[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1521, H.R. 1658 and H.R. 2055
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-33
__________
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://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
87-905 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 24, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Jones, Walter B., a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina.......................................... 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 2055.......................... 7
Murtha, Hon. John P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 1521.......................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 1521, H.R. 1658 and H.R. 2055. 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Bob, Acting Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty
and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 1658.......................... 12
Arnaiz, Matt, Property Owner, Lodi, California............... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 1658.......................... 10
Smith, P. Daniel, Special Assistant to the Director, National
Park Service, Washington, D.C.............................. 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 1521.......................... 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 2055.......................... 16
Additional materials supplied:
Mason, Carolyn, President and Chairman, Foundation for
Shackleford Horses, Inc., Letter submitted for the record
on H.R. 2055............................................... 24
Rubenstein, Daniel I., Professor and Chair, Princeton
University, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2055... 6
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1521, TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL LANDS TO BE
INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE JOHNSTOWN FLOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL
IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1658, TO
AMEND THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY CONVEYANCE VALIDATION ACT TO VALIDATE
ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCES OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT
FORM PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO
FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2055, TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 89-366 TO ALLOW FOR
AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE NUMBER OF FREE ROAMING HORSES PERMITTED IN CAPE
LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE.
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m. in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George P.
Radanovich, [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will come to order.
This is a hearing on H.R. 1521, H.R. 1658, and H.R. 2055. This
afternoon the Subcommittee will hear testimony on these three
bills.
Our first bill, H.R. 1658, introduced by our Chairman,
Richard Pombo, amends the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance
Validation Act to validate additional conveyances of certain
lands in the state of California that form part of the right-
of-way granted by the United States to facilitate construction
of the transcontinental railway.
Our second bill, H.R. 2055, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague, Mr. Jones, amends Public Law 89-366 to allow for an
adjustment to the number of free-roaming horses permitted in
the Cape Lookout National Seashore.
Our last bill, H.R. 1521, introduced by Congressman Murtha
of Pennsylvania, provides for additional lands to be included
within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial in
the state of Pennsylvania. Mr. Murtha will be here very soon,
although we are going to go ahead with our opening statements
and one by Mr. Jones, as well, until he gets here. Then we will
go right to our witness.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for
any opening statement that she may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 1521, H.R. 1658,
and H.R. 2055
Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands will receive testimony on three bills--H.R. 1521, H.R.
1658 and H.R. 2055.
Our first bill, H.R. 1658, introduced by our Chairman Richard
Pombo, amends the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to
validate additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of
California that form part of the Right-of-Way granted by the United
States to facilitate construction of the transcontinental railway.
Our second bill, H.R. 2055, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague Mr. Jones, amends Public Law 89-366 to allow for an
adjustment in the number of free roaming horses permitted in Cape
Lookout National seashore.
Our last bill, H.R. 1521, introduced by Congressman Murtha of
Pennsylvania, provides for additional lands to be included within the
boundary of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial in the State of
Pennsylvania.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen for any opening
statement she may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would
like to welcome our colleagues and Mr. Murtha when he arrives
at this hearing. We are looking forward to learning more about
the three measures before us today.
Our first bill, H.R. 1521 sponsored by our colleague, Jack
Murtha, would expand the boundaries of the Johnstown Flood
National Memorial. The memorial commemorates one of the worst
natural disasters in American history and the more than 2,200
lives that were lost in the flood waters. There are several
private property owners interested in selling their land for
inclusion within the memorial and this legislation is needed to
facilitate these acquisitions. We look forward to hearing from
our witnesses regarding the importance of these potential
additions to the memorial.
Our second measure, H.R. 1658, is sponsored by Chairman
Pombo. The legislation is a technical measure that would remove
a cloud on the title to two parcels of private property owned
by one of the Chairman's constituents. The Congress has
approved many similar conveyance validations and we are unaware
of any controversy regarding this measure.
Our last bill, H.R. 2055 by Mr. Jones of North Carolina,
amends legislation that was passed in 1998 to change the number
of free-roaming horses permitted at Cape Lookout National
Seashore in North Carolina. Specifically, H.R. 2055 eliminates
the 100-horse minimum and inserts a 110-horse minimum with a
target goal of 120 to 130 horses, as well as making several
other changes to the 1998 act. I understand the study and
maintenance of the herd has involved the time and effort of
many people and I would be interested in learning more about
the viability of the herd and how potential problems with other
park resources have been avoided or addressed.
I want to welcome our colleague Mr. Murtha and thank you
for the time.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen.
