[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
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
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-836 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
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 ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Gary Griffith, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 28, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Bilbray, Hon. Brian, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 4
Hansen, Hon. James V. a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hill, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Montana................................................. 53
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 173
LoBiondo, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 170
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Riley, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alabama................................................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Statements of witnesses:
Barger, Don, Southeast Regional Director, National Parks and
Conservation Association................................... 79
Prepared statement of.................................... 206
Binkley, Virgil, President, Broadwater Rod and Gun Club,
Board Member, Canyon Ferry Fishing Association, Member,
Broadwater Stream and Lake Committee....................... 68
Prepared statement of.................................... 111
Budewitz, Thomas, Attorney, representing the Board of
Commissioners, Broadwater County, Montana.................. 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 107
Fischer, Jerry, President/CEO, Yosemite Motels............... 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 215
Fry, Tom, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management......... 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Galetto, Jane Morton, President, Citizens United to Protect
the Maurice River and its Tributaries, Inc................. 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 212
Knuffke, Darrell, Vice President of Regional Conservation,
The Wilderness Society..................................... 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 118
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... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 94
Paxton, Gregory, President/CEO, Georgia Trust for Historic
Preservation............................................... 76
Payton, Benjamin, Office of the President, Tuskegee
University................................................. 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 124
Robinson, Bob, President, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
Cabin Site Acquisition Subcommittee........................ 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 112
Sautter, Jack, Chairperson, Broadwater Lake and Stream
Committee, Townsend, Montana, prepared statement of........ 111
Stevenson, Katherine, Associate Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior................................. 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 106
Additional material supplied:
Burns, Hon. Conrad, a Senator in Congress from the State of
Montana.................................................... 192
Durrett, James F., III, Chief Operating Officer, The Georgia
Conservancy, prepared statement of......................... 189
Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, Fact Sheet.......... 201
Prickly Pear Sportsmen's Association, prepared statement of.. 194
Racicot, Hon. Marc, Governor, State of Montana, prepared
statement of............................................... 193
Text of H.R. 3963............................................ 129
Text of H.R. 2125............................................ 137
Text of H.R. 3950............................................ 138
Text of H.R. 4144............................................ 144
Text of H.R. 4211............................................ 151
Text of H.R. 4230............................................ 163
Text of H.R. 4287............................................ 166
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
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.]
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.]
Mr. Hansen. The next bill, H.R. 4211, introduced by
Congressman Riley of Alabama, would establish the Tuskegee
Airmen Na-
tional 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.]
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 con-
vey 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 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 (O 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 habi-
tat, 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.
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.033
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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----
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?
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?
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 recre-
ation 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?
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.
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.
What we don't want to create is a strong, open signal to
certain elements of our society that, look, see the areas in
between those red boundaries or cherry stems? That's open
season for you; nothing at all will be put there. There will be
no detection; they'll be no interdiction. Don't worry, this is
a safe zone.
And I think that that's what I'm trying to do with my
legislation is say, for preservation and for protection, we'll
have this enforcement. But, we want to send a strong message to
those people that would take advantage of this type of
legislation--don't think it's a safe zone for you. There will
always be the ability to step in and bust you if you try to do
certain illegal activities in these wilderness areas. That's
what we're trying to do. If we don't, we would just in effect
say the entire border area from Brownsville through Big Bend,
all the way through New Mexico and Arizona, is totally devoid
of being able to take advantage of the wilderness option. This
shouldn't automatically be the case, so that's, I think, what
we can work out with H.R. 3950.
Mr. Hansen. That would be the redeeming feature of your
bill, if I may say.
The gentlelady from Virgin Islands is next.
Ms. Christian-Green. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question, but I've heard a lot about the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument since coming here,
and I'm glad to see that that issue is resolved. That I'm sure
that if we could resolve that issue, we can resolve some of the
other ones. But I'm glad to see that we've been able to resolve
it.
The question that I have is for Associate Director
Stevenson. There's an article that appeared in yesterday's
Atlanta Journal Constitution, written by Mr. Gregory Paxton, of
the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, who will be
testifying later, at which it suggested that the Dungeness
Guest House that we have pictures of in our packet is in ruins
because it's in a wilderness area. And, also, it claims that
the Plum Orchard is falling into despair because it's in a
wilderness area, and they can't get to it to provide
maintenance. And I wanted you to have an opportunity to respond
to that.
Ms. Stevenson. The National Park Service realizes that we
have a commitment to preserve our historic structures. In fact,
I'm the Associate Director for Cultural Resources, in addition
to Partnerships. The wilderness designation causes us to have
to work very closely with other groups in order to figure out
solutions for being able to meet our dual-responsibilities to
wilderness and to resource preservation, in terms of cultural
resources.
At Plum Orchard, as soon as the Wilderness Management Plan
is finished, we are hopeful that we'll be able to go out with
an historic property lease. And that--assuming that we get some
good responses to that, and we hope we will--we feel that we'll
be able to do work on that property that will bring it back up
to a maintainable standard.
Ms. Christian-Green. OK, thank you. But the Dungeness House
is in a wilderness area?
Ms. Stevenson. No, it's not.
Ms. Christian-Green. OK; thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of
brief--well, one brief comment and one brief question.
First, on my bill, as discussed by Ms. Stevenson, regarding
transfer station or an entrance station at El Portal, and a
land exchange for that, the issue was mentioned that the land
exchange would occur at fair value, and just for the sake of
the record, the appraisals are in process right now. It is the
intent of the private property owner who is here--where Mr.
Fischer will later testify the desire for equal value depending
on the outcome of the appraisal, so I just wanted to mention
that for the record.
But I also had a statement regarding Mr. Bilbray's bill
regarding--and I thought it was Otay--excuse me, but I thought
maybe Eddie Murphy would be here testifying on behalf of this
wilderness.
[Laughter.]
But it's Otay, and I was a little bit disappointed. Mr.
Fry, I don't have the map here, and thank you.
My question is, given the nature of the area, its proximity
to the border, the problems of fire protection, drug
interdiction, and border patrol concerns, is it your desire to
maybe have this in wilderness with no access whatsoever to
resolve these issues in the problem?
Mr. Fry. No, sir. Congressman, we think that the Wilderness
Act allows for emergency situations. And certainly, we think
that a fire is an emergency situation. We have lots of times
when we go into wilderness areas to deal with fire. Certainly,
public safety can be another emergency situation, and if there
are activities that are going on in the land that are illegal,
we think those constitute emergencies, and we think the
Wilderness Act allows for those kinds of things to take place.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, then, Mr. Fry, can you elaborate,
then, on what the administration is willing to compromise in
order to make this thing happen? Because it seems to me that
the choice is the lack of wilderness designation for the area,
and that's something that nobody wants, I don't think.
Mr. Fry. Because of this concern, that's why we suggested
the possibility of a national conservation area. You could take
an area that is a little bit larger than this area moving to
the east and to the north. You might have--if you look at the
map over there, you'll see what I'll call three different
sections.
In the southern section that's closest to the border, might
possibly be an area that's not designated as wilderness, but
have some special management features. You then might include
those two top sections as areas that are wilderness. So, it
would look like to us that may be a solution to this concern
about how the land would be used and what would go on on the
land. We could solve that with a national conservation area.
We did, though, come here today in support of the bill as a
wilderness bill.
Mr. Radanovich. OK, thank you.
Mr. Hansen. One further question for the administration
panel, and that is Mr. Hill from Montana.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martinez, as you know, there's a Senate bill that's
been introduced on turn over of these cabin sites, Senate bill
1913. Does the administration support that bill? Could you
advise me?
Mr. Martinez. It's my understanding we do not support that
bill.
Mr. Hill. And one last point, are there any features in
that--and I would just ask you to submit this for the record--
any features of that bill as of contrasted with the House
version that you prefer? I would appreciate having your
comments about that.
Mr. Martinez. We will provide that for the record, and
we'll get in touch with you.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hill. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. We thank the panel. We look forward to sending
you some written questions. We would hope you could answer them
for us.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Our second panel is Thomas A. Budewitz--if I'm
saying that right--Bob Robinson, Virgil Binkley, Darrell
Knuffke, and Jerry Fischer.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the letter from James Durrett, the chief operating officer
of the Georgia Conservancy, be made part of the record with
reference to H.R. 4144.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Montana.
Mr. Hill. I would just ask unanimous consent that letters
from Governor Marc Racicot and Senator Conrad Burns, as well as
testimony from Jim Posowitts of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's
Association be entered into the record with regard to my bill.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
[The prepared statement of the Prickly Pear Sportsmen's
Association may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. We appreciate you gentlemen being with us. I
know you've come a long way, and your testimony is very
important to us, and you know we have a few little problems
there.
And we'll start with the gentleman from Montana. How do you
pronounce that?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUDEWITZ, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING THE BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA
Mr. Budewitz. Budewitz.
Mr. Hansen. Budewitz; pretty close. We'll start with you,
sir. If you want to pull that mike over close to you so we can
pick up everything you say, we'd appreciate it. And you know
the rules.
Mr. Budewitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is Tom Budewitz; I'm here representing Broadwater
County, and particularly the Broadwater County commissioners.
The commissioners support the concept of making the cabin sites
available for purchase. Our interest is in the allocation of
the proceeds of the cabin site sales and the make-up of any
entity formed to control the expenditure of those funds.
The creation of Canyon Ferry Reservoir in the early 1950's
resulted in the loss of 36 family farms. They're now covered
with as much as 75 feet of water. The loss of those farms
displaced 36 productive families, destroyed thousands of acres
of the richest soil in the county, and permanently removed all
of those acres from the county tax rolls.
For many years, the creation of the reservoir resulted in a
literal dust bowl near the south entrance to the lake and made
the city of Townsend the dustiest city in the State. That
problem was finally mitigated approximately 20 years ago with a
dust abatement project and creation of a wildlife management
area just outside the city of Townsend, at the south end of the
lake.
Despite repeated promises, beginning even before
construction of the dam and reservoir, that Broadwater County
would be provided financial and other economic assistance to
replace its losses. There has been virtually no help from the
Federal Government to mitigate the adverse economic impacts
resulting from the loss of those farms.
A quick glance at a map of the area is instructive. Nearly
80 percent of the lake lies within Broadwater County, yet less
than 20 percent of the camping, boating, and other recreational
areas at the lake are in the county. The other 80 percent are
at the north end in Lewis and Clark County. A Townsend
resident--Townsend being the county seat of Broadwater county
and lying less than a mile from the south end of the lake--has
to drive 30 miles to the nearest marina to tie up his boat,
even though he can see the lake out his back window.
All 262 of these cabin sites are on the north end in Lewis
and Clark County. If they are sold, they will return to the
Lewis and Clark County tax base, and reduce the PILT funds
expended annually by the Federal Government. There will be no
such impact in Broadwater county. There will be no increased
tax revenue, and the PILT money intended to replace property
tax revenues for Federal land pays only approximately 55
percent of the revenue that would be generated by taxes if the
land were privately owned.
The Montana Wildlife Federation has opposed this bill and
the accompanying Senate bill at several meetings that have been
held in Montana. They insist that the money be used for the
acquisition of other public property and to replace riparian
wildlife area lost when the cabin sites become privately owned.
The fact is that these cabin sites occupy a total of less than
150 acres. None of the cabin sites are actually waterfront
property, and all of the waterfront--all of the shoreline, as
Congressman Hill has pointed out--would remain available for
use by the public. The money generated by these sales will be
far more than necessary to replace these 150 acres with other
public land.
Furthermore, the creation of the wildlife management area
at the south end of the lake, a number of years ago, contains
more created and contains more wildlife habitat than presently
exists on the cabin sites--far more.
The Wildlife Federation has indicated no willingness to
compromise and believe that their goals are the only properly
recognized public goal; they're wrong. The public has a
legitimate and recognizable interest in more than the
acquisition of additional public land and access. In truth, as
has been demonstrated historically, not only the government in
general, but the particular agencies that are involved in the
Canyon Ferry, have enough trouble managing the lands they have.
The problem has always been that the government agencies
involved at Canyon Ferry don't have enough money or are
unwilling to spend enough money to properly maintain, improve,
or operate existing facilities.
As Commissioner Martinez' statement reflects, the Canyon
Ferry area is at times overcrowded. In fact, the Broadwater
County plan, which would be to spend most of the money for
improvement of ac-
cess at the southern end of the lake, would relieve and
mitigate the overcrowding problem at the north end.
One of the issues that's been alluded to earlier, and
specifically mentioned, Bureau of Reclamation now proposes that
they want to do a study, a management plan, for the entire
lake, I gather. In 1993, there was, in fact, a draft management
plan--draft management and environmental assessment that was
prepared at the instance of Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of
Land Management, and the State of Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks. That plan died. Congressman Williams' bill
in 1993, which called for a joint management by the State and
the two interior agencies, died. Nothing has been able to be
done in the past; we don't have any great confidence that
anything will happen in the future. And we hope that the
Committee will recommend the approval and passage of
Congressman Hill's bill.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Budewitz may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Binkley.
Can we get a mike over in front of you, sir?
STATEMENT OF VIRGIL BINKLEY, PRESIDENT, BROADWATER ROD AND GUN
CLUB, BOARD MEMBER, CANYON FERRY FISHING ASSOCIATION, MEMBER,
BROADWATER STREAM AND LAKE COMMITTEE
Mr. Binkley. I'm Virgil Binkley; I represent the Canyon
Ferry Fishing Association, the Broadwater Lake and Stream
Committee, and the Broadwater Rod and Gun Club. We're out of
Townsend, Montana.
Our membership is in agreement with the sale of the cabin
sites at the north end of the lake. We very much would like to
have a portion of that money spent developing safe harbors for
boating--particularly boating activity--and some habitat
restoration in the local streams.
At present, the amount of boater recreation in Canyon
Ferry, particularly on the north end, is going up quite
rapidly. Of the places where you can get into on the north end
of the lake, is Goose Bay, which is about 20 miles south, and
we have a small place at Silos, which is probably 8 or 10 miles
north. And if the wind comes up and we have violent weather,
it's extremely difficult to get boats in and out, mainly
because of dock space. You can only get two in at each time.
And that gets to be a real struggle. People had their boats up
on the beach, the waves going over the transoms, filling them
with water, and it really presents a public safety issue. And
we really would like to see, either through the sale of this
land, some of the moneys being channeled in for that type of
development, or some other means of financing places to
excavate in the south end of the lake so we do have some safe
places to take boats in and out of the water.
And with that, that's our position, as far as Congressman
Hill's bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Binkley may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Binkley; appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Robinson.
STATEMENT OF BOB ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, CANYON FERRY RECREATION
ASSOCIATION CABIN SITE ACQUISITION SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to speak before you today. We'd like to especially thank
Congressman Hill for his attention to this issue and his work
over the last few months, and literally over the last year,
trying to find a solution that all of us in Montana can live
with, with this particular issue.
This bill attempts to address a longtime problem that's
been festering with the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association and
the Bureau of Reclamation. In fact, our records go back to
1968, when the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association went to
Senator Mansfield trying to get him to work with us to acquire
these sites because of the difficulties in dealing with the
Bureau of Reclamation at that time.
To capsulize, I can tell you that the Bureau of
Reclamation's policy initially was to promote these cabin sites
so that they could defend the construction of Canyon Ferry
Reservoir as a multiple-use facility. It wasn't very long after
those cabin sites were leased that the Bureau of Reclamation,
then, took a policy of maybe we ought to eliminate those cabin
sites. That's the time when the Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association went to Senator Mansfield.
Subsequent to that, Montana's Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Department managed the property, and there was kind of a hands-
off approach by the Bureau of Reclamation. Since the Bureau of
Reclamation has taken over here in the last few years, and
especially since the Inspector General's report became public
in 1995, when it reflected that--or asked the question, why
hasn't the Bureau of Reclamation initiated its policy of
removing the cabin sites from the lake, has this issue come to
the surface again.
We think the Bureau of Reclamation has initiated that
policy by forcing a significantly higher lease rate. Now back
in the 1960's, lease rates were $25 a year, which was literally
nothing, and that was done to meet the needs of Bureau of
Reclamation. Those lease rates, on an annual basis, work their
way up to $500, $600, $700. In the last couple of years, those
lease rates have jumped up $2,500 to nearly $4,000 per year on
an individual cabin site.
Basically, what's happening is that the people who own
those cabins and lease those sites are being forced off the
land, being forced to sell the cabin to somebody else who can
afford it.
Canyon Ferry is unique in Montana in that those who own
those cabins out there are generally from the southwestern
Montana. They're not wealthy individuals; they are family
members who have had those cabin sites for nearly 40 years.
They're smelter workers; they're union electrical workers.
There's teachers, there's government employees, there's a
doctor, at least there's a few doctors around there. They're
retired individuals, but the cross-section of the population in
southwestern Montana is who owns those cabin sites. We have
other lakes in Montana that are recreation facilities that you
have wealthy, out-of-state owners buying up those sites and
running up the prices, and running up the taxes. That's not
happening at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. It is still a literally a
neighborhood lake.
We have, we think, unanimous support amongst the Montana
congressional delegation for the sale of these properties. We
have unanimous support amongst local and State government, the
recreation groups in the communities, the property owners
themselves, for the sale.
The only dispute that arises related to this bill is the
allocation of the proceeds from the sale, and that's where the
rub comes between the Wilderness Federation and the various
other interests--Broadwater County, Bureau of Reclamation,
anybody else who has an interest in this.
Let me tell you a little bit about the lessees. There's 265
lessees and is characterized as giving a bill to benefit a few
people. Well, these 265 leases have grandparents, children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren now on these sites. In
the case of our family, from my parents down to my grandchild,
we're going to have 40 people that have an interest in this
particular cabin site, and that's the same way with cabin sites
all around the lake.
In terms of a recreation facility, each one of those cabins
becomes a recreation facility, in and of itself, where we
entertain guests, we have office parties, we have weddings out
there, we have christenings, all kinds of recreation
opportunities. And I'd hazard to guess that on any weekend the
cabin sites serve as a greater recreation resource than do the
public campgrounds at the lake. I bet you we could prove that
by the numbers at any time we want to verify that.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is desperately needed by these
cabin site owners. We will shortly be forced off the land, and
we think this bill would provide an opportunity to have a
benefit to all the people in southwestern Montana, not only the
cabin site lessees, but also the recreationists who use the
Canyon Ferry Basin and all the rest of Montana, in terms of the
utilization of the proceeds from the sale.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hill. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
The next panelist will be Darrell Knuffke.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL KNUFFKE, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGIONAL
CONSERVATION, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Knuffke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Darrell
Knuffke; I'm the vice president of regional conservation for
the Wilderness Society.
