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accord-
16 ance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act
17 governing areas designated by that title as wilderness, except
18 that any reference in such provisions to the effective date of
19 the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the
20 effective date of this title, and where appropriate, any refer-
21 ence to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be deemed to be a
22 reference to the Secretary of the Interior.
• S 2018' IS
21
4
1 TITLE II— ADDITIONS TO THE
2 CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL
3 MONUMENT
4 SEC. 201. ADDITIONAL LANDS.
5 The first section of Public Law 94-545, relating to the
6 Congaree Swamp National Monument, is amended by —
7 (1) inserting "(a)" after "That"; and
8 (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
9 "(b) In addition to the lands described in subsection (a),
10 the monument shall consist of the additional area within the
11 boundary as generally depicted on the map entitled 'Citizens
12 Boundary Proposal for Congaree Swamp National Monu-
13 ment', dated November 1987, which shall be on file and
14 available for public inspection in the offices of the National
15 Park Service, Department on the Interior. The map may be
16 revised as provided in subsection (a). The total acreage of the
17 monument including lands described in subsection (a) and this
18 subsection shall not exceed 22,200 acres.".
19 SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION.
20 Section 5(a) of PubHc Law 94-545 is amended by
21 adding at the end thereof the following: "The Secretary may
22 expend such additional sums as are necessary from the Land
23 and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition of land de-
24 scribed in subsection (b) of the first section.".
• S 2018 IS
22
5
1 TITLE III— AUTHORIZATION OF
2 APPROPRIATIONS FOR NA-
3 TIONAL MONUMENT DEVELOP-
4 MENT
5 SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
6 Section 5 of Public Law 94-545 is amended by adding
7 at the end thereof the following:
8 "(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
9 $2,697,750 for construction and development within the
10 monument."
23
n
100th congress
2d Session
S. 2058
To authorize the establishment of the Charies Pinckney National Historic Site in
the State of South Carolina, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 17 flegislative day, February 15), 1988
Mr. Thurmond (for himself and Mr. Hollings) introduced the following bill;
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources
A BILL
To authorize the establishment of the Charles Pinckney Nation-
al Historic Site in the State of South Carolina, and for
other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tims of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH SITE.
4 In order to protect and interpret for the benefit of the
5 people of the United States the home of Charies Pinckney,
6 signer of the United States Constitution and author of the
7 document known as the "Pinckney Draft" of the Constitu-
8 tion, the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this Act re-
9 ferred to as the "Secretary") is authorized to designate such
24
2
1 of the lands, interests in lands, and improvements thereon as
2 comprise the property in the vicinity of Charleston, South
3 Carolina, known as "Snee Farm" which he deems necessary
4 and appropriate for establishment and administration as a na-
5 tional historic site.
6 SEC. 2. LAND ACQUISITION.
7 (a) Authority to Acquire Land. — Withm the area
8 designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 1 of this Act,
9 the Secretary is authorized to acquire lands, interests m
10 lands, and improvements thereon by donation, purchase with
11 donated or appropriated funds, or exchange. The Secretary
12 may also acquire, by the same methods, personal property
13 associated with and appropriate for interpretation of the site.
14 (b) Establishment of Site. — When the Secretary
15 determines that real property sufficient to constitute an effi-
16 ciently administrable unit has been acquired by the United
17 States for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall estab-
18 lish the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site by publica-
19 tion of a notice to that effect in the Federal Register. The
20 Secretary may thereafter continue to acquire property for the
21 site in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Pending
22 such establishment and thereafter, the Secretary shall admin-
23 ister real and personal property acquired for the purposes of
24 this Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act of
•S 2058 IS
25
3
1 August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4), and the
2 Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461).
8 (c) Report to Congress. — Within 3 complete fiscal
4 years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
5 shall submit to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
6 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
7 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a general man-
8 agement plan for the national historic site, prepared in ac-
9 cordance with section 12(b) of the Act of August 18, 1970
10 (84 Stat. 825; 16 U.S.C. la-1— la-7). Such plan shall iden-
11 tify appropriate facilities for proper interpretation of the site
12 for visitors.
13 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
14 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
15 may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
rfS'2058 IS
26
Senator Bumpers. Well, this morning we are considering these
three bills, and we are most honored to start our hearing this
morning with the Honorable Strom Thurmond, Senator from South
Carolina, and Senator Ernest Rollings.
They are both seated at the witness table and Senator Thur-
mond, would you please proceed. We are honored to have you and
anxious to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, it is a distinct pleasure to appear this morning before
you and the other members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests.
I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and
the ranking minority member, Senator Wallop, and to other mem-
bers of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on
two bills I have introduced: S. 2018, the bill to expand the bound-
aries of the Congaree Swamp national monument; and S. 2058, a
bill to authorize the establishment of the Charles Pinckney nation-
al historic site.
I am pleased that my distinguished fellow colleague from South
Carolina, Senator Rollings, is an original co-sponsor of both pieces
of legislation, and I am glad that he could be here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I plan to speak briefly of both bills, and I ask that
a separate, more detailed statement be included in the record.
Senator Bumpers. Without objection, it will be entered.
Senator Thurmond. Now, as to the Congaree Swamp expansion,
in May of 1976 it was my privilege to introduce legislation which
authorized the establishment of the Congaree Swamp national
monument, one of the few remaining examples of an old growth
southern bottomland forest. In October of that same year, former
President Ford signed into law legislation which established about
15,000 acres of the Congaree as a national monument.
Earlier this year, it was my privilege to introduce S. 2018, the
Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion Wilderness Act.
This legislation will increase the acreage of the monument to a
level many familiar with the area believe is necessary to fully pro-
tect the monument.
This legislation would add up to 7,000 acres, primarily along the
northern, southern, and eastern borders of the swamp.
Mr. Chairman, I have brought with me a map of the monument
which designates in green the lands to be added. I want to take just
a moment to point this out. The red land is now the land that is
currently within the monument. The green is what is to be added.
Senator Bumpers. Senator Thurmond, is there a river or some
natural geographical boundary? It looks like a river on the bottom
there. Is that the Congaree River?
Senator Thurmond. Yes, it is.
Senator Bumpers. So the southern boundary there, you are
adding some pieces that are on the south, it looks like are on the
south side of the river?
27
Senator Thurmond. The river is the natural boundary, that is
right.
Senator Bumpers. Is that a natural boundary on the north side,
too? Or is that a road?
Senator Thurmond. It is not a natural boundary on the north.
Those are not natural boundaries.
In fact, the Congaree River is the natural boundary here. These
others are not.
This is what is recommended by the Park Service.
Senator Bumpers. That is fine. Thank you. Senator.
Senator Thurmond. This bill designates substantially all of the
acreage within the existing monument as wilderness area.
For your benefit, this area is identified on that second map as I
have tried to explain. Mr. Chairman, included in the lands pro-
posed to be added is a 145-acre tract owned by Mr. William Bruner
and sons. This tract is located in the southwestern corner of the
monument near Cooks Lake.
In its existing state, the land would be an appropriate addition to
the monument. However, the Bruner family desires to keep this
tract in their family, and accordingly I want to respect their
wishes.
Mr. Chairman, at such time as the full Committee marks up S.
2018 I would appreciate your excluding this property from the pro-
posed addition. This is the tract here I think we ought to exclude,
right here.
They want to keep it in the family. They have got a number of
children.
Senator Bumpers. How many acres in that little exclusion there,
Strom? Do you know?
Senator Hollings. 145.
Senator Bumpers. 145.
Senator Thurmond. That is a small tract there.
This legislation is supported by the Governor of South Carolina,
the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources,
the South Carolina Water Resources Commission, the South Caroli-
na Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, the Wilderness
Society, the Sierra Club, the National Parks and Conservation As-
sociation, as well as many concerned individuals in South Carolina.
I have previously included letters of support on page S. 376 in
the Congressional Record of February 1, 1988, and would draw the
attention of the Subcommittee to those letters.
Senator Bumpers. It will all be admitted.
Senator Thurmond. And I would like to send this book up and
let you look at it.
And Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that Gover-
nor Campbell's letter appear at this point in the record.
Senator Bumpers. Without objection, it will be admitted.
[Governor Campbell's letter follows:]
28
Mni^ cf ^ctuil] (Lnxaibxn
(ifftr? of tif? (Sotrcnuir
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. Post OrrrcE Box ii369
COLUM BIA S9Zn
GOVERNOR
June 23, 1988
Honorable Dale Bumpers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman;
I am writing to express my full support for S. 20 1 8, to expand the
boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National Monument in South Carolina.
.As you know, the Congaree Swamp National Monument was established to
preserve a fine example of the vanishing southern bottomland hardwood
forest, and it is also the home of many ancient trees and several
endangered species. S. 2018 is needed to insure the further protection of
this priceless resource. This legislation has been sponsored by our entire
congressional delegation and has received widespread support across the
State of South Carolina Moreover, the measure has been endorsed by
several conservation organizations.
We appreciate the attention by your subcommittee to this important bill.
Sincerely,
Carroll h Campbell, Jr.
Governor
29
Senator Thurmond. Now, Mr. Chairman, turning to the Snee
Farm. Mr. Chairman, my other bill, S. 2058, would allow the Na-
tional Parks Service to operate the estate of Charles Pinckney,
known as Snee Farm, as a part of the National Park System.
Charles Pinckney was one of our country's finest founding fa-
thers, who had a career of dedicated service to South Carolina and
the United States. I have described in my submitted testimony the
many accomplishments of Pinckney.
To summarize his career, Pinckney served as a lieutenant in the
Revolutionary War, a delegate to the Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention, a full term Governor of South Carolina,
a member of the South Carolina General Assembly, a member of
the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and a min-
ister to Spain.
Charles Pinckney is most noted for his contributions to the draft-
ing of the Constitution. He attended the Constitutional Convention
full time, spoke often and effectively, and contributed immensely to
the final draft and to the resolution of problems that arose during
the debate.
Pinckney also authored a draft of the Constitution, known as
"the Pinckney draft," and it is believed that as many as 31 provi-
sions of his draft were later adopted into the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, Snee Farm is currently under the threat of devel-
opment. Realizing the devastating impact development would have
on this historic site, a group of local citizens bought an option on
the property and they have undertaken a campaign to raise $2 mil-
lion to purchase Snee Farm.
Incidentally, the wife of my distinguished colleague I believe is
Honorary Chairman to raise that money, Ms. HoUings.
This fundraising campaign has been spearheaded by many
prominent South Carolinians. This bill has received the support of
local citizens of Charleston, SC, the South Carolina Governor, the
South Carolina General Assembly, the National Parks Service, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Commission on
the Bicentennial of the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the development of historic sites
has received considerable attention lately. I am encouraged by this
effort where a group of local citizens seized the initiative to save
Snee Farm.
They have undertaken a very successful private fundraising
drive and now have come to Congress for authorization of the
Charles Pinckney national historic site.
The preservation of this historic landmark and the interpreta-
tion of this part of our country's history is a worthy project. The
House of Representatives unanimously passed companion legisla-
tion, H.R. 3960, this week, and I hope that this bill will also receive
prompt and favorable consideration from the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and the other members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. I believe these two
bills are important to the preservation of our natural and historic
heritage, and I hope that they will receive favorable consideration
from your Subcommittee.
And I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
90-788 0-88-2
30
STATEMENT BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND (R-SC) BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS, SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE, REGARDING S.2018, AUTHORIZING EXPANSION OF THE
CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND S.2058, AUTHORIZING THE CHARLES
PINCKNEY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, 366 DIRKSEN OFFICE BUILDING,
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1988. 9:30 A.M.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is a distinct pleasure to appear this morning before you and
the other members of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests. I want to express my sincere thanks to
you and the Ranking Minority Member, Senator Wallop, and the other
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on
two bills I have introduced — S.2018, a bill to expand the boundaries
of the Congaree Swamp National Monument and S.2058, a bill to
authorize the establishment of the Charles Pinckney National Historic
Site. I am pleased that my distinguished fellow colleague from South
Carolina, Senator Hollings, is an original co-sponsor of both pieces
of legislation. We worked together back in 1975 to establish the
Congaree Monument, and I am pleased to work together again. Mr.
Chairman, I plan to speak briefly on both bills, and I ask that my
full statement be included in the record.
In May of 1975, it was my privilege to introduce legislation
which authorized the establishment of the Congaree Swamp National
Monument, one of the few remaining examples of an old-growth,
southern bottomland forest. The Congaree Swamp lies primarily along
the Northern bank of the Congaree River, and is approximately 20
miles southeast of Columbia, South Carolina. It is a uniquely
forested lowland area.
-1-
31
In October of that same year, former President Ford signed into
law legislation establishing the Congaree Swamp as a National
Monument. That legislation also directed the Secretary of the
Interior to develop and transmit to Congress a general management
plan for this monument.
A draft version of the general management plan was submitted to
Congress in 1987. A modified version of this plan was the subject of
a bill I introduced earlier this year S.2018, the "Congaree Swamp
National Monument Expansion and Wilderness Act".
Shortly after introducing S.2018, a companion bill, H.R.4027,
was introduced in the House of Representatives. The House bill
contained the substance of the bill I introduced, along with a few
clarifying, technical changes. Accordingly, I introduced Amendment
No. 1916, which will make these same technical changes in the Senate
bill. With these changes, the House and Senate bills will be
identical.
Title I of S.2018 would designate substantially all of the
acreage within the existing Congaree Swamp Monument as wilderness
area. Moreover, the acreage proposed to be added to the monument in
Title II of this bill, but not yet federal property, would be
designated as a "potential wilderness" area. This is necessary to
protect the area until federal acquisition.
Wilderness designation means just what it says - this area is
wilderness. It will be preserved in its natural condition.
As a general rule, hiking, camping, canoeing and fishing are
permissible in wilderness areas. However, pursuant to statute, there
is a prohibition on commercial enterprises, structures and
-2-
32
installations, permanent and temporary roads, motor vehicles,
motorized equipment, motorboats and other forms of mechanical
transportation in such areas, all in keeping with the purpose of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
Title II of the bill would increase the acreage of the monument
to a level many familiar with the area believe is necessary to fully
protect the monument. This title would add up to 7,000 acres,
primarily along the northern, southern, and eastern borders of the
swamp. The acreage to be added represents what is known as the
"Citizens Boundary Proposal", which was developed by a group of
concerned citizens who have a keen interest in protecting this
National treasure.
Finally, Title III of the bill provides for the authorization of
$2.7 million for construction of park visitor facilities, and the
improvement of certain roads, parking areas, and boating ramps.
Mr. Chairman, the forest which covers most of the monument
represents the last major virgin growth of its type in the
Southeast. Almost all other substantial virgin hardwood forests have
been subject to logging. Within the monument is found a southern
river-bottom hardwood forest, consisting of sweetgum, blackgum, swamp
white oak, southern red oak, willow oak, black oak, nutmeg hickory,
water tupelo, bald cypress, and loblolly pine. Included among these
are some 200 to 400-year-old giants consisting of 5 national and 12
South Carolina record trees. Previous studies by the National Park
Service have found no other area in the Southeast of comparable
geological and biological significance.
-3-
33
Furthermore, over 100 bird species are known to exist in the
monument, including the Swainson's warbler, red-cockaded woodpecker,
Louisiana Heron, Swallow-tailed Kite, and the Mississippi Kite.
Other wildlife include the white-tailed deer, bobwhite quail,
turkeys, raccoons, largemouth bass, bluegill, black crappie, yellow
perch, and many others.
Mr. Chairman, this enduring component of Creation has provided
hours of enjoyable outdoor recreational opportunities for residents
of South Carolina and the Nation at large. Hiking, canoeing,
camping, and fishing represent just a few of the available
activities. Attendance has risen from 190 visitors in 1978 to 20,312
in 1987. Accordingly, upgrading the Congaree Swamp and including
additional acreage represents sound stewardship of this national
resource and will help ensure its preservation for future generations
of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, as earlier mentioned, my bill would authorize the
addition of approximately 7i000 acres to the monument. Included in
the lands proposed to be added is a ^^5-^'Cre tract owned by Mr.
William Bruner and sons. This tract is located in the southwestern
corner of the monument, near Cook's Lake. In its existing state, the
land would be an appropriate addition to the monument. However, the
Bruner family desires to keep this tract in their family, and
accordingly, I want to respect their wishes. Mr. Chairman, at such
time as the Committee marks up S.2018, I would appreciate your
excluding this property from the proposed additions.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is supported by the Governor of
South Carolina, the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine
-H-
34
Resources, the South Carolina Water Resources Commission, the South
Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, The Wilderness
Society, the Sierra Club, the National Parks and Conservation
Association and many individuals. I have previously included letters
of support on page S376 in the Congressi onal Record of February 1,
1988, and would draw the attention of the subcommittee to those
letters. At this time, I would like to include for the record a
notebook with pictures of the monument, a Congressional Budget Office
cost estimate, a map of the proposed expansion, and an informative
article about the Congaree which appeared in the March/April 1988
issue of the South Carolina Wildlife magazine.
Mr. Chairman, adding the acreage contained in this bill will
round out the monument, and provide the type of protection this rich
National treasure deserves.
Mr. Chairman, turning now to my other bill, S.2058 would allow
the National Park Service to operate the estate of Charles Pinckney
as part of the National Park System. Charles Pinckney was one of our
Country's finest founding fathers. His estate, known as Snee Farm,
is one of only 8 actual primary dwellings that can be directly
associated with a signer of the Constitution, and it is the only one
that is currently threatened due to plans to develop the Snee Farm
property.
The Snee Farm home is a simple, one and one-half story,
clapboard structure that was built in 175M by Colonel Charles
Pinckney, father of the signer of the Constitution. The farm house
is the centerpiece of a serene 21 acre tract of land located outside
Charleston, South Carolina that has remained remarkably undisturbed.
-5-
35
George Washington, after a visit to the estate, referred to Snee Farm
as "the Country seat of Charles Pinckney."
Mr. President, as we continue to celebrate the bicentennial of
the signing and ratification of the Constitution, it is fitting to
preserve the home of one of the most prominent figures at the
Constitutional Convention, Mr. Charles Pinckney. Charles Pinckney
began a career of dedicated service to his Country by serving in the
Revolutionary War. In 1779i he accepted election as a lieutenant in
the Charleston Regiment of South Carolina's militia. During the
Siege of Savannah, Pinckney was captured and held as a prisoner of
war. A general exchange of prisoners secured his release in 1781.
In 1784, Charles Pinckney was elected as a delegate to the
Continental Congress, a post he held for three successive terms. As
a member of the Continental Congress, Pinckney was a leading
supporter of the need to strengthen the central government. He later
led the fight for the appointment of a "general committee" to amend
the Articles of Confederation, a move that led directly to the
Constitutional Convention.
One of Charles Pinckney's greatest contributions to our country
was his service as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Although he was the second youngest delegate, Pinckney has been
credited with being one of the most influential members. He attended
full time, spoke often and effectively, and contributed immensely to
the final draft and to the resolution of problems that arose during
debate. Pinckney also authored a draft of the Constitution, known as
the "Pinckney Draft". Since a copy of the "Pinckney Draft" was not
retained, historians differ as to the actual contribution Pinckney
-6-
36
made to the final draft. Some historians have credited him with
being the primary author of the Constitution while others do not
attribute as much credit to Pinckney. However, it is generally
believed that as many as 31 provisions of his draft were later
included in the Constitution.
After working to ensure ratification of the Constitution by
South Carolina in 1788, Pinckney continued a distinguished career in
government. He served four terms as Governor of South Carolina
(1789-1972, 1796-1798, I8O6-I8O8) and served in the S.C. General
Assembly from 1810-181'4. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1798;
and in 1801, Pinckney was appointed as U.S. Minister to Spain by
President Thomas Jefferson. He finished his public service in the
U.S. House of Representatives serving from 1819-1821. Charles
Pinckney's long and distinguished car-eer as a public servant clearly
makes him worthy of this tribute by authorizing the Charles Pinckney
National Historic Site.
In addition to the honor to Pinckney, Snee Farm is also worthy
of this designation because it is representative of a significant
segment of our Country's history. Snee Farm is an excellent example
of 16th century farm house construction. This period was represented
by an agrarian way of life whose history should be preserved for
future generations.
Mr. Chairman, a highly commendable effort, by a group of
citizens known as "Friends of Snee Farm", is underway to raise
private funds to purchase the property. The fund raising project is
being spearheaded by such able individuals as Mrs. Ernest F.
Hollings, the wife of my distinguished Senate colleague from South
-7-
37
Carolina; former South Carolina Governor Robert McNair; and Mrs. Ann
Edwards, wife of former South Carolina Governor and former United
States Department of Energy Secretary, Dr. James Edwards. In
addition, my wife, Nancy, is Chairperson of the Snee Farm Children's
Bicentennial Fund. The commitment to raise funds by these highly
respected individuals makes it probable that Snee Farm will be
privately purchased and then donated to the Interior Department.
Mr. Chairman, the effort to preserve Snee Farm has wide support
ranging from the citizens of Charleston, to the Commission of the
Bicentennial of the Constitution. I ask that the following items be
submitted for the record following my remarks: an article entitled
"We Can Save Snee Farm," The News and Courier . December 16, 1987;
letters of support from the Honorable Carroll Campbell, Governor of
South Carolina, and the Honorable Warren Burger, Chairman of the
Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution; and Resolutions
of support from the South Carolina State Senate and the South
Carolina House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and the other members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. I believe these two
bills are important to the preservation of our natural and historic
heritage, and I hope they will receive favorable consideration from
your Subcommittee.
38
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
U.S. CONGRESS
WASHINGTON, DC. 20515
May 12, 1
Honorable Strom Thurmond
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator:
As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared the
attached cost estimate for S. 2018, the Congaree Swamp National
Monument Expansion and Wilderness Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to
provide them.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
Acting Director
cc: Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Honorable James A. ''icClure
Ranking Minority Member
39
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
COST ESTIMATE
May 12. I988
1. BILL NUMBER: S. 2018
2. BILL TITLE: Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion and Wilderness Act
3. BILL STATUS: As introduced on February 1, I988.
4. BILL PURPOSE:
S. 2018 would add approximately 7,000 acres to the Congaree Swamp National
Monument and would designate about 22,000 acres of the monument as
wilderness. The bill would authorize the appropriation of the sums
necessary for land acquisition and $2.7 million for construction and
development within the monument.
5. ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
(by fiscal year, in millions of dollars)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Estimated Authorization Level l4.7
Estimated Outlays 2.8 7.^ 2.2 1.2 1.1
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
Basis of Estimate :
In preparing this estimate, CBO assumed that S. 2018 would be enacted prior
to the beginning of fiscal year I989 and that the full amounts authorized in
the bill will be appropriated by early in 1989- Based on information from
the National Park Service (NPS) , we estimate that acquisition of the 7,000
additional acres would cost about $12 million. Outlays were estimated based
on information from the NPS on the likely timing of land acquisition from 26
private landowners and subsequent construction and development activities.
6. ESTIMATED COST TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: None.
7. ESTIMATE COMPARISON: None.
8. PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE: None.
9. ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: Theresa A. Gullo (226-2860)
10. ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:
?0A>t^
James L. Blum
Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis
40
<
o
p--
o
<
o
o
PQ
iz;
w
tsi
»— I
t^
1—4
u
o
41
42
Congaree Swamp National Monument
KLntk-AfirJ I98S. VU »y No 2
Take a rtal Field Trip! With this issue South Carolina
Wildlife introduces a new format for this section. Teachers
and parents are encouraged to use it to take youj\gs ten for
an actual outdoor experience, field guides to trees, birds
and wildflowers will en/umce your visit; try the ftterson,
Audubon Society and Golden books.
Silent, yet full of sound. Living thin^ sunound you, overwhelm
you. in the swamp. Investigate: peek over and under, draw
cautKXisly aside, listen carefully while yjur eyes follow the sounds,
stand still and let the living creatures corrw to you. Quietly and
with senses alcn, enter Congaree Swamp National Monument,
arvj nature will unveil her secrets.
/ Begin near the parking kx at the wooden sign that has a
X map of the area showing all the trails widi their lengths.
The park covers 15,000 acres, and it would be very easy to get iost,
so it is imperative that visitors stay on the marked trails. Picking or
otherwise disturbing the plants and animals in the park is
ptohibited.
Our Fickl Trip will take us down the main road, which has the
greatest variety of plants, through the yellott''^te and along the
VCfeston Lake Trail. It is a IVi-milekxipthattan be covered in
about two hours.
As we stand at the sign ar^l face the parking lot, toourri^tis
the bluff line, the high grourxl of the park, running along the
rxMthem edge of the area. To our left, beyond the yelbw gate, is
the floodplain. The water rises an average of ten times a year,
sometimes to a depth of two to three feet, and stays up from three
days to a month.
2 The first stop 15 at the large tree to the left of the gate, a
loblolly pirw. (That's an Irxlian word meaning "feet in
the water. ") By Congaree standards it is a baby, only about 140
years old. A loblolly is knowTi by
(he deep creases in its bark arxi
three long needles in each clump.
This huge tree arxl its km have
earned the nickname "Redwoods
of the East. " Look at the sap
which has ooied out of wounds in
(he tree's bark; like scabs the sap
hardens as the wourxb heal,
sealing the bark against disease.
Step through the gate arxl
begin the walk down the road.
LobUMypme.
50
ii^t^iv*U4,
observing the living thir>^ that
surrourtd you. The best wikJflower
times to visit the park are fall and
spring. (^X^lnter is also good, but
summer mearu irueccs. including
mosquitoes.) Some examples of
what you may see: jack-in-the-
pulpit with its little man or three
leaves and hemes; switch cane,
resembling bamboo arKl
sometimes growing several feet
tall; cat Of green bner, called
Confederate barbed wire; sweet
gum trees whose leaves have five
fingers like your harxJ, (the
pioneers had no bubble gum so
they mixed sweet gum s^ with
commeal and chewed that);
wmged sumac, whose flowers can
be steepftl to make piiJc
lemonade; poke\Meed or poke
salad, with grcer\s that must be
boiled three times to take out
their poison, (most preserved
leners from Confederate soldiers
\wre wrinen with poke berry
ir\k); spider webs akxig the way,
most made by orb weavers and
made up of t\M3 diffetpnt types of
"silk." one sticky and one (at the
edges) rxit; the fall webworm's
thick network erKlosing its food,
a tree's leaves; different varieties
of butterflies— the red admiral, red-spotted purple which is really
blue with orange spots, and rebra swalbwtail (a little bit of saliva
on your outstretched finger may entice one to light); and many
small plants like St. John's won, meadow beauties, trumpet
creeper which the hummingbirds love, Virginia creeper and
resunection fems-
Vt^tch for "poisonous bat spit^on stems of plants, actually a
harmless substance excreted by spittle bugs, the same kirxl that
wreak havoc in lawns. Closely watch the grxjurtd along the road
and you might spy a flashy green iiger beetle stalking its prey or the
velvety red and black wingless wasp called a cow killer ant because
of Its vicious sting.
You are walking through relatively urvJisturbed, old-growth
forest, the mtKt significant tif its type in the Southeast. On June
30. 1983, thiswasestablishedasanintenutional biosphere reserve.
Switch cane.
43
3\X^lk on and notice the plantain, a bmadleafed plant,
growing down the road's middle. It is the same kind that
grows in your back yatd. The juKO from this plant can ease the
itch in a mosquito bite.
Along die toad you'll see laige dead trees. In most other places
such trees wduU be cut down, but in a national paik they are
pteser«d. Whi\c standing, diey are used by some of the seven
major species of wcxxlpeckei^ found in the swamp, and when die
trees finally fall they decompose to become fenilizet for other
growing thin^
VX^Ik until the toad dissects a large fallen bblolly The tree has
been cut. ai>d if you kx4c at the portion that lies to die tight of die
toad you can get a good kJea of its age when It fell. To detennine its
age in years, count die number of rin^ and see if you come up with
120.
At places along the road lie pans of logs and large chunks of bark.
Turn over one or more of these and k»k at what lives beneadi.
You'll probably see different kinds ofbeetles. fet worms, insect
gmbs. sometimes a snake, so be carefiil . a white filament diat is die
root system of mushrooms, and a white gob called slime mold
(diere is a questkxi as to whedier diis is plant or animal, because of
its method of movetnent. like an animal's, and its reproduction,
like a plant 's)-
Before moving on, put die teg or barit back die way it was.
4 On many of the trees
along the road grows a
vine >ou should avoid. It is the
only vine with a beaid in the
swamp. A clue to its identity is
the number of its leaves: three.
"Leaves of three, let it be. "This is
poison ivy, and it's all over the
park. Vt^tch for its bnstly roots
(the "beard") that cling to the
tark of the tree it IS climbing.
Converwly, "Iea\'esof five, let it
thrive."lfavme has five leaves, it
is probably not harmful.
^Ik until you reach an area
with several dead pines, probably
victims of the pine beetle. The
variety of vegetation in the
swamp acts as a buffer to such
destructive pests and has helped
to preserve the plant specimer^s
present; it's hanier for disease to
get hoklaivJ spread.
PoiSon iv^, saf)suJi^ hoks
44
Cypress and tupelopan trees re/Vct cm the surface o/VKuct Moccosm
5 When >ou reach the wooden bridge you are in the hean
t/^ter Moccasin Alley. Stand on the bndge and look
below. You may see careening whirligig beetles, water stnder^
tiptoeing on the pool's surface, ar^d fishing spiders, frogs arxi fish
in the brown water, stained by the tannic acid from decomposing
vegetation. The trees with tmnks that broaden as they near the
ground are of two types, bald cypress {with needles) artdtiipelo or
black gum (with regular leaves). Nk>te the line around the tmnks,
brown below and grey above; this shows how far the water often
rises- The knobby roots of the cypress jut up from the water and are
called knees.
6 Turn left off the main road at the sign poinnng toward
Weston Lake. Just before reaching the footbndge. youll
seealar^, fodcedashtreeonthenght. Observe the small holes
thai kx)k as though they've been neatly drilled in' tows. Actually
they have been, but by a bird carpenter, the yellow-bellied
sapsucker. The bird pecks the holes, then returns to feed on the sap
that has nsen to the surface to try to "heal" the wounds made by
the sapsucker. Also see what else is on the tree: that bearded vine,
the poison ivy. along with a good bit of moss.
Turn and look back toward the road. You'll see a woodpecker
apartment complex in a giant snag.
7 In the water beneath the footbndge, k)ok for crayfish
ami fro^. From the bndge you can see slender trees
whose rrunks resemble the sinews in your wrist when you cler^
your fist. These treesare called ironuoodormusclewood.The
leaves resemble those of the elm. Kit the wxxj can dull an ax.
Just across the footbndge at theWston Lake Trail sign make a
quick left on a path ti^vard the u-.itcr. Withtn a few steps you'll firxl
yourself in aclump of small, smt«ith-harked trees with large leaves.
These are pawpaws, and you're in a p;iwp3w patch. The fruit of
these trees is a favonie of the wi Id hojp that roam the swamp. You
may see eviderKe of their feeding in sections of riKMSt earth that
kr)k as though siwiiox^e has been hoeing for fishing worms.
Return to the oail and walk to the beginning of the dock,
pausing there for a kxik at the huge poison ivy vine on the holly
trrc.
8Atthedock*send. k)okouto\*er>XfetonLake. an oxbow
formed when the Cor>garee River changed course; it's
rvwv 2^ miles from here. In the lake are tunics, black bass.
bream, gar and other fish. Fishing is alkiwed in the swamp, but you
must have a South Carolina fishirig licerwe. Bird residents like the
Wied kingfisher, great blue heron and prothonotary warWer are
often seen from this dock, also.
ExtcTxling out over the lake by the dock is a red maple. This tree
has something red on it in all seasons (sterru in sununer, leaves in
(all, twi^ arxJ buds in winter, and seeds in spring).
^Ik bock to the trail, where you'll soon pass the old state
champion loblolly pirw- Fifteen feet one itKh in circumfererKe
ar»d 145 feet call, it has been replaced as champ by arwther pine
discovered growirig deep in the swamp. It is taller ( 160 feet) but
not as big arourxi. The park boasts four national champion trees
and seventeen state champiorw.
ArKJther low footbridge bears a sign crediting the Youth
Cor\servation Corps with its construction. The YOC also helped
buikJ the other wooden walkways.
