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 pict