SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–836 CC
1998
HEARING ON H.R. 3963, H.R. 2125, H.R. 3950, H.R. 4144, H.R. 4211, H.R. 4230, AND H.R. 4287
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3963: TO ESTABLISH TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL CONVEY LEASEHOLDS IN CERTAIN PROPERTIES AROUND CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR, MONTANA
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 2125: TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL ROUTE IN NEW JERSEY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 3950: TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE OTAY MOUNTAIN REGION OF CALIFORNIA AS WILDERNESS
H.R. 4144: TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE AND CUMBERLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA
H.R. 4211: TO ESTABLISH THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 4230: TO PROVIDE FOR A LAND EXCHANGE INVOLVING THE EL PORTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H.R. 4287: TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE STATE OF UTAH
JULY 28, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–104
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
TODD HULL, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held July 28, 1998
Statements of Members:
Bilbray, Hon. Brian, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from American Samoa
Hansen, Hon. James V. a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted for the record by
LoBiondo, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted for the record by-
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Riley, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama
Prepared statement of
Statements of witnesses:
Barger, Don, Southeast Regional Director, National Parks and Conservation Association
Prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Binkley, Virgil, President, Broadwater Rod and Gun Club, Board Member, Canyon Ferry Fishing Association, Member, Broadwater Stream and Lake Committee
Prepared statement of
Budewitz, Thomas, Attorney, representing the Board of Commissioners, Broadwater County, Montana
Prepared statement of
Fischer, Jerry, President/CEO, Yosemite Motels
Prepared statement of
Fry, Tom, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management
Prepared statement of
Galetto, Jane Morton, President, Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries, Inc.
Prepared statement of
Knuffke, Darrell, Vice President of Regional Conservation, The Wilderness Society
Prepared statement of
Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior; accompanied by Larry Todd, Acting Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior
Prepared statement of
Paxton, Gregory, President/CEO, Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation
Payton, Benjamin, Office of the President, Tuskegee University
Prepared statement of
Robinson, Bob, President, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association Cabin Site Acquisition Subcommittee
Prepared statement of
Sautter, Jack, Chairperson, Broadwater Lake and Stream Committee, Townsend, Montana, prepared statement of
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Stevenson, Katherine, Associate Director, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, Department of the Interior
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Burns, Hon. Conrad, a Senator in Congress from the State of Montana
Durrett, James F., III, Chief Operating Officer, The Georgia Conservancy, prepared statement of
Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, Fact Sheet
Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association, prepared statement of
Racicot, Hon. Marc, Governor, State of Montana, prepared statement of
Text of H.R. 3963
Text of H.R. 2125
Text of H.R. 3950
Text of H.R. 4144
Text of H.R. 4211
Text of H.R. 4230
Text of H.R. 4287
HEARING ON: H.R. 3963, TO ESTABLISH TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL CONVEY LEASEHOLDS IN CERTAIN PROPERTIES AROUND CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR, MONTANA
H.R. 2125, TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL ROUTE IN NEW JERSEY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 3950, TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE OTAY MOUNTAIN REGION OF CALIFORNIA AS WILDERNESS
H.R. 4144, TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES IN CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE AND CUMBERLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 4211, TO ESTABLISH THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
H.R. 4230, TO PROVIDE FOR A LAND EXCHANGE INVOLVING THE EL PORTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H.R. 4287, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE STATE OF UTAH
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on the Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The committee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the hearing. Today we will hear testimony on seven bills—H.R. 3963, H.R. 2125, H.R. 3950, H.R. 4144, H.R. 4211, H.R. 4230, and H.R. 4287.
Mr. HANSEN. The first bill for consideration is H.R. 3963, introduced by Congressman Hill, to establish terms and conditions under which the Secretary of the Interior shall convey leaseholds in certain properties around Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana. This bill would lead to the private ownership of 265 cabin sites that are presently owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. The next bill we will hear is H.R. 2125, introduced by Congressman LoBiondo of New Jersey, would authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New Jersey. The bill would also extend the authorities provided to the Secretary of the Interior when the route was established in 1988.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. The next bill, H.R. 3950, introduced by Congressman Bilbray of California, would create the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area in southern California. We realize that concerns have been expressed, and there have been ongoing negotiations over language in the bill that would allow the Border Patrol and the DEA to continue to conduct their operations in this area. This Subcommittee intends to work with the concerned parties, and I hope we can find an appropriate solution.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. The next bill is H.R. 4144, introduced by Congressman Kingston of Georgia, would ensure protection of the natural, cultural, and historical resources of Cumberland Island National Seashore and Cumberland Island Wilderness Area in Georgia. This bill would enable a land exchange to occur between the Federal Government and private entities of Cumberland Island. This bill also directs the restoration of the Plum Orchard Mansion by using public and private funds. Additionally, H.R. 4144 directs the Secretary of the Interior to identify, document, and protect archaeological sites located within the Seashore, as well as prepare and implement a plan to preserve designated national historic sites within the Seashore and also to designate the southern tip of the island as wilderness.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. The next bill, H.R. 4211, introduced by Congressman Riley of Alabama, would establish the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site as a unit of the National Park Service, in association with the Tuskegee University, in the State of Alabama. This site will help commemorate and interpret the historic efforts made by the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. The next bill, H.R. 4230, introduced by Congressman Radanovich, would provide for a land exchange involving the El Portal Administrative Site to allow Yosemite National Park to replace the Arch Rock Entrance Station with a much safer and larger entrance. Yosemite National Park would acquire the needed parcel from a private company known as Yosemite Motels, who would receive in exchange a parcel of land elsewhere.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. The final bill, H.R. 4287, introduced by Congressman Cannon of Utah, would make technical corrections and minor adjustments to the boundary of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the State of Utah. As many of you know, the monument was created and its boundaries were drawn in the dark, in the secret of the night, without any public input. As a result, the monument included certain areas that should have been excluded, including a pending school site.
[Laughter.]
I don't know who wrote this.
[Laughter.]
I'm merely reading it.
[Laughter.]
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill makes changes to the boundaries to correct some of these heinous problems that were created.
[Laughter.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. We are very pleased to have the sponsors of these bills here with us today. I also thank all of the witnesses here today and look forward to their testimony.
As you can see, we are hearing several bills and have several witnesses. I would ask our witnesses to please keep their testimonies to the allotted 5 minutes. And today, I really have to say that because, as you know, a tragedy occurred in the Capitol on Friday, and Members of Congress are supposed to be over in the House at 11:45, so because of this very unusual and tragic thing that occurred, we want to get out of here as soon as we can.
How that thing works for you—the members all know—but you folks, when you come up, we'll give you all 5 minutes. It's just like a green light; when you see that the light's green, go ahead; yellow, wrap it up, and red, I'll have to bang the gavel. So, talk fast, and we'll read all your stuff. All these bills look good to us, and I think we can handle it.
[The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing. Today we will hear testimony on seven bills, H.R. 3963, H.R. 2125, H.R 3950, H.R. 4144, H.R. 4211, H.R. 4230 and H.R. 4287.
The first bill for consideration is H.R. 4141, introduced by Congressman Hill, to establish terms and conditions under which the Secretary of the Interior shall convey leaseholds in certain properties around Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana. This bill would lead to the private ownership of 265 cabin sites that are presently owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The next bill we will hear is H.R. 2125, introduced by Congressman LoBiondo of New Jersey, would authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New Jersey. The bill would also extend the authorities provided to the Secretary of the Interior when the route was initially established in 1988.
The next bill, H.R. 4109, introduced by Congressman Bilbray of California, would create the Otay (OAE8 Tie) Mountain Wilderness Area in southern California. We realize that concerns have been expressed, and that there have been ongoing negotiations over language in the bill that would allow the Border Patrol and the DEA to continue to conduct their operations in this area. This Subcommittee intends to work with the concerned parties and I hope we can find an appropriate solution.
The next bill is H.R. 4144, introduced by Congressman Kingston of Georgia would ensure protection of the natural, cultural and historical resources on Cumberland Island National Seashore and Cumberland Island Wilderness Area in Georgia. This bill would enable a land exchange to occur between the Federal Government and private entities on Cumberland Island. This bill also directs the restoration of the Plum Orchard Mansion by using public and private funds. Additionally, H.R. 4144 directs the Secretary of the Interior to identify, document, and protect archaeological sites located within the Seashore, as well as prepare and implement a plan to preserve designated national historic sites within the Seashore and also to designate the southern tip of the island as wilderness.
The next bill is H.R. 4211, introduced by Congressman Riley of Alabama, would establish the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site as a unit of the National Park System, in association with the Tuskegee University, in the State of Alabama. The site will help commemorate and interpret the heroic efforts made by the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.
The next bill, H.R. 4230, introduced by Congressman Radanovich, would provide for a land exchange involving the El Portal Administrative Site to allow Yosemite National Park to replace the Arch Rock Entrance Station with a much safer and larger entrance. Yosemite National Park would acquire the needed parcel from a private company known as Yosemite Motels who would receive, in exchange, a parcel of land elsewhere.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The final bill, H.R. 4287, introduced by Congressman Cannon of Utah, would make technical corrections and minor adjustments to the boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the State of Utah. As many of you know, the monument was created, and its boundaries were drawn, in secret, without any public input as a result, the monument included certain areas that should have been excluded, including a pending school site. This bill makes changes to the boundaries to correct some of these problems.
We are very pleased to have the sponsors of these bills here with us today. I also thank all the other witnesses here today and look forward to their testimony. As you can see, we are hearing several bills and have several witnesses. I would ask our witnesses to please keep their testimonies to the allotted 5 minutes. When the light you see on the table turns yellow you should start wrapping your testimony up. When it turns red you should end.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing this morning. I had hoped that, at least out of the seven pieces of legislation, that maybe one or two would be representative of this side of aisle. But I notice that all pieces of legislation do represent the majority party.
Quite a variety of issues that we're going to be discussing through these pieces of legislation. Some do have the support of the administration, and some have the complete opposition or objection by the administration. Mr. Chairman, we're getting to the last moment of the hour on the eve of the 24th hour before adjournment this year in October, and I sincerely hope that we will do justice to these pieces of legislation in examining them closely and making sure that, not only they protect the public interest, but certainly that our friends who are sponsors of this legislations will have an understanding and certainly our purpose and consideration the provisions of each of these pieces of legislation.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to offer my personal welcome to our colleagues who are sponsors of these pieces of legislation and look forward to their testimonies this morning.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
We'll start with Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey. We'll go to Brian Bilbray and then George Radanovich, in that order. But, Frank, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LOBIONDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing to schedule this hearing today. I have a New Jersey State Senate Resolution which I'd like to submit for the record, if that's OK with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. LOBIONDO. It's supporting this legislation. And also further into proceedings, I'd like to thank Jane Galetto from my district, 2nd District of New Jersey, for being here today to give the citizens' testimony on this bill.
Today I'll be saying a few words about H.R. 2125, the bill I've introduced along with Senator Frank Lautenberg, to extend the authorization of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. I'd like to explain to you briefly why this legislation is deserving of Congress' attention by describing the many benefits the trail has and will continue to have in southern New Jersey.
H.R. 2125 would extend the authorization of the Coastal Heritage Trail until 2004 and provide an additional $2.75 million to complete work begun with its establishment in 1988. This extension is needed to complete a number of projects such as interpretive exhibits, wayside signs, related onsite information, and other services. Simply put, inaction of H.R. 2125 will prevent the trail from being caught in an unfinished work-in-progress condition.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, let me provide a short history. The legislation establishing the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail was passed by Congress in 1988, thanks to the leadership of Senator Bill Bradley. Its original intent was to unify New Jersey's many scenic points of interest along the State's Atlantic Ocean, Delaware River, and Delaware Bay shorelines. By using the term, ''scenic points of interests,'' I'm referring to the wealth of environmental, historical, maritime, and recreational sites that can be found along New Jersey's coastlines. These sites range from Perth Amboy to the north, Deepwater to the west, Cape May to the extreme southern tip of the State. The trail's areas include two national wildlife refuges, four tributaries of wild and scenic river system, a Civil War fort and national cemetery, several lighthouses, historic homes, and several other sites tied to southern New Jersey's maritime history.
In short, the Coastal Heritage Trail incorporates the best of what New Jersey has to offer to the rest of the Nation. In highlighting the scenic points of interest mentioned above, it is important to emphasize that the completed trail will stimulate the local economy in southern New Jersey by attracting tourists from northern New Jersey and the entire Delaware Valley region.
Although the 2nd Congressional District is known for its resort communities along the Atlantic coast, there are a number of treasures that the Coastal Heritage Trail will bring to the attention of the public. It is no exaggeration to say the potential for tourism in the counties along the Delaware Bay—Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May—has only begun to be tapped.
One exciting aspect of the Coastal Heritage Trail is the focus on maritime history. There's a rich history to be told about the industries once sustained by the Delaware Bay, such as whaling, sea-borne trade, shipbuilding, oystering, crabbing, and the harvest of caviar and menhaden. While we often define our Nation's history through military or political milestones, the Trail will serve to remind visitors to the Delaware Bay coast that maritime-dependent commerce was, and at one time, a major factor in the growth of the United States.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Similarly, eco-tourism along the Coastal Heritage Trail has proved to be a big success. There is an abundant variety of natural habitat and species to be found on the coast. During the springtime, for instance, visitors can watch the annual spectacle of thousands of horseshoe crabs returning to lay their eggs on the beach. Whale and dolphin watching have become extremely popular. In addition, bird lovers from out of the State and around the world are realizing what southern New Jersey residents have known for a long time, that the region is unmatched for observing migratory birds, ospreys, bald eagles, and shore birds. Mr. Chairman, having recently traveled up the Maurice River, a central feature of the Coastal Heritage Trail route, in an oyster boat, I can proudly attest to what an inspiration it is to see ospreys thriving in their natural habitat.
Let me also tell the members of the Subcommittee that if you ever have the opportunity to take a drive along the Trail route, open the car window and take a deep breath of the air specially flavored by the salt marshes and wetlands. It is an aroma of tidal region made up in equal parts of plant, fish, insect, and bird life that make it distinctive.
Finally, let me point out to the members of the Subcommittee that the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is a partnership between the Federal Government and several sources that works. The Trail has been supported by the State of New Jersey, Division of Travel and Tourism, local community groups, several nonprofit societies, and corporate sources. Far from any costly government project, the Coastal Heritage Trail represents the kind of program we should be encouraging—preservation-minded, with a potential for positive economic impact on the local community.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to come before your Subcommittee and testify on this bill, H.R. 2125. This is simple legislation that, if enacted, is sure to have a resounding and long-lasting influence on southern New Jersey for many years to come.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LoBiondo follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. LOBIONDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for scheduling this hearing. Today I will be saying a few words about H.R. 2125, a bill I have introduced along with Senator Frank Lautenberg, to extend the authorization of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. I would like to explain to you why this legislation is deserving of Congress' attention by describing the many benefits the Trail has, and will continue to have, in Southern New Jersey.
H.R. 2125 would extend the authorization of the Coastal Heritage Trail until 2004, and provide an additional $2.75 million to complete work begun with its establishment in 1988. This extension is needed to complete a number of projects, such to interpretive exhibits, wayside signs and related on-site information, and other services. Simply put, enaction of H.R. 2125 will prevent the Trail from being caught in an unfinished, ''work in progress'' condition.
First, let me provide a short history. The legislation establishing the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail was passed by Congress in 1988, thanks to the leadership of Senator Bill Bradley. Its original intent was to unify New Jersey's many scenic points of interest along the state's Atlantic Ocean, Delaware River, and Delaware Bay shorelines.
By using the term ''scenic points of interest,'' I am referring to the wealth of environmental, historic, maritime, and recreational sites that can be found along New Jersey's coastlines. These sites range from Perth Amboy to the north, Deepwater to the west, and Cape May in the extreme southern tip of the state. The Trail's area includes two National Wildlife Refuges, four tributaries of a Wild and Scenic River system, a Civil War fort and National Cemetery, several lighthouses, historic homes, and several other sites tied to Southern New Jersey's maritime history.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In short, the Coastal Heritage Trail incorporates the best of what New Jersey has to offer to the rest of the nation. In highlighting the scenic points of interest mentioned above, it is important to emphasize that the completed Trail will stimulate the local economy in Southern New Jersey by attracting tourists from Northern New Jersey and the entire Delaware Valley region.
Although the Second Congressional District is known for its resort communities along the Atlantic coast, there are a number of treasures that the Coastal Heritage Trail will bring to the attention of the public. It is no exaggeration to say the potential for tourism in the counties along the Delaware Bay—Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May—has only begun to be tapped.
One exciting aspect of the Coastal Heritage Trail is the focus on maritime history. There is a rich story to be told about the industries once sustained by the Delaware Bay—such as whaling, seaborne trade, shipbuilding, oystering, crabbing, and the harvest of caviar and menhaden. While we often define our nation's history through military or political milestones, the Trail will serve to remind visitors to the Delaware Bay coast that maritime-dependent commerce was, at one time, a major factor in the growth of the United States.
Similarly, ''eco-tourism'' along the Coastal Heritage Trail route has proved to be a big success. There is an abundant variety of natural habitats and species to be found on the coast. During the springtime, for instance, visitors can watch the annual spectacle of thousands of horseshoe crabs returning to lay their eggs on the beach. Whale and dolphin watching have become extremely popular. In addition, bird lovers from out of the state are realizing what Southern New Jersey residents have known for a while: that the region is unmatched for observing migratory birds, ospreys, bald eagles, and shore birds.
Mr. Chairman, having recently traveled up the Maurice River—a central feature of the Coastal Heritage Trail route—in an oyster boat, I can proudly attest what an inspiration it is to see ospreys thriving in their natural habitat.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me also tell the members of the Subcommittee that if you ever have the opportunity to take a drive along the Trail route, open the car window and take a deep breath of the air specially flavored by the salt marshes and wetlands. It is the aroma of a tidal region—made up in equal parts of the plant, fish, insect, and bird life that make it distinctive.
Finally, let me point out to the members of the Subcommittee that the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is a partnership between the Federal Government and several sources that works. The Trail has been supported by the State of New Jersey Division of Travel and Tourism, local community groups, several non-profit societies, and corporate sources. Far from any costly government project, the Coastal Heritage Trail represents the kind of program we should be encouraging: preservation-minded with a potential for positive economic impact on the local community.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to come before your Subcommittee to testify on H.R. 2125. This is simple legislation that, if enacted, is sure to have a resounding and long-lasting influence on Southern New Jersey for many years to come.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Bilbray.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I'll try to brief. I understand that our circumstances are, regretfully, quite unusual, but I appreciate you allowing us to address our items.
Mr. Chairman, I do not serve on this Committee, but I have served for 20 years at working on environmental preservation strategies along the border. One thing that's become obvious to those of us that worked along the frontier is that there is a unique situation there that doesn't always fit within existing policy parameters as we originally conceived them. But on this item, H.R. 3950, which is the bill to preserve Otay Mountain as wilderness—Otay being a local Indian name referring to the abundance of water in an area that does not necessarily have an abundance of fresh water. This bill has actually been able to develop an unusually high degree of consensus. I think you're aware that past wilderness designations in other areas have been a little controversial, to say the least. But we really believe that on this bill, we're developing the ability to take honest differences and approaches, put them together, and build a consensus that actually fulfills the intentions of the Wilderness Act.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I think that we've tried to be sensitive to the concerns expressed by all parties involved. And, in fact, let me just say that I think that we've worked out some very unique and effective terminology to be able to satisfy all stakeholders that the real intent of the Act is going to be executed, without setting unnecessary and unforeseen and unwanted precedents. I think the precedent issue is a legitimate concern, but for those of us that have long worked on environmental issues along our Nation's borders, we find that we need to look at the big picture and be outcome-based, in order to really be able to fulfill the intention of the Wilderness Act or any of our other environmental strategies. The fact is we have worked out the ability with this bill to have not only the Wilderness Act served, and not only the Border Patrol and the Customs missions served, but actually both of them to be enhanced because of the cooperation between the two.
Now, I'm not implying that this bill is supported universally and embraced by everyone. But let me just say that I think that we've seen that when you can have the Justice Department, when you can have this Administration, when you can have the local environmental community, when you can have the local county and State, when you can see the kind of consensus that we have here, this is one of the unique opportunities for us to move forward in a bipartisan and a multi-agency approach.
Now, one of the things on which I think that we will all agree is that this very rugged, unique area along the border needs to be preserved and needs to be enhanced. And one of the things that we've really tried to see is understanding that border security is not a threat to wildlife preservation in the border region, but rather it's an essential part of that strategy. We've seen areas where we've worked at habitat preservation, but where the lack of border security has caused the destruction of the habitat because of the illegal activity in the area—massive burn-offs, set to create diversions for Immigration and Custom agents; massive destruction and trashing of the area resulting from illegal immigration and the activity of drug smuggling; even the existence of ''meth'' labs in areas that were supposed to be wildlife preserve areas, basically, because there was not sufficient control in the area.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I'd like to say that there are some precedents I'd like to set with this bill, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to set the precedent that diverse groups can work together to build a consensus for preservation; that the local community can take a lead and have the Federal Government come in under their request to participate with the local community in the formation of a wilderness strategy.
I also would like to set the precedent that law enforcement does not have be at odds with habitat preservation, that the two can be essentially dovetailed together to benefit both.
I'd like to set the precedent set that Democrats and Republicans, Brian Bilbray and Bob Filner, can actually work for the betterment of not only our constituency but also the habitats of the entire United States.
This bill gives us that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. It's a strategy that is consistent in environmental law and law enforcement overall, and it's consistent with our stated purpose of the Wilderness Act and the stated purpose of your chairmanship in this new term.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll look forward to working with you on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing today. I understand how busy the Subcommittee's schedule is, especially in such a somber time for this Congress, and greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify, and to hear the testimony of the other witnesses on H.R. 3950, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1998. I will be as brief as possible, and would ask that my full statement appear in the record, along with supporting documents.
Mr. Chairman, as a lifelong resident of San Diego, I am very aware of the unique natural resource assets of Otay Mountain, much of which is currently managed as a wilderness study area (WSA). This management has in large part focused on conservation of the area's wildlife and plant life, as well as cultural, geologic, and scenic values, in addition to the wilderness values it possesses, as outlined in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Otay Mountain's proximity to our border with Mexico has also made it a flashpoint for the ongoing immigration control and drug interdiction efforts of the Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My motive for introducing this legislation in the first place was very simple—it was clear that an unusually high degree of consensus existed among involved stakeholders in favor of wilderness designation and that this window of opportunity needed to be pursued in a relatively expeditious fashion. Mr. Chairman, while I do not serve on the Resources Committee, I am aware that it is rare to find a wilderness designation proposal which is supported by the public, environmental community, and local, state and Federal agencies of jurisdiction. I am not implying that we have total consensus on H.R. 3950 in its entirety; as recently as yesterday afternoon, stakeholders were meeting to continue their good faith discussions on compromise language for one particular section of the bill. However, in the case of Otay Mountain, there is agreement that wilderness designation would be the most effective land management tool for the area, from both a natural resource and a law enforcement perspective. Let me just clarify for the record that H.R. 3950 as introduced is a product of much detailed dialogue and careful consultation with legislative counsel, as it was and is my intent to narrowly craft this bill to reflect the unique resource and management needs of Otay Mountain, while remaining true to and consistent with the underlying Wilderness Act. H.R. 3950 is a reflection of this effort, and of my desire to try and capitalize on this consensus that exists, recognizing that continued discussion and consultation on the bill would be necessary, and I am pleased that this dialogue has continued in good faith.
Members of my staff toured the Otay Mountain area on April 14 of this year with one of BLM's regional foresters (Jim Francis), who I might add provided an excellent tour of the area's resources. Based on the understanding of the general consensus which existed at the time among the BLM, the Border Patrol, and local and national environmentalists, and on information derived from this field outing, I decided to pursue legislation and consulted with you on this process. Your counsel, given the limited number of days left in this legislative session, was to introduce a narrowly drafted bill which reflected that consensus, and continue to dialogue with your Subcommittee, the environmental community, the Border Patrol, the CDF and BLM to finetune a final legislative product to properly designate Otay Mountain as wilderness.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I stated previously, while that dialogue continues in good faith with other interested stakeholders, this has proven to be sound advice, as we are here today to discuss H.R. 3950 and how to best proceed with it, and are near an understanding as to the mechanics of legislative language which will maintain the integrity of the original 1964 Wilderness Act, while providing needed assurances to the Border Patrol and the Department of Justice that their essential missions of immigration control and drug interdiction at our borders will continue unhampered.
I'd like to expand on this last point. Most of my colleagues, particularly those from California, have heard me speak on any number of occasions about the law enforcement challenges we face at the border, whether they be environmental and criminal. As I've told you, Mr. Chairman, I would not be pursuing this legislation in the first place if I did not have faith that we would be able, at the end of the day, to protect this wonderful and rugged place for future generations of San Diegans to enjoy as wilderness, while maintaining the uncompromised interdiction capabilities of the Border Patrol which are absolutely critical to our national security.
Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, and I might ask you or other members of the Subcommittee to ask for further elaboration on this at the appropriate point in this hearing, or perhaps for the record, the Border Patrol believes that wilderness designation for Otay Mountain will not only be compatible with, but will actually improve its ability to deter illegal immigration, and apprehend the smugglers of narcotics and humans that still taint our border regions. I am sure that the Administration will elaborate on this further in BLM Deputy Director Fry's testimony. The Border Patrol had previously expressed concerns about the potential designation of Otay Mountain as wilderness, due to its rugged terrain and general inaccessibility, which had served as a magnet for smuggling and illegal immigration activity. However, by working with the BLM and CDF to create new access roads to the area, and repair and improve existing roads, the Border Patrol has improved its ability to operate in the region, with noticeable reductions in illegal immigration and drug traffic as a direct result.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is my understanding now that due to this increased access, the Border Patrol believes that wilderness designation for Otay Mountain will not interfere with its ability to operate in the region, so long as it retains the explicit authority to carry out its mission in the area. It is my further understanding that the BLM believes that compromise language to Section 6(b) of H.R. 3950, which it has discussed with other stakeholders as a part of our ongoing dialogue, can give the Border Patrol the discretion and authority it needs while ensuring consistency with the landmark Wilderness Act of 1964, which is the foundation of this effort.