9 Mount the steps to the boardwalk and turn right to walk
to its erxl at the lake. On your ri^t is a great fallen sweet
gum tree. Note its root system, flat asa pancake arxi typical of all
■ the trees in the swamp except the pines. The roots can weaken arxJ
snap like the crack of a rifle, and the tree will topple without their
support.
Turn ar^ head back up the boardwalk. F^use at the steps; this is a
great place to give an owl call. Is that an echo or an owl answering?
At your left, just past the sign for a pawpaw, is one of the many
fallen trees fourvJ ak)ng the way. New young plants are growing up
from It; though It's dead, it's a nursery tree.
^Ik farther, and soon the boardwalk jogs around a lar^ pine
tree. Notice the strange bulge on its bark. This c a fungal growth
VMllt.»«lwV'iJ
45
Dwcfff paimettos.
caused by disease in che tree,
possiUv red heart disease. Trees
with this malady provide a home
for the endangered red-cockaded
\wxxipecker.
Continue on the boardwalk
until >ou come upon an island at
palmenos. These are called Sahd
nvnur. dwarf palmenos, and are
different from the state tree,
cabbage palmetto. Here, if you're
quiet and extremely ludcy, you may spy deer.
Just before yau reach the bench, to your nght pows a sweet gum
with sapsudcer holes, rowsandiowsof them this time.
Step and rest at the bench— in fact, sit quietly and listen for the
sounds of the swamp: fro^, insects and birds. A^in, you may see a
deer approach cautiously.
If 1 Up and walking a^in. When you reach the Spanish
A v/ moss sign, examine this plant (which is neither Spanish
nor nxKs) that takes its numencs from the air. Off to your n^t is a
Congaree laiximark: all that is left o<^FrinTayk>r's still, the rusty
old boiler. Broken up in 1959. it's a remii^Jer of the days when
moonshtrw was made by many in the swamps.
Observe the large sbbs of peeled-off bark that fall at the base of
dead pines. Brcwn snakes like to live there.
nNext is a lew area chat often has water in it, and in the
water dwell red-bellied water snakes.
You've probably noticed several trees that have large holes in
them and appear to be hollow. These are often used as dens by
squirrels, raccoons and opossums. Animals also den in cavities at
the roots. Hollows without spider webs, with bits of hair at their
opening or with ground free of leaf litter are sure to be inhabited.
F^use at the sign designating the muscadine grapevine. With
their aerial roots, some of these vines grown as big around as your
leg
UCfeton Lake u cracent'shaped,
an oxbow formed tuhen t/ie
Congaree Rit«r changed coune-
Along the boardwcdk, a tali faikn pme awaits meaiUTerrumt, and
smaii aeaiures like ihs tktddy -long-legs mute fnvesagatum.
[^e the long dead pirw you see lyir\g on the ground to your ri^t
to see hou- tall it was. A man's stride is about three feet bng, and
this is about fifty paces.
At the roots of the tree you've just paced and opposite the swamp
chestnut oak sign is what may be the tallest tree in the park — a
loblolly ibout two hundred feet high.
j / As >ou walk on, the ground cover seems to char\gc.
* f/ Vt^ter has seeped underground from the bluff line to this
area, and it is x-ery boggy; in fact, it is like quicksarvi. Scientists
have dug down and found huge old pines sunken in it.
The thick green plants growing here below the walk are called
doghobble or hobble bush. Hunters used to say that beaR being
chased by dogs would run through these, their thick fur and lar^
strong legs enabling the bears to pass, but the dogs' slim legs woukJ
become entangled in the twining stems.
Near the end of the boardwalk you'll see different kinds t^ ferns,
with inmguir\g names like ro^-al. cinrwrtwn and netted chain.
Back again to where we started, at the sign. You've only sampled
the swamp; now you may want to try one of the other longer trails.
ftrt of the National ftrk Service system. Congaree Swamp is
open daily except Chnstmas and New Year's day and lies n\'entv
miles southeast of Columbia. TakeS.C. 48 about twelve mites to
fork; take nght fork SR 734 for 4.6 miles to sign. Adin road leads
.9 mile to ranger station. Robert S. McDaniel is ftrk
Supenntendent; for more information call the park headquarters
at765-557l.*^
—LhviaRenshaw
53
46
^txpTtmt Qjjmri of tifr "PLx^b ^tat«
CHAMBERS OF
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER
RCTIRCO
June 22, 1988
Dear Senator Thurmond:
As we observe the Bicentennial of the United States
Constitution it is especially fitting that we remember the men
whose genius and dedication produced the document which has
become the bedrock of our system of democratic government.
A giant among the fifty-five delegates to the convention in
Philadelphia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was not only one
of the youngest members at the age of twenty-nine but also a
major contributor to what emerged.
The Senate is considering legislation (S. 2058) which you
have cosponsored with Senator Hollings that would authorize the
estadalishment of the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site by
accepting the donation of Mr. Pinckney's country home, Snee Farm,
for the care and administration of the National Park Service.
Snee Farm is one of the few homes of the signers of the
Constitution that have survived to the present time. The leaders
and citizens of the'state of South Carolina are to be commended
for their effort to preserve this historic site by private
subscription. I hope their goal will be reached so that
Pinckney's home can remain a visible reminder of the great legacy
of freedom bequeathed by Charges Pinckney to every American
citizen.
Con
The Honorable Strom Thurmond
United States Senate
Russell Senate Office Building
Room 218
Washington, DC 20510-4001
47
~ / JfSV^. / . '■■■
.:;v>«^-
— A ,^ i« Post Office Box ii369
Carroll A. Campbell, Jn. '^"=' ^"'"-'^ \.„,.,
COLUM S!A 392"
GCVERSOR
June 23, 1988
Honorable Dale Bumpers, Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to you in support of S. 2058, to authorize the establishment of
the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site in South Carolina. A.^ you know,
this legislation and its companion measure, H.R. 3960 which passed the
House earlier this week, is sponsored by the entire Congressional Delegation
of South Carolina. The acquisition of Snee Farm, the historic hom.^ of
Charles C. Pinckney, co-author and signer of the Constitution, is vitally
important to the historic and cultural preservation of South Carolina.
In December of 1987, 1 requested the South Carolina Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism and the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and
Marine Resources to participate in funding the acquisition of Snee Farm.
Subsequently, the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Commission dedicated
$200,000 from the Recreation Land Trust Fund to apply towards the
$2,000,000 purchase price of the historic property. The Wildlife
Department also honored my request by approving a $100,000 grant for
Snee Farm from its Heritage Trust Fund. Further, an additional SlOO.OUO
appropriation is pending in the Supplemental .Appropriations Bill in our
State Legislature earmarked for this project.
I hope that the impressive fundraising efforts by state agencies and the
private sector will demonstrate the commitment of our state and her
citizens to the preservation of Snee Farm, and will con- ince the
Subcommittee of the vital importance of S. 2058. The fact is, this
48
Honorable Dale Bumpers
June 23. 1988
Page 2
purchase is a once-in-a-iifetinie opportunity for the State of South Carolina
to retain an invaluable historical treasure.
I would appreciate your support for quick passage of this legislation, which
will provide permanent protection and management by the National Park
Service for Snee Farm as a national historic landmark.
Sincerely,
Cl jP Ql^UD
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
cc: S.C. Congressional Delegation
Mrs. Ernest F. Hollings
Mrs. James B. Edwards
Mr. Robert McNair
Mr. William McG. Morrison
49
(Furnish Original Attached to This, with Six Carbon CojiicB Loose)^
SENATE RESOLUTION
„ J. Martschlnk, S. Applegate, B. Branton, J. Bryan, J.
Coursop., R. Dennis, W. Doar, J. Drummond, H. Fielding, T.
Garrison, W. Glese, J. Hayes, C. Hlnson, D. Holland, J.
Land, H. Leatherman, W. Lee, P. Leventls, J. Lindsay, J,
UFi Long, I. Lourie, A. Macaulay, J. Martin, J. Matthews, G.
DE McConnell, F. McGill, P. McLeod, T. Mitchell, T. Moore, K.
AP Patterson, H. Peeler, T. Pope, C. Powell, J. Russell, E.
Sd Saleeby, N. Setzler, R. Shealy, Horace C. Smith, J. Verne
GR Smith, Nell W. Smith, Thomas E. Smith, Jr., S. Stilwell,
TH D. Thomas, J. Waddell, M. Williams, J. Wilson
IN THE SENATE
DATE
ORDERED
Introduced -
Considered-
MAY 3 1 1983
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
^J) QrJer of the Senate
^^t3J
50
A SENATE RESOLUIION
URGING CONGRESS, THE SECRETARY OF THH INTERIOR,
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO
INCLUDE SNEE FARM IN CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH
CAROLINA— THE HOME OF CHARLES PINCKNEY, ONE OF
AMERICA'S GREATEST PATRIOTS AND STATESMEN— IN
THE NATIONAL PARKS SYSTEM OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE.
Whereas, beautiful Snee Farm In Charleston
County, South Carolina, was the home of Charles
Pinckney; and
Whereas, according to the Dictionary of American
Biography , Charles Pinckney, who lived from 1757
to 1824, was the author of the "Pinukney
draught" of the federal Constitution, Governor
of South Carolina, United States Senator, and
minister to Spain; and
Whereas, besides submitting a plan for a
constitution to the Federal Convention of 1787,
he was a member of the committee that prepared
the rules of procedure, and he participated
frequently and effectively In the debates
throughout the convention; and
Whereas, it has been possible to show that the
"Pinckney draught" contained at lecst
"thirty-one or thirty-two provisions" that were
finally accepted for the Constitution of the
United States; and
51
Whereas, his stature as a great South Oa'o!inir»n
and great American patriot and statesmn is
unquestioned as well as Immeasurable; and
Whereas, it would be truly fitting and highly
beneficial to the residents of South Carolina
and the innumerable visitors annually from
across North America to the City of Charleston
and the Lowcountry region of South Carolina to
include Pinckney's home in our country's
national parks system administered by the
National Park Service. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate:
That the Senate of the State of South Carolina,
by this resolution, urges Congress, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Department of
the Interior, National Park Service to take
appropriate action to include Snee Farm in
Charleston County, South Carolina — the home of
Cha.'ies Pinckney, one of America's greatest
patriots and statesmen — in the national parks
system of the National Park Service.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Vice President of
the United States as President of the United
States Senate, the Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives, the United States
Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the
National Park Service of the United States
Department of the Interior, and each member of
South Carolina's congressional delegation, all
at Washington, D. C.
52
H. 4322.
Introduced by Representatives Foxworth, Holt, Whlpper, J.
Bradley, Washington, Winstead, Aydlette, D. Martin, Dangerfield,
Kohp. and Mappus.
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO EXPRESS THE SUPPORT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
FOR HOUSE BILL 3960 INTRODUCED IN THE UNITED
STATES CONGRESS BY CONGRESSMAN ARTHUR RAVENEL,
JR., WHICH DIRECTS THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO ASSUME
• RESPONSIBILITY FOR AND PROTECT THE COUNTRY HOME
OF CHARLES PINCKNEY, DISTINGUISHED SOUTH CAROLINA
POLITICAL LEADER AND DIPLOMAT, LOCATED IN SNEE
FARM IN CHARLESTON COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Charles Pinckney is considered
by historians to be a founding father, political leader, and
distinguished diplomat of this country whose proposals for a new
government called the Pinckney Plan were largely incorporated
into the federal Constitution prepared in 1787; and
WHEREAS, as a South Carolina delegate to
the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, he served as a
member of the procedures committee and participated frequently
in debates; and
WHEREAS, he is best remembered, however,
for the detailed plan of government that he subr.itted to the
convention. Although the original draft of the Pinckney Plc'n
was not preserved, it is known to have contained thirty-one or
thirty-two provisions that were incorporated into the new
Constitution. Charles Pinckney probably had as large a share in
determining the style, form, and content of the document as any
one individual; and
WHEREAS, after returning home to South
Carolina from the convention, he actively supported ratification
and was instrumental in South Carolina's ratification of the
Constitution on May 23, 1788; and
WHEREAS, Charles Pinckney' s home in Snee
Farm in Charleston County was built in the Jefferson tradition
and is in need of protection by the National Park Service so
that history may be preserved; and
53
WHEREAS, Charles Pinckney was a
distinguished South Carolina political leader and diplomat who
contributed greatly to the preparation and ratification of the
United States Constitution.
NOW. THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of
Representatives, the Senate concurring:
THAT the members of the General Assembly
express their support for House Bill 3960 introduced in the
United States Congress by Congressman Arthur Ravenel, Jr., which
directs the United States Department of the Interior, National
Park Service to assume responsibility for and protect the
country home of Charles Pinckney, distinguished South Carolina
political leader and diplomat, located in Snee Farm in
Charleston County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of
this resolution be forwarded to the members of the South
Carolina Congressional Delegation.
State of South Carolina
In the House of Representatives
Columbia, South Carolina
June 1, 1988
We hereby certify that the foregoing Is a true and correct
of a resolution passed in the House of Representatives and
concurred in by the Senate.
copy
Robert J.
Speaker
<-/ ■
iheheen
^.
^..d.
Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the House
d
54
mmitteA \^
LABOR AND h
JL
FOREIG
Bnitcd 3tateB ;SEnate
PAUL SIMON M"
"■^"•O'S LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
JUDICIARY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
BUDGET
WASHINGTON. DC 20510
U.S. Senator Paul Simon
Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Act
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
June 23, 1988
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity
to present testimony before you and the Subcommittee on Public
Lands, National Parks and Forests, on behalf of S. 1643, a bill
to establish the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor.
I am gratified that all ten of the Mississippi River states has
either one or both of its senators cosponsoring this bill. I am
particularly pleased that the President Pro Tern, Senator
Stennis, is an original cosponsor.
This bill IS the product of the deliberations and
recommendations of the ten member states of the Mississippi
River Parkway Commission. The Commission and I believe that
the time has come to establish a better, more comprehensive
means for coordinating the various concerns of the
Mississippi River states. In so doing we have looked to the
precedent set by Congress in establishing The Blackstone River
Heritage Corridor and the Illinois-Michigan Canal Heritage
Corr idor .
No waterway has played so significant a role in our nation's
development as has the Mississippi River. Just to mention those
names from our national history brings to mind the importance
of this river to both the creation and growth of the United
States: Marquette and Joliet, La Salle, Lewis and Clark, John
J. Astor, Samuel Clemens. These names are symbolic of the
exploration, economic development and cultural contributions of
the Mississippi .
There is no single source to collect or disseminate information
on the multiple uses and opportunities in the Mississippi
Valley. By establishing the corridor we will provide for the
coordination of recreational, cultural, environmental and
commercial activities.
This bill also reflects the many years of cooperation and
dialogue that began shortly after World War II with the
230 S Dearborn 3 West Did Capitol Plaza 8787 State St. 250 West Cmerrt
KLUC2TNSKI Blog , 38TM Floor Suite 1 Suite 212 Room MS-B
Chicago. IL 60604 SPRiNGfiELO IL 62701 East ST Louis. IL 62203 Carbonoale, IL 62901
312/353-49S2 217/492-4960 618/398-7707 618/457-3653
55
founding of the "Great River Road." That initiative began at
the state level. From the Great River Road to the creation of
the Mississippi River Parkway Commission to today's bill to
create a Heritage Corridor, Congress will again respond to the
ten concerned states by providing for a more organized, state
controlled mechanism to address both the potential and the
problems shared by them.
Mr. Chairman you are a cosponsor of this bill. 1 am pleased to
be a cosponsor of your bill, the Lower Mississippi River Delta
Development Act, S.2246, which clearly compliments the bill I
have introduced. There is a need to provide for economic
development on the lower Mississippi. I am'all too familiar
with the problems of the 16 counties in Illinois that will
participate in the Development Act. I represented the majority
of these counties while I served in the House of .
Represent it ives as well in the Senate. You have targeted a
region that is among the poorest in the country.
The Heritage Corridor bill complements the Development Act by
including the seven states participating in the Development Act
along with the other three states bordering the Mississippi and
provides all of these states with a means of consolidating
their interests and concerns in cooperation with the National
Park Service and the Department of Interior in areas such as
tourism, parks, wildlife conservation, cultural and historic
enhancement. All of this is, of course, another aspect of
development .
As the Subcommittee proceeds with its work on this bill, I
will be pleased to work with the Subcommittee on any
improvements you may deem advisable. It is my hope, however,
that the Subcommittee will resist the creation of a study
commission instead of the authoritative body outlined in this
bill. The Corridor, as proposed, fulfills a need and will be of
service to all levels of government. It is a device through
which these 10 states and the nation can look anew at the
Mississippi River and rediscover this national treasure.
56
TESTIMONY BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN M. SPRAIT
SENATE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
SUPPORTING S. 2058 AND S. 2018
JUNE 23, 1988
I coitmiend this Coinmittee for holding hearings today on both S.
2018, legislation expanding the Congaree Swcunp National Monument and S.
2058 to establish the home of Charles Pinckney as a historic monument.
Both of these bills are important to South Carolina and the nation and I
urge their speedy approval.
S. 2018 would expand the existing boundaries of the Congaree Sweunp
Monument thereby protecting the Monument while saving additional areas in
need of preservation. The Monument was estaiblished in South Carolina in
1976 to protect the unique and rapidly disappearing southern bottomland
hardwood forest. The existing Monximent area contains both a variety of
endangered species as well as extraordinary examples of ancient trees.
In 1983, Congaree became the first area in South Carolina to be included
in UNESCO's Biosphere Reserve and it has been nominated for recognition
as a World Heritage Site.
The reason S. 2018 is needed is that the existing Monument
boundaries are not suitable for resource protection, scenic integrity or
management. According to a November, 1987 National Park Service report,
the Monument in its existing boundaries "is operationally submarginal . "
The present configuration contains numerous gaps and it omits valuable
adjacent areas which are now in danger of being purchased by lumber
companies. Congress itself recognized the difficulties with Congaree's
existing boundaries when it originally established the Monument by
authorizing the study of adjacent areas which should be included at a
later date. By authorizing the purchase of up to an additional 7,000
acres in the immediate vicinity, S. 2018 would remedy the problems by
creating a more suitable boundary area.
S. 2018 and its companion House bill, H.R. 4027 are being
unanimously supported by the South Carolina delegation in the House and
Senate. Although S. 2018 would cost the Treasviry no money, its passage
would represent an important positive step forward in the preservation of
this great national resource. It is my understanding that the House
Interior Committee intends to wait for the Senate to act before approving
the House bill. Given the limited number of legislative days remaining
in this Congress, it is therefore more important than ever to see speedy
adoption of S. 2018.
In addition to supporting S. 2018, I also urge swift approval for S.
2058, the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site Act. This measure
would authorize the establishment of the Charles Pinckney National
Historic Site at Charles Pinckney 's home near Charleston, South Carolina.
The bill's purpose is to create a memorial to a genuine patriot.
Fifty -five delegates were called to the Convention in Philadelphia. Not
all showed up. Forty-two were present on September 17, 1787, and thirty-
nine of them voted for approval of the Constitution. Charles Pinckney
was one of the small band who were there from start to finish. He not
only signed the Constitution as a delegate from South Carolina, but he
also helped to draft and shape it. Before the convention began, he drew a
plan for a new governmental system called the Pinckney Draft, thirty
provisions of which were included in the Constitution.
During the Revolutionary War, Pinckney served as a lieutenant in the
Charleston Regiment of Militia and was present at the siege of
Charleston. When captured after the fall of Charleston, he, unlike many
of his compatriots, refused to accept British "protection" and remained a
prisoner until 1781.
In addition to these contributions to the birth of our nation, Mr.
Pinckney served as Governor of South Carolina four times, served in the
U.S. Senate from 1798 to 1801 eind was a member of the House of
Representatives from 1819 to 1821. Mr. Pinckney was also one of
America's first diplomatic representatives to Spain.
H.R. 2058 is cosponsored ernd supported by the entire South Carolina
delegation because of the outstanding contributions of Charles Pinckney
to our nation and the fitting recognition this bill would bestow on him.
57
\t
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
^ _ _ ^ GEORGE ARNOLD
CHAIRMAN
SENATOR SAM M.VADALABENE r-*;jji*^-. secretary
MERVIN MONTGOMERY
STATE OF ILLINOIS
MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARKWAY ADVISORY COUNCIL
ROOM 121 CAPITOL BUILDING
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706
TELEPHONE AREA CODE 21 7 782-5247
TESTIMONY OF SENATOR SAM VADALABENE
BEFORE THE PUBLIC LANDS (NATIONAL PARKS
AND FOREST SUBCOMMITTEE ON SENATE BILL 1643
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee; I wish to thank
you and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in
support of S 1643.
My name is sam M. Vadalabene and I reside in Edwardsville,
Illinois. I am an Illinois State senator representing the 56th District,
Chairman of the Illinois Mississippi River parkway Advisory Council,
Chairman and a founding member of the Friends of the Mississippi River
National Heritage corridor, a not-for-profit organization representing
cities, associations, business and individuals dedicated to the promotion
of the economic and recreational potential of a National Heritage
Corridor.
AS a state senator, I am vitally concerned about the necessity
to maintain a healthy business climate to encourage the growth of
existing business and promote the Mississippi River corridor as an
attractive place for new business and recreational areas to establish
themselves, yet assuring that the natural areas remain protected.
The commerce to the cities, towns and villages along the river
would benefit from increased tourist activity and a h.eightened awareness
of the role the river played in the establishment of the communities.
I see no reason why this project cannot be a success when people
of goodwill sit down and reason together on how best to accomodate the
goals of both recreation and culture and the goals of commerce and
industry. The project is a bold example of cooperation between federal,
states, public and the private sectors of our economy. The commission
with its broad and varied membership can project and yet safeguard the
interests of industry and public land use.
DEPARTMENTAL MEMBERS
Commerce and H.sloric
Preservalion
Transporlalion CooservaKoo Uommumw AMai'S Michael Devinfi D.-ector
Gregory W. Baise. Secreia-y Mark Freeh, D.-ecior Jay Hedges, D,.ecio- Michael Devine, o.-ecto.
PUBLIC MEMBERS
Kenneth Stobaugh, Joseph Sm.in Hisionc cii Nauvoo Richard Kahne iiimois Ben Taiephone Co Sof.ngiieia
58
TESTIMONY - SENATOR SAM VADALABENE ON S 1643 CONT'D.
Page 2
At my request Illinois Bell's Economic Developnient Division
conducted tourism potential surveys of twenty-two cities and towns along
the river. They surveyed over 500 managers or owners of entertainment,
motels, restaurants, speciality shops and marinas to determine the number
of jobs that could be created if tourism would be increased by 25%
through proper promotion of the Mississippi River National Heritage
corridor .
These surveys show that there are approximately 9,731 people
presently employed in the hospitality/service industry. Conservatively,
there could be approximately 1,694 new jobs created with the passage of
Heritage corridor legislation. This would mean a 17% increase in jobs.
These surveys have been discussed with each community and they -
understand that the promotion of the corridor falls largely on their
shoulders.
We now have the opportunity of designating the Mississippi River
National Heritage Corridor, not as a park in the strictest sense of the
definition, but as a lineal corridor that can accommodate public
recreation and industrial growth.
I urge this committee to vote in favor of the creation of the
Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor. (See Attachment).
SAM H. VADALABENE
Illinois State Senator 56th District
Chairman-Ill. MRPAC.
Co-Pilot District III MRPC
Chairman-Friends of the Mississippi
River National Heritage
Corridor .
59
TOURISM SURVEY RESULTS
NUMBER OF OWNERS OR MANAGERS SURVEYED BY COMMUNITY:
Galena 68
Illinois Quad Cities 146
Quincy 81
Alton 60
Wood River 32
Granite City 44
Edwardsville 15
Collinsville 47
Cairo, Mounds, Mounds City 20
513
Total
PRESENT EMPLOYMENT; ENTERTAINMENT, LODGING, RESTAURANT, SPECIALITY
SHOPS, AND MARINAS BY COMMUNITY:
Galena
Illinois Quad Cities
Quincy
Alton
Wood River
Granite City
Edwardsville
Collinsville
Cairo, Mounds, Mounds City
745
3,514
1,487
1,195
664
686
345
966
129
9,731 Total
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT; ENTERTAINMENT, LODGING, RESTAURANT,
SPECIALITY SHOPS AND MARINAS BY COMMUNITY:
Galena 74
Illinois Quad Cities 627
Quincy 223
Alton 217
Wood River 120
Granite City 93
Edwardsville 78
Collinsville 184
Cairo, Mounds, Mounds City 78
1,694
Total
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT INCREASE BY COMMUNITY:
Galena 10%
Illinois Quad Cities 16%
Quincy 15%
Alton 18%
Wood River 18%
Granite City 13%
Edwardsville 22%
collinsville 19%
Cairo, Mounds, Mounds City 60%
60
^inU oi ^onili CCaritlhtH
^(©ffw of tile (Bo'acTxusr
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. Post Ofuce Bo» ii369
COLUM BIA 29211
GOVERNOR
June 23, 1988
Honorable Dale Bumpers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands.
National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Senate
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to express my full support for S. 20 1 8, to expand the
boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National Monument in South Carolina.
As you know, the Congaree Swamp National Monument was established to
preserve a fine example of the vanishing southern bottomland hardwood
forest, and it is also the home of many ancient trees and several
endangered species. S. 2018 is needed to insure the further protection of
this priceless resource. This legislation has been sponsored by our entire
congressional delegation and has received widespread support across the
State of South Carolina. Moreover, the measure has been endorsed by
several conservation organizations.
We appreciate the attention by your subcommittee to this important bill.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
61
Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Senator Thurmond.
Senator Hollings.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Hollings. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
We particularly appreciate your leadership and assistance earlier
this week in including the money within the Interior appropria-
tions bill, subject of course to your Committee's authorization. And
that is what we hope for here this morning.
I ask consent that both of my statements, both on Snee Farm
and on the Congaree National Swamp, be included.
Senator Bumpers. Without objection.
Senator Rollings. And then only say a word, to save the Com-
mittee's time, because my distinguished senior colleague has set it
out in very meaningful detail.
On the Congaree national monument, it is one of the oldest sur-
viving southern bottom, hardwood bottom land, hardwood forest
tracts. Actually, Stew Udall when he was Secretary of Interior
back in 1961 started searching because we did not have any park
or monument in the State of South Carolina.
He said. Interior owns a tenth or 20 percent of the land out in
some states, we do not have anything down there. And we found
this pristine kind of forest, 200 to 400 year old trees of a hardwood
nature, which is about their existence until they turn back in.
And we started on it. Senator Thurmond and I introduced the
bill. We got the original 15,000 acres. But we wanted to include it
up to around 22,000. We wanted to do it in a studied way, and now
Interior completed the study last September.
It took them eight years to do it, and we are now prepared to
move forward.
There is one misgiving. I have talked and we have worked it out
with the staff, the Cook Lake section is to be excluded and that is
the 145 acre Bruner tract. That is the only one in dispute.
And the Interior Department goes along with us on that particu-
lar score.
With respect to Snee Farm itself, we are collecting the $2 million
and want to turn it over to the Park Service. We have done this in
lockstep with the guidance of the Park Service, so we will have it
properly presented to them. And we need this kind of authorization
here to save one of the last homes of the original framers.
There are only 13 such that could be identified, and this has al-
ready been added as an historic — on the national register of histor-
ic trusts and what have you. And we did not realize somebody was
about to sell and develop and cut it up into condominia.
And so we stopped it on the basis that we would make up the
two million bucks. And now we had hoped that the Department of
Interior would come in, the Park Service rather would come in,
and join with the display down at Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter, and
the Pinckney home, which is in the immediate area. It embellishes
and sort of fleshes out the display down there of the Park Service
property, all of a very, very historic nature.
90-788 0-88-3
62
So I appreciate particularly your willingness to help us earlier
this week in getting the money. And if we can have it authorized
by your Committee, we would appreciate that very, very much.
Mrs. Rollings will testify in a moment in detail about Snee
Farm, and I would be glad to try to answer any questions on either
issue.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rollings follows:]
63
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST F. HOL: INGS
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in
strong support of S. 2018, the bipartisan bill which would
expand the Congaree Swamp National Monument. This bill would
expand the boundary of the Monument from 15,138 acres to 22,200
acres, with the existing lands being designated as wilderness.
It would also authorize the development of facilities within the
Monument to accommodate the steady increase in tourists to this
popular area.
The Congaree Swamp is the largest of the old-growth
southern bottomland hardwood forests remaining in the United
States. It has been designated a National Natural Landmark and
an international Biosphere Reserve. Remarkably, this unique
sanctuary remained virtually undisturbed until as recently as
1969. In subsequent years, however, destruction of the forest
by timber harvesters began at a rate of some 500 acres
annually. Urgent measures were required to prevent the complete
loss of this priceless treasure.
Accordingly, in 1976, Senator Thurmond and I sponsored,
and Congress passed Public Law 94-545 to protect the existing
forest. That law authorized establishment of the "Congaree
64
-2-
Swamp National Monument" within the boundaries of the
15,135-acre "Beidler tract." Trees ranging in age from 200 to
400 years, many of them among the largest known examples of
their species, were finally protected from timber harvesting.
For example, there are five national record specimens of trees
and 17 South Carolina record specimens in this area. Also
preserved as a result of PL 94-545 was the nationally endangered
red-cockaded woodpecker, which has active colonies within the
pine uplands of the Monument.
PL 94-545 also mandated that a general management plan for
the Monument be submitted by the Department of Interior.
Realizing the complexities involved in managing and protecting a
preserve with the irregular boundaries of the original Congaree
Swamp National Monument, Interior was instructed to make
recommendations for adding additional acreage to the Monument.
The management plan and boundary recommendation were
finally submitted in September 1987 — 8 years late. The report
determined that the Monument was "operationally sub-marginal"
because of the boundary configuration and the lack of tourist
facilities. It is the express purpose of S.2018 to implement
the Interior Department's recommendations. However, this bill
goes beyond the Interior's report in one important respect: the
65
-3-
National Park Service recommended expanding the monument by only
2,464 acres; S. 2018 expands the Monument to its natural
boundaries by acquiring 7,000 acres.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot overemphasize the importance and
urgency of this bill. As a result of Interior's eight-year
delay in submitting its management plan, many acres have been
cut that might have been saved. Fortunately, however, many
timber owners have cooperated with the National Park Service's
request that they not harvest trees pending expansion of the
Monument. These public-spirited owners deserve resolution of
their land's status.
The expansion proposed by S. 2018 will be a major step
toward protecting the Congaree Swamp ecosystem including the
Congaree River, the floodplain north of the river, and the
northern bluffs. This is a good bill that has the unanimous
support of the South Carolina delegation. This Congress has a
profound responsibility to preserve the Cpngaree Swamp unspoiled
for future generations.
# # #
66
Senator Bumpers. Senator Hollings, thank you very much.
First of all, I want to assure both of you that both of these bills
have my complete support. I get so irritated with the Park Service
because they think the Pinckney farm is historically significant,
ought to be preserved, as long as you all go out and find the
money.
And it seems to me that that is almost a contradiction. But I do
not have anything against that, and certainly I admire Peatsy and
Bob McNair and the people who are out trying to raise money to
preserve something of that nature.
But I want to also say that I do not, as Chairman of this Commit-
tee, I do not wear my feelings on my cuff. I can almost promise
both of you that we will authorize both of these and the money to
accomplish both of them before we leave here, so that your appro-
priation of $3 million you got — now, that was for acquisition, was it
not, Fritz?
Senator Hollings. That is right.
Senator Bumpers. Incidentally now, there is another request for
$2.7 milllion in here for a visitors center and so on.
Senator Rollings. We are not moving on that this year.
Senator Bumpers. Okay.
Senator Rollings. You and I have had to cut pennies on that ap-
propriation. We would like to have it. It is in the Interior Depart-
ment study, and that has got to be done.
But the main thing is that the people who have these timber
tracts are now saying, we keep hearing from you politicians that
hold up, do not cut, hold up, do not cut, we are going to move and
put it in the national monument and Interior's property, and then
we do not.
And so they are now looking to let contracts and cut the bloom-
ing timber. So that is why we are having to move in an emergency
fashion this way, with the appropriation even a little bit ahead of
your authorization.