My statement today represents the views of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Endangered Habitats League, and
the Sierra Club, as well as my own organization. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide the Committee with our views on H.R.
3950, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1998. And we also
want to thank Representative Bilbray, the bill sponsor, for his
interest in wilderness in the Otay, and the chairman for
affording the measure a hearing.
Because of the unique mix of desert and coastal influence,
Otay Mountain is internationally renowned for its diversity of
unique plant species. It holds the world's largest stand of
Tecate cypress, a species otherwise found only in small,
isolated populations in California and Mexico. The area over
time has been designated a national cooperative land and
wildfire management area, and area of critical and
environmental concern, a wilderness study area, and more
recently, a crucial element in San Diego's Multiple Species
Conservation Program. The later is a comprehensive plan to
protect sensitive plants and animals in a way that eases
constraints to the region's development.
Otay Mountain merits and needs the strong protection that
the Wilderness Act of 1964 extends. It's because we support
those protections, and because Otay Mountain deserves them,
that we must oppose H.R. 3950. And we oppose it specifically
because of its section 6(b). That section, in our view,
essentially exempts Federal, State, and local agencies from the
requirements of the Wilderness Act while they are conducting
activities related to border and fire control.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that the Committee
understands that we strongly support border and wildfire
control. We also support giving those agencies the tools they
need to do their jobs. Indeed, unless they succeed in their
missions, many of Otay Mountain's irreplaceable values may be
lost whether the area is designated wilderness or is not.
It is also our clear understanding that the Border Patrol,
the California Department of Forestry, and the Bureau of Land
Management, all believe that recent changes to road access on
Otay Mountain will allow them to fulfill their missions, and to
fulfill them within the language of the Wilderness Act, without
special management language that would dilute wilderness
protection for this important area.
If Congress intends to pass H.R. 3950 and designate the
Otay Mountain Area as wilderness, section 6(b) of the bill
should be deleted.
Historically, Otay Mountain's rugged landscape, itself,
deterred illegal border crossing, but almost 4 years ago, when
Operation Gate Keeper beefed up border controls near San Diego
and began to slow illegal immigration along the border between
the coast and Otay Mountain, traffic of illegal immigrants and
related wildfire dramatically increased on the mountain.
In the summer of 1996, San Diego County declared a state of
emergency because of threats to human life from the intensity
of illegal immigrant traffic and wildfires on Otay Mountain. At
that point, the BLM developed a plan to provide the Border
Patrol and the State Forestry Department the vehicle access
they needed across the mountain range and down to the actual
border while protecting most of the mountain's biological
resources. The new road access along the east and west
boundaries of the area essentially move the interdiction effort
down to the border itself, and by all accounts, that's been
successful.
In early May, several of our staff members visited Otay
Mountain on a BLM-sponsored tour, and met later with the Border
Patrol and State Forestry officials to see how the new system
of roads and access points is working. The agencies assured us,
Congressman's Bilbray's staff, and the BLM, that the BLM's
actions on Otay Mountain had given them what they need to do
their jobs. Officials of both agencies indicated that fires and
attempts to cross the border have decreased significantly
because of the new system of roads and access points. We asked
whether the agencies need any additional access or other
facilities on the Otay Mountain; both said no.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for
the record, a May 20, 1998, letter from BLM California State
Director Ed Hasty to Congressman Bilbray that captures the
essence of that meeting and confirms the details which I
mentioned.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Knuffke. In sum, the Border Patrol, the California
Department of Forestry, the BLM, and we, all believe that given
recent changes in road access on Otay Mountain, the agencies
have what they need to protect the border and to control fire,
and to do so within the language of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Our organization does strongly support wilderness
protection of Otay Mountain and its many and diverse natural
values. If section 6(b) is deleted from H.R. 3950, we can
support that legislation as well.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knuffke may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] Thank you.
Mr. Fischer.
STATEMENT OF JERRY FISCHER, PRESIDENT/CEO, YOSEMITE MOTELS
Mr. Fischer. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Gerald Fischer; 21 years ago my family and I
purchased a 12-unit motel in El Portal, California. Since that
time, we have purchased existing motels and developed new ones.
We now operate 7 properties with over 800 rooms in the Gateway
communities surrounding Yosemite National Park. Last year, we
had over 310,000 guests who enjoyed visiting the park and used
our properties as a base.
Approximately 5 years ago, former superintendent of
Yosemite National Park, Michael Finley, and I met to discuss
the park's acquisition of a parcel of land my family owned in
El Portal that directly adjourns the park boundary. We had just
cleared some antiquated buildings from this parcel, and it was
apparent to the park that the current Arch Rock station was not
adequate for the increased usage of that 140 entrance to
Yosemite. Due to the historic nature and the limited site
conditions of the Arch Rock Area, Mr. Finley felt that our
location held potential for future expansion and convenience to
visitors at the entrance station.
At that time, I made a commitment to Mr. Finley that our
family would not replace the recently demolished buildings on
this parcel of land until the Park Service had fully explored
the above option. The land exchange discussion before this
Subcommittee at this time is a result of my commitment to Mr.
Finley.
Several years later, Yosemite National Park's successor
superintendent, B.J. Griffin, continued that dialogue and
defined the terms of this exchange. At our company's expense,
we had the parcel surveyed and legal descriptions drafted. The
January 2, 1997, flood added additional pressure to relocate
the entrance station to the El Portal site. Major roadway
reconstruction within the park was funded as a part of the
flood relief measure authored by Congressman Radanovich. With
this work soon to be underway, the park's need for traffic
control and public safety led them to proceed now with the land
exchange to allow for both the temporary and then a permanent
entrance station on the El Portal site.
Because the El Portal Administrative Site boundary requires
an amendment that includes the parcels noted, this land
exchange will require congressional approval.
My family and I have given the current superintendent,
Stanley Albright, our full cooperation in assisting with the
land exchange before you today. As noted in the NPS testimony
earlier, we understand that the exchange must be of equal value
and concur with the language that allows for additional
improvements if necessary to cause a full equalization.
Further, we understand that full compliance with the provision
of the NEPA is a condition within the exchange.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and
express our support for the proposal before you, and in the
mission of the National Park Service at Yosemite National Park.
We are committed to working with them to provide a quality
experience for all park visitors.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Fischer.
Questions for this panel?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I
will like to submit questions in writing to the members of the
panel.
Mr. Hill. I'm assuming that if we sent you some questions
in writing that you would respond to them? Would that be
correct?
[All witnesses nod heads affirmatively.]
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hill. We would really appreciate that. Since we're a
little under the gun today, we would appreciate it very much if
you'd do that.
And thank the panel very much for coming, and taking the
opportunity to give us this excellent testimony. And we'll
dismiss you, if that's OK, and we'll now turn to the third
panel.
Our last panel is Benjamin F. Payton, Office of the
President, Tuskegee University; Greg Paxton, president and CEO
of Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation; Don Barger,
southeast regional director of National Parks and Conservation
Association; and Jane Morton Galetto, president of the Citizens
United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries.
Now, if we've got you all coming up, we'd appreciate it.
Dr. Payton will be referring to H.R. 4211, regarding the
Tuskegee Airmen. Mr. President, we're grateful you could be
with us; we'll turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN PAYTON, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, TUSKEGEE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
saying a special word of thanks to Congressman Riley for the
outstanding job which he and his staff have done in helping us
to bring forward this bill, H.R. 4211, in the interest of
establishing as a unit of the National Park Service, the
Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the personal
interest you have, the knowledge you've exhibited as a result
of your own military experience, in the exploits of the
Tuskegee Airmen. Not many Americans can say that; not many
Americans have a grasp of that strand, that very important
strand of American history such as you have. It is, therefore,
very important that for the sake of future generations of this
society, all members of this society of all races and colors,
that our youth and our adults understand the roles which we've
all played in preserving this great democracy and in expanding
it to all people. And that really is what the Tuskegee Airmen
and Tuskegee University have been about.
We very much, at the university--at Tuskegee University,
where I am privileged to serve as president--we very much
support H.R. 4211, as this has been presented to the Committee.
We support it with enthusiasm.
It would require a number of continuing efforts on the part
of the university, with respect to its handling of the
resources, which it would be willing to make available and to
assist the National Park Service in other ways as we can.
Tuskegee University is a place that many people know about.
It was founded 117 years ago. It is a place that has a lot of
interest in strength in the engineering and technical fields,
in business, in the biomedical profession, in the liberal arts,
as well. We are the institution that created the first African-
American Four-Star General in this country, General Daniel
Chappejane, also an Airman.
And I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that I have with me today
the president of the Tuskegee Airmen, one of the original
Airmen, Mr. Charles Magee, from Washington, DC. And may I ask
him to just stand so that you may recognize him if that's all
right?
Magee.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, sir. Can we have your name for the
record that you're here?
Mr. Magee. Charles E. Magee.
Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you. Thank you; we appreciate you
being with us.
Dr. Payton. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Not many of
the Tuskegee Airmen remain, and we're delighted that he could
be here this morning with us.
I also want to thank the Park Service for the really
outstanding work it has done in cooperating with us in bringing
this bill forward. We do have a few things yet to be tweaked in
order to move it from concept to reality. But I think that we
should be able to do that, and I want you, Mr. Chairman, and
the Committee to know that Tuskegee University would be very
pleased to work with you, as we continue to cooperate with the
Park Service, in doing what is necessary in order to bring this
bill to complete fruition.
What this bill would do would be to establish the Tuskegee
Airmen National Historic Site as a component of the National
Parks Service System in association with Tuskegee University.
The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one which, without a
doubt, is of national significance, and that is not just my own
conclusion, that is the conclusion of a special study that was
done by the National Park Service at the request of Congressman
Riley and myself, as president of Tuskegee University.
Overcoming many difficulties in order to become the heroes they
did, the Tuskegee Airmen present us with a role model that our
society badly needs today. Our young people need to know about
these men who gave their lives and who did it with such heroism
and with such courage under enormous difficulty, including the
difficulty of being rejected by their own Nation and placed
under special discriminatory penalties by their own military
services that they tried so hard to serve.
As Congressman Riley has already said, they served
gallantly. And he's given you some of these details; I won't go
over them again. I do want to say that I will append to my
testimony a list of all of the actions that the Tuskegee Airmen
were in, because I think that it's important that the Committee
and others know.
Telling the story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one that needs
to be done in a kind of living history format. That is to say,
we need to build upon the lives of these men, and women by the
way, there were over 10,000 people involved in the formation
and development of the Tuskegee Airmen. Many of these were
maintenance workers; many of them were cooks; many of them were
technical field people, maintenance engineers, power frame
mechanics, all kinds of people. But it is important to note
that a large proportion of these were African-American women
working along with African-American men and with white
Americans who made this possible. And, thus, made it possible
those heros whom we have heard so much about today, like
General Benjamin O. Davis, the astronaut, Guion Bluford. And I
would say, that were it not for the Tuskegee Airmen, there
would not be a General Colin Powell, the first African-American
to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and to do it
in such an enormously competent way.
We feel that there is a great role that the university can
play with the Park Service as a partner in this venture. The
Tuskegee Airmen didn't emerge full-blown from the head of the
United States military. They grew out of the vision of Tuskegee
University. They grew out of the hopes and aspirations and
dreams of the civil rights groups in this country who were
determined that at long last African-Americans would be
permitted to participate fully in the defense of our country.
And so, Tuskegee University went out and raised the money
to acquire and build an airfield that was constructed by its
students and its faculty. We went to foundations and other
private sources and got the money. As the result, Tuskegee was
able to develop such an extensive civilian pilot training
program that when the ears of the military finally were open to
this enormous potential there waiting to join the American
forces, Tuskegee was far out in front of the competition. And
so it was everybody's choice that the Tuskegee Airmen be
created at Tuskegee University.
What this would do would be to create a national historic
center, a National Historic Site. It was also develop the
potential for young people today to learn, not only from that
experience, but to build tools for a successful career for
themselves. So many of our young African-American men,
particularly, have been turned off by science, by math; these
are the basic tools of success in a modern economy. We propose
at the university, that we will work along with the National
Park Service, create a division of the Department of Aviation
Science that would work with both pre-college as well as
college youth in order to continue the tradition of the
Tuskegee Airmen.
We also face a tremendous challenge in this society as we
seek to move people from welfare to work. There are many adults
who have great talent but in whom not enough people have
sufficient confidence. The Tuskegee Airmen are people in whom
these folk have placed great trust. The tradition that they
have built is one that we can utilize in developing power
mechanics, airport maintenance people, that are now required in
today's airports.
Mr. Chairman, we will work with the National Park Service;
we are willing to work with the Committee to do whatever is
necessary that is fully consistent with this bill in order to
bring it to pass.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing, for inviting
me to testify, and I want to say that Tuskegee University is
willing to move forward, along with this Committee, given your
personal appreciation of the impact of the Tuskegee Airmen and
given the quality of that impact on encouraging equality in the
military and helping to develop outstanding leaders from every
branch of military service, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and your
colleagues for providing your full support of this legislation.
I would like to ask that the full text of my testimony be
permitted to enter the record, since I did have to summarize it
rather quickly in order to try and meet your time constraints,
which I understand that and appreciate it very, very much.
Thank you so very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Payton may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Dr. Payton, without objection, your entire
testimony will be included in the record, as will all members
of the panel. Thank you for your very interesting testimony.
And I have to say, I did look at the film which my colleague,
Mr. Riley, gave me, which I thought was very, very interesting.
As an old pilot, I really enjoyed that. That was very good.
These gentlemen and ladies should be commended for the great
work that they did.
Mr. Paxton.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY PAXTON, PRESIDENT/CEO, GEORGIA TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Paxton. Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member Faleomavaega,
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
I'm Gregory B. Paxton, president and CEO, of the Georgia
Trust for Historic Preservation, a 10,000-member group and one
of the two largest statewide, non-profit preservation
organizations in the country. I've served on the Board of the
Cumberland Island His-
toric Foundation since it was formed in 1982, created at the
suggestion of Regional Director of the National Park Service,
Robert Baker.
Cumberland Island contains an indelible 5,000-year history
of human habitation written on the island's landscape, and the
evidence is everywhere--from the Native American burial grounds
and shell middens to slave cabin chimneys and tabby ruins, from
the 1870 freed slave settlement to the large estates with
numerous outbuildings. These tangible traces of America's and
Georgia's history warrant protection, along with the areas that
have regrown wild around them. Historic resources and natural
resources are both important elements of Cumberland Island's
present, past, and future.
The original legislation establishing Cumberland's
wilderness set up a conflict between protecting the Island's
historic resources and its natural resources. The Wilderness
Act prohibits any use of historic buildings within a wilderness
area. Before Congress passed the original legislation, the then
Under Secretary of Interior, Donald Hodel, wrote to Congress to
urge this conflict be rectified stating, quote, ``We have
serious reservations as to whether the Cumberland Island lands
should be designated as wilderness meet the criteria set forth
in the Wilderness Act. However, we support enactment of this
bill, if it is amended to reflect the concerns noted below. The
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act may well
conflict with the designation of these lands as wilderness,
since the Wilderness Act defines wilderness as natural and
undeveloped in character, and devoid of permanent improvements
or human habitation. Maintaining the structures in perpetuity
would seem to frustrate the intention of Congress that these
lands eventually be designated as wilderness. At the same time,
designating this acreage as wilderness would seem to frustrate
Congress' intent that historic structures be preserved. We
believe this apparent internal conflict should be resolved
before the bill is enacted into law.'' unquote.
Secretary Hodel's serious reservations about whether the
land met wilderness criteria, is due to the fact that most of
Cumberland Island has been heavily farmed throughout the last
two centuries. So it is not untrammeled by man and is far from
a typical wilderness. The wilderness designation was initially
intended to help protect the island, but as the Secretary
noted, the fact that the island contains hundreds of
significant historic and prehistoric sites is not adequately
addressed in the legislation.
With the conflict unresolved, three important historic
structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places
have recently fallen to the ground from neglect--and you have
photos of those in your materials. Strict limitations on
driving on the historic road through the wilderness area to the
historic sites make it nearly impossible to maintain historic
buildings that need substantial and consistent upkeep on a
subtropical sea island.
The Cumberland Island Preservation Act provides a blueprint
for a management plan that balances the need to protect
historic and cultural resources, as well as the island's
wilderness areas. It's key provisions include preservation of
the National Register listed Plum Orchard, an outstanding 35-
room late 19th century, neoclas-
sical house donated with 12 acres and $50,000 to the National
Park Service in 1971 by the Johnston branch of the Carnegie
family. In 1977, the house was assessed by the Park Service to
be in good to excellent condition. Today, it is threatened.
The bill also urges prompt preparation of a preservation
plan for all archeological and historic sites on the island
which has still not been prepared after 25 years of Park
Service ownership.
The bill proposes that the 200-year-old historic road also
listed on the National Register be itself removed from the
wilderness in order to allow limited public access to the north
end of the island where Plum Orchard and other important
historic sites are located. It would also allow the historic
road, itself, to be preserved. Running along the western and
northern edge of the island, the road would enable Park
visitors to see more of the island's history, while leaving
eight miles of eastern shoreline and nearly all the width of
the wilderness undisturbed. The addition of about 200 acres on
the south tip of the island as wilderness is also proposed in
this bill.
The bill authorizes a proposed exchange of land between the
National Park Service and the Candler family that includes the
1875 High Point Hotel and numerous other historic buildings on
the National Register currently maintained by the family under
their retained rights. This provision authorizes the Candlers
to buy a large tract of land on the south end of the potential
wilderness and swap it for ownership of a small tract of the
Candlers historic land on the north end of the island. The
National Park Service will put in place measures to limit this
area to family use only. And this small parcel would then be
removed from the potential wilderness, allowing for the
buildings to be preserved. If the swap does not occur after the
life estate ends, the buildings cannot be used by anyone, and
would inevitably also be demolished by neglect.
When Cumberland was all privately owned, the owners hired
lobbyists to defeat a proposed causeway, and led the effort to
have it first declared a national seashore and then a
wilderness to protect it from development. Many private owners
donated or sold land to the government at bargain prices. Those
owners and former owners who retain life estates on the island
are not interlopers in the wilderness; they are its creators,
yet they are very frustrated. Private owners have preserved and
continue to preserve the historic structures of Cumberland
Island, sadly, substantially better than the National Park
Service.