BLM has further indicated that this consensus language will be compatible with the flexibility already contained within Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, which will help to further ensure that the interdiction operations of the Border Patrol and other agencies in the Otay region will be unhampered.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Administration's willingness to work with me, this Subcommittee, and the other stakeholdersto develop compromise language which will satisfactorily address these important concerns. Let me again clarify that I share the concerns expressed about ''setting precedent'' which might be detrimental to the Wilderness Act, and I am confident that we will be able to identify and agree on language which will address these legitimate concerns. We all want the same thing—we want to protect the natural resource of Otay Mountain, we want to maintain vigilant border security, and we want to maintain sound wildfire management practices.
I would like to conclude by talking about the kind of precedent which I am interested in setting with this bill—too often, discussion of wilderness proposals consist largely of conflict between different stakeholders. I am appreciative of the fact that while there have been differences of opinion as to how to best refine H.R. 3950 to achieve the result which we all want, they have been expressed openly and in good faith, and the results are in the kind of consensus which is being discussed today. I think that the best legacy we could leave with this bill, H.R. 3950, is beyond that of a simple wilderness designation, as important as that is.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have to believe that there are other areas of extraordinary beauty and majesty elsewhere in our country, perhaps even in other border regions, where the important missions of other agencies or departments have been perceived to be at cross-purposes with resource conservation, or environmental protection. We have already seen the positive environmental results of the Border Patrol's increased access to Otay Mountain and adjoining areas, in that less illegal immigration and drug smuggling there has translated to less impact on Otay itself—fewer illicit trails beaten through delicate and fragile habitat, less trash and human waste, and, elsewhere in the vicinity, fewer sensitive animal and bird species or their eggs being consumed for food, and less toxic chemical residue from makeshift drug labs, to name but a few benefits. It would be my hope that if we continue to be successful in our efforts to designate wilderness at Otay Mountain, we will further shore up this precedent that wilderness designation, or other land and resource management practices, are not incompatible with the critical work being done in the same region by other agencies.
We should emphasize and support these opportunities where Federal operating strategies can and should complement one another, rather than be allowed to run completely independent of one another, and at cross purposes. In this instance, there is clear benefit to be derived to both our natural environment and to our law enforcement strategies. Because both of these assets are of such significant importance to us, and to the people whom we represent and who benefit from them, I hope we will be able to see this project through to completion, and use it to build future successes in which we can all share and benefit.
Thank you for your consideration of H.R. 3950, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and your staff to refine the compromise language we've discussed here today. I and my own staff are at your disposal should you have any questions or require additional information about Otay Mountain.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you; we appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Radanovich.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing on H.R. 4230, which exchanges Federal land with private land to allow Yosemite National Park to place an entrance station at El Portal, at the most desirable location.
Over one million visitors enter through the current administrative site at the Arch Rock entrance, and this exchange would be done in the interest of safety and efficiency to both the park and its visitors.
The current site of the station is on a small curving road that becomes incredibly congested with traffic during peak visitor months, and also floods during spring runoff, I might add. The new site would give the park the ability to better manage bus and car traffic entering through highway 140.
Officials at Yosemite National Park have been working with Mr. Jerry Fischer, who will be testifying a little bit later this morning, who also owns a parcel of private land to accomplish this exchange. However, congressional approval is necessary to achieve the minor adjustments to the lands.
All parties involved are seeking an exchange that is in full compliance with NEPA standards, the Department of Interior guidelines, and all other Federal statutes.
I look forward to working with the Park Service to successfully exchange these lands, and I am willing to address any issues or concerns that are brought to my attention.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on H.R. 4230, which exchanges Federal land with private land to allow Yosemite National Park to place an entrance station in a more desirable location. Over one million visitors enter through this administrative site at Arch Rock and this exchange would be done in the interest of safety and efficiency to both the Park and its visitors.
The current site of the station is on a small curving road that becomes incredibly congested with traffic during the peak visitor months. The new site would give the Park the ability to better manage bus and car traffic entering through Highway 140. Officials at Yosemite National Park has been working with Mr. Jerry Fischer, who owns the parcel of private land, to accomplish this exchange. However, Congressional approval is necessary to achieve the minor adjustments to the lands.
All parties involved are seeking an exchange that is in full compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards, Department of Interior guidelines and all other Federal statutes.
I look forward to working with the Park Service to successfully exchange these lands, and I am willing to address any issues or concerns that are brought to my attention.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Riley.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB RILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me here today to testify on behalf on H.R. 4211, a bill to designate the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have with me today, Dr. Benjamin F. Payton, Jr., president of Tuskegee University, who will also speak on the merits of this project and the role that Tuskegee University will play. I'd like to specifically thank him and his staff for all the hard work that they've put into this project.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying, by any standard, the Tuskegee Airmen were and are American heroes. Despite a widespread belief that they, as African-Americans, did not possess the abilities to be effective war fighters, the famed Tuskegee Airmen of World War II proved that they were among the best pilots in the North African, Sicilian, and European campaigns.
Affectionately known as the ''Red Tails,'' for the red paint on the tails of their aircraft—by the bomber crews they protected, the pilots of Tuskegee did not lose a single bomber in their care to enemy fighters—not one. Because of their heroic service, the Tuskegee Airmen were one of America's most highly decorated fighter groups of World War II. Upon returning home, the Tuskegee Airmen had won 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 1 Legion of Merit, 1 Silver Star, 14 Bronze Stars, and 744 Air Medals. But the price was high. Of the 450 pilots that saw combat during World War II, 66 were killed in action, and another 32 were taken prisoner of war.
However, Mr. Chairman, the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen didn't end with the war. Because of their demonstrated ability as an effective fighting force and their individual heroism, the Tuskegee Airmen gave President Harry S. Truman all the proof he needed to justify his decision in 1948 to desegregate the United States military.
And in the following decades, the Airmen's accomplishments during the war served as an inspiration for the civil rights movement as a whole.
Last August, I asked the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study for developing Moton Field at Tuskegee University, Alabama, as a National Historic Site. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Park Service for their fine work on this undertaking, and it is because of this study that I decided to move forward with H.R. 4211.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This legislation will allow the National Park Service to tell the American people the most accurate and comprehensive story of the Tuskegee Airmen—a story about individuals who overcame racism and intolerance in their own country, so they could fight racism and intolerance in Europe.
The Tuskegee Airman National Historic Site will focus on life at Moton Field and the accomplishments of the Airmen, themselves. Specifically, the park will highlight the impact of the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II; the training process for the Tuskegee Airmen and the strategic role that Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee University, played in that training. It will also focus on the American-African struggle for greater participation in the U.S. military and more significant roles in defending their country; the significance of success of the Tuskegee Airmen in leading to the desegregation of the U.S. military shortly after World War II; and the impact of Tuskegee Airmen's accomplishments on subsequent civil rights advances of the 1950's and the 1960's.
Mr. Chairman, we should neither discount nor forget the influence of the Tuskegee Airmen on the ''American experience.'' The Tuskegee Airmen, in my view, should be immortalized, honored, and thanked for their courageous and selfless efforts to preserve and protect the freedoms that every American enjoys today. I believe that the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site will be a fitting and worthy tribute to these American heroes.
Unfortunately, time has begun to take its toll on the Tuskegee Airmen; many are no longer with us. That is why I would like to move forward with this legislation as quickly as possible so that the remaining Airmen will have the opportunity to see their legacy enshrined at the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the National Park Service, Tuskegee University, and the Airmen themselves, to make this project a reality. Again, the story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one that I believe must be told. Passage of this legislation this year will be an important first step in telling this historic story.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB RILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for inviting me here today to testify on behalf H.R. 4211, a bill to designate the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site.
I have with me today, Dr. Benjamin F. Payton, Jr., President of Tuskegee University, who will also speak on the merits of this project and the role that Tuskegee University will play. I would like to specifically thank him and his staff for all of their hard work on this project.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying: By any standard, the Tuskegee Airmen were and are American heroes.
Despite a widespread belief that they, as African-Americans, did not possess the abilities to be effective war fighters, the famed Tuskegee Airmen of World War II proved that they were among the best pilots in the North African, Sicilian, and European Campaigns.
Affectionately known as the ''Red Tails'' (for the red paint on the tails of their aircraft) by the bomber crews they protected, the pilots of Tuskegee did not lose a single bomber in their care to enemy fighters. Because of the heroic service, the Tuskegee Airmen were one of America's most highly decorated fighter groups of World War II. Upon returning home, the Tuskegee Airmen had won 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, one Legion of Merit, one Silver Star, 14 Bronze Stars, and 744 Air Medals. But the price was high. Of the 450 pilots that saw combat during World War II, 66 were killed in action and another 32 were taken prisoners of war.
However, Mr. Chairman, the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen did not end with the war. Because of their demonstrated ability as an effective fighting force and their individual heroism, the Tuskegee Airmen gave President Harry S. Truman all the proof he needed to justify his decision in 1948 to desegregate the United States military.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And in the following decades, the Airmen's accomplishments during the war served as an inspiration for the civil rights movement as a whole.
Last August, I asked the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study for developing Moton Field at Tuskegee University, Alabama, as a National Historic Site. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Park Service for their fine work on this undertaking. It is because of this study that I decided to move forward with H.R. 4211.
This legislation will allow the National Park Service to tell the American people the most accurate and comprehensive story of Tuskegee Airmen—a story about individuals who overcame racism and intolerance in their own country, so that they could fight racism and intolerance in Europe.
The Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site will focus on life at Moton Field and the accomplishments of the Airmen themselves. Specifically, the park will highlight:
1. the impact of the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II;
2. the training process for the Tuskegee Airmen and the strategic role that Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) played in that training;
3. the African-American struggle for greater participation in the U.S. military and more significant roles in defending their country;
4. the significance of successes of the Tuskegee Airmen in leading to desegregation of the U.S. military shortly after World War II;
5. and the impact of Tuskegee Airmen accomplishments on subsequent civil rights advances of the 1950s and 1960s.
Mr. Chairman, we should neither discount nor forget the influence of the Tuskegee Airmen on the ''American Experience.'' The Tuskegee Airmen, in my view, should be immortalized, honored and thanked for their courageous and selfless efforts to preserve and protect the freedom that every American enjoys today. I believe that the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site will be a fitting and worthy tribute to these American heroes.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, time has begun to take its toll on the Tuskegee Airmen. Many are no longer with us. That is why I would like to move forward with this legislation as quickly as possible so that the remaining Airmen will have the opportunity to see their legacy enshrined in the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site.
Mr. Chairman, my staff and I look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the National Park Service, Tuskegee University, and the Airmen themselves to make this project a reality. Again, the story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one that I believe must be told. Passage of this legislation, this year, will be an important first step to telling this important story.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Kingston.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to testify on H.R. 4144, the Cumberland Island Preservation Act.
Just a quick word on the Act itself: What it does is seek to preserve the history of this island. It's an island that dates back to pre-Revolutionary War. It was owned partially by General Nathanael Greene, and Eli Whitney had worked there. ''Lighthorse'' Harry Lee was originally buried there. Thomas Carnegie, who was, of course, part of the U.S. Steel Corporation, actually lived on it and developed it, and his heirs still do. It has the settlements of freed slaves; there is very rich African-American history, a rich Spanish and American history, and we want to preserve that history and open it up to the public who is actually locked out of it now because of certain wilderness laws and regulations.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We, in this Act, enable a land swap which will actually add to the acreage of the wilderness. And we try to protect and preserve the environment through it.
The legislation has four basic parts. First, it authorizes funds for historic preservation. Cumberland Island contains five historic districts and many other historic sites, structures, and archaeological districts cited on the National Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, several of these sites have not been properly maintained. Some have already been lost due to the lack of needed maintenance. Others, though, while in serious need of stabilization and restoration, are certainly not beyond the point where preservation is no longer feasible.
Plum Orchard is one such site. This house has deteriorated badly since the Park Service took responsibility for its maintenance. The pictures in your packets show the mansion's decline over the last four decades. As you can see, the structure has deteriorated significantly. The inside of the house is equally alarming in many places. And I believe, Mr. Chairman, you do have these pictures in your packet that I will submit for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. KINGSTON. I've seen the problems—the water damage, the growing fissures through the floor in the east wing, the separation of the floor is being monitoring with sensor devices. This bill authorizes the appropriation of funds to repair this important historic structure.
The second main provision of the bill deals with the treatment of the Main Road, also known as Grand Avenue. The length of the Main Road, as it is specified on the National Register of Historic Places, was designated partially as wilderness and partly as potential wilderness by the 1982 Act which established wilderness on Cumberland Island. H.R. 4144 would cherry stem or remove from the wilderness overlay, the main road.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Designating the main road as wilderness created several problems on Cumberland. For one, besides the fact that a road itself is not usually considered wilderness, it sets up a conflict in directive on the National Park Service to, on one hand, preserve it as a historic resource, but on the other hand, to manage it as a wilderness area which should revert back to the natural state. These competing mandates were recognized and criticized at the time by both the Department of Interior and President Reagan. The problem, however, was not resolved in the legislation.
Secondly, the continued existence and use of the main road is certainly important, if not vital, to the administration of the island, particularly for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the historic sites along the road.
Finally, this provision gives the National Park Service the flexibility to allow greater public access to the historic sites on the road, such as Plum Orchard, Rayfield, and Half Moon Bluff.
The bill does include a specific provision which retains the Parks Service's authority to place reasonable restrictions on the road's use in recognition of the adjacent wilderness. Nonetheless, I believe it is entirely reasonable that the public be able to use some type of unobtrusive people-mover, tram, bicycles, or whatever to see sites that they have purchased.
Currently, Plum Orchard and these historic sites are really only accessible to 18-year-olds with backpacks, and not to seniors and not to parents with young children in tow, since you have to walk to get to them. Historic sites lose their value, as you know, if they cannot be viewed and studied and enjoyed by the general public.
This kind of access was clearly part of the original intent for the island, both when it was established as a national seashore and a decade later when wilderness was added. In fact, page 38, of the Park's General Management Plan, written in 1984 after the wilderness designation, states that, ''transportation will be needed to carry visitors between Sea Camp Dock and Plum Orchard Mansion. A motorized vehicle with a capacity of 12 persons will be adequate.'' which is in the submission.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is unfortunate that the settlements at Rayfield and Half Moon Bluff, which include the African-American settlements, were not similarly provided for. In all, the cherry stem of the main road amounts to a deletion of about 34 acres from the wilderness or potential wilderness.
Also at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the presence of former Representative Bill Stuckey of Georgia. He is the sponsor of the original Cumberland Island legislation and has presented a letter today which addresses the original Congressional intent for the island. I'll submit that for the record.
The third major provision adds approximately 200 acres to the Cumberland Island Wilderness Area. The proposed addition located on the high grounds south of Dungeness would extend the protection of the Wilderness Act to an important habitat for migratory birds and other wildlifes. We are unaware of any significant, non-conforming uses of the area. It excludes the Army Corps of Engineers dredge spoil areas, recognizes primitive wilderness character and its particular value as wildlife habitat, and believe it is appropriate to be added to the wilderness area.
Finally, the bill enables another expansion of the wilderness on the island via a potential land exchange. About 1,100 acres of private land across the center of the island known as the Greyfield Tract is being sold. A private family which currently lives on the north end of Cumberland has offered to purchase the Greyfield Tract, then donate it to the Federal Government in order to add it to the wilderness area. In return, they want to regain ownership of a smaller piece of land at the north end, a part of the High Point Historic District. Their houses are located here, and the family has resided in this location since 1929. It is partly due to their good stewardship, generosity, and vision that a part of Cumberland Island at High Point was included in the Seashore to begin with.
The exact terms of this purchase have been under negotiation between the purchasers and the Park Service for several months. This bill does not order an agreement; it does not even encourage it. It simply says that if the purchasers and the Park Service come to a written agreement, then it may be executed under the terms of the agreement. It is certain that the agreement would contain clear restrictions on the use of the land at the north end.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, they would not be able to develop it or harm the environment in any way, or sell it to somebody who might do the same. The public gains the assurance that the Greyfield Tract will not be bought by individuals seeking to develop it. The High Point Historic Area would enter into a kind of public-private partnership, ensuring its preservation at no cost to the taxpayers, and the government would assume ownership of the tract and would add it to the wilderness area, and save in the process over $17 million to the taxpayers.
I have been very pleased over the last year or so that a productive dialogue has been developed by all parties interested in Cumberland Island. Because of this, much of this dialogue has been focused on making recommendations to the National Parks Service as it begins to draft its Wilderness Management Plan for the island. But it has become apparent that some of the administrative challenges and problems are beyond the scope and the authority of the Wilderness Management Plan to fix. In fact, I would venture to say that these problems were among the biggest reasons for the 16-year delay in beginning the Wilderness Management Plan.
Most of the ideas embodied in this bill were inspired by these meetings. I've visited the island three different times and talked to countless groups. Our door has been wide open to try to get a consensus on this. Unfortunately, it's very difficult with so many dynamic people with so many strong opinions on what should happen.
The Wilderness Designation of 1982 forced wilderness beyond the areas where it was appropriate on the island. The first page of the Senate report to Senate Bill 2569 in 1982, admits that Congress did not even have a copy of the National Park Service study or report to determine which areas were appropriate for wilderness.
Mr. HANSEN. Would the gentleman wind this up pretty fast, if you would, please? We're really under tight——
Mr. KINGSTON. Excuse me?
Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] time constraints this morning.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I'm about finished.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. KINGSTON. If the chairman says the time is expired, then I notice, with coincidence, that that is the end of my testimony——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kingston follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
I would like to thank Chairman Hansen, Ranking Minority Member Faleomavaega, and all the members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today on the Cumberland Island Preservation Act.
The legislation has four main parts. First, it authorizes funds for historic preservation. Cumberland Island contains five historic districts and many other historic sites, structures, and archeological districts cited on the National Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, several of these sites have no been properly maintained. Some have already been lost due to lack of needed maintenance. Others, though, while in serious need of stabilization and restoration, are certainly not beyond the point where preservation is no longer feasible. Plum Orchard is one such site. This house has deteriorated badly since the Park Service took responsibility for its maintenance. The pictures in your packets show the mansion's decline over the last four decades. As you can see, the structure has deteriorated significantly. This inside of the house is equally alarming in places. I have seen problems such as substantial water damage and growing fissures through the floor in the east wing. The separation of the floor here is being monitored with sensor devices. This bill authorizes the appropriation of funds to repair this house.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second main provision of the bill deals with the treatment of the Main Road, also known as ''Grand Avenue.'' The length of the Main Road as it is specified on the National Register of Historic Places was designated partly as wilderness and partly as ''potential wilderness'' by the 1982 Act which established wilderness on Cumberland. H.R. 4144 would ''cherry stem'' (or remove the wilderness overlay from) the Main Road.
Designating the Main Road as wilderness created several problems on Cumberland. For one—besides the fact that a road itself is not usually considered a site where the imprint of man's work is substantially unnoticeable (wilderness)—it sets up a conflicting directive on the National Park Service (NPS) to, on one hand, presence it as a historic resource but on the other hand manage it as a wilderness area which should revert back to a natural state. These competing mandates were recognized and criticized at the time by both the Department of Interior and President Reagan. The problem, however, was not resolved in the legislation. Secondly, the continued existence and use of the Main Road is certainly important if not vital to the administration of the island—particularly for the purposes of repairing and maintaining the historic sites along the road. Finally, this provision gives the NPS the flexibility to allow greater public access to the historic sites along the road, such as Plum Orchard, Rayfield, and Half Moon Bluff. The bill does include a specific provision which retains the Park Service's authority to place reasonable restrictions on the road's use in recognition of the adjacent wilderness. Nonetheless, I believe it is entirely reasonable that the public be able to use some type of unobtrusive people-mover, tram, bicycles, etc. to see these sites that they have purchased. Historic sites lose some of their value if they cannot be viewed, studied, and enjoyed.
This kind of access was clearly a part of the original intent for the island both when it was established as a National Seashore and a decade later when wilderness was added. In fact, page 38 of the park's General Management Plan (written in 1984 after the designation of wilderness) states that, ''Transportation will be needed to carry visitors between Sea Camp dock and Plum Orchard Mansion. . . . a motorized vehicle with a capacity of 12 persons will be adequate.'' It is unfortunate that the settlements at Rayfield and Half Moon Bluff were not similarly provided for. In all, the cherry stem of the ain Road amounts to a deletion of about 34 acres from wilderness or potential wilderness.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The third major provision adds approximately 200 acres to the Cumberland Island Wilderness Area. The proposed addition, located on the high ground south of Dungeness, would extend the protection of the Wilderness Act to an important habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. We are unaware of any significant, non-conforming uses of the area (it excludes the Army Corps of Engineers dredge spoils areas), recognize its primitive wilderness character and its particular value as wildlife habitat, and believe it is appropriate to add the protection of the Wilderness Act to this area.
Finally, the bill enables another expansion of wilderness on the island via a potential land exchange. About 1100 acres of private land across the center of the island, known as the Greyfield Tract, is being sold. A second private family, which currently lives on the north end of Cumberland, has offered to purchase the Greyfield Tract and then donate it to the Federal Government in order to add it to the Wilderness Area. In return, they want to regain ownership of the smaller piece of land at the north end, a part of the High Point historic district. Their houses are located here, and the family has resided in this location since the 1920's. It is partly due to their good stewardship, generosity, and vision of a protected Cumberland Island that High Point was included in the Seashore to begin with.
The exact terms of this purchase have been under negotiation between the purchasers and the Park Service for several months. This bill does not order an agreement; it does not even encourage it. It simply says that if the purchasers and the Park Service come to a written agreement, then it may be executed per the terms of the agreement. It is certain that the agreement would contain clear restrictions of the use of the land at the north end. It is also my understanding that the purchasing family has a significant charitable intent, meaning that they are willing to receive less than the value of the money they put toward the purchase of the Greyfield Tract. The public gains the assurance that Greyfield will not be bought by individuals seeking to develop it (presuming that were possible), the High Point historic area would enter into a kind of private-public partnership ensuring its preservation at no cost to the taxpayers, the government would assume ownership of the tract and would add it to the wilderness area, and over $17 million tax dollars would be saved.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have been very pleased over the last year or so as a productive dialogue has developed among all of the parties interested in Cumberland Island. Because much of this dialogue has been focused on making recommendations to the NPS as it begins to draft its Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) for the island, it has become apparent that some of the administrative challenges and problems are beyond the scope or authority of the WMP to fix. In fact, I would venture to say that these problems were among the biggest reasons for the 16 year delay in beginning a WMP for the island. Most of the ideas embodied in this bill were inspired by the meetings, the forums, and the conversations I have taken part in with these groups as an effort to ''clean up the stage'' so to speak for the WMP. The wilderness legislation of 1982 forced wilderness beyond the areas where it was appropriate on the island. The first page of Senate report to accompany S. 2569 in 1982 admits that Congress did not even yet have a copy of the National Park Service's study and report which was to determine what areas were appropriate for wilderness designation when the wilderness legislation was written. As it stands, the NPS is faced with daunting administrative challenges.
Cumberland Island is full of important resources: wilderness, national historic sites, cultural resources, wildlife habitat, prehistoric sites, and educational and recreational opportunity. The protection and enjoyment of the various types of resources do not have to be at odds with one another. Unfortunately, as I have explained, current law directly pits these resources and values against each other. This has been the root of much of the controversy on Cumberland Island over the years. This bill is intended to restore a balance—to recognize that environmental protection, historic preservation, and public appreciation can coexist if the law does not so directly encourage their competition.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 52 TO 84 HERE
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. This is one of those days when we've got some very important bills, and we've only got a few more days left in legislation. And we'd like to act on every bill that's before us today and get them out if we could.
So, Mr. Hill, we'll recognize you for 5 minutes; please don't take it all.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to thank the panelists that will be appearing here on my bill.
The purpose of the hearing on my bill, which is—whatever the number of it is here—is for the purpose of examining the process of selling 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir; and also to examine what the potential benefits from the sale of those cabin sites would be; and also to have a discussion of what the appropriate use of the proceeds from the sale of those cabin sites would be.
There is great consensus in Montana about the need to move forward with this. Governor Marc Racicot has written to the Committee and publicly urged support for the sale of these cabin sites. All members of the Montana congressional delegation—Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, and myself—have reached consensus about the need to move forward to offer these cabin owners the opportunity to buy these sites.
Also, I think there's general belief that we need to expand the opportunities for recreation and for conservation, both at Canyon Ferry Reservoir, as well as upstream along the Missouri River and the tributaries of the Missouri River which are very valuable habitat for spawning purposes.
Also, it's time for us to address the broken promises. When Canyon Ferry Reservoir was created, there were promises to the people of Broadwater County, on the south end of the reservoir that they would have enhanced recreation and also enhanced economic opportunities as a consequence of the creation of the reservoir. Those promises have largely gone unbroken, Mr. Chairman, and we need to address those in the legislation.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, there are issues with regard to life safety at the south end of the lake which is very exposed to some very dramatic weather conditions at times has created a serious problem for those who would like to recreate at that end of the lake.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for us to have a hearing, and I hope I have not consumed more than 5 minutes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Do any of the members of the Committee have any questions for our colleagues? If you have, keep them brief, would you?
[No response.]
Thank you. We appreciate the statements of our colleagues. And you're more than welcome to come up on the dais, if you would like to be here while your panel speaks.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you—Mr. Kingston.
Mr. KINGSTON. Could I have unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks?