The Committee welcomes Congressman John Murtha from
Pennsylvania. Mr. Murtha, welcome to the Subcommittee and you
are here to speak on your bill, H.R. 1521, which provides for
additional lands to be included within the boundaries of the
Johnstown Flood National Memorial in the state of Pennsylvania.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT THE HON. JOHN MURTHA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murtha. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In 1964 my predecessor passed legislation that made this a
park and we have expanded it since then. As many of you know,
in 1889 we lost over 2,000 people in a flood in Johnstown. We
have had several floods since. We had one in 1977 where we lost
a couple of hundred people and sustained $300 million worth of
damage. But the significance of this flood was that it was the
greatest water disaster in Pennsylvania and in the country in
the last couple of centuries.
What we want to do is expand--we have about 150,000
visitors a year and we want to increase this number. We would
appreciate it if you could authorize the expansion. We fund the
park a little bit every year. We have improved it and made some
real progress. It is in an area where we memorialize an event
which was tragic but had a real significance to the country at
the time. At that time in 1889 they got no help at all. This is
the breast of the dam where the water broke and flowed into
Johnstown itself. So we appreciate the opportunity to testify
for the Committee.
We do ask for a change to the bill. We needed a technical
correction to reflect that one owner is not willing to sell.
But we still want to expand and take in the clubhouse and some
of the historic buildings that are right next to the park. We
want to buy some land to expand this small park.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murtha follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John P. Murtha, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania, on H.R. 1521
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee for bringing this
bill up for consideration so quickly in this Congress.
This bill will authorize the expansion of the Johnstown Flood
National Memorial, a National Park Service site in South Fork,
Pennsylvania.
Specifically, the bill will enable the National Park Service (NPS)
to acquire adjacent properties and historically significant structures
that are an integral part of the story of the Johnstown Flood.
The Great Johnstown Flood, which occurred on May 31, 1889, was the
largest news story in the era next to the assassination of Abraham
Lincoln. It swept away an entire city, causing the loss of over 2,209
people. Though members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club,
which owned the earthen dam and was situated above it, worked
feverishly during the storm to prevent the dam from bursting, their
efforts were futile.
The Johnstown Flood Memorial was dedicated in 1964. Today the park
consists of 165 acres and receives over 126,000 visitors annually. It
preserves the remains of the old South Fork Dam which was breached in
the flood, as well as portions of the former Conemaugh Lake bed.
This bill would authorize the purchase or acquisition by NPS, from
willing sellers, an additional approximately 14 + acres. This property
holds certain related historic structures such as the ``Moorhead
Cottage'' and the ``Clubhouse.'' Both of these are significant to the
story of the Johnstown Flood as they represent the life and role of
club members both before and after the flood. The property offers a
unique opportunity to use tangible resources to interpret the events
that led to the Johnstown Flood, and the club members' response to the
Flood.
Should the Subcommittee move this bill forward, I would request
that the bill and related map be amended to exclude the .25 acre parcel
owned by Richard Martyak, as he is no longer a willing seller.
I appreciate the Committee's consideration of this bill. Thank you
for your time.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. I assume that those changes are
in the bill and we welcome that. Mr. Murtha, thank you for your
testimony and I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Murtha be
allowed to come on the dais for the rest of the hearing if he
so chooses. There being no objection, so ordered. Again thank
you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Murtha. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. The Chair recognizes Mr. Jones from North
Carolina to speak to his bill, which is H.R. 2055 to amend
public law to allow for an adjustment in the number of free-
roaming horses permitted on the Cape Lookout National Seashore.
Mr. Jones, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you and to the lady, thank
you for this opportunity to briefly discuss H.R. 2055 and the
reason for it.
Very quickly, as Mrs. Christensen made reference, we in
1997 introduced a bill, the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses
Protection Act. These little horses down in my district are
genetically traced back to the Spanish mustangs that swam
ashore back in the 1600's. The bill itself was quite
interesting. It created a relationship with the citizens of
Carteret County by establishing in the bill the Shackleford
Banks Foundation so the citizens would have a partnership with
the Park Service. Certainly the Park Service would be the lead
but they would also work with the citizens down in that area
who believe that these horses, as I believe, are part of North
Carolina's heritage and a very important part at that.
As things have moved forward I do want to say that two well
known genetic scientists, Dr. Dan Rubenstein from Princeton
University and Dr. Gus Cothran from the University of Kentucky,
have been working with the Park Service and the citizens down
in eastern North Carolina for years and years. Both these
gentlemen, working with the Park Service down in Carteret
County, along with the citizens, they believe that there needs
to be, to ensure the diversity and the future of this herd,
have an optimum size and that should be somewhere around 120.