The Georgia Trust believes that the legislation can be
improved by also removing from the wilderness designation,
three other small areas on the north end of the island for the
purposes of maintenance and limited visitation. These are the
Cumberland Wharf, the island's cemeteries, and the village at
Half Moon Bluff, dating from its settlement in 1870 by freed
slaves.
The Committee report should make clear that all these
changes to the wilderness designation are not to set a national
precedent concerning the designation of wilderness, but to
recognize an unresolved conflict that has existed on Cumberland
since the wilderness designation was first considered.
The vision for Cumberland that emerges from this Act is one
in which the historic resources along the western and northern
edges of the island become more accessible from the historic
road for maintenance and limited visitation. The 90 percent of
the visitors who never leave the southern end gain access to an
additional wilderness area. Limited and restricted use and
visitation of historic sites allows accessibility to the
elderly, young, and handicapped, and others to experience the
edge of the wilderness, while allowing the current wilderness
areas and additional new areas in the central and eastern side
of the island to further advance to a wild state.
The Park Service would have a clear path for a management
plan for both the cultural and historic resources and for the
wilderness. And, of course, the Wilderness Plan has not been
developed, despite the fact the Park Service has owned it for
15 years because of the timeframe.
Finally, Congressman Kingston's legislation serves as a
wake-up call for the entire country. The problems on Cumberland
Island reflect more serious problems in our national parks
nationwide. While during the past two decades the private
sector has funded more than $17 billion in preservation
projects, meeting the Secretary of Interior standards, the
Secretary's National Park Service has fallen behind on the
maintenance of historic buildings and objects under the Federal
Government's care by an amount conservatively estimated at $1.7
billion.
Many of the United States' most important historic
resources are threatened and national historic sites and
artifacts throughout the country are seriously deteriorating
from neglect due to insufficient funds. This condition
undermines our national self-esteem and the esteem for our
country in the eyes of the world. As we approach the
millennium, a renewed national commitment of the monetary
resources to preserve our most valuable national and cultural
historic resources is desperately needed to help the National
Park Service.
The Cumberland Island Preservation Act takes steps in the
direction of preserving our national historic treasures and
proposes a more balanced approach to protecting all of the
Cumberland Island's natural and historic resources.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paxton may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hill. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Paxton.
I would urge all the witnesses to try to stay within the 5-
minute timeframe, and our next panelist is Mr. Barger.
STATEMENT OF DON BARGER, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Barger. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I'm
Don Barger, southeast regional director of the National Parks
and Conservation Association. Since 1919, NPCA has been
committed to the protection of all of the resources of the
National Park System, both natural and cultural. We appreciate
the opportunity to present our views.
NPCA opposes H.R. 4144 because we believe that it would
radically alter the vision for Cumberland Island National
Seashore and undermine the ongoing process of this developing
crown jewel. We oppose this bill because it essentially
dismantles the wilderness on Cumberland Island to solve a
problem that is not caused by wilderness.
This bill is based on the notion that the presence of a
wilderness area within the national seashore is responsible for
the collapse of these historic structures. It is not.
Wilderness is not the problem, and slicing it into fragments is
not the solution.
In 1982, Congress fully recognized the potential conflicts
inherent with the creation of a wilderness area on the north
end of Cumberland Island. The record is replete with statements
that demonstrate that the current situation on the island was
anticipated, and that a system of--for lack of a better term--
``evolving wilderness'' was put into place to accommodate valid
existing rights of residency and vehicular access while those
uses diminish over time.
There's a lot of misinformation that has been put forward
by proponents of this bill that others have assumed to be fact.
I appreciate the very thoughtful article that was written by
Mr. Paxton, which appeared in yesterday's Atlanta Constitution
Journal, that Delegate Christian-Green referred to earlier, as
it raises many of the central issues underlying this bill and
provides the opportunity to clarify the record on some of these
matters. I'd like to touch on just two of those.
Central to the justification of this legislation is the
belief that the buildings on Cumberland that have collapsed
have done so because of the presence of wilderness. That is not
the case. In fact, one of the principal examples used in the
article to make that connection, the Dungeness-Pool House, is,
in fact, many miles outside the wilderness area. More than
anything else, the collapse of this building demonstrates that
other forces than wilderness designation are obviously at play.
A harsh marine environment and a lack of adequate funding are
the culprits.
Of the total special project funding received by Cumberland
Island National Seashore since 1991, 80 percent has been spent
on cultural resource projects. I do not believe that that
constitutes neglect.
The second misconception that is brought out by the article
is the belief that, and I would quote, ``the maintenance
problem is compounded by the fact that the National Park
Service can't use its service vehicles on the Cumberland Island
road to the historic sites.'' end quote. This is simply not so.
Congress specifically authorized the Park Service to use
vehicles for necessary maintenance, and they do so regularly.
In fact, Mr. Paxton and I are two of a group of people
comprised of island residents and others who have worked
together to come up with an agreement in principle for
vehicular access to Plum Orchard mansion so that it could be
occupied and cared for in a public/private partnership. We were
trying to move that concept forward when this bill was
introduced and everybody went to their corners.
H.R. 4144 would permanently remove from wilderness the
Candler compound within the wilderness area as part of the
proposed land exchange. The National Park Service has been
looking at the possibilities of this exchange for the last
several months. However, far from assisting that process, this
legislation would make such a land exchange untenable by
linking it to the removal of the road from wilderness
designation and making the long-term impacts on the remaining
wilderness unacceptable.
NPCA supports the restoration of Plum Orchard, but the
authority already exists to do that. We also support the lofty
goal to inventory, identify, document, and preserve every
archeological and historic site on the island. However, without
the necessary funds to do the job, this provision, as written,
constitutes an enormous unfunded mandate on the National Park
Service and should probably be examined for its fiscal impact.
Finally, NPCA cannot support the inclusion of the south end
of the island in the wilderness system. In order to provide the
visitor with a wilderness experience, wilderness should be as
large as possible, contiguous, and unfragmented. While there
are certainly natural and cultural resources on the south end
of the island worthy of preservation, this can be accomplished
under existing authority.
In addition, while the legislation is being justified based
on the inherent conflicts that were supposedly created by
designing or designating wilderness with nonconforming uses in
it, the proposal for the south wilderness area creates exactly
the same situation that the remainder of the bill is allegedly
designed to correct. Given this provision, we would question
the effectiveness of a wilderness designation for the area.
H.R. 4144 raises many important issues that do need to be
dealt with at Cumberland Island, however, as currently written,
this bill constitutes an attack on wilderness, and wilderness
is not the problem.
I appreciate your precious time this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barger may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Barger.
And our last panelist is Ms. Galetto, Galetto?
STATEMENT OF JANE MORTON GALETTO, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS UNITED TO
PROTECT THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, INC.
Ms. Galetto. My name is Galetto.
Mr. Hill. Galetto; I apologize.
Ms. Galetto. Oh, you're fine.
Mr. Hill. Ms. Galetto.
Ms. Galetto. Well, I hate to have to say this, but good
afternoon.
[Laughter.]
I would like to thank the chairman and the members of the
Subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you
today about a great proposal, H.R. 2125, a bill to reauthorize
the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. And I hope to beat that
orange light to give you more time to vote in the affirmative
for H.R. 2125.
I'm the president of a watershed association in South
Jersey, and I belong to a bunch of other boards and councils
and you can read that in my written testimony.
I would like to say that our group has been helped very
much by the technical assistance which has been given to us by
the National Park Service. As a matter of fact, our
organization has been responsible for the designation of the
wild and scenic rivers in the Maurice River Watershed, with the
help of the U.S. Congress, of course.
We have recently completed a film with the New Jersey
Public Television, and that's called New Jersey Network. And we
did that film with the technical assistance of the Park
Service. The film was a montage of the images that make our
area, the Delaware Bay Shore, so special--the natural history,
the maritime history, agriculture, and architectural history.
The staff's expertise kept this film grounded in fact and
focused on the elements that they concluded to be of the
greatest significance. This film received excellent support
from media ranging from the Philadelphia Enquirer to the New
York Times. The overwhelmingly positive response to ``Down
Jersey'' demonstrates an interest by the general public in the
cultural and natural arts and the coastal heritage of New
Jersey.
The National Park Service New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail
office served as a technical advisor on the film. It's going to
be used in the Trail welcome centers.
The kind of expertise that the National Park Service offers
lends substance, depth, and immediacy to projects such as this
one. Our organization can claim that something is special, but
the Park Service's seal of approval shows the national
significance of these types of projects.
Other partnerships have also been productive with the
Coastal Heritage Trail. Their offices lent their expertise to
statewide eco-tourism workshops which we coordinated, and they
have provided information on economic implications of visitors.
Currently, we are joining with the State Historic
Preservation office in the Trail to document the maritime
heritage of the Bay Shore region. Most importantly, Trail
office staff make themselves available to a wide array of
private/public entities increasing each one's effectiveness
individually while supporting the overall Heritage Trail route
goals.
The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail has played a major
role in the interpretation and preservation of the wide range
of significant cultural and natural resources in New Jersey
while bringing national and regional attention to the State's
important coastal resources. The Trail office coordinates
interpretive projects, designs, produces wayside exhibits,
provides technical assistance and training, and they're
responsible for designating trail sites. They have assisted the
New Jersey State Park System, the New Jersey Division of Fish,
Game, and Wildlife, as well as several county park systems and
numerous non-profits like ourselves.
This site in New Jersey gives their support to the New
Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, as does a group called the
Stockton Alliance, which is a group of corporate and
conservation and environmental CEO's from all over the State.
Some names that may be familiar to you at the national level
would be New Jersey Audubon, DuPont, Mobil Oil, Jersey
Conservation Foundation, Mannington Mills, and many others that
are listed in the written testimony. So it's not just us
butterfly netters that like the New Jersey Coastal Heritage
Trail, it's everybody in New Jersey.
Since 1994, they've multiplied their dollars that have been
given to them using grants and in-kind contributions to carry
out their mission. There is still a lot of work to be done and
there are two more theme trails to complete.
We hope your endorsement will propel this legislation forth
to a speedy adoption. The reauthorization and funding of the
New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail established by H.R. 2125 are
imperative if the National Parks Service is to maintain the
momentum of the projects established to date.
When it comes to telling the story, no one does it better
than our National Park Service. The Coastal Heritage Trail
route thoroughly and accurately interprets each destination,
giving it meaning and establishing pride of place. By
identifying the uniqueness of the New Jersey coastal line, they
have truly helped to define our heritage. The Parks Service's
Trail office has been of invaluable assistance to our
organization and many others in heightening awareness about
natural and cultural resources of New Jersey's coast.
While Citizens United can state that our resources are
nationally significant, it takes an agency like the National
Park Service to substantiate these claims and make them part of
the Federal record. Through the Park Service's validations
citizens can more fully recognize and appreciate the role of
their own special place in the overall fabric of America.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Galetto may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Ms. Galetto. Close.
[Laughter.]
Are there any questions from the members for these
panelists?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Hill. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Dr. Payton
for his statement and remarks this morning. I am sure and
certain that Mr. Riley and the members of the staff will work
very closely with our Committee staff to make sure that we iron
out some of the provisions of the proposed bill concerning the
Tuskegee historical landmark as you have eloquently stated
earlier.
Not wanting to take away from the subject, but to Dr.
Payton, I also have another hero that probably many Americans
may not realize that one of the greatest scientists ever to
come out of Tuskegee University was none other than George
Washington Carver--self-educated, never went to Harvard or any
of the fancy universities, but from the peanut, as I recall,
developed some very excellent by-products just from this plant
or this peanut. George Washington Carver--and if you'll correct
me, Dr. Payton--how many by-products or materials was he able
to have gotten from this? And which really, in many instances,
saved a lot of the economic hardships of the south because of
what George Washington Carver did.
Dr. Payton. Thank you very much. Please feel free to
mention any other examples out of----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] Tuskegee you would like to. But you are
absolutely right.
George Washington Carver discovered over 300 products out
of the peanut alone. He was truly a great man; he was, himself,
born in slavery. He did, however, manage to find his way,
through the assistance of sympathetic whites in the Midwest, to
college. And he did graduate from Iowa State, and then went on
to graduate school at Iowa State, became the first African-
American faculty member at Iowa State University. And I'm
pleased to say that that university--which is a great one,
too--also, along with Tuskegee, we are now developing for next
year for a special centennial, a special celebration of the
life of George Washington Carver.
So I very much appreciate that reference.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Payton, I sure hope that we might do
something at the National Park Service of some kind of historic
preservation of the life of this great American.
Dr. Payton. I'd neglected to say that as a part of the--
Tuskegee is not only a great education institution, but it also
is a treasure house of national gems. And one of those is the
George Washington Carver Museum which, by the way, is run by
the National Park Service.
This will not be the first initiative on the part of the
university and the Park Service. Tuskegee happens to be the
only university campus in the country that's been designated by
Congress as a National Historic Site with a unit of the Park
Service actually administering it. So, the George Washington
Carver Museum, along with the home that was built for the first
president, Booker T. Washington, those were resources that the
university gave to the government. The government renovates
them; they maintain them.
And one of the most interesting things is that last year,
according to the Alabama Bureau of Tourism, the site that had
the largest number of visitors in the State of Alabama was the
Tuskegee Institute National Historic District and,
particularly, the George Washington Carver Museum.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Dr. Payton. And, please, I
don't want to make our other panelists feel that----
Dr. Payton. Oh, please, you're doing fine.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. [continuing] their testimony was any less
important, but I just wanted to note that and certainly not
taking anything away from the proposed legislation.
And, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the members of
the panel for their testimony, and hopefully we might be able
to help some of the problems that we're faced with in the
proposed bills.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
Ms. Christian-Green, do you have any questions for the
panelists?
Ms. Christian-Green. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for recognizing me. And I want to thank all the panelists
for coming, and for Mr. Paxton and Mr. Barger, who spoke on
behalf of H.R. 4144.
As I said earlier, if we could resolve some of the issues
that we've had before this Committee before, I'm sure that, at
some point, we'll be able to resolve some of the issues with
your bill as well.
I want to, also, take this opportunity to welcome Dr.
Payton and Mr. Magee, and I think this bill is an important one
that represents a great history and a great legacy to this
country. We've just celebrated the integration of the Armed
Forces in this country. And the Tuskegee Airmen, as you've said
in your remarks, had a great deal to do with that. And,
additionally, it's a great way for us to continue to support
one of our historically black colleges and universities which
continue to educate and inspire our young people, many of whom
come from my district, the United States Virgin Islands.
Dr. Payton. Yes.
Ms. Christian-Green. And I particularly want to point out,
with great pride, that we have one of the Tuskegee Airmen was
from the Virgin Islands, Henry Wilson, and our airport is named
after him.
Dr. Payton. Yes.
Ms. Christian-Green. It has been recently renamed in his
honor in St. Croix, which is the island on which I reside. So I
want to thank you all for being here, and also thank the other
panelists.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
If there are no other questions for this panel, then this
panel will be excused.
Dr. Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hill. I would like to ask three members of panel two to
return if they would. I apologize for not being here to ask
questions of Mr. Budewitz and Mr. Robinson and Mr. Binkley.
I want to thank the three of you for traveling all the way
from Montana to get here. I thought it was a little unfair that
you travel 18 hours, 9 hours each way, and then not have an
opportunity to answer some questions.
I just want to put on the record two points, and I asked
Mr. Martinez about these, and I have since got the numbers.
There are 76 miles of shoreline. The cabin sites face 6.37 of
those miles, and there are 9,100 acres under management by the
BOR there, and 150 of those acres comprise of the cabin sites.
So, it's an incidental amount of land.
Mr. Budewitz, one of the points that was raised by the
Bureau of Reclamation in their testimony had to do with their
effort to update the management plan for Canyon Ferry. And in
your testimony you made reference to kind of a litany of
history with regard to management plan. My question--and you
might want to just comment on where we are with that management
plan now--but has Broadwater County been consulted with regard
to this management plan? Are you engaged in any active
discussion with them about this management plan at this point
in time?
Mr. Budewitz. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hill. And in your testimony and earlier discussions
we've had, you've indicated an interest on the part of
Broadwater County to enter into some sort of a cooperative
agreement with regard to the management of the White Cliffs
Area and the Silos Area. Is that correct?
Mr. Budewitz. Yes. The Broadwater County commissioners have
historically been interested in doing that. They've made a
number of inquires of the involved government agencies. At one
time, fairly recently, within the last 2 years, the Broadwater
County commissioners initiated an inquiry in cooperation with
the Lewis and Clark County commissioners to take over
management of the entire lake.
They'll do almost anything within reason to accomplish what
they've set out to accomplish, which is some economic
development and some positive economic impact in Broadwater
County, to the extent that they would be willing to take over
at least portions of the management of the facility.
Mr. Hill. So, in the testimony from BOR, they say they're
actively looking for a non-Federal partner to manage resources
at the lake. Broadwater County, evidently, doesn't fit the
category of non-Federal partner, at least in terms of their
engagement of you at this point.
Mr. Budewitz. Apparently not. Mr. Chairman, my
understanding of what has happened--and I've been involved in
some of these discussion, not all of them--is that all of the
inquires regarding management partnerships were initiated, at
least within the last few years, by Broadwater County. A number
of contacts have been made with both BOR and BLM, and while the
local representatives of those agencies have indicated that
they would be willing to discuss the matter further, the
discussions always seem to end at some point because government
agencies have no authority to make any commitments. And it gets
to a certain level and simply stops.
Mr. Hill. And Broadwater County is prepared and interested
in actually putting some resources to this effort? I mean it's
offered to make equipment available and those sorts of things
to deal with some of the goals and objectives that you have?
Mr. Budewitz. Yes, they are.
Mr. Hill. The BOR justifiably criticized certain elements
of my bill because I didn't designate how property would be
sold, or rather what the proceeds might go for and that sort of
thing.
I have since made recommendations that 10 percent of the
proceeds of the sale will go to pay down the Pick-Sloan debt;
45 percent of the proceeds held in a trust fund for acquisition
of lands in Montana, and also 45 percent to be retained for the
purposes of investing in the fishery and the shoreline,
investment in conservation upstream from the reservoir, as well
as to provide access, with one-third of that 45 percent or 15
percent being designated to deal with the objectives of
Broadwater County here with respect to access.
Would that distribution of funds be consistent with what
the goals and objectives of Broadwater County are?