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered. And all of your full statements will be included in the record. And thank you for your excellent testimony.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. HANSEN. Our first panel, if they would come up: Eluid Martinez, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation; Tom Fry, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management; and Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director at Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service—if they'd all come up, please.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know all these bills are important, and I know your testimony is very important, but let me just say, without objection, your full testimony will be included in the record. We want to move on as many of these bills as possible and get them through, so we would like to hear the testimony from the administration.
Mr. Martinez, it's always a pleasure to have you with us. We'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY LARRY TODD, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, GREAT PLAINS REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, good morning.
I'm pleased to provide the administration's views on H.R. 3963. My testimony, in detail, has been submitted for the record. I will summarize my statements.
Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Reclamation supports efforts to improve public access to rivers and lakes throughout its projects at Westwide. However, H.R. 3963 would grant exclusive private use of lakefront property at Canyon Ferry Reservoir to a few beneficiaries. It could foreclose future use of land for project or other purposes, and could lead to the loss of future Federal receipts.
This bill also would make management of the facilities and land at Canyon Ferry more difficult for the Bureau of Reclamation and without reducing the need for future appropriations to Bureau of Reclamation for management of this project.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3963 is unclear on several political questions of intent and procedure.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, given that Reclamation and the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association recently agreed on a key controversial issue concerning rental fees, the administration does not believe that there is a need for this legislation at this time.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am aware of Congressman Hill's concerns, and I believe that most of those concerns can be addressed upon completion of a Resource Management Plan that the Bureau of Reclamation is undertaking at Canyon Ferry.
For these reasons, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 3963.
This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Commissioner, does that do it?
Mr. MARTINEZ. That's it—quick and short.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fry.
STATEMENT OF TOM FRY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. FRY. I'll accept the Commissioner's challenge.
[Laughter.]
I'm here to testify today on two bills, Mr. Chairman, the first being the Otay Wilderness bill, H.R. 3950. First off, I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of the many organizations in the San Diego area, and Congressman Bilbray for their fine effort in bringing this bill forward. The area is an outstanding area of wilderness. The flora, the fauna, and the geologic and biological resources there are extraordinary.
We are also, though, aware of the many unique management challenges that are presented in the Otay Mountains. There is drug interdiction, border patrol, fire problems, and numerous undocumented immigrants.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And even based on these concerns, the administration, along with the Justice Department, still supports this bill if the bill will remove section 6(b) which allows for certain exclusions to the wilderness designation.
We believe that the current 1964 Wilderness Act allows for emergencies to protect public health and safety, and we would like to further acknowledge that we are already managing this area as a wilderness study area.
We will be more than happy, though, to work with the Committee if the Committee feels that additional border enforcement, drug interdiction and wildland fire protection language is necessary in order to recognize the unique nature of this area and can develop language with the Committee that we think will be acceptable to both the Committee, Congressman Bilbray, and the administration.
Very briefly, because of the unique nature of this area, we would also like for the Committee to consider designating the Otay Mountains as part of a national conservation area. The advantages of a national conservation area over wilderness, provide for a more flexible management of the tract. It might mean that we would have portions of the Otay mountains that would be wilderness and others areas where we could make sure that all the law enforcement and fire needs were accommodated.
I would like to point out that one of the things that we're most pleased about the bill—and we have a map right up here—is that it does exclude from the proposed wilderness area those areas that are now currently being used by fire and law enforcement people for drug interdiction and law enforcement. So, we're pleased about that portion of the bill, and we do support this bill, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fry may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fry.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Katherine Stevenson.
Do you have additional testimony?
Mr. FRY. I have one other bill if——
Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Go right ahead.
Mr. FRY. That's OK.
Mr. HANSEN. I apologize.
Mr. FRY. The second bill I'd like to testify on is the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Boundary bill. Let's see if we can take care of some of these heinous problems, Mr. Chairman.
This year has begun a new era of cooperation on lands in Utah. In a recent hearing here with you, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary agreed to consider technical boundary changes and adjustments to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
While we don't believe these changes are needed, in the spirit of cooperation, we are pledged to support the changes that are recommended in this bill.
I want to commend the Committee and the Committee staff, and the BLM staff for working together to come to an agreement on these possible technical changes. And I commend their efforts. These technical changes will benefit local communities, schools, and transfer Federal land to the Kodachrome State Park.
We do have one suggested change to H.R. 4287. We have noticed that the utility corridor proposed in the bill probably extends much farther than the BLM land, and would ask that the language be changed to make sure that it is clear that the utility corridor suggested in the bill will only apply to BLM land.
We are most pleased that the Upper Valley Oil Field will still be in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. This helps us fulfill the President's commitment to continuing and to supporting existing rights within the monument.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for setting the tone of cooperation that's made it possible for us all to support H.R. 4287.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fry may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Well, the Committee thanks the BLM for the cooperation they've shown on that legislation. We appreciate it.
Mr. FRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Katherine Stevenson.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on four bills this morning. The first one is H.R. 2125, New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. The bill, as you know, has two purposes—to increase the authorization for appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, and to extend the NPS authority to participate in the trail for an additional 5 years.
We support enactment in the bill. Since 1988, with the passage of the law authorizing this site, the NPS has been working cooperatively with the State of New Jersey, the Pinelands Commission, and other partners to design and implement a comprehensive plan for this reticular tour route. There are five interpretive themes that link natural and cultural resources over 300 miles of coastal New Jersey. This legislation would allow the NPS to continue the implementation of the plan in cooperation with our State partners.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. STEVENSON. H.R. 4144, Cumberland Island National Historic Site—the Department opposes this bill because it would undermine the progress already being made to develop a consensus on the Wilderness Management Plan. For the last 15 months, the Park Service has been engaged in a collaborative effort to gain a consensus with the retained rights holders, landowners, visitors, and others interested in the natural and cultural resources of the island. Much progress has been made, and we commend the commitment of all those groups to the process and to the island's preservation. And we want to continue that very successful process.
First, we oppose the provisions of the bill that remove any land or roads designated as wilderness or potential wilderness. Second, we believe that the deeds negotiated with the retained rights owners were drawn in good faith by both parties and should continue to be respected. Further, we recognize the challenges to visitor access and use at Plum Orchard within the wilderness designation. However, the Act establishing the Cumberland Island wilderness explicitly directed the Secretary to develop guidelines within these restrictions. We are preparing these guidelines and are hopeful that the Wilderness Management Plan will define some manageable solutions.
When the plan is complete, we will again explore historic property leasing for Plum Orchard within the new Wilderness Management Plan, and we anticipate a felicitous conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, we are making progress in these matters. We would like to continue the collaborative effort prior to any legislative solution.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at end of hearing.]
Ms. STEVENSON. H.R. 4211, which is a bill to establish the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site—we support the concept of establishing the site. We have some suggested changes to improve the language and will be pleased to work with the Committee to that end.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you have heard, at the request of Congressman Bob Riley and the university, with funds graciously made available by the State of Alabama, the Park Service conducted a special resource study. Extensive public input was sought, received, and incorporated into the study, as were the views of the Tuskegee University and many representatives of the Tuskegee Airmen. We have completed a draft and summary of the study and expect to transmit those to the Committee soon.
Our findings indicate that the Tuskegee Airmen site at Moton Field and Tuskegee meets the criteria for inclusion into the system, and we recommend its designation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at end of hearing.]
Ms. STEVENSON. Finally, the Department supports H.R. 4230, which would allow the El Portal Administrative Site to transfer a Federal site to a private individual, approximately eight acres of land within El Portal Administrative Site.
The NPS would, thus, be able to establish an entrance station here in El Portal and close the Arch Rock entrance station, currently part of a traffic nightmare.
Our concern with this bill is that the government should receive actual equal value for the land it exchanges rather than a statutory declaration of equal value. We understand that the owner is willing to work with the NPS to assure an equal value exchange. We would like to pursue that, and we'd be happy to work with the Committee on this language change.
This concludes our statements, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Do members of the Committee or our two guests, Mr. Bilbray or Mr. Riley, have any questions for this panel?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentleman from American Samoa?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, with seven pieces of legislation, you get to wonder where to start.
[Laughter.]
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But I would like to commend our colleagues for their testimony, and I think it's quite clear some of the suggestions that have been offered by the representatives of the administration—and I'm sure that we can work some of these pieces of legislation out for markup and for consideration by the full Committee.
My only suggestion to the gentleman from Montana, concerning the Canyon Ferry Reservoir, I just wanted to ask him if he could elaborate a little further, and maybe even from our friend from the Bureau of Land Management. There was a promise given to these people about the reservoir, and I just wanted to ask our friend from the administration, can you respond to that statement made by my friend from Montana? A promise was given about the use of this reservoir, and apparently that has not been kept? Can you elaborate on this, Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I'm not aware of a promise, but if I may, the issue of recreation on leased sites on Bureau of Reclamation of Westwide is an issue that we're turning our attention to.
In this particular situation, we've got 265 cabin lease sites. We are now doing a resource management study that I understand is to be completed in 1999, that has on the table whether the administration should or should not divest itself of these lease lots.
My recommendation is to await that study to come to completion, because our issues that have to be resolved is to who is going to maintain the facilities? Where is the money going to go to? How are the operations of the project going to be after conveyance, if that takes place?
Some of these issues need to be addressed; I think this bill is premature.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Martinez, I hope this study is not going to last another 100 years. You said that the study is going to be completed by next year?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I'm advised by the end of 1999.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. Was the understanding that the promise to be used for this reservoir was to be for public use and not for private use?
Mr. MARTINEZ. The project, as I understand, has multiple purposes including recreation. Now the Bureau of Reclamation—from my perspective, we should maintain public use. However, we have leased lots, and in some cases it might make in the best interests to divest ourselves of those lots. And this study will indicate which lots, and under what conditions.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the land in question is federally owned?
Mr. MARTINEZ. It is federally owned.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Any other members of the Committee? Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martinez, you've indicated in your testimony, of course, that this legislation is not necessary. Obviously, for all these organizations that are here testifying on the other side, I don't think they would agree with you about that.
They maintain that there's an overcrowding at the lake, and the Bureau has done little to alleviate that. They will allege that the Bureau does not work in good faith with the cabin owners; that it has failed to work in good faith with the local government. In fact, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association began their efforts with regard to these lots in 1968, with then Senator Mansfield.
Can you detail for me the relationship the Bureau has had over the life of these cabin sites and with the cabin owners?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. I'll be glad to provide that for the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. MARTINEZ. But let me give you from my perspective. I have read some of the material on that, and as I understand there's been one or two incidents where congressional efforts have been made to transfer these lease lots to private ownership.
Where I became involved in this was when I became Commissioner of Reclamation a couple of years ago. This land had been managed by the State of Montana under agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. They turned it back over to the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Reclamation is required by law——
Mr. HILL. When did they turn those back, Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. 1993.
Mr. HILL. 1993, and now we're suggesting that we're going to do a management plan by 1999?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Well——
Mr. HILL. What's happened since 1993 with regard to the development of a management plan?
Mr. MARTINEZ. If I may, I have Larry Todd here, which is the Regional Director, that I think is more familiar with those issues. Assistant Acting Regional Director—I might have him respond to that particular question for me.
Mr. HANSEN. Would you identify yourself for the record, please?
Mr. TODD. Larry Todd.
The State of Montana turned the area back for management in about 1993. Since then, the Bureau of Reclamation has put a lot of money into refurbishing the recreation areas in and around the lake—changing well sites, replacing restrooms, painting, upgrading the facilities, those types of things.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. But has there been any effort to upgrade the management plan? To do a new management plan?
Mr. TODD. The State had drafted a management plan, and we had worked with them on that——
Mr. HILL. My point, though, is, and what I'm leading up to is that the suggested testimony is that we should wait until the management plan is going to be completed in 1999. I believe that now the interest in developing a management plan is substantially a consequence of the fact that the congressional delegation has said, ''We want to move forward with selling these lots and pressing forward with some improvements at the lake.''
I guess my point simply is that this project has been here for 50 years or there about, and there's been little done on the part of BOR to develop a long-term plan to create recreational opportunities at the south end of the lake.
Eighty percent of this facility rests in Broadwater County. If you've read the testimony of the people from Broadwater County, they gave up almost all the land that went under this lake, and they were made promises about economic benefits and offsetting economic benefits. I've seen little or nothing from the BOR to indicate that they have any commitment, or at least to date of any commitment, to follow through on that commitment.
Let me just ask you another question. What's the primary mission of the Canyon Ferry Reservoir? What is its primary mission?
Mr. TODD. There's six functions—power generation, irrigation, municipal and industrial water use, recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control.
Mr. HILL. Have the cabin owners ever interfered with that mission, accomplishment of that mission?
Mr. TODD. They certainly have influence, as the rest of the public does, in the operation of those——
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. But have they ever interfered with accomplishment of that mission to your knowledge?
Mr. TODD. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. HILL. How many acres of shoreline does the Bureau manage at Canyon Ferry Lake?
Mr. TODD. I'm not sure about the full miles of the shoreline. Certainly, the cabins areas are about nine miles of shoreline.
Mr. HILL. But how many acres do they represent?
Mr. TODD. Probably less than 300.
Mr. HILL. And how many acres of shoreline does the public have access to now? Can you tell me?
Mr. TODD. No I can't, but it's certainly many more that nine.
Mr. HILL. Do you know that my bill doesn't convey one inch of shoreline to private use? Did you know that?
Mr. TODD. Yes, yes.
Mr. HILL. So this bill, if it passed, wouldn't deny public access to one inch of shoreline on Canyon Ferry Reservoir; is that correct?
Mr. TODD. Yes, that's true.
Mr. HILL. And would you agree that public access will not be decreased, then, as a consequence of my legislation?
Mr. TODD. Well, your legislation does give permit for docks and other access to the shoreline, and that is where we will have some problem, potentially, in the future for public access.
Mr. HILL. But it doesn't deny public use of any of the shoreline, does it?
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TODD. The bill, itself, does not; no.
Mr. HILL. OK. And in the testimony of BOR, you indicated that there's overcrowded recreational facilities at Canyon Ferry, and that's certainly true. Campgrounds are overcrowded in some of the areas, particularly at the north end. Do you charge overnight camping fees on those site, do you know?
Mr. TODD. There is camping fees charged in some of these campgrounds.
Mr. HILL. And are those used for any of the overhead of the operation of the facility or any facility improvement today?
Mr. TODD. When the State of Montana managed it, they did use it for some of their management, but the Bureau of Reclamation does not——
Mr. HILL. But you do not?
Mr. TODD. That goes back to the Treasury.
Mr. HILL. What has the Bureau done since it took over in 1993 to reduce overcrowding at the lake?
Mr. TODD. Well, as I've said, we've focused on upgrading the campground facilities, and we have basically put the Resource Management Plan on hold so that we could get those things upgraded. Now we're focused back on the Resource Management Plan since we have upgraded the facilities.
Mr. HILL. One last question, if I could?
Mr. HANSEN. Last question.
Mr. HILL. Would you agree, just in general, that it would be wise for us to try to improve the safety and disperse the people that are using the lake? And enhance visitor enjoyment by improving the facilities at the south end of the lake? Would you agree with that statement in general?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TODD. Yes, I would.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. If I may, in just closing, there's two issues that have been raised here. An issue on how the Bureau of Reclamation manages recreation at Canyon Ferry. And it's interesting the Bureau of Reclamation is getting more and more involved in recreation in these issues. But I think the point I want to leave with you is that this bill, as drafted, has some problems. One, is to whether in the fact it is really the intent of this Committee to provide a select a few beneficiaries to benefit of acquisition of those sites. And if it does, the bill has some questions that need to be answered as to who is going to pay or maintenance of roads. Who is going to—what the Federal involvement will be once it divests of these lots.
My recommendation to the Committee is that this bill is premature right now. I'm not closed to conveying selected lots, but let us finish this Resource Management Plan. I commit to you that this will be finished by 1999. We will engage with the delegation; we will engage with the State, and with the Canyon Ferry Reservoirs Association to bring this to closure.
Thank you.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. You're recognized your own time.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh. Just a quick question to Mr. Martinez. The concerns raised earlier by the gentleman from Montana, will those issues be addressed at this ongoing management study done by the Bureau of Reclamation for next year?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. I commit that they will.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK; thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. You know, this panel has got a lot of interesting questions we could ask. It's unfortunate today we can't do that.
But Mr. Fry, I've just got to ask you something about this bill of Mr. Bilbray's. I know that BLM doesn't like section 6(b), and because you like to keep a pure wilderness approach to things. But the way Mr. Bilbray has this drafted, what kind of heartburn would it give you with leaving it as is, when you know you're going to have helicopters interdicting people with drug or illegal aliens coming in? You would rather, if I read your testimony right, you would rather go to the point of turning it in to a conservation area, is that right?
Mr. FRY. I'm sorry, but the last part of your question—we didn't what?
Mr. HILL. Well, on page 4 of your testimony, you notice the potential conflict between wilderness in the conservation area and the problem that the bill would present, because this is a place where you have drug runners and you have illegal aliens coming across there. Put it in wilderness, it's kind of like the California Protection Bill. What do we do to keep adequate protection from these illegal activities when we stick something in wilderness which they don't observe, but you have to observe?
And I'm sure that there may be a simple answer to this, but I'm glad to see the BLM believes that conservation areas are another designation and wilderness isn't a big catch-all that answers everybody's question. It's kind of am ambiguous question to you, but I would hope you'd give it some thought.
Mr. MARTINEZ. We will give it some thought and very quickly respond and say that it is important that the Congressman's bill does exclude those areas where current law enforcement activities are taking place, where sensing devices and those kinds of things take place.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are concerned, as the Congressman mentioned, about the precedence setting nature. We do think that there is some language that both this Committee and the administration could live with, which would recognize the unique challenges in that area.
Mr. HANSEN. Using the reverse logic, as on Mr. Cannon's bill of San Raphael Swell, in this area, Mr. Cannon has agreed with the environmentalists on every issue but one; it's called Sids Mountain, and because the people of the west feel that the bighorn sheep population is very important. They want to allow helicopters to come in their roads to be there.
I would hope the administration would not just in a trivial manner pass that off, because basically the compromise has all been on the part of Mr. Cannon. He's agreed maybe 90 percent with everything the environmental community wants.
I would hope that you would come up here with resounding support for it, realizing that there's no reason why you couldn't take care of a bighorn sheep population——
Mr. FRY. Well something like that——
Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] and that a conservation area does have some worthy components to it, also.
Mr. FRY. Absolutely. We will give a very serious considerations of those suggestions.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Bilbray, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, what my concern is, is that we do not sort of write off the entire border region from the potential opportunity to be able to take advantage of the wilderness designation.
Now the problem is, is that we do have in parts of this country, areas where dishonest people will look for the lack of Federal law enforcement activity as an opportunity to move in and fill the vacuum. And even—you know, I don't know if people understand this, but even with the way we drove through this with the cherry stems. The fact that that trail at the bottom is actually one that's been cut through for horse trails for enforcement along our borders is a good example, that it's gotten to this point.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we don't want to create is a strong, open signal to certain elements of our society that, look, see the areas in between those red boundaries or cherry stems? That's open season for you; nothing at all will be put there. There will be no detection; they'll be no interdiction. Don't worry, this is a safe zone.
And I think that that's what I'm trying to do with my legislation is say, for preservation and for protection, we'll have this enforcement. But, we want to send a strong message to those people that would take advantage of this type of legislation—don't think it's a safe zone for you. There will always be the ability to step in and bust you if you try to do certain illegal activities in these wilderness areas. That's what we're trying to do. If we don't, we would just in effect say the entire border area from Brownsville through Big Bend, all the way through New Mexico and Arizona, is totally devoid of being able to take advantage of the wilderness option. This shouldn't automatically be the case, so that's, I think, what we can work out with H.R. 3950.
Mr. HANSEN. That would be the redeeming feature of your bill, if I may say.
The gentlelady from Virgin Islands is next.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question, but I've heard a lot about the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument since coming here, and I'm glad to see that that issue is resolved. That I'm sure that if we could resolve that issue, we can resolve some of the other ones. But I'm glad to see that we've been able to resolve it.
The question that I have is for Associate Director Stevenson. There's an article that appeared in yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution, written by Mr. Gregory Paxton, of the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, who will be testifying later, at which it suggested that the Dungeness Guest House that we have pictures of in our packet is in ruins because it's in a wilderness area. And, also, it claims that the Plum Orchard is falling into despair because it's in a wilderness area, and they can't get to it to provide maintenance. And I wanted you to have an opportunity to respond to that.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. STEVENSON. The National Park Service realizes that we have a commitment to preserve our historic structures. In fact, I'm the Associate Director for Cultural Resources, in addition to Partnerships. The wilderness designation causes us to have to work very closely with other groups in order to figure out solutions for being able to meet our dual-responsibilities to wilderness and to resource preservation, in terms of cultural resources.
At Plum Orchard, as soon as the Wilderness Management Plan is finished, we are hopeful that we'll be able to go out with an historic property lease. And that—assuming that we get some good responses to that, and we hope we will—we feel that we'll be able to do work on that property that will bring it back up to a maintainable standard.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. OK, thank you. But the Dungeness House is in a wilderness area?
Ms. STEVENSON. No, it's not.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. OK; thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of brief—well, one brief comment and one brief question.
First, on my bill, as discussed by Ms. Stevenson, regarding transfer station or an entrance station at El Portal, and a land exchange for that, the issue was mentioned that the land exchange would occur at fair value, and just for the sake of the record, the appraisals are in process right now. It is the intent of the private property owner who is here—where Mr. Fischer will later testify the desire for equal value depending on the outcome of the appraisal, so I just wanted to mention that for the record.
But I also had a statement regarding Mr. Bilbray's bill regarding—and I thought it was Otay—excuse me, but I thought maybe Eddie Murphy would be here testifying on behalf of this wilderness.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter.]
But it's Otay, and I was a little bit disappointed. Mr. Fry, I don't have the map here, and thank you.
My question is, given the nature of the area, its proximity to the border, the problems of fire protection, drug interdiction, and border patrol concerns, is it your desire to maybe have this in wilderness with no access whatsoever to resolve these issues in the problem?
Mr. FRY. No, sir. Congressman, we think that the Wilderness Act allows for emergency situations. And certainly, we think that a fire is an emergency situation. We have lots of times when we go into wilderness areas to deal with fire. Certainly, public safety can be another emergency situation, and if there are activities that are going on in the land that are illegal, we think those constitute emergencies, and we think the Wilderness Act allows for those kinds of things to take place.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, then, Mr. Fry, can you elaborate, then, on what the administration is willing to compromise in order to make this thing happen? Because it seems to me that the choice is the lack of wilderness designation for the area, and that's something that nobody wants, I don't think.
Mr. FRY. Because of this concern, that's why we suggested the possibility of a national conservation area. You could take an area that is a little bit larger than this area moving to the east and to the north. You might have—if you look at the map over there, you'll see what I'll call three different sections.
In the southern section that's closest to the border, might possibly be an area that's not designated as wilderness, but have some special management features. You then might include those two top sections as areas that are wilderness. So, it would look like to us that may be a solution to this concern about how the land would be used and what would go on on the land. We could solve that with a national conservation area.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We did, though, come here today in support of the bill as a wilderness bill.
Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. One further question for the administration panel, and that is Mr. Hill from Montana.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martinez, as you know, there's a Senate bill that's been introduced on turn over of these cabin sites, Senate bill 1913. Does the administration support that bill? Could you advise me?
Mr. MARTINEZ. It's my understanding we do not support that bill.
Mr. HILL. And one last point, are there any features in that—and I would just ask you to submit this for the record—any features of that bill as of contrasted with the House version that you prefer? I would appreciate having your comments about that.
Mr. MARTINEZ. We will provide that for the record, and we'll get in touch with you.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. We thank the panel. We look forward to sending you some written questions. We would hope you could answer them for us.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Our second panel is Thomas A. Budewitz—if I'm saying that right—Bob Robinson, Virgil Binkley, Darrell Knuffke, and Jerry Fischer.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from James Durrett, the chief operating officer of the Georgia Conservancy, be made part of the record with reference to H.R. 4144.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Montana.
Mr. HILL. I would just ask unanimous consent that letters from Governor Marc Racicot and Senator Conrad Burns, as well as testimony from Jim Posowitts of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association be entered into the record with regard to my bill.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate you gentlemen being with us. I know you've come a long way, and your testimony is very important to us, and you know we have a few little problems there.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And we'll start with the gentleman from Montana. How do you pronounce that?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUDEWITZ, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA
Mr. BUDEWITZ. Budewitz.
Mr. HANSEN. Budewitz; pretty close. We'll start with you, sir. If you want to pull that mike over close to you so we can pick up everything you say, we'd appreciate it. And you know the rules.
Mr. BUDEWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Tom Budewitz; I'm here representing Broadwater County, and particularly the Broadwater County commissioners. The commissioners support the concept of making the cabin sites available for purchase. Our interest is in the allocation of the proceeds of the cabin site sales and the make-up of any entity formed to control the expenditure of those funds.
The creation of Canyon Ferry Reservoir in the early 1950's resulted in the loss of 36 family farms. They're now covered with as much as 75 feet of water. The loss of those farms displaced 36 productive families, destroyed thousands of acres of the richest soil in the county, and permanently removed all of those acres from the county tax rolls.
For many years, the creation of the reservoir resulted in a literal dust bowl near the south entrance to the lake and made the city of Townsend the dustiest city in the State. That problem was finally mitigated approximately 20 years ago with a dust abatement project and creation of a wildlife management area just outside the city of Townsend, at the south end of the lake.
Despite repeated promises, beginning even before construction of the dam and reservoir, that Broadwater County would be provided financial and other economic assistance to replace its losses. There has been virtually no help from the Federal Government to mitigate the adverse economic impacts resulting from the loss of those farms.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A quick glance at a map of the area is instructive. Nearly 80 percent of the lake lies within Broadwater County, yet less than 20 percent of the camping, boating, and other recreational areas at the lake are in the county. The other 80 percent are at the north end in Lewis and Clark County. A Townsend resident—Townsend being the county seat of Broadwater county and lying less than a mile from the south end of the lake—has to drive 30 miles to the nearest marina to tie up his boat, even though he can see the lake out his back window.