Senator Bumpers. Well, if something happened for some reason
that we — I cannot imagine, but if we happened not to authorize it,
there will be a CR coming through here of some size later on, prob-
ably.
And I would certainly be willing even to remove that language, I
feel so strongly about bills like this.
But the other thing I wanted to ask you is, where is the Snee
Farm from Charleston?
Senator Rollings. Just before you go on over to those islands,
the Mount Pleasant section on the road going down to what we call
McLellan Village toward Georgetown, a little north on the left-
hand side.
This was the Canadian ambassador's tract out there. And there
is a big golf course in one development that he owned, and the
original Snee Farm stayed in the family for years on end until just
recently of that Pinckney family.
And now we are really finding out from a Pinckney relative in
New York and other places right here in Washington — the family,
the Pinckney family, is helping us solicit some of that private
money. They are very proud of it.
Senator Bumpers. How much money has been raised so far?
67
Senator Hollings. A little over $900,000, unless we include that
200 and make it $1.1 million.
Senator Bumpers. Your wife says over a million. [Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. $1.1 million then.
Senator Bumpers. She picked some up outside the door as she
came in this morning. [Laughter.]
Well, that is a magnificent undertaking.
Senator Thurmond, as you know, the Administration takes an
adamant position in opposition to the expansion of the Congaree
Swamp. And of course, that is not the first time. They oppose
spending any money for acquisition, and that is they do not have
any objection to the expansion. They just say the government
ought not to be spending any money on it.
Senator Thurmond. That is their general position, but I think
there have to be some exceptions and this is certainly one of the
exceptions that should be made.
Senator Bumpers. I could not agree with you more. I have got a
few exceptions in here myself. [Laughter.]
Senator Thurmond. We have our distinguished colleague Con-
gressman Spratt here from that particular district, the Congaree
Swamp.
Senator Bumpers. Do you represent the Congaree Swamp?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SPRATT, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Spratt. I do not, Mr. Chairman, but I am adjacent to it and
very close by. Floyd Spence represents the district where it is locat-
ed, and if Floyd were not in the hospital recuperating from a lung
transplant, I am sure he would be here and he would be most em-
phatic in urging you to do the same thing as Senator Thurmond
and Senator Hollings have done.
He has been out in front on this matter for some time.
Senator Bumpers. I have an extensive letter from Floyd on this.
Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, I talked to Floyd this morning,
by the way. His voice is much stronger. He has, as you know, had a
double lung transplant. He is doing fine, and he expresses deep in-
terest in this project and I want to pass that on to you.
Senator Bumpers. Let me just say — and as I say, I have no ques-
tions for you. We have a developing fight in this Subcommittee
that is probably going to be the most volatile thing we are going to
have to deal with, and that is the expansion of Manassas.
While I would love to see us buy that 556 acres down there, you
are talking about $50 to $70 million. So as Chairman of this Sub-
committee, I know we are going to have to fight that out.
But frankly, I do not know right now how to resolve it. I would
like to have that land, too, and I would like to preserve it.
But that would be more money than we have spent in the last
three years for acquisition for parks in the whole United States. So
it is just another one of those dilemmas that we face on what we
want to do and our ability to pay for it, and they come into conflict.
I have no further questions of the two Senators. And Congress-
man, we would be delighted if you have a statement. We would be
delighted.
68
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I do have a state-
ment that I will submit for the record. Anything I would say would
be redundant, but if I could just add two points.
I am supporting both bills, 2018 and 2058. It is important that
this Committee and the Senate move the Congaree national monu-
ment bill because the House is deferring to Mr. Spence. The Com-
mittee has indicated that it is awaiting the Senate's action, and if
you will take the initiative and move it then I think we can get it
moved through the House and passed if there is no objection to it.
The map here shows the reason that we need to move forward
with it. This facility right now, the national monument, has been
called by the National Park Service in its present configuration
operationally submarginal. It is not large enough or shaped such
that it is adequate for resource protection or even scenic integrity.
And there are opportunities today and there will be some in the
future to buy the contiguous property. The Interior Department
needs to have the authority on the books to take advantage of
those opportunities.
The number one cash crop in South Carolina is timber. We have
an active and large timber industry, and we are proud of our forest
products industry. But they are out looking for lands like this, and
we need to be in a position where we can round out the boundaries
of this property.
So I urge the Committee and commend the Chairman for indicat-
ing your intent to move this bill, because it is important and it is
needed to complete this significant undertaking.
As for Mr. Pinckney, he was not just a framer of the Constitu-
tion, but the handful of men who really shaped the Constitution,
surely he was one of them. The significance that he has individual-
ly is that he was the youngest, next to youngest member of the
Constitutional Convention. He was 29 years, seven months old, I
believe, and the youngest member, Richard Spate from North Caro-
lina, took a very minor role.
So he was the youngest, most active member of the convention.
There is a controversy over what exactly his role in it was. He
later produced the Pinckney plan or a redraft of it for John Quincy
Adams in the late 1820's, when he was drafting the journals of the
Constitution, and some say that Pinckney overemphasized his im-
portance.
Nevertheless, we know there was a New Jersey plan, a Virginia
plan, and a Pinckney plan, and much of it ended up in the Consti-
tution. So he is historically significant.
In addition to that, he was a soldier in the Revolution. He was
Governor of South Carolina four times. He served in the United
States Senate, and he capped his career by serving a term, a single
term in the House of Representatives from 1819 to 1821.
Senator Bumpers. He was rare, was he not.
Mr. Spratt. I know the Senate would be interested to know that
when the war powers provisions of the Constitution were discussed,
he felt that those powers should be reserved exclusively to the
Senate. So that is an additional reason for you to give him favor-
able consideration.
Senator Bumpers. Now we know we are for the bill, do we not.
[Laughter.]
69
Congressman, thank you very much. And thank you all.
I promise you this will be on our next markup session. We will
get this over to the House as quickly as we can, both of these bills.
Senator Rollings. Thank you very much.
Senator Bumpers. Peatsy.
Mrs. HoLLiNGS. Mr. Chairman, I have asked Nancy Thurmond,
who is
Senator Thurmond. Excuse me just a minute.
I have just had information from my staff member that the Ad-
ministration does support this project. It just does not favor adding
quite as much money.
Senator Bumpers. I am sorry, Strom. I did not get that. You say
the Administration favors it, what?
Senator Rollings. This project.
Senator Bumpers. They favor the Congaree?
Senator Rollings. It is my understanding they favor the Conga-
ree Swamp, but they do not want to add quite as much money.
Senator Bumpers. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. We will try
to get them on record on that at the earliest possible time.
Nancy, welcome to you, too.
STATEMENT OF RITA L. "PEATSY" HOLLINGS, ACCOMPANIED BY
NANCY THURMOND
Mrs. Rollings. Mr. Chairman, I have asked Nancy Thurniond to
join me because she is living in South Carolina with her family and
we hope to involve her in a program to solicit some money from
young people.
I have submitted a statement and I would just like to make a few
comments.
Senator Bumpers. Your full statement will be inserted in the
record, Peatsy.
Mrs. Rollings. As a former history teacher, I am very impressed
with the knowledge of the three gentlemen who testified before.
They seemed to know a great deal about Charles Pinckney.
And in answer to your question about the location of Snee Farm,
it is about three miles to the north and east of Charleston, separat-
ed from the city by the Cooper River. And at one time it was the
rural home of Charles Pinckney and consisted of several hundreds
of acres of land.
And today the only thing that really remains is the clapboard
house that is in good condition- and 25 acres. And of this piece of
land now that remains, there are efforts to subdivide it and develop
it, primarily because it is so close to the city.
It is a very valuable piece of land, and a group of people in
Charleston have undertaken to buy it from the developers for a
total of $2 million. This is a fair asking price. The developers had
put a great deal of money into it and had already begun to survey
it, and efforts had been made to lay sewer pipes and water lines.
It is critical, I think, because if someone were to say to you,
would you buy Mount Vernon, the home of Thomas Jefferson — I
mean, of Washington, or Monticello, or the Lee Mansion in Arling-
ton, you would certainly say yes. And so this is the question that
we are asking the people of South Carolina.
70
And I am moving out now into the national fundraising level to
preserve this home of Charles Pinckney. We have raised — in my
statement I said that we had raised $900,000. But yesterday we got
two significant contributions.
One came in the mail, two one dollar bills from a nine year old
child in Mount Pleasant who lives near Snee Farm; and the other,
a $200,000 anonymous donation. So we now have raised $1.1 mil-
lion, and I am confident that we will be able to get the additional
$900,000.
We need this legislation, as you know, because we have to turn it
over — well, we do not have to, but we would like to turn it over to
the Park Service.
And as Fritz indicated to you, we have a wonderful Park Service
operation in Charleston, because almost adjacent, several miles
from the Charles Pinckney house, is Fort Moultrie. And Fort Moul-
trie was built to defend Charleston Harbor in the Revolutionary
War.
And then Fort Sumter, which is located in Charleston harbor,
where the first shots of the great unpleasantness were fired [laugh-
ter]. Over 300,000 people visited last year.
And so we have got a really ongoing organization with the Park
Service. And with this 25 acres of land, we can really make it into
perhaps a constitutional learning center, and where better to do
this than in South Carolina?
It is important for us to raise the money, but I think it is equally
important for our posterity. So I am pleased to hear that you and
your Committee will support this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rollings follows:]
71
STATEMENT OF MRS. RITA L. "PEATSY" Hf'.. LINGS
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in
strong support of S. 2058, the bipartisan bill to authorize
establishment of the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site
in Charleston, South Carolina. This bill will permit us to
preserve Charles Pinckney 's unique and historic homestead,
built more than two hundred years ago across the Cooper River
from Charleston, South Carolina.
Charles Pinckney, who lived from 1757-1824, is a
favorite son of South Carolina and a Founding Father of the
United States. Not only was he one of the principal drafters
of the Constitution, he also served four terms as Governor of
South Carolina, and was a member both of the United States
Senate and the House of Representatives. From 1801 to 1805,
he served as President Jefferson's minister to Spain.
It is a matter of urgent necessity that Charles
Pinckney 's Charleston homestead, Snee Farm, be preserved,
both as a landmark of historic charm and as a living memorial
to a man who contributed mightily to the young American
Republic .
Today, huge oak and magnolia trees surround the Pinckney
home. Yet, just beyond these ancient trees, urban
development is inexorably closing in. By any sane and
72
reasonable calculation, the time has come to draw a line.
Suburban Charleston has plenty of subdivisions and plenty of
parking lots already. But it has only one Snee Farm. We
have a profound responsibility to preserve this treasure for
future generations.
Snee Farm is one of only 13 homesteads associated with
framers of the Constitution that have not been sacrificed to
developers' wrecking balls. Located just outside of
Charleston, the 233-year-old house and the surrounding 21
acres of farm land are recognized by the National Park
Service as a national historic landmark. Regrettably,
however, this recognition is no protection whatsoever against
degradation or even outright demolition. Indeed, the tragic
fact is that real estate developers are now moving forward
with plans to build 41 luxury homes on one-half-acre lots on
the Snee Farm site. With good reason, Snee Farm has been
designated by the National Park Service as one of the
Nation's most threatened landmarks.
To prevent this wanton destruction of our heritage, a
broad-based coalition of citizens known as "Friends of
Historic Snee Farm" has been mobilized. As I speak. South
Carolinians and other concerned American citizens are working
to buy this historic property and to give it to America ... to
place it under the responsibility of the National Park
73
-3-
Service where it can be preserved as the national treasure
that it is ... forever .
I am proud to serve as the national fund-raising
chairperson of "Friends of Historic Snee Farm, " with a
mandate to raise private funds for acquisition of the
property. Citizens from across America as well as dozens of
Pinckney descendants have joined forces with the State and
local governments of South Carolina to preserve Snee Farm.
So far, $900,000 has been raised toward the site's purchase
price. I have every confidence that the full sum of $2
million will be raised and that no federal money will be
required. Nevertheless, congressional authorization is still
required in order for the National Park Service to accept our
group's donation of the Snee Farm property. And that is
precisely the purpose of S. 2058.
We are all enormously pleased that the Snee Farm bill
was approved by voice vote in the House on June 20.
Likewise, we are grateful for the unanimous and energetic
endorsement of the National Park Service, the entire South
Carolina Congressional delegation, the South Carolina State
Legislature, the South Carolina Department of Archives and
History, the Historic Charleston Foundation, and the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.^
74
Mr. Chairman, S. 2058 will allow us to preserve and
protect the Pinckney estate. This project is a wonderful
example of cooperation between citizens and government on the
local. State and national level in an attempt to achieve a
worthy goal. Today, we are asking for your support in making
this goal a reality. We have a duty to rescue this site -- a
duty to ourselves and, most importantly, a duty to future
generations .
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
# # #
75
Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Peatsy.
Nancy.
STATEMENT OF NANCY THURMOND
Mrs. Thurmond. I would just like to say I am delighted to be
here and that we are all working together, and I appreciated
Peatsy's comments underscoring the very important factor of pre-
serving this Charles Pinckney historic home site and all of its rich
cultural heritage, really for all the children of America.
Senator Bumpers. Well, I thank you both, and you both have my
undying admiration for your tenacity and hard work in trying to
raise this money.
And you know, while I wish we had more money here to do
things like this with, occasionally in projects like this I think it
probably has more meaning when people are asked to contribute to
preserve something of this historical significance.
And I feel sure you are going to succeed and succeed admirably,
Peatsy and Nancy, in your efforts. Let me just ask you a couple
questions.
I take it you have an option to buy this property for two million?
Mrs. Rollings. We have an option to buy the property, and we
have to pay the carrying charges for them, which is $12,000 a
month. That is the tough part. We really would like to raise this
money and we hope to do so by the end of July.
Senator Bumpers. When you say "carrying charges," are you
talking about — are you paying some form of interest on this
option?
Mrs. Rollings. Exactly. That is part of the option agreement,
that we after the first three months would pick up the interest
that they were paying on what moneys that had.
Senator Bumpers. So the sooner you get your money raised, the
sooner you can stop that.
Mrs. Rollings. Exactly, that is right.
Senator Bumpers. Does the option have an expiration date?
Mrs. Rollings. The end of July.
Senator Bumpers. The end of this July?
Mrs. Rollings. Yes.
Senator Bumpers. No terms for renewal?
Mrs. Rollings. There would be some terms for renewal, but we
are hoping we do not have to renew it, that we can get the money.
You see, our problem is ,
Senator Bumpers. A few more of those $200,000 contributions
and you will not have to.
Mrs. Rollings. Right, and that is what we hope. We have gotten
wonderful support from our media in South Carolina, particularly
in Charleston, in running public service announcements. And we
have gotten a lot of small contributions, and the state has helped
us. Park, Recreation, and Tourism, because it will be a money
maker.
But the Friends of Snee Farm had to really start from scratch.
There was no established organization to begin, and so you know, it
takes time to get these things, to get a tax ID number, and just to
get an organization.
76
Senator Bumpers. Peatsy, describe this house for me.
Mrs. HoLLiNGS. Well, it is — as I indicated, it is in fairly good con-
dition, both interior and exterior. It is not a plantation type house,
one that you would think that Scarlet O'Hara would live in, be-
cause obviously it was built long before that period.
It is a small clapboard house with beautiful woodwork inside.
Senator Bumpers. Who has preserved it all this time?
Mrs. Rollings. A family.
Senator Bumpers. The Snee family?
Mrs. Rollings. No. The family that lived there was Giles
Hollowell. It was the Giles family and Giles RoUowell and his wife
Joyce had lived there for a number of years. Re was a classmate of
mine in college.
But they began a small restaurant, an inn, in the town of Mount
Pleasant, and they really needed the money. And it was sold very
rapidly, before we even knew about it. I say "we" because we
weren't in existence, the Friends of Snee Farm.
But when it was sold to developers, then we knew about it and
the group coagulated. And I think we will be successful. I certainly
hope so.
Senator Bumpers. Nobody lives in it now?
Mrs. Rollings. Nobody lives in the house now, no.
Senator Bumpers. It is just being maintained?
Mrs. Rollings. It is being maintained.
Senator Bumpers. Well, that family certainly deserves a lot of
praise for having the foresight to preserve it and keep it.
Mrs. Rollings. Yes.
Senator Bumpers. Until we could do something.
Thank you both very much for being with us this morning.
Mrs. Rollings. Thank you very much.
Senator Bumpers. Our next witness is Jerry Rogers, Associate
Director for Cultural Resources of the National Park Service. Mr.
Rogers.
STATEMENT OF JERRY ROGERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTUR-
AL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT McDANIEL, SUPER-
INTENDENT, CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcom-
mittee.
With your permission, I would like to be joined at the table by
Superintendent Robert McDaniel of Congaree Swamp National
Monument.
Senator Bumpers. By all means.
Mr. Rogers, how do you want to proceed? You have got three
bills you want to testify on. How are you going to take them?
Mr. Rogers. As suits the pleasure of the Chairman, but if
Senator Bumpers. Well, it is of no matter to me.
Mr. Rogers. Then I would like to deal with Charles Pinckney
National Historic Site, Congaree Swamp, and Mississippi River in
that order.
Senator Bumpers. Fine. Please proceed.
77
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to especially thank
the Chairman for scheduling these hearings at a time when we
know there is an extremely busy session. We know that there are a
lot of demands on the Committee's time and it is not easy to deal
with issues that come up as emergencies.
With regard to S. 2058, to establish a Charles Pinckney National
Historic Site, we support enactment of that legislation if it is
amended as we suggest. I do not need to repeat the material that is
in my submitted statement because not only is it available to you,
but the able witnesses ahead of me have established I think very
clearly the importance of Charles Pinckney — the reasons why he is
nationally significant.
This house was designated a national historic landmark several
years ago, and people were frankly shocked when all of a sudden it
seemed to be threatened by not only development, but very inten-
sive development, of the remaining 25 acres of farm land that sur-
rounded it and that gave it its character as a farm house.
The people of South Carolina
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Rogers, let me interrupt you just a
moment. I was looking through these pictures as you spoke. Is
Charles Pinckney buried on this property?
Mr. Rogers. I do not believe he is, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bumpers. Well, Mrs. Rollings is saying no. But I just
saw this memorial marker here and I thought maybe it was a
tombstone on the property.
Go ahead, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. The marker looks like a tombstone, and what it is
in fact is a memorial by Charles Pinckney to his father. It is writ-
ten in eighteenth century language and script, and with even the
artistic styles of the eighteenth century. It is a very moving memo-
rial to his own father.
I have been personally deeply impressed and the National Park
Service has been deeply grateful to the citizen movement in South
Carolina that sprang up at an instant's notice to defend this threat-
ened national historic landmark, to raise the money, to risk their
own money to buy an option to protect the property, when they
had no idea that they would be able to raise the full $2 million at
that time, and then to engage in a campaign to raise it.
It has been a truly heroic effort to deal with an urgent threat to
a nationally significant piece of property.
We recommend that S. 2058 be enacted, but to be amended so
that the property is acquired by donation. We are pleased to hear
of your strong support for that.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to Congaree Swamp National Monu-
ment, S. 2018, the Administration opposes enactment of S. 2018 at
this time and requests that Congress take no action until the Ad-
ministration has had an opportunity to complete the planning
process that Congress called for when it authorized this unit of the
National Park System in 1976.
The National Park Service is in the final stages of that planning
process. We have submitted a draft document for public review and
we have revised it according to the input from that public review.
Senator Thurmond, Senator Rollings, the Congressman and others
78
have seen that and know what is in it, but it has not yet been sub-
mitted to higher authorities in the Administration for review.
We expect it to be submitted in the very near future. As soon as
that process has been completed, the Administration would be pre-
pared to deliver its position on the reasonableness of S. 2018 or
some similar legislation.
I would also note that we sense there is some reluctance by sell-
ers who were once willing to part with their properties at fair
market value, and we have detected some interest in guarantees of
values that might be higher than fair market value.
We would not encourage acceding to that type of a request.
Mr. Chairman, we anticipate that we would be able to take a
firmer position after the Administration has had the opportunity to
review the plan. Superintendent McDaniel is better able than I to
answer questions if you have them on that.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Rogers follow:]
79
STATEMENT OF JERRY ROGERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONCERNING S. 2058, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE CHARLES PINCKNEY
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
JUNE 23, 1988
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be
here today to discuss S. 2058, a bill to establish the Charles
Pinckney National Historic Site in the State of South Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, we support enactment of S. 2058 if amended as we
suggest.
Snee Farm, as Charles Pinckney 's home has been traditionally
referred to, has both structural integrity and an original
location in a remarkably unaltered setting. However, I should
hasten to add that the integrity of the setting is threatened
with despoilation by developers who are intent on subdividing the
estate even as we speak.
But there is a positive side to this story. It is encouraging to
witn3ss the sincere dedication of the many citizens of this
country who have come to the rescue of Snee Farm in its moment of
need. A group of concerned local citizens, headed by South
Carolinians whose names would be recognizable to many Americans
and some of whom are here today to testify in support of this
bill, has come to the forefront to raise the funds necessary to
save Snee Farm. When its fate seemed sealed, and preliminary
construction begun, the quickly organized volunteer preservation
group known as Friends of Snee Farm purchased an option on the
property and undertook the daunting task of raising the $2
million necessary to acquire the property from the developer. In
just a few months they have raised approximately $1,000,000 to
purchase the property in hopes of donating it to the National
Park Service. Their efforts have enjoyed bipartisan support from
80
the entire South Carolina Congressional delegation. We not only
support what the Friends are trying to do but extend to them our
sincere thanks for their selfless efforts.
Just who was Charles Pinckney and why is it important to have his
home in the National Park System? Charles Pinckney was, among
other accomplishments, the second youngest delegate to the
Constitutional Convention after having served in the Continental
Congress and in the State legislature of South Carolina. While
his role in the Constitutional Convention has been labeled
controversial by some, historians do agree that he ranked among
its leaders. He attended full time, spoke often and effectively,
and contributed immensely to the final draft and to the
resolution of problems that arose during the debates. He also
labored successfully for ratification of the document in his home
State of South Carolina in spite of intense opposition.
Following his succasses related to the Constitution, Pinckney
became Governor for two terms and was president of the convention
which drew up a new constitution for South Carolina. He later
served a third term as Governor and also as U.S. Senator. In
1801 he was rewarded for his role as Thomas Jefferson's campaign
manager in South Carolina by being appointed Minister to Spain,
at which time he facilitated the negotiation of the Louisiana
Purchase. Later he was to serve a fourth term as Governor
followed by two terms as a member of the State Assembly before
his death in 1324.
During this period of celebration of the Bicentennial of the
Constitution it is only fitting that Charles Pinckney ' s Home
should be retained in its current condition for future
generations of Americans. It is one of the very few authentic
surviving sites associated with a Framer of the Constitution. It
should also be noted that the significance of Snee Farm
transcends Charles Pinckney and his distinguished family, which
included another signer of the Constitution from South Carolina,
his second cousin Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
-2-
81
While perhaps not architecturally unique or breathtakingly
palatial, Snee Farm is an excellent representative of 18th
century farm house construction. It is perhaps this simplicity
and pleasing design that has been the key to its having been
maintained remarkably well over the years, as it has served as a
desirable permanent residence by its many owners.
We cannot speak of Snee Farm without again gratefully
acknowledging the herculean efforts of a small group of concerned
citizens who have labored long and hard to raise the monies
necessary to save the property. We wish to publicly express our
deep and sincere thanks to these people who have chosen to make a
strong statement in support of our Nation's heritage. Every
American benefits from their generosity and sacrifice.
Mr. Cnairman, in speaking about the strong local as well as
national support that this effort has engendered, it is
appropriate to recommend that no property acquisition authority
other than donation be authorized in this instance. Given the
size of the federal deficit, it would be both unfair and
countarproductive to raise false expectations concerning this
Department's ability to swiftly provide sufficient funding to
save this valuable resource. Private fundraising efforts will be
far quicker and thus more likely to result in public ownership of
Snee Farm. We would note, also, that fees would be charged at
this area, from which we would expect to recover a portion of the
annual costs of operations.
We would offer three minor amendments for the Committee's
consideration. Section 2 states that this measure is aimed at
protecting and interpreting the home, whereas the home is merely
a vehicle for addressing the far more important element, namely
Charles Pinckney himself. Secondly, Section 3(a) should
authorize acquisition by donation only. Finally, we suggest that
Section 3(b) be amended to establish precise boundaries for the
-3-
82
historic site by reference to a map of the property to be
donated.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement on S. 2058. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members
of the Committee may have at this time.
-4-
83
STATEMENT OF JERRY ROGERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONCERNING S. 2018, A BILL TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT, TO DESIGNATE WILDERNESS
THEREIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
JUNE 23, 1988
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be
here today to discuss S. 2018, a bill to expand the boundaries of
Congaree Swamp National Monument, to designate wilderness within
the monument, and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, we oppose enactment of S. 2018 at this time and
request that Congress take no action until the Administration has
had an opportunity to complete the planning process which
Congress called for when it authorized this unit of the National
Park System in 1976.
Congress established the Congaree Swamp National Monument "...to
preserve and protect for the education, inspiration, and
enjoyment of present and future generations an outstanding
example of a near-virgin southern hardwood forest ..." A 15,138-
acre tract of land was subsequently acquired from a single owner
and today constitutes the monument in its entirety. The
Congress, however, recognizing that there were additional
resources worthy of professional assessment in the immediate
vicinity, directed that the National Park Service examine these
resources through the general management planning process and
report to the Congress on their suitability for inclusion within
the monument for resource protection, scenic integrity, or
management and administration. Additionally, the plan was to
include the number of visitors and types of public use that could
be accommodated within the monument in accordance with the
protection of its resources, and the location and estimated cost
of facilities deemed necessary to accommodate such visitors and
84
uses.
The National Park Service is in the final stages of that planning
process, having submitted a draft document for public review and
revised it according to that input. It is anticipated that the
final document will be available for Administration review within
the next few months. Our recommendation today is that that
process be allowed to run its course.
S. 2018 would expand the boundaries of Congaree Swamp National
Monument by some 7,000 acres, designate approximately 15,138
acres of wilderness and potential wilderness within the expanded
monument boundaries, and increase the monument's development
ceiling to $2,697,750. Certain of these lands perhaps do have
merit as they may well provide protection for the resources of
the monument, add critical habitat for endangered wildlife, or
provide guaranteed access to the monument for both visitors as
well as park administrators. However, until the specifics of the
planning process are made known to this Administration and are
dealt with according to critical requirements of the resource for
preservation and interpretation, it would be impossible to test
the reasonableness of S. 2018 or any variation thereof. We have
heard land acquisition estimates which place the cost of these
additional lands somewhere between 10 and 12 million dollars. We
also sense that there is a reluctance by once willing sellers to
part with their properties absent guarantees of inflated
values. We certainly do not subscribe to these attempts.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we have said on previous occasions, we
do not think it fair in these times of fiscal austerity to send
false signals to affected landowners that the Federal government
will soon knock on their doors with checkbook in hand to pay them
for their lands as soon as this measure becomes law. We both
know from past experience that that simply will not happen. And
to further raise expectations of local residents that passage of
this legislation will signal the beginning of extensive
development of the monument when those expectations are very
-2-
85
unlikely to be reealized would be unwise.
S. 2018 proposes to add approximately 3,100 acres to the monument
along its easternmost end and would propose that they be added to
the wilderness acreage, as well. These lands are currently owned
by Georgia Pacific and have been harvested to the point that they
are not worthy of addition to the monument. We do not believe
that Congress intended to enlarge the monument through this
planning process simply to include more resources but rather
intended to protect what was seen as a core unit which needed
enhancement along its margins. The Georgia Pacific lands do not
fall into this category but would merely expand the monument to
the east. These acres would not add significantly to the area
Congress envisioned in 1976.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks concerning S.
2018. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or
other Members of the Committee may have at this time.
-3-
86
STATEMENT OF JERRY ROGERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONCERNING S. 1643, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR.
JUNE 23, 1988
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be
here today to discuss S. 1643, a bill to establish the
Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly oppose enactment of S. 1643.
The "Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Act of 1987",
as the measure would be known if enacted, would designate the
existing Great River Road as a national heritage corridor. It
would also establish the Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor Commission made up of the Director of the National Park
Service and 100 other members, 10 from each of the states which
borders the Mississippi River. In lieu of payment for their
services, members would receive travel and per diem expenses
according to 5 USC 5703. The Commission may procure the services
of special consultants as well as employees of State, local or
Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. It may use the United
States mails in a manner similar to other departments and
agencies of the Federal government. The General Services
Administration shall provide administrative support services upon
request of the Commission.
The purposes of the Commission would be to 1) prepare a plan
within two years to include an inventory of resources within the
Corridor and assess their preservation, protection, enhancement,
enjoyment and utilization; 2) provide assistance to governmental
entities and tribes that undertake such activities relating to
these resources; 3) serve as a clearinghouse for information
related to these activities and resources; 4) cooperate with the
87
Mississippi River Parkway Commission to assist in the continued
development, maintenance, and enhancement of the Great River
Road; and 5) submit a biennial report to the governors of each
State and to the Secretary of the Interior concerning the
Commission's activities for the two year period. There would be
authorized to be appropriated to the Commission $500,000 for the
fiscal years 1989, 1990 and 1991.
Mr. Chairman, we have serious reservations that this Commission
would provide any more meaningful coordination than the
Mississippi River Parkway Commission which was established in
1938 and with which this Commission is directed to cooperate. In
our view the Commission envisioned in this bill merely overlays
in many ways the one established in 1938. We are not convinced
that the expenditure of $1.5 million of Federal funds in this
fashion would be in the national or even regional interest. We
also do not believe any Federal purpose would be served by
convertingthe existing Great River Road into a national heritage
corridor.
Finally, it would appear from the language of Section 2 that a
principal reason for designating the corridor and establishing
the Commission is economic stimulation. We do not believe that
this is a primary function of the National Park Service nor
should it become one. Moreover, those functions of the
Commission involving surveys, inventories, and coordination with
respect to outdoor recreation and resource conservation can be
accomplished under several existing statutory authorities dating
from the 1936 Park, Parkway, and Recreation Area Study Act. We,
therefore, see no need for additional authority in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks concerning S.
1643. I would be pleased to respond to questions you or other
Members of the Committee may have at this time.
88
Senator Bumpers. Just one question. The anticipated cost of this
you say is between $10 and $12 million. We have a slightly differ-
ent figure from the staff here, $12 to $14 million.
But let me ask you, is the estimated value based mostly on the
value of the timber that you are going to be getting on this?
Mr. McDaniel. Senator, if I could answer that for you.
Senator Bumpers. Sure.
Mr. McDaniel. When we look at the expansion that is shown in
the green, most of the land that is there is about divided equally,
cut and uncut. We were looking at it for two values, the value for
uncut land and also the land that is cut over.
So the amount is roughly about half and half if you were looking
at the total green area that you have there.
Senator Bumpers. Well, then there is quite a diversity of value
between the uncut and the cut.
Mr. McDaniel. There certainly is, yes, sir.
Senator Bumpers. How much difference is there in the two
values?
Mr. McDaniel. In a guesstimate-type situation, I would say
roughly $2,000 an acre. But that is purely guesstimating.
Senator Bumpers. Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, with regard to S. 1643, to establish a
Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor, the Administration
strongly opposes enactment of that legislation, believing that the
objective of the legislation can and should be carried out through
other means, through existing authorities, and perhaps without so
extensive a relationship with the National Park Service.
We also find the proposal to have a commission made up of 101
members, whose travel, per diem, and other costs would be covered
by the administering Federal agency, to be higher than we would
recommend. It is our recommendation that alternative approaches
be applied to achieve the objectives of that legislation.
[Pause.]
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Rogers, if the economic elements of this
bill were removed, would the Park Service have a different feeling
about participating in it?
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I think we would. The National Park
Service considers it an important part of its mission to promote the
preservation and development of historic, scenic, and recreational
values around the country.
We are engaged in projects of that type in certain other areas,
and we think that we are able to do a certain number of those
projects rather well. But ultimately, a major question, of course, is
how much does something cost and who pays for it.
Senator Bumpers. Mr. Rogers, we will probably submit some ad-
ditional questions to you on all three of these proposals for the
record, and we will do that as quickly as possible.