Dr. Rubenstein came to Washington and I had lunch with him
about three or 4 weeks ago. He has submitted a letter of
support for this bill. I have his letter, and I ask unanimous
consent that I submit his letter, along with my written
testimony about this bill.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
[Dr. Rubenstein's letter submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7905.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7905.005
Mr. Murtha. That there should be--the terminology is to
allow the herd to bloom to around 130 and a little bit more. So
normally this is what we are trying to ask in this bill and I
will say that we did work with the Interior down in Atlanta,
Georgia with drafting this legislation, along with the local
Cape Lookout supervisor, Bob Vogel, and we have come to this
formula and this resolution that we think will ensure the
future of this herd for generations to come.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina, on H.R. 2055
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for scheduling this hearing
on H.R. 2055--a bill to adjust the number of free roaming horsed
permitted on Shackleford Banks in the Cape Lookout National Seashore.
Shackleford Banks is a barrier island off the coast of North Carolina
that has been home to a herd of wild horses for over three centuries.
In fact, many experts believe the herd descended from Spanish stallions
that were shipwrecked on the island during colonial times.
Over the years, the Shackleford horses have become an integral part
of the natural and cultural fabric of Eastern North Carolina. They are
treasured by the local community and adored by the many visitors who
come from across the country to see them.
To protect these beautiful creatures, in 1997 I introduced the
Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act which the President later
signed into law. The Act directed the Department of the Interior to
enter an agreement with a non-profit group--the Foundation for
Shackleford Horses--to manage the herd. It also required the Department
to allow a herd of 100 free-roaming horses in the Seashore, and it set
out terms under which horses could be removed, including a prohibition
on removal ``unless the number of horses ... exceeds 110.''
As the National Park Service and the Foundation began to implement
the Act, disagreement erupted over the law's requirements on the size
of the herd. The Park Service interpreted the Act to mean that the
herd's population should be kept between 100 and 110. However, as the
author of the legislation, it is my strong belief that this
interpretation was inconsistent with Congressional intent--which was to
allow the herd to hover above 110.
The Park Service's interpretation also conflicted with the
established scientific consensus on the size of the herd. Studies by
world-renowned genetic scientists Dr. Daniel Rubenstein of Princeton
University, and Dr. Gus Cothran of the University of Kentucky, confirm
that in order to maintain the herd's long-term viability, its optimum
size is around 120 animals. The experts also agree that the population
should not dip below 110 and that it should be allowed to expand
periodically to numbers at or above 130 in order to sustain the proper
genetic diversity in the herd. It's important to note that these
numbers are well within the island's carrying capacity.
After several years of disagreement on the herd size issue, the
Park Service met last fall with the Foundation for Shackleford Horses,
Dr. Rubenstein, Dr. Cothran and other stakeholders in an effort to find
middle ground. After two days of meetings, the parties emerged with an
agreement that largely mirrors the scientific understanding of how the
horses should be managed.
H.R. 2055 seeks to codify this scientific consensus into law. It
would allow a herd of ``not less than 110 free roaming horses, with a
target population of between 120 and 130 free roaming horses.'' It
would also clear up confusion on when horses can be removed from the
island by mandating that removal can only occur if ``carried out as
part of a plan to maintain the viability of the herd.''
Mr. Chairman, this legislation has the support of the
Superintendent of Cape Lookout National Seashore, the scientific
experts, and the local community. It is a legislative fix based on
sound science that addresses a purely local issue. I thank the
Subcommittee for its consideration of this important bill.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Ms. Bordallo, any opening statement or comments?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question.
What is the size of the herd now, currently?
Mr. Jones. Well, there was some question. We intended in
the original legislation to have the threshold or the limit to
be somewhere around 120, so we put the figure in around 110 and
there has been some confusion among not only the Park Service
but also the citizens as to what is the optimum number that is
needed to ensure the diversity and the future of the herd.
So what we are trying to do is take it from 120 and to have
130 as the max. But if it should go over by three or four
little colts born during the year, that they would have a
little bit of flexibility so they could determine--to go back
down to the 130 they could determine the diversity by the sex
of those colts and foals that were born.
Ms. Bordallo. I was just curious. So it is right around--
the herd number right now is----
Mr. Jones. 110.
Ms. Bordallo. Within these numbers.