All 262 of these cabin sites are on the north end in Lewis and Clark County. If they are sold, they will return to the Lewis and Clark County tax base, and reduce the PILT funds expended annually by the Federal Government. There will be no such impact in Broadwater county. There will be no increased tax revenue, and the PILT money intended to replace property tax revenues for Federal land pays only approximately 55 percent of the revenue that would be generated by taxes if the land were privately owned.
The Montana Wildlife Federation has opposed this bill and the accompanying Senate bill at several meetings that have been held in Montana. They insist that the money be used for the acquisition of other public property and to replace riparian wildlife area lost when the cabin sites become privately owned. The fact is that these cabin sites occupy a total of less than 150 acres. None of the cabin sites are actually waterfront property, and all of the waterfront—all of the shoreline, as Congressman Hill has pointed out—would remain available for use by the public. The money generated by these sales will be far more than necessary to replace these 150 acres with other public land.
Furthermore, the creation of the wildlife management area at the south end of the lake, a number of years ago, contains more created and contains more wildlife habitat than presently exists on the cabin sites—far more.
The Wildlife Federation has indicated no willingness to compromise and believe that their goals are the only properly recognized public goal; they're wrong. The public has a legitimate and recognizable interest in more than the acquisition of additional public land and access. In truth, as has been demonstrated historically, not only the government in general, but the particular agencies that are involved in the Canyon Ferry, have enough trouble managing the lands they have. The problem has always been that the government agencies involved at Canyon Ferry don't have enough money or are unwilling to spend enough money to properly maintain, improve, or operate existing facilities.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As Commissioner Martinez' statement reflects, the Canyon Ferry area is at times overcrowded. In fact, the Broadwater County plan, which would be to spend most of the money for improvement of access at the southern end of the lake, would relieve and mitigate the overcrowding problem at the north end.
One of the issues that's been alluded to earlier, and specifically mentioned, Bureau of Reclamation now proposes that they want to do a study, a management plan, for the entire lake, I gather. In 1993, there was, in fact, a draft management plan—draft management and environmental assessment that was prepared at the instance of Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and the State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. That plan died. Congressman Williams' bill in 1993, which called for a joint management by the State and the two interior agencies, died. Nothing has been able to be done in the past; we don't have any great confidence that anything will happen in the future. And we hope that the Committee will recommend the approval and passage of Congressman Hill's bill.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Budewitz may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Binkley.
Can we get a mike over in front of you, sir?
STATEMENT OF VIRGIL BINKLEY, PRESIDENT, BROADWATER ROD AND GUN CLUB, BOARD MEMBER, CANYON FERRY FISHING ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, BROADWATER STREAM AND LAKE COMMITTEE
Mr. BINKLEY. I'm Virgil Binkley; I represent the Canyon Ferry Fishing Association, the Broadwater Lake and Stream Committee, and the Broadwater Rod and Gun Club. We're out of Townsend, Montana.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our membership is in agreement with the sale of the cabin sites at the north end of the lake. We very much would like to have a portion of that money spent developing safe harbors for boating—particularly boating activity—and some habitat restoration in the local streams.
At present, the amount of boater recreation in Canyon Ferry, particularly on the north end, is going up quite rapidly. Of the places where you can get into on the north end of the lake, is Goose Bay, which is about 20 miles south, and we have a small place at Silos, which is probably 8 or 10 miles north. And if the wind comes up and we have violent weather, it's extremely difficult to get boats in and out, mainly because of dock space. You can only get two in at each time. And that gets to be a real struggle. People had their boats up on the beach, the waves going over the transoms, filling them with water, and it really presents a public safety issue. And we really would like to see, either through the sale of this land, some of the moneys being channeled in for that type of development, or some other means of financing places to excavate in the south end of the lake so we do have some safe places to take boats in and out of the water.
And with that, that's our position, as far as Congressman Hill's bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Binkley may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Binkley; appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Robinson.
STATEMENT OF BOB ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, CANYON FERRY RECREATION ASSOCIATION CABIN SITE ACQUISITION SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. We'd like to especially thank Congressman Hill for his attention to this issue and his work over the last few months, and literally over the last year, trying to find a solution that all of us in Montana can live with, with this particular issue.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill attempts to address a longtime problem that's been festering with the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association and the Bureau of Reclamation. In fact, our records go back to 1968, when the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association went to Senator Mansfield trying to get him to work with us to acquire these sites because of the difficulties in dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation at that time.
To capsulize, I can tell you that the Bureau of Reclamation's policy initially was to promote these cabin sites so that they could defend the construction of Canyon Ferry Reservoir as a multiple-use facility. It wasn't very long after those cabin sites were leased that the Bureau of Reclamation, then, took a policy of maybe we ought to eliminate those cabin sites. That's the time when the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association went to Senator Mansfield.
Subsequent to that, Montana's Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department managed the property, and there was kind of a hands-off approach by the Bureau of Reclamation. Since the Bureau of Reclamation has taken over here in the last few years, and especially since the Inspector General's report became public in 1995, when it reflected that—or asked the question, why hasn't the Bureau of Reclamation initiated its policy of removing the cabin sites from the lake, has this issue come to the surface again.
We think the Bureau of Reclamation has initiated that policy by forcing a significantly higher lease rate. Now back in the 1960's, lease rates were $25 a year, which was literally nothing, and that was done to meet the needs of Bureau of Reclamation. Those lease rates, on an annual basis, work their way up to $500, $600, $700. In the last couple of years, those lease rates have jumped up $2,500 to nearly $4,000 per year on an individual cabin site.
Basically, what's happening is that the people who own those cabins and lease those sites are being forced off the land, being forced to sell the cabin to somebody else who can afford it.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Canyon Ferry is unique in Montana in that those who own those cabins out there are generally from the southwestern Montana. They're not wealthy individuals; they are family members who have had those cabin sites for nearly 40 years. They're smelter workers; they're union electrical workers. There's teachers, there's government employees, there's a doctor, at least there's a few doctors around there. They're retired individuals, but the cross-section of the population in southwestern Montana is who owns those cabin sites. We have other lakes in Montana that are recreation facilities that you have wealthy, out-of-state owners buying up those sites and running up the prices, and running up the taxes. That's not happening at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. It is still a literally a neighborhood lake.
We have, we think, unanimous support amongst the Montana congressional delegation for the sale of these properties. We have unanimous support amongst local and State government, the recreation groups in the communities, the property owners themselves, for the sale.
The only dispute that arises related to this bill is the allocation of the proceeds from the sale, and that's where the rub comes between the Wilderness Federation and the various other interests—Broadwater County, Bureau of Reclamation, anybody else who has an interest in this.
Let me tell you a little bit about the lessees. There's 265 lessees and is characterized as giving a bill to benefit a few people. Well, these 265 leases have grandparents, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren now on these sites. In the case of our family, from my parents down to my grandchild, we're going to have 40 people that have an interest in this particular cabin site, and that's the same way with cabin sites all around the lake.
In terms of a recreation facility, each one of those cabins becomes a recreation facility, in and of itself, where we entertain guests, we have office parties, we have weddings out there, we have christenings, all kinds of recreation opportunities. And I'd hazard to guess that on any weekend the cabin sites serve as a greater recreation resource than do the public campgrounds at the lake. I bet you we could prove that by the numbers at any time we want to verify that.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this bill is desperately needed by these cabin site owners. We will shortly be forced off the land, and we think this bill would provide an opportunity to have a benefit to all the people in southwestern Montana, not only the cabin site lessees, but also the recreationists who use the Canyon Ferry Basin and all the rest of Montana, in terms of the utilization of the proceeds from the sale.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
The next panelist will be Darrell Knuffke.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL KNUFFKE, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGIONAL CONSERVATION, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. KNUFFKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Darrell Knuffke; I'm the vice president of regional conservation for the Wilderness Society.
My statement today represents the views of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Endangered Habitats League, and the Sierra Club, as well as my own organization. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee with our views on H.R. 3950, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1998. And we also want to thank Representative Bilbray, the bill sponsor, for his interest in wilderness in the Otay, and the chairman for affording the measure a hearing.
Because of the unique mix of desert and coastal influence, Otay Mountain is internationally renowned for its diversity of unique plant species. It holds the world's largest stand of Tecate cypress, a species otherwise found only in small, isolated populations in California and Mexico. The area over time has been designated a national cooperative land and wildfire management area, and area of critical and environmental concern, a wilderness study area, and more recently, a crucial element in San Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program. The later is a comprehensive plan to protect sensitive plants and animals in a way that eases constraints to the region's development.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Otay Mountain merits and needs the strong protection that the Wilderness Act of 1964 extends. It's because we support those protections, and because Otay Mountain deserves them, that we must oppose H.R. 3950. And we oppose it specifically because of its section 6(b). That section, in our view, essentially exempts Federal, State, and local agencies from the requirements of the Wilderness Act while they are conducting activities related to border and fire control.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that the Committee understands that we strongly support border and wildfire control. We also support giving those agencies the tools they need to do their jobs. Indeed, unless they succeed in their missions, many of Otay Mountain's irreplaceable values may be lost whether the area is designated wilderness or is not.
It is also our clear understanding that the Border Patrol, the California Department of Forestry, and the Bureau of Land Management, all believe that recent changes to road access on Otay Mountain will allow them to fulfill their missions, and to fulfill them within the language of the Wilderness Act, without special management language that would dilute wilderness protection for this important area.
If Congress intends to pass H.R. 3950 and designate the Otay Mountain Area as wilderness, section 6(b) of the bill should be deleted.
Historically, Otay Mountain's rugged landscape, itself, deterred illegal border crossing, but almost 4 years ago, when Operation Gate Keeper beefed up border controls near San Diego and began to slow illegal immigration along the border between the coast and Otay Mountain, traffic of illegal immigrants and related wildfire dramatically increased on the mountain.
In the summer of 1996, San Diego County declared a state of emergency because of threats to human life from the intensity of illegal immigrant traffic and wildfires on Otay Mountain. At that point, the BLM developed a plan to provide the Border Patrol and the State Forestry Department the vehicle access they needed across the mountain range and down to the actual border while protecting most of the mountain's biological resources. The new road access along the east and west boundaries of the area essentially move the interdiction effort down to the border itself, and by all accounts, that's been successful.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In early May, several of our staff members visited Otay Mountain on a BLM-sponsored tour, and met later with the Border Patrol and State Forestry officials to see how the new system of roads and access points is working. The agencies assured us, Congressman's Bilbray's staff, and the BLM, that the BLM's actions on Otay Mountain had given them what they need to do their jobs. Officials of both agencies indicated that fires and attempts to cross the border have decreased significantly because of the new system of roads and access points. We asked whether the agencies need any additional access or other facilities on the Otay Mountain; both said no.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record, a May 20, 1998, letter from BLM California State Director Ed Hasty to Congressman Bilbray that captures the essence of that meeting and confirms the details which I mentioned.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. KNUFFKE. In sum, the Border Patrol, the California Department of Forestry, the BLM, and we, all believe that given recent changes in road access on Otay Mountain, the agencies have what they need to protect the border and to control fire, and to do so within the language of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Our organization does strongly support wilderness protection of Otay Mountain and its many and diverse natural values. If section 6(b) is deleted from H.R. 3950, we can support that legislation as well.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knuffke may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] Thank you.
Mr. Fischer.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF JERRY FISCHER, PRESIDENT/CEO, YOSEMITE MOTELS
Mr. FISCHER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gerald Fischer; 21 years ago my family and I purchased a 12-unit motel in El Portal, California. Since that time, we have purchased existing motels and developed new ones. We now operate 7 properties with over 800 rooms in the Gateway communities surrounding Yosemite National Park. Last year, we had over 310,000 guests who enjoyed visiting the park and used our properties as a base.
Approximately 5 years ago, former superintendent of Yosemite National Park, Michael Finley, and I met to discuss the park's acquisition of a parcel of land my family owned in El Portal that directly adjourns the park boundary. We had just cleared some antiquated buildings from this parcel, and it was apparent to the park that the current Arch Rock station was not adequate for the increased usage of that 140 entrance to Yosemite. Due to the historic nature and the limited site conditions of the Arch Rock Area, Mr. Finley felt that our location held potential for future expansion and convenience to visitors at the entrance station.
At that time, I made a commitment to Mr. Finley that our family would not replace the recently demolished buildings on this parcel of land until the Park Service had fully explored the above option. The land exchange discussion before this Subcommittee at this time is a result of my commitment to Mr. Finley.
Several years later, Yosemite National Park's successor superintendent, B.J. Griffin, continued that dialogue and defined the terms of this exchange. At our company's expense, we had the parcel surveyed and legal descriptions drafted. The January 2, 1997, flood added additional pressure to relocate the entrance station to the El Portal site. Major roadway reconstruction within the park was funded as a part of the flood relief measure authored by Congressman Radanovich. With this work soon to be underway, the park's need for traffic control and public safety led them to proceed now with the land exchange to allow for both the temporary and then a permanent entrance station on the El Portal site.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because the El Portal Administrative Site boundary requires an amendment that includes the parcels noted, this land exchange will require congressional approval.
My family and I have given the current superintendent, Stanley Albright, our full cooperation in assisting with the land exchange before you today. As noted in the NPS testimony earlier, we understand that the exchange must be of equal value and concur with the language that allows for additional improvements if necessary to cause a full equalization. Further, we understand that full compliance with the provision of the NEPA is a condition within the exchange.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and express our support for the proposal before you, and in the mission of the National Park Service at Yosemite National Park. We are committed to working with them to provide a quality experience for all park visitors.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fischer.
Questions for this panel?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will like to submit questions in writing to the members of the panel.
Mr. HILL. I'm assuming that if we sent you some questions in writing that you would respond to them? Would that be correct?
[All witnesses nod heads affirmatively.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. We would really appreciate that. Since we're a little under the gun today, we would appreciate it very much if you'd do that.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And thank the panel very much for coming, and taking the opportunity to give us this excellent testimony. And we'll dismiss you, if that's OK, and we'll now turn to the third panel.
Our last panel is Benjamin F. Payton, Office of the President, Tuskegee University; Greg Paxton, president and CEO of Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation; Don Barger, southeast regional director of National Parks and Conservation Association; and Jane Morton Galetto, president of the Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries.
Now, if we've got you all coming up, we'd appreciate it.
Dr. Payton will be referring to H.R. 4211, regarding the Tuskegee Airmen. Mr. President, we're grateful you could be with us; we'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN PAYTON, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY
Dr. PAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by saying a special word of thanks to Congressman Riley for the outstanding job which he and his staff have done in helping us to bring forward this bill, H.R. 4211, in the interest of establishing as a unit of the National Park Service, the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the personal interest you have, the knowledge you've exhibited as a result of your own military experience, in the exploits of the Tuskegee Airmen. Not many Americans can say that; not many Americans have a grasp of that strand, that very important strand of American history such as you have. It is, therefore, very important that for the sake of future generations of this society, all members of this society of all races and colors, that our youth and our adults understand the roles which we've all played in preserving this great democracy and in expanding it to all people. And that really is what the Tuskegee Airmen and Tuskegee University have been about.
We very much, at the university—at Tuskegee University, where I am privileged to serve as president—we very much support H.R. 4211, as this has been presented to the Committee. We support it with enthusiasm.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It would require a number of continuing efforts on the part of the university, with respect to its handling of the resources, which it would be willing to make available and to assist the National Park Service in other ways as we can.
Tuskegee University is a place that many people know about. It was founded 117 years ago. It is a place that has a lot of interest in strength in the engineering and technical fields, in business, in the biomedical profession, in the liberal arts, as well. We are the institution that created the first African-American Four-Star General in this country, General Daniel Chappejane, also an Airman.
And I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that I have with me today the president of the Tuskegee Airmen, one of the original Airmen, Mr. Charles Magee, from Washington, DC. And may I ask him to just stand so that you may recognize him if that's all right?
Magee.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, sir. Can we have your name for the record that you're here?
Mr. MAGEE. Charles E. Magee.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you. Thank you; we appreciate you being with us.
Dr. PAYTON. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Not many of the Tuskegee Airmen remain, and we're delighted that he could be here this morning with us.
I also want to thank the Park Service for the really outstanding work it has done in cooperating with us in bringing this bill forward. We do have a few things yet to be tweaked in order to move it from concept to reality. But I think that we should be able to do that, and I want you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee to know that Tuskegee University would be very pleased to work with you, as we continue to cooperate with the Park Service, in doing what is necessary in order to bring this bill to complete fruition.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What this bill would do would be to establish the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site as a component of the National Parks Service System in association with Tuskegee University.
The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one which, without a doubt, is of national significance, and that is not just my own conclusion, that is the conclusion of a special study that was done by the National Park Service at the request of Congressman Riley and myself, as president of Tuskegee University. Overcoming many difficulties in order to become the heroes they did, the Tuskegee Airmen present us with a role model that our society badly needs today. Our young people need to know about these men who gave their lives and who did it with such heroism and with such courage under enormous difficulty, including the difficulty of being rejected by their own Nation and placed under special discriminatory penalties by their own military services that they tried so hard to serve.
As Congressman Riley has already said, they served gallantly. And he's given you some of these details; I won't go over them again. I do want to say that I will append to my testimony a list of all of the actions that the Tuskegee Airmen were in, because I think that it's important that the Committee and others know.
Telling the story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one that needs to be done in a kind of living history format. That is to say, we need to build upon the lives of these men, and women by the way, there were over 10,000 people involved in the formation and development of the Tuskegee Airmen. Many of these were maintenance workers; many of them were cooks; many of them were technical field people, maintenance engineers, power frame mechanics, all kinds of people. But it is important to note that a large proportion of these were African-American women working along with African-American men and with white Americans who made this possible. And, thus, made it possible those heros whom we have heard so much about today, like General Benjamin O. Davis, the astronaut, Guion Bluford. And I would say, that were it not for the Tuskegee Airmen, there would not be a General Colin Powell, the first African-American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and to do it in such an enormously competent way.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We feel that there is a great role that the university can play with the Park Service as a partner in this venture. The Tuskegee Airmen didn't emerge full-blown from the head of the United States military. They grew out of the vision of Tuskegee University. They grew out of the hopes and aspirations and dreams of the civil rights groups in this country who were determined that at long last African-Americans would be permitted to participate fully in the defense of our country.
And so, Tuskegee University went out and raised the money to acquire and build an airfield that was constructed by its students and its faculty. We went to foundations and other private sources and got the money. As the result, Tuskegee was able to develop such an extensive civilian pilot training program that when the ears of the military finally were open to this enormous potential there waiting to join the American forces, Tuskegee was far out in front of the competition. And so it was everybody's choice that the Tuskegee Airmen be created at Tuskegee University.
What this would do would be to create a national historic center, a National Historic Site. It was also develop the potential for young people today to learn, not only from that experience, but to build tools for a successful career for themselves. So many of our young African-American men, particularly, have been turned off by science, by math; these are the basic tools of success in a modern economy. We propose at the university, that we will work along with the National Park Service, create a division of the Department of Aviation Science that would work with both pre-college as well as college youth in order to continue the tradition of the Tuskegee Airmen.
We also face a tremendous challenge in this society as we seek to move people from welfare to work. There are many adults who have great talent but in whom not enough people have sufficient confidence. The Tuskegee Airmen are people in whom these folk have placed great trust. The tradition that they have built is one that we can utilize in developing power mechanics, airport maintenance people, that are now required in today's airports.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, we will work with the National Park Service; we are willing to work with the Committee to do whatever is necessary that is fully consistent with this bill in order to bring it to pass.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing, for inviting me to testify, and I want to say that Tuskegee University is willing to move forward, along with this Committee, given your personal appreciation of the impact of the Tuskegee Airmen and given the quality of that impact on encouraging equality in the military and helping to develop outstanding leaders from every branch of military service, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and your colleagues for providing your full support of this legislation.
I would like to ask that the full text of my testimony be permitted to enter the record, since I did have to summarize it rather quickly in order to try and meet your time constraints, which I understand that and appreciate it very, very much.
Thank you so very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Payton may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Dr. Payton, without objection, your entire testimony will be included in the record, as will all members of the panel. Thank you for your very interesting testimony. And I have to say, I did look at the film which my colleague, Mr. Riley, gave me, which I thought was very, very interesting. As an old pilot, I really enjoyed that. That was very good. These gentlemen and ladies should be commended for the great work that they did.
Mr. Paxton.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY PAXTON, PRESIDENT/CEO, GEORGIA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. PAXTON. Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member Faleomavaega, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm Gregory B. Paxton, president and CEO, of the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, a 10,000-member group and one of the two largest statewide, non-profit preservation organizations in the country. I've served on the Board of the Cumberland Island Historic Foundation since it was formed in 1982, created at the suggestion of Regional Director of the National Park Service, Robert Baker.
Cumberland Island contains an indelible 5,000-year history of human habitation written on the island's landscape, and the evidence is everywhere—from the Native American burial grounds and shell middens to slave cabin chimneys and tabby ruins, from the 1870 freed slave settlement to the large estates with numerous outbuildings. These tangible traces of America's and Georgia's history warrant protection, along with the areas that have regrown wild around them. Historic resources and natural resources are both important elements of Cumberland Island's present, past, and future.
The original legislation establishing Cumberland's wilderness set up a conflict between protecting the Island's historic resources and its natural resources. The Wilderness Act prohibits any use of historic buildings within a wilderness area. Before Congress passed the original legislation, the then Under Secretary of Interior, Donald Hodel, wrote to Congress to urge this conflict be rectified stating, quote, ''We have serious reservations as to whether the Cumberland Island lands should be designated as wilderness meet the criteria set forth in the Wilderness Act. However, we support enactment of this bill, if it is amended to reflect the concerns noted below. The requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act may well conflict with the designation of these lands as wilderness, since the Wilderness Act defines wilderness as natural and undeveloped in character, and devoid of permanent improvements or human habitation. Maintaining the structures in perpetuity would seem to frustrate the intention of Congress that these lands eventually be designated as wilderness. At the same time, designating this acreage as wilderness would seem to frustrate Congress' intent that historic structures be preserved. We believe this apparent internal conflict should be resolved before the bill is enacted into law.'' unquote.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary Hodel's serious reservations about whether the land met wilderness criteria, is due to the fact that most of Cumberland Island has been heavily farmed throughout the last two centuries. So it is not untrammeled by man and is far from a typical wilderness. The wilderness designation was initially intended to help protect the island, but as the Secretary noted, the fact that the island contains hundreds of significant historic and prehistoric sites is not adequately addressed in the legislation.
With the conflict unresolved, three important historic structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places have recently fallen to the ground from neglect—and you have photos of those in your materials. Strict limitations on driving on the historic road through the wilderness area to the historic sites make it nearly impossible to maintain historic buildings that need substantial and consistent upkeep on a subtropical sea island.
The Cumberland Island Preservation Act provides a blueprint for a management plan that balances the need to protect historic and cultural resources, as well as the island's wilderness areas. It's key provisions include preservation of the National Register listed Plum Orchard, an outstanding 35-room late 19th century, neoclassical house donated with 12 acres and $50,000 to the National Park Service in 1971 by the Johnston branch of the Carnegie family. In 1977, the house was assessed by the Park Service to be in good to excellent condition. Today, it is threatened.
The bill also urges prompt preparation of a preservation plan for all archeological and historic sites on the island which has still not been prepared after 25 years of Park Service ownership.
The bill proposes that the 200-year-old historic road also listed on the National Register be itself removed from the wilderness in order to allow limited public access to the north end of the island where Plum Orchard and other important historic sites are located. It would also allow the historic road, itself, to be preserved. Running along the western and northern edge of the island, the road would enable Park visitors to see more of the island's history, while leaving eight miles of eastern shoreline and nearly all the width of the wilderness undisturbed. The addition of about 200 acres on the south tip of the island as wilderness is also proposed in this bill.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill authorizes a proposed exchange of land between the National Park Service and the Candler family that includes the 1875 High Point Hotel and numerous other historic buildings on the National Register currently maintained by the family under their retained rights. This provision authorizes the Candlers to buy a large tract of land on the south end of the potential wilderness and swap it for ownership of a small tract of the Candlers historic land on the north end of the island. The National Park Service will put in place measures to limit this area to family use only. And this small parcel would then be removed from the potential wilderness, allowing for the buildings to be preserved. If the swap does not occur after the life estate ends, the buildings cannot be used by anyone, and would inevitably also be demolished by neglect.
When Cumberland was all privately owned, the owners hired lobbyists to defeat a proposed causeway, and led the effort to have it first declared a national seashore and then a wilderness to protect it from development. Many private owners donated or sold land to the government at bargain prices. Those owners and former owners who retain life estates on the island are not interlopers in the wilderness; they are its creators, yet they are very frustrated. Private owners have preserved and continue to preserve the historic structures of Cumberland Island, sadly, substantially better than the National Park Service.
The Georgia Trust believes that the legislation can be improved by also removing from the wilderness designation, three other small areas on the north end of the island for the purposes of maintenance and limited visitation. These are the Cumberland Wharf, the island's cemeteries, and the village at Half Moon Bluff, dating from its settlement in 1870 by freed slaves.
The Committee report should make clear that all these changes to the wilderness designation are not to set a national precedent concerning the designation of wilderness, but to recognize an unresolved conflict that has existed on Cumberland since the wilderness designation was first considered.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The vision for Cumberland that emerges from this Act is one in which the historic resources along the western and northern edges of the island become more accessible from the historic road for maintenance and limited visitation. The 90 percent of the visitors who never leave the southern end gain access to an additional wilderness area. Limited and restricted use and visitation of historic sites allows accessibility to the elderly, young, and handicapped, and others to experience the edge of the wilderness, while allowing the current wilderness areas and additional new areas in the central and eastern side of the island to further advance to a wild state.