Thank you both for being with us this morning.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bumpers. Our first panel on the Congaree Swamp is:
Richard Watkins, Conservation Chair of the South Carolina Chap-
ter of the Sierra Club; Barry Beasley, Coordinator for the State
Scenic Rivers Program Commission, South Carolina Water Re-
89
sources Commission; Bill Lienesch, Director of Federal Activities,
National Parks and Conservation Association; and Peter Kirby,
Southeast Regional Director of the Wilderness Society.
Gentlemen, welcome to the Committee, and let me suggest, if you
will just start the way I have your names on my list.
Mr. Watkins, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WATKINS, CONSERVATION CHAIR,
SOUTH CAROLINA CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB
Mr. Watkins. Thank you.
I am Richard Watkins, Conservation Chair of the South Carolina
Chapter of Sierra Club. Speaking on behalf of our members, we cer-
tainly appreciate this opportunity to support S. 2018.
The Congaree Swamp is nationally and internationally signifi-
cant because it contains the largest remnant of old growth south-
ern bottom land hardwood forest in the country. As authorized in
1976, the monument consists solely of the 15,135 acre Beidler tract.
This tract is the heart of Congaree Swamp, but it alone does not
provide a suitable boundary for the monument. The establishing
legislation recognizes that additional lands are needed.
The general management plan, to which Mr. Spratt referred a
few moments ago in his comments, describes the monument as
operationally submarginal, partially because of boundary consider-
ations.
A cross-section of the Congaree River ecosystem includes the
river, the flood plain on both sides of the river, and the bluffs on
both sides of the river which confine the flood plain.
Rather than boundary expansion from the southern bluffs to the
northern bluffs, S. 2018 expands the boundary by 7,000 acres north
of the river. This 7,000 acre expansion is very reasonable in terms
of today's situations, conditions, from the standpoint of political
considerations locally, as well as budgetary constraints.
Although the boundary proposal in the legislation does not ad-
dress lands south of the river, estate and private landowner initia-
tives are being considered to protect some of the significant Conga-
ree lands south of the river.
Monument expansion has proceeded with emphasis on working
with landowners, hoping to avoid misunderstandings, polarization,
controversy. We have tried to identify mutually agreeable paths
forward to expand the monument's boundary, while being respon-
sive to owners' perspectives.
We believe these efforts have been successful. We might point
out, the Park Service has also been integrally involved in commu-
nicating with land owners to explain the expansion process.
The citizens boundary proposal in S. 2018 is based on input from
many sources, especially state and federal agencies. This boundary
proposal is designed to minimize controversy by adding only lands
north of the river. The proposal has been well received in South
Carolina. We have heard this morning from various folks talking
about the extent of support for the boundary expansion.
We are certainly disappointed to hear the comments by the Park
Service this morning. We would point out that the professionals,
90
who are certainly the most famiHar with the resources of the Con-
garee Swamp, have had considerable time studying the area.
The fact that it has not passed the final review here in Washing-
ton we think is not especially relevant in terms of the recommen-
dation to be expected from the Park Service. There are differences
at this point between the Park Service proposal and the boundary
in S. 2018, with most of those differences being lands between the
monument's eastern boundary and the railroad.
In our detailed comments which we will provide this morning,
the written comments, we explain why we believe these lands be-
tween the eastern boundary and the railroad should be included.
We have a seller who does not oppose parting with these lands.
In reference to the earlier statements regarding the Bruner prop-
erty, the Cooks Lake property as it is sometimes called, we certain-
ly recognize the views of South Carolina Senators, but we would
simply ask that the Subcommittee please at least consider the in-
formation that we are providing in our detailed written comments
regarding that property.
I might point out one detail for your consideration. Title III of S.
2018 includes $2.7 million for construction and development fund-
ing. In the as yet unreleased final version of the Park Service's
general management plan, you will find that that figure has been
increased to $3 million, so we would suggest that Title III in this
bill reflect this later figure.
Thank you very much for your consideration, and we are certain-
ly pleased to hear of your support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watkins follows:]
91
SIERRA CLUB South Carolina Chapter
To Axpiora enjoy ond prmmm tfMnabcn j/otmU. irattri. wUdti/*and MrUd«f7tM«
Richard Natklnt
P. 0. Boi 1467
Cudan, SC 29020
<e03) 425-3138 N
Statenent of tha Siarra Club
bafore the Senate Subcomnittaa on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
June 23, 19B8
Washington, D.C.
REi S.2016 — Conyarse Swasp National Monuacnt Expansion and Wilderness Act
I aa Richard Matkins, Conservation Chair of the South Carolina Chapter of Sierra Club.
Speaking on behalf of our members, we appreciate this opportunity to support S.2018.
Congaree Swamp is nationally and internationally-significant because it contains the
largest remnant of old-growth southern bottomland hardwood forest in the country.
As authorized by Congress in 1976, Congaree Swamp National Monument consists solely of
the 15,135-acre Beidler tract. Although this tract is the heart of Congaree Swamp, it
alone does not provide a suitable boundary for the monument. The establishing
legislation recognises that additional lands are needed — for resource protection,
scenic integrity, management and administration of the monument. The recent Qeneral
Management Plan describes the monument as 'operationally sub-marginal', partially
because of boundary deficiencies.
A cross-section of the Congaree River ecosystem includes the river, the floodplain on
both sides of the river, and the bluffs which confine the floodplain. Optimally,
Congaree Swamp National Monument should have ecological boundaries which extend from
the high bluffs south of the river to the low bluffs north of the river. This
involves boundary expansion of 11,000-12,000 acres.
Rather than boundary expansion bluff-to-bluff, S.2019 expands the boundary by 7,000
acres north of the river. This 7,000-acre expansion is a very reasonable action in
1988, both in responding to local political considerations and in recognizing
budgetary constraints. Meanwhile, state and private (landowner) initiatives are being
considered to protect some of the significant Congaree lands south of the river.
92
Sitrra Club to Scnatt Subcouiittct oo Public Undi... Pagt 2
Jua* 23, 1986
S.2018
MoDU*»nt txpantioD has procacdtd with BBphaBis on tstablishing and aalntaining
dialogue with landowners, thereby seeking to avoid nisundarstandings and polarization.
Horking with some landowners, Sierra Club has tried to identify Butually-agreeabla
paths forward to expand the nonuaent's authorized boundary while being responsive to
owners' perspectives. Sinilarly, the Park Service has talked with landowners. Me
believe these efforts have been important and suooessful.
The Citizens' Boundary Proposal in S.2018 is based on input from many sources,
especially state and federal agencies. It has been well-received in South Carolina.
Of 589 responses to the Park Service's draft General Management Plan, 577 support the
Citizens' Boundary Proposal. Supporters include Richland County Council, three state
agencies, various environmental organizations, and Qov. Carroll Campbell. Ha are
delighted the entire South Carolina congressional delegation is sponsoring legislation
to authorize this boundary.
Despite Sen. Thurmond 's encouragement, the National Park Service has not endorsed the
Citizens' Proposal in S.2018. After considering expansion of more than 11,000 acres
during 198S, the Park Service's initial boundary expansion proposal of 2,4S4 acres
(Nov. 1987) was recently revised to 3,900 acres by adding lands which are part of the
Citizens' Proposal.
Most of the remaining difference between S.2018 and the revised Park Service proposal
is Georgia-Pacific land between the nonusient's eastern boundary and the railroad. As
we explain in detailed written comments about the eastern boundary, these lands belong
in the monument, and Georgia-Pacific does not oppose selling them.
The 145-acre Cook's Lake tract, along the monument's western boundary, has become a
subject of unexpected attention. He ask the Subcommittee and the South Carolina
senators to consider our detailed written comments about the Cook's Lake tract.
Regarding Title III of S.2018, we suggest revising construction and development
funding from t2.7 million to tS.O million, as indicated in the revised General
Management Plan.
Regarding wilderness and potential wilderness, several refinements to the wilderness
map of S.2018 arc suggested in our detailed written comments.
Me are grateful to the South Carolina delegation for sponsoring 5.2018 and H.R.4027,
and to the Subcommittee for scheduling this hearing. In the interests of Congaree
Swamp National Monument, we urge the Subcommittee to approve S.2018. Thank you for
your consideration.
93
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Beasley.
STATEMENT OF BARRY R. BEASLEY, COORDINATOR FOR STATE
SCENIC RIVERS PROGRAM COMMISSION, SOUTH CAROLINA
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
Mr. Beasley. Thank you, Chairman Bumpers. My name is Barry
Beasley. I am employed by the South Carolina Water Resources
Commission as Coordinator of the South Carolina Scenic Rivers
Program.
I am here to speak in support of the legislation, S. 2018, intro-
duced by Senator Strom Thurmond and co-sponsored by Senator
Ernest Rollings, which would expand the current boundaries of the
Congaree Swamp national monument. However, today my remarks
represent the positions of two other natural resource agencies in
South Carolina: the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, and my
own agency.
I have written comments to submit by each of these three agen-
cies supporting S. 2018.
The Governor of South Carolina, Governor Carroll Campbell, has
also submitted written comments supporting the legislation.
The Congaree Swamp national monument contains an old
growth bottom land hardwood forest that has occupied the flood
plain for centuries. When walking under the towering hardwood
canopy of this forest, one can see the timeless nature of the dense
forest.
The value of this significant natural resource has been docu-
mented in a variety of sources. It is the first South Carolina site
included in UNESCO's international network of biosphere reserves,
and it is a national natural landmark.
The South Carolina agencies which I represent here today want
to see the Congaree Swamp adequately protected, and we all agree
that protection of the Congaree Swamp is dependent upon the pro-
tection of the entire ecosystem.
This legislation presents an opportunity to reach this goal by ex-
panding the current park boundaries through the addition of 7,000
acres. This will provide for better protection of the swamp system,
facilitate comprehensive management, and facilitate a greater vari-
ety of recreational opportunities.
The Congaree Swamp must have an adequate buffer to protect
its ecologically significant natural systems. The National Park
Service recommended an expansion of 2,464 acres in its general
management plan for the Congaree Swamp. This expansion was in-
creased to 3,900 acres in the final plan approval recently released.
While we support the efforts of the Park Service to expand the
monument's boundaries, the acreage recommended by the service
is not sufficient to allow the level of protection the Congaree
Swamp requires. The 7,000 acre expansion proposed in S. 2018 will
more adequately protect the ecosystem's functions.
The boundary expansion proposed by the Park Service, though
significant, does not address obtaining as much of the adjacent
90-788 0-88-4
94
flood plain as is needed or providing a buffer that is not old growth
forest.
As pointed out in the Wildlife Department comments, most of
the additions proposed in the Park Service recommendations other
than in-holdings are old growth forests. It appears that little con-
sideration has been given to adjacent tracts that have been selec-
tively cut or clear cut.
Lands which protect hydrologic or other significant ecologic func-
tions of the swamp system should be included, whether or not they
are old growth forest lands. Another rationale for expanding the
boundaries as proposed in S. 2018 is the better management frame-
work apparent in the boundaries described in the proposed legisla-
tion.
For example, the eastern boundary proposed in S. 2018 is the
Southern Railway railroad tracks. The reason given by the Park
Service for acquiring all the land parcels along the Congaree River
is to provide a distinct, easily recognizable park boundary along the
river.
Both the monument staff and the user can immediately deter-
mine this river boundary, thus enhancing resource management
and law enforcement.
If this is true of the river as a boundary, it is also true of the
railroad tracks presently east of the park.
Although the South Carolina agencies I represent support acquir-
ing more acreage than the Park Service, we do find some very posi-
tive proposals in the plan. We support the Park Service plan for
visitor use. The monument should be enjoyed in its primitive condi-
tion, with a minimum amount of development in the interior of the
monument.
We also support the proposed designation of the majority of the
monument as wilderness or potential wilderness. A key value of
the Congaree Swamp lies in its wilderness character.
The Congaree Swamp national monument is an extremely signif-
icant natural resource and a place of incredible beauty. To fully
protect this tremendous ecological resource, we support the passage
of S. 2018. This legislation will allow us to more fully exercise our
stewardship in maintaining our significant wild places for future
generations.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on
behalf of the South Carolina natural resource agencies in support
of this legislation, and we all appreciate your support. Chairman
Bumpers, of the legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beasley follows:]
95
STATEMENT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND TOURISM
BEFORE THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND FORESTS
BARRY R. BEASLEY
JUNE 23, 1988
WASHINGTON, DC
96
Chairman Bumpers and members of the subcommittee, my name la Barry R.
Beasley. I am employed by the South Carolina Water Resources Commission
as the Coordinator of the South Carolina Scenic Rivers Program, I am here
to speak in support of the legislation, S.2018. introduced by Senator
Strom Thurmond and co-sponsored by Senator Ernest Hollings, which would
expand the current boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National Monument.
However, today my remarks represent the positions of two other natural
resource agencies in South Carolina; the tfildlife and Marine Resources
Department and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, in
addition to the Water Resources Commission. Each of these agencies has
submitted written comments to the subcommittee supporting the proposed
expansion. The Governor of South Carolina, Governor Carroll Campbell, has
also submitted written comments to the subcommittee supporting the
legislation.
The area now known as the Congaree Swamp National Monument contains an
old-growth bottomland hardwood forest that has occupied this floodplaln
for centuries. When walking under the towering hardwood canopy of this
forest, one can see the timeless nature of this dense forest. The value
of this significant natural resource has been documented in a variety of
sources. The Congaree Swamp National Monument is the first South Carolina
site Included in UNESCO's international network of Biosphere Reserves. It
is also a National Natural Landmark.
The South Carolina agencies which I represent here today want to see
the Congaree Swamp adequately protected. We are all in agreement that
protection of the Congaree Swamp is dependent upon protection of the
entire ecosystem. This legislation presents an opportunity to reach
97
this goal by expanding the current park boundaries through the addition of
7000 acres. Expanding the boundaries of the Monument will provide for
better protection of this old growth forest swamp system, facilitate
comprehensive management, and facilitate a greater variety of recreational
opportunities.
The Congaree Swamp must have an adequate surrounding buffer to protect
its ecologically significant natural systems. The National Park Service
recommended an expansion of 2464 acres in its General Management Plan for
the Congaree Swamp. This expansion was increased to 3900 acres in the
final plan approval recently released. While we support the efforts of
the Park Service to expand the Monument's boundaries, the acreage
recommended by the Service is not sufficient to allow the level of
protection the Congaree Swamp requires. The 7000 acre expansion proposed
in S.2018 will more adequately protect the functions of the ecosystem.
The boundary expansion proposed by the Park Service, though significant,
does not address obtaining as much adjacent flood plain as is needed or of
providing a buffer that is not old-growth forest. As pointed out in the
Wildlife Department comments, most of the additions proposed in the Park
Service recommendations, other than in-holdings, are old-growth forest.
It appears that little consideration has been given to adjacent tracts
that have been selectively cut or clear cut, Lands which protect
hydrologlc or other significant ecologic functions of the swamp system
should be included, whether or not thejr are old-growth forest lands.
Another rational for expanding the boundaries as proposed in S.2018 is
the better management framework apparent in the boundaries described in
98
tha proposed legislation. For example, the eastern boundary proposed In
S.2018 is the Southern Railway railroad tracks. A reason given by the
Park Service for acquiring all the land parcels along the Congaree River
is to provide a distinct, easily recognizable park boiindary along the
river. Both the monument staff and the user can immediately determine the
park boundary of the river. This enhances resource management and lav
enforcement. If this is true of the river as a boundary, it is also true
of the railroad tracks presently east of the park.
Although the South Carolina agencies I represent support acquiring
more acreage than the Park Service, ve do find some very positive
proposals in the plan. We support the Park Service plan for visitor use.
The monument should be enjoyed in its primitive condition vlth a minimum
amount of development for visitor use in the interior of the monument.
Ve also support the proposed designation of the majority of tha
Monument as wilderness or proposed wilderness. As development increases
wilderness experiences will become harder to find and a key value of the
Congaree Swamp lies in Its wilderness character.
The Congaree Swamp National Monument is an extremely significant
natural resource and a place of Incredible beauty. To fully protect this
tremendous ecological resource, we support the passage of S.2018. This
legislation will allow us to more fully exercise our stewardship in
maintaining our significant wild places for future generations. I
appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on behalf of the
South Carolina natural resource agencies In support of this legislation.
99
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lienesch.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LIENESCH, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL
ACTIVITIES, NATONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIA-
TION
Mr. Lienesch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be extremely brief this morning. Many of the comments in
my written testimony have already been mentioned.
Senator Bumpers. We will insert your full statement in the
record.
Mr. Lienesch. Thank you, sir.
In my testimony I might mention, Mr. Chairman, there are also
some comments about the Pinckney house, and we also support
that legislation, and if time permits I will make one comment
about that in my statement.
We view this proposal as extremely important, this being the
Congaree Swamp additions, extremely important and extremely
modest.
As you noted in your comments, shortly this Subcommittee will
probably be considering the issue of Manassas. The cost of this ad-
dition in comparison to Manassas, of course, is modest by any
means. Any comparison to the expansion recently of Big Cypress in
both terms of acreage and costs would make this an extremely
modest one.
But I think no less important, certainly, for the resources at the
Congaree. As Dick pointed out, the Congress understood the need
to expand the monument at the time that it enacted, and ordered
the Park Service to do the boundary study. This was referred to by
both the previous witnesses.
And so it was understood early on that the original monument
was not sufficient and that more land needed to be added.
I have not had the opportunity to look at the Park Service state-
ment. I know in the past there have been concerns raised, I believe
by the Park Service, perhaps by others, that some of the lands in
the current bill are lands that have already been logged over and
therefore perhaps are not as worthy as other- lands.
I would like to make a few comments about these lands, which
tend to be the ones more towards the eastern part of the proposed
expansion. In 1986, there was an evaluation by the South Carolina
Heritage Trust looking at these lands and, based on this and some
other work that has been done, there are at least three conclusions
that can be drawn.
One is that the hydrologic regime of the flood plain lands has not
been altered by the logging that has occurred;
Secondly, that the lands to the east help protect the core monu-
ment that exists at this point;
And thirdly, that the presence of near-record or the former pres-
ence of near-record trees indicates that this area can rejuvenate,
that it can come back.
If we look at the history of the National Park System, there have
been times, primarily in the Shenandoahs and Great Smokey ex-
100
amples, where land were bought that had been logged over and
which are now very prime resources, that have come back.
So we believe that the fact that some of these lands have been
logged previously is no reason to exclude them.
Also, as I believe the Superintendent noted, the cost of lands
without the trees on them is something like $2,000 an acre lower,
and of course that helps reduce the cost of this proposal.
Senator Bumpers. Incidentally, what are the differences? The
$2,000 difference, but what is the top and what is the bottom?
Mr. LiENESCH. That I do not know, sir.
Senator Bumpers. Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. LiENESCH. So in any rate, we think that these previously
logged lands are integral to the resource, that they can come back,
and that it is a savings at this point in time to the government to
pick them up because of their lesser value monetarily.
In closing on Congaree, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate a
point that was made before in different terms. We recently have
released a report called "The future for the National Park
System." Among the many studies we did as a part of that study
was a boundary study for each unit of the park system, where we
designed what we thought were ideal boundaries, not from a politi-
cal sense, but from an ecological sense.
And for this park, Congaree, we actually had in our proposal,
have in our proposal, many acres south of the river here, as you
see on the map. And these are the lands. It includes some flood
plain, but mainly high bluffs that overlook the existing monument.
So in comparison to our own studies, this is also an extremely
modest proposal.
Finally, if I might, Mr. Chairman, just one brief comment on the
Pinckney home. We agree with everything that has been said by
the previous witnesses and would add one additional reason to
make this an addition to the National Park System. And that is
that it can help to further the interpretation and knowledge of that
era of America.
And that certainly is an era that is not overrepresented. It is
probably underrepresented in the National Park System, and we
believe that this is a further reason, and that the legislation and
report might even indicate that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lienesch follows:]
I
101
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LIENESCH
DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
PRESENTED TO
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
U.S. SENATE
JUNE 23, 1988
The National Parks and Conservation Association appreciates the opportunity to
testify on behalf of our 60,000 members on S. 2018 and S. 2058. We support
enactment of both pieces of legislation. We are deeply appreciative of the
efforts of the South Carolina delegation to protect the home of Charles
Pinckney and to enlarge and provide additional protection for Congaree Swamp
National Monument.
Protection of the Congaree Swamp has been a priority for NPCA since the mid-
1970s. We were involved in the campaign to establish the monument and have
worked with the National Park Service, the South Carolina delegation and other
conservation organizations to expand the boundaries to more adequately protect
this unique and internationally significant resource.
Congaree Swamp contains the largest remnant of old- growth southern bottomland
hardwood forest in the nation. Its national and international significance
has been affirmed by its designations as a National Natural Landmark (NNL) ,
National Monument, and its inclusion in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) international network of
Bioshpere Reserves.
When Congress established the monument in 1976, it recognized that the 15,135-
acre Beidler Tract would not provide an adequate boundary. Congress directed
the National Park Service to recommend by November 1979, "the lands and
interests in lands adjacent or related to the monument which are deemed
necessary or desirable for the purposes of resource protection, scenic
integrity, or management and administration of the area ..." (Public Law 9A-
545).
Over an 11 year period, the Park Service considered potential additions of more
than 11,000 acres including the bluffs and floodplain in Calhoun County on the
south side of the river. In November 1987 the Park Service submitted a Draft
National Park.s and Conservation Association
1015 Thirty-First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone (202) 944-8530
102
General Management Plan and Wilderness Recommendation for Congaree Swamp
National Monument which recommended only 2,46A acres for addition to the
monument. After a public comment period and further review, the Service, in
May 1988, revised its boundary recommendation to 3,900 additional acres.
While the May 1988 proposal is an improvement, it is still inadequate as it
omits ecologically significant adjacent lands which should be added to the
monument for protection of resources and scenic integrity, and to facilitate
management and administration of the area.
S. 2018 improves upon the NFS proposal in that it provides for acquisition of
7,000 acres of land north of the river including all of the National Natural
Lands between the monument's eastern boundary and the Southern Railroad tracks
which were omitted from the NFS proposal due to recent logging.
These lands are ecologically linked to the monument and should not be excluded
due to logging. A 1986 reevaluation of the Congaree National Natural Landmark
conducted by the South Carolina Heritage Trust at the request of the NFS, found
that the hydrologic regime of these floodplain lands has not been altered by
logging and recommended retention of the logged lands in the NNL. The
reevaluation determined that these lands protect the hydrologic integrity of
the core NNL (the monument); and that the presence, or former presence, of near-
record-size trees indicates these areas have the potential to recover and
eventually become as significant as the core NNL (the monument) is now. In
addition, it is reasonable to expect that the acquisition cost of the logged
lands will be lower now than it will be in the future when the forest has
regrown.
The inclusion of lands in the Fark Service's 3,900 acre proposal that were
clearcut or selectively logged in the last decade indicates that logged areas
are appropriate to include in the monument. In addition, other precedents
exist for inclusion of logged lands in national parks. Both the Great Smoky
Mountains and Shenandoah National Farks were established by including
extensively logged areas.
Extension of the eastern boundary to the railroad will permit greater
effectiveness in managing the area and include the remnants of Hugar's road, a
ferry road dating from 1781. It will provide additional protection for Running
Lake , an important drainage artery for the monument and will include the
Devil's Elbow, a prime example of oxbow formation, and 3-1/2 miles of the north
bank of the Congaree River.
NPCA understands that, at the request of the a landowner, consideration may be
given to deleting the Cook's Lake tract along the western boundary from the
bill's boundary proposal. It would be unfortunate to delete this tract since
NFS acquisition of this scenic oxbow, or remnant of a former Congaree River
channel, would add to the diversity of geomorphic features represented, protect
the aesthetic qualities of the lake from threat of timber harvest, and provide
additional recreational opportunities. Addition of the Cook's Lake tract would
also straighten the monument's western boundary and eliminate the hazard which
hunting on this land may pose to monument visitors. NPCA understands the need
to be sensitive to property owners and believes that the Cook's Lake Tract
should be retained in the bill so that the National Park Service will have the
authority to acquire the tract should the owners wish to sell their lands to
the NFS in the future .
103
Enactment of S. 2018 will be a major step toward protection of the Congaree
Swamp ecosystem which includes the Congaree River, its floodplain north and
south of the river, and the bluffs which enclose the floodplain on both sides
of the river. The floodplain and high bluffs south of the Congaree River are
integral components of the Congaree ecosystem which are threatened by
industrial and residential development. The floodplain and bluffs are
hydrologically related to the northern side of the Congaree and severe changes
there could adversely impact the monument.
Investigations by South Carolina Heritage Trust scientists and other noted
researchers have determined the Congaree River bluffs in Calhoun County to be
regionally and nationally significant. The Heritage Trust states that this
undisturbed forested system forms a contiguous feature with the floodplain and
provides natural insulation for the floodplain forest. In the same manner,
protection of the floodplain forest insulates trees on the southern bluffs from
windthrow. Sandstone outcrops in the bluffs along the river reveal pages from
the coastal plain's geologic history.
The NPS's draft GMP states that Calhoun County has begun to draw considerable
interest from various types of industry that are looking for land close to the
Congaree River. The document also notes that any change in the area over the
next 10-20 years will be a gradual transition from agriculture to residential
and industrial use.
Protection of the southern bluffs and floodplain is essential to prevent
residential and industrial development overlooking the river and monument
lands, to avoid air and water pollution, and damage to the scenic integrity of
the river corridor. Inclusion of the floodplain and bluffs in the monument
would enhance visitor use and appreciation of the monument and assure
protection of the biological diversity of the area.
While state and local initiatives are underway to protect the significant
lands south of the river, they do not guarantee protection of these lands
before they are developed. NPCA remains committed to working with the
Congress, the Park Service, the Heritage Trust and other interests to secure
protection of these integral pieces of the Congaree ecosystem.
NPCA supports designation of most of the monument and addition as wilderness or
potential wilderness and offers one minor refinement to the potential
wilderness designation. NPCA recognizes the importance of air quality
monitoring and supports retention of the state air quality monitoring station
in the monument until such time as it can be relocated. Until the site and its
access road can be phased out, these features should be designated as potential
wilderness and managed as wilderness insofar as practicable. The wilderness
and potential wilderness map accompanying S. 2018 should be adjusted to show
retention of the monitoring site, the road and their designation as potential
wilderness .
NPCA agrees with and supports the upgrading of wilderness and potential
wilderness designations for lands along the monument's western access road as
depicted on the wilderness recommendation -map accompanying the May 1988 NPS
approval and Finding Of No Significant Impact for the .General Management
104
Plan/Wilderness Suitability Study/Environmental Assessment. We recommend that
the wilderness map accompanying S.2018 be amended to include these
designations .
NPCA also recommends that Section 301 of the bill be changed to authorize
appropriations of $3.0 million dollars for construction and development within
the monument instead of $2.7 million. The additional funds will be needed for
development of at least one additional access point for the expanded monument.
Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was one of the most important historical
figures of the colonial and early national period. He served in the Continental
Congress, contributed immensely to the final draft of the Constitution, chaired
the South Carolina state constitutional convention, was both a United States
Senator and Representative, was Governor of his state four times and served as
the American Minister to Spain during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.
Pinckney, who began his political career as an ardent nationalist, later cast
his lot with the back-country South Carolina Democratic -Republ icans . Snee
Farm, the "country seat of Governor Pinckney" as George Washington referred to
Pinckney 's lifetime home, was inherited from his father in 1782. He lived there
until his death in 1824. The property possesses a unique association with a
figure of national importance and reflects the characteristics of a southern
plantation home. Snee Farm is an ideal place to preserve and interpret the life
and life style of an early statesman.
Although the house itself possesses architectural merit, clearly, what makes
this property of national significance is that this was the home of Charles
Pinckney American patriot and statesman. To this end, we suggest amending page
1 line 4-5 to read: "In order to recognize and illustrate aspects of American
history including the national significance and contributions of Charles
Pinckney "
We also recommend that Section 2 of this bill amended to direct the National
Park Service to establish a definitive boundary which would be reflected on an
official boundary map for the National Historic Site. In addition, Congress
should establish a legislative framework for preservation and interpretation of
this site.
For example, either in the bill itself or in report language, there should be a
statement of significance that includes reference to both the national
importance of Charles Pinckney in the early republic, and the Snee Farm as a
property that reflects southern culture during the Federalist Era. There should
be a strong statement to the effect that it would be appropriate to interpret
the institution of slavery at this National Historic Site. Clearly, this house
should not be interpreted solely as another "great house" of a famous person,
but rather the lifestyle of the era, including slavery, should be a focus of'
interpretation for the site. Mr. Pinckney was a slaveholder and the Snee Farm
was a great house for a rice- indigo plantation operated with slave labor.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you or the other members of the Subcommj.ttee may have.
105
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Mr. Lienesch.
Mr. Kirby.
STATEMENT OF PETER KIRBY, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Kirby. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Wilderness Society I
appreciate this opportunity to express our strong support for the
Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion and Wilderness
Act.
In light of the testimony already presented about the need for
boundary expansion, I would like to limit myself only to the wilder-
ness issue. We support the bill's designation of 21,500 acres of wil-
derness and potential wilderness.
This will ensure that the park is managed to preserve natural
conditions for the enjoyment and education of visitors and for its
continued use as an outdoor laboratory. Preserving this bottom
land hardwood forest will also add needed diversity to South Caro-
lina's wilderness to complement the mountain wilderness of Elli-
cott Rock, the barrier island Wilderness of Cape Romaine, and the
forest swampland wildernesses in the Frances Marion National
Forest.
With only minor exclusions, this bill would establish almost all
of the existing monument acres as wilderness. This parallels the
final wilderness recommendation of the National Park Service for
15,010 acres. Since these lands will all be managed in a non-ma-
nipulative way to preserve their natural conditions, according to
the recent park plan, it makes management sense that they be des-
ignated wilderness.
Although a small portion, less than 3,000 acres, of the existing
monument was logged before the land was acquired by the Federal
Government, these forest lands are rapidly regrowing and have
largely regained their natural appearance.
Also, the impacts from this prior logging are relatively insignifi-
cant when evaluated on the basis of the area as a whole, as con-
templated by the criteria for eligibility in the Wilderness Act.
In similar circumstances, Congress has designated areas once
logged as wilderness in the East, such as the Shenandoah National
Park, the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, and throughout
the national forests, as you know.
Finally, this legislation designates the expansions to the monu-
ment as potential wilderness. Under section 101 of the bill these
lands, once acquired, would become wilderness upon a notice in the
Federal Register that uses prohibited by the Wilderness Act have
ceased.
Thus, as these lands are acquired in the years ahead, they will
become wildernesses one by one, until the entire 21,500 acres desig-
nated by this bill will all be wilderness.
Some of the land to be acquired will be in a logged condition.
However, as discussed earlier, such lands should be managed as
wilderness to allow natural succession to occur.
Especially given the rich productivity of these lands for growing
timber, which accounts for the massive old growth trees, the forest
will recover rapidly a natural appearing condition.
106
Also, these logged parcels on the expanded eastern portion will
themselves constitute only a small portion of the entire park. Thus,
measured against the entire 22,500 acres of the expanded park, the
impacts from these logged acres will be relatively insubstantial.
Let me mention one final detail, Mr. Chairman. The Park Serv-
ice plan as recently been prepared for approval by the Administra-
tion does provide for the retention of an air monitoring station
within the existing monument while efforts are made to remove it.
We would urge that the road to this air monitoring station be
made potential wilderness by the legislation, so that once the sta-
tion is removed the road corridor can become wilderness and pro-
vide that the area be managed in a natural condition.
In short, the bill's designations as wilderness and potential wil-
derness are meritorious and will assist in providing for the best
management of the park. We commend Senators Thurmond and
Rollings for their interest in and dedication to preserving the
swamp, and we urge the Committee to take speedy action this year.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirby follows:]
107
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
STATEMENT OF PETER KIRBY, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR 0?