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am. And actually Dr. Rubenstein, when we
introduced this bill back in 1997, testified on behalf of this
bill and we felt that that number--we were hoping that the
number would be at that time around 120. I guess in drafting it
we did not make it clear enough.
Some with the Park Service when we had this discussion last
year said that well, 110 is the limit or 110 is the floor, and
we never got it clear. That is the reason we have put this back
in: to get clarity on what the scientists say we need to ensure
the herd.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Radanovich. With that we will call our second panel up
to address these bills. Mr. Dan Smith, who is special assistant
to the director of the National Park Service to speak on H.R.
1521 and H.R. 2055. Mr. Bob Anderson is the acting assistant
director for Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection with the
BLM on H.R. 1658. Mr. Matt Arnaiz, property owner from Lodi,
California to speak on H.R. 1658.
Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. If you would
observe the colored lights in front of you, red means stop,
yellow means slow down and green means keep on going. So try to
keep your presentation to 5 minutes if you would.
Mr. Arnaiz, welcome to the Committee. If you would like to
begin, that would be fine. We will go ahead and hear testimony
from everybody and then open it up for questions from members.
STATEMENT OF MATT ARNAIZ, PROPERTY OWNER,
LODI, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Arnaiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify here today. My name is Matt Arnaiz, a resident of Lodi,
California. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo for bringing
this legislation to your attention.
The legislation before you involves the ratification by
Congress of two deeds affecting real property I own. These
deeds were acquired by the former property owners from Central
Pacific Railway Company and Southern Pacific Railroad. The
deeds only involve the railroads' former right-of-way which was
obtained through congressional grant in 1862. The railroads,
back in 1945 and 1955 respectively, quitclaimed a portion of
the right-of-way to the underlying landowners. The property has
since been developed with several buildings constructed on the
former right-of-way. This bill is necessary because Congress
must ratify these types of deeds in order to perfect the
railroads' quitclaim deeds in clear title to the property.
The property consists of approximately 450 acres, of which
approximately 6.13 acres are affected by the railroad's former
right-of-way. This legislation is important as the unratified
deeds create a cloud on title to the property, limiting our
ability to finance and develop the property. This will cause
severe hardship to my family and investors because of the
significant time and investment we have in the property.
Right now the property sits as an abandoned tomato cannery,
which is a blight on the community. It is intended that the
property will be developed for multiple use, including single-
family residences, light industrial and warehousing, and
commercial and retail office space. It is therefore important
that these deeds be ratified by Congress so that we may proceed
with the development of the property.
This legislation is identical in nature to previous private
laws passed. In 1994 Congress Doolittle introduced similar
legislation. On July 5, 1994 Congress passed this legislation
and it became Private Law 10-2. The law ramifies numerous deeds
from the railroad to private landowners. Such legislation is
not uncommon throughout the western states, for the railroad
has ceased to use a good portion of the rights-of-way
previously granted by Congress.
I respectfully request your assistance in the passage of
this legislation. Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnaiz follows:]
Statement of Matt Arnaiz, Property Owner, Lodi, California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify here today.
My name is Matt Arnaiz and I am a resident of Lodi, California.
The legislation before you involves the ratification by Congress of
two deeds affecting real property owned by my family and friends. These
deeds were acquired by the former property owners from Central Pacific
Railway Company and Southern Pacific Railroad. The deeds only involve
the Railroad's former right-of-way, which was obtained through a
Congressional grant in 1862. The Railroads, back in 1945 and 1957,
respectively, quitclaimed a portion of their right-of-way to the
underlying landowners. The property has since been developed with
several buildings constructed on the former right-of-way. This bill is
necessary because Congress must ratify these types of deeds in order to
perfect the Railroad's quitclaim deeds and clear title to the property.
The property consists of approximately 450 acres, of which
approximately 7+ acres is affected by the Railroad's former right-of-
way. This legislation is important, as the unratified deeds create a
cloud on title to the property, limiting our ability to finance and
develop the property. This will cause severe hardship to my family and
investors, because of the significant time and investment we have in
the property. Right now, the property sits as an abandoned tomato
cannery, which is a blight on the community. It is intended that the
property will be developed for multiple use, including single family
residences, light industrial and warehousing, and commercial and retail
office space. It is therefore important that these deeds be ratified by
Congress so that we may proceed with the development of the property.