Mr. Budewitz. I've only had a brief opportunity to review
that proposal in your draft, but it appears to come very close
to what the Broadwater County commissioners have been talking
about in the past. And I suspect that this sort of a proposal
would probably be satisfactory.
Mr. Hill. With respect to this management plan, am I
correct that BOR has been fiddling with this since 1993 when
they regained responsibility to manage the reservoir?
Mr. Budewitz. At least that far back. I don't know the
history prior to 1993; that's when I first became involved in
it. But I recall in early 1993, attending a number of hearings
on a study that had been commissioned by BOR, BLM, and the
State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at
some time prior to that.
The study was completed in early 1993. It was a draft
management and environmental assessment. There were about $10
million worth of improvements that were proposed in that plan
over a 10-year period of time. The plan itself wasn't
necessarily the--it wasn't exactly what the Broadwater County
representatives were looking at, but it was close, and
certainly it was enough to begin to form a good discussion
starting point.
Nothing ever happened, and that plan--which was about an
inch and a half thick, as I recall, and I have a copy of it--is
undoubtedly gathering dust somewhere. And that's what we fear
when we hear about additional studies. These agencies are
famous for studying things, but they're not very famous for
getting things done. And that's the difficulty that we see when
we look at this sort of proposal. I'm sure that Commissioner
Martinez is sincere in saying that they would make sure that
the study is completed by 1999, but we've heard that before.
And even the completion of the study, itself, does not
guarantee any results.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Budewitz.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a
couple of questions.
Does the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association represent all
the existing lessees at the reservoir area?
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to answer that?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, whoever can respond.
Mr. Robinson. As a representative of the Canyon Ferry
Recreation Association----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Robinson, for the record?
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK.
Mr. Robinson. We represent probably 96 percent; they are a
handful of people who do not, or are unable to pay their dues.
But of the 265 lessees, approximately 260 to 261 are active, so
that's, you know, nearly 99 percent.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You indicated earlier, also, Mr.
Robinson, about the 265 lessees come from all different walks
of life?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The make-up of the 265 lessees--can you
elaborate a little more on that?
Mr. Robinson. I sure can. In terms of where they come
from----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I mean they're not all wealthy
landowners?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely not, in fact, if it wasn't for my
brothers and I, my mother couldn't afford to keep the lease.
If you look around the lake, these are people who are
Helena, Montana residents, Butte, Anaconda, Bozeman, Deer
Lodge, some from Havre, some from Billings. These are literally
a cross-section of the people of Montana that they're not
wealthy. They're not bankers; they're not all doctors, and I
have personal perspective for that in that my wife's family has
some property on Flat Head Lake, up in the northwest corner of
the State, and we've seen an influx of people from California,
Arizona, Canada, have come in. Price is absolutely no object up
there, and the types of houses that are built up there are
astronomical, where down at Canyon Ferry, we're talking about
weekend retreats, weekend cabins that are family holdings that
are not fancy at all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Among the 265 lessees, what is the price
value of these cabins or these homes that are built?
Mr. Robinson. I would say that probably on the low end,
there's a few cabins out there that might be valued at $15,000,
$20,000. I think at the upper end, there are a few people that
might have a house that--and I think there's very darn few of
them--that might be in the $80,000's to $90,000's. Maybe
something might get up around $100,000, but I bet you there's
less than a half a dozen of those. Most of them are probably
$35,000 to $50,000.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One of the concerns that was mentioned in
Mr. Martinez' statement with the Bureau of--BOR, was the
restrictive nature of the ability--let's say, for example, if I
was from California and I want to buy into one of the leases.
My understanding is that you have to have the agreement of the
association before that individual or party can purchase that
lease?
Mr. Robinson. In terms of the bill, and also in terms of
the Senate bill, what we tried to do originally was to ensure
that the current cabin owners have the opportunity to purchase
these cabins at fair market value, to make sure that the U.S.
Government got their market value, and there was no sweetheart
deal here.
This was proposed in the Senate that there had to be a bid
process, and in that process, as it got manipulated in the
various bills, it was a bid process for the entire parcel. And
we were proposing that, if that's the case, Canyon Ferry
Recreation Association would bid on the entire parcel;
individuals would then, subsequently, purchase from the Canyon
Ferry Recreation Association.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If the association were to bid, do you
mean, then, the lease is going to be owned by the association?
Mr. Robinson. The lease would be--the provision of the bill
indicates that if the individual, the lessee, does not want to
purchase, the Recreation Association, or the trust--the
property would go to the trust, and that the individual would
continue leasing from the trust for the duration of the current
lease.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, it's strictly an economic--I mean
whoever can afford it can go there and make an offer, but then
the association also matches the offer for whatever reasons. It
just strikes me that it's somewhat very restrictive.
Mr. Robinson. Well, we originally proposed the bill with
the idea that the people who are currently on the land wouldn't
be forced off the land.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Sure.
Mr. Robinson. And that they had the right of first refusal
so that they could--if they could afford it--stay on the land.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. And how many people,
approximately, are involved in this whole lease arrangement?
The 265 homes tells me families, but how many people are
involved in this?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I suspect that if you----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Men, women, and children.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Robinson. Men, women, and children--I'll bet you could
fairly multiply the 265 by maybe an average of 20 to 25 per
cabin site; 265 times 25, that's how many people have direct
interest in these cabins.
But then you can start talking about cousins----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] uncles, aunts, and that number starts
expanding geometrically.
But in the Helena community, the Canyon Ferry cabins are,
in fact, a resource in and of themselves. I worked for State
government all over the place; we had office parties there. My
brother worked at Carroll College; Carroll College would have
their annual picnic out there.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, let me--I know you mentioned that
earlier, Mr. Robinson, but I was curious, also--the Canyon
Ferry--I call it ``reservoir,'' you call it ``recreation
area.''
Mr. Robinson. It's a reservoir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The reservoir is owned by the Federal
Government?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And it's on a lease basis by these 265
families?
Mr. Robinson. We're currently leasing those----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Lessees; OK. Is it possible that these
number of lessees could expand beyond the 265?
Mr. Robinson. Not with this bill. But if the Bureau of
Reclamation or Congress directed that it could----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can the BOR allow more--other families to
buy leases and be part of the area?
Mr. Robinson. Open up more lease land?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Robinson. I think so. If I'd refer you to the map,
Congressman, if you look at that dark shaded area, then, on the
north end----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Robinson. That is the only land that we're talking
about. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the entire shoreline. The
rest of the 76 miles around that lake, and all of the rest of
that lake, is just like the part that has the cabins on it. So
if the Bureau of Reclamation decided they wanted to do that,
they certainly could.
Can I have Mark--can you show you the other map? I think
this is a----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, you're only talking about maybe,
what, one-fifth of the entire lake, reservoir?
Mr. Robinson. We're talking about 154 acres versus 9,000
acres of----
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is a very large reservoir. What's
the total acreage of the reservoir, if I may ask?
Mr. Robinson. Oh, boy. I can't tell you the total acreage.
It's 26 miles long.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, OK.
Mr. Robinson. Then at the wide spot down on the other end,
it's about five miles across. At this end, it's about a mile
across.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What's the deepest portion of the----
Mr. Robinson. Right down by the dam, approximately 230
feet.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Deep?
Mr. Robinson. Deep.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My, gosh.
Mr. Robinson. Yes. If you'd look at this map, the purple--
one of the points I wanted to make--there was earlier testimony
that these are scattered parcels. That earlier picture showed
that they were pretty much bunched up in one area. OK. The
first three miles from the dam is public--I mean there aren't
cabin sites there; those are loaded with public recreation
opportunities there. And then the cabin sites pick up, and this
larger maps shows the cabin sites. And if you notice, the
purple is the cabin site area, and the green is the shoreline,
and the rest of the Bureau of Reclamation land in that area.
You notice, none of these cabin sites are lakeshore cabin
sites. They're all lake access sites. And as part of the lease,
it's guaranteed that the public has access to the lakeshore.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How long has the BOR been making this
study that's supposed to be completed by next year?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Robinson. I think it's been--in fact, in exhibit E of
our packet, I've got a copy of the 1993 management plan. And
they were working on it back in the 1980's sometimes. Here
you've got 1993, and it's not done yet.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, this is almost a what? A 10-year
study of----
Mr. Robinson. At least.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Or was it the State was managing it
before that?
Mr. Robinson. The State managed the property, I think, from
about the mid-1960's through 1993 when----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, 1993?
Mr. Robinson. [continuing] when they couldn't----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, just now the Federal Government has
gotten into the management aspects?
Mr. Robinson. Again.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Since 1993?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. They have----
Mr. Faleomavaega. But before that the State has been
managing it for some 20 years before that?
Mr. Robinson. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, OK.
Mr. Robinson. And one of the reasons why we're here today
is problems have magnified since the re-takeover and Inspector
General's report and some of the positions that Bureau of
Reclamation has taken.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you bring out that other map again?
Again, real quickly, Mr. Chairman?
You have stated that, Mr. Robinson, that you're talking
only about that portion which is darkened? Yes, that's what
we're discussing.
Mr. Robinson. That's all the----
Mr. Faleomavaega. The 265 lessees are in that darkened
portion?
Mr. Robinson. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. And there's been no plans whatsoever
to say that, say, other lessees or leases could also be worked
up along the banks of the reservoir?
Mr. Robinson. No; we haven't proposed that, and that's
really a prerogative of the Bureau of the Reclamation and
Parks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will there be any objection on the part
of your association if--and I'm only speculating--if the BOR
decided that maybe they want to add more leases along the
reservoir?
Mr. Robinson. I don't think Canyon Ferry Recreation
Association would have any problem with that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm just being hypothetical. I don't know
what they'll do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Hill. Thank you. Good set of questions.
Let me just respond. I think there would be great
controversy among some recreation users and some conservation
groups if BOR decided to expand the number of leaseholders----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] on the land. And I want to make clear, it's
not our intention to do that.
I would also draw the gentleman's attention--you know, this
map doesn't actually show how the lake is distributed. The dark
area is the north end of the lake, and the large area at the
bottom is the south end of the lake. But 80 percent of that
lake is in Broadwater County. And Townsend rests--which would
be to the right over here off the map--Townsend, which is the
county seat of Broadwater County rests there, and the residents
of that community have to drive 30 miles or more to moor a
boat. And yet they can see the lake from the community. And
that's part of what this is about.
That south end of the lake--or on the right down there--is
very, very exposed to wind. And you can get three, four-foot
waves down there, and they come up instantly----
Mr. Faleomavaega. You could even surf on three-foot----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hill. There's a lot of wind surfing there. I can tell
you, it's a very popular area for that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Where is that--and I'm sorry, Mr.
Chairman. I didn't mean to--but where is the Sloans Dam, the
Sloans-Pick Dam? Is it anywhere near?
Mr. Hill. Yes, right down--right in that section there at
the left end.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And what have we done with the poor
Indian tribes that were promised, also, a lot of things after
the construction of that Sloan Dam? What are we, in the
situation with Native American tribes, along that reservoir? Is
there any problem? Is their reservation quite a distance from
the reservoir?
Mr. Hill. Yes. There are no reservation boundaries close to
this dam at all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But the only thing remaining is the fact
that what was promised to the Native tribes in that Sloan Dam
has never been--they've been restitutioned, if that's a proper
way to----
Mr. Hill. If the gentleman would yield--I have two other
bills to deal with, reservoirs on the Missouri River that will
deal with water rights, compacts, and distribution of water.
And I certainly welcome the support of the gentleman on that
legislation.
There is no problem here with regard to water rights or
conflict with regard to water rights with respect to any of our
Montana Native American groups.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I appreciate the gentleman's statement. I
was just concerned. I was up there some time some couple of
years ago, and the only thing that was very sharp in my mind
was the fact that the Federal Government, it was not the State,
the Federal Government built this Sloan Dam with the promise
that these Indian tribes would give up some of the most
precious agricultural lands for the sake of the Federal
Government building the dam. We built the dam, and the poor
Indians really got stuck with nothing.
Mr. Hill. Well, substantially that's what happened to
Broadwater County in this instance. They gave up 36
extraordinarily valuable ranches and farms. The area that's
below this reservoir was some of the most productive farmland
in that county. And those families, of course, were displaced,
but also that tax base was displaced, and income was displaced.
And over all these years, there's never been an opportunity for
the people on that end of the lake to get any economic benefit
from this. As a matter of fact, the water goes to the city of
Helena. In Lewis and Clark County, it is part of the source of
the water supply. And there has been some benefit on the Lewis
and Clark side. And interestingly, when these lots are sold,
Lewis and Clark will put these lots back onto the tax base of
Lewis and Clark County--which is incidentally my home county.
But Broadwater County, again, will not be beneficiary.
That's why I am with the bill that I've proposed; I've
suggested that about 15 percent of the proceeds here be set
aside for fulfilling the promise that was made to Broadwater
county that will give them some access down there--usable
access. And Broadwater County is prepared to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the government to manage it. It just
seems like that's a win-win proposition for all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would
be the last person to second-guess the integrity and the
character of my good friend from Montana, since he certainly is
a lot more of the expert than I or any of the other members of
the Committee would have, especially specifically on the
proposed bill that the gentleman now has before the
Subcommittee. But I sincerely hope that his staff and our
Committee staff will be able to go through some of the problems
that we're faced with. And like I say, there's a problem and
we've got to find the solution, and that's always the way I
feel. And I sincerely hope that we should be able to work this
thing out.
Mr. Hill. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. I thank the gentleman, and I
want to thank our good friends who have traveled all the way
from Montana to come and testify this afternoon.
Mr. Hill. And I, too, want to thank the panelists whose
excellent testimony will be very valuable to the Committee. And
thank you for making this trip. And I apologize, again, for the
inconvenience of having to sit twice----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] before the Committee. I thank my Ranking
Member, and the panel is excused.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide the Administration's views on H.R.
3963, legislation to establish terms and conditions under which
the Secretary of the Interior shall convey leaseholds in
certain properties around the Canyon Ferry Reservoir in
Montana. The Bureau of Reclamation supports efforts to improve
public access to rivers and lakes throughout the west. However,
H.R. 3963 would grant exclusive private use of lake front
property at Canyon Ferry Reservoir to a few beneficiaries,
would foreclose future use of the land for project or other
purposes, and could lead to a loss in future Federal receipts.
The bill also would make management of the land at Canyon Ferry
more difficult, without reducing the need for future Federal
expenditures. In addition, H.R. 3963 is unclear on several
critical questions of intent and procedure. Moreover, we do not
believe there is a need for this legislation given that
Reclamation and the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association (CFRA)
recently agreed on a key issue concerning rental fees. For
these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3963.
H.R. 3963 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
sell at fair market value all right, title and interest of the
United States to leaseholds for the 265 cabin sites at Canyon
Ferry Reservoir in Montana, along with easements for vehicular
access to the leaseholds, docks, and boathouses. The leaseholds
and easements would be sold by auction, with the minimum bid
established by the Secretary and based on a fair market
appraisal, excluding the value of improvements made to a site.
As drafted, it is unclear whether H.R. 3963 contemplates
individual auctions for each leasehold or intends that all 265
be sold to a single purchaser.
Under H.R. 3963, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association, a
Montana corporation, would have the right to match any bid
received and purchase the leaseholds. Any purchaser would be
required to offer to sell to existing leaseholders the
leasehold for fair market value. It is important for the
Committee to understand that CFRA is a relatively small group
of beneficiaries of this project that does not represent all
taxpayers, all beneficiaries of the project, or even all
existing lessees at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
Mr. Chairman, the Canyon Ferry Unit was authorized and
constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation as a part of the Pick-
Sloan Missouri Basin Program as a multiple purpose project for
irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric power and it is
Reclamation's role to balance these competing demands for the
resources. Canyon Ferry Reservoir was formed when the Canyon
Ferry Dam was completed in 1954. Reclamation and the State of
Montana were land managing partners for 37 years until 1994,
when the State terminated its role. Most of the cabin site
permits were originally issued in the late 1950's, and lessees
were given the option to renew the leases every 10 years.
Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management now share the
land management responsibility, except for the task of
administering the cabin site leasing program which is
exclusively Reclamation's responsibility. The 265 cabin sites
occupy scenic lakeshore areas around the northern end of the
reservoir. The lot sizes vary from .2 acre to 1.4 acres, with
the average size about \1/2\ acre. These sites are
unconsolidated scattered tracts within the reservoir lands.
There is no large block of consolidated sites.
In the last few years, there has been controversy
surrounding the rental fees at Canyon Ferry. The controversy
centers on attempts to determine and charge fair market value
for rental fees. Under 43 CFR Part 429.6(f), Reclamation is
required to collect fair market value for the right to use
Reclamation project lands. In 1986, the State raised the rental
fees to approximately 1/3 of the then fair market value. The
fees remained unchanged until 1995 when Reclamation raised the
fees based on an increase in the Consumer Price Index.
Reclamation also initiated an independent appraisal in 1995 to
determine a new fair market value. Presently the cabin lessees
are paying an average of about $1,000 per site per year,
significantly less than the fair market value of $2,701
determined in the 1995 appraisal.
Reclamation committed to phase in a rate increase over a
five year period beginning in 1997. However, the CFRA
challenged the 1995 appraisal through the Department of the
Interior's Office of Hearing and Appeals. CFRA had conducted a
second appraisal which showed the value of the leases to be
about 60 percent of that indicated in Reclamation's appraisal.
That appraisal amount is still about 1.5 times the amount which
had been collected prior to 1997. While Reclamation believes
that the 1995 appraisal was properly conducted and accurately
reflected the current market price, Reclamation, for the sake
of goodwill and improving relations, recently agreed to a
settlement with CFRA whereby Reclamation and CFRA would
collabo-
rate and conduct a third appraisal. It was agreed that the
findings in the third appraisal will be the new basis for the
fee increase. With this settlement, Reclamation and the cabin
site lessees are working together to set fair and acceptable
rental fees. As such, no current controversy exists that
requires legislation.
Not only is the legislation unnecessary, it is not clearly
drafted. As mentioned above, the bill is ambiguous as to
whether the sites will be sold individually or in one bundle.
In addition, H.R. 3963 is very unclear as to exactly what the
Secretary is directed to sell and what, if anything, might
remain in the hands of Reclamation. H.R. 3963 provides for the
sale of the ``leasehold'' for these sites. While the bill fails
to provide a definition of leasehold, it appears to be
something less than fee simple title.