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ON S . 2 018 BEFORE THE PUBLIC LANDS,
NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ENERGY
AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, JUNE 23, 1988.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of The Wilderness Society and
its over 226,000 members, including 8,700 in the states of
South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, I appreciate
this opportunity to express our strong support for S.2018,
the Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion and
Wilderness Act. This park contains the country's largest
remaining remnant of old-growth southern bottomland hardwood
forest. Its ecological significance was recognized
nationally by the Department of Interior with its
designation as a National Natural Landmark in 1974 and
internationally by UNESCO in 1983 with its listing as a
Biosphere Reserve. Part of the area was protected by
Congress as a national park in 197 6.
As described in the attached recent article from the
Atlanta Journal . the park is a natural gem, with such
massive trees that some call it the "Yosemite of the South."
Although listed as "lesser-known" by the National Park
Service, its visitation has grown rapidly since its
establishment, to the current 20,000 visitors a year, and
could increase up to 80,000 visitors a year by the turn of
the century with additional interpretative attractions.
However, for the forest's resources to be adequately
protected and for the park to reach its full potential.
Congress should enact the wilderness designation and the
park expansion provided for in S. 2018.
1. Wilderness . We support the bill's designation of
21,500 acres of wilderness and potential wilderness. This
will ensure that the park is managed to preserve natural
conditions for the enjoyment and education of visitors and
for its continued use as an outdoor laboratory. This will
be the first wilderness in the central part of the state.
Preserving this bottomland hardwood forest will also add
much-needed diversity to South Carolina's wilderness, to
complement the mountain wilderness of Ellicott Rock, the
barrier island wilderness of Cape Remain and the four
swampland areas in the Francis Marion National Forest.
1400 EYE STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, DC. 20005
(202) 842-3400
108
with only minor exclusions, S. 2018 would establish
almost all of the 15,100 existing Monument acres as
wilderness. This parallels the final wilderness
recommendation of the National Park Service for 15,010
acres. Since these lands will all be managed in a
non-manipulative way to preserve their natural conditions,
according to the recent park plan, it makes management sense
that they be designated wilderness.
Although a small portion, less than 5,000 acres, af the
existing Monument was logged before the land was acquired by
the federal government, these forest lands are rapidly
regrowing and have largely regained a natural appearance.
Also, the impacts from this prior logging are relatively
insignificant when evaluated on the basis of the area as a
whole, as contemplated by the criteria for eligibility in
the Wilderness Act. In similar circumstances. Congress has
designated areas once logged as wilderness in the East, such
as for Shenandoah National Park, the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge and throughout the national forests.
The legislation makes a minor exclusion from wilderness
of about 100 acres for habitat manipulation for the
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. While we do not object
to this minor exclusion on the edge of the park, we note for
the record that the Wilderness Act allows for essential
habitat manipulation required by the Endangered Species Act,
provided that the minimum tool is used by the managers.
Also, the Wilderness Act does of course allow for visitor
restriction or even prohibition if needed for endangered
species.
Finally, S. 2018 designates the expansions to the
Monument "potential" wilderness. Under Section 101(b),
these lands once-acquired would become wilderness upon a
notice in the Federal Register that uses prohibited by the
Wilderness Act have ceased. Thus, as these lands are
acquired in the years ahead, they will become wildernesses
one-by-one until the entire 21,500 acres designated by this
bill will be all wilderness. Some of the land to be
acquired will be in a logged condition, particularly parcels
in the Georgia-Pacific ownership. However, as discussed
earlier, such lands will be managed as wilderness to allow
natural succession to occur. Especially given the rich
productivity of these lands for growing timber (which
accounts for the massive old-growth trees) , the forest will
recover rapidly toward a naturally-appearing condition.
Also, these logged parcels on the expanded eastern portion
will themselves constitute only a small portion of the
entire park. Thus, measured against the entire 22,500 acres
of the expanded park, the impacts from these logged acres
will be relatively insubstantial.
109
2. Boundary Expansion . During periodic field
investigation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument over
the last decade, our staff has concluded that the existing
monument boundaries do not adequately protect the resource.
There is substantial acreage outside the present boundary
that is ecologically or visually linked to lands within and
is threatened with timber harvest and development. We' would
prefer an expansion of the monument to protect all of the
lands that lie within the basin bounded by the north and
south Congaree River bluffs. However, we can and do support
the expansion embodied in S. 2018, provided important lands
on the south side of the Congaree River in Calhoun County
will be promptly protected by other means.
Of particular importance is the park expansion east to
the Southern Railroad in order to establish a coherent and
manageable boundary. The railroad is the eastern boundary
of the National Natural Landmark. The addition would also
protect the scenic integrity of about three and one half
miles of the north bank of the Congaree River. Various
features within the area such as Devil's Elbow and Running
Lake artery are also important to include for full
protection of the hydrologic and natural values of the
Monument .
In summary, we commend Senators Thurmond and Rollings
for their long-standing interest in and dedication to
preserving the remarkable ecology of the Congaree Swamp. S.
2018 is a much-needed follow-up to the creation of the park
over a decade ago. We urge the Committee to report out this
bill for timely enactment this year.
110
0)
(0
CO
0)
(Ti
r^
3
Q.
O
3
cr
c
C 1
_g
c
-iC
i_
o
o
CO
as
3
-C
CD
T)
CO
x:
CT3
E
<
CO
i:^ 5 o '=j o
— -= o ~ ■^5
j^ ~ <= =
— ;/; C ^
: ^ c -^
^ =::^= — j:;o"3
OZ5 .
o
^
L"
JZ
o
3;
&I
■p
o
s
~
K
?*
j^ ZJ
Cj
-*%
?■
o —
X
x f
>s
f~'
o
V5
Cj
5
^~
_o
o
-^
c^
O
o
if
o
i!
>
3
o
rt "C
o
o
-
^
l-s
s
-ii:
i.
o
o
s"
c
2
>v^
:>«
>
c
o -
5 <i^
5
.-0
i!^
_
e-s
^
s
ffl
=
jC
-= 5
O
«
o :5
O
Ofl
-5 O « ■"
o j: =1= s TT
Is
f i Is
2;= =s
■-"H-^
o " c — ^
tJ O t- L-
Hii Si
S = fe<
»- 2 <u o
J E J. O "
1 J_ £
-3 I
i E V -
= ^ — -a c^
— =^0
s '- fc
Of _o 2
-J -= -
t, — <-<
lies
^i^
L, „ ; «J
^ =
i3 o
o
(0
CO
c5
o
I
B
s
Ill
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, I have no questions of you. I agree with virtually ev-
erything you have said and there is no point in all the saved
preaching to each other.
So with that, we have a roll call vote and I am going to take
leave for a few minutes to cast a vote and then I will return and
we will take our last panel.
Thank you all very much for coming to be with us today and
your fine testimony.
Mr. KiRBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Senator Bumpers. Our second panel on S. 1643, the Mississippi
River heritage corridor, consists of: Dan Derbes, President, Missis-
sippi River Parkway Commission; John Bernhagen, Vice President,
Mississippi River Parkway Commission; Derrick Crandall, Ameri-
can Recreation Coalition; and Dr. Michael Devine, Director of the
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
Gentlemen, welcome. As you know, our time this morning is five
minutes, and I will take you as you are on my list here.
Mr. Derbes, you are first on the list.
STATEMENT OF H. DAN DERBES, MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARKWAY
COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BERNHAGEN, VICE
PRESIDENT
Mr. Derbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is H. Dan Derbes. I am the President of the National
Mississippi River Parkway Commission and a citizen of the state of
Louisiana. With me today is Minnesota State Senator John Berna-
gen, who is the Vice President of our national commission.
I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to present
testimony on the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Act.
We have been working to designate the Mississippi River as a na-
tional heritage corridor since 1984, and are very pleased to have
these hearings today. Throughout this time, we have discovered
that there is widespread support in our ten Mississippi River states
for the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor bill.
Each of our ten state parkway commissions, whose members con-
sist of governors, appointees, legislators, state agency representa-
tives, strongly support the heritage corridor concept.
In fact, representatives of each of the ten state parkway commis-
sions have traveled, some at their own expense, to be present here
to show their support for the heritage corridor act.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that
the names of these individuals be made a part of the record, and
submit it with my written remarks.
Senator Bumpers. Without objection.
Mr. Derbes. In addition to our state commissions, the Mississippi
River National Heritage Corridor concept has been supported by a
wide variety of different organizations and groups.
Resolutions of support have been approved by several of our
state legislatures, city and county governmental bodies, and non-
profit organizations, and supportive letters have been written by
the heads of numerous state agencies and private groups.
112
This widespread support of the concept of the heritage corridor is
rooted in the numerous meetings which were held in the ten states
over the past four years. The commissions in each of our states
have convened public hearings to find out how they can best place
additional emphasis on the vast resources of the Mississippi River
Valley.
What we have found is that there was a national interest in his-
toric, economic, recreational, cultural, environmental, and natural
resources of the Mississippi River Valley. Yet, despite the efforts of
the states through which the Mississippi River stretches, there was
no unifying attempt to seek ways to preserve, enhance, and pro-
mote the vast resource opportunities found in the region.
The establishment of the Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor will focus national attention as only the Federal Govern-
ment can on the available resources of the Mississippi River
Valley.
This legislation also provides a much needed means to assess
how we might best preserve, enhance, and utilize these resources
for the benefit of the nation.
Despite the incredible diversity of the states along the river,
there is a common enthusiasm for the goals to seek national aware-
ness and assure future opportunities. We feel that this legislation
will successfully achieve these goals in every way and that all the
unique concerns of all of the states will be carefully addressed.
The Federal Government has an important and necessary role in
designation of the Mississippi River heritage corridor. As vital as
this role is, however, we are extremely pleased that the corridor
legislation is drafted in such a way that the Federal Government is
a partner and the rights of the states and the local units of govern-
ment will not be threatened.
We would like it to be clear that the legislation you have before
you now represents the needs and the concerns of many interests
in the ten Mississippi River states. Although we realize this legisla-
tion may not be perfect and some changes may be needed, the con-
cept for the heritage corridor designation is important to all.
I understand that there are some revisions of the Mississippi
River National Heritage Corridor bill which are now being sought
in the House version of the bill. Our board of directors has received
these suggestions and, while we are amenable to the changes, our
support is for the concept of the heritage corridor embodied in the
bill before us today.
There is much more I could say about the support of the corridor
bill, the Mississippi River Parkway Commission, as well as the na-
tional and international importance of the river valley.
However, in order to allow others time to testify, I would like
just to say that the Mississippi River Valley is the most important
natural resource in the world. The Mississippi River National Her-
itage Corridor Act is a small, yet vital piece of legislation, which
marks an important step to place the much-needed emphasis on an
important natural resource.
We and all of the ten states sincerely hope that you will look fa-
vorably upon and enact this bill into law this year. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Derbes follows:]
113
Mississippi filler parkteg (dnnimissunt
Piloi
H DAN DERBES
irT) Old Hainiiiond H
Bj[<<n Riui^c, LouiMjnj 70816
Suit.
Piloi P.o.Tcm
SF.VATOR JOHN BERNHAGR\
113 Sutc OII'kc ButlOmg
Si P-Jul, Minnc\ou 5SI5S
fti: :s>ft-4i3i
Set rcu f ^ -Ttv j\u rcr
HERBF.Rl' MRSHUN
PO 8->x 2iSl
Pcpin. WiMonsin M75y
7 15 -4^2 -2 101
JOHN F EDMAN
WcMpiin OffWc BuiWing
220 S'Hiih Riihcn Slivci
Si Paul, Vjnncwid 55107
612 224 W(j3
FA\-6I2 :2-J-.W52
STATEMENT
OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARKWAY COMMISSION
TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND FORESTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. SENATE
Oune 23, 1988
I. .. f.l.n f)tMrii I
HI lOOI.SON
121^ Sih SttKXi \.ifih
MP-46X'>tl'M>
Cll-Pilol UulfKl II
<;H0RCF KOl-MGNAICKI K
K R '. B..\ 4i;
,llV-263 6^V3
('.'Pilot OlMfKI 111
SlwrOK SAM VAIMI.ADIM
121 Suit.* C'jpihil
S|tni)t:l'i<.-IJ. lllinoiN 62706
2 1 7-^;. 524 7
C'» Pii.i i}i%itK-i iv
SHARON MvKRS
2«>» \ l/Jfil
FiMK-'.l Ciiv. \rLj(tK;t'. '
501 hit. 1651
114
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
My name is H. Dan Derbes and I am Chairman of the ten-state Mississippi
River Parkway Commission and a citizen of the state of Louisiana. With me today
is Minnesota State Senator Gohn Bernhagen who is Vice Chairman of our National
Commission.
I wish to express to you our appreciation for the opportunity to present
testimony in support of the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Act.
The Mississippi River Parkway Commission has been working to obtain designation
of the Mississippi River as a National Heritage Corridor since 1984 and are very
pleased that these hearings are being held today.
I urge you to favorably act on this bill because we have discovered that
there is widespread support in each of our ten Mississippi River states for
establishing a Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor. Each of our ten
state parkway commission members have worked hard on this proposal and they all
strongly support the Heritage Corridor concept.
In fact, representatives of several of our ten state parkway commissions
have traveled, some at their own expense, to be present today as evidence of
their state's support for the Heritage Corridor Act. With your permission, Mr.
Chairman, I would ask that the names of these individuals be made part of the
record and submitted with my written remarks. They are Roy Finley of Wisconsin,
Don Ammons of Tennessee, Games Everett of Kentucky, Charles D^an and Patty
Cappaert of Mississippi, Oohn Bernhagen of Minnesota, and myself, representing
Louisiana.
The Mississippi River Parkway Commission is a quasi -governmental organiza-
tion of the ten states along the Mississippi River whose purpose is to promote
and enhance the scenic, historic, environmental, economic and cultural resources
of the Mississippi River valley and to develop the national parkway known as the
1
115
Great River Road. There are individual state parkway commissions in each of the
ten Mississippi River states and the Province of Ontario whose members consist
of legislators, state and local government officials and general members of the
public appointed by the governors and premier of the respective states and
province.
I would also like to point out that the Mississipi River Parkway is the
only organization in existence that uniquely ties together all the recreational,
historic, and economic interests of all ten Mississippi River states. We have
been in existence since 1938, when then Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes
recommended that the governors of the ten states appoint separate commissions in
each of the states to begin planning of the Great River Road. We are very proud
of the fact that this year, 1988, marks the 50th Anniversary of our organiza-
tion.
The idea of establishing a Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor was
first discussed at a meeting of representatives of the governors of the ten
states convened in St. Louis in 1984. This meeting was called in order to
discover how best to place national emphasis on and enhance the resources of the
Mississippi River valley. The concept of a Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor designation was suggested at the meeting to give the resources of the
Mississippi River the level of recognition it deserves.
As exciting as this concept first appeared, we felt we first needed to
assess the public reaction to the possibility of Heritage Corridor designation
before we went to Congress with our proposal. The individual state parkway
commissions convened a series of public meetings in the ten states to discuss
this concept in a wide variety of state and local agencies, voluntary associa-
tions, and private industry. We prepared a slide show which presented the
116
results of a preliminary inventory of the River's resources and asked for ideas
concerning the development of a Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor
program.
What we found was that there is grassroots' support to bring national
attention to the many historic, economic, recreational, cultural, environmental,
and natural resources of the Mississippi River valley. There exists no unifying
mechanism to bring national attention to the vast resource opportunities found
in the region.
The establishment of a Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor will
focus national attention, as only the federal government can, on the available
resources of the Mississippi River valley. This legislation also provides a
much needed means to assess how we might best preserve, enhance, and utilize
those resources for the benefit of the future generations of this nation.
Despite the diversity of the states along the river, there is a common
enthusiasm to bring a coordinated national awareness and to assess future oppor-
tunities. We feel that this legislation will successfully achieve these goals
in a way that all of the unique concerns of all the ten states will be carefully
addressed.
The federal government has an important and necessary role in designation
of the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor. As vital as this role is, however,
we are extremely pleased that this Corridor legislation is drafted in such a way
that the federal government is a partner and the rights of states and local
units of government will be recognized.
Based on our hearings in the states and the history of our organization, we
are confident that this partnership involving the federal government, the
states, and private industry can be achieved. Everyone with whom we met
expressed the desire to be involved in this designation and cooperate in its
117
implementation. The Mississippi River Parkway Commission has already achieved
this cooperation in the planning of the Great River Road and the development of
joint marketing programs. We feel strongly that this partnership will naturally
be extended to the efforts of the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor
program.
Not only is there a history of federal/state cooperation through the
activities of the Commission, but there is historical precedence for the recom-
mendations of the promotion of the resources of the Mississippi River valley.
The early recommendations by the Bureau of Public Roads to develop the Great
River Road in 1954 included a recommendation for increased awareness of the
resources of the Mississippi River valley. While the idea of a Heritage Corri-
dor was not specifically noted, these early studies encouraged a cooperative
federal and state effort to bring increased attention to the vast resource
opportunities found in the Mississippi River valley.
We would like it to be clear that the legislation you have before you now
that brings this idea of increased resource awareness represents the needs and
concerns of a diversity of interests in the ten Mississippi River states.
Although we realize this legislation may not be perfect and that some changes
may be needed, the concept of establishing the Mississippi River National Heri-
tage Corridor is important to all.
In addition to our state commissions, the Mississippi River National Heri-
tage Corridor concept has been supported by a wide variety of different organi-
zations and groups. Resolutions of support have been approved by several of our
state legislatures, city and county governmental bodies, and non-profit organi-
zations, and supportive letters have been written by the heads of numerous state
agencies and private groups.
118
Also, 18 of our 20 U.S. Senators^ from the ten Mississippi River states are
co-sponsors of the Heritage Corridor bill. There are currently 61 co-sponsors
of the companion version of this bill in the House of Representatives.
VJe are aware that there are some revisions in the Mississippi River Heri-
tage Corridor bill which are being considered in the House version of the bill.
Our Board of Directors, representing all ten Mississippi River states, has
reviewed these suggestions, and while we are amenable to these changes, our
support today is for the concept of the Heritage Corridor embodied in the bill
before you now.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the information we have presented to you today
will cause you to support this bill. The Mississippi River valley is one of the
most important natural resources in the world, important for the ten Mississippi
River states, and the nation as a whole. The Mississippi River valley has
played a vital role in the history and development of this country and continues
to be a vital resource today. The Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor
Act is a small, yet vital, piece of legislation, which will bestow appropriate
national recognition and attention on this important national resource.
We, in all of the ten states, strongly support this bill, and again, we
sincerely hope that you will look favorably on and enact this bill into law this
year.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Dan Derbes, Chairman
119
Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Mr. Derbes.
Senator Bernhagen.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN BERNHAGEN, MINNESOTA STATE
SENATOR
Senator Bernhagen. Mr. Chairman Bumpers, my remarks are
going to be very brief. I think I would just Uke to highlight a
couple of things that we see as the implementation factors of the
bill, as well as in the legislation when the bill is enacted.
First of all, it is indeed a review, and the recommendations were
made in 1938 to first form a commission.
But a lot of things have transpired, both in economic ways world-
wide and global during those 50 years. And we feel, and so do mem-
bers of the states feel, that it is time for a study and continuous
effort that only really a federally sanctioned promotion can do.
The legislation is specifically designed to place the implementa-
tion of any recommended use of the river corridor by various disci-
plines under the control of the states. Pilot Derbes has mentioned
that. I think it needs to be emphasized, and its various subdivi-
sions.
It would encourage proper economic development by the private
sector, as well as government and local resources.
And then the Mississippi River Parkway Commission has been a
live and healthy organization for these now 50 years, but it feels at
this time there is a need to flesh out the efforts by the Federal and
state entities and the dollars already expended on the great river
road and many of the other projects to protect and enhance that
brick and mortar that has already been put into this effort.
And then of course, we are seeking a partnership of the Federal
government to do the best work possible of the ten states that tra-
verse this entire continent from north to south.
We do not know of another organization that is brought together
that does indeed go from the northern border all the way to the
southern border of the United States, and we see that as a very im-
portant effort in this.
And then, we are not involved in any acquisition in this legisla-
tion, and only the plan, the study plan that would be developed,
would determine if there is to be any future acquisition.
And that of course is going to have to be a determination then by
this Federal Congress, but in particular it will be done by the indi-
vidual states, whether there should be acquisition and protection.
But the legislation itself does not call for that, nor is there any
intent to have that type of effort brought.
Just a couple comments about the Jerry Rogers comments from
the National Park Service. The whole effort of the economics of it,
we envision most of those efforts of the study commission and the
commission itself to be carried out by the ten, eleven-member
board of directors. And really, the efforts of the individual states
with their ten-member commission will be those expenses borne by
those states, all the input and such.
And so we do not see the actual dollars being expended on per
diem and expenses of 100 members at all, but indeed a board of di-
120
rectors similar to what any other commission would itself be gov-
erned.
So we feel that the opposition that the National Park Service
brought is a very minor one and we are more than happy to work
with the Committee in any revisions to clarify that part.
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Crandall.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
RECREATION COALITION
Mr. Crandall. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear here today and talk about the importance of
S. 1643.
The Mississippi River is of great commercial, cultural, and recre-
ational value to our nation. The management of that river resource
requires coordination of ten states and several Federal agencies, no
small task. Yet, coordination and cooperation really has been the
standard in the Mississippi River corridor for many years, to no
small degree a credit of the Mississippi River Parkway Commis-
sion.
The great river road that they have helped to create stands as
one of the premier examples of interstate cooperation in our nation
today. It is a 3,000 mile network of Federal, state, and county roads
which crisscross the Mississippi from the northern border down to
the Gulf of Mexico.
As it traverses the woodlands and the river towns, the farmlands
and the bustling urban centers of our country, Americans and visi-
tors to our country understand better our past and better our
present.
The symbol marking the great river road, the steamboat in the
center of a large steering helm, will become increasingly well
known outside the U.S. because of actions cooperatively between
the ten states that border on the Mississippi and the U.S. Travel
and Tourism Administration.
The interest across this nation and throughout the country in
the Mississippi is very high. The tales of Tom Sawyer and Huck
Finn and the tales of the races of sternwheelers will become a live
memory for millions of Americans and others as they use the great
river road and see the hundreds of national, state, and local recrea-
tion areas along the road.
It is only logical that the great river road, already a tremendous
resource to our nation, become the spine of a water heritage corri-
dor, a corridor which will encourage still greater cooperation
among the ten states along the Mississippi River.
During my recent service as a member of the President's Com-
mission on Americans Outdoors, the importance of this nation's
surface waters, and especially its rivers, for recreation was rein-
forced.
Efforts to ensure the quality of those waters and public accessi-
bility to its waters are prime national needs. The creation of the
Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor offers an important
tool in achieving these goals.
121
The President's commission also emphasized the importance of
local initiatives and local actions, and here the fine traditions since
1938 of the Mississippi River Parkway Commission make clear that
local action works, but that it is aided by a mechanism which fa-
cilitates the flow of ideas and experiences.
The proposed Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Com-
mission can be that important mechanism. It will draw together di-
verse representatives from the states in the Mississippi corridor so
that a common vision for the corridor's management is developed
and, even more importantly, so that actions are taken to protect
and enhance this wonderful world-class resource.
But it is not a Federal project. The legislation does not call for
Federal land acquisition or direct Federal management. The Feder-
al role is restricted to assistance in creating the forum and in plan-
ning — for planning and for coordinating actions.
In its way, the Mississippi River corridor is as important in a
symbolic way for corridor protection as the Appalachian Trail.
We urge that this Subcommittee and the full Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee take action on this important and
cost effective piece of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall follows:]
122
TESTIMONY BY DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN
RECREATION COALITION, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE
ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES REGARDING S.1643, AN ACT TO
CREATE THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR, ON JUNE
23, 1988.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, I am Derrick
Crandall, President of the American Recreation Coalition. I
appreciate the invitation to appear before you this morning to
express support for S.1643, which would establish the Mississippi
River National Heritage Corridor.
I The Mississippi River is of great commercial, cultural and
recreational value to our nation. Management of the river
requires the cooperation of several federal agencies and ten
states -- no simple task. Yet cooperation and coordination
within the Mississippi River corridor has been the rule, not the
exception. Clearly, entities such as the Mississippi River
Parkway Commission have played a strong role in forging this
cooperative spirit. The Commission has drawn federal and state
leaders together to develop a vision of what might be, and then
aided the efforts of each jurisdiction to convert plans into
reality.
The Great River Road stands as one of the premier examples
of interstate cooperation. First proposed in 1938, the Great
River Road today is a 3,000 mile network of Federal, state and
county roads crisscrossing the Mississippi from Minnesota to the
Gulf of Mexico. As it traverses woodlands and river towns,
farmlands and bustling urban centers, the Great River Road helps
Americans and visitors to our nation understand our past and our
present. The symbol marking this great resource, a steamboat at
the center of a large steering helm, will become increasing well
known beyond the U.S. borders, I would note. The United States
Travel and Tourism Administration will be actively aiding efforts
by the Mississippi River Parkway Commission and the tourism
agencies of the ten states along the river to lure visitors to
the Mississippi corridor. The tales of Tom Sawyer and Buck Finn
will come alive for millions as they use the Great River Road,
travel on the Delta Queen or visit the hundreds of national,
state and local recreation areas along the river.
It is only logical that the Great River Road -- already a
tremendous resource to our nation -- become the spine of a
broader heritage corridor, a corridor which will encourage still
greater cooperation among the ten states along the Mississippi
River.
123
TESTIMONY BY DERRICK CRANDALL
PAGE TWO
During my recent service as a member of the President's
Commission on Americans Outdoors, the importance of this nation's
surface waters -- and especially its rivers -- to recreation was
reinforced. Efforts to assure the quality of those waters and
public accessibility to the waters are prime, national needs.
The creation of the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor
offers an important tool in achieving these goals.
The President's Commission also emphasized the importance of
local initiatives and local actions. The fine tradition of the
Mississippi River Parkway Commission makes clear to me that local
action works and is aided by a mechanism iwhich facilitates the
flow of ideas and experiences. The proposed Mississippi River
National Heritage Corridor Commission will be that mechanism. It
will draw together diverse representatives from the states in the
Mississippi corridor so that a common vision for the corridor is
developed and -- even more importantly -- so that actions are
taken to protect and enhance this wonderful, world-class
resource. But it is not a federal project; the legislation does
not call for federal land acquisition or management. The federal
role is restricted to assistance in creating the forum for
planning and coordination of actions.
This legislation is both important and cost-effective. We
ask your prompt and positive action on S.1643. Thank you.
Derrick A. Crandall, President
American Recreation Coalition
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #726
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 662-7420
124
Senator Bumpers. Thank you very much.
Dr. Devine.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL T. DEVINE, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY
Dr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here today to speak on behalf of — to speak to my support of
the legislation, not only as Director of the Illinois Historic Preser-
vation Agency and the state historic preservation officer in Illinois,
but also to represent the state historic preservation officers in the
ten states in the Mississippi River Valley.
As the state historic preservation officer, like my colleagues in
the other ten states, we all implement federally mandated historic
preservation programs. We handle the nominations to the national
register of historic places. In our roles as historic preservation offi-
cers, we work very, very closely with the National Park Service
and in particular Mr. Rogers, who appeared here earlier.
The establishment of the Mississippi River heritage corridor is of
great interest to the state historic preservation officers in the ten
states of the Mississippi River Valley.
This past March 21st, representatives of the state historic preser-
vation offices from the ten states met in Washington to discuss the
proposed legislation, both the House bill and the Senate version.
There was at that time unanimous agreement that the designation
of the Mississippi River heritage corridor could be of great value to
the entire region.
In particular, it was felt that the heritage corridor designation
would greatly assist the efforts to preserve historical and archae-
ological resources, as well as efforts by the state historic preserva-
tion offices to assist in necessary economic revitalization in a way
that would complement and enhance the preservation and conser-
vation of historical and natural resources.
I have submitted some written testimony for the Committee, and
with your permission I will just skip over some of that to go to my
conclusions.
Senator Bumpers. Your full statement will be inserted into the
record, Dr. Devine.
Dr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my own state of Illinois, we are proud of the Illinois-Michigan
Canal national heritage corridor. This heritage corridor has al-
ready served as a model for several other corridor designations and
should be examined in developing the Mississippi River heritage
corridor.
The experience of the Illinois and Michigan Canal heritage corri-
dor clearly demonstrates that the concept of designating an area
historically significant enhances the cooperative efforts of state,
local, and Federal agencies in necessary planning efforts.
Further, the designation calls public attention to the great sig-
nificance of the corridor and facilitates the generation of public
support for and involvement in planning, survey work, and deci-
sionmaking.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Devine follows:]
125
MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR
STATEMENT OF
DR. MICHAEL J. DEVINE
ILLINOIS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
ILLINOIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY
JUNE 23, 1988
The establishment of a Mississippi River Heritage Corridor is of great
interest to the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) of the ten states
in the Mississippi River Valley. This past March 21st representatives of the
State Historic Preservation Officers from the ten states met in Washington to
discuss the legislation proposed in both the House and the Senate. There was,
at that time, unanimous agreement that the designation of a Mississippi River
Heritage Corridor would be of great value to the entire region. In
particular, it was felt that the heritage corridor designation would greatly
assist the efforts to preserve historical and archaeological resources as well
as efforts by the stje offices to assist in necessary economic revitalizat ion
in a way that would complement and enhance the preservation and conservation
of historical, cultural and natural resources.
State Historic Preservation Offices are uniquely qualified to assist in
the development of the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor since they have
been collecting data on cultural resources in the Mississippi corridor since
the early 1970's. Consequently, these offices possess an unparalleled
collection of data on places with architectural, historical, and
archaeological significance. The state offices administer a numoer of
important programs that relate to economic development and tourism, such as
historical markers, landmark designations, surveys of historic sites,
planning, and the monitoring of federal investment tax credits.
Over the past decade the State Historic Preservation Offices have actively
engaged in cultural resource management through monitoring
90-788 0-88-5
126
2
of public undertakings to assure the preservation of significant places. The
SHPOs review all federally funded, licensed and assisted projects in their
states. The SHPOs and their staffs in the state offices have had many
opportunities to work cooperatively with the communities and local governments
within the proposed corridor and have acquired great familiarity with the
geography, cultural and economic resources, people and the local governments.
In my own state of Illinois, we are proud of the Illinois and Michigan
Canal Heritage Corridor. This heritage corridor has already served as a model
for several other corridor designations and should be examined in developing
the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor. The experience of the Illinois and
Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor clearly demonstrates that the concept of
designating an area historically significant enhances the cooperative efforts
of state, local and federal agencies in the necessary planning efforts.
Further, the designation calls public attention to the great significance of
the corridor and facilitates the generation of public suport for and
involvement in planning, survey work and decision making.
127
Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Dr. Devine.
Gentlemen, I appreciate the time you have taken to prepare your
statements and to come here to be with us this morning on this
very important piece of legislation. As you know, my own state is
deeply involved in the Mississippi River Parkway and all of the
things that affect that magnificent real pearl of America.
Some of you may or may not know that I introduced a bill re-
cently to create a lower Mississippi River development commission,
from the southern tip of Illinois to New Orleans, which is designed
to first set up a commission and then hopefully the federal govern-
ment take a really massive interest in an area of the country that
ought to be the most prosperous of any area in the country, and
yet contains the most persistent, pervasive poverty of any area in
the United States without exception.
You look at the color coded maps of the United States, and on
both sides of that river all up and down you see that poverty is so
much deeper there than anyplace else in the country.
I suppose — you know, I do not know why all of that is. Historical-
ly, it has an explanation, I think. Race played a part. Those were
big plantations where cheap labor was necessary to make the
crops, and it was a place where people had been deprived of their
basic civil liberties for so many years.
But you know, that has been over for some time. And we need
now to figure out where we are going in the future. To me it is
totally unacceptable for all of us to sit here and do nothing in the
face of something that equals any urban blight in New York or
Chicago or any other city in the United States, and in many ways
is worse.
So let me say that I am a co-sponsor of this bill, and I favor the
bill. One of the things as we have gone through the testimony this
morning that concerned me ever so slightly, and that is the possi-
bility of overlapping efforts between this commission, which will I
think unquestionably be established this fall, with only that aspect
of this dealing with economics.
Maybe we can draft the bill in such a way so that they can com-
plement each other or so that one or the other will be given the
jurisdiction to do that, because while I think the heritage corri-
dor — and as you pointed out, I think the two illustrations where it
has worked very well are justification for the passage of the bill.