The Park Service would have a clear path for a management plan for both the cultural and historic resources and for the wilderness. And, of course, the Wilderness Plan has not been developed, despite the fact the Park Service has owned it for 15 years because of the timeframe.
Finally, Congressman Kingston's legislation serves as a wake-up call for the entire country. The problems on Cumberland Island reflect more serious problems in our national parks nationwide. While during the past two decades the private sector has funded more than $17 billion in preservation projects, meeting the Secretary of Interior standards, the Secretary's National Park Service has fallen behind on the maintenance of historic buildings and objects under the Federal Government's care by an amount conservatively estimated at $1.7 billion.
Many of the United States' most important historic resources are threatened and national historic sites and artifacts throughout the country are seriously deteriorating from neglect due to insufficient funds. This condition undermines our national self-esteem and the esteem for our country in the eyes of the world. As we approach the millennium, a renewed national commitment of the monetary resources to preserve our most valuable national and cultural historic resources is desperately needed to help the National Park Service.
The Cumberland Island Preservation Act takes steps in the direction of preserving our national historic treasures and proposes a more balanced approach to protecting all of the Cumberland Island's natural and historic resources.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paxton may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Paxton.
I would urge all the witnesses to try to stay within the 5-minute timeframe, and our next panelist is Mr. Barger.
STATEMENT OF DON BARGER, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. BARGER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I'm Don Barger, southeast regional director of the National Parks and Conservation Association. Since 1919, NPCA has been committed to the protection of all of the resources of the National Park System, both natural and cultural. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views.
NPCA opposes H.R. 4144 because we believe that it would radically alter the vision for Cumberland Island National Seashore and undermine the ongoing process of this developing crown jewel. We oppose this bill because it essentially dismantles the wilderness on Cumberland Island to solve a problem that is not caused by wilderness.
This bill is based on the notion that the presence of a wilderness area within the national seashore is responsible for the collapse of these historic structures. It is not. Wilderness is not the problem, and slicing it into fragments is not the solution.
In 1982, Congress fully recognized the potential conflicts inherent with the creation of a wilderness area on the north end of Cumberland Island. The record is replete with statements that demonstrate that the current situation on the island was anticipated, and that a system of—for lack of a better term—''evolving wilderness'' was put into place to accommodate valid existing rights of residency and vehicular access while those uses diminish over time.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There's a lot of misinformation that has been put forward by proponents of this bill that others have assumed to be fact. I appreciate the very thoughtful article that was written by Mr. Paxton, which appeared in yesterday's Atlanta Constitution Journal, that Delegate Christian-Green referred to earlier, as it raises many of the central issues underlying this bill and provides the opportunity to clarify the record on some of these matters. I'd like to touch on just two of those.
Central to the justification of this legislation is the belief that the buildings on Cumberland that have collapsed have done so because of the presence of wilderness. That is not the case. In fact, one of the principal examples used in the article to make that connection, the Dungeness-Pool House, is, in fact, many miles outside the wilderness area. More than anything else, the collapse of this building demonstrates that other forces than wilderness designation are obviously at play. A harsh marine environment and a lack of adequate funding are the culprits.
Of the total special project funding received by Cumberland Island National Seashore since 1991, 80 percent has been spent on cultural resource projects. I do not believe that that constitutes neglect.
The second misconception that is brought out by the article is the belief that, and I would quote, ''the maintenance problem is compounded by the fact that the National Park Service can't use its service vehicles on the Cumberland Island road to the historic sites.'' end quote. This is simply not so. Congress specifically authorized the Park Service to use vehicles for necessary maintenance, and they do so regularly. In fact, Mr. Paxton and I are two of a group of people comprised of island residents and others who have worked together to come up with an agreement in principle for vehicular access to Plum Orchard mansion so that it could be occupied and cared for in a public/private partnership. We were trying to move that concept forward when this bill was introduced and everybody went to their corners.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 4144 would permanently remove from wilderness the Candler compound within the wilderness area as part of the proposed land exchange. The National Park Service has been looking at the possibilities of this exchange for the last several months. However, far from assisting that process, this legislation would make such a land exchange untenable by linking it to the removal of the road from wilderness designation and making the long-term impacts on the remaining wilderness unacceptable.
NPCA supports the restoration of Plum Orchard, but the authority already exists to do that. We also support the lofty goal to inventory, identify, document, and preserve every archeological and historic site on the island. However, without the necessary funds to do the job, this provision, as written, constitutes an enormous unfunded mandate on the National Park Service and should probably be examined for its fiscal impact.
Finally, NPCA cannot support the inclusion of the south end of the island in the wilderness system. In order to provide the visitor with a wilderness experience, wilderness should be as large as possible, contiguous, and unfragmented. While there are certainly natural and cultural resources on the south end of the island worthy of preservation, this can be accomplished under existing authority.
In addition, while the legislation is being justified based on the inherent conflicts that were supposedly created by designing or designating wilderness with nonconforming uses in it, the proposal for the south wilderness area creates exactly the same situation that the remainder of the bill is allegedly designed to correct. Given this provision, we would question the effectiveness of a wilderness designation for the area.
H.R. 4144 raises many important issues that do need to be dealt with at Cumberland Island, however, as currently written, this bill constitutes an attack on wilderness, and wilderness is not the problem.
I appreciate your precious time this morning.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barger may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Barger.
And our last panelist is Ms. Galetto, Galetto?
STATEMENT OF JANE MORTON GALETTO, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, INC.
Ms. GALETTO. My name is Galetto.
Mr. HILL. Galetto; I apologize.
Ms. GALETTO. Oh, you're fine.
Mr. HILL. Ms. Galetto.
Ms. GALETTO. Well, I hate to have to say this, but good afternoon.
[Laughter.]
I would like to thank the chairman and the members of the Subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you today about a great proposal, H.R. 2125, a bill to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. And I hope to beat that orange light to give you more time to vote in the affirmative for H.R. 2125.
I'm the president of a watershed association in South Jersey, and I belong to a bunch of other boards and councils and you can read that in my written testimony.
I would like to say that our group has been helped very much by the technical assistance which has been given to us by the National Park Service. As a matter of fact, our organization has been responsible for the designation of the wild and scenic rivers in the Maurice River Watershed, with the help of the U.S. Congress, of course.
We have recently completed a film with the New Jersey Public Television, and that's called New Jersey Network. And we did that film with the technical assistance of the Park Service. The film was a montage of the images that make our area, the Delaware Bay Shore, so special—the natural history, the maritime history, agriculture, and architectural history. The staff's expertise kept this film grounded in fact and focused on the elements that they concluded to be of the greatest significance. This film received excellent support from media ranging from the Philadelphia Enquirer to the New York Times. The overwhelmingly positive response to ''Down Jersey'' demonstrates an interest by the general public in the cultural and natural arts and the coastal heritage of New Jersey.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Park Service New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail office served as a technical advisor on the film. It's going to be used in the Trail welcome centers.
The kind of expertise that the National Park Service offers lends substance, depth, and immediacy to projects such as this one. Our organization can claim that something is special, but the Park Service's seal of approval shows the national significance of these types of projects.
Other partnerships have also been productive with the Coastal Heritage Trail. Their offices lent their expertise to statewide eco-tourism workshops which we coordinated, and they have provided information on economic implications of visitors.
Currently, we are joining with the State Historic Preservation office in the Trail to document the maritime heritage of the Bay Shore region. Most importantly, Trail office staff make themselves available to a wide array of private/public entities increasing each one's effectiveness individually while supporting the overall Heritage Trail route goals.
The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail has played a major role in the interpretation and preservation of the wide range of significant cultural and natural resources in New Jersey while bringing national and regional attention to the State's important coastal resources. The Trail office coordinates interpretive projects, designs, produces wayside exhibits, provides technical assistance and training, and they're responsible for designating trail sites. They have assisted the New Jersey State Park System, the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, as well as several county park systems and numerous non-profits like ourselves.
This site in New Jersey gives their support to the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, as does a group called the Stockton Alliance, which is a group of corporate and conservation and environmental CEO's from all over the State. Some names that may be familiar to you at the national level would be New Jersey Audubon, DuPont, Mobil Oil, Jersey Conservation Foundation, Mannington Mills, and many others that are listed in the written testimony. So it's not just us butterfly netters that like the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, it's everybody in New Jersey.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1994, they've multiplied their dollars that have been given to them using grants and in-kind contributions to carry out their mission. There is still a lot of work to be done and there are two more theme trails to complete.
We hope your endorsement will propel this legislation forth to a speedy adoption. The reauthorization and funding of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail established by H.R. 2125 are imperative if the National Parks Service is to maintain the momentum of the projects established to date.
When it comes to telling the story, no one does it better than our National Park Service. The Coastal Heritage Trail route thoroughly and accurately interprets each destination, giving it meaning and establishing pride of place. By identifying the uniqueness of the New Jersey coastal line, they have truly helped to define our heritage. The Parks Service's Trail office has been of invaluable assistance to our organization and many others in heightening awareness about natural and cultural resources of New Jersey's coast.
While Citizens United can state that our resources are nationally significant, it takes an agency like the National Park Service to substantiate these claims and make them part of the Federal record. Through the Park Service's validations citizens can more fully recognize and appreciate the role of their own special place in the overall fabric of America.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Galetto may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Ms. Galetto. Close.
[Laughter.]
Are there any questions from the members for these panelists?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Dr. Payton for his statement and remarks this morning. I am sure and certain that Mr. Riley and the members of the staff will work very closely with our Committee staff to make sure that we iron out some of the provisions of the proposed bill concerning the Tuskegee historical landmark as you have eloquently stated earlier.
Not wanting to take away from the subject, but to Dr. Payton, I also have another hero that probably many Americans may not realize that one of the greatest scientists ever to come out of Tuskegee University was none other than George Washington Carver—self-educated, never went to Harvard or any of the fancy universities, but from the peanut, as I recall, developed some very excellent by-products just from this plant or this peanut. George Washington Carver—and if you'll correct me, Dr. Payton—how many by-products or materials was he able to have gotten from this? And which really, in many instances, saved a lot of the economic hardships of the south because of what George Washington Carver did.
Dr. PAYTON. Thank you very much. Please feel free to mention any other examples out of——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] Tuskegee you would like to. But you are absolutely right.
George Washington Carver discovered over 300 products out of the peanut alone. He was truly a great man; he was, himself, born in slavery. He did, however, manage to find his way, through the assistance of sympathetic whites in the Midwest, to college. And he did graduate from Iowa State, and then went on to graduate school at Iowa State, became the first African-American faculty member at Iowa State University. And I'm pleased to say that that university—which is a great one, too—also, along with Tuskegee, we are now developing for next year for a special centennial, a special celebration of the life of George Washington Carver.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I very much appreciate that reference.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Payton, I sure hope that we might do something at the National Park Service of some kind of historic preservation of the life of this great American.
Dr. PAYTON. I'd neglected to say that as a part of the—Tuskegee is not only a great education institution, but it also is a treasure house of national gems. And one of those is the George Washington Carver Museum which, by the way, is run by the National Park Service.
This will not be the first initiative on the part of the university and the Park Service. Tuskegee happens to be the only university campus in the country that's been designated by Congress as a National Historic Site with a unit of the Park Service actually administering it. So, the George Washington Carver Museum, along with the home that was built for the first president, Booker T. Washington, those were resources that the university gave to the government. The government renovates them; they maintain them.
And one of the most interesting things is that last year, according to the Alabama Bureau of Tourism, the site that had the largest number of visitors in the State of Alabama was the Tuskegee Institute National Historic District and, particularly, the George Washington Carver Museum.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Dr. Payton. And, please, I don't want to make our other panelists feel that——
Dr. PAYTON. Oh, please, you're doing fine.
[Laughter.]
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing] their testimony was any less important, but I just wanted to note that and certainly not taking anything away from the proposed legislation.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the members of the panel for their testimony, and hopefully we might be able to help some of the problems that we're faced with in the proposed bills.
Thank you very much.
Mr. HILL. Thank you.
Ms. Christian-Green, do you have any questions for the panelists?
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing me. And I want to thank all the panelists for coming, and for Mr. Paxton and Mr. Barger, who spoke on behalf of H.R. 4144.
As I said earlier, if we could resolve some of the issues that we've had before this Committee before, I'm sure that, at some point, we'll be able to resolve some of the issues with your bill as well.
I want to, also, take this opportunity to welcome Dr. Payton and Mr. Magee, and I think this bill is an important one that represents a great history and a great legacy to this country. We've just celebrated the integration of the Armed Forces in this country. And the Tuskegee Airmen, as you've said in your remarks, had a great deal to do with that. And, additionally, it's a great way for us to continue to support one of our historically black colleges and universities which continue to educate and inspire our young people, many of whom come from my district, the United States Virgin Islands.
Dr. PAYTON. Yes.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. And I particularly want to point out, with great pride, that we have one of the Tuskegee Airmen was from the Virgin Islands, Henry Wilson, and our airport is named after him.
Dr. PAYTON. Yes.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. It has been recently renamed in his honor in St. Croix, which is the island on which I reside. So I want to thank you all for being here, and also thank the other panelists.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. HILL. Thank you.
If there are no other questions for this panel, then this panel will be excused.
Dr. PAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HILL. I would like to ask three members of panel two to return if they would. I apologize for not being here to ask questions of Mr. Budewitz and Mr. Robinson and Mr. Binkley.
I want to thank the three of you for traveling all the way from Montana to get here. I thought it was a little unfair that you travel 18 hours, 9 hours each way, and then not have an opportunity to answer some questions.
I just want to put on the record two points, and I asked Mr. Martinez about these, and I have since got the numbers. There are 76 miles of shoreline. The cabin sites face 6.37 of those miles, and there are 9,100 acres under management by the BOR there, and 150 of those acres comprise of the cabin sites. So, it's an incidental amount of land.
Mr. Budewitz, one of the points that was raised by the Bureau of Reclamation in their testimony had to do with their effort to update the management plan for Canyon Ferry. And in your testimony you made reference to kind of a litany of history with regard to management plan. My question—and you might want to just comment on where we are with that management plan now—but has Broadwater County been consulted with regard to this management plan? Are you engaged in any active discussion with them about this management plan at this point in time?
Mr. BUDEWITZ. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HILL. And in your testimony and earlier discussions we've had, you've indicated an interest on the part of Broadwater County to enter into some sort of a cooperative agreement with regard to the management of the White Cliffs Area and the Silos Area. Is that correct?
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUDEWITZ. Yes. The Broadwater County commissioners have historically been interested in doing that. They've made a number of inquires of the involved government agencies. At one time, fairly recently, within the last 2 years, the Broadwater County commissioners initiated an inquiry in cooperation with the Lewis and Clark County commissioners to take over management of the entire lake.
They'll do almost anything within reason to accomplish what they've set out to accomplish, which is some economic development and some positive economic impact in Broadwater County, to the extent that they would be willing to take over at least portions of the management of the facility.
Mr. HILL. So, in the testimony from BOR, they say they're actively looking for a non-Federal partner to manage resources at the lake. Broadwater County, evidently, doesn't fit the category of non-Federal partner, at least in terms of their engagement of you at this point.
Mr. BUDEWITZ. Apparently not. Mr. Chairman, my understanding of what has happened—and I've been involved in some of these discussion, not all of them—is that all of the inquires regarding management partnerships were initiated, at least within the last few years, by Broadwater County. A number of contacts have been made with both BOR and BLM, and while the local representatives of those agencies have indicated that they would be willing to discuss the matter further, the discussions always seem to end at some point because government agencies have no authority to make any commitments. And it gets to a certain level and simply stops.
Mr. HILL. And Broadwater County is prepared and interested in actually putting some resources to this effort? I mean it's offered to make equipment available and those sorts of things to deal with some of the goals and objectives that you have?
Mr. BUDEWITZ. Yes, they are.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. The BOR justifiably criticized certain elements of my bill because I didn't designate how property would be sold, or rather what the proceeds might go for and that sort of thing.
I have since made recommendations that 10 percent of the proceeds of the sale will go to pay down the Pick-Sloan debt; 45 percent of the proceeds held in a trust fund for acquisition of lands in Montana, and also 45 percent to be retained for the purposes of investing in the fishery and the shoreline, investment in conservation upstream from the reservoir, as well as to provide access, with one-third of that 45 percent or 15 percent being designated to deal with the objectives of Broadwater County here with respect to access.
Would that distribution of funds be consistent with what the goals and objectives of Broadwater County are?
Mr. BUDEWITZ. I've only had a brief opportunity to review that proposal in your draft, but it appears to come very close to what the Broadwater County commissioners have been talking about in the past. And I suspect that this sort of a proposal would probably be satisfactory.
Mr. HILL. With respect to this management plan, am I correct that BOR has been fiddling with this since 1993 when they regained responsibility to manage the reservoir?
Mr. BUDEWITZ. At least that far back. I don't know the history prior to 1993; that's when I first became involved in it. But I recall in early 1993, attending a number of hearings on a study that had been commissioned by BOR, BLM, and the State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at some time prior to that.
The study was completed in early 1993. It was a draft management and environmental assessment. There were about $10 million worth of improvements that were proposed in that plan over a 10-year period of time. The plan itself wasn't necessarily the—it wasn't exactly what the Broadwater County representatives were looking at, but it was close, and certainly it was enough to begin to form a good discussion starting point.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nothing ever happened, and that plan—which was about an inch and a half thick, as I recall, and I have a copy of it—is undoubtedly gathering dust somewhere. And that's what we fear when we hear about additional studies. These agencies are famous for studying things, but they're not very famous for getting things done. And that's the difficulty that we see when we look at this sort of proposal. I'm sure that Commissioner Martinez is sincere in saying that they would make sure that the study is completed by 1999, but we've heard that before. And even the completion of the study, itself, does not guarantee any results.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Budewitz.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of questions.
Does the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association represent all the existing lessees at the reservoir area?
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to answer that?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, whoever can respond.
Mr. ROBINSON. As a representative of the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Robinson, for the record?
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK.
Mr. ROBINSON. We represent probably 96 percent; they are a handful of people who do not, or are unable to pay their dues. But of the 265 lessees, approximately 260 to 261 are active, so that's, you know, nearly 99 percent.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You indicated earlier, also, Mr. Robinson, about the 265 lessees come from all different walks of life?
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROBINSON. Absolutely.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The make-up of the 265 lessees—can you elaborate a little more on that?
Mr. ROBINSON. I sure can. In terms of where they come from——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I mean they're not all wealthy landowners?
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROBINSON. Absolutely not, in fact, if it wasn't for my brothers and I, my mother couldn't afford to keep the lease.
If you look around the lake, these are people who are Helena, Montana residents, Butte, Anaconda, Bozeman, Deer Lodge, some from Havre, some from Billings. These are literally a cross-section of the people of Montana that they're not wealthy. They're not bankers; they're not all doctors, and I have personal perspective for that in that my wife's family has some property on Flat Head Lake, up in the northwest corner of the State, and we've seen an influx of people from California, Arizona, Canada, have come in. Price is absolutely no object up there, and the types of houses that are built up there are astronomical, where down at Canyon Ferry, we're talking about weekend retreats, weekend cabins that are family holdings that are not fancy at all.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Among the 265 lessees, what is the price value of these cabins or these homes that are built?
Mr. ROBINSON. I would say that probably on the low end, there's a few cabins out there that might be valued at $15,000, $20,000. I think at the upper end, there are a few people that might have a house that—and I think there's very darn few of them—that might be in the $80,000's to $90,000's. Maybe something might get up around $100,000, but I bet you there's less than a half a dozen of those. Most of them are probably $35,000 to $50,000.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of the concerns that was mentioned in Mr. Martinez' statement with the Bureau of—BOR, was the restrictive nature of the ability—let's say, for example, if I was from California and I want to buy into one of the leases. My understanding is that you have to have the agreement of the association before that individual or party can purchase that lease?
Mr. ROBINSON. In terms of the bill, and also in terms of the Senate bill, what we tried to do originally was to ensure that the current cabin owners have the opportunity to purchase these cabins at fair market value, to make sure that the U.S. Government got their market value, and there was no sweetheart deal here.
This was proposed in the Senate that there had to be a bid process, and in that process, as it got manipulated in the various bills, it was a bid process for the entire parcel. And we were proposing that, if that's the case, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association would bid on the entire parcel; individuals would then, subsequently, purchase from the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the association were to bid, do you mean, then, the lease is going to be owned by the association?
Mr. ROBINSON. The lease would be—the provision of the bill indicates that if the individual, the lessee, does not want to purchase, the Recreation Association, or the trust—the property would go to the trust, and that the individual would continue leasing from the trust for the duration of the current lease.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, it's strictly an economic—I mean whoever can afford it can go there and make an offer, but then the association also matches the offer for whatever reasons. It just strikes me that it's somewhat very restrictive.
Mr. ROBINSON. Well, we originally proposed the bill with the idea that the people who are currently on the land wouldn't be forced off the land.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Sure.
Mr. ROBINSON. And that they had the right of first refusal so that they could—if they could afford it—stay on the land.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. And how many people, approximately, are involved in this whole lease arrangement? The 265 homes tells me families, but how many people are involved in this?
Mr. ROBINSON. Well, I suspect that if you——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Men, women, and children.
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROBINSON. Men, women, and children—I'll bet you could fairly multiply the 265 by maybe an average of 20 to 25 per cabin site; 265 times 25, that's how many people have direct interest in these cabins.
But then you can start talking about cousins——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] uncles, aunts, and that number starts expanding geometrically.
But in the Helena community, the Canyon Ferry cabins are, in fact, a resource in and of themselves. I worked for State government all over the place; we had office parties there. My brother worked at Carroll College; Carroll College would have their annual picnic out there.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, let me—I know you mentioned that earlier, Mr. Robinson, but I was curious, also—the Canyon Ferry—I call it ''reservoir,'' you call it ''recreation area.''
Mr. ROBINSON. It's a reservoir.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The reservoir is owned by the Federal Government?
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROBINSON. Absolutely.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And it's on a lease basis by these 265 families?
Mr. ROBINSON. We're currently leasing those——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Lessees; OK. Is it possible that these number of lessees could expand beyond the 265?
Mr. ROBINSON. Not with this bill. But if the Bureau of Reclamation or Congress directed that it could——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can the BOR allow more—other families to buy leases and be part of the area?
Mr. ROBINSON. Open up more lease land?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Mr. ROBINSON. I think so. If I'd refer you to the map, Congressman, if you look at that dark shaded area, then, on the north end——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Mr. ROBINSON. That is the only land that we're talking about. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the entire shoreline. The rest of the 76 miles around that lake, and all of the rest of that lake, is just like the part that has the cabins on it. So if the Bureau of Reclamation decided they wanted to do that, they certainly could.
Can I have Mark—can you show you the other map? I think this is a——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, you're only talking about maybe, what, one-fifth of the entire lake, reservoir?
Mr. ROBINSON. We're talking about 154 acres versus 9,000 acres of——
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is a very large reservoir. What's the total acreage of the reservoir, if I may ask?
Mr. ROBINSON. Oh, boy. I can't tell you the total acreage. It's 26 miles long.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, OK.
Mr. ROBINSON. Then at the wide spot down on the other end, it's about five miles across. At this end, it's about a mile across.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What's the deepest portion of the——
Mr. ROBINSON. Right down by the dam, approximately 230 feet.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Deep?
Mr. ROBINSON. Deep.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My, gosh.
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. If you'd look at this map, the purple—one of the points I wanted to make—there was earlier testimony that these are scattered parcels. That earlier picture showed that they were pretty much bunched up in one area. OK. The first three miles from the dam is public—I mean there aren't cabin sites there; those are loaded with public recreation opportunities there. And then the cabin sites pick up, and this larger maps shows the cabin sites. And if you notice, the purple is the cabin site area, and the green is the shoreline, and the rest of the Bureau of Reclamation land in that area. You notice, none of these cabin sites are lakeshore cabin sites. They're all lake access sites. And as part of the lease, it's guaranteed that the public has access to the lakeshore.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How long has the BOR been making this study that's supposed to be completed by next year?
[Laughter.]
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROBINSON. I think it's been—in fact, in exhibit E of our packet, I've got a copy of the 1993 management plan. And they were working on it back in the 1980's sometimes. Here you've got 1993, and it's not done yet.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, this is almost a what? A 10-year study of——
Mr. ROBINSON. At least.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Or was it the State was managing it before that?
Mr. ROBINSON. The State managed the property, I think, from about the mid-1960's through 1993 when——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, 1993?
Mr. ROBINSON. [continuing] when they couldn't——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, just now the Federal Government has gotten into the management aspects?
Mr. ROBINSON. Again.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Since 1993?
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. They have——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But before that the State has been managing it for some 20 years before that?
Mr. ROBINSON. That's correct.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, OK.
Mr. ROBINSON. And one of the reasons why we're here today is problems have magnified since the re-takeover and Inspector General's report and some of the positions that Bureau of Reclamation has taken.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you bring out that other map again? Again, real quickly, Mr. Chairman?
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You have stated that, Mr. Robinson, that you're talking only about that portion which is darkened? Yes, that's what we're discussing.
Mr. ROBINSON. That's all the——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The 265 lessees are in that darkened portion?
Mr. ROBINSON. That's correct.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. And there's been no plans whatsoever to say that, say, other lessees or leases could also be worked up along the banks of the reservoir?
Mr. ROBINSON. No; we haven't proposed that, and that's really a prerogative of the Bureau of the Reclamation and Parks.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will there be any objection on the part of your association if—and I'm only speculating—if the BOR decided that maybe they want to add more leases along the reservoir?
Mr. ROBINSON. I don't think Canyon Ferry Recreation Association would have any problem with that.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I'm just being hypothetical. I don't know what they'll do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. HILL. Thank you. Good set of questions.