This legislation is identical in nature to previous private laws
passed. In 1993, Congressman Doolittle introduced similar legislation,
Bill H.R. 1183, which was ultimately passed on July 5, 1994, ratifying
numerous deeds from the Railroad to private landowners. Such
legislation is not uncommon throughout the western states, where the
Railroad has ceased to use a good portion of the rights-of-way
previously granted by Congress. I respectfully request your assistance
in the passing of this legislation.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
[An attachment to Mr. Arnaiz's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7905.002
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnaiz.
Mr. Anderson, welcome to the Committee. You may address the
bills that you are here to speak on.
STATEMENT OF BOB ANDERSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for
inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 1658, the private bill to
amend the railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act. The
Administration has no objection to H.R. 1658.
In 1994 Congress passed H.R. 1183, which was enacted as
Private Law-2. The act validated the conveyances of 50 small
tracts of land in Nevada County and San Joaquin County,
California. The lands involved were originally part of the
right-of-way grant of the United States to the Central Pacific
Railroad by an 1862 act of Congress. The Southern Pacific
Railroad, the successor to Central Pacific, made conveyances of
small tracts of land in some of these cases and in others,
adjacent landowners have made inadvertent encroachments.
Because under the original act of 1862, a Federal reversionary
interest existed if these rights-of-way were abandoned by the
railroad, the 1994 act was necessary to remove any cloud on the
title of these small landowners.
The bill before us today amends the underlying act by
adding two additional small tracts in San Joaquin County,
California. Based on information provided by the Committee, the
parcels in question are at the other end of the city of
Stockton, California. According to the master title plat
maintained by BLM, these parcels have been in private ownership
for nearly a century. We see no conflict in clearing title for
these lands through this legislation. As with the underlying
act, the mineral estate on these lands is reserved to the
Federal Government and these lands are withdrawn from all forms
of mineral entry, including mining, sand and gravel, other
common materials, and mineral and geothermal leasing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and
I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Bob Anderson, Acting Assistant Director for Minerals,
Realty and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, on H.R.
1658,
Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 1658, a private
bill to amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act. The
Administration has no objection to H.R. 1658.
In 1994, the Congress passed H.R. 1183, Private Law 103-2. The Act
validated the conveyances of 50 small tracts of land in Nevada County
and San Joaquin County, California. The lands involved were originally
part of the right-of-way grant of the United States to the Central
Pacific Railroad by an 1862 Act of Congress. The Southern Pacific
Railroad (the successor to Central Pacific) appears to have made
conveyances of small tracts of land in some of these cases, and in
others, adjacent landowners have made inadvertent encroachments.
Because under the original Act of 1862, a Federal reversionary interest
existed if these rights-of-way were abandoned by the railroad, the 1994
Act was necessary to remove any cloud on the title of these small
landowners.
The bill before us today amends the underlying Act by adding two
additional small parcels in San Joaquin County, California. Based on
information provided by the Committee, the parcels in question are at
the northern end of the city of Stockton, California. According to the
master title plat, maintained by the BLM, these parcels have been in
private ownership for nearly a century. We see no conflict in clearing
title for these lands through this legislation. As with the underlying
Act, the mineral estate on these lands is reserved to the Federal
government and these lands are withdrawn from all forms of mineral
entry, including mining, sand and gravel, other common materials, and
mineral and geothermal leasing.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
Welcome, Mr. Smith, to the Subcommittee. You can speak on
the bills that you are here to speak on. Thanks.
STATEMENT OF DAN SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of
the Interior on H.R. 1521, a bill to provide for additional
lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood
National Memorial in the state of Pennsylvania.
The bill would add seven parcels of land to the boundary of
the park to provide permanent protection for resources that are
integral to the historic events that took place at this site.
Six of the parcels totaling 2.33 acres are approximately three
miles from the park in the village of Saint Michael where the
former South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club was located. The
seventh parcel, comprising approximately 12 acres, is adjacent
to the current boundary. Recently a property owner of a .18-
acre parcel in the town of Saint Michael has indicated that he
does not wish to sell his property. We have provided a revised
map to indicate that and Mr. Murtha referred to that.
Land acquisition costs for these six parcels are
approximately $805,000 and all of the parcels that are under
consideration are for sale by willing sellers.
The Department supports the President's initiative to
address the deferred maintenance backlog and taking care of our
current responsibilities. In this instance, however, Mr.
Chairman, we are faced with a unique situation concerning the
boundary adjustment. The historic structures central to this
acquisition have always been considered key components of the
park but were to be protected, maintained and interpreted
through a public/private partnership. However, the partner can
no longer perform this function based on financial problems.
For this reason, the Department believes it is appropriate to
move forward with this bill at this time.