And I will try to visit with Senator Simon and Senator Stennis
and see if we can not resolve what possibly could be a little bit of
confusion, overlapping. We do not want to spend any more Federal
dollars than necessary to accomplish the same goal that all of us
seek.
So with that, let me thank you all again. I have no questions of
you, and I appreciate your work. I know sometimes these things
are lonely efforts, but I appreciate the time and effort you have
taken to be with us this morning.
I know that it is very difficult to come here and speak five min-
utes worth of your piece on the subject. But nevertheless, I want
you to know it does not go unnoticed.
Thank you very much. We will stand in recess.
Dr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
»
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20240
JUL28M
Honorable Dale Bumpers
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
At the hearing June 23 before your Subcommittee on S. 1643, a
bill to establish the Mississippi River National Heritage
Corridor, this Department's witness was requested to provide
answers to additional questions for the record.
Enclosed are our responses to those questions.
Sincerely ,
aincereiy, yy
Philip G. Kiko
Legislative Counsel
Enclosure
(129)
90-788 0-88-6
130
Questions from Senator McClure
Section 11(b) of the legislation to establish the Mississippi
River National Heritage Corridor states "any federal agency entity
conducting or supporting activities affecting the Corridor shall,
to the maximum extent practicable conduct or support such activi-
ties in a manner that takes the plan referred to in section 10 into
account. "
Question 1: In your opinion does this legal requirement suggest
that all federal agencies conducting activities along the Corridor
must comply with standards set forth in the plan?
Answer: No, but the language does mean that, consistent with
existing funds, personnel, and authorities applicable to the
agency's mission, the Federal agency must take the standards into
account. Taking into account means that the agency may not ignore
the plan. At a minimum, the actions of the agency would have to be
accompanied by a showing that it did consider whether its actions
were consistent or inconsistent with the plan or had no effect on
the plan. It may also mean that if the agency's proposed actions
were inconsistent with the plan, the agency would be required to
state its reasons for proceeding.
Question 2: If a private individual wants to construct a docking
facility not mentioned in the plan, and or opposed by the plan,
would a federal agency be prevented from issuing necessary permits
for construction?
Answer: No, but as a minimum the agency would be required to state
its reasons for proceeding before issuing the construction permits
if the facility was opposed by the plan.
Question 3: Do affected federal agencies have an opportunity to
participate in the planning process?
Answer: The bill does not specifically provide federal agencies an
opportunity to participate in the planning process. Section
11(a)(4), however, directs the Secretary to "coordinate" with
federal agencies affected by the plan, the process for developing
and implementing the plan.
131
Question 4: What type of plan review process will be conducted so
that agencies may address their concerns?
Answer: The National Park Service has not developed such a review
process for the plan proposed in S. 1643. If the legislation is
enacted, the National Park Service would consider recommending to
the Commission that such a process be developed.
Question 5: Section 12 Restrictions - "Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to invest in the Commission or the Secretary authority
to interfere with activities of a state, a political subdivision of
a state, or a tribal government."
Does this preclude the Secretary from exercising any current
authority he may presently have in regulating, or permitting,
activities conducted by states, political subdivisions of a state,
or tribal governments?
Answer: No. The disclaimer applies solely to new authority enacted
in this legislation and not to existing authority.
132
TAKE*,
United States Department of the Interior amSooI:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.O. BOX 37127
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013-7127
IN REPLY REFER TO
L58(660) ^,Q
Honorable Dale L. Bumpers
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public
Lands, National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
We have reviewed the letter of June 21, 1388, to you from
Mr. Philip A. Nacke, attorney representing several owners of land
in the proposed addition to Congaree Swamp National Monument. We
have also reviewed the memorandum, enclosed with Mr. Nacke' s
letter, proposing certain amendments to S. 2018, as well as the
questions submitted for the record.
Rather than attempting to respond to the questions as presented,
we believe it would be more useful to the Committee to set forth
in narrative form the Government's views on Mr. Nacke' s position.
What Mr. Nacke appears to be seeking by the proposed amendments
to the Congaree expansion bill is to require the United States to
value, and pay for, his clients' lands as though the clients
owned a right of access to their land across the Beidler tract,
formerly owned by Congaree Limited Partnership, that they, in
fact, did not own either before or after establishment of the
Congaree Swamp National Monument.
Contrary to Mr. Nacke's assertions, diminution in his clients'
property values due to the establishment of the monument is not
at all Involved here and is a mischaracterization of the situa-
tion. The establishment of the monument has not impaired any of
his clients' rights of access across the monument lands (the
Beidler tract) for the simple reason that they owned no such
rights. Had their property been taken at the same time as the
Beidler tract, their situation in this respect would have been no
different than now.
It appears that one or more of the landowners is attempting to
characterize as a "right" of access the occasional permission
given by Congaree Limited Partnership to landowners or their
timber purchasers to cross the Beidler tract for purposes of
removing timber. (There is no indication that any landowner
except Mrs. Carpenter is asserting such prior permission from the
partnership.) At best, such permissive use amounts to a license.
133
Honorable Dale L. Bumpers 2
A license is defined as "permissioa or authority to do a partic-
ular act or series of acts on land of another without possessing
any estate or interest therein." Black's Law Dictionary , 1068
(4th ed. 1351). "A license is a rjere permission or persoaal and
revocable privilege without the licensee possessing any estate in
the land. A license passes no property in land and no interest
in it." 1 Thompson, Real Property , Sec. 318 (1939). A right of
access, viz, an easement, can only be created by express convey-
ance in compliance with formal requirements; if there is failure
to comply with these requirements, the resulting interest, if
any, is a license rather than an easement. There is nothing in
'Jr. Nacke's inemorandun to even suggest the creation of an
easement by formal conveyance; indeed, the excerpt from
Mrs. Carpenter's letter to Senator Thurmond on page 4 of the
memorandum concedes that in her case there was none.
Assuming that the monument had never been established and
Congaree Limited Partnership still owned the land, the partner-
ship could at any tine and for any reason, or for no reason, deny
permission to anybody to cross its land. A filling out with the
requester, fear of damage by the hauling trucks, changed circum-
stances; any of these and other reasons could prompt a denial or
revocation of permission to cross the land. The requester or
licensee — Mr. Nacke's client — having no right to cross the part-
nership's land, would have no redress. If the partnership sold
or otherwise transferred the property, any license or permission
it had given would have terminated upon the transfer or sale.
Sinclair Pipe Line Company v. U.S. , 287 F. 2d 175, 177 (C.Cl
1961). That was the situation of Mr. Nacke's clients' property
in the absence of the monument; a most tenuous situation with no
legal right of access. And if they sought at any tine to sell
their properties on the open market (and obtain "market value"
for them), they would be ioarketing land-locked property and the
purchase price would be arrived at accordingly.
The fifth Amendment obligation to pay just compensation recog-
nizes only vested property rights, and not the tenuous rights of
licenses and permits. It is clear that a license does not con-
stitute property for which the government is liable upon condem-
nation. Acton V. U.S. , 401 F. 2d 896, 899 (9th Cir. 1968), cert,
denied sub nom. Clifton v. U.S. , 393 U.S. 1121, cert, denied sub
nom. Acton v. U.S. , 395 U.3. 945 (1969); Sinclair Pipe Line
Company v. U.S., supra .
Because tlie United States is now the owner of the Beidler tract,
and because property owners have no right of access across that
tract before t!ie conveyance of title, any subsequent use of that
tract for access purposes would require the permission of the
134
Honorable Dale L. Bumpers 3
government. (The permission of the new owner would be required,
whoever the new owner might be.) Any such pemit would be a
privilege; the Government would have no obligation to grant it,
and, the permit, if granted, would be revocable. 43 C.F.R.
2800.0-5 (i). Mr. Nacke suggests, however, that the possibility
— or likelihood, in the event the monument is designated a
wilderness area — that his clients will not be issued a periait for
access, is a project-induced depreciation in the value of his
client's property which in fairness ought to be rectified by
valuing their lands as though tliey had access across the
monument. This notion is erroneous both in logic and law.
The Fifth Amendment obliges the government to pay
only for what it takes, not for what it may decline
to give.
Winn V. U.S. , 272 F. 2d 282, 288 (9th Cir. 1959) (rejecting a
claim of compensation for denial of access to a new highway
located on portion of claimant's land condemned for the
highway ) .
The decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Fuller , 409 U.S. 488
(1973), involving Federal grazing permits, should be dispositive
of this issue. In that case the Court ruled that it had been
error for the trial court to permit the condeianees to value their
fee-owned lands as enhanced because of their actual or potential
use in conjunction with permit lands owned by the Governnent.
The court held that the Government "need not compensate for value
*hich it could remove by revocation of a permit for the use of
lands which it owned outright," id., at 492; that "the Fifth
Amendment does not require the Government to pay for that eleaent
of value based on the use of respondents' [landowners'] fee lands
in combination v/ith the Government's permit lands." Id^. , at 493.
The facts in Fuller are analogous to what is involved here:
Mr. Nacke is saying that his clients' lands should be valued as
enhanced by their potential use (frustrated by the Government) in
conjunction with a permitted access across the monument lands.
That claim must be rejected as barred by the decision in Fuller .
iMr. Nacke' s clients are in an even weaker position than the
property owners in Fuller, who actually held permits.
Mr. Nacke' s clients have no permits.
ife trust the foregoing will be useful to the Committee.
William Penn lA^t , Jr.
Director
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Upper
Mississippi River
Basin Association
ILLINOIS, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN
June 21, 1988
The Honorable Dale Bumpers, Chairman
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Subcommittee
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
SD-308 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
Enclosed is testimony of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
on the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Act (S. 1643). It
is our understanding that your subcommittee has a hearing scheduled on
this bill for June 23. We would appreciate having the statement
included as part of the official hearing record.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association was formed by the States
of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to provide an interstate
forum for coordination of state water resource management responsi-
bilities and discussion of issues of common concern. The Association
offers the enclosed comments on S. 1643 from the perspective and
experience of its member states who have management responsibilities
for many aspects of river resource development and protection.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the states' views on this
significant legislation to bestow national recognition upon the
Mississippi River.
Sincerely,
Holly Sroerker
Executive Director
HS:mle
Enclosure
415 HAMM BUILDING
408 ST PETER STREET
ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102
PHONE 612-224-2880
(135)
136
Testimony of
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
on "Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor Act"
S. 1643/H.R. 3204
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association supports efforts to bestow
national recognition upon the Mississippi River Valley. The area is indeed a
unique and valuable multi-purpose resource with nationally significant economic,
environmental, and recreational values. There is no question that the
Mississippi Valley is highly deserving of designation as a National Heritage
Corridor.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association is an interstate forum for
water resource management, dialogue, and cooperative action. Formed by the
States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin in 1981, the
Association provides opportunities for its member states to coordinate their
water management responsibilities and study issues of common concern.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association and its state members have
completed a review of the proposed legislation creating a Mississippi River
National Heritage Corridor. While the Association is supportive of national
designation of the Mississippi River Corridor, enhanced focus and clarity of the
legislative language could improve the future utility of the Heritage Corridor
Act. The following comments represent the Association's major concerns with
regard to specific provisions of the proposed legislation. These comments
reflect the Association's experience with regional interstate coordination from
the perspective of state management agencies:
Scope of Responsibility
The Act appropriately recognizes the diversity of the river corridor through
frequent reference to "historic, economic, recreational, scenic, cultural,
natural, and scientific resources." While recognition of the multi-purpose
character of the area is essential for wise use and balanced development, the
scope of issues in which the Commission may become involved appears to be
virtually limitless. This potential liberal interpretation of the Commission's
mandate seems inconsistent with what appears to be an emphasis on economic
development. This emphasis on economic development in turn could well be viewed
as inconsistent with a "heritage corridor" designation which connotes a focus on
activities which may be incompatible with certain types of economic development.
In short, the Act could be enhanced by more focused definition of the purview
of the Commission particularly with respect to the term "economic development"
which appears to be the primary emphasis.
Relationship to Management Agencies
The relationship between the Commission and state, federal, and local
management agencies is unclear. Given the fact that existing agencies have
regulatory, programmatic, and management responsibilities with regard to both
land and water resources in the Corridor, the relationship between any newly
created organization and existing agencies with statutory authorities must be
clearly articulated and understood.
137
Two specific provisions of the Act contribute to this lack of clarity.
Seciton 10(b) directs the Commission to "assist" states and political sub-
divisions that undertake activities in the Corridor. The specific nature of the
assistance is undefined and could be construed as another layer of government.
Furthermore, it presumes deficiencies in the execution of existing government
activities. Certainly, existing programs by all levels of government must be
coordinated and there are forums at many levels to accomplish this. Given the
ambiguity of the term "assistance" it may be useful to consider an "advisory"
role for the Commission.
Section 9(c) stipulates that states and political subdivisions are required
to provide to the Commission whatever information is necessary to fulfill the
Commission's prescribed functions. This provision contributes to the confusion
over the term "assistance" in Section 10(b). In addition, since the Commission';
functions are not well defined, this requirement is potentially onerous. To
avoid future conflicts and potential misinterpretation, the Act should clarify
the relationship of the Commission to existing units of government.
Plan
(Section
protec-
recrea-
dor."
idor and
While the plan is the major product of the legislation, the states of this
Association are unsure of the way in which the plan will fit into existing or
future efforts to implement activities on the River. The purpose for the
planning effort is key and we believe should be more clearly stated. An inven-
tory, for example, should be preceded by a clear understanding of how it might
be used.
Information Clearinghouse
The Commission is authorized to collect information dealing with on-going
activities, management plans, and opportunities in the Corridor and make this
available to interested parties. It is not clear from the Act whether the
clearinghouse will act as an information/reference library or as a decision-
making facility. In addition, the clearinghouse will potentially duplicate
efforts of existing organizations. The clearinghouse should be more clearly
defined in the Act and should provide a service not presently available.
Commission Organization
The Coimission is to be composed of 101 members (10 members per state) who
are ultimately appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and is to be headed by
the Director of the National Park Service. The provision raises a number of
issues of concern:
1) The Senate and House versions of the bill treat the relationship between the
Parkway Commission and the Heritage Corridor Commission in slightly dif-
ferent ways creating potential confusion over the specific intent. There
appears to be a parallel between the Corridor Commission's structure and
138
that of the Parkway Commission without replacing the Parkway Conmission.
If the intent is to replace the Parkway Commission, that should be specified
in the legislation.
2) Since a Commission of 101 delegates is a substantial number of representa-
tives, the rationale for the size of the Commission should be articulated
and justified.
3) Despite the fact that the Governors nominate members, the Secretary of the
Interior has final authority on appointments, which is a situation poten-
tially uncomfortable for the states in this region.
4) Finally, it is questionable if the National Park Service can provide the
necessary expertise to head a multi-purpose Commission with emphasis on
economic development.
Boundary Designation
The Act defines the corridor as the area within the boundary lines depicted
on the map "Great River Road Inventory 1985." This area is an approximately
14 mile wide corridor bound by two lines on either side of the river which do
not correspond to political or tangible boundaries. To administer and promote
the program more efficiently and effectively the boundaries should be based on
political or physical boundaries which can be better delineated. Based on past
experience, county boundaries are the most practical.
Funding
The Act authorizes $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1989, 1990, and
1991. Considering the size and duties of the Commission the funding may be
inadequate. In addition, the three year authorization will not provide funding
for the last year of the four year term that is to be served by the members.
While it may be inappropriate to address nonfederal financial arrangements in
federal legislation, the Association is interested in what plans may be under
consideration for additional outside funding.
Conclusion
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association has had the opportunity to
discuss many of these concerns with proponents of the legislation. It is our
understanding that Congressional sponsors and major proponents of the bill are
contemplating revisions that address many of the States' concerns. The
Association would support efforts to tighten the focus and clarify the scope of
the legislation. The Mississippi River is highly deserving of the national
recognition that designation as a National Heritage Corridor would bestow.
However, the roles and responsibilities of any newly created institutions such
as the Heritage Corridor Commission must be clearly defined and coordinated with
existing federal, state, and local authorities.
139
Office of the Governor
STATE CAPITOL
DES MOINES IOWA 503 1 9
515 281-521 I
TERRY E BRANSTAD
GOVERNOR
June 17, 1988
The Honorable Dale Bumpers
U.S. Senate
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands
SD 308
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
I am writing on behalf of Governor Terry Branstad who is
currently traveling in the Soviet Union.
The Governor has asked that I inform you of his support of
federal legislation to designate the Mississippi River as a
National Heritage Corridor (S1643 and HR3304). This
legislation will enhance efforts of the Mississippi River
Parkway Commission to focus attention on the available
resources of the Mississippi River Valley and to develop a
plan to encourage economic development balances with
historic preservation, tourism, and environmental
enhancement.
Thank you for your consideration; and your support of S1643
and HR 3204 would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
t^iii/^*^
James B. Kersten
Administrative Assistant
JBK/rcb
140
Testlxnony
for the
Subcommittee on Public Lands
National Parks and Forests
of the
Committee on Zntrgy ajxJ
Katural Resource*
23 June inS
Mark Pre**, Director of the Bllnofa Department of Conservation
141
Mr. Chairman and Members of th« Committee, as Director of the lUinola
Department of Conservation, I wish to rupport, In concept, ^nate BiU \643, the
Mississippi River Netlor*! Heritage Corridor Act, I elao wish to comDliment Senator
Simon and the endorsers; the BiU provides the opportunity and catalyst to promote the
nationally significant values of the Mississippi River Corridor.
The BUI is consistent mth policy objectives of two major 1987 publications, the
Report of the President's Commission on American Outdoors, Amerioans Outdoors, The
Ljcgacyj The Challenge , which recommen* such "greenways" for their many values, and
the Report of the Governor's Ta*k Force on Recreation and Tourism, A Vision for
niinols' Recreation and Tourism Putvge, which doe« the same.
The Bill not only creates an interstate greenway along America's major river
with innumerable, associated natural and cultural resources of great diversity but also
facilitates protection and enhancement of those resources. It provides me with an
additional means to nurture the natural and recreational resources along the Mississippi
Rtver in Illinois, and I weloome it.
In fact, these natural and recreational resources represent a major part of the
Mississippi River Corridor in Illinois. They are a major basis for tourism and economic
development in the corridor, and I am fully aware that this heritage not only enhances
the quality of life for all Illinois residents but also benefits the livelihood of corridor
residents.
I am pleased that the legislation, for the first time, recognizes this heritage and
facilitates promotion, interpretation and conservation of it in a coordinated and
comprehensive manner. The legislative objectives are responsible, innovative and
achieveable. The Bill is worthy of authorization and imolementation; I believe the time
to act is now and I ask you to do so favorably.
In closing, 1 offer some comments for your consideration. My staff and I have
•orne experience with the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor, and
my comments are reflective of that inslghtt,
1. Boundaries. We recommend that the corridor Initially eneomoasses and
focuses upon those counties and parishes which border the river.
142
2. Commission. We recommend that the number of oommksioners b« limited
to a manafable number, say 24 or 10, and that the Rxecutlve Board be
deleted; that 2/3 of the members be nominated by the Governors, reoresentirur
local interests and government* and that suoh numbers not be allocated to
the States equally but rather by a ratio proportionate to their river mileatre;
and that 1/3 of the members represent national Interest* and ffovernment.
3. Commission Staff. We recommend that the Secretary advise the Commission
on interim staff needs and options,
4. Plan. We recommend that the Commission's charge be expanded beyond
Inventory and assessment of resources, description of economic development
opportunities and recommendations for economic development.
It should include conservation, recreation and preservation considerations.
The planning effort itaelf should articulate comprehensive eoals, objectiveB
and actions for the CommlBslor and strate^es with which to implement them.
The plan should also identify technical assistance activities for all federal
agencies to provide.
In conclusion, 1 fully support the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor as
an addition to the National Park System.
143
FLOYD SPENCE
2o District. South Carolina
WASHINGTON Of FICL
2 1 1 3 Ravburn house Office Builoing
AREA Code 202. 225-24S2
OISTOICT OFFICES
140 Stonekidce OflivE
Suite 140
Columbia. SC 292)0
Aii£>CO0E 803, 254-5120
AND
1681 Chestnut Street NE.
PO Bo> 1609
OaANGEBURG, SC 291 16-1609
Area Coot 803, 636-464 1
Congregjj of tfje ?Hmteb States;
J^ouise of 3RcprE£(entatibcS
Blasbingtan. SC 20513
June 23, 1988
COMMITTEES
ARMED SERVICES
STANDARDS OF
OFFICIAL CONDUCT
SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING
counties
Samberg letingtdn
Calhoun Oranceburc
Richland
S H "SAMMV ' HENDRIX
OlSmjCT AOUINISTRATOR
Senator Dale Bumpers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks
and Forests
308 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
As you may be aware, I am unable to appear before your
Subcommittee today to speak in behalf of S.2018, the Congaree
Swamp National Monument Expansion and Wilderness Act, due to
recent lung surgery. However, I want to commend you for moving
so expeditiously in bringing this legislation to the forefront.
As you know, the Congaree Swamp National Monument was
established in 1976 in order to preserve the rare and rapidly
disappearing southern bottomland hardwood forest. The area is
also notable in that it is home to many endangered species as
well as several extraordinary ancient trees. In 1983,
Congaree became the first area in South Carolina to be included
in UNESCO's Biosphere Reserve and it has been nominated for
recognition as a World Heritage Site.
S.2018, as well as the House version, H.R.4027, which I have
sponsored along with the entire South Carolina delegation, would
add approximately 7000 acres to the monument in order to protect
this priceless resource from the threats of encroaching development,
environmental degradation, and habitat destruction. Further, the
proposed expansion would enlarge the Monument to include valuable
adjacent areas and would facilitate more efficient management of
this resource.
144
Senator Dale Bumpers
June 23, 1988
page two
Again, I appreciate your Subcommittee's attention to the
need for this legislation. It appears that we are on the verge
of giving the necessary expansion to the Monument that will make
it a vital resource not only for South Carolinians but for all
Americans. I pledge my continued cooperation with you and
Members of your Subcommittee in order to facilitate the
consideration of this legislation. I look forward to my return
to Congress to work with you in this effort.
Sincerely,
FLOYD D. SPENCE
Member of Congress
145
Hamel & Park
888 SIXTEENTH STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
(202) B39-8000
CABLC: HAMEL
TCLEX; **037« TAtT-U'
Twx: 7iO-a22-i9'3 r*LV-ui w9h
TCi.ecop<ERi (Z02) sjs-aoe
(202) TTs-te^a
waiTEn'S OmCCT OlAk. NUMBER
[202) 835-8013
K, MARTIN WORTHY
HENRV ROEMER McPMCE
WILLIAM M, e»*O^ORO.jR-
JOhn W. PCTTiT
RICHARD M, ROBERTS
JOHN P. BANK SON. JR.
jOhn G. DcGOOfER
CHARLES W. PETTY, jR.
RICHARD H. GiMER
jOaOUIN a.MAROUEZ
JOHN M. SPELLMAN
ROBERT P. vowEiCCN
MALCOLM R. pruNDER
NEAL M. GOlDBCRC*
MICHAEL K. WTATT
PHILIP A. NACtE
CHARLES E. SLiTER
STEPHEN L. HUMPHREY
STEVEN C. LAMBCPT
CHARLES I. APPLER
GRCGORT K. OYLCR
ROBERT r. REnu>'TIS
MAUREEN DUIGNAN
THEODORE A. HOWARD
WILLIAM O. PHILLIPS
SANDRA R.COMENETZ
JOHN OQHSEY'
WILLIAM C. MOU
ROBERT P. FLETCHER
RICHARD r. HiLEY. JR.
THOMAS K. CROWE
KATMRTN A.UNDERHILL
RICHARD A. IFFT
SUSAN REID MORRIS
STEPHEN C. WARNATH
CARMINE a. NAJJAR
CCRALD WEAVER*
HOWARD D. SORENSEN
JANE G, SPiLMAN*
HELEN MARIE LARDNER
SUE W. 8LA0EK
MARIAN K.SCHNEIDER*
MARSHA S. STELSON"
LEWIS 5. WIENER"
COUNSEL
EDWARD A. McCABE
ARTHUR PETER. JR.
BASIL COLE, P. C."
CHARLES A.SPIfULNIK
HAND DELIVER
June 21, 1988
Honorable Dale Bumpers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
United States Senate
SD-308 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Re: S.2018 — Expansion of the
Conqaree Swamp National Monument
Dear Senator Bumpers:
I represent Mrs. Joy Carpenter and her mother, Mrs. Celia
Buyck, of St. Matthews, South Carolina; Mr. Peter Buyck, also of St.
Matthews; Dr. Allan Bruner of Sumter, South Carolina; and Mr. Frank
Beidler of Chicago, Illinois. All of these people are owners of
tracts of land in Richland County, South Carolina within the area
earmarked by S.2018 for expansion of Congaree Swamp National Monument.
We are associated in this representation with Mr. Terrell L. Glenn
of the Columbia, South Carolina firm of Glenn, Irvin, Murphy, Gray
& Stepp.
The lands which our clients stand to have taken for
expansion of the Monument are situated between the current Congaree
Swamp National Monument and the Congaree River. As such, access to
these particular properties is substantially impaired by the existing
Monument; the lands effectively are in-holdings.
Our clients are concerned over the potential depreciating
effect on their property values that creation of the already existing
Monument has brought about. They fear that when it comes to valuing
their lands for the expansion, the government might claim their
property has a reduced value because of the limited access that
146
Hamel & Park
Honorable Dale Bumpers
June 21, 1988
Page 2
results from being sandwiched between the existing Monument and the
River. We all believe that such a claim would be extremely unfair
since it is the government who created the potential value-reducing
condition in the first place by establishment of the existing
Monument. In addition, our clients are concerned about the lengthy
period of time involved and the delay inherent in federal land
acquisition practice. To protect the entitlement of our clients to
full just compensation in the event their lands are taken and to
expedite the acquisition process, we wish to offer for consideration
two amendments to S.2018, which if accepted would go a long way
toward mollifying our clients' concerns.
I have met and discussed these amendments with Mr. Tom
Williams of the subcommittee staff. Mr. Williams has been most
understanding and supportive. In addition, I have dealt extensively
with members of Senator Thurmond 's staff (Messrs. Spong and Talbert)
and they likewise have been very helpful. Also apprised of our
activities are Mr. Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee's minority staff,
a member of Senator Boilings staff, and Ms. Merrick of your staff.
As hearings on S.2018 approach this week, the purpose of
this letter is to let you know of our representation of these clients
and of their extreme interest in the proposed amendments. A detailed
memorandum setting forth the language of the proposed amendments and
a statement in justification of them, which may be used for the
hearing record, is enclosed herewith. I certainly hope you will be
able to view the proposed amendments favorably.
We would be happy to respond to any request that you or
the subcommittee staff may have for further information. Obviously,
we will be deeply grateful to you for your help.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
HAMEL & PARK
^FkiUp A- /d^f^
By: Philip 'A. Nacke
Enclosure
cc: Mrs. Joy B. Carpenter
Dr. Allan P. Bruner
Mr. Peter Buyck
Mr. Francis Beidler III
147
Hamel & Park
888 SIXTEENTH STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
(20Z) 635-8000
cable: hamel
telex; 4*0374 TALY-U(
TWX: 7IO-e2Z-19l3 TALY-U> WSH
TELECOPIERl{202) 835-8136
(202) 775-re4e
writer's direct dial number
K. MARTIN WOHTHY
HENRY ROEMER McPMEE
WILLIAM H. BRADFORD, JR.
JOHN W. PETTIT
RICHARD M. ROBERTS
JOHN P. BANK50N, JR.
JOHN G. DtGOOYER
CHARLES W. PETTY, JR.
RICHARD H. GIMER
JOAOUIN A.MARQUEZ
JOHN H, SPELLMAN
ROBERT P. vomEIGCN
MALCOLM R. PruNDER
NEAL M. GOLDBERG
MICHAEL K. WYATT
PHtLIP A. NACKE
CHARLES E. SLITER
STEPHEN L.HUMPHREY
STEVEN C. LAMBERT
CHARLES I. APPLER
GREGORY K. OYLER
ROBERT F. REKLAITIS
MAUREEN DUIGNAN
THEODORE A.HOWARD
WILLIAM D. PHILLIPS
SANDRA R. COMENET2
JOHN DORSEY*
WILLIAM C. HOU
ROBERT P. FLETCHER
RICHARD F. RILEY. JR.
THOMAS K.CROWE
KATHRYN A.UN0ERH1LL
RICHARD A. IFFT
SUSAN REIO MORRIS
STEPHEN C.WARNATH
CARMINE B.NAJJAR
geAald weaver*
howard d.sorensen
jane g. spilman"
helen marie lardner
sue w. bladek
marian k. schneider*
marsha s. stelson-
lewis s. wiener*
COUMSEL
EDWARD A. McCABE
ARTHUR PETER, JR.
BASIL COLE, P. C.»
CHARLES A.SPITULNIK
NOT ADMITTED tN D. C.
June 21, 1988
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO S.2018
AUTHORIZING EXPANSION OF THE
CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT
Introduction
This memorandum has been prepared on behalf of Ms. Joy B.
Carpenter, Dr. Allan P. Bruner, Mr. Peter Buyck, and Congaree River
Limited Partnership (Mr. Francis Beidler III), all of whom own
property along the north and east bank of the Congaree River in
Richland County, South Carolina, which is earmarked by S.2018 for
addition to the Congaree Swamp National Monument. The above four
ownerships, as well as at least another four ownerships, are situated
between the current Congaree Swamp National Monument and the Congaree
River. As such, access to these particular properties is
substantially impaired by the existing Monument; the lands
effectively are in-holdings.
The owners of the in-holdings are concerned over the
potential depreciating effect on trteir property values that creation
of the existing Monument already has brought about. They also are
Hamel & Park
148
- 2
concerned that designation of the existing Monument as wilderness
may further depreciate the value of their properties. Last, they
are concerned about the lengthy period of time involved and the delay
inherent in federal land acquisition practice, a concern which is
heightened by the knowledge that their properties, scheduled for
acquisition, lie sandwiched between the existing Monument and the
Congaree River. Accordingly, they wish to offer for consideration
two amendments to S.2018, which if accepted would ameliorate their
concerns. The text of the proposed amendments follows:
Amendment No. 1 [proposed § 203]
In determining the market value of
properties acquired pursuant to § 201 of this
Act, any depreciating effect or loss in value
of such properties resulting from establishment
of the Monument (90 Stat. 2517), which
depreciating effect or loss occurred after
federal acquisition of the Beidler tract and
prior to enactment of this provision, shall not
be taken into account; further, the market value
of such properties shall be determined without
regard to the restrictions imposed by Title I
of this Act.
Amendment No. 2 [proposed § 204]
In the event of acquisition by condemnation,
the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed
to employ the declaration of taking procedure
as set forth at 40 U.S.C. § 258a et seq .
A more detailed statement, setting forth with particularity a
justification for each of the proposed amendments, comprises the
balance of this memorandum.
149
Hamel & Park
3 -
Amendment No. 1 [proposed § 203]
Proposed Amendment No. 1 states:
In determining the market value of
properties acquired pursuant to § 201 of this
Act, any depreciating effect or loss in value
of such properties resulting from establishment
of the Monument (90 Stat. 2517), which
depreciating effect or loss occurred after
federal acquisition of the Beidler tract and
prior to enactment of this provision, shall not
be taken into account; further, the market value
of such properties shall be determined without
regard to the restrictions imposed by Title I
of this Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the right of certain
landowners, who will be affected by the proposed expansion of the
Congaree Swamp National Monument, to receive just compensation for
their lands.
The current proposal for a 7,000-acre expansion of Congaree
Swamp National Monument (the Monument) includes several tracts,
totaling approximately 1,800 acres of land, that lie between the
Monument, as established in October 1976, and the Congaree River.
(These tracts are identified in red on the accompanying map.)
Subsequent to federal acquisition of possession in February 1978 of
the properties which now comprise the present Monument, these tracts
have become for all practical purposes in-holdings, with access
available only by water. Entry from the north across the existing
Monument is foreclosed, being neither allowed by the National Park
Service nor, at this date, even feasible since the road network that
existed on the Monument at the time of its acquisition has been
Hamel & Park
150
4 -
eliminated for the most part in an effort to restore the lands to a
more wilderness-like character.