Let me just respond. I think there would be great controversy among some recreation users and some conservation groups if BOR decided to expand the number of leaseholders——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] on the land. And I want to make clear, it's not our intention to do that.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also draw the gentleman's attention—you know, this map doesn't actually show how the lake is distributed. The dark area is the north end of the lake, and the large area at the bottom is the south end of the lake. But 80 percent of that lake is in Broadwater County. And Townsend rests—which would be to the right over here off the map—Townsend, which is the county seat of Broadwater County rests there, and the residents of that community have to drive 30 miles or more to moor a boat. And yet they can see the lake from the community. And that's part of what this is about.
That south end of the lake—or on the right down there—is very, very exposed to wind. And you can get three, four-foot waves down there, and they come up instantly——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You could even surf on three-foot——
[Laughter.]
Mr. HILL. There's a lot of wind surfing there. I can tell you, it's a very popular area for that.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Where is that—and I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to—but where is the Sloans Dam, the Sloans-Pick Dam? Is it anywhere near?
Mr. HILL. Yes, right down—right in that section there at the left end.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what have we done with the poor Indian tribes that were promised, also, a lot of things after the construction of that Sloan Dam? What are we, in the situation with Native American tribes, along that reservoir? Is there any problem? Is their reservation quite a distance from the reservoir?
Mr. HILL. Yes. There are no reservation boundaries close to this dam at all.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But the only thing remaining is the fact that what was promised to the Native tribes in that Sloan Dam has never been—they've been restitutioned, if that's a proper way to——
Mr. HILL. If the gentleman would yield—I have two other bills to deal with, reservoirs on the Missouri River that will deal with water rights, compacts, and distribution of water. And I certainly welcome the support of the gentleman on that legislation.
There is no problem here with regard to water rights or conflict with regard to water rights with respect to any of our Montana Native American groups.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I appreciate the gentleman's statement. I was just concerned. I was up there some time some couple of years ago, and the only thing that was very sharp in my mind was the fact that the Federal Government, it was not the State, the Federal Government built this Sloan Dam with the promise that these Indian tribes would give up some of the most precious agricultural lands for the sake of the Federal Government building the dam. We built the dam, and the poor Indians really got stuck with nothing.
Mr. HILL. Well, substantially that's what happened to Broadwater County in this instance. They gave up 36 extraordinarily valuable ranches and farms. The area that's below this reservoir was some of the most productive farmland in that county. And those families, of course, were displaced, but also that tax base was displaced, and income was displaced. And over all these years, there's never been an opportunity for the people on that end of the lake to get any economic benefit from this. As a matter of fact, the water goes to the city of Helena. In Lewis and Clark County, it is part of the source of the water supply. And there has been some benefit on the Lewis and Clark side. And interestingly, when these lots are sold, Lewis and Clark will put these lots back onto the tax base of Lewis and Clark County—which is incidentally my home county. But Broadwater County, again, will not be beneficiary.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That's why I am with the bill that I've proposed; I've suggested that about 15 percent of the proceeds here be set aside for fulfilling the promise that was made to Broadwater county that will give them some access down there—usable access. And Broadwater County is prepared to enter into a cooperative agreement with the government to manage it. It just seems like that's a win-win proposition for all.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would be the last person to second-guess the integrity and the character of my good friend from Montana, since he certainly is a lot more of the expert than I or any of the other members of the Committee would have, especially specifically on the proposed bill that the gentleman now has before the Subcommittee. But I sincerely hope that his staff and our Committee staff will be able to go through some of the problems that we're faced with. And like I say, there's a problem and we've got to find the solution, and that's always the way I feel. And I sincerely hope that we should be able to work this thing out.
Mr. HILL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank our good friends who have traveled all the way from Montana to come and testify this afternoon.
Mr. HILL. And I, too, want to thank the panelists whose excellent testimony will be very valuable to the Committee. And thank you for making this trip. And I apologize, again, for the inconvenience of having to sit twice——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] before the Committee. I thank my Ranking Member, and the panel is excused.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Administration's views on H.R. 3963, legislation to establish terms and conditions under which the Secretary of the Interior shall convey leaseholds in certain properties around the Canyon Ferry Reservoir in Montana. The Bureau of Reclamation supports efforts to improve public access to rivers and lakes throughout the west. However, H.R. 3963 would grant exclusive private use of lake front property at Canyon Ferry Reservoir to a few beneficiaries, would foreclose future use of the land for project or other purposes, and could lead to a loss in future Federal receipts. The bill also would make management of the land at Canyon Ferry more difficult, without reducing the need for future Federal expenditures. In addition, H.R. 3963 is unclear on several critical questions of intent and procedure. Moreover, we do not believe there is a need for this legislation given that Reclamation and the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association (CFRA) recently agreed on a key issue concerning rental fees. For these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3963.
H.R. 3963 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell at fair market value all right, title and interest of the United States to leaseholds for the 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir in Montana, along with easements for vehicular access to the leaseholds, docks, and boathouses. The leaseholds and easements would be sold by auction, with the minimum bid established by the Secretary and based on a fair market appraisal, excluding the value of improvements made to a site. As drafted, it is unclear whether H.R. 3963 contemplates individual auctions for each leasehold or intends that all 265 be sold to a single purchaser.
Under H.R. 3963, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association, a Montana corporation, would have the right to match any bid received and purchase the leaseholds. Any purchaser would be required to offer to sell to existing leaseholders the leasehold for fair market value. It is important for the Committee to understand that CFRA is a relatively small group of beneficiaries of this project that does not represent all taxpayers, all beneficiaries of the project, or even all existing lessees at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the Canyon Ferry Unit was authorized and constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation as a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program as a multiple purpose project for irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric power and it is Reclamation's role to balance these competing demands for the resources. Canyon Ferry Reservoir was formed when the Canyon Ferry Dam was completed in 1954. Reclamation and the State of Montana were land managing partners for 37 years until 1994, when the State terminated its role. Most of the cabin site permits were originally issued in the late 1950's, and lessees were given the option to renew the leases every 10 years.
Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management now share the land management responsibility, except for the task of administering the cabin site leasing program which is exclusively Reclamation's responsibility. The 265 cabin sites occupy scenic lakeshore areas around the northern end of the reservoir. The lot sizes vary from .2 acre to 1.4 acres, with the average size about 1/2 acre. These sites are unconsolidated scattered tracts within the reservoir lands. There is no large block of consolidated sites.
In the last few years, there has been controversy surrounding the rental fees at Canyon Ferry. The controversy centers on attempts to determine and charge fair market value for rental fees. Under 43 CFR Part 429.6(f), Reclamation is required to collect fair market value for the right to use Reclamation project lands. In 1986, the State raised the rental fees to approximately 1/3 of the then fair market value. The fees remained unchanged until 1995 when Reclamation raised the fees based on an increase in the Consumer Price Index. Reclamation also initiated an independent appraisal in 1995 to determine a new fair market value. Presently the cabin lessees are paying an average of about $1,000 per site per year, significantly less than the fair market value of $2,701 determined in the 1995 appraisal.
Reclamation committed to phase in a rate increase over a five year period beginning in 1997. However, the CFRA challenged the 1995 appraisal through the Department of the Interior's Office of Hearing and Appeals. CFRA had conducted a second appraisal which showed the value of the leases to be about 60 percent of that indicated in Reclamation's appraisal. That appraisal amount is still about 1.5 times the amount which had been collected prior to 1997. While Reclamation believes that the 1995 appraisal was properly conducted and accurately reflected the current market price, Reclamation, for the sake of goodwill and improving relations, recently agreed to a settlement with CFRA whereby Reclamation and CFRA would collaborate and conduct a third appraisal. It was agreed that the findings in the third appraisal will be the new basis for the fee increase. With this settlement, Reclamation and the cabin site lessees are working together to set fair and acceptable rental fees. As such, no current controversy exists that requires legislation.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Not only is the legislation unnecessary, it is not clearly drafted. As mentioned above, the bill is ambiguous as to whether the sites will be sold individually or in one bundle. In addition, H.R. 3963 is very unclear as to exactly what the Secretary is directed to sell and what, if anything, might remain in the hands of Reclamation. H.R. 3963 provides for the sale of the ''leasehold'' for these sites. While the bill fails to provide a definition of leasehold, it appears to be something less than fee simple title.
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, one of the most scenic and popular flat water recreation areas in Montana, is located within two hours of the four largest cities in Montana. The area is already overcrowded during peak visitation periods at several campgrounds and day-use areas. This legislation could exacerbate this situation by reducing the public access to additional areas of this reservoir in the future.
We are concerned that if the intent of H.R. 3963 is to sell the leaseholds only, Reclamation's role would shift from that of a public agency managing public land, to that of a public agency managing private leaseholdings. If it is the intent of H.R. 3963 to sell the cabin sites on a fee simple basis, then Reclamation's role changes to that of a public agency managing private inholdings in public lands.
Further, actual or effective private fee simple ownership of these lands would complicate administration and management of the Canyon Ferry Project. The legislation would likely exacerbate existing difficulties around such issues as lake fluctuations, land use, and water quality concerns related to septic systems. In the past, lessees of cabin sites have complained about degradation of scenic qualities when the lake level declined due to operational constraints. Given that Canyon Ferry is a multipurpose project, we are concerned that this legislation could lead to an increase in disputes and hamper Reclamation's ability to balance operations at Canyon Ferry reservoir for all the authorized project purposes, especially in dry years.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bidding process proposed in H.R. 3963 is inequitable and is unlikely to result in a bid that is higher than the minimum required. Section 4(c)(3) would give to the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association a preference over anyone else. If someone other than the CFRA is the highest bidder, CFRA would have the right to match the highest bidder and purchase the leasehold, thereby providing little incentive for anyone but CFRA to submit a bid.
In addition, Section 4(d)(1)(A) would reduce any incentive to bid up the price above the minimum appraised price by requiring the successful bidder if it is other than CFRA to offer each of the existing lessees an option to purchase their leaseholds at the fair market value, which is the minimum bid required under this Section. Any bidder offering more than the minimum would lose money if the individual lessees take the option to purchase the leasehold.
Furthermore, Section 4(c)(2) provides that a minimum bid will be set ''in consultation with interested bidders.'' It is unclear why interested parties should be invited into the process of making an objective determination of fair market value by a third party appraiser. This appears designed to skew the process.
Reclamation plans to seek a non-Federal managing partner to manage the recreation opportunities and lands at Canyon Ferry. Reclamation law provides for such managing partners to be able to utilize user fees and other receipts from the use of the public lands that they manage to operate and maintain existing facilities, and to enhance public recreation or fish and wildlife benefits. Without the revenues generated by the cabin site leases, the ability to attract a managing partner would be significantly diminished. This will result in the need for continued Federal appropriations for recreational management.
In addition to those issues raised above, Reclamation has a number of technical concerns I would like to briefly highlight:
(1) The legislation fails to address who will pay for maintenance activities that Reclamation is currently paying for such as road maintenance and law enforcement once the leaseholds are granted or the fee simple titles to the lands are sold. The County should bear some responsibility for these costs, especially if the County is able to secure tax revenues as the result of the lands becoming subject to local taxes. It is unclear how local tax revenues would be generated from the leaseholds if the United States will continue to own the lands at Canyon Ferry.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(2) Under the existing arrangement at Canyon Ferry, licenses for boat docks are currently issued to cabin site lessees, but not to private landholders on other areas of the lake. If the cabin sites were sold, the question of whether to issue licenses would have to be addressed. H.R.3963 is silent on the issue of boat dock licenses.
(3) Section 1(1) presents as a finding that it is in the interest of the Secretary to reduce the Pick Sloan project debt for the Canyon Ferry Unit. Yet, the bill does not provide for any debt reduction.
(4) Section 1(3) says the sale of leaseholds will reduce Federal payments in lieu of taxes. If fee simple title is not granted to the purchasers, payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) may continue to be required. If it is fee simple title that is to be auctioned, then the legislation should explicitly state that PILT payments will be discontinued. If it is only the leases that are to be sold, then absent legislative language, PILT payments would likely continue to be paid by the United States. In either case, it is not clear why PILT should continue.
(5) Section 1(2) presents a finding that the legislation would ''provide a permanent source of funding for projects that develop and maintain public recreation and that conserve and enhance fish and wildlife opportunities in the State of Montana.'' As drafted, H.R. 3963 includes no such provisions.
(6) Section 3(2) would extend the benefits of the legislation to parties who do not hold a current lease and may not have legal claim to the use of the cabins.
(7) Section 3(4) exclude the CFRA from the provisions applying to the ''Purchaser.'' However H.R. 2963 otherwise considers the CFRA as the entity that is most likely to purchase the leaseholds. This creates significant ambiguities and needs clarification.
(8) The issue of liability is not addressed. If H.R. 3963 proposes that it is fee simple title that is to be auctioned, then all liability for this land should be conveyed to the purchasers. If only the lease is to be auctioned, as we believe the bill to currently read, then unless otherwise stated, the liability remains with the United States—thereby eroding whatever benefit is to be gained for the United States in this legislation.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(9) Section 4(c)(2) requires an appraisal in order to establish the minimum bid. However, it does not state whether it would appraise the properties as a block or separately; nor whether it would include contiguous parcels.
(10) Section 4(b)(1)(B) calls for small parcels contiguous to the leaseholds to be conveyed in order to eliminate inholdings and facilitate administration of surrounding land remaining in Federal ownership. The bill assumes that the Secretary and the purchasers will be able to agree on each of these parcels. A public process should be undertaken to determine the size and shape of these parcels. Also, the fair market value of these areas should be determined.
(11) Section 4(d)(1)(B)(ii) says that the purchaser shall compensate the lessee for the ''full'' market value of the improvements. It is not apparent whether the term ''fair'' should be substituted for ''full'' as occurs throughout the bill.
(12) H.R. 3963 should be clarified to ensure that it does not intend to convey the subsurface (mineral) rights.
Again, Mr. Chairman, while we appreciate the interest of this Subcommittee and the Montana delegation, we strongly oppose H.R. 3963 and do not believe this legislation is necessary.
STATEMENT OF TOM FRY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CONCERNING H.R. 3950
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3950, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1998. First of all, I want to commend the bill's sponsor, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) for introducing this legislation and for recognizing the uniqueness of the area and its many outstanding natural resources. I also want to acknowledge his efforts and the efforts of the many organizations in San Diego who are jointly working to try to resolve the future land management of the Otay Mountains.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill would designate 18,500 acres of the Otay Mountain area in eastern San Diego County, adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico International Border, as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness. The Otay Mountains are located in an extremely unique and diverse area of the country. The area is important to the San Diego area's ongoing habitat conservation initiatives which the Department strongly supports. BLM's current management role in this area, however, is a delicate balancing act and routinely faces unusual challenges. We are fully committed to appropriate, long-term protection for the magnificent lands currently in Wilderness Study Area (WSA) status in the Otay Mountains. We also, however, are confronted with the reality presented by the challenges of drug interdiction, border patrol enforcement, undocumented immigrants and wildland fire protection issues prevalent in the area.
BLM currently manages the Otay WSAs to preserve and maintain their wilderness character. We support their continued protection and would support wilderness designation if the exemption for certain management activities within the wilderness in Section 6(b) is eliminated. As written, the current language in Section 6(b) of H.R. 3950 would allow all law enforcement and fire management actions to occur without regard to the wilderness designation or the 1964 Wilderness Act. Other non-conforming activities would also be permitted. We would strongly oppose any language which would in any way undermine the integrity of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Accordingly, we recommend revising Section 6(b) to recognize the ongoing drug interdiction, border operations and the need to allow these activities to continue as long as they are in accordance with the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act and subject to appropriate conditions as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. We believe this will allow the Drug Enforcement Agency and other law enforcement agencies working along the Southwest border to continue their efforts in the area. The area designated as wilderness by this bill does not include any of the roads or motorized access routes currently used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its current border operations. In addition, section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act allows us to manage wilderness areas so as to protect the health and safety of visitors. Certainly we view drug interdiction and law enforcement operations as falling under that authority. We are currently managing this area as a WSA, with management restrictions very similar to those required of a wilderness area. We have worked closely with DOJ to enable it to carry out its important mission while still protecting the natural resources of the area. We fully expect this inter-agency cooperation to continue after wilderness designation. We would be pleased to work with the Committee to develop appropriate language in this regard.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to better understand the vast array of public land management issues in this beautiful, yet arid area, a discussion of certain aspects of its history and resources is useful. The Otay Mountains has long been recognized by the public as a unique ecosystem. As early as 1962, the Secretary of the Interior created the Otay Mountain National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area. Management direction for the area has focused on conservation of the area's flora, fauna, ecologic, geologic, cultural and scenic values as well as the protection of wilderness values. In the 1980's, BLM established the Western and Southern Otay Mountain WSAs and, with strong public support (including a 1982 resolution from the San Diego Board of Supervisors), ultimately recommended a large portion of the WSAs as wilderness.
In addition to its natural attributes, the area has opportunities for solitude, open space and primitive recreation, and possesses nationally signifcant biological values. These include stands of rare Tecate Cypress and 15-20 other sensitive vegetative species. The proposed wilderness contains an Area of Critical Environmental Concern which was established by BLM with strong public support for the protection of the only known population of the Mexican flannel bush, for pristine stands of riparian woodlands, and for the only known stand of Tecate Cypress in the U.S. In addition, the City of San Diego has identified the region as a ''core reserve'' in open-space planning and the California Department of Fish and Game, and local universities have had a long interest in studying and monitoring the Otay Mountains' flora and fauna. Wilderness designation would secure a unique ecosystem in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
In the last few years, however, the area has experienced extensive resource damage as a result of undocumented immigrants attempting to cross through the region. In addition, an October 1996 wildfire inflicted considerable short-term damage. However, with close coordination and onsite work among the BLM, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Border Patrol, the City, County, and other interests, a dramatic reduction in illegal traffic has occurred and the area appears to be rehabilitating itself.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although I have noted the potential benefits of wilderness designation, I now want to discuss an alternative approach for the long-term future of the Otay Mountains. We suggest the Committee explore designating the area and certain other public lands located to the East and North as a National Conservation Area (NCA). This approach would need further review and development between the BLM and the public to identify those lands suitable for inclusion within the NCA. However, it may be the best long-term solution to address both the unique management challenges within the broader regional area and the need to protect its valuable resources. Such an NCA designation could provide management flexibility for a much broader expanse of public land than the narrowly focused wilderness designations addressed in H.R. 3950. Also, an NCA designation for a larger region could include specific management prescriptions including mineral and land withdrawals, which would be designed to protect significant resources, and specific management directives for drug interdiction, border operations, and fire management. Wilderness designations within the NCA boundary could still occur in conjunction with the NCA designation. As such, the NCA designation could prove a more viable long-term approach to management of the Otay Mountains as it would address a broader region than the current bill while also providing a more comprehensive array of tools for dealing with the area's unique resources and management challenges.
This concludes my statement and I would be glad to answer any questions.
STATEMENT OF TOM FRY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CONCERNING H.R. 4287
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4287, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Boundary Adjustments Act. Representative Cannon's bill would make relatively minor boundary adjustments in the vicinity of four Utah communities which are adjacent to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The bill also would convey Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands outside the Monument to the State of Utah for the purposes of enlarging the Kodachrome Basin State Park and designate a utility corridor along U.S. Route 89 in Kane County, inside the Monument.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Attached to our testimony is a set of maps illustrating what we believe reflects the boundary adjustments depicted by the larger detailed map referenced in this bill. It was our mistaken impression that the utility corridor designation in Section 4 of the bill only applied to BLM-managed public lands and/or lands within the Monument. Upon further, more comprehensive review, it is clear that the language as written would affect lands within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Forest Service lands. The utility corridor designation language should be modified to specify that it applies only to BLM-managed public lands. Assuming that the attached maps do reflect the boundary adjustments and conveyances proposed in H.R. 4287, and the modification to the language designating the utility corridor is made, we support enactment of the legislation.
While the Administration does not believe a boundary adjustment is necessary, Secretary Babbitt, during a recent hearing on the State of Utah Land Exchange bill, agreed to consider technical boundary adjustments to the Monument. I would like to commend the Subcommittee staff for their cooperative spirit in working with the Department to revise H.R. 4287 in a manner which is acceptable to the Administration. The benefits of working together, which we saw beginning in May with the signing of the Utah Land Exchange Agreement by the Secretary and the Governor of Utah, continues today and is embodied in this bill. The bill would modify the boundary of the Monument in a good faith attempt to resolve a number of issues of concern to local citizens and their representatives. The bill takes a common sense approach to making boundary adjustments and conveying public lands for worthy public purposes consistent with the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
The parcel known as Henrieville Town Exclusion in Garfield County, Utah, would provide additional public land to the town for growth and development purposes and excludes utility lines and a highway from the Monument. Removal of the parcel known as Cannonville Town Exclusion, in Garfield County, Utah, would exclude the town's water supply system and water lines from the boundaries of the Monument. The parcel known as Tropic Town Exclusion provides some additional land for the Tropic Valley School. The parcel known as Boulder Town Exclusion removes a minor trespass from the Monument. The conveyance of public land to the Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah, would expand the park by 875 acres and would be done in accordance with the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The bill would also modify the boundary to add BLM land to the south of the Monument in the Big Water area.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I commend the Subcommittee for its willingness to work with the Department and BLM to address these minor changes to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument boundary. We are pleased, for example, that the bill has been revised to allow the parcel known as the Upper Valley Oil Field to remain in the Monument. The BLM remains committed to the mandate of the Presidential Proclamation which recognizes valid existing rights within the Monument. The operation of these oil wells can be successfully managed by BLM on public lands in the Monument and we look forward to demonstrating that as we plan for the future management of this valuable national treasure.
Thank you for allowing me to testify regarding this legislation and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 85 TO 91 HERE
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONCERNING H.R. 2125
Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to provide your Subcommittee with the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2125, to authorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route.
This bill would increase the appropriations authorized for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route from $1,000,000 to $4,000,000, and extend the authority for National Park Service participation in the trail for five years, from May 1999 to May 2004. We support enactment of this bill.
The Act of October 20, 1988, as amended in 1994, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate a vehicular tour route and to prepare an inventory of sites along the route. In addition the Secretary was authorized to prepare a coordinated interpretive program for the trail in order to provide for public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of the nationally significant sites in coastal New Jersey.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Park Service, in partnership with the State, local governments, and other public and private entities, has prepared and is implementing a comprehensive plan based on five interpretive themes that link natural and cultural resources spread over 300 miles of coastal New Jersey. The trail is demonstrating the potential of public/private partnerships, allowing the NPS to assist in resource preservation, interpretation and public education in a cost-efficient manner, primarily through the development of exhibits, audio-visual programs, and other technical assistance. Every Federal dollar spent is matched by contributions from the partners. No Federal funds are used for operation, maintenance, or repair of any road or related structure.
The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail celebrated its opening on September 27th, 1993, with the introduction of the Maritime History theme trail. Other trail themes and sites relate to Coastal Habitats, Historic Settlements, Wildlife Migration, and Relaxation and Inspiration. It is projected that, when completed, the trail will include over 100 wayside exhibits, various local information centers, and five regional welcome centers all owned and operated by someone other than the National Park Service.
This legislation would enable the National Park Service to continue implementation of the trail plan, as supported by the public and our partners in the Implementation Guide, a blueprint for overall trail development. Without additional time and funding, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route will be left incomplete. The National Park Service supports this legislation, its passage would allow us to finish implementing the trail's plan.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONCERNING H.R 4230
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the position of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 4230, a bill to provide for a land exchange involving the El Portal Administrative Site for Yosemite National Park. The Department of the Interior supports this bill if amended in conformance with this testimony.
H.R. 4230 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to a private individual approximately 8 acres of land within the El Portal Administrative Site, in exchange for land that is adjacent to the El Portal Administrative Site. The transfer would enable the National Park Service to establish an entrance station for Yosemite National Park on the land received through this transfer, and to close the present Arch Rock entrance station.
This land exchange would enable the National Park Service to more effectively protect park resources and serve park visitors. Nearly 1.5 million visitors enter Yosemite each year through the Arch Rock Entrance station. During peak visitation periods these visitors often experience traffic gridlock of up to a half mile in length, due to the winding and narrow nature of the road leading to the Arch Rock Station. This gridlock often leads to vehicles overheating, minor accidents, and frustrated visitors.
These problems would be solved by this bill, as it would allow the National Park Service to construct an entrance station on the land received through this transfer. The new entrance station would be located in El Portal, on a portion of State Highway 140 that can accommodate traffic coming into the park fairly easily.
We cannot, however, support Section 2(c) of H.R. 4230, which would statutorily deem the land exchange to be of equal value. We could only support an exchange in which the government received equal value for the land it transfers. The land we are to transfer in this exchange may be appraised at a value that is greater than the value of the land we are to receive. However, we understand that the owner of this land is willing to work with the Park Service to assure an equal value exchange. We would be happy to work with the Committee in developing language to guarantee an exchange of equal value, and to develop language that would adjust the boundary of the El Portal Administrative Site to reflect this land exchange.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BUDEWITZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Tom Budetwitz. I am an attorney representing the Board of Commissioners of Broadwater County, Montana.
The commissioners support the concept of making the cabin sites available for purchase. Our interest is in the allocation of the proceeds of the cabin site sales and the make-up of any entity formed to control the expenditure of those funds.
The creation of Canyon Ferry Reservoir in the early 1950's resulted in the loss of 36 family farms covered with as much as 75 feet of water. The loss of those farms displaced 36 productive families, destroyed thousands of acres of the richest soil in the county and permanently removed all of those acres from the county tax rolls. For many years the creation of the reservoir resulted in a literal dust bowl near the south entrance to the lake and made the City of Townsend the dustiest city in the state until the problem was mitigated by a dust abatement project in the late 1970's which created a large wildlife management area. That area is now inhabited by literally hundreds of different species of wildlife within a mile of the Townsend city limits.
Despite repeated promises beginning even before construction was completed that Broadwater County would be provided financial and other economic assistance to replace its losses, there has been virtually no help from the Federal Government to mitigate the adverse economic impacts resulting from the loss of that acreage.