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, one of the most scenic and popular
flat water recreation areas in Montana, is located within two
hours of the four largest cities in Montana. The area is
already overcrowded during peak visitation periods at several
campgrounds and day-use areas. This legislation could
exacerbate this situation by reducing the public access to
additional areas of this reservoir in the future.
We are concerned that if the intent of H.R. 3963 is to sell
the leaseholds only, Reclamation's role would shift from that
of a public agency managing public land, to that of a public
agency managing private leaseholdings. If it is the intent of
H.R. 3963 to sell the cabin sites on a fee simple basis, then
Reclamation's role changes to that of a public agency managing
private inholdings in public lands.
Further, actual or effective private fee simple ownership
of these lands would complicate administration and management
of the Canyon Ferry Project. The legislation would likely
exacerbate existing difficulties around such issues as lake
fluctuations, land use, and water quality concerns related to
septic systems. In the past, lessees of cabin sites have
complained about degradation of scenic qualities when the lake
level declined due to operational constraints. Given that
Canyon Ferry is a multipurpose project, we are concerned that
this legislation could lead to an increase in disputes and
hamper Reclamation's ability to balance operations at Canyon
Ferry reservoir for all the authorized project purposes,
especially in dry years.
The bidding process proposed in H.R. 3963 is inequitable
and is unlikely to result in a bid that is higher than the
minimum required. Section 4(c)(3) would give to the Canyon
Ferry Recreation Association a preference over anyone else. If
someone other than the CFRA is the highest bidder, CFRA would
have the right to match the highest bidder and purchase the
leasehold, thereby providing little incentive for anyone but
CFRA to submit a bid.
In addition, Section 4(d)(1)(A) would reduce any incentive
to bid up the price above the minimum appraised price by
requiring the successful bidder if it is other than CFRA to
offer each of the existing lessees an option to purchase their
leaseholds at the fair market value, which is the minimum bid
required under this Section. Any bidder offering more than the
minimum would lose money if the individual lessees take the
option to purchase the leasehold.
Furthermore, Section 4(c)(2) provides that a minimum bid
will be set ``in consultation with interested bidders.'' It is
unclear why interested parties should be invited into the
process of making an objective determination of fair market
value by a third party appraiser. This appears designed to skew
the process.
Reclamation plans to seek a non-Federal managing partner to
manage the recreation opportunities and lands at Canyon Ferry.
Reclamation law provides for such managing partners to be able
to utilize user fees and other receipts from the use of the
public lands that they manage to operate and maintain existing
facilities, and to enhance public recreation or fish and
wildlife benefits. Without the revenues generated by the cabin
site leases, the ability to attract a managing partner would be
significantly diminished. This will result in the need for
continued Federal appropriations for recreational management.
In addition to those issues raised above, Reclamation has a
number of technical concerns I would like to briefly highlight:
(1) The legislation fails to address who will pay for
maintenance activities that Reclamation is currently paying for
such as road maintenance and law enforcement once the
leaseholds are granted or the fee simple titles to the lands
are sold. The County should bear some responsibility for these
costs, especially if the County is able to secure tax revenues
as the result of the lands becoming subject to local taxes. It
is unclear how local tax revenues would be generated from the
leaseholds if the United States will continue to own the lands
at Canyon Ferry.
(2) Under the existing arrangement at Canyon Ferry,
licenses for boat docks are currently issued to cabin site
lessees, but not to private landholders on other areas of the
lake. If the cabin sites were sold, the question of whether to
issue licenses would have to be addressed. H.R.3963 is silent
on the issue of boat dock licenses.
(3) Section 1(1) presents as a finding that it is in the
interest of the Secretary to reduce the Pick Sloan project debt
for the Canyon Ferry Unit. Yet, the bill does not provide for
any debt reduction.
(4) Section 1(3) says the sale of leaseholds will reduce
Federal payments in lieu of taxes. If fee simple title is not
granted to the purchasers, payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) may
continue to be required. If it is fee simple title that is to
be auctioned, then the legislation should explicitly state that
PILT payments will be discontinued. If it is only the leases
that are to be sold, then absent legislative language, PILT
payments would likely continue to be paid by the United States.
In either case, it is not clear why PILT should continue.
(5) Section 1(2) presents a finding that the legislation
would ``provide a permanent source of funding for projects that
develop and maintain public recreation and that conserve and
enhance fish and wildlife opportunities in the State of
Montana.'' As drafted, H.R. 3963 includes no such provisions.
(6) Section 3(2) would extend the benefits of the
legislation to parties who do not hold a current lease and may
not have legal claim to the use of the cabins.
(7) Section 3(4) exclude the CFRA from the provisions
applying to the ``Purchaser.'' However H.R. 2963 otherwise
considers the CFRA as the entity that is most likely to
purchase the leaseholds. This creates significant ambiguities
and needs clarification.
(8) The issue of liability is not addressed. If H.R. 3963
proposes that it is fee simple title that is to be auctioned,
then all liability for this land should be conveyed to the
purchasers. If only the lease is to be auctioned, as we believe
the bill to currently read, then unless otherwise stated, the
liability remains with the United States--thereby eroding
whatever benefit is to be gained for the United States in this
legislation.
(9) Section 4(c)(2) requires an appraisal in order to
establish the minimum bid. However, it does not state whether
it would appraise the properties as a block or separately; nor
whether it would include contiguous parcels.
(10) Section 4(b)(1)(B) calls for small parcels contiguous
to the leaseholds to be conveyed in order to eliminate
inholdings and facilitate administration of surrounding land
remaining in Federal ownership. The bill assumes that the
Secretary and the purchasers will be able to agree on each of
these parcels. A public process should be undertaken to
determine the size and shape of these parcels. Also, the fair
market value of these areas should be determined.
(11) Section 4(d)(1)(B)(ii) says that the purchaser shall
compensate the lessee for the ``full'' market value of the
improvements. It is not apparent whether the term ``fair''
should be substituted for ``full'' as occurs throughout the
bill.
(12) H.R. 3963 should be clarified to ensure that it does
not intend to convey the subsurface (mineral) rights.
Again, Mr. Chairman, while we appreciate the interest of
this Subcommittee and the Montana delegation, we strongly
oppose H.R. 3963 and do not believe this legislation is
necessary.
------
Statement of Tom Fry, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management
concerning H.R. 3950
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3950, the Otay Mountain
Wilderness Act of 1998. First of all, I want to commend the
bill's sponsor, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) for
introducing this legislation and for recognizing the uniqueness
of the area and its many outstanding natural resources. I also
want to acknowledge his efforts and the efforts of the many
organizations in San Diego who are jointly working to try to
resolve the future land management of the Otay Mountains.
The bill would designate 18,500 acres of the Otay Mountain
area in eastern San Diego County, adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico
International Border, as Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
wilderness. The Otay Mountains are located in an extremely
unique and diverse area of the country. The area is important
to the San Diego area's ongoing habitat conservation
initiatives which the Department strongly supports. BLM's
current management role in this area, however, is a delicate
balancing act and routinely faces unusual challenges. We are
fully committed to appropriate, long-term protection for the
magnificent lands currently in Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
status in the Otay Mountains. We also, however, are confronted
with the reality presented by the challenges of drug
interdiction, border patrol enforcement, undocumented
immigrants and wildland fire protection issues prevalent in the
area.
BLM currently manages the Otay WSAs to preserve and
maintain their wilderness character. We support their continued
protection and would support wilderness designation if the
exemption for certain management activities within the
wilderness in Section 6(b) is eliminated. As written, the
current language in Section 6(b) of H.R. 3950 would allow all
law enforcement and fire management actions to occur without
regard to the wilderness designation or the 1964 Wilderness
Act. Other non-conforming activities would also be permitted.
We would strongly oppose any language which would in any way
undermine the integrity of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Accordingly, we recommend revising Section 6(b) to recognize
the ongoing drug interdiction, border operations and the need
to allow these activities to continue as long as they are in
accordance with the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act and
subject to appropriate conditions as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior. We believe this will allow the Drug
Enforcement Agency and other law enforcement agencies working
along the Southwest border to continue their efforts in the
area. The area designated as wilderness by this bill does not
include any of the roads or motorized access routes currently
used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its current border
operations. In addition, section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act
allows us to manage wilderness areas so as to protect the
health and safety of visitors. Certainly we view drug
interdiction and law enforcement operations as falling under
that authority. We are currently managing this area as a WSA,
with management restrictions very similar to those required of
a wilderness area. We have worked closely with DOJ to enable it
to carry out its important mission while still protecting the
natural resources of the area. We fully expect this inter-
agency cooperation to continue after wilderness designation. We
would be pleased to work with the Committee to develop
appropriate language in this regard.
In order to better understand the vast array of public land
management issues in this beautiful, yet arid area, a
discussion of certain aspects of its history and resources is
useful. The Otay Mountains has long been recognized by the
public as a unique ecosystem. As early as 1962, the Secretary
of the Interior created the Otay Mountain National Cooperative
Land and Wildlife Management Area. Management direction for the
area has focused on conservation of the area's flora, fauna,
ecologic, geologic, cultural and scenic values as well as the
protection of wilderness values. In the 1980's, BLM established
the Western and Southern Otay Mountain WSAs and, with strong
public support (including a 1982 resolution from the San Diego
Board of Supervisors), ultimately recommended a large portion
of the WSAs as wilderness.
In addition to its natural attributes, the area has
opportunities for solitude, open space and primitive
recreation, and possesses nationally signifcant biological
values. These include stands of rare Tecate Cypress and 15-20
other sensitive vegetative species. The proposed wilderness
contains an Area of Critical Environmental Concern which was
established by BLM with strong public support for the
protection of the only known population of the Mexican flannel
bush, for pristine stands of riparian woodlands, and for the
only known stand of Tecate Cypress in the U.S. In addition, the
City of San Diego has identified the region as a ``core
reserve'' in open-space planning and the California Department
of Fish and Game, and local universities have had a long
interest in studying and monitoring the Otay Mountains' flora
and fauna. Wilderness designation would secure a unique
ecosystem in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
In the last few years, however, the area has experienced
extensive resource damage as a result of undocumented
immigrants attempting to cross through the region. In addition,
an October 1996 wildfire inflicted considerable short-term
damage. However, with close coordination and onsite work among
the BLM, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
the Border Patrol, the City, County, and other interests, a
dramatic reduction in illegal traffic has occurred and the area
appears to be rehabilitating itself.
Although I have noted the potential benefits of wilderness
designation, I now want to discuss an alternative approach for
the long-term future of the Otay Mountains. We suggest the
Committee explore designating the area and certain other public
lands located to the East and North as a National Conservation
Area (NCA). This approach would need further review and
development between the BLM and the public to identify those
lands suitable for inclusion within the NCA. However, it may be
the best long-term solution to address both the unique
management challenges within the broader regional area and the
need to protect its valuable resources. Such an NCA designation
could provide management flexibility for a much broader expanse
of public land than the narrowly focused wilderness
designations addressed in H.R. 3950. Also, an NCA designation
for a larger region could include specific management
prescriptions including mineral and land withdrawals, which
would be designed to protect significant resources, and
specific management directives for drug interdiction, border
operations, and fire management. Wilderness designations within
the NCA boundary could still occur in conjunction with the NCA
designation. As such, the NCA designation could prove a more
viable long-term approach to management of the Otay Mountains
as it would address a broader region than the current bill
while also providing a more comprehensive array of tools for
dealing with the area's unique resources and management
challenges.
This concludes my statement and I would be glad to answer
any questions.
Statement of Tom Fry, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management
concerning H.R. 4287
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4287, the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument Boundary Adjustments Act.
Representative Cannon's bill would make relatively minor
boundary adjustments in the vicinity of four Utah communities
which are adjacent to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument. The bill also would convey Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) lands outside the Monument to the State of Utah for the
purposes of enlarging the Kodachrome Basin State Park and
designate a utility corridor along U.S. Route 89 in Kane
County, inside the Monument.
Attached to our testimony is a set of maps illustrating
what we believe reflects the boundary adjustments depicted by
the larger detailed map referenced in this bill. It was our
mistaken impression that the utility corridor designation in
Section 4 of the bill only applied to BLM-managed public lands
and/or lands within the Monument. Upon further, more
comprehensive review, it is clear that the language as written
would affect lands within the Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area and Forest Service lands. The utility corridor designation
language should be modified to specify that it applies only to
BLM-managed public lands. Assuming that the attached maps do
reflect the boundary adjustments and conveyances proposed in
H.R. 4287, and the modification to the language designating the
utility corridor is made, we support enactment of the
legislation.
While the Administration does not believe a boundary
adjustment is necessary, Secretary Babbitt, during a recent
hearing on the State of Utah Land Exchange bill, agreed to
consider technical boundary adjustments to the Monument. I
would like to commend the Subcommittee staff for their
cooperative spirit in working with the Department to revise
H.R. 4287 in a manner which is acceptable to the
Administration. The benefits of working together, which we saw
beginning in May with the signing of the Utah Land Exchange
Agreement by the Secretary and the Governor of Utah, continues
today and is embodied in this bill. The bill would modify the
boundary of the Monument in a good faith attempt to resolve a
number of issues of concern to local citizens and their
representatives. The bill takes a common sense approach to
making boundary adjustments and conveying public lands for
worthy public purposes consistent with the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act.
The parcel known as Henrieville Town Exclusion in Garfield
County, Utah, would provide additional public land to the town
for growth and development purposes and excludes utility lines
and a highway from the Monument. Removal of the parcel known as
Cannonville Town Exclusion, in Garfield County, Utah, would
exclude the town's water supply system and water lines from the
boundaries of the Monument. The parcel known as Tropic Town
Exclusion provides some additional land for the Tropic Valley
School. The parcel known as Boulder Town Exclusion removes a
minor trespass from the Monument. The conveyance of public land
to the Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah, would expand the park
by 875 acres and would be done in accordance with the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The bill would also modify
the boundary to add BLM land to the south of the Monument in
the Big Water area.
I commend the Subcommittee for its willingness to work with
the Department and BLM to address these minor changes to the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument boundary. We are
pleased, for example, that the bill has been revised to allow
the parcel known as the Upper Valley Oil Field to remain in the
Monument. The BLM remains committed to the mandate of the
Presidential Proclamation which recognizes valid existing
rights within the Monument. The operation of these oil wells
can be successfully managed by BLM on public lands in the
Monument and we look forward to demonstrating that as we plan
for the future management of this valuable national treasure.
Thank you for allowing me to testify regarding this
legislation and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.040
Statement of Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural
Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior concerning H.R. 2125
Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to provide your
Subcommittee with the views of the Department of the Interior
on H.R. 2125, to authorize appropriations for the New Jersey
Coastal Heritage Trail Route.
This bill would increase the appropriations authorized for
the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route from $1,000,000 to
$4,000,000, and extend the authority for National Park Service
participation in the trail for five years, from May 1999 to May
2004. We support enactment of this bill.
The Act of October 20, 1988, as amended in 1994, authorized
the Secretary of the Interior to designate a vehicular tour
route and to prepare an inventory of sites along the route. In
addition the Secretary was authorized to prepare a coordinated
interpretive program for the trail in order to provide for
public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of
the nationally significant sites in coastal New Jersey.
The National Park Service, in partnership with the State,
local governments, and other public and private entities, has
prepared and is implementing a comprehensive plan based on five
interpretive themes that link natural and cultural resources
spread over 300 miles of coastal New Jersey. The trail is
demonstrating the potential of public/private partnerships,
allowing the NPS to assist in resource preservation,
interpretation and public education in a cost-efficient manner,
primarily through the development of exhibits, audio-visual
programs, and other technical assistance. Every Federal dollar
spent is matched by contributions from the partners. No Federal
funds are used for operation, maintenance, or repair of any
road or related structure.
The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail celebrated its
opening on September 27th, 1993, with the introduction of the
Maritime History theme trail. Other trail themes and sites
relate to Coastal Habitats, Historic Settlements, Wildlife
Migration, and Relaxation and Inspiration. It is projected
that, when completed, the trail will include over 100 wayside
exhibits, various local information centers, and five regional
welcome centers all owned and operated by someone other than
the National Park Service.
This legislation would enable the National Park Service to
continue implementation of the trail plan, as supported by the
public and our partners in the Implementation Guide, a
blueprint for overall trail development. Without additional
time and funding, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route
will be left incomplete. The National Park Service supports
this legislation, its passage would allow us to finish
implementing the trail's plan.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Statement of Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural
Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior concerning H.R 4230
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to
present the position of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
4230, a bill to provide for a land exchange involving the El
Portal Administrative Site for Yosemite National Park. The
Department of the Interior supports this bill if amended in
conformance with this testimony.
H.R. 4230 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
transfer to a private individual approximately 8 acres of land
within the El Portal Administrative Site, in exchange for land
that is adjacent to the El Portal Administrative Site. The
transfer would enable the National Park Service to establish an
entrance station for Yosemite National Park on the land
received through this transfer, and to close the present Arch
Rock entrance station.
This land exchange would enable the National Park Service
to more effectively protect park resources and serve park
visitors. Nearly 1.5 million visitors enter Yosemite each year
through the Arch Rock Entrance station. During peak visitation
periods these visitors often experience traffic gridlock of up
to a half mile in length, due to the winding and narrow nature
of the road leading to the Arch Rock Station. This gridlock
often leads to vehicles overheating, minor accidents, and
frustrated visitors.
These problems would be solved by this bill, as it would
allow the National Park Service to construct an entrance
station on the land received through this transfer. The new
entrance station would be located in El Portal, on a portion of
State Highway 140 that can accommodate traffic coming into the
park fairly easily.
We cannot, however, support Section 2(c) of H.R. 4230,
which would statutorily deem the land exchange to be of equal
value. We could only support an exchange in which the
government received equal value for the land it transfers. The
land we are to transfer in this exchange may be appraised at a
value that is greater than the value of the land we are to
receive. However, we understand that the owner of this land is
willing to work with the Park Service to assure an equal value
exchange. We would be happy to work with the Committee in
developing language to guarantee an exchange of equal value,
and to develop language that would adjust the boundary of the
El Portal Administrative Site to reflect this land exchange.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
of your questions.
------
Statement of Thomas A. Budewitz, Attorney for the Board of County
Commissioners, Broadwater County, Montana
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Tom Budetwitz. I am an attorney representing the Board of
Commissioners of Broadwater County, Montana.
The commissioners support the concept of making the cabin
sites available for purchase. Our interest is in the allocation
of the proceeds of the cabin site sales and the make-up of any
entity formed to control the expenditure of those funds.