Indicative of the predicament in which the in-holders have
been placed is the situation of Ms. Carpenter. In a recent letter
to Senator Thurmond she stated:
Over a long period of time my father managed
the 800+ acre tract in Richland County for timber
production. He would make timber sales on a
periodic basis. While he had no legally recorded
right-of-way across the Beidler lands to the
north, external access was no problem. Mr.
Beidler would always allow us or our timber
purchasers to cross his lands for purposes of
removing the sale timber. This "right" of
ingress and egress established through custom,
tradition, and general neighborliness came to
an end when the federal government acquired
possession of the Beidler tract. No longer could
a purchaser of our timber come from the north
across the Monument. Practically speaking, even
if the National Park Service posed no objection
to logging trucks going over Monument lands, the
ability to do so has vanished anyway since the
road system that the Beidlers had maintained on
their tract has been dismantled or allowed to
overgrow and deteriorate by the Park Service.
We still have the ability to log our timber
across the River; in fact, my father sometimes
did that. But that is a more costly undertaking
in today's market, and would yield less return
to us. Consequently, we have sold no timber
since the Monument was put in place.
Amendment No. 1 will place the owners of these in-holdings in the
position they would otherwise occupy at this time had the Monument
not been created some ten years ago. Further, to the extent the in-
holdings are adversely affected by S.2018's designation of the
existing Monument as wilderness, the last clause of this proposed
amendment will insure that such depreciating effect is disregarded.
Hamel & Park
151
- 5 -
The concern addressed by the amendment stems from possible
application of a legal doctrine designed to protect the government
from paying "enhanced" values when it exercises its power of eminent
domain. The problem is that, when applied to the factual circumstances
of the in-holdings, the doctrine — the "Scope-of-the-Project" rule
— could unwittingly have the effect of allowing the government to
pay less ( i.e. , depreciated values) for these particular expansion
lands than it would be required to pay had Congress not previously
established the Congaree Swamp National Monument.
Under the "Scope-of-the-Project" rule, the courts will
value property taken to expand an existing project without regard
to the effect on value (either positive or negative) that presence
of the existing project may exert if it can be said that the expansion
lands were within the "scope of the project" from the outset. If,
on the other hand, the expansion is found to constitute a separate
and independent project, the landowner is entitled to a valuation
of his property which considers the proximity of the existing project
as a positive or appreciating factor in the valuation of the expansion
lands. ^ But as explained later herein, the state of the law is
unclear when the expansion is found to constitute a separate and
The rule was developed in a series of Supreme Court cases beginning
with Kerr v. South Park Commissioners, 117 U.S. 379 (1886) , and
Shoemaker v. United States , 147 U.S. 282 (1893), and culminating
with the Court's decision in United States v. Miller , 317 U.S.
369 (1943) . The doctrine received what is probably its most
thorough exposition in United States v. 320.0 Acres of Land , 605
F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1979) .
152
Hamel & Park
independent project and the proximity of the existing project has a
negative or depreciating effect on value.
The reasoning behind the rule is that if it was reasonably
certain that the expansion lands were to be taken from the initial
stages of the creation of the project, it is unfair to the government
to require it to pay for the lands based upon their proximity to the
existing project (a factor normally enhancing the value of the
expansion lands) simply because of the slowness of the government's
acquisition process. Conversely, the courts reason that if the
expansion is in fact a "new" project, it is unfair to deny compensation
to a landowner based on the proximity of his lands to the existing
project when the landowner could have reasonably expected that his
lands would have been benefitted by their proximity to a government
project.
The policy reasons behind the "Scope-of-the-Project" rule
make perfect sense when applied to the normal case where the
government's project — a reservoir, park or other public work
— enhances the value of the surrounding lands. The doctrine is
more troublesome, however, if applied in the situation where the
government's initial project "dis-enhances" or diminishes the value
of the adjacent lands to be acquired later. If the after-acquired
lands were within the scope of the project as originally formulated,
no consideration will be given to the existence of the project and
its depreciating effects on surrounding property values will not be
considered. The landowner, in such an instance, is protected. What
happens, however, when the after-acquired lands are not within the
Hamel & Park
153
- 7 -
scope of the initial, depreciating project? Applied mechanically,
the "Scope-of-the-Project" rule might allow for a valuation which
takes into account the existence of the government's project and
results in the payment of compensation diminished by consideration
of that project. For example, under the circumstances of these
proposed takings, the presence of the already existing Congaree Swamp
National Monument, if taken into account, may in the valuation
analysis serve to depreciate the value of landowners' in-holdings
if the Monument is determined to be a barrier to the removal of the
timber resources on those tracts. Applied in this fashion, the
"Scope-of-the-Project" rule, rather than ensuring that the government
is not forced to pay enhanced value for lands it must acquire for a
public project, only serves to punish the landowner whose in-holdings
may not have initially been within the project's scope.
Landowners seek this proposed amendment to the Congaree
Swamp National Monument expansion legislation (S.2018) out of an
abundance of caution and a desire to minimize future litigation, for
it is not clear from either a factual or legal standpoint that the
"Scope-of-the-Project" rule would automatically work to the detriment
of landowners under the circumstances of this proposed acquisition.
First, from a factual standpoint, certain portions of the
legislative history of the 1976 act establishing the Congaree Swamp
National Monument indicate that the in-holdings (now included among
the lands that are the subject of the expansion legislation) were
within the scope of the project from its outset. For example, the
April 1976 House hearings on the bill that became the Congaree Swamp
154
Hamel & Park
8 -
National Monument Act indicate that the National Park Service
originally proposed the acquisition of these in-holdings, currently
under consideration, along with the property (the Beidler tract)
that was finally authorized for acquisition in 1976. See , e.g. ,
Statement of Dr. Richard Curry, Associate Director for Legislation,
National Park Service, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on National
Parks and Recreation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs , 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 18 (Apr. 29, 1976). The need for
acquiring these "in-holdings" to "fill out" the proposed park also
was recognized by others at the 1976 hearing. See id. at 22-23, 25,
26, 43, 53, 58. A particularly illuminating exchange occurred between
Congressman Seiberling of the subcommittee and John Felder, a
representative of the South Carolina House of Representatives, in
which Mr. Felder expressed concern over the acquisition of lands
apart from the Beidler tract. See id. at 153-56. Mr. Seiberling
responded that, even if the in-holdings as to which Mr. Felder
expressed concern were not authorized as part of the initial park,
it would be likely that the lands would find their way into the park at
a later date:
We have had experience with similar situations
in the case of the Indiana Dunes National Lake
Shore. There were some people in the area of
Beverly Shores, where they had actual homes on
the lake. When the bill was passed, they objected
so strenuously and they said that they did not
want to be included. So we did not include them.
Several years later, they came by after they
saw the results of the lake shore acquisition
and said, "Well, we think we want to be included
now. "
155
Hamel & Park - 9 -
We just reported out a bill from this
committee a few weeks ago in which we added them
to the national lake shore, and I suspect we
will find the same sort of thing happening here .
As a practical matter, it seems to me, if
we are going to acquire the Beidler tract for
the Park Service, we ought to draw the line,
which they have drawn on this map, which includes
Mr. Brady's and others , but we might consider
saying, but as to those tracts, we might put on
the restriction of your ability to acquire them
by anything but negotiation.
Id . at 157 (emphasis added).
While the in-holdings currently under consideration were
not finally authorized for acquisition by the 1976 legislation, the
record demonstrates that they were under consideration at the time
and that the failure of Congress to include them in the initial
authorizing legislation was only a compromise designed to obtain
passage of the proposal that was enacted. The Supreme Court's most
recent pronouncement on the contours of the "Scope-of-the-Project"
rule indicates that such evidence of congressional purpose may be
enough to trigger application of the rule:
As with any test that deals in probabilities,
its application to any particular set of facts
requires discriminating judgment. The rule does
not require a showing that the land ultimately
taken was actually specified in the original
plans for the project. It need only be shown
that during the course of the planning or
original construction it became evident that
land so situated would probably be needed for
the public use.
United States v. Reynolds , 397 U.S. 14, 21 (1970).
Thus, the amendment that the in-holders seek accomplishes
nothing more than that which they would be entitled to under Reynolds
156
Hamel & Park - 10 -
so long as it is recognized that from an early date it was likely
these in-holdings would probably be added to the Park. Besides the
legislative record developed in 1976, actions of the National Park
Service in the immediately following years show that the in-holdings
were scheduled for ultimate acquisition. Section 5(b) (1) of the act
establishing Congaree Swamp National Monument (90 Stat. 2518)
directed the Secretary of the Interior to indicate, within three
years, "the lands and interests in lands adjacent or related to the
monument which are deemed necessary or desirable for the purposes
of resource protection, scenic integrity, or management and
administration of the area." This directive was in fact satisfied by
a National Park Service report dated August 1979. In the report,
the Park Service recommended acquisition of the in-holdings here
under consideration. National Park Service, Assessment of Alter-
natives for Proposed General Management Plan and Wilderness
Suitability Analysis, Congaree Swamp National Monument, South
Carolina , at 80 (Aug. 1979).
Second, landowners wish to emphasize that, as a matter of
law, the courts hesitate to allow government actions to have a
depreciating effect on property that is subsequently to be acquired
by the government. The commentators have noted as a general matter
that "[i]t would be manifestly unjust to permit a public authority
to depreciate property values by a threat to erect an offensive
structure and then to take advantage of this depression in the price
which it must pay for the property." 1 Orgel, Valuation Under Eminent
Domain § 105, at 447 (1953). Relying on this principle, the courts
157
Hamel & Park - 11 -
have refused to allow government actions to depress market values
of property to be acquired by the government, even if those actions
occur prior to federal "commitment" to the new project.
For example, in United States v. 222.0 Acres of Land
[Assateague Island Condemnation Cases Opinion No. 3] , 324 F. Supp.
1170 (D. Md. 1971), the court considered the effect on property
values of government actions undertaken even prior to the time when
Congress authorized the project in question. Congress authorized
the creation of Assateague Island National Seashore on September 21,
1965. From 1963 to 1965, however, the federal government, with the
cooperation of the State of Maryland, engaged in various activities
to prevent development in the area, such as the delay of bridge
construction, the withholding of sewer permits, and a building permit
moratorium. The tracts at issue in 222.0 Acres of Land were actually
condemned in 1967-1968. At trial, the government introduced evidence
of comparable sales in the area from 1961 to 1965; landowners argued
that the sales were not representative because of the actions of the
federal government and the State of Maryland during the period from
1963 to 1965 that depressed prices in anticipation of congressional
authorization of the project. See id. at 1171, 1175-77.
The court rejected the government's argument that the
actions from 1963 to 1965 were mere "incidents of ownership" and
held that "[i]t would be unfair to permit the condemning agency to
depress property values, directly or indirectly, by interfering with
the property owners' rights to use their land, and then take advantage
158
Hamel & Park - 12 -
of such depression to reduce the price which it must pay for the
property." Id. at 1180.2
Third, landowners take some comfort from the fact that the
Executive Branch (Department of Justice) appears to have adopted as
a general principle that "compensation in a condemnation case should
neither be reduced or increased because of an alteration in market
value attributable to the very project for which the lands are being
acquired . . . ." Opening Brief for the United States, at 30 (filed
Jan. 15, 1988) in United States v. 36.8 Acres of Land . Nos. 87-2775,
etc. (9th Cir.) (Redwood National Park expansion cases). In the
present instance, the Congaree in-holders may have suffered a
depreciation in the value of their lands that is directly attributable
to the project (the Congaree Swamp National Monument) for which their
lands are now scheduled to be acquired. The Monument has substantially
impaired access to their properties and, consequently, their ability
to enjoy the full use and benefit of their lands has been diminished.
It is not fair or just that these in-holders should be so burdened
It should be noted that the courts have consistently rejected
governmental efforts to use zoning powers to reduce the value
of property to be subsequently acquired through exercise of the
eminent domain power. See, e.g. , United States v. Certain Lands
in Truro . 476 F. Supp. 1031, 1035-36 (D. Mass. 1979) (restrictive
zoning ordinances passed by municipality in response to federal
legislation creating Cape Cod National Seashore cannot be used
by government to diminish values of property subject to ordinances
when property subsequently condemned by government) ; Symonds v.
Bucklin , 197 F. Supp. 682, 685 (D. Md. 1961) (zoning cannot be
used as substitute to defeat just compensation by depressing
property values and thus reduce condemnation values) ; Robertson
V. City of Salem . 191 F. Supp. 604, 612 (D. Or. 1961) (zoning
ordinance passed to depress land values and prevent higher
economic use in contemplation of condemnation void) .
159
Hamel & Park - 13 -
by the government and then, after the burden has been placed on them,
be forced to sell to the federal government at a reduced price that
results from the imposed burden. Inasmuch as the government's (DOJ's)
stated policy in this area comports with landowners beliefs, the
legislative relief sought herein simply ensures the outcome of what
should, in any event, come to pass.
In conclusion, the Congaree in-holders would like to point
out that the legislative relief for which they petition is by no
means inappropriate or unique. While it is the duty of the courts
to declare what is the "just compensation" that is required under
the Fifth Amendment (see Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States ,
148 U.S. 312, 327 (1893)), Congress has not hesitated in various
pieces of authorizing legislation to set terms of compensation that
will take into account special factors — that might otherwise be
ignored by the courts — that merit special consideration in the
valuation analysis. See , e.g. , Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
Act, Pub. L. No. 95-495, § 5(a), 92 Stat. 1649, 1652 (Oct. 21, 1978)
(recognizing that wilderness designations and other regulatory
measures imposed by the act had a depreciating effect on the value
of privately owned resorts scattered throughout the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area, Congress (i) allowed the owners of such resorts a seven-
year period within which to require purchase of their property, (ii)
extended to any such owner an election to have his property valued
on either of two possible dates, whichever would yield the higher
valuation, and (iii) specified that the restrictions of the act which
had a depreciating effect on value should be disregarded when
Hamel & Park
160
- 14
determining fair market value of such properties); American-Mexican
Chamizal Convention Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-300, § 3(b)(2), 78
Stat. 184, 185 (Apr. 29, 1964) (recognizing that an August 29, 1963
treaty with Mexico, which called for the transfer of certain privately
owned property in the United States to Mexico, had a depreciating
effect on the use and value of such property to be transferred.
Congress, when authorizing acquisition of said property (1) provided
for recovery of "loss of business" damages, an item not normally
recoverable as part of just compensation, and (ii) specified that
such damages could be recovered for losses incurred between July 18,
1963, when the treaty was announced, and an unspecified future date
whenever the government made a firm offer to purchase) ; Act of August
23, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-731, § 1 (adding § 28(c) to the Klamath
Termination Act), 72 Stat. 817 (recognizing, in the timber market
which existed at that time, that a standard fair market value appraisal
of the Klamath Indian Reservation would yield a discounted value due
to the enormous volume of timber involved. Congress in spelling out
the tasks of certain Review Appraisers specified that the fair market
value of the Klamath Indian Reservation was to be determined as if
the property were broken up into a number of units and sold over a
three-year period, August 24, 1958-August 13, 1961, rather than on
a single date) .
The instant bill (S.2018) presents a similarly appropriate
vehicle for legislative relief, which relief can forestall later
uncertainty that may work to the detriment of the in-holders. As
landowners have demonstrated that this relief is nothing more than
161
Hamel & Park - 15 -
they should otherwise be entitled to under a correct application of
the law, the Congaree in-holders submit that the proposed amendment
is in the best interests of all concerned in this proposed expansion
of Congaree Swamp National Monument.
Amendment No. 2 [proposed § 204]
Proposed Amendment No. 2 states:
In the event of acquisition by condemnation,
the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed
to employ the declaration of taking procedure
as set forth at 40 U.S.C. § 258a et seq .
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the National Park
Service promptly goes about land acquisition. In the event negotiated
purchases cannot be worked out, use of the declaration of taking
procedure will insure that title and possession of whatever property
is at issue vest immediately in the United States, whereas a complaint-
only proceeding brought pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 257 would not so
protect the United States since title and possession would not pass
to the government until after trial of the valuation issue. The
declaration of taking procedure will also lead to earlier compensation
for the in-holders, since the government must make a deposit of its
estimate of just compensation along with the declaration. For the
in-holders who already have been adversely affected by the existing
Monument's presence for ten years, this is an eminently reasonable
request that will expedite the overall resolution of their problems.
The Secretary of the Interior, of course, already has the
statutory authority to employ the declaration of taking procedure.
90-788 0-88-7
162
Hamel & Park - 16 -
That authority, however, is limited in a de facto sense by prior
proscriptions of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
now the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The National
Park Service prior to the filing of any declaration of taking is
expected to consult with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
and is to obtain committee clearance for the proposed action before
a declaration of taking is filed. See S. Rep. No. 1597, 90th Cong.
2d Sess. at 2 (Oct. 1, 1968) (Biscayne National Monument, Fla.).
The amendment here under discussion would obviate the need for such
prior consultation and approval in the instance of Congaree Swamp
National Monument expansion. By adopting this amendment. Congress
would be granting such approval in advance.
It should also be noted that the National Park Service has
been reticent on some occasions to seek committee clearance for the
filing of declarations of taking, even though the committee would
have approved such requests in a timely fashion. Whether that posture
was taken for negotiating purposes vis-i-vis the landowner or for
some other reason we do not know. However, it should be emphasized
that, if taken for purposes of negotiating with a landowner, such
action runs counter to the directions and spirit of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, Pub. L. No. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894, the intent of which is to
see that owners of property taken by the federal government are dealt
with honestly and fairly. For example, 42 U.S.C. § 4651(7) provides:
Hamel & Park
163
- 17 -
In no event shall the head of a Federal
agency either advance the time of condemnation,
or defer negotiations or condemnation and the
deposit of funds in court for the use of the
owner, or take any other action coercive in
nature, in order to compel an agreement on the
price to be paid for the property.
Moreover, on at least one occasion (acquisition of 14,770.65 acres
for the existing Congaree Swamp National Monument) , National Park
Service refusal to seek declaration of taking authority from the
committees at an early date resulted in the Park Service having to
pursue other more exotic methods for preserving the property at issue
pending acquisition of title and ultimately cost the government
approximately $15,000,000 more in acquisition costs than if a
declaration of taking had been filed at the outset. The amendment
here under consideration would prevent such behavior in the instance
of acquisitions for Congaree Swamp National Monument expansion by
directing the Secretary to employ the declaration of taking procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
HAMEL & PARK
niLf? 4' fJuctoi-^
By: Philip A. Nacke
164
<
o
o
Cti
>-
<
Q
O
m
w
c^
o
165
UNITED STATES SENATE
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND
FORESTS
JUNE 23, 1988
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
My name is William W. Bruner. My address is 1301
Heatherwood Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29205. This testimony
is presented on behalf of myself and William W. Bruner, Jr.,
Thomas W. Bruner, and James L. Bruner, my sons. We appreciate
this opportunity to express to the Subcommittee our interest in
the Congaree Swamp National Monument,
The legislation before you today, S,2018 is known as the
"Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion and Wilderness Act."
The bill would authorize the addition of certain lands to the
Congaree Swamp National Monument, and it proposes that certain
wilderness areas and potential wilderness additions be included
in the existing Monument and in the expanded Monument.
The Bruner family supported the creation of Congaree Swamp
National Monument, and we view this area as a national treasure.
We are proud that this unique forest is located in South Carolina,
near our home in Columbia. We commend Senator Thurmond, Senator
Rollings, Congressman Spence, the remainder of the South Carolina
Legislative Delegation, and the Sierra Club and other citizens'
groups, all of whom helped to recognize and protect the Congaree
Swamp National Monument.
We have another reason to be interested in the Monument
area: We own approximately 330 acres adjoining its current boun-
daries. An early proposal for expansion of the Monument under
the authority of S.2018 would straighten the western boundary of
the Monument so that it would cut off approximately 145 acres of
our property.
We strongly oppose the inclusion of our property in the
authorized boundary of the Congaree Swamp National Monument for a
number a reasons. These include our hopes of using the property
for our family and their friends to enjoy the outdoors together;
to learn how to manage woodlands properly, for the benefit of the
abundant wildlife there; and generally to experience nature in a
unique way. Other points that we present for your consideration
are the f ol 1 owi ng :
1. The 145 acre area known as Cooks Lake (a map is included
in your materials) is unquestionably the prime section of our
166
330 acre tract. It is relatively high ground, and it con-
tains many features which are special to us.
2. The Cooks Lake
has no significant
Monument property,
tains no fish.
area was cut over about 10 years ago, and
stand of timber as do portions of the
The lake itself is very shallow, and con-
3. The present property line, while irregular, follows a
natural boundary which could be called a creek bed, "gut," or
large ditch. When viewed from our property, the area shown
on your maps as Cooks Lake is clearly discernible. In wet
weather, it is full of water, and forms a natural boundary
which is even more clear.
4. The proposed boundary is simply a line drawn through
swamp land with no regard to the natural terrain. The only
reason that we have been given for including this property in
the Monument is to "straighten out the property line,
reducing its length."
The reasons that we have been given for including the 145
acre Cooks Lake Tract in the 7,000 acres which would be added to
the Congaree Swamp National Monument do not seem to justify compro-
mising the heart of our property. This is property which we plan
to keep in the family for generations to come, for the benefit of
our grandchildren and great grandchildren. The arbitrary line to
the west of the swamp as proposed, though straight, does not do
justice either to us as representatives of the family or to the
natural features of the land.
We appreciate this opportunity to be heard by the subcommit-
tee, and especially we are grateful for the cooperation and sup-
port that we have received from Senator Thurmond and Senator
Hollings. We understand that Senator Thurmond has requested that
you draw the western boundary so that it does not include the 145
acres known as Cooks Lake. We endorse that request, and ask that
you give every consideration to our position.
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to
answer any questions from the Subcommittee.
D-100-60
167
Eoual Opoonunilv Agencv
South Carolina
VJildlife& Marine
Resources Department
James A Timmerman, Jr , PhD.
Executive Director
W Brock Conrad. Jr
Director of
Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
June 20, 1988
The Hon. Dale Bumpers
Chairinan, Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department submits the
following comments on S. 2018, legislation to expand the Congaree Swamp
National Monument. These comments are essentially the same as those submitted
to the National Park Service in January, 1988 in response to the proposed
general management plan for the Monument.
Our Department recognizes the tremendous ecological significance of the
existing Congaree Swamp National Monument and strongly supports additional
efforts to adjust property boundaries in order to better protect this old
growth swamp system, facilitate management, and provide recreational and
interpretation facilities consistent with the basic purpose of protecting this
unique swamp forest system.
As a landowner and manager, the Wildlife Department is well
for adequate buffer to protect ecologically significant nat
feel that the addition of 2,464 acres recommended by the Pa
minimal. Although the management plan recognizes the (1) i
adjacent floodplains to the monument, and (2) the potential
cutting on lands adjacent to the monument, the proposed bou
does not address obtaining as much adjacent floodplain as p
providing buffer that is not old-growth. Most of the addit
proposed boundary, other than in-holdings that obviouslymu
old-growth forest; little or no consideration appears to ha
adjacent tracts that have been selectively cut or clear cut
functionally a part of the swamp system here ideally should
whether or not they are old growth.
If the stated rationale in the management plan for selecting the proposed
alternatives is followed, then the National Natural Landmark boundary, which
we understand coincides closely with the "citizens proposal" boundary, would
provide the ideal boundary in terms of protection and management. Although we
realize that there are definite fiscal constraints, we would support efforts
to acquire as much of the Landmark or "citizens proposal" boundary as
possible.
aware of the need
ural systems. We
rk Service is
nterrelationship of
effects of timber
ndary adjustment
ossible or of
ions to the
St be acquired, are
ve been given to
Lands that are
be included.
Remberl C Dennis Building D R 0. Box 167 U Columbia. South Carolina 29202 D Telephone: 803 - 734-3886
168
Senator Bumpers, P. 2
We are also very supportive of efforts to Include nesting habitat for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the authorized boundary. We offer the cooperation
of our Nongame Wildlife Program in developing appropriate management
strategies.
We support the proposed designation of most of the Monument as wilderness or
proposed wilderness. As development continues and likely accelerates in South
Carolina, the wilderness experience will become more and more difficult to
find. The Monument is highly appropriate as a designated wilderness area.
In keeping with Department policy concerning all public lands, we would favor
a policy of providing public hunting on the monument when it is consistent
with other uses. We would also favor acquiring properties within the
authorized boundary by purchasing them from willing sellers rather than by
condemnation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this legislation and applaud
efforts to provide long-term protection to this unique ecosystem.
Sincerely,
JaiB^ A. /Immerman, Jr.
:uti ve Di rector
/k
169
PRT
Fred P Bnnkman
Ejtecutive Director
(803) 734-0166
June 20, 1988
The Honorable Dale Bumpers, Chairman
Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Subcommittee
UNITED STATES SENATE
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers:
The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
(PRT) is concerned about the proposed General Management Plan and
Wilderness Suitability Study for the Congaree Swamp and National
Monument .
Several of our staff members have reviewed both the National Park
Service's proposal and the Citizens' Boundary proposal. In light of
all information available, PRT supports the 6300-acre proposal
recommended in the Citizens' Boundary proposal for reasons described in
the attached statement.
In conclusion, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism is
responsible for provision of quality outdoor recreation and for these
reasons, we support the Citizens' Boundary proposal with hopes that the
National Park Service will give serious attention to it. In turn, we
offer our support for S.2018, the Congaree Swamp National Monument
Expansion and Wilderness Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concern and desire to
assist you in our mutual effort of promoting parks and recreation.
Sincerely,
Fred P. Brinkman
Enclosure
South Carolina Department of Parks. Recreation & Tourisni ■ 1205 Pendleton Street Columbia. South Carolina 29201
170
CONGAREE SWAMP NATIONAL MONUMENT:
A WILDERNESS SUITABILITY AND EXPANSION proposal
The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism has
reviewed the proposed General Management Plan and Wilderness
Suitability Study for Congaree Swamp National Monument.
PRT has concerns regarding the 2464-acre National Park Service proposal
and offers its support to the Citizens' Boundary proposal which would
expand acquisition to include 6300 acres. This expanded proposal is
reflected in S.2018, the Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion and
Wilderness Act.
Based on PRT staff review, listed below are justifications for our
support of the Citizens' Boundary proposal (S.20I8):
1. Congaree Swamp is deemed internationally significant. It's recent
inclusion as the first South Carolina site in UNESCO's
international network of Biosphere Reserves is indicative of this,
as well as its nomination of recognition as a World Heritage
Site. It is also the site of the country's largest remaining old
growth bottom land hardwood forest.
2. Growth in the Columbia Metropolitan area will expand rapidly in
the next decade. The boundaries in question need to assure an
adequate buffer zone for resource and habitat protection as well
as provision for public access and recreation. The additions of
the Cook's Lake tract and wider corridor protection of Cedar Creek
will offer more scenic amenities and canoeing opportunities.
Furthermore, the Citizens' proposal recommends a future access
corridor along McKenzie Creek and Tom's Creek in addition to the
inclusion of historic Huger's Road, a ferry road dating back to
1781. It will also protect 23 continuous miles of the north bank
of the Congaree River which is part of a 37-mile river segment
eligible for designation as a State Scenic River. Inclusion of
additional segments of the Running Lake system will further
protect the hydrologic character of the park since Running Lake is
a major drainage artery discharging into the Wateree River
downstream. It also includes protection of Devil's Elbow, a prime
example of an oxbow formation.
3. The Citizens' Boundary proposal incorporates natural and
management boundaries in a more practical manner. This will
facilitate multiple use management goals for public access,
recreation, and resource protection. This will include additions
of the valuable northern bluff for the length of the park's
northern boundary and the flood plain from the Congaree River to
the northern bluff. The Inclusion of these areas is vital to the
protection of the park's resources since this entire zone is
intricately linked both hydrologically and biologically.
171
-2-
Acquisition of formerly logged areas is also an important feature
since near-record-size trees indicate a good potential to recover
and become as significant as the core of the park. (Another good
example of a park composed primarily from logged areas is the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.) Finally, by setting the
park's eastern boundary at the railroad, better management and law
enforcement can be accomplished through a clear, distinct boundary
line.
4. In light of budgetary constraints at all levels of government, the
cooperative approach described in the Citizens' Boundary proposal
is a wise decision. This will provide federal, state and private
entities the opportunity to work together for the mutual benefit
of all citizens who will enjoy the Congaree Swamp National
Monument .
172
South Carolina Water Resources Commission
gl 1201 Mam street, Suite 1100 :: Columbia. S.C. 29201 G Telephone (803) 737-0800
Alfred H. Vang
Executive Director
The Honorable Dale Bumpers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks
and Forests
United States Senate
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bumpers :
June 21, 1988
The following comments are submitted by the South Carolina Water
Resources Commission in support of S.2018, legislation to expand the
boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National Monument in South Carolina,
legislation represents a significant step toward the protection of
ecologically significant values of the Congaree Swamp Natural Monument
providing a more comprehensive approach to protection of the ecosystem.
The
by
The South Carolina Water Resources Commission has a particular
interest in the Congaree River and consequently the Monument, since a
37-mile stretch of the river is designated as eligible for the South
Carolina Scenic Rivers Program. The eligible segment of the Congaree
begins at the confluence of Congaree Creek and the Congaree River, and
ends at the Southern Railway bridge east of the current boundaries of the
Congaree Swamp National Monument. This segment is adjacent to the entire
length of the Monument .
The Congaree Swamp contains the largest remnant of old-growth southern
bottomland hardwood forest in the United States. In order to better
protect this nationally and internationally significant resource, the
National Park Service recommends acquiring an additional 3900 acres. This
proposal is an increase over the original proposal of 2464 acres due to
the public response to the General Management Plan.
The Water Resources Commission agrees that additional lands are needed
for better resource protection and to insure the integrity of the Congaree
Swamp. However, we feel that the National Park Service's proposed
addition will not sufficiently accomplish these goals. The addition of
the 7000 acres as proposed in S.2018 will better protect the ecological
values of the Congaree Swamp. It will also facilitate more comprehensive
management and provide a wider range of recreational activities.
173
The Honorable Dale Bumpers
June 21, 1988
Page 2
The Congaree Swamp should be managed as a total ecosystem as much as
possible. In order to accomplish this goal, the park boundary should
coincide with the northern bluff, as currently proposed by the Park
Service, all the way to the Southern Railway railroad tracks beyond the
current boundary. The Commission also feels that the railroad track makes
a more logical eastern boundary, which is also the boundary for the
National Natural Landmark designation for the swamp. This would also
allow the inclusion of the Running Lake drainage and protect the
ecologically significant Devil's Elbow oxbow lake.
Expanding the eastern boundary to the railroad tracks would also
provide a buffer that is not old-growth forest. Even though these eastern
lands have been selectively cut or clear cut, given time they will once
again become mature hardwood bottomland forest. We must take a long term
view when considering the overall ecosystem needs of this swamp system.
The Commission fully supports the acquisition of all inholdings along
the Congaree River. In discussing the acquisition of land parcels along
the Congaree River, the Park Service Management Plan states that "placing
the boundary at such a distinct, easily recognized feature will allow both
the public and monument staff to know immediately what is within the
boundary. Resource Managemen and law enforcement will, therefore, be
enhanced." We do feel, however, that the same logic that makes the river
an important boundary also applies to the railroad tracks east of the
current park boundaries .
The Water Resources Commission staff also feels that the western
boundary should include Cook's Lake. Including Cook's Lake would protect
a scenic oxbow lake and also provide a uniform boundary along the western
edge of the monximent .
Although the Commission staff supports acquiring more acreage than
recommended by the National Park Service, we do find some very positive
proposals in the plan. We fully support the Park Service plan for visitor
use. The monument should be enjoyed in its primitive condition with a
minimum amount of development for visitor use in the interior of the
monument .
It is also commendable that a minimal amount of acreage will be
devoted to Development Zones. The proposed developmental activities
appear adequate to ensure access, educational, and administrative
facilities.
We further support the designation of the majority of the monument
lands as wilderness. The value of the Congaree Swamp National Monument
lies in its wilderness character. The Water Resources Commission staff
encourages the acquisition of the lands to the Southern Railway tracks and
that they be designated as potential wilderness.