A quick glance at a map of the area is instructive. While nearly 80 percent of the lake lies within Broadwater County, less than 20 percent of the camping, boating and other recreational areas at the lake are in Broadwater County. The other 80 percent are at the north end in Lewis and Clark County. A Townsend resident who lives within site of the lake has to drive over 30 miles to the nearest marina to tie up his boat.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All 262 of these cabin sites are on the north end in Lewis and Clark County. If they are sold they will return to the Lewis and Clark County tax base and reduce the PILT funds expended annually by the Federal Government. There will be no such impact in Broadwater County. There will be no increased tax revenue and the PILT money intended to replace property tax revenues for Federal land pays only approximately 55 percent of the revenue that would be generated by taxes where the land is privately owned.
The Wildlife Federation insists that all of the proceeds from the cabin site sales be used to acquire access to other public lands and to the Missouri River and to replace riparian wildlife areas lost when the cabin sites became privately owned. The cabin sites occupy a total of less than 150 acres. They are not actually water front property. The sale of those sites would still leave 100 percent of the shoreline in public ownership and available for public use. The money generated by these sales will be far more than necessary to replace these 150 acres with other public land. Furthermore, the creation of the wildlife management area at the south end of the lake through the dust abatement program contains far more wildlife habitat than presently exists on the cabin sites.
The federation has indicated no willingness to compromise and believes that its goals are the only properly recognizable public goals. They are wrong. The public has a legitimate and recognizable interest in more than the acquisition of additional public land and access. In truth, the government, all governments—Federal, state and local, have enough trouble managing the lands they have. The problem has al-
ways been that the government agencies don't have enough money or are unwilling to spend enough money to properly maintain, improve or operate existing facilities much less to construct new facilities.
As Commissioner Martinez' statement reflects, the Canyon Ferry area is at times overcrowded during peak visitations at several campgrounds in day use areas. His concern about a potential reduction in public access is, we believe, misplaced. He ought instead be interested in expanding and improving access at the lake by supporting this sale and advocating the use of the proceeds for improving and expanding existing facilities. Alternatively, the Bureau of Reclamation ought to be willing to allocate additional money from its budget for those purposes. Since the Bureau has been unwilling to do so in the past we presume that it will be likewise unwilling to do so in the future. For that reason, we in Broadwater County have been exploring ways to do just that for many years and without any meaningful help from the Bureau.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Commissioner states that the Bureau of Reclamation plans to seek a non-Federal managing partner to manage the recreation opportunities and land at Canyon Ferry. Previous efforts to do that have been unsuccessful largely because the Bureau has not been willing to increase its expenditures at the lake.
The Bureau of Reclamation opposed Congressman Williams' attempt in 1993 through H.R. 1477 to provide for cooperative agreements with both Federal and non-Federal partners primarily because the bill provided for the expenditure of all income derived from the facility for use at the facility.
The State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks withdrew its support for a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management out of frustration over the lack of future planning and the Department of Interior's unwillingness to increase the money to be spent at Canyon Ferry.
A draft management plan and environmental assessment commissioned by the Bureau of Reclamation, BLM and FW&P earlier in 1993 which called for $10 million of improvements over a ten-year period died as so many government plans do from lack of interest in seeking the necessary funds.
There has been large scale acquisition and creation of riparian wildlife habitat at the south end of the lake but all economic development has been at the north end. The dust abatement project created a large and wonderful habitat for wildlife at a cost of over $14 million. That project was not, however, an economic development project but was rather in mitigation of the dust problem resulting from the creation of the lake.
Recently, the state Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks acquired additional riparian ground along the southwest side of the lake, less than four miles from Townsend through a land exchange with a local rancher. We applaud those acquisitions but repeat that there has been one broken promise after another that funds would be found to finance improvements to the recreational assets on the south end.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Specifically, we would use the money to improve facilities at the Silos recreation area located approximately one mile off of U.S. Hwy 12, approximately seven miles north of Townsend. There are no deep bays located at the Silos and consequently no boat docks even though the area serves thousands of Montanans and non-Montanans every summer. Broadwater Bay located at the Silos can be deepened to make it suitable as a protected harbor for boats. Additional roads, picnic, camping and sanitary facilities should be constructed. A road should be built across Bureau of Reclamation land providing access to the lake at the north end of the Silos area. A road should be built connecting the Silos with the White Earth recreational area approximately six miles to the north.
The expansion and improvement of these facilities would have a direct and immediate impact on county businesses—the grocery stores, gas stations, boat dealers, hardware stores that make up the retail economy in the county and a resulting positive impact on taxpayers. These improvements would cater to both resident and non-resident without creating adverse impacts on existing infrastructures such as local schools. These improvements would do what has not previously been done—they would help to mitigate the adverse economic impact caused by the loss of those 36 family farms.
This legislation is a one time opportunity to do positive things for a community adversely impacted by government action.
Unlike the Wildlife Federation, we are willing to compromise. We are willing to commit community resources to matching government funds. We are willing to share the proceeds of the cabin site sales with the federation and help accomplish
both their goal and ours. We are not willing to watch this opportunity to slip away as have so many opportunities in the past.
We propose that a substantial portion of the proceeds from the sale of these cabin sites be committed to the construction and expansion of improvements to the recreational facilities located in the Broadwater County portion of Canyon Ferry and that any board or entity created to oversee the expenditure of that money include representation by local government representatives or designees.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
INSERT OFFSET FOLIO 108 HERE
STATEMENT OF VIRGIL BINKLEY, ACTING CHAIR PERSON, CANYON BERRY FISHING ASSOCIATION, BROADWATER COUNTY, TOWNSEND, MONTANA
The Canyon Ferry Fishing Association was started a year ago and now has 485 members in Broadwater County and surrounding areas.
Our Membership is aware of the legislation that will allow the sale of public land, home sites, on the North end of Canyon Ferry Lake.
The Canyon Ferry Fishing Association membership is supporting the enabling legislation to allow the sale of this public property.
We also believe that a portion of these funds should be used to provide safe moorages on the South end of Canyon Ferry lake and other development work to provide a place for safe water sports.
The objectives of The Canyon Ferry Fishing Association is to promote fishing and related water sports on Canyon Ferry Lake. The Association also is active working with the local Montana Fish Wild Life and Parks in promoting habitat for both fish and related wildlife.
During summer months boat fishing is the major recreation activity on Canyon Ferry Lake. Safe moorage space is limited and at low pool there are no safe moorages to run for in the event of a sudden severe weather. Violent thunder storms with winds up to 60 miles per hour resulting in waves up three or four feet are not uncommon.
We urge the committee when preparing legislation to allow the sale of home site lots that a major portion of these fund be allocated to improving safe moorage space for water craft and needed work to enhance habitat for fish and other creatures that use lake.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our membership is pleased that we have been invited to testify at this hearing.
STATEMENT OF JACK SAUTTER, CHAIRPERSON, BROADWATER LAKE AND STREAM COMMITTEE, TOWNSEND, MONTANA
The Broadwater Lake and Stream Committee is a group of citizens who work with the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks to improve trout spawning habitat in streams that feed into the Canyon Ferry Lake complex. During the past 8 years various projects have been partial funded by the Committee through fund raising banquets. These funds are then matched by the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. These projects are now providing natural spawning habitat for all trout species in Canyon Ferry Lake.
Our membership is aware of the bill to allow the sale public property for sale as home sites. We are supportive of this legislation. We, however, feel that some of these funds be identified for the enhancement of trout spawning habitat on streams feeding into the lake.
Currently the Committee is working on developing a youth and handicap fishing area near the Indian Creek camping area. Funds from the Committee, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks will be used for the development. However, additional funds will move this project forward with a much shorter completion period.
The Committee believes that a portion of the funds from the sale of public land on the North end of Canyon Ferry should remain on the lake to provide a safe boating environment and enhance the natural spawning in streams feeding Canyon Ferry Lake.
STATEMENT OF VIRGIL BINKLEY, PRESIDENT, BROADWATER ROD & GUN CLUB, TOWNSEND, MONTANA
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our membership is pleased that we have been invited to testify at this hearing.
The Broadwater Rod and Gun Club was started in 1902 and has been an advocate of wise use of the Natural Resources in Broadwater County.
The Club has ninety active members. The membership has been active in developing safe shooting ranges and works with the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks department on various habitat enhancement for both fish and wildlife. The club also provides the instructor and facilities for hunter education courses.
The membership of the Broadwater Rod and Gun Club is aware bill that will allow the sale of public land in the North end of Canyon Ferry Lake. Our membership is supporting this legislation.
We believe that a portion of these funds be allocated for the development of facilities on Canyon Ferry Lake.
Currently there are no safe haven moorage places on Canyon Ferry Lake South of Goose Bay. During the summer boating season sudden and sever storms move across the lake with winds up to 60 miles per hour and waves up to three feet or more. When these storms occur fishermen and other pleasure boaters are at the mercy of the weather on the South end of the lake. At low water there no sheltered mooring places.
There is a desperate need for four moorages on the West side of the lake and three on the East side of the South end of Canyon Ferry Lake.
The moorage development work could be accomplished in several phases.
We urge the committee to include in the writing of this bill that a major portion of these funds be used to improve water an other recreation areas on Canyon Ferry Lake with a significant amount to the South end to improve boat moorage.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF BOB ROBINSON, CANYON FERRY RECREATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bob Robinson. I am appearing here today on behalf of the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association (CFRA), a membership organization of cabin site permitees at Canyon Ferry Reservoir near Helena, Montana. I am the volunteer chair of CFRA's Cabin Site Acquisition Subcommittee. I am accompanied today by Mark Etchart.
I would like to begin my testimony by thanking Congressman Hill for his diligent efforts on H.R. 3963. Almost one year ago today, I met with Congressman Hill in his Helena office for two purposes: first, to outline the problems that the cabin site lessees were experiencing at Canyon Ferry, and second, to offer a proposed solution to our problems—a solution that would create some significant opportunities for the public. While I plan to devote most of my testimony to the what might be called the ''cabin site purchase solution,'' suffice it to say Congressman Hill listened patiently to our initial presentation, and when we finished, his response was reassuring. He told us that he was committed to working with us to solve our problems. He also reassured us that Montana's Congressional Delegation would put their collective minds together to fashion a common solution to meet public needs.
Congressman Hill has worked hard since our initial meeting to master the facts at Canyon Ferry. Two months ago, he introduced H.R. 3963. In this bill, Congressman Hill seeks to address the cabin owners' problems by allowing us to purchase our cabin sites. Congressman Hill believes that he has only half a bill with H.R. 3963 in its current form. He chose, initially, not to include in his introduced bill a detailed procedure for distributing the public benefits that would be generated by the private funds from the sale of the cabin sites. Rather, he has used these past two months to collect additional public comment on how those benefits might best be distributed. Thus, we are participating today in a hearing to examine, among other things, whether Congressman Hill's bill, H.R. 3963, might be expanded to meet the test of the common solution he talked with us about last year. Congressman Hill has told us that it is the responsibility of Congress to make sure that proposed legislative solutions meet the test of the public good; that is, to determine whether his proposal provides to the public the greatest good to the greatest number. In that regard, CFRA has chosen not to play a leadership role in suggesting how the proposed sale proceeds be spent. Later in this testimony, I will say more about these public benefits that can be purchased with the sale proceeds. However, I believe we can be of far greater assistance to this deliberative process by telling you why we believe it is a good idea to enact legislation authorizing sale of the cabin sites. This matter is addressed in part in the ''findings'' provisions of H.R. 3963 (Section 1).
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
S. 1913 is a companion measure to H.R. 3963 that is pending in the Senate. S. 1913 is cosponsored by the other two members of the Montana congressional delegation. S. 1913 is a somewhat longer bill than H.R. 3963, because the Senate bill proposes, in a detailed way, how to distribute the private funds raised by the exchange of Federal land. I am submitting for the Subcommittee's hearing record a side-by-side comparison of the two bills. As noted earlier, I am concentrating my testimony today on the threshold policy question of why Congress should enact legislation authorizing the sale of the Canyon Ferry cabin sites. The procedure for the sale, which appears in Section 4 of both bills, is drafted quite similarly, and either would be acceptable to CFRA, although we prefer the language of H.R. 3963 on this particular matter. In either case, they both propose rigorous procedures to govern the sale of the cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
I would also emphasize to the Subcommittee that when Congressman Hill submitted his own testimony on S. 1913 last month, he observed that:
The Montana Congressional Delegation has agreed on the value of selling 265 leases on Canyon Ferry. This sale would allow current householders the opportunity for permanent ownership, while paying fair market value to the benefit of the taxpayer.
(Emphasis added.) It is true that there is common agreement on the value of selling the land. And CFRA contends that this common agreement is far broader than that which exists today within the Montana Congressional Delegation. Wide support exists within Montana for this common agreement from a broad range of public opinion, including positive editorial comment, as well as favorable comments from top public officials, including Montana's Governor, who I believe may be submitting his own testimony in support of the value of selling Canyon Ferry's 265 leaseholds.
My testimony today is pretty straightforward. I have tried to be factual and balanced. My remarks are based in large measure upon the experience of a family that has held a permit at Canyon Ferry for nearly four decades. The Robinsons are part of a recreational community at Canyon Ferry lake. We are a community of 265 lessees, who all have kids and grandkids and great grandkids, and who all know each other. Many of us go to a church we built near the lake, and all of us shop at the same little stores. Nearly all of us engage regularly in common recreational activities at the lake. In short, we really are a community.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to comment briefly about the cabin site lessees. We are not a group of wealthy individuals or out-of-state owners, like you see at Flathead Lake or Seeley Lake or at Whitefish Lake. Cabin owners at Canyon Ferry are people who hale primarily from neighboring towns: Helena, Butte, Boulder, Bozeman, White Sulphur Springs, some of us even come from as far away as Billings and Missoula, but primarily from southwestern Montana. We are teachers, smelter workers, craftsmen, dentists, telephone company employees, lawyers, government workers and social security retirees. We are people who are not considered wealthy, even here in Montana. We are people who have raised their kids here, and we are people who pay taxes out there, in addition to paying taxes to our wintertime communities, as well.
The permitees are not just 265 individuals. Let me use my family as a brief example. My mother and father had seven kids. We all use that cabin. We're all married, we've all got a bunch more kids. And this summer, we'll have had the fourth generation of Robinsons at our cabin. Those kind of congregations are happening today all the way up and down the Northern end of Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Those are not just happening on Cabin Site 8, which is where we live. You can go up and down the shoreline and find dozens and dozens of families whose grandparents and parents and brothers and sisters and kids are now using those sites.
The other thing that happens at Canyon Ferry is that those sites become a magnet for a whole bunch of other people in the community who aren't lessees: friends, office picnics, retirement parties, graduation celebrations, weddings, christenings, etc. Our cabins are a recreation resource in and of themselves.
We are facing a serious problem, which I will describe more fully in a moment. But we think we have a solution, and we believe that some extraordinary benefits could be generated with the adoption of our proposed solution. There can be winners and no losers with this legislation. For thirty years, CFRA has been working to resolve the problems addressed by H.R. 3963. In the past, every time we proposed a solution, we learn about some ''loss'' that might result from our proposal. In those cases, the process was stymied and stopped. However, that's history. Now, with H.R. 3963 and S. 1913, we believe that there aren't losers; only gainers on all sides.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to really make it clear that this bill is desperately needed by these 265 permitees and their families, and equally important, this legislation is needed by many, many other people in southwestern Montana who rely on the natural resources around Canyon Ferry Lake. Some of these people have been dealing with this issue since 1968. The first record that we were able to discover is that CFRA was in touch with Senator Mansfield, trying to address this issue in 1968.
The real driving issue behind this bill is that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has a policy to eliminate the leased cabin sites at Canyon Ferry. One manifestation of that policy in the last 10 to 15 years, is that we have experienced a continuous upward spiral in our lease rates. These increases are pushing people, literally, off their leased land.
Exhibits
In preparing this testimony, CFRA's Cabin Site Acquisition Committee drew upon numerous historical documents that we are now providing to the Committee for the public record. Listed below are the following documents that have been supplied to the Committee staff for inclusion in the hearing the record:
Exhibit A: A masters thesis entitled ''Private Use of Public Lands: Canyon Ferry Lake Cabin Lease Sites,'' by Steven Ray Clark professional paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Public Administration at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana, August 1987.
Exhibit B: ''Canyon Ferry Lake—Recreation and Conservation Management Reserve,'' a proposal presented to United States Bureau of Reclamation and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The proposal was prepared by American Public Land Exchange Company Inc. of Missoula, MT and was presented in May 1985. Attached to the report is a document entitled ''Helena Valley Canyon Ferry Land Exchange Background Information,'' prepared at the request of Canyon Ferry Recreation Users Association by American Public Land Exchange Company Inc., dated September 12, 1984.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Exhibit C: Canyon Ferry State Park ''Proposed'' Management Plan by the Canyon Ferry Master Advisory Committee, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1993.
Exhibit D: United States Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General Final Audit Report on Reclamation Management Activities at selected sites, May 17, 1995.
Exhibit E: List of cabin site owners at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
Exhibit F: Rock Creek Trust Fund Agreement and related documents.
Exhibit G: Missouri-Madison Rivers Comprehensive Recreation Management Plan and related Revolving Trust Fund documents.
Exhibit H: A side-by-side analysis of H.R. 3963 and S. 1913
Exhibit I: Opportunity Spectrum at Canyon Ferry: Funding, Management, Recreation, Wildlife, Research, produced by CFRA, 1995
Background Facts Regarding Canyon Ferry Legislation
Here is some background information about the Canyon Ferry Reservoir and the 265 cabin sites that are the subject of this legislation. The reservoir is 26 miles long with a shoreline of 76 miles. (Mr. Etchart is pointing to the relatively small portion of the lake devoted to the cabins.) Please note that none of the 265 cabin site lots contain shoreline, but all are near the shoreline. The 265 cabin site lots, with a total area of less than 150 acres, sit on land that is adjacent to less than 8.2 percent of the reservoir shoreline or 6.37 miles. All of the cabin lots, which average about one half acre per site, are located at the north end of the reservoir, and all are situated in Lewis and Clark County. The sites start about three miles from the dam and extend about three miles on each side, with numerous public facilities developed at the appropriate sites best suited for public use.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Here are a few facts about Broadwater County as they relate to Canyon Ferry. Roughly 80 percent of the shoreline of Canyon Ferry is in Broadwater County, but as noted earlier, no cabin site lots are in Broadwater County. The reservoir is shallower at the south end of the lake, which is near Townsend. This fact will be discussed later in my testimony when we get to the subject of environmental impacts. However, I do want to note at this point that the high water level of the reservoir is 3,800 feet, which is the height of the dam's spillway. All cabin sites are above 3,810 feet, and, for comparison, the Broadwater County courthouse steps are reported to be 3,820 feet. Raising the level of the dam would create quite a problem for Townsend, the county seat of Broadwater County.
When the land at the North end of Canyon Ferry was leased to private permit holders (a process that began more than forty years ago), the current 265 lots that are now developed were raw and completely undeveloped land. When BOR began leasing these lots, permit holders legally obligated themselves to build cabins on their lots as a written condition of BOR's permit. Tents or trailers did not satisfy BOR's condition. Instead, the minimum BOR requirement was for the permit holders to build a permanent foundation for a structure of at least 600 square feet.
Many permit holders, who met the conditions of their lease requirements, have continued to improve their properties at their own expense, including drilling wells, installing septic systems, constructing access roads and the like. Further, it is not uncommon to see dozens of trees planted by the permit holders, along with other valuable landscaping and erosion control activities all at their own expense.
History of Canyon Ferry Reservoir
I would like to present to the Committee a brief history of the Canyon Ferry Reservoir. In preparing this history, CFRA relied extensively upon the 1987 thesis of Steven Ray Clark, a BOR employee at the Canyon Ferry project. Mr. Clark prepared this thesis for a Masters Degree in Public Administration from Montana State University. He is still working for the BOR.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Canyon Ferry Lake was formed when Canyon Ferry Dam was completed in 1954 as a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. Recreation homesite leases at Canyon Ferry were first issued in 1958 as a result of a direct promotion by BOR. The BOR supplied to the Montana Highway Commission drafts of recommended lease agreements, boat permits and licenses for docks. The State of Montana issued these permits pursuant to a state-Federal management agreement. Newspaper articles at the time noted that, prior to the identification of potential cabin sites, BOR first reserved the preferred public recreation sites around the Reservoir's shoreline. According to Mr. Clark's thesis, an important reason for leasing summer home sites was the ''multi-purpose authorization of the Canyon Ferry project and other BOR projects built at that time.'' Clark then observed:
What better way to demonstrate the multi-purpose implementation and development than to lease 265 cabin or summer home sites and rapidly develop their recreational aspects of the multi-purpose authorization?
The first of what would become 265 leased sites were authorized by lottery. And they were not all leased at once. My recollection is that, initially, there were two or three lottery cycles. And the requirement in the Federal lease, was that if somebody received a cabin site by lottery, they had two years in which to build a permanent structure on that site. The policy was established so that it could be reported to Congress that BOR had established the multipurpose use of the reservoir.
Initial leases for the cabin sites were for a period of ten years with an option to extend for an additional ten years. A practice began to occur where the ten year renewals were provided on a virtually automatic basis. Additionally, improvements were allowed to be sold by lessees to different persons, and new leases were drawn up to begin a new ten year lease term for cabin owners.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to Mr. Clark's thesis, the following changes have evolved in BOR's leasing policy:
The leasing policy in the Department of the Interior for private use of recreational lands has vacillated during the past thirty years. The policy has gone from one of open encouragement, to open discouragement, to status-quo, to support of a phase-out.
These precipitous changes in policy by the Federal Government, which continue to this day, have prompted CFRA members to seek ownership of their leased properties. According to Mr. Clark, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association first asked the Montana Congressional Delegation more than thirty years ago for authorization to purchase the land upon which their cabins are located.
What has happened since the mid-1960's, then, is that the Federal cabin site policy has vacillated. It's gone from one of overt and open promotion of cabin sites, to discouragement of cabin sites, to kind of leaving the cabin sites alone for a while, when it was managed by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and now, to a proposed phase-out. I would refer the Subcommittee to the Inspector General (IG) Report dated May of 1995—which we submitted for the record—on pages 10 and 11, where the IG refers specifically to why hasn't BOR activated its plan to phase out cabin sites. The IG concluded that BOR staff didn't activate their plan, because they could not prove that the sites were needed for public use.
None of the cabin sites at Canyon Ferry have lakeshore. (Mr. Etchart is pointing to a BOR map of the North end of Canyon Ferry Lake. The cabin sites are in purple. The shoreline and related public open space is in green.) To repeat, while all of the cabin site permitees have lakeshore access, we don't have lakeshore. Most of the lessees property lines are at least ten vertical feet above high water level at the lake, which pushes us back quite a bit from the shoreline. Thus, if our cabin sites are purchased, the lakeshore and the related recreational opportunities from the lakeshore will not be lost to the public. Indeed, with the sale, not only will there be no loss of the current recreation opportunities, likely there will be new recreation opportunities generated from the sale proceeds.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have referred to this legislation as a proposed land exchange. Actually, it's not quite that, since the permitees don't have land to transfer. In reality, it will be an exchange of money, as much as $20 million, that would be available for public benefit. In times of tight Federal money, this legislation creates new public use dollars that can provide significant opportunities for recreation and habitat enhancement in the area. In short, we believe that the purchase of the sites will eliminate contentiousness with BOR, and give the public a whole lot of other benefits.
It is also important to recognize that the first three miles from the dam back to the first cabin sites is public land, and lots of public recreational opportunities occur there. Interspersed within the cabin sites, as you can see on both sides of the lake, prime land was earmarked for public recreation sites. And those parks do exist, and they are used by the public. There are much fewer developed recreation areas on the south end of the lake. The bottom line for this legislation is that the sale of the lots will not reduce the current recreation opportunities for the public. To the contrary, depending upon how the sale proceeds are used, CFRA believes that there will be many new recreation opportunities that will result from the sale.
It should also be noted that most of the adverse impact from the dam occurred to the original landowners, to the riparian habitat, and to the county governments in terms of lost tax base. Now, if the sale is permitted, Lewis and Clark County would receive increased tax base. East Helena schools and the Helena high schools benefit from such increased valuation. For Broadwater County, the benefits are less clear, but I expect that matter will be covered in detail by the testimony of the witness from Broadwater County.
In addition to the problems faced by the cabin owners, there have been a variety of other problems confronted by the public at Canyon Ferry. From the 1950's to the early 1980's, considerable dust was generated at the south end of the reservoir particularly, when the lake reached low levels. This dust caused considerable problems for Townsend area residents. In response, BOR spent roughly $14 million to abate the dust by retaining more water at the southern end of the lake and providing more habitat for wildlife.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The dust abatement project is noteworthy, because the original design of the dam and the resulting reservoir ignored the negative impacts on wildlife and the environment. This was so, because Federal environmental laws did not then require any assessment of the environmental impact of federally financed projects, such as Canyon Ferry Dam. Further, the primary purpose of the Canyon Ferry project was to generate electricity, improve irrigation and provide flood control. While recreation was later described by BOR as one of the multiple purposes of the project, it was then a relatively minor purpose.
Beginning in May 1958, once permits were issued to private parties, who agreed to build cabins on BOR lands, certain additional requirements were established. First, it was required that a permit fee be paid each year for the lease. Further, the cabin owners were required to provide unobstructed public access to the lake. Over the years, because of changes in BOR policy, there have been numerous modifications in the lease documents. Cabin site leases have become increasingly restrictive and for shorter terms. Initially, these leases were for ten year periods with ten year renewal periods. In 1994, new leases were issued for ten years with the potential for two, five-year renewals. The associated rent payments charged for the leases increased on an accelerated basis due to a combination of factors, including a change in BOR policy, and the recognition of increased values of the underlying land where the lease holders had built their cabins. The current leases for the cabin site properties expire in 2004, but they may be renewed for up to two consecutive five-year terms, or until the year 2014.