The creation of Canyon Ferry Reservoir in the early 1950's
resulted in the loss of 36 family farms covered with as much as
75 feet of water. The loss of those farms displaced 36
productive families, destroyed thousands of acres of the
richest soil in the county and permanently removed all of those
acres from the county tax rolls. For many years the creation of
the reservoir resulted in a literal dust bowl near the south
entrance to the lake and made the City of Townsend the dustiest
city in the state until the problem was mitigated by a dust
abatement project in the late 1970's which created a large
wildlife management area. That area is now inhabited by
literally hundreds of different species of wildlife within a
mile of the Townsend city limits.
Despite repeated promises beginning even before
construction was completed that Broadwater County would be
provided financial and other economic assistance to replace its
losses, there has been virtually no help from the Federal
Government to mitigate the adverse economic impacts resulting
from the loss of that acreage.
A quick glance at a map of the area is instructive. While
nearly 80 percent of the lake lies within Broadwater County,
less than 20 percent of the camping, boating and other
recreational areas at the lake are in Broadwater County. The
other 80 percent are at the north end in Lewis and Clark
County. A Townsend resident who lives within site of the lake
has to drive over 30 miles to the nearest marina to tie up his
boat.
All 262 of these cabin sites are on the north end in Lewis
and Clark County. If they are sold they will return to the
Lewis and Clark County tax base and reduce the PILT funds
expended annually by the Federal Government. There will be no
such impact in Broadwater County. There will be no increased
tax revenue and the PILT money intended to replace property tax
revenues for Federal land pays only approximately 55 percent of
the revenue that would be generated by taxes where the land is
privately owned.
The Wildlife Federation insists that all of the proceeds
from the cabin site sales be used to acquire access to other
public lands and to the Missouri River and to replace riparian
wildlife areas lost when the cabin sites became privately
owned. The cabin sites occupy a total of less than 150 acres.
They are not actually water front property. The sale of those
sites would still leave 100 percent of the shoreline in public
ownership and available for public use. The money generated by
these sales will be far more than necessary to replace these
150 acres with other public land. Furthermore, the creation of
the wildlife management area at the south end of the lake
through the dust abatement program contains far more wildlife
habitat than presently exists on the cabin sites.
The federation has indicated no willingness to compromise
and believes that its goals are the only properly recognizable
public goals. They are wrong. The public has a legitimate and
recognizable interest in more than the acquisition of
additional public land and access. In truth, the government,
all governments--Federal, state and local, have enough trouble
managing the lands they have. The problem has al-
ways been that the government agencies don't have enough money
or are unwilling to spend enough money to properly maintain,
improve or operate existing facilities much less to construct
new facilities.
As Commissioner Martinez' statement reflects, the Canyon
Ferry area is at times overcrowded during peak visitations at
several campgrounds in day use areas. His concern about a
potential reduction in public access is, we believe, misplaced.
He ought instead be interested in expanding and improving
access at the lake by supporting this sale and advocating the
use of the proceeds for improving and expanding existing
facilities. Alternatively, the Bureau of Reclamation ought to
be willing to allocate additional money from its budget for
those purposes. Since the Bureau has been unwilling to do so in
the past we presume that it will be likewise unwilling to do so
in the future. For that reason, we in Broadwater County have
been exploring ways to do just that for many years and without
any meaningful help from the Bureau.
The Commissioner states that the Bureau of Reclamation
plans to seek a non-Federal managing partner to manage the
recreation opportunities and land at Canyon Ferry. Previous
efforts to do that have been unsuccessful largely because the
Bureau has not been willing to increase its expenditures at the
lake.
The Bureau of Reclamation opposed Congressman Williams'
attempt in 1993 through H.R. 1477 to provide for cooperative
agreements with both Federal and non-Federal partners primarily
because the bill provided for the expenditure of all income
derived from the facility for use at the facility.
The State of Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
withdrew its support for a cooperative agreement with the
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management out of
frustration over the lack of future planning and the Department
of Interior's unwillingness to increase the money to be spent
at Canyon Ferry.
A draft management plan and environmental assessment
commissioned by the Bureau of Reclamation, BLM and FW&P earlier
in 1993 which called for $10 million of improvements over a
ten-year period died as so many government plans do from lack
of interest in seeking the necessary funds.
There has been large scale acquisition and creation of
riparian wildlife habitat at the south end of the lake but all
economic development has been at the north end. The dust
abatement project created a large and wonderful habitat for
wildlife at a cost of over $14 million. That project was not,
however, an economic development project but was rather in
mitigation of the dust problem resulting from the creation of
the lake.
Recently, the state Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks
acquired additional riparian ground along the southwest side of
the lake, less than four miles from Townsend through a land
exchange with a local rancher. We applaud those acquisitions
but repeat that there has been one broken promise after another
that funds would be found to finance improvements to the
recreational assets on the south end.
Specifically, we would use the money to improve facilities
at the Silos recreation area located approximately one mile off
of U.S. Hwy 12, approximately seven miles north of Townsend.
There are no deep bays located at the Silos and consequently no
boat docks even though the area serves thousands of Montanans
and non-Montanans every summer. Broadwater Bay located at the
Silos can be deepened to make it suitable as a protected harbor
for boats. Additional roads, picnic, camping and sanitary
facilities should be constructed. A road should be built across
Bureau of Reclamation land providing access to the lake at the
north end of the Silos area. A road should be built connecting
the Silos with the White Earth recreational area approximately
six miles to the north.
The expansion and improvement of these facilities would
have a direct and immediate impact on county businesses--the
grocery stores, gas stations, boat dealers, hardware stores
that make up the retail economy in the county and a resulting
positive impact on taxpayers. These improvements would cater to
both resident and non-resident without creating adverse impacts
on existing infrastructures such as local schools. These
improvements would do what has not previously been done--they
would help to mitigate the adverse economic impact caused by
the loss of those 36 family farms.
This legislation is a one time opportunity to do positive
things for a community adversely impacted by government action.
Unlike the Wildlife Federation, we are willing to
compromise. We are willing to commit community resources to
matching government funds. We are willing to share the proceeds
of the cabin site sales with the federation and help accomplish
both their goal and ours. We are not willing to watch this
opportunity to slip away as have so many opportunities in the
past.
We propose that a substantial portion of the proceeds from
the sale of these cabin sites be committed to the construction
and expansion of improvements to the recreational facilities
located in the Broadwater County portion of Canyon Ferry and
that any board or entity created to oversee the expenditure of
that money include representation by local government
representatives or designees.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.041
Statement of Virgil Binkley, Acting Chair Person, Canyon Berry Fishing
Association, Broadwater County, Townsend, Montana
The Canyon Ferry Fishing Association was started a year ago
and now has 485 members in Broadwater County and surrounding
areas.
Our Membership is aware of the legislation that will allow
the sale of public land, home sites, on the North end of Canyon
Ferry Lake.
The Canyon Ferry Fishing Association membership is
supporting the enabling legislation to allow the sale of this
public property.
We also believe that a portion of these funds should be
used to provide safe moorages on the South end of Canyon Ferry
lake and other development work to provide a place for safe
water sports.
The objectives of The Canyon Ferry Fishing Association is
to promote fishing and related water sports on Canyon Ferry
Lake. The Association also is active working with the local
Montana Fish Wild Life and Parks in promoting habitat for both
fish and related wildlife.
During summer months boat fishing is the major recreation
activity on Canyon Ferry Lake. Safe moorage space is limited
and at low pool there are no safe moorages to run for in the
event of a sudden severe weather. Violent thunder storms with
winds up to 60 miles per hour resulting in waves up three or
four feet are not uncommon.
We urge the committee when preparing legislation to allow
the sale of home site lots that a major portion of these fund
be allocated to improving safe moorage space for water craft
and needed work to enhance habitat for fish and other creatures
that use lake.
Our membership is pleased that we have been invited to
testify at this hearing.
------
Statement of Jack Sautter, Chairperson, Broadwater Lake and Stream
Committee, Townsend, Montana
The Broadwater Lake and Stream Committee is a group of
citizens who work with the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks to
improve trout spawning habitat in streams that feed into the
Canyon Ferry Lake complex. During the past 8 years various
projects have been partial funded by the Committee through fund
raising banquets. These funds are then matched by the Montana
Fish Wildlife and Parks. These projects are now providing
natural spawning habitat for all trout species in Canyon Ferry
Lake.
Our membership is aware of the bill to allow the sale
public property for sale as home sites. We are supportive of
this legislation. We, however, feel that some of these funds be
identified for the enhancement of trout spawning habitat on
streams feeding into the lake.
Currently the Committee is working on developing a youth
and handicap fishing area near the Indian Creek camping area.
Funds from the Committee, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks will
be used for the development. However, additional funds will
move this project forward with a much shorter completion
period.
The Committee believes that a portion of the funds from the
sale of public land on the North end of Canyon Ferry should
remain on the lake to provide a safe boating environment and
enhance the natural spawning in streams feeding Canyon Ferry
Lake.
------
Statement of Virgil Binkley, President, Broadwater Rod & Gun Club,
Townsend, Montana
Our membership is pleased that we have been invited to
testify at this hearing.
The Broadwater Rod and Gun Club was started in 1902 and has
been an advocate of wise use of the Natural Resources in
Broadwater County.
The Club has ninety active members. The membership has been
active in developing safe shooting ranges and works with the
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks department on various habitat
enhancement for both fish and wildlife. The club also provides
the instructor and facilities for hunter education courses.
The membership of the Broadwater Rod and Gun Club is aware
bill that will allow the sale of public land in the North end
of Canyon Ferry Lake. Our membership is supporting this
legislation.
We believe that a portion of these funds be allocated for
the development of facilities on Canyon Ferry Lake.
Currently there are no safe haven moorage places on Canyon
Ferry Lake South of Goose Bay. During the summer boating season
sudden and sever storms move across the lake with winds up to
60 miles per hour and waves up to three feet or more. When
these storms occur fishermen and other pleasure boaters are at
the mercy of the weather on the South end of the lake. At low
water there no sheltered mooring places.
There is a desperate need for four moorages on the West
side of the lake and three on the East side of the South end of
Canyon Ferry Lake.
The moorage development work could be accomplished in
several phases.
We urge the committee to include in the writing of this
bill that a major portion of these funds be used to improve
water an other recreation areas on Canyon Ferry Lake with a
significant amount to the South end to improve boat moorage.
------
Statement of Bob Robinson, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bob Robinson. I am appearing here
today on behalf of the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association
(CFRA), a membership organization of cabin site permitees at
Canyon Ferry Reservoir near Helena, Montana. I am the volunteer
chair of CFRA's Cabin Site Acquisition Subcommittee. I am
accompanied today by Mark Etchart.
I would like to begin my testimony by thanking Congressman
Hill for his diligent efforts on H.R. 3963. Almost one year ago
today, I met with Congressman Hill in his Helena office for two
purposes: first, to outline the problems that the cabin site
lessees were experiencing at Canyon Ferry, and second, to offer
a proposed solution to our problems--a solution that would
create some significant opportunities for the public. While I
plan to devote most of my testimony to the what might be called
the ``cabin site purchase solution,'' suffice it to say
Congressman Hill listened patiently to our initial
presentation, and when we finished, his response was
reassuring. He told us that he was committed to working with us
to solve our problems. He also reassured us that Montana's
Congressional Delegation would put their collective minds
together to fashion a common solution to meet public needs.
Congressman Hill has worked hard since our initial meeting
to master the facts at Canyon Ferry. Two months ago, he
introduced H.R. 3963. In this bill, Congressman Hill seeks to
address the cabin owners' problems by allowing us to purchase
our cabin sites. Congressman Hill believes that he has only
half a bill with H.R. 3963 in its current form. He chose,
initially, not to include in his introduced bill a detailed
procedure for distributing the public benefits that would be
generated by the private funds from the sale of the cabin
sites. Rather, he has used these past two months to collect
additional public comment on how those benefits might best be
distributed. Thus, we are participating today in a hearing to
examine, among other things, whether Congressman Hill's bill,
H.R. 3963, might be expanded to meet the test of the common
solution he talked with us about last year. Congressman Hill
has told us that it is the responsibility of Congress to make
sure that proposed legislative solutions meet the test of the
public good; that is, to determine whether his proposal
provides to the public the greatest good to the greatest
number. In that regard, CFRA has chosen not to play a
leadership role in suggesting how the proposed sale proceeds be
spent. Later in this testimony, I will say more about these
public benefits that can be purchased with the sale proceeds.
However, I believe we can be of far greater assistance to this
deliberative process by telling you why we believe it is a good
idea to enact legislation authorizing sale of the cabin sites.
This matter is addressed in part in the ``findings'' provisions
of H.R. 3963 (Section 1).
S. 1913 is a companion measure to H.R. 3963 that is pending
in the Senate. S. 1913 is cosponsored by the other two members
of the Montana congressional delegation. S. 1913 is a somewhat
longer bill than H.R. 3963, because the Senate bill proposes,
in a detailed way, how to distribute the private funds raised
by the exchange of Federal land. I am submitting for the
Subcommittee's hearing record a side-by-side comparison of the
two bills. As noted earlier, I am concentrating my testimony
today on the threshold policy question of why Congress should
enact legislation authorizing the sale of the Canyon Ferry
cabin sites. The procedure for the sale, which appears in
Section 4 of both bills, is drafted quite similarly, and either
would be acceptable to CFRA, although we prefer the language of
H.R. 3963 on this particular matter. In either case, they both
propose rigorous procedures to govern the sale of the cabin
sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
I would also emphasize to the Subcommittee that when
Congressman Hill submitted his own testimony on S. 1913 last
month, he observed that:
The Montana Congressional Delegation has agreed on the value of
selling 265 leases on Canyon Ferry. This sale would allow
current householders the oppor-
tunity for permanent ownership, while paying fair market value
to the benefit of the taxpayer.
(Emphasis added.) It is true that there is common agreement on the
value of selling the land. And CFRA contends that this common agreement
is far broader than that which exists today within the Montana
Congressional Delegation. Wide support exists within Montana for this
common agreement from a broad range of public opinion, including
positive editorial comment, as well as favorable comments from top
public officials, including Montana's Governor, who I believe may be
submitting his own testimony in support of the value of selling Canyon
Ferry's 265 leaseholds.
My testimony today is pretty straightforward. I have tried to be
factual and balanced. My remarks are based in large measure upon the
experience of a family that has held a permit at Canyon Ferry for
nearly four decades. The Robinsons are part of a recreational community
at Canyon Ferry lake. We are a community of 265 lessees, who all have
kids and grandkids and great grandkids, and who all know each other.
Many of us go to a church we built near the lake, and all of us shop at
the same little stores. Nearly all of us engage regularly in common
recreational activities at the lake. In short, we really are a
community.
I want to comment briefly about the cabin site lessees. We are not
a group of wealthy individuals or out-of-state owners, like you see at
Flathead Lake or Seeley Lake or at Whitefish Lake. Cabin owners at
Canyon Ferry are people who hale primarily from neighboring towns:
Helena, Butte, Boulder, Bozeman, White Sulphur Springs, some of us even
come from as far away as Billings and Missoula, but primarily from
southwestern Montana. We are teachers, smelter workers, craftsmen,
dentists, telephone company employees, lawyers, government workers and
social security retirees. We are people who are not considered wealthy,
even here in Montana. We are people who have raised their kids here,
and we are people who pay taxes out there, in addition to paying taxes
to our wintertime communities, as well.
The permitees are not just 265 individuals. Let me use my family as
a brief example. My mother and father had seven kids. We all use that
cabin. We're all married, we've all got a bunch more kids. And this
summer, we'll have had the fourth generation of Robinsons at our cabin.
Those kind of congregations are happening today all the way up and down
the Northern end of Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Those are not just
happening on Cabin Site 8, which is where we live. You can go up and
down the shoreline and find dozens and dozens of families whose
grandparents and parents and brothers and sisters and kids are now
using those sites.
The other thing that happens at Canyon Ferry is that those sites
become a magnet for a whole bunch of other people in the community who
aren't lessees: friends, office picnics, retirement parties, graduation
celebrations, weddings, christenings, etc. Our cabins are a recreation
resource in and of themselves.
We are facing a serious problem, which I will describe more fully
in a moment. But we think we have a solution, and we believe that some
extraordinary benefits could be generated with the adoption of our
proposed solution. There can be winners and no losers with this
legislation. For thirty years, CFRA has been working to resolve the
problems addressed by H.R. 3963. In the past, every time we proposed a
solution, we learn about some ``loss'' that might result from our
proposal. In those cases, the process was stymied and stopped. However,
that's history. Now, with H.R. 3963 and S. 1913, we believe that there
aren't losers; only gainers on all sides.
I want to really make it clear that this bill is desperately needed
by these 265 permitees and their families, and equally important, this
legislation is needed by many, many other people in southwestern
Montana who rely on the natural resources around Canyon Ferry Lake.
Some of these people have been dealing with this issue since 1968. The
first record that we were able to discover is that CFRA was in touch
with Senator Mansfield, trying to address this issue in 1968.
The real driving issue behind this bill is that the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) has a policy to eliminate the leased cabin sites at
Canyon Ferry. One manifestation of that policy in the last 10 to 15
years, is that we have experienced a continuous upward spiral in our
lease rates. These increases are pushing people, literally, off their
leased land.
Exhibits
In preparing this testimony, CFRA's Cabin Site Acquisition
Committee drew upon numerous historical documents that we are now
providing to the Committee for the public record. Listed below are the
following documents that have been supplied to the Committee staff for
inclusion in the hearing the record:
Exhibit A: A masters thesis entitled ``Private Use of Public
Lands: Canyon Ferry Lake Cabin Lease Sites,'' by Steven Ray
Clark professional paper in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Masters of Public Administration
at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana, August 1987.
Exhibit B: ``Canyon Ferry Lake--Recreation and Conservation
Management Reserve,'' a proposal presented to United States
Bureau of Reclamation and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
& Parks. The proposal was prepared by American Public Land
Exchange Company Inc. of Missoula, MT and was presented in May
1985. Attached to the report is a document entitled ``Helena
Valley Canyon Ferry Land Exchange Background Information,''
prepared at the request of Canyon Ferry Recreation Users
Association by American Public Land Exchange Company Inc.,
dated September 12, 1984.
Exhibit C: Canyon Ferry State Park ``Proposed'' Management Plan
by the Canyon Ferry Master Advisory Committee, the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. 1993.