174
The Honorable Dale Bumpers
June 21, 1988
Page 3
The Congaree Swamp National Monument is an extremely significant
natural resource and a place of incredible beauty. The Water Resource
Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed
legislation which would help protect this unique ecosystem.
Alfred H. VangN
Ex»cutive Director
AHV:cw
175
SIERRA CLUB South Carolina Chapter
Toeiplora. anioy andprssarva thana&on s/ormu. walen. wildbfaand wildamau
Details Pertaining to Sierra Club's Statement
before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests
June 23, 1988
Washington, D.C.
RE: S.2018 — Congaree Swamp National Monument Expansion and Wilderness Act
S20ia
Richard Watlcins
P. 0. Box 1467
Camden, SC 29020
(803) 425-3138 W
176
Sierra Club 1 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.2018
Sierra Club's involvement in Congaree Swamp dates back to 19G9, when our first
Congaree Swamp outing was conducted. Since then, Sierra Club has been actively
engaged in efforts to protect portions of the Congaree ecosystem. These efforts
include the citizens' campaign of the mid-1970s to establish Congaree Swamp National
Monument.
Congaree Swamp is nationally and internationally significant because it contains the
largest remnant of old-growth southern bottomland hardwood forest in the country.
Within the Congaree forest are a number of trees which are national champions — past
or current — per criteria of the American Forestry Association. Congaree's
significance is affirmed in its designations as a National Natural Landmark, a
National Monument, and an International Biosphere Reserve. The National Park Service
has described Congaree, with its biological and geological features, as "truly a
remarkable ecological story...." In the words of Dr. Charles Wharton, an expert on
southern river swamps and bottomlands, "The Congaree thus stands as a national
treasure, a relict of our environmental heritage that simply must endure."
As established in 1976, Congaree Swamp National Monument consists solely of the
15,135-acre Beidler tract. Although this tract is the heart of Congaree Swamp, it
alone does not provide a suitable boundary for the monument. The establishing
legislation (P.L. 94-545) recognizes that additional lands are needed for resource
protection, scenic integrity, management and administration of the monument.
Despite the world-class natural resources of Congaree Swamp National Monument, the
Nov. 1987 General Management Plan describes the monument as "operationally
sub-marginal", partially because of current boundary deficiencies. S.Z018 addresses
boundary-related proclems by expanding CSNM's authorized boundary from 15,200 acres to
22,200 acres.
A cross-section of the Congaree River ecosystem includes the river, the floodplain on
both sides of the river, and the bluffs which confine the floodplain. Optimally,
Congaree. Swamp National Monument should have ecological boundaries which extend from
the high bluffs south of the river to the low bluffs north of the river. This
involves boundary expansion of 11,000-12,000 acres.
Rather than boundary expansion bluff-to-bluff, S.2018 expands the boundary by 7,000
acres north of the river. This 7,000-acre expansion is a very reasonable action for
conditions in 1988; it recognizes budgetary constraints, and it is responsive to local
political considerations.
FAIRNESS TO ALL PARTIES
Congaree Swamp National Monument needs additional lands to achieve a suitable
boundary. In our advocacy of CSNM boundary expansion. Sierra Club has consistently
advocated considerate treatment and fair compensation of all affected landowners.
Sierra Club also advocates fair treatment of the federal government in establishing
acquisition terms and purchase prices for these lands.
177
Sierra Club 2 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.Z018
LANDOWNER INVOLVEMENT
The campaigc of the mid-1970s to establish Cocgaree Swamp National Monument was an
intense effort which was accompanied, regrettably, by polarization and a lack of
communication between park proponents and affected landowners.
In contrast, the current boundary expansion effort has proceeded, and hopefully
succeeded, with great emphasis on establishing and maintaining dialogue with
landowners, thereby seeking to avoid misunderstandings and polarization.
The National Park Service's draft boundary expansion proposal is contained in the
General Management Plan for the monument. During August 1987 (almost three months
before this draft management plan was released for public comment), the Park Service
wrote to each of the 25 landowners whose land is included in the NPS draft rxoposal.
In the letter, the NPS offered to meet with each landowner — in Columbia, or at the
monument, or some other location convenient to the owner — to discuss how the NPS
boundary proposal would affect each owner's land. Virtually all of these 25
landowners met with or talked by phone with or corresponded with the Park Service
during August and September 1387, and virtually all indicated willingness to sell /
discuss selling land for addition to the monument. During these contacts, only one
owner opposed acquisition of his Congaree land (4 acres), situated between the
monument's southern boundary and the north bank of the Congaree River.
Availability of the NPS draft management plan, with its boundary proposal, was
announced in the "Federal Register" on November 9, 1987. Each of the 25 landowners
whose land is included in the NPS draft boundary proposal received a copy of the draft
management plan from the Park Service, accompanied by a cover letter to notify
recipients of the two-month comment period (November 9- January 11) for the draft GMP.
The National Park Service conducted a public meeting/ public hearing December 10, 1987
in Columbia S.C. after providing written notification of the hearing to the 25
landowners. Attendance was estimated at 75-100 persons. Of the eleven persons who
spoke at the hearing:
A 9 supported the Citizens' Boundi/y Proposal.
* 1 supported the Park Service proposal.
* 1 expressed concern about loss of land for hunting.
No landowners spoke during the hearing, although six or more landowners were present.
The Park Service talked after adjournment of the hearing with one owner who was
unhappy about the hearing process until informed that the Park Service had met
previously with his partners, and they had accepted monument expansion.
During the two-month public comment period, only two owners submitted written comments
to the Park Service:
* One of these owners explained that his timber is mature and needs to be cut.
Access to haul logs is a dilemma. He is willing to sell his forested tract to
the Park Service.
* The other owner submitted a one sentence letter, objecting to expansion of the
monument. However, this owner has stated previously and subsequently that he is
willing to sell land for addition to the -monument. Perhaps his letter of
objection is intended to strengthen his bargaining position.
178
Sierra Club 3 of 11
June 23, 1988
S,2018
In contrast to the minimal number of landowner comments, public response was heavy.
Of the 11 oral statements at the Dec. 10 hearing and the 578 written comments during
the two-month comment period, the National Park Service reports that 577 responses
support the Citizens' Boundary Proposal for the monument. Not included in these
figures are additional letters of support for the Citizens' Proposal which arrived
after the deadline. Among supporters of the Citizens' Proposal are:
* Richland County Council.
* S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept.
* S.C. Water Resources Commission.
* S.C. Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
* Sierra Club.
* South Carolina Audubon Council.
* League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
* National Audubon Society.
* The Wilderness Society. } TWS and NPCA prefer a larger
* National Parks and Conservation Assoc. } boundary than the Citizens' Proposal.
* Gov. Carroll Campbell
(His March 23 letter of support for H.R.4027 is appended to these comments.
H.R.4027 and S.2018 are identical.)
During May 1988, the National Park Service distributed a Finding of No Significant
Impact as the next step in the planning process. The FONSI includes a map (dated
April 1988) of the Park Service's revised boundary expansion proposal for CSNM. The
revised NPS proposal (3,900 acres versus 2,4G4 acres in the NPS draft proposal)
significantly increases the amount of Georgia-Pacific Corp. land within the expansion,
and it adds two new "large" landowners who had not been affected by the NPS draft
proposal. Sierra Club has talked with and/or corresponded with each of these three
owners at least four times. The Park Service has also talked with these owners.
* Georgia-Pacific Corp. does not oppose selling its Congaree bottomlands.
* The larger of the "new" owners (238 acres) is willing to sell the land for
addition to the monument.
* The. next-larger "new" owner (145 acres) does not want to sell at this time.
Inclusion of this land within the monument's authorized boundary does not force
this owner to sell. Additional details are provided in the following section
"The Cook's Lake Tract (the Bruner Property)".
Most of the remaining difference in acreage between S.2018 and the revised NPS
boundary expansion proposal is land owned by Georgia-Pacific Corp. These lands are
addressed in the section "Expansion Along the Monument's Eastern Boundary". As stated
previously, Georgia-Pacific does not oppose selling its Congaree bottomlands for
addition to the monument.
179
Sierra Club 4 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.2018
THE COOK'S LAKE TRACT (THE BRUNER PROPERTY)
The 145-acre "Cook's Lake tract" (the semicircular-shaped tract along the monument's
western boundary) is included in:
* the Congaree River Swamp National Natural Landmark.
* the Citizens' Boundary Proposal.
* S.2018 and H.R.4027.
* the NPS revised boundary proposal (map dated April 1988).
These 145 acres are part of a 332-acre tr-act, purchased by the Bruner family in
December 1986.
In our contacts with landowners, Sierra Club's objectives are to meet and establish
dialogue with owners, to learn and understand their perspectives, and to work together
to identify a mutually-agreeable path forward to expand the monument's authorized
boundary while being responsive to the owners' perspectives.
In our dialogue with the Bruners, we understand and respect their perspective, but
unfortunately, we have not found a fully acceptable arrangement to satisfy their
concern while providing for the monument's interests. The Bruners do not want to sell
their land at this time, and they apparently have no plans to sell in the foreseeable
future. They are uncomfortable about inclusion of their property within the
monument's authorized boundary because they fear the government might exercise eminent
domain authority to force them to sell. They are also uncomfortable that if they
voluntarily decide to sell in the future, the government might acquire only the 145
acre portion of their tract, leaving them with the other 187 acres which, from their
perspective, are less functional, less appealing, and less marketable.
Twelve years ago, as Congress was deliberating establishment of Congaree Swamp
National Monument, the Beidler tract was virtually surrounded by lands whose owners
were just as adamant and just as sincere as the Bruners in stating they did not want
their land to be acquired for the monument. Therefore, these adjacent tracts were
omitted when the monument's boundary was authorized in 197S. One year later, two
years later, five years later, some of these same owners changed their minds and
voluntarily offered to sell their land to the Park Service. (Rep. Seiberling, at the
House hearing in 197G, had anticipated this might happen, based on experience
elsewhere.) The tragic and insurmountable barrier insofar as these subsequent offers
to sell was the fact that, in response to landowner opposition, these lands had been
omitted in 1976 from Congaree's authorized boundary. As a result, when these tracts
were offered on a willing seller basis, the Park Service could not buy them although
the Park Service definitely wanted to buy them.
To emphasize this point, let's consider the extent of transactions involving lands
adjacent to the monument:
* Of the nine properties which S.2018 will add along the monument's current
southern boundary, six have changed hands since 1976.
* All lands adjacent to the monument's eastern boundary have changed ownership
since 1976.
* Substantial changes in ownership have occurred since 1976 along the monument's
northern boundary.
* Except for a few acres at the northwest corner of the monument, all lands along
the monument's western boundary have been sold at least twice since 1976. This
includes the 145-acre Cook's Lake tract.
180
Sierra Club 5 of 11
June 23, 1388
S.2018
We understand and accept that today, the Bruners do not want to sell the Cook's Lake
tract. Perhaps they will continue to own this tract for the next 200 years, or
perhaps they will voluntarily decide to sell in the future, just as many other
landowners have changed their minds and decided to sell during the past twelve years.
History since 1976 shows that Congaree lands adjacent to the monument change
ownership. Two opportunities have already been missed to purchase the Cook's Lake
tract — because the Park Service lacked authorization to purchase this property.
If the Bruners decide to sell voluntarily in the future. Sierra Club wants the Park
Service to have the necessary authorization already in place to offer to buy the
Bruners' land. Therefore, Sierra Club advocates inclusion of the Bruner property
within the monument's authorized boundary.
Based on our most recent (June 7) discussion, the Bruner family seeks two guarantees
to ensure their interests are protected:
1. Eminent domain authority will not be exercised to acquire any or all of the
Bruners' 332-acre tract.
2. If the federal government purchases this property from the Bruners on a willing
seller basis, the government would, at the discretion of the sellers, purchase
the entire 332-acre tract rather than only the 145-acre portion which is
included in the current boundary expansion proposal.
Again, Sierra Club hopes a path forward can be identified which is responsive both to
the owners' perspective and the monument's interests. Unfortunately, a workable
approach to satisfy the Bruners' first concern has not yet been defined.
The Bruners' second concern can be resolved by including the entire 332-acre tract
within the monument's authorized boundary. Although the Bruners consider the
additional 197 acres to be less marketable and less functional for their purposes,
these additional 187 acres are riverfront lands which are certainly compatible both
with Congaree Swamp National Monument expansion and with Scenic River protection for a
37-mile segment of the Congaree River.
EXPANSION ALONG THE MONUMENT'S EASTERN BOUNDARY
S.2018 will add approx. 3,000 acres to the eastern end of the monument, and it will
set the monument's eastern boundary at a distinct, easily recognized feature — the
railroad — as shown on the map. Almost all of this land is owned by Georgia-Pacific
Corporation. These lands are part of the Congaree River Swamp National Natural
Landmark, and they were also part of a CSNM boundary expansion bill H.R.7703 which was
introduced in 1980 by Congressmen Burton and Sebelius.
Mr. Burton and Mr. Sebelius introduced H.R.7703 "in order to protect outstanding
bottomland hardwood forests within the floodplain of the Congaree River, to provide
for a boundary that encompasses the ecological unit formed by the floodplain of the
river, and to enhance and improve the management and protection of the resources of
Congaree Swamp National Monument...." (The principal difference between S.2018 and
the earlier H.R.7703 was H.R.7703's inclusion of significant lands south of the
Congaree River. )
181
Sierra Club 6 of U
June 23, 1988
S.2018
Although H.R.7703 died in subcommittee for reasons totally unrelated to the merits of
the natural resources, the significance of these Georgia-Pacific lands is affirmed in
an August 1980 letter from Interior Secretary Andrus to Georgia-Pacific Corp.
President T. Marshall Hahn:
'From a resource management standpoint, the National Park Service and the
Department of the Interior recognize the national significance of these resources
and the importance of the protection of the prime bottomland hardwood stands
immediately adjacent to the national monument.'
While affirming the significance of resources adjacent to the monument, the
Administration did not support H.R.7703 because of erroneous high cost estimates.
Although the cost error was quickly pointed out by the NPS Southeast Office, serious
damage resulted. The door closed on an opportunity for discussions with
Georgia-Pacific about a timber-harvesting moratorium. Another consequence was
cessation of the Park Service's planning process for CSNM until Feb. 1985.
The Congaree planning moratorium was not accompanied by a timber-harvesting
moratorium. Since 1980, logging has continued on Georgia-Pacific lands between the
monument's eastern boundary and the railroad. Because of logging, the question might
be asked: do these lands qualify for addition to the monument?
Answers are provided in an October 1986 report by scientists with the South Carolina
Heritage Trust Program. Their directive from the Park Service was to provide
recommendations concerning possible adjustment of the Congaree River Swamp National
Natural Landmark boundary, based on alterations since the area's NNL designation in
1974. Specifically, they were to assess whether recent timber management has affected
the long-term ecological significance of some portions sufficiently to warrant their
removal from the NNL. Heritage Trust's report recommends not only that all existing
lands in the NNL be retained, but that the NNL be enlarged.
In reference to NNL lands east of the monument, the 1986 evaluation determined that:
* Magnificent river swamp has been cut.
* Significant areas remain uncut.
* Logging has not yet altered the hydrologic regime of these lands.
* These lands serve to maintain the hydrologic integrity in the NNL core (the
national monument).
* Presence, or former presence, of large, near-record-size trees indicates this
area has the potential to recover and become as significant as the NNL core (the
national monument).
Heritage Trust's commentary about the importance of NNL lands east of the monument for
the hydrologic integrity of the monument is supported by the U.S. Geological Survey.
In its report "Hydrology and Its Effects on Distribution of Vegetation in Congaree
Swamp National Monument, South Carolina", the USGS confirms (page 4) that "most of the
discharge from the [monument's] floodplain is [eastward] to the Hateree River, which
joins the Congaree River a few miles below the Monument."
182
Sierra Club 7 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.2018
Quoting from the draft General Management Plan for the monument: "Floodplain lands
outside the monument relate importantly to the monument because of their ecological
interrelationship." Also, "lands immediately to the east have been clear-cut in small
patches right up to the monument boundary. These timber practices adjacent to the
monument adversely affect the monument...."
All lands which adjoin the monument's eastern boundary are corporate timberlands.
Therefore, until these lands are acquired for the monument, their future is a
perpetual cycle of cutting, forest regeneration and regrowth, and more cutting. Until
these lands are acquired, the timber practices identified by the Park Service as
adversely affecting the monument will continue.
These lands were addressed in a Jan. 11, 1988 letter from the S.C. Wildlife and Marine
Resources Dept. to the National Park Service re: omission of these lands from the NPS
boundary proposal ;
"Although the management plan recognizes (1) the interrelationship of adjacent
floodplains to the monument, and (2) the potential effects of timber cutting on
lands adjacent to the monument, the proposed boundary adjustment does not address
obtaining as much adjacent floodplain as possible or of providing buffer that is
not old-growth. ...(L)ittle or no consideration appears to have been given to
adjacent tracts that have been selectively cut or clear cut. Lands that are
functionally a part of the swamp system. . .should be included, whether or not they
are old growth. ...(T)he National Natural Landmark boundary would provide the
ideal boundary in terms of protection and management."
The National Park Service places high value on park boundaries which are distinct,
easily recognized features — to facilitate and enhance resource management and law
enforcement. The Congaree management plan emphasizes this principle for the
monument's southern and northern boundaries. S.2018 applies this principle to the
monument's eastern boundary by adopting the railroad as a straight, distinct, easily
recognized feature for the monument's eastern boundary.
In Park Service documents and in conversation-after-conversation with Park Service
personnel, the railroad is the obvious and logical choice for the monument's eastern
boundary;
* During our first-ever meeting with NPS personnel (1972), the NPS advised adopting
the railroad as the eastern boundary for the Congaree Swamp National Monument
proposal .
* In 1974, the railroad was selected as the eastern boundary when the Congaree
River Swamp National Natural Landmark was designated.
* A 1976 NPS document "Analysis of Boundary and Management Alternatives - Proposed
Congaree Swamp National Preserve" states "the railroad tracks will provide a
better defined boundary for visitors and management...."
* The 1979 NPS document "Assessment of Alternatives - Congaree Swamp National
Monument" states that "acquisition of these [lands between the current eastern
boundary and the railroad] would provide a more manageable boundary for the
monument. ..."
183
Sierra Club 8 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.2018
In addition to the forest resources — past, present, and future — of the lands
between the current eastern boundary and the railroad, these lands have additional
features and serve other functions related to the monument and ecosystem protection;
* Visitor Access to the Eastern End of the Monument
Currently, the eastern end of the monument is inaccessible to most monument
visitors. Consequently, few visitors see the resources of the eastern end, such
as giant loblolly pines and the largest cypresses in the monument. S.2018 will
facilitate visitor access from Kingville Road to the eastern end of the monument.
* Tom's Creek
Tom's Creek is the "other" stream which flows into the monument. Lesser known
and currently less accessible than Cedar Creek, Tom's Creek provides
opportunities for fishing and canoeing.
A Running Lake
Flowing eastward from the monument across Georgia-Pacific lands. Running Lake is
a major drainage artery for waters from the monument. As mentioned previously,
NNL lands east of the current monument boundary serve to maintain the hydrclogic
system of the monument.
* Huger's Road
Huger's Road is a historic ferry road dating from 1781. Bridges and embankments
are still visible in places.
* Cattle Mound
This historic cattle mound, rectangular in shape and believed to be the second
largest on the Congaree floodplain, is situated east of the monument's current
boundary. Perhaps 150 years old, the cattle mound was constucted to provide a-
haven for livestock when floodwaters covered the floodplain.
* Devil's Elbow
Located east of the current monument boundary, Devil's Elbow is the newest oxbow
along the Congaree River. It is the prime example of river dynamics and the
process of oxbow formation.
* Viewshed Opposite the Congaree River Bluffs
The National Park Service has Congaree land protection responsibility north of
the river.
However, the Park Service is currently looking to the State of South Carolina and
to landowner initiatives to help protect significant Congaree lands south of the
river, thereby helping to protect the monument. These lands include the
regionally and nationally-significant Congaree River Bluffs, which overlook the
floodplain. As scientists have noted, this forested bluff system forms a
contiguous feature with the floodplain, and as such, provides natural insulation.
184
Sierra Club 9 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.2018
Unprotected National Natural Landmark lands are north of the river opposite the
eastern end of the Congaree River bluff system. These NNL lands are the viewshed
from this portion of the bluff system. Addition to the monument of the NNL lands
between the monument's current eastern boundary and the railroad will
protect/restore the viewshed/scenic integrity of the floodplain forest north of
the river opposite the high bluffs.
Inclusion in the monument of the National Natural Landmark lands, as provided by
S.Z018, is entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, the National Park Service continues
to omit some of these lands from its boundary proposal, principally because of logging
activity. We expect longer-range vision from the Park Service. We disagree with the
Park Service's short-term focus on current forest condition rather than the
longer-term best interests of the monument.
We are fortunate that our predecessors had the vision to acquire some lands which, at
that time, were substantially disturbed by logging. Thanks to their vision, our
generation and future generations have the opportunity to visit areas such as Great
Smoky Mountains National Park and Shenandoah National Park. Past lagging did not keep
Great Smoky Mountains National Park from becoming the most visited unit of the
National Park System. During the 50-60 years since these parks were established,
their forests have recovered to the extent that relatively few visitors today have any
concept of forest conditions in the 1930s.
Compared to the Smokies, forest growth on the Congaree floodplain is much more rapid.
With a long growing season and abundant moisture and nutrients, the Congaree
floodplain is highly productive. Needless-to-say , 200-year-old trees cannot be grown
in 75 years, but today's clearcuts on the Congaree floodplain will be magnificent
forest in 75 years after these lands are protected in the national monument.
Inclusion of logged areas is not without precedent in Congaree Swamp National
Monument. As reported in the Congaree management plan, approx. 2,000 acres of the
Beidler tract were selectively logged and 700 acres were clearcut before Congress
authorized establishment of the monument in 1975. Timber harvesting did not
disqualify these Beidler lands from inclusion in the monument, and likewise, timber
harvesting should not disqualify lands which S.2018 proposes for addition to the
monument. Further supporting the appropriateness of adding logged lands to the
monument is the current NPS expansion proposal, which also recommends
selectively-logged and clearcut lands.
In providing a boundary for resource protection, scenic integrity, management and
administration of the monument, we regret the extent of logging on adjacent tracts
during the past ten years, but to look for a silver lining, acquisition cost of these
tracts is surely lower now than before the logging. Let's move forward to authorize
the boundary in S.2018 to provide a suitable boundary for the monument north of the
river.
185
Sierra Club 10 of 11
June 23, 1988
S.2018
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOUNDARY MAP FOR S.2018
The boundary map for S.2018 is derived from the Citizens' Boundary Proposal map, which
was prepared in September 1987. Since then, several boundary adjustments appear
likely:
* Based on its conversations with landowners, the Park Service anticipates that
several owners are justified in seeking to sell their entire parcel or tract,
rather than only the portion shown on the boundary map. This, of course, will
increase the acreage to be acquired.
* S.2018 and the Citizens' Boundary Proposal extend the monument's eastern boundary
to the railroad but not to the highway (Kingville Road). Following the public
comment period on the Congaree management plan, the National Park Service has
accepted a recommendation to provide visitor access at the easterr. end of the
monument. Therefore, the boundary map for S.2018 should be refined to provide
small acreage for access (and parking?) from the Kingville Road. We suggest the
Park Service should identify the preferred location and acreage needed between
the road and the railroad.
* Mr. Rudy Mancke, Director of Science and Nature Programming at S.C. ETV,
emphasizes that the Congaree floodplain's northern bluff and adjacent uplands
provide vital habitat for the monument's wildlife when the floodplain is flooded.
For this purpose, he recommends the monument boundary should include a strip of
adjacent uplands beyond the crest of the northern bluff. This input was received
after the Citizens' Proposal map was prepared, and therefore, Mr. Mancke's
recommendation is not fully reflected in the current maps for S.2018 and the
Citizens' Boundary Proposal.
We believe an authorized boundary of 22,200 acres will provide necessary flexibility
to accomplish the types of adjustments described above.
WILDERNESS CONSIDERATIONS
The revised GMP for CSNM will retain an existing air monitoring station in its present
location on the floodplain unless/until another suitable site might be identified.
The State agency which operates this station apparently needs vehicular access to
maintain the station. Road location is shown on the Wilderness Recommendation map
(dated April 1988) in the NPS Plan Approval and FONSI .
Sierra Club agrees that air monitoring at CSNM is very important, and therefore, we
support retention of the road to the station, with vehicular access to be permitted
only for servicing the air monitoring station and for infrequent NPS administrative
access. When this station is abandoned, removed, or relocated to an upland site in
the future, this road would become part of the wilderness area. Accordingly, we
support potential wilderness designation for the road to the air monitoring station.
All trees along the road are part of the wilderness rather than the potential
wilderness.
186
Sierra Club 11 of H
June 23, 1988
S.2018
The Wilderness Recommendation map (dated April 1988) in the NPS Plan Approval and
FONSI shows wilderness and potential wilderness west of the administrative access road
to the Congaree River, near the monument's western boundary. Sierra Club supports
this upgrade to the wilderness map which accompanies S.2018.
The NPS proposes non-wilderness for a 110-acre Protected Natural Area Subzone, which
is habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. This habitat could be managed under a
wilderness designation, but given the location of this Protected Natural Area Subzone
on the upland / at the edge of the monument, we do not object to non-wilderness
classification for these 110 acres.
DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
Title III of 5.2018 increases the construction and development authorization to
$2.7 million, based on figures in the Park Service's draft General Management Plan for
the monument. We suggest increasing the construction and development authorization to
$3.0 million, which, we understand, is the figure in the revised General Management
Plan.
187
^■v
"..•y
^tatu^ of J)onilT CCcirolmci
dpffirr of tljc (Sobrrruir
Cabroll a. Campbell, Jr. Post Orr.ct 80. i069
O0vt»~0« ' COLUMBIA 292M
March 29, 1988
The Honorable Bruce Vento
Chairman
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
2304 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Hl i~1iii i i ill IH
Qmj^
It is my understanding that the South Carolina delegation has
introduced legislation to expand the boundaries of Congaree Swamp
National Monument in South Carolina, and I am writing to express
my full support of H.R. ^027. I respectfullv request that the
Subcommittee consider this legislation at the earliest possible
date.
As you are aware, this measure has received widespread support
across the State of South Carolina, along with several interested
organizations, who recognize the value of this resource and who
want to protect this national monument.
I realize the demands upon the Subcommittee but urge that H.R. 4027
be considered as soon as possible. Please know- that I stand ready
to be of assistance in any way that I can and hope that you will
feel free to call upon me if additional information is needed or if
you have any questions in this regard.
Sincerely,
^kJD
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
CACjr : fa
cc S. C. Delegation
188
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj;
National Trust for Historic Preservation
July 8, 1988
The Honorable Dale L. Bumpers
Chairman
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks
and Forests
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Attached is the National Trust for Historic Preservation's
testimony for the record in support of S. 2058, the Charles
Pinckney National Historic Site Act. The National Trust
appreciates the opportunity to make its views known to you and
your colleagues on the subcommittee regarding the preservation
and protection of Snee Farm, the home of Charles Pinckney, one
of our founding fathers.
The committee has done much in the past to bring attention to
the problem of protecting our historic resources. The National
Trust urges the committee to approve S. 2058 and supports the
innovative work made possible by this legislation to save Snee
Farm.
V
incerely,
Jackson Walter
sident
cc: The Honorable Strom Thurmond
The Honorable Ernest F. Boilings
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W
Washington, DC. 200,56
(202) 673-4000
189
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Testimony of
J. JACKSON WALTER, PRESIDENT
THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
submitted to the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
on
S. 2058
July 6, 1988
I am pleased to have the opportunity to support S. 2058, the
Charles Pinckney National Historic Site Act. On behalf of the
Trustees and over 215,000 members of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, I commend Senators Strom Thurmond and
Ernest F. Hollings for sponsoring this legislation and the
committee for scheduling this hearing and for its leadership in
this and many other issues in the preservation of our national
heritage. As the steward of James Madison's house at
Montpelier, Virginia, the National Trust deems it particularly
significant that, in this Bicentennial year of the ratification
of the Constitution, the nation has the opportunity to preserve
the house of Charles Pinckney, one of the greatest founding
fathers, for generations yet unborn.
Snee Farm near Charleston, South Carolina deserves our nation's
protection. It was the country estate of Charles Pinckney, a
signer and major contributor to the United States Constitution.
The simple but beautifully crafted house, originally built
circa 1754, the 25 undeveloped acres that surround it, and the
archaeological resources yet to be studied, represent our
nation's early agricultural history. In addition, these
cultural resources are our tangible connection to Charles
Pinckney' s life.
Charles Pinckney fought in the Revolution at Savannah and
Charleston and spent time as a prisoner of war. After the war
he served in the Congress of the Confederation where he became
convinced of the need for stronger federal government and was
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W
Washington, DC. 20036
(2021 673-4000
190
- 2
among the leaders of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and
the ratification of the Constitution by South Carolina. At age
29, he wrote what is now called the "Pinckney Draft" of the
Constitution and presented it to the Constitutional Convention.
Several fundamentals of this draft were ultimately incorporated
in to the Constitution. Pinckney went on to lead the fight to
ratify the Constitution in South Carolina and to become
governor of South Carolina; he also served as a U.S.
Representative and Senator, and served as Thomas Jefferson's
minister to Spain.
Snee Farm is an endangered National Historic Landmark. When
the tract was slated for development. Friends of Historic Snee
Farm was formed to acquire the site for donation to the
National Park Service, which could manage and interpret the
site for the public. The National Trust, through our southern
regional office in Charleston, has been working to encourage
and assist the work of the Friends of Historic Snee Farm. This
bill authorizes the Park Service to accept such a donation and
thus makes possible an unusual alliance of public and private
actions and interests. This approach to saving the site is not
only appropriate; it deserves support and encouragement.
Friends of Historic Snee Farm has done an exemplary job of
examining all the potential protection options, pursuing the
available ones, and recognizing that purchase with the eventual
public ownership is the only option that will truly protect the
site. This group is to be commended for its substantial
fundraising success to date and its determination to meet the
negotiated price.
The National Trust is the only national, private, nonprofit
organization chartered by Congress with the responsibility for
encouraging public participation in the preservation of sites,
buildings and objects significant in American history and
culture. In 1984 the National Trust stepped forward to accept
stewardship of Montpelier, James Madison's lifelong house near
Orange, Virginia and opened it to the public in 1987. In this
role, the National Trust is very much aware of the continual
threats to many of our country's national historic landmarks.
Unfortunately, unlike the situation at Snee Farm, where local
financial resources and political interest are present, there
are few options for protection of these most significant
resources.
There are many cases of national historic landmarks and other
nationally significant sites at risk, often by development of
new commercial or residential districts. In this country,
while we have a system of identifying and designating sites and
structures of national significance, we have no way of
protecting those sites from often devastating encroachment or
outright destruction. At this very moment, in Manassas,
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05995 189 5
- 3
Virginia, the site of two of the critical battles of the Civil
War is being bulldozed to make way for an enormous shopping
mall. Also in Virginia, the village of Waterford, a National
Historic Landmark, has no legal protection against a threatened
real estate subdivision; such a development ironically would
destroy the integrity of the district. In Omaha, Nebraska, a
so called urban redevelopment project is in the process of
demolishing an entire six square block National Register
district in order to create a "corporate campus" for a local
corporation which otherwise threatens to move out of town.
This committee has done much to bring attention to the problem
of protecting our historic resources. To protect future cases
similar to Snee Farm and Manassas, we believe that the ultimate
answer lies in comprehensive, nationwide legislation that
allows the national interest in protecting nationally
significant sites to have a say in local land use decisions.
Mr. Chairman, the National Trust for Historic Preservation
urges the committee to approve S. 2058 and allow the National
Park Service to acquire and manage Snee Farm. We commend
Senator Thurmond and Senator Hollings for their strong support
of this innovative approach to protecting one of our nation's
most endangered National Historic Landmarks.
o
1
TVNews
OpenLibrary