It should also be noted that, while the lease holders do not pay property tax on the land (since that land is owned by BOR), they do pay state and local property taxes for the value of all their improvements. Additionally, BOR pays to Lewis and Clark and Broadwater Counties payments in lieu of taxes.
ZMost of the cabins on the leased sites can only be used in the summer, as they lack heat and insulation needed to protect against colder weather. Most lessees are not inclined to make substantial improvements due to the potential termination of their leases, including the requirement that the lessee must remove all improvements upon termination. However, private land ownership should generate substantial capital improvements, thereby increasing associated property tax revenue, which is yet another public benefit.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, it should be noted that CFRA and its members have been working with Lewis and Clark County in recent years to insure that waste water disposal systems (i.e. septic tanks and/or holding tanks) are in place and in conformance with applicable environmental requirements.
CFRA and BOR
CFRA's dealings with BOR over the years have generally been amicable and productive. While disputes have arisen in a few instances, much of that controversy has been associated with the increased annual lease payments for the permits for the 265 leased properties. Some of the cabin owners have experienced as much as eight-fold increases in their annual lease payments over the past ten years. Such increases have caused CFRA to dispute BOR on the valuation of the underlying properties. Fortunately, the most recent dispute on the BOR's appraisal procedure was recently settled by CFRA and BOR. The new settlement procedure comes at a propitious time for several reasons. First, it may provide a basis for determining the fair market value of the cabin site lots to be transferred under this legislation. Second, the settlement minimizes the uncertainty that might otherwise constrain the transfer of lands associated with disputed property values. The phasing-out of leased land has greatly concerned the leaseholders and threatens their investment, work, time and memories that have been built up over almost four generations for many leaseholders.
A Brief Analysis of H.R. 3963
In its simplest form, H.R. 3963 authorizes the Department of the Interior to sell all of the cabin sites, as a group, to the highest bidder under a sealed bid process. The legislation also requires the successful bid to equal or exceed the appraised fair market value of the 265 lots combined. In the event that CFRA bids on the sites, and its bid is exceeded by another bidder, CFRA has the right to match the highest bid. Whoever the high bidder is, it must sell the specific site at market value to the then permitter, assuming the permitter elects to purchase its lot. If the permittee does not want to buy the land on which their cabin sits, the permitter can continue to lease the cabin site for a period not to exceed the current terms allowed under it's permit with BOR. In the event that the cabin owner chooses not to buy their lot, and doesn't want to keep leasing, the high bidder must buy the cabin improvements at a market value price set by appraisal.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CFRA is generally pleased with the current form of this bill. Our association has carefully avoided taking positions on exactly how the proceeds of the transfer are to be used, except we believe that much of the public benefits to be generated by the exchange should stay within the Canyon Ferry/Missouri River area. Further, we are seeking to avoid any appearance that these monies would be used in any way to benefit the cabin owners directly.
CFRA has worked closely with the county commissioners of the two counties encompassing the Reservoir, as well as the local and statewide wildlife organizations. Broadwater County contains approximately 80 percent of the shoreline of Canyon Ferry Reservoir, and Lewis and Clark County contains the balance. While all the cabins are located in Lewis and Clark County, CFRA is concerned that the proceeds of the sale generated by the transfer of the cabin-site lots should in some way provide benefit to the residents of Broadwater County who have arguably not received from BOR as many financial and recreational benefits from the lake as have Lewis and Clark County residents. Likewise, we also think that a substantial share of the proceeds should be allocated to enhance recreational opportunities and habitat protection and access in the Canyon Ferry/Missouri River drainage.
There are scheduled to be witnesses at this hearing representing various wildlife, hunting and fishing organizations. No doubt those witnesses will provide a full and compelling explanation of the various benefits that will occur to wildlife and fish habitat and associated recreational access and activities.
The experience of CFRA over the past four decades in working on the problems associated with leased lands at Canyon Ferry suggest to us that perceptions of public benefit are as varied as the members of the public who express their views about public needs and benefits. More than three years ago, CFRA produced a concept paper, entitled ''Opportunity Spectrum,'' which was submitted to this Subcommittee as Exhibit H. Our paper identified a wide range of public opportunities that could be created with funds generated from the sale of the 265 cabin sites. Nearly twenty types of possible public benefits were identified.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I reflected on those opportunities while preparing this testimony, I was reminded of a statement recently communicated to CFRA by the President of the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF), who said:
Canyon Ferry public lands have lost historic public wildlife value as a result of habitat alterations and destruction. . . . If those lands are to be permanently taken out of the public domain, then we believe that they must be replaced by lands that aim to provide the public with wildlife and recreational opportunities that once existed.
We generally agree with the theme of the MWF statement, but we would also observe that the distribution of public benefits is best accomplished by representative legislative bodies, such as Congress. These bodies follow proven procedures for involving the public at all levels. Further, if experience is any guide, additional changes will likely be made to this legislation, as it advances through the legislative process. We hope that all parties now supporting this important legislation will continue to be able to support it.
In times of limited public budgets, it is a welcome sight to see another important source of funding that will allow greater public benefits to be bestowed. We at CFRA hope that we are given the opportunity to provide that funding through legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to present this testimony and we look forward to answering any questions you might have about the proposal from the standpoint of the 265 site owners at Canyon Ferry.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL KNUFFKE, VICE PRESIDENT, REGIONAL CONSERVATION, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, THE ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, AND THE SIERRA CLUB
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Darrell Knuffke, Vice President of Regional Conservation for The Wilderness Society. My prepared remarks today represent the views of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Endangered Habitats League, and the Sierra Club, as well as The Wilderness Society. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Committee with our views on the need for protecting Otay Mountain and on H.R. 3950, The Otay Mountains Wilderness Act of 1998.
Otay Mountain, rising three thousand feet above the surrounding mesa, is a unique range in southwestern California only minutes away from downtown San Diego. Not only does it provide the people of the region exceptional vistas, it also provides essential habitat for an incredible array of plant species.
Otay Mountain deserves and needs the strong protection for its many and diverse natural and scenic values that Congressional designation as wilderness under the terms of The Wilderness Act of 1964 would provide. Because we support true wilderness protection for Otay Mountain, we oppose H.R. 3950 and specifically its section 6(b). Section 6(b) essentially removes the assurances of wilderness protection suggested by the legislation's title by exempting Federal, state, and local agencies from the requirements of the Wilderness Act while they are conducting activities related to border and fire control. Control of the border and wildfires in this area is essential and we support providing the responsible agencies with what they need to do their jobs. However, it is our understanding that the Border Patrol, the California Department of Forestry (CDF), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) all believe that recent changes to road access on Otay Mountain will allow them to fulfill their missions within the confines of the Wilderness Act.
Based on our conversations with the Border Patrol and others, it is our position that no special wilderness management language is necessary or appropriate to address border related issues on the Otay Mountain. If Congress intends to pass H.R. 3950 and designate the Otay Mountain area as wilderness, Section 6(b) of this bill must be deleted.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to being inconsistent with the difficult and successful changes made in road access in the Otay Mountain area over the last two years, Section 6(b) also ignores the recent effort undertaken by a number of parties, including those represented by this testimony, Congressman Bilbray's staff, and the San Diego Association of Governments to work cooperatively to develop legislation that would reflect the success of the earlier management actions to protect this unique area while providing for the needs of the Border Patrol and CDF.
If Congress determines that the Otay Mountain area cannot receive additional Congressionally mandated protection without the inclusion of ''special management language'' to address border and related issues, then we must encourage you to consider other protective—non-wilderness—options for this unique area.
BACKGROUND
Otay Mountain possesses an extraordinary diversity of plant species, many unique to this mountain range. Deeply dissected by numerous ephemeral streams, the range is dominated by narrow canyons, making it extremely rugged terrain. Due to the unique intermixture of desert and coastal influences, this area is an outstanding botanical site, and is internationally renowned for its diversity of unique plant species. It is listed in the Directory of Federal Natural Areas as supporting at least 15 plant species which are candidates for Federal listing, including the world's largest stand of Tecate cypress, a species found only in small, isolated populations in California and Mexico. The area also contains several unusual vegetative associations, including true chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and oak woodlands.
Because of the area's special values, it was designated as the Otay National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area in 1962. In 1980, with the strong support of the public, including the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, BLM recognized this unusual habitat and its outstanding miles-long vistas of Mexico along the Tijuana River and into the mountainous spine of northern Baja by designating two Wilderness Study Areas in the area. A portion of the mountain was designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern to protect the only known population of the Mexican flannel bush, pristine stands of riparian woodlands, and the Tecate Cypress stands. More recently, local governments in the San Diego area and state and Federal agencies have identified Otay Mountain as an essential part of the Multiple Species Conservation Program, a comprehensive plan to protect sensitive plant and animal species in an interconnected habitat preserve in a manner that reduces constraints to the region's development.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We fully recognize the important and dangerous job that the Border Patrol and CDF are doing on the Otay Mountain to protect our country's border and to fight wildfires, respectively. We respect the needs of the Border Patrol to have the tools and resources to carry out the immigration and drug interdiction activities the agency has been assigned. The same is true of CDF and its job. However, based on meetings and discussions with the Border Patrol and CDF agents working on Otay Mountain, and numerous discussions with the BLM, we believe these agencies can fulfill their obligations in a manner that is consistent with management of Otay Mountain as wilderness. To understand this, we must review what has happened over the past several years in the Otay area.
Historically, Otay Mountain's rugged landscape served as a significant deterrent to illegal border crossing. Almost four years ago, when Operation Gatekeeper beefed up border operations near San Diego and began to stifle illegal immigration along the border between the coast and Otay Mountain, traffic of illegal immigrants dramatically increased over the mountain. As thousands of aliens attempted to use Otay Mountain as passage into the United States, hundred of wildfires, most due to campfires, were started. At the peak, 350 wildfires burnt over some 23,000 acres in one year. Additionally the steep and rugged terrain of Otay made the crossing exceptionally dangerous for the individuals who were attempting the crossing. In the summer of 1996, San Diego County declared a state of emergency because of the threats to human life from the intensity of illegal immigrant traffic and wildfires on Otay Mountain. At that point, the BLM developed a plan to provide the Border Patrol and CDF the vehicle access they needed across the mountain range and down to the actual border while protecting most of the mountain's biological resources.
Two jeep roads have crisscrossed the center of the mountain range for decades, but their degraded condition and the lack of road access to the border itself made interdiction and fire fighting activities very difficult, at best. By upgrading the two existing routes and constructing new roads along the eastern and western edges of Otay Mountain, the BLM provided the Border Patrol and CDF the access they needed to accomplish their missions.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although the new road segments were created within the existing wilderness study areas, our organizations participated in the planning for and did not object to their construction, given the significant health and safety issues at the time, the need to protect the border, and the importance of decreasing the frequency of wildfire for protection of the area's rare plants.
The new road access along the east and west boundaries of the area essentially moved the interdiction effort down to the border itself. This solution was developed by the BLM in consultation with the Border Patrol and CDF to control the border, prevent destructive fires, and protect the botanical values of the Otay Mountains Wilderness Study Area. The action plan provided for these needs in a context of wilderness management. By all accounts the plan was a success.
As a follow-up to this effort, several staff members from the organizations I am representing today recently visited Otay Mountain on a BLM-sponsored tour and met with the Border Patrol and CDF to see how the new system of roads and access points was working.
The success of this project and the comfort of both Border Patrol and CDF field managers with the existing situation was relayed to our organizations, Congressman Bilbray's staff and the BLM at a May 9th meeting at the Border Patrol's Brown's Field offices. At that meeting, the Border Patrol and CDF assured us that the actions taken by the BLM on Otay Mountain had allowed their staffs to effectively accomplish their missions. Officials of both agencies indicated that fires and attempts to cross the border had decreased significantly as the result of the new system of roads and access points. When asked if any additional access or other facilities would be needed in the Otay Mountains, the reply from both agencies was that they had everything they needed.
A May 20, 1998 letter from BLM State Director Hastey to Congressman Bilbray confirmed this. In his letter, Mr. Hastey detailed the position of both the Border Patrol and CDF:
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(1) Since the Border Patrol states it has adequate existing access outside the recommended Wilderness Area boundaries to protect this area and enforce Federal law, the only question regarding wilderness designation that we can foresee would be the placement of new and maintenance of existing electronic sensors used to detect presence of illegal immigrants entering the area. According to our BLM Manual, additional sensors (considered to be ''other agency facilities'') can be authorized if they ''are essential for meeting the minimum requirements for administration of the area as wilderness.'' Therefore, if the Border Patrol and BLM determine additional sensors beyond those already in place are necessary, we could authorize placement of such sensors after an environmental analysis is completed. As for existing sensors, the Border Patrol currently maintains those as necessary without motorized vehicle access and the same procedure would apply under wilderness management.
(2) Obviously, fire danger is a significant management issue on Otay Mountain. Again, CDF has stated that the existing access on Otay Mountain is adequate for its fire protection needs and as long as those cherrystemmed access routes are maintained, they do not see further need for construction of any additional fire roads within the area to be designated wilderness. BLM's Wilderness Manual states that ''all fires must be controlled to prevent loss of human life or property within Wilderness Areas, or to prevent the spread of fire to areas outside the wilderness where life, resources or property may be threatened.'' Therefore, while no one can predict the extent of a fire emergency on Otay Mountain, we believe the legislative authority and Manual guidance give BLM and CDF the ability to make on-the-ground fire decisions during emergencies to protect life and property, as well the wilderness resources. (emphasis added).
In sum, the Border Patrol, CDF, the BLM and we all believe that, given the recent changes in road access on Otay Mountain, each of these agencies can fulfill their respective missions within the confines of the Wilderness Act.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSIONS:
Our organizations strongly support permanent protection of Otay Mountain and its many and diverse natural values. If Section 6(b) is deleted from H.R. 3950, we could support this legislation and its designation of Otay as wilderness. If, however, Congress determines that the Otay Mountain area cannot be granted additional Congressionally mandated protection without the inclusion of ''special management language'' to address border and related issues, then we must encourage you to consider other protective—non-wilderness—options for this unique area. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 109 TO 111 HERE
STATEMENT OF DR. BENJAMIN F. PAYTON, PRESIDENT, TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY
Good morning. Chairman Hansen and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Benjamin F. Payton. I have the privilege of serving as President of Tuskegee University, an independent state related institution of higher education that focuses on engineering and technical education the agricultural and life sciences, selected biomedical professions, business, and on research and community development. These special program emphases are presented in a framework which highlights the insights and information from the humanities and behavioral sciences as fundamental to life. In addition, Tuskegee University stresses lifelong learning, broad and deep moral and spiritual values, love of country, and concern for the global community. Tuskegee University was founded 117 years ago by Booker T. Washington and is located in southeast Alabama.
In addition to its role as an educational institution, Tuskegee University is also guardian of an important National treasure, the Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site. Tuskegee is the only university campus in the United States designated by Congress as a National Historic Site where the site is administered by the National Park Service. In addition, Tuskegee University is the only historically black college or university (HBCU) to have ever owned, designed, developed, and operated a U.S. Military training facility. It is that facility—Moton Field—and the heroism of the men and women trained there during World War II which are the subject of this testimony and of this legislation.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
May I take a moment to thank Congressman Riley, my Congressman, for his leadership in sponsoring this bill and for the immense efforts which he and his staff devoted to bring H.R. 4211 to this stage. Congressman Riley and I requested that the National Park Service prepare a special resource study of how best to interpret and celebrate the role of the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II and their primary flight training at Moton Field. Throughout this process he has been tremendously supportive and a friend to the University. We are indebted to him and we greatly appreciate his efforts. I also thank Congressman Earl Hilliard, who is a co-sponsor of this bill, for being a source of wise counsel, and a champion of interests affecting the broader historically black college and university community.
Additionally, I must acknowledge and profusely thank the staff of the National Park Service of the Department of Interior for their exceptional work in behalf of this legislation. The National Park Service (NPS) evaluated the potential of adding Moton Field to its system and one of its researchers discovered a captivating video documenting the Tuskegee Airmen's accomplishments. At your convenience, I invite you to review, pause and reflect on portions of this stirring historically accurate video that was narrated by former President Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Chairman, a bill to recognize the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen by establishing the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site at Moton Field where this history began, is long overdue. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony in support of H.R. 4211, a bill to establish the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site as a component of the National Park Service System, in association with Tuskegee University. I want you to know that Tuskegee University and all of its constituents enthusiastically support this legislation.
The story of the Tuskegee Airmen and their exemplary record is virtually unknown to the average American. (Of course, Mr. Chairman, I know because of your experience of being a military pilot you are familiar with the Airmen and their combat exploits.) Very few scholarly works are available for the general public to examine the historical impact made by these Airmen. While this story deals with their primary flight training at Moton Field, and their courage in battle during World War II, it also embraces the struggle to end racial discrimination against African Americans in the U.S. military and in the larger American society. Additionally, the story also encompasses the development of Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) and its persistent efforts to encourage the U.S. Army Air Corps to establish a military pilot training program for African Americans.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The accomplishments and impact of the Tuskegee Airmen are, without a doubt, of significance to this nation. The Tuskegee Airmen are deserving of a unit of the National Park System to provide for their commemoration and to relate their story to present and future generations. This story is well detailed in the 16-page summary of the special resource study and for this reason my remarks will focus primarily on other issues.
Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) played a strategic role in the training of the Tuskegee Airmen. In the 1940s the pervasive perception within the military and throughout the nation was that white people, simply by virtue of the color of their skin, constituted a superior race and that African Americans were inherently inferior beings who did not possess the intellectual capacity to become successful fighter pilots. These beliefs led to the use of quotas, exclusion, and other more blatant forms of racial discrimination in the military. These beliefs also served as the rationale to deny African Americans positions of leadership and skill in the military and they operated to prevent the training of African Americans as military pilots. The struggle of African Americans to join the Army Air Corps and become combat pilots during World War II played out against this background of officially sanctioned white racism.
After much pressure from civil rights groups and from the African American press, Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) was selected by the U.S. Military to sponsor the first Military Pilot Training Program in U.S. History for African Americans. Moton Field, which was named for the University's second President, Robert Russa Moton, was selected as the specific primary training site. This field has particular significance in Tuskegee's history because the University's students and faculty assisted an African American contractor in designing and constructing it, and because of its ideal year-round flight conditions. But Moton Field's very existence was the outgrowth of the vision of Tuskegee Institute (Tuskegee University) and the University's willingness to invest financial and human resources in the development of the Field. This made possible an extensive civilian pilot training program (CPT) at Moton Field which moved the Institute (University) to the forefront of such training efforts. Combined with the strong performance of students from Tuskegee's CPT Program, who had better test scores than other candidates in competing training facilities, Tuskegee became the clear choice in competition to host a military pilot training for African Americans.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Consequently, in spite of the prevailing racist beliefs about whether African Americans could become military leaders and pilots, instructors at Moton Field trained nearly 1,000 aviators as America's first African American military pilots. Over the years this operation at Moton Field would include over 10,000 military and civilian African American men and women who served as air traffic controllers, flight instructors, officers, bombardiers, navigators, electrical and communication specialists, medical professionals, cooks, musicians and other personnel. On July 19, 1941, twelve aviation cadets and one student officer, Captain Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., a graduate of the Unites States Military Academy, reported to Tuskegee Institute to begin flight training as the first class of African American candidates in the U.S. Military. In March, 1942, the first class of African American aviation cadets graduated from Tuskegee Army Air Field and became the nation's first black military pilots. The significance of this event should not be underestimated: after years of struggle, African Americans were finally accepted and commissioned as pilots and officers in the United States Army. Captain Davis received his wings and took over the command of the 99th Squadron.
From 1942 to 1943 Army Air Force officials and military leaders, would scrutinize and question the performance and aggressiveness of the Airmen. By 1943 Lt. Col. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. was called upon by a United States Senate Advisory Committee to respond to questions about the military performance of the 99th Fighter Squadron. However, after scoring a series of victories and the news of their courageous and heroic performance reached the military leaders, the Airmen earned increased combat action and respect. White American bomber crews referred to them as the ''Red-tail Angels'' because of the identifying paint on their tail assemblies and because of their record of never losing a bomber to enemy fighters while escorting the 15th Air Force on bombing missions over strategic targets. These gallant men flew 15,553 sorties and completed 1,578 missions, destroyed over 260 enemy aircraft, sank one enemy destroyer, and demolished numerous enemy installations. After a distinguished and meritorious military career, Lt. Col. Davis rose to the rank of Lt. General and he resides here in Washington, DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a list of the Tuskegee Airmen's victories and their numerous awards.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These veterans are not only to be remembered for their heroic actions, but for using non-violent legal demonstration tactics to desegregate an officer's club in Indiana via the efforts of members of the 447th Bombardment Group. Such nonviolent actions later became the hallmark of the civil rights movement.
Telling the story of the Tuskegee Airmen's accomplishments and commemorating the impact these Americans had on demonstrating the capabilities of African Americans and attacking military segregation warrants being expressed through a form of ''living history'' as outlined in a study entitled ''Moton Field: Tuskegee Airmen Special Resource Study,'' dated June, 1998. There remains a need not only to tell the history, but to perpetuate the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen so that our great nation can continue to produce leaders of achievement with the stature of General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., Admiral Samuel L. Gravely, former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander, Astronauts Guion Blubord, Ronald McNair, and Frederick Gregory, Rear Admiral Mack Gaston (U.S. Navy, Ret., a Tuskegee graduate), General Charles Williams (U.S. Army, Ret., also a Tuskegee graduate.) The attainments of these African American leaders to hold so many significant positions and ranks within every branch of service can be linked to the paths paved by the Tuskegee Airmen. Commemorating the accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen through the establishment of a national Historic Site will provide educators in our nation with a tool they can use to inspire future generations to accept that people of every race can make significant contributions to our nation when provided opportunities.
The historic remains and historic character of the Moton Field Complex are substantially intact and are the only significant cultural resources left that represent the Tuskegee Airmen Experience. All structures and most other visible remnants of the Tuskegee Army Air Field, an advanced flight training facility built by the Army just a few miles from Moton Field, have been removed.
We feel that the historic role of Tuskegee University should be extended to a contemporary partnership role in assisting the National Park Service (NPS) in commemorating the Tuskegee Airmen at Moton Field. There are several ways that Tuskegee University can serve as a principal partner with NPS in the development and use of the historic site. Tuskegee University is prepared to donate land needed to establish the new park unit. We plan to initially donate approximately 35 acres which contains the key historic resources at Moton Field and is sufficient to allow for management use.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The role of Tuskegee University will also involve the establishment of a Department of Aviation Science under the auspices of the University at Moton Field. Precollege and college level curriculum will emphasize math and science and provide a historical continuum of flight training in the tradition of the Tuskegee Airmen. In addition, Tuskegee University will develop training programs for adults in the region to become skilled power mechanics, airport maintenance crews and other high demand vocations that are airport—aviation science—related. Tuskegee University will do this in partnership with private and public entities.
The proposed Tuskegee Airmen National Center (the Center) will house the Department of Aviation Science as well as a full-scale military museum to extend the ability to relate more fully the story of the Tuskegee Airmen. Tuskegee University intends to work closely with NPS in preparing a report outlining the public/private partnership needed to develop and operate the Center. Once an agreement has been reached on the development and management of the Center, the balance of the acreage for the historic site will be donated by Tuskegee University to NPS.
The Center will require a national fundraising campaign involving the Tuskegee Airmen, Tuskegee University, retired and active military personnel, private corporations (especially the aircraft industry), private foundations and others will be needed. Private contributions are anticipated to provide some of the funds needed for construction and, possibly, an endowment for operation of the facility. However, since the Tuskegee Airmen have broad national significance to this nation and to ensure a high quality facility is provided, substantial Federal funds will be required as well, and a Federal partner(s) should be involved as lead agency(ies) in the operation of the facility. Key Federal partners could include the U.S Department of Defense (U.S. Air Force), U.S. Department of Education, Federal Aviation Administration, Smithsonian Institution, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Park Service.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The location of Tuskegee University's Department of Aviation Science at Moton Field will also provide the opportunity for the school's students and teachers to participate in the park's interpretive programs, particularly those dealing with living history. Potentially, such visitor-student interface opportunities will benefit the visitor experience.
The above activities are indicative of the ways that Tuskegee University plans to serve as a principal partner of NPS in the management, use and development of the historic site. For this reason, such a role has been outlined for Tuskegee University in the bill. Tuskegee University intends to play an important role in many aspects of the historic site.
The Tuskegee Airmen include thousands of civilian and military men and women who overcame discriminatory conditions to become one of the most highly respected and honored fighter groups. They were the first African American soldiers to successfully complete their training and enter the Army Air Corps. They deserve and the entire American public needs this National Historic Site to help correct the many false and distorted images of African Americans which lie so deeply in the American culture.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this legislative hearing and inviting me to testify on a bill that would establish and preserve a lasting and permanent legacy that reflects the bravery, heroic feats and accomplishments of the dedicated men who trained at Tuskegee Institute and fought the battles of racism in the military and of World War II as well as integrated the United States Armed Forces. As I said in the beginning of my testimony, since Tuskegee University is the guardian of the Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, our stewardship in association with the National Park Services' leadership of this proposed Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site is appropriate and fitting. Mr. Chairman, the history of these patriots and their fight for the right to join the Army Air Corps and prove their work to their country, as well as their struggle for equal rights in both the military and society, must be preserved for the American public. They represent an important part of this nation's history. Tuskegee University fully supports the establishment of the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site in association with the National Park Service.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given your appreciation of the impact the Tuskegee Airmen had on encouraging equality in the military and helping to develop outstanding leaders from every branch of military service, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your colleagues for providing your full support to this legislation.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIO 112 HERE
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 51, 92 TO 107 AND 113 TO 133 HERE