Exhibit D: United States Department of the Interior Office of
Inspector General Final Audit Report on Reclamation Management
Activities at selected sites, May 17, 1995.
Exhibit E: List of cabin site owners at Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
Exhibit F: Rock Creek Trust Fund Agreement and related
documents.
Exhibit G: Missouri-Madison Rivers Comprehensive Recreation
Management Plan and related Revolving Trust Fund documents.
Exhibit H: A side-by-side analysis of H.R. 3963 and S. 1913
Exhibit I: Opportunity Spectrum at Canyon Ferry: Funding,
Management, Recreation, Wildlife, Research, produced by CFRA,
1995
Background Facts Regarding Canyon Ferry Legislation
Here is some background information about the Canyon Ferry
Reservoir and the 265 cabin sites that are the subject of this
legislation. The reservoir is 26 miles long with a shoreline of 76
miles. (Mr. Etchart is pointing to the relatively small portion of the
lake devoted to the cabins.) Please note that none of the 265 cabin
site lots contain shoreline, but all are near the shoreline. The 265
cabin site lots, with a total area of less than 150 acres, sit on land
that is adjacent to less than 8.2 percent of the reservoir shoreline or
6.37 miles. All of the cabin lots, which average about one half acre
per site, are located at the north end of the reservoir, and all are
situated in Lewis and Clark County. The sites start about three miles
from the dam and extend about three miles on each side, with numerous
public facilities developed at the appropriate sites best suited for
public use.
Here are a few facts about Broadwater County as they relate to
Canyon Ferry. Roughly 80 percent of the shoreline of Canyon Ferry is in
Broadwater County, but as noted earlier, no cabin site lots are in
Broadwater County. The reservoir is shallower at the south end of the
lake, which is near Townsend. This fact will be discussed later in my
testimony when we get to the subject of environmental impacts. However,
I do want to note at this point that the high water level of the
reservoir is 3,800 feet, which is the height of the dam's spillway. All
cabin sites are above 3,810 feet, and, for comparison, the Broadwater
County courthouse steps are reported to be 3,820 feet. Raising the
level of the dam would create quite a problem for Townsend, the county
seat of Broadwater County.
When the land at the North end of Canyon Ferry was leased to
private permit holders (a process that began more than forty years
ago), the current 265 lots that are now developed were raw and
completely undeveloped land. When BOR began leasing these lots, permit
holders legally obligated themselves to build cabins on their lots as a
written condition of BOR's permit. Tents or trailers did not satisfy
BOR's condition. Instead, the minimum BOR requirement was for the
permit holders to build a permanent foundation for a structure of at
least 600 square feet.
Many permit holders, who met the conditions of their lease
requirements, have continued to improve their properties at their own
expense, including drilling wells, installing septic systems,
constructing access roads and the like. Further, it is not uncommon to
see dozens of trees planted by the permit holders, along with other
valuable landscaping and erosion control activities all at their own
expense.
History of Canyon Ferry Reservoir
I would like to present to the Committee a brief history of the
Canyon Ferry Reservoir. In preparing this history, CFRA relied
extensively upon the 1987 thesis of Steven Ray Clark, a BOR employee at
the Canyon Ferry project. Mr. Clark prepared this thesis for a Masters
Degree in Public Administration from Montana State University. He is
still working for the BOR.
Canyon Ferry Lake was formed when Canyon Ferry Dam was completed in
1954 as a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. Recreation
homesite leases at Canyon Ferry were first issued in 1958 as a result
of a direct promotion by BOR. The BOR supplied to the Montana Highway
Commission drafts of recommended lease agreements, boat permits and
licenses for docks. The State of Montana issued these permits pursuant
to a state-Federal management agreement. Newspaper articles at the time
noted that, prior to the identification of potential cabin sites, BOR
first reserved the preferred public recreation sites around the
Reservoir's shoreline. According to Mr. Clark's thesis, an important
reason for leasing summer home sites was the ``multi-purpose
authorization of the Canyon Ferry project and other BOR projects built
at that time.'' Clark then observed:
What better way to demonstrate the multi-purpose implementation
and development than to lease 265 cabin or summer home sites
and rapidly develop their recreational aspects of the multi-
purpose authorization?
The first of what would become 265 leased sites were authorized by
lottery. And they were not all leased at once. My recollection is that,
initially, there were two or three lottery cycles. And the requirement
in the Federal lease, was that if somebody received a cabin site by
lottery, they had two years in which to build a permanent structure on
that site. The policy was established so that it could be reported to
Congress that BOR had established the multipurpose use of the
reservoir.
Initial leases for the cabin sites were for a period of ten years
with an option to extend for an additional ten years. A practice began
to occur where the ten year renewals were provided on a virtually
automatic basis. Additionally, improvements were allowed to be sold by
lessees to different persons, and new leases were drawn up to begin a
new ten year lease term for cabin owners.
According to Mr. Clark's thesis, the following changes have evolved
in BOR's leasing policy:
The leasing policy in the Department of the Interior for
private use of recreational lands has vacillated during the
past thirty years. The policy has gone from one of open
encouragement, to open discouragement, to status-quo, to
support of a phase-out.
These precipitous changes in policy by the Federal Government, which
continue to this day, have prompted CFRA members to seek ownership of
their leased properties. According to Mr. Clark, the Canyon Ferry
Recreation Association first asked the Montana Congressional Delegation
more than thirty years ago for authorization to purchase the land upon
which their cabins are located.
What has happened since the mid-1960's, then, is that the Federal
cabin site policy has vacillated. It's gone from one of overt and open
promotion of cabin sites, to discouragement of cabin sites, to kind of
leaving the cabin sites alone for a while, when it was managed by the
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and now, to a proposed phase-
out. I would refer the Subcommittee to the Inspector General (IG)
Report dated May of 1995--which we submitted for the record--on pages
10 and 11, where the IG refers specifically to why hasn't BOR activated
its plan to phase out cabin sites. The IG concluded that BOR staff
didn't activate their plan, because they could not prove that the sites
were needed for public use.
None of the cabin sites at Canyon Ferry have lakeshore. (Mr.
Etchart is pointing to a BOR map of the North end of Canyon Ferry Lake.
The cabin sites are in purple. The shoreline and related public open
space is in green.) To repeat, while all of the cabin site permitees
have lakeshore access, we don't have lakeshore. Most of the lessees
property lines are at least ten vertical feet above high water level at
the lake, which pushes us back quite a bit from the shoreline. Thus, if
our cabin sites are purchased, the lakeshore and the related
recreational opportunities from the lakeshore will not be lost to the
public. Indeed, with the sale, not only will there be no loss of the
current recreation opportunities, likely there will be new recreation
opportunities generated from the sale proceeds.
We have referred to this legislation as a proposed land exchange.
Actually, it's not quite that, since the permitees don't have land to
transfer. In reality, it will be an exchange of money, as much as $20
million, that would be available for public benefit. In times of tight
Federal money, this legislation creates new public use dollars that can
provide significant opportunities for recreation and habitat
enhancement in the area. In short, we believe that the purchase of the
sites will eliminate contentiousness with BOR, and give the public a
whole lot of other benefits.
It is also important to recognize that the first three miles from
the dam back to the first cabin sites is public land, and lots of
public recreational opportunities occur there. Interspersed within the
cabin sites, as you can see on both sides of the lake, prime land was
earmarked for public recreation sites. And those parks do exist, and
they are used by the public. There are much fewer developed recreation
areas on the south end of the lake. The bottom line for this
legislation is that the sale of the lots will not reduce the current
recreation opportunities for the public. To the contrary, depending
upon how the sale proceeds are used, CFRA believes that there will be
many new recreation opportunities that will result from the sale.
It should also be noted that most of the adverse impact from the
dam occurred to the original landowners, to the riparian habitat, and
to the county governments in terms of lost tax base. Now, if the sale
is permitted, Lewis and Clark County would receive increased tax base.
East Helena schools and the Helena high schools benefit from such
increased valuation. For Broadwater County, the benefits are less
clear, but I expect that matter will be covered in detail by the
testimony of the witness from Broadwater County.
In addition to the problems faced by the cabin owners, there have
been a variety of other problems confronted by the public at Canyon
Ferry. From the 1950's to the early 1980's, considerable dust was
generated at the south end of the reservoir particularly, when the lake
reached low levels. This dust caused considerable problems for Townsend
area residents. In response, BOR spent roughly $14 million to abate the
dust by retaining more water at the southern end of the lake and
providing more habitat for wildlife.
The dust abatement project is noteworthy, because the original
design of the dam and the resulting reservoir ignored the negative
impacts on wildlife and the environment. This was so, because Federal
environmental laws did not then require any assessment of the
environmental impact of federally financed projects, such as Canyon
Ferry Dam. Further, the primary purpose of the Canyon Ferry project was
to generate electricity, improve irrigation and provide flood control.
While recreation was later described by BOR as one of the multiple
purposes of the project, it was then a relatively minor purpose.
Beginning in May 1958, once permits were issued to private parties,
who agreed to build cabins on BOR lands, certain additional
requirements were established. First, it was required that a permit fee
be paid each year for the lease. Further, the cabin owners were
required to provide unobstructed public access to the lake. Over the
years, because of changes in BOR policy, there have been numerous
modifications in the lease documents. Cabin site leases have become
increasingly restrictive and for shorter terms. Initially, these leases
were for ten year periods with ten year renewal periods. In 1994, new
leases were issued for ten years with the potential for two, five-year
renewals. The associated rent payments charged for the leases increased
on an accelerated basis due to a combination of factors, including a
change in BOR policy, and the recognition of increased values of the
underlying land where the lease holders had built their cabins. The
current leases for the cabin site properties expire in 2004, but they
may be renewed for up to two consecutive five-year terms, or until the
year 2014.
It should also be noted that, while the lease holders do not pay
property tax on the land (since that land is owned by BOR), they do pay
state and local property taxes for the value of all their improvements.
Additionally, BOR pays to Lewis and Clark and Broadwater Counties
payments in lieu of taxes.
ZMost of the cabins on the leased sites can only be used in the
summer, as they lack heat and insulation needed to protect against
colder weather. Most lessees are not inclined to make substantial
improvements due to the potential termination of their leases,
including the requirement that the lessee must remove all improvements
upon termination. However, private land ownership should generate
substantial capital improvements, thereby increasing associated
property tax revenue, which is yet another public benefit.
Further, it should be noted that CFRA and its members have been
working with Lewis and Clark County in recent years to insure that
waste water disposal systems (i.e. septic tanks and/or holding tanks)
are in place and in conformance with applicable environmental
requirements.
CFRA and BOR
CFRA's dealings with BOR over the years have generally been
amicable and productive. While disputes have arisen in a few instances,
much of that controversy has been associated with the increased annual
lease payments for the permits for the 265 leased properties. Some of
the cabin owners have experienced as much as eight-fold increases in
their annual lease payments over the past ten years. Such increases
have caused CFRA to dispute BOR on the valuation of the underlying
properties. Fortunately, the most recent dispute on the BOR's appraisal
procedure was recently settled by CFRA and BOR. The new settlement
procedure comes at a propitious time for several reasons. First, it may
provide a basis for determining the fair market value of the cabin site
lots to be transferred under this legislation. Second, the settlement
minimizes the uncertainty that might otherwise constrain the transfer
of lands associated with disputed property values. The phasing-out of
leased land has greatly concerned the leaseholders and threatens their
investment, work, time and memories that have been built up over almost
four generations for many leaseholders.
A Brief Analysis of H.R. 3963
In its simplest form, H.R. 3963 authorizes the Department of the
Interior to sell all of the cabin sites, as a group, to the highest
bidder under a sealed bid process. The legislation also requires the
successful bid to equal or exceed the appraised fair market value of
the 265 lots combined. In the event that CFRA bids on the sites, and
its bid is exceeded by another bidder, CFRA has the right to match the
highest bid. Whoever the high bidder is, it must sell the specific site
at market value to the then permitter, assuming the permitter elects to
purchase its lot. If the permittee does not want to buy the land on
which their cabin sits, the permitter can continue to lease the cabin
site for a period not to exceed the current terms allowed under it's
permit with BOR. In the event that the cabin owner chooses not to buy
their lot, and doesn't want to keep leasing, the high bidder must buy
the cabin improvements at a market value price set by appraisal.
CFRA is generally pleased with the current form of this bill. Our
association has carefully avoided taking positions on exactly how the
proceeds of the transfer are to be used, except we believe that much of
the public benefits to be generated by the exchange should stay within
the Canyon Ferry/Missouri River area. Further, we are seeking to avoid
any appearance that these monies would be used in any way to benefit
the cabin owners directly.
CFRA has worked closely with the county commissioners of the two
counties encompassing the Reservoir, as well as the local and statewide
wildlife organizations. Broadwater County contains approximately 80
percent of the shoreline of Canyon Ferry Reservoir, and Lewis and Clark
County contains the balance. While all the cabins are located in Lewis
and Clark County, CFRA is concerned that the proceeds of the sale
generated by the transfer of the cabin-site lots should in some way
provide benefit to the residents of Broadwater County who have arguably
not received from BOR as many financial and recreational benefits from
the lake as have Lewis and Clark County residents. Likewise, we also
think that a substantial share of the proceeds should be allocated to
enhance recreational opportunities and habitat protection and access in
the Canyon Ferry/Missouri River drainage.
There are scheduled to be witnesses at this hearing representing
various wildlife, hunting and fishing organizations. No doubt those
witnesses will provide a full and compelling explanation of the various
benefits that will occur to wildlife and fish habitat and associated
recreational access and activities.
The experience of CFRA over the past four decades in working on the
problems associated with leased lands at Canyon Ferry suggest to us
that perceptions of public benefit are as varied as the members of the
public who express their views about public needs and benefits. More
than three years ago, CFRA produced a concept paper, entitled
``Opportunity Spectrum,'' which was submitted to this Subcommittee as
Exhibit H. Our paper identified a wide range of public opportunities
that could be created with funds generated from the sale of the 265
cabin sites. Nearly twenty types of possible public benefits were
identified.
As I reflected on those opportunities while preparing this
testimony, I was reminded of a statement recently communicated to CFRA
by the President of the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF), who said:
Canyon Ferry public lands have lost historic public wildlife
value as a result of habitat alterations and destruction. . . .
If those lands are to be permanently taken out of the public
domain, then we believe that they must be replaced by lands
that aim to provide the public with wildlife and recreational
opportunities that once existed.
We generally agree with the theme of the MWF statement, but we
would also observe that the distribution of public benefits is best
accomplished by representative legislative bodies, such as Congress.
These bodies follow proven procedures for involving the public at all
levels. Further, if experience is any guide, additional changes will
likely be made to this legislation, as it advances through the
legislative process. We hope that all parties now supporting this
important legislation will continue to be able to support it.
In times of limited public budgets, it is a welcome sight to see
another important source of funding that will allow greater public
benefits to be bestowed. We at CFRA hope that we are given the
opportunity to provide that funding through legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to present
this testimony and we look forward to answering any questions you might
have about the proposal from the standpoint of the 265 site owners at
Canyon Ferry.
______
Statement of Darrell Knuffke, Vice President, Regional Conservation,
The Wilderness Society on behalf of The Wilderness Society, Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Endangered Habitats League, and the
Sierra Club
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Darrell
Knuffke, Vice President of Regional Conservation for The
Wilderness Society. My prepared remarks today represent the
views of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Endangered
Habitats League, and the Sierra Club, as well as The Wilderness
Society. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this
Committee with our views on the need for protecting Otay
Mountain and on H.R. 3950, The Otay Mountains Wilderness Act of
1998.
Otay Mountain, rising three thousand feet above the
surrounding mesa, is a unique range in southwestern California
only minutes away from downtown San Diego. Not only does it
provide the people of the region exceptional vistas, it also
provides essential habitat for an incredible array of plant
species.
Otay Mountain deserves and needs the strong protection for
its many and diverse natural and scenic values that
Congressional designation as wilderness under the terms of The
Wilderness Act of 1964 would provide. Because we support true
wilderness protection for Otay Mountain, we oppose H.R. 3950
and specifically its section 6(b). Section 6(b) essentially
removes the assurances of wilderness protection suggested by
the legislation's title by exempting Federal, state, and local
agencies from the requirements of the Wilderness Act while they
are conducting activities related to border and fire control.
Control of the border and wildfires in this area is essential
and we support providing the responsible agencies with what
they need to do their jobs. However, it is our understanding
that the Border Patrol, the California Department of Forestry
(CDF), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) all believe that
recent changes to road access on Otay Mountain will allow them
to fulfill their missions within the confines of the Wilderness
Act.
Based on our conversations with the Border Patrol and
others, it is our position that no special wilderness
management language is necessary or appropriate to address
border related issues on the Otay Mountain. If Congress intends
to pass H.R. 3950 and designate the Otay Mountain area as
wilderness, Section 6(b) of this bill must be deleted.
In addition to being inconsistent with the difficult and
successful changes made in road access in the Otay Mountain
area over the last two years, Section 6(b) also ignores the
recent effort undertaken by a number of parties, including
those represented by this testimony, Congressman Bilbray's
staff, and the San Diego Association of Governments to work
cooperatively to develop legislation that would reflect the
success of the earlier management actions to protect this
unique area while providing for the needs of the Border Patrol
and CDF.
If Congress determines that the Otay Mountain area cannot
receive additional Congressionally mandated protection without
the inclusion of ``special management language'' to address
border and related issues, then we must encourage you to
consider other protective--non-wilderness--options for this
unique area.
BACKGROUND
Otay Mountain possesses an extraordinary diversity of plant
species, many unique to this mountain range. Deeply dissected
by numerous ephemeral streams, the range is dominated by narrow
canyons, making it extremely rugged terrain. Due to the unique
intermixture of desert and coastal influences, this area is an
outstanding botanical site, and is internationally renowned for
its diversity of unique plant species. It is listed in the
Directory of Federal Natural Areas as supporting at least 15
plant species which are candidates for Federal listing,
including the world's largest stand of Tecate cypress, a
species found only in small, isolated populations in California
and Mexico. The area also contains several unusual vegetative
associations, including true chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and
oak woodlands.
Because of the area's special values, it was designated as
the Otay National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area
in 1962. In 1980, with the strong support of the public,
including the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, BLM
recognized this unusual habitat and its outstanding miles-long
vistas of Mexico along the Tijuana River and into the
mountainous spine of northern Baja by designating two
Wilderness Study Areas in the area. A portion of the mountain
was designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern to
protect the only known population of the Mexican flannel bush,
pristine stands of riparian woodlands, and the Tecate Cypress
stands. More recently, local governments in the San Diego area
and state and Federal agencies have identified Otay Mountain as
an essential part of the Multiple Species Conservation Program,
a comprehensive plan to protect sensitive plant and animal
species in an interconnected habitat preserve in a manner that
reduces constraints to the region's development.
We fully recognize the important and dangerous job that the
Border Patrol and CDF are doing on the Otay Mountain to protect
our country's border and to fight wildfires, respectively. We
respect the needs of the Border Patrol to have the tools and
resources to carry out the immigration and drug interdiction
activities the agency has been assigned. The same is true of
CDF and its job. However, based on meetings and discussions
with the Border Patrol and CDF agents working on Otay Mountain,
and numerous discussions with the BLM, we believe these
agencies can fulfill their obligations in a manner that is
consistent with management of Otay Mountain as wilderness. To
understand this, we must review what has happened over the past
several years in the Otay area.
Historically, Otay Mountain's rugged landscape served as a
significant deterrent to illegal border crossing. Almost four
years ago, when Operation Gatekeeper beefed up border
operations near San Diego and began to stifle illegal
immigration along the border between the coast and Otay
Mountain, traffic of illegal immigrants dramatically increased
over the mountain. As thousands of aliens attempted to use Otay
Mountain as passage into the United States, hundred of
wildfires, most due to campfires, were started. At the peak,
350 wildfires burnt over some 23,000 acres in one year.
Additionally the steep and rugged terrain of Otay made the
crossing exceptionally dangerous for the individuals who were
attempting the crossing. In the summer of 1996, San Diego
County declared a state of emergency because of the threats to
human life from the intensity of illegal immigrant traffic and
wildfires on Otay Mountain. At that point, the BLM developed a
plan to provide the Border Patrol and CDF the vehicle access
they needed across the mountain range and down to the actual
border while protecting most of the mountain's biological
resources.
Two jeep roads have crisscrossed the center of the mountain
range for decades, but their degraded condition and the lack of
road access to the border itself made interdiction and fire
fighting activities very difficult, at best. By upgrading the
two existing routes and constructing new roads along the
eastern and western edges of Otay Mountain, the BLM provided
the Border Patrol and CDF the access they needed to accomplish
their missions.
Although the new road segments were created within the
existing wilderness study areas, our organizations participated
in the planning for and did not object to their construction,
given the significant health and safety issues at the time, the
need to protect the border, and the importance of decreasing
the frequency of wildfire for protection of the area's rare
plants.
The new road access along the east and west boundaries of
the area essentially moved the interdiction effort down to the
border itself. This solution was developed by the BLM in
consultation with the Border Patrol and CDF to control the
border, prevent destructive fires, and protect the botanical
values of the Otay Mountains Wilderness Study Area. The action
plan provided for these needs in a context of wilderness
management. By all accounts the plan was a success.
As a follow-up to this effort, several staff members from
the organizations I am representing today recently visited Otay
Mountain on a BLM-sponsored tour and met with the Border Patrol
and CDF to see how the new system of roads and access points
was working.
The success of this project and the comfort of both Border
Patrol and CDF field managers with the existing situation was
relayed to our organizations, Congressman Bilbray's staff and
the BLM at a May 9th meeting at the Border Patrol's Brown's
Field offices. At that meeting, the Border Patrol and CDF
assured us that the actions taken by the BLM on Otay Mountain
had allowed their staffs to effectively accomplish their
missions. Officials of both agencies indicated that fires and
attempts to cross the border had decreased significantly as the
result of the new system of roads and access points. When asked
if any additional access or other facilities would be needed in
the Otay Mountains, the reply from both agencies was that they
had everything they needed.
A May 20, 1998 letter from BLM State Director Hastey to
Congressman Bilbray confirmed this. In his letter, Mr. Hastey
detailed the position of both the Border Patrol and CDF:
(1) Since the Border Patrol states it has adequate existing
access outside the recommended Wilderness Area boundaries to
protect this area and enforce Federal law, the only question
regarding wilderness designation that we can foresee would be
the placement of new and maintenance of existing electronic
sensors used to detect presence of illegal immigrants entering
the area. According to our BLM Manual, additional sensors
(considered to be ``other agency facilities'') can be
authorized if they ``are essential for meeting the minimum
requirements for administration of the area as wilderness.''
Therefore, if the Border Patrol and BLM determine additional
sensors beyond those already in place are necessary, we could
authorize placement of such sensors after an environmental
analysis is completed. As for existing sensors, the Border
Patrol currently maintains those as necessary without motorized
vehicle access and the same procedure would apply under
wilderness management.
(2) Obviously, fire danger is a significant management issue on
Otay Mountain. Again, CDF has stated that the existing access
on Otay Mountain is adequate for its fire protection needs and
as long as those cherrystemmed access routes are maintained,
they do not see further need for construction of any additional
fire roads within the area to be designated wilderness. BLM's
Wilderness Manual states that ``all fires must be controlled to
prevent loss of human life or property within Wilderness Areas,
or to prevent the spread of fire to areas outside the
wilderness where life, resources or property may be
threatened.'' Therefore, while no one can predict the extent of
a fire emergency on Otay Mountain, we believe the legislative
authority and Manual guidance give BLM and CDF the ability to
make on-the-ground fire decisions during emergencies to protect
life and property, as well the wilderness resources. (emphasis
added).
In sum, the Border Patrol, CDF, the BLM and we all believe that,
given the recent changes in road access on Otay Mountain, each of these
agencies can fulfill their respective missions within the confines of
the Wilderness Act.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our organizations strongly support permanent protection of Otay
Mountain and its many and diverse natural values. If Section 6(b) is
deleted from H.R. 3950, we could support this legislation and its
designation of Otay as wilderness. If, however, Congress determines
that the Otay Mountain area cannot be granted additional
Congressionally mandated protection without the inclusion of ``special
management language'' to address border and related issues, then we
must encourage you to consider other protective--non-wilderness--
options for this unique area. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.044
Statement of Dr. Benjamin F. Payton, President, Tuskegee University
Good morning. Chairman Hansen and Members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Benjamin F. Payton. I have the privilege of serving as
President of Tuskegee University, an independent state related
institution of higher education that focuses on engineering and
technical education the agricultural and life sciences, selected
biomedical professions, business, and on research and community
development. These special program emphases are presented in a
framework which highlights the insights and information from the
humanities and behavioral sciences as fundamental to life. In addition,
Tuskegee University stresses lifelong learning, broad and deep moral
and spiritual values, love of country, and concern for the global
community. Tuskegee University was founded 117 years ago by Booker T.
Washington and is located in southeast Alabama.
In addition to its role as an educational institution, Tuskegee
University is also guardian of an important National treasure, the
Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site. Tuskegee is the only
university campus in the United States designated by Congress as a
National Historic Site where the site is administered by the National
Park Service. In addition, Tuskegee University is the only historically
black college or university (HBCU) to have ever owned, designed,
developed, and operated a U.S. Military training facility. It is that
facility--Moton Field--and the heroism of the men and women trained
there during World War II which are the subject of this testimony and
of this legislation.
May I take a moment to thank Congressman Riley, my Congressman, for
his leadership in sponsoring this bill and for the immense efforts
which he and his staff devoted to bring H.R. 4211 to this stage.
Congressman Riley and I requested that the National Park Service
prepare a special resource study of how best to interpret and celebrate
the role of the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II and their primary
flight training at Moton Field. Throughout this process he has been
tremendously supportive and a friend to the University. We are indebted
to him and we greatly appreciate his efforts. I also thank Congressman
Earl Hilliard, who is a co-sponsor of this bill, for being a source of
wise counsel, and a champion of interests affecting the broader
historically black college and university community.
Additionally, I must acknowledge and profusely thank the staff of
the National Park Service of the Department of Interior for their
exceptional work in behalf of this legislation. The National Park
Service (NPS) evaluated the potential of adding Moton Field to its
system and one of its researchers discovered a captivating video
documenting the Tuskegee Airmen's accomplishments. At your convenience,
I invite you to review, pause and reflect on portions of this stirring
historically accurate video that was narrated by former President
Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Chairman, a bill to recognize the contributions of the Tuskegee
Airmen by establishing the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site at
Moton Field where this history began, is long overdue. I want to thank
you for this opportunity to present this testimony in support of H.R.
4211, a bill to establish the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site as
a component of the National Park Service System, in association with
Tuskegee University. I want you to know that Tuskegee University and
all of its constituents enthusiastically support this legislation.
The story of the Tuskegee Airmen and their exemplary record is
virtually unknown to the average American. (Of course, Mr. Chairman, I
know because of your experience of being a military pilot you are
familiar with the Airmen and their combat exploits.) Very few scholarly
works are available for the general public to examine the historical
impact made by these Airmen. While this story deals with their primary
flight training at Moton Field, and their courage in battle during
World War II, it also embraces the struggle to end racial
discrimination against African Americans in the U.S. military and in
the larger American society. Additionally, the story also encompasses
the development of Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) and its
persistent efforts to encourage the U.S. Army Air Corps to establish a
military pilot training program for African Americans.
The accomplishments and impact of the Tuskegee Airmen are, without
a doubt, of significance to this nation. The Tuskegee Airmen are
deserving of a unit of the National Park System to provide for their
commemoration and to relate their story to present and future
generations. This story is well detailed in the 16-page summary of the
special resource study and for this reason my remarks will focus
primarily on other issues.
Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) played a strategic
role in the training of the Tuskegee Airmen. In the 1940s the pervasive
perception within the military and throughout the nation was that white
people, simply by virtue of the color of their skin, constituted a
superior race and that African Americans were inherently inferior
beings who did not possess the intellectual capacity to become success-
ful fighter pilots. These beliefs led to the use of quotas, exclusion,
and other more blatant forms of racial discrimination in the military.
These beliefs also served as the rationale to deny African Americans
positions of leadership and skill in the military and they operated to
prevent the training of African Americans as military pilots. The
struggle of African Americans to join the Army Air Corps and become
combat pilots during World War II played out against this background of
officially sanctioned white racism.
After much pressure from civil rights groups and from the African
American press, Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) was
selected by the U.S. Military to sponsor the first Military Pilot
Training Program in U.S. History for African Americans. Moton Field,
which was named for the University's second President, Robert Russa
Moton, was selected as the specific primary training site. This field
has particular significance in Tuskegee's history because the
University's students and faculty assisted an African American
contractor in designing and constructing it, and because of its ideal
year-round flight conditions. But Moton Field's very existence was the
outgrowth of the vision of Tuskegee Institute (Tuskegee University) and
the University's willingness to invest financial and human resources in
the development of the Field. This made possible an extensive civilian
pilot training program (CPT) at Moton Field which moved the Institute
(University) to the forefront of such training efforts. Combined with
the strong performance of students from Tuskegee's CPT Program, who had
better test scores than other candidates in competing training
facilities, Tuskegee became the clear choice in competition to host a
military pilot training for African Americans.
Consequently, in spite of the prevailing racist beliefs about
whether African Americans could become military leaders and pilots,
instructors at Moton Field trained nearly 1,000 aviators as America's
first African American military pilots. Over the years this operation
at Moton Field would include over 10,000 military and civilian African
American men and women who served as air traffic controllers, flight
instructors, officers, bombardiers, navigators, electrical and
communication specialists, medical professionals, cooks, musicians and
other personnel. On July 19, 1941, twelve aviation cadets and one
student officer, Captain Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., a graduate of the
Unites States Military Academy, reported to Tuskegee Institute to begin
flight training as the first class of African American candidates in
the U.S. Military. In March, 1942, the first class of African American
aviation cadets graduated from Tuskegee Army Air Field and became the
nation's first black military pilots. The significance of this event
should not be underestimated: after years of struggle, African
Americans were finally accepted and commissioned as pilots and officers
in the United States Army. Captain Davis received his wings and took
over the command of the 99th Squadron.
From 1942 to 1943 Army Air Force officials and military leaders,
would scrutinize and question the performance and aggressiveness of the
Airmen. By 1943 Lt. Col. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. was called upon by a
United States Senate Advisory Committee to respond to questions about
the military performance of the 99th Fighter Squadron. However, after
scoring a series of victories and the news of their courageous and
heroic performance reached the military leaders, the Airmen earned
increased combat action and respect. White American bomber crews
referred to them as the ``Red-tail Angels'' because of the identifying
paint on their tail assemblies and because of their record of never
losing a bomber to enemy fighters while escorting the 15th Air Force on
bombing missions over strategic targets. These gallant men flew 15,553
sorties and completed 1,578 missions, destroyed over 260 enemy
aircraft, sank one enemy destroyer, and demolished numerous enemy
installations. After a distinguished and meritorious military career,
Lt. Col. Davis rose to the rank of Lt. General and he resides here in
Washington, DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a
list of the Tuskegee Airmen's victories and their numerous awards.
These veterans are not only to be remembered for their heroic
actions, but for using non-violent legal demonstration tactics to
desegregate an officer's club in Indiana via the efforts of members of
the 447th Bombardment Group. Such nonviolent actions later became the
hallmark of the civil rights movement.
Telling the story of the Tuskegee Airmen's accomplishments and
commemorating the impact these Americans had on demonstrating the
capabilities of African Americans and attacking military segregation
warrants being expressed through a form of ``living history'' as
outlined in a study entitled ``Moton Field: Tuskegee Airmen Special
Resource Study,'' dated June, 1998. There remains a need not only to
tell the history, but to perpetuate the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen
so that our great nation can continue to produce leaders of achievement
with the stature of General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., Admiral Samuel L.
Gravely, former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander, Astronauts
Guion Blubord, Ronald McNair, and Frederick Greg-
ory, Rear Admiral Mack Gaston (U.S. Navy, Ret., a Tuskegee graduate),
General Charles Williams (U.S. Army, Ret., also a Tuskegee graduate.)
The attainments of these African American leaders to hold so many
significant positions and ranks within every branch of service can be
linked to the paths paved by the Tuskegee Airmen. Commemorating the
accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen through the establishment of a
national Historic Site will provide educators in our nation with a tool
they can use to inspire future generations to accept that people of
every race can make significant contributions to our nation when
provided opportunities.
The historic remains and historic character of the Moton Field
Complex are substantially intact and are the only significant cultural
resources left that represent the Tuskegee Airmen Experience. All
structures and most other visible remnants of the Tuskegee Army Air
Field, an advanced flight training facility built by the Army just a
few miles from Moton Field, have been removed.
We feel that the historic role of Tuskegee University should be
extended to a contemporary partnership role in assisting the National
Park Service (NPS) in commemorating the Tuskegee Airmen at Moton Field.
There are several ways that Tuskegee University can serve as a
principal partner with NPS in the development and use of the historic
site. Tuskegee University is prepared to donate land needed to
establish the new park unit. We plan to initially donate approximately
35 acres which contains the key historic resources at Moton Field and
is sufficient to allow for management use.
The role of Tuskegee University will also involve the establishment
of a Department of Aviation Science under the auspices of the
University at Moton Field. Precollege and college level curriculum will
emphasize math and science and provide a historical continuum of flight
training in the tradition of the Tuskegee Airmen. In addition, Tuskegee
University will develop training programs for adults in the region to
become skilled power mechanics, airport maintenance crews and other
high demand vocations that are airport--aviation science--related.
Tuskegee University will do this in partnership with private and public
entities.
The proposed Tuskegee Airmen National Center (the Center) will
house the Department of Aviation Science as well as a full-scale
military museum to extend the ability to relate more fully the story of
the Tuskegee Airmen. Tuskegee University intends to work closely with
NPS in preparing a report outlining the public/private partnership
needed to develop and operate the Center. Once an agreement has been
reached on the development and management of the Center, the balance of
the acreage for the historic site will be donated by Tuskegee
University to NPS.
The Center will require a national fundraising campaign involving
the Tuskegee Airmen, Tuskegee University, retired and active military
personnel, private corporations (especially the aircraft industry),
private foundations and others will be needed. Private contributions
are anticipated to provide some of the funds needed for construction
and, possibly, an endowment for operation of the facility. However,
since the Tuskegee Airmen have broad national significance to this
nation and to ensure a high quality facility is provided, substantial
Federal funds will be required as well, and a Federal partner(s) should
be involved as lead agency(ies) in the operation of the facility. Key
Federal partners could include the U.S Department of Defense (U.S. Air
Force), U.S. Department of Education, Federal Aviation Administration,
Smithsonian Institution, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and National Park Service.
The location of Tuskegee University's Department of Aviation
Science at Moton Field will also provide the opportunity for the
school's students and teachers to participate in the park's
interpretive programs, particularly those dealing with living history.
Potentially, such visitor-student interface opportunities will benefit
the visitor experience.
The above activities are indicative of the ways that Tuskegee
University plans to serve as a principal partner of NPS in the
management, use and development of the historic site. For this reason,
such a role has been outlined for Tuskegee University in the bill.
Tuskegee University intends to play an important role in many aspects
of the historic site.
The Tuskegee Airmen include thousands of civilian and military men
and women who overcame discriminatory conditions to become one of the
most highly respected and honored fighter groups. They were the first
African American soldiers to successfully complete their training and
enter the Army Air Corps. They deserve and the entire American public
needs this National Historic Site to help correct the many false and
distorted images of African Americans which lie so deeply in the
American culture.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this legislative hearing
and inviting me to testify on a bill that would establish and preserve
a lasting and permanent legacy that reflects the bravery, heroic feats
and accomplishments of the dedicated men who trained at Tuskegee
Institute and fought the battles of racism in the military and of World
War II as well as integrated the United States Armed Forces. As I said
in the beginning of my testimony, since Tuskegee University is the
guardian of the Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, our
stewardship in association with the National Park Services' leadership
of this proposed Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site is appropriate
and fitting. Mr. Chairman, the history of these patriots and their
fight for the right to join the Army Air Corps and prove their work to
their country, as well as their struggle for equal rights in both the
military and society, must be preserved for the American public. They
represent an important part of this nation's history. Tuskegee
University fully supports the establishment of the Tuskegee Airmen
National Historic Site in association with the National Park Service.
Given your appreciation of the impact the Tuskegee Airmen had on
encouraging equality in the military and helping to develop outstanding
leaders from every branch of military service, Mr. Chairman, I thank
you and your colleagues for providing your full support to this
legislation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0836.133