In 1986 the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Historic
District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places
at the state level of significance. In 1989 the Park Service
and residents of Saint Michael undertook a joint planning
effort, which produced the preservation and interpretation plan
for the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historic District.
The 1889 South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historical
Preservation Society was formed and as we sit here now, Mr.
Chairman, they have tried to perform that partnership with the
Park Service to protect these structures.
Unfortunately, the society lacks the resources to continue
to continue to maintain the properties they own, let alone
preserve and develop them according to approved plans.
In 2001 the National Park Service completed a
congressionally mandated special resource study and
environmental assessment to evaluate options for protection and
interpretation of these additional parcels. Based on that
report, the Park Service proposed to add these parcels of land
to the boundary of the park and acquire the parcels in fee
simple.
Mr. Chairman, if the Park Service acquires these buildings
we would explore the option of a public/private partnership to
lease these buildings to the private sector for commercial and
residential use under our historic preservation leasing
authorities that we have. That type of arrangement would reduce
the cost of operation and maintenance to the Park Service,
which we estimate ranges between $75,000 and $310,000. Also, by
providing historic tax credits to someone who would lease this
for various types of businesses, like a bed and breakfast or a
hotel, we would be able to hopefully have the private sector
pick up the rehabilitation costs, which could be upwards of
$2.9 million. This would decrease the financial burden to the
Park Service and there has already been interest expressed by
local businesses in this type of a proposal.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks on H.R.
1521. We look forward to answering questions.
Mr. Radanovich. You have another bill to speak on?
Mr. Smith. Yes, I do. The second bill, Mr. Chairman, is
H.R. 2055. This bill would increase the number of free-roaming
horses at Cape Lookout National Seashore. The Department
supports H.R. 2055. These efforts to adjust the number of free-
roaming horses within the seashore, and we do offer one
technical amendment to clarify the population range of the
horses.
The Department is strongly committed to conserving,
protecting and maintaining a representative number of horses on
the Shackleford Banks portion of the seashore, as we have done
in other units of the system. Without this legislation the
National Park Service would manage this herd consistent with
Public Law 105-229, which provides for a herd of 100 free-
roaming horses.
Mr. Chairman, Congress established Cape Lookout national
Seashore in 1966. The purposes of the seashore did not include
the horses. However, in the GMP that was originally done for
this seashore, the Park Service did state that a representative
number of horses would remain on Shackleford Banks after the
privately owned land on the island was purchased by the United
States.
On August 13, 1998 Congress passed Public Law 105-229, an
act to ensure maintenance of a herd of wild horses in Cape
Lookout National Seashore. Mr. Chairman, that bill is a success
story. The director and I had an opportunity to be at Cape
Lookout 2 weeks ago, saw the horses while we were there to
commemorate the transfer of Cape Lookout Lighthouse to the
National Park Service, and the coordination between the
foundation of Shackleford horses, the Park Service, and the
three professors that Congressman Jones referred to is a
wonderful example of how you can manage this type of a herd in
a very unique environment.
The NPS continues to work with the foundation under an MOU
and management decisions regarding the horses are reached
jointly with the foundation and with the advice of scientists.
The conclusion reached by these groups recently in October of
last year is that the population of the herd should be allowed
to fluctuate between 110 and 130 individuals. The range is
based on sound science and provides the population changes
which are necessary for maintaining the genetic viability of
the herd.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks on H.R. 2055 and we
look forward to answering questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Smith follow:]
Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant to the Director,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1521
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1521, a bill to provide for
additional lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown
Flood National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania.
The bill would add seven parcels of land to the boundary of the
park to provide permanent protection for resources that are integral to
the historic events that the park was established to commemorate. Six
of the parcels, totaling 2.33 acres, are approximately three miles from
the park in the village of Saint Michael where the former South Fork
Fishing and Hunting Club was located. The seventh parcel, comprising
approximately 12 acres, is adjacent to the current boundary. Recently,
a property owner of a 0.18-acre parcel has indicated that he does not
wish to sell his property. We ask the Committee to amend the map
reference in the bill to reflect this change of only six parcels being
added to the park. Land acquisition costs for these six parcels are
approximately $805,000. All parcels are for sale by willing sellers.
The Department supports the President's Initiative to address the
deferred maintenance backlog and taking care of our current
responsibilities. In this instance, we are faced with a unique
situation concerning this boundary adjustment. The historic structures
central to this acquisition have always been considered key components
of the park, but were to be protected, maintained, and interpreted
through a public-private partnership. However, the partner can no
longer perform this function, based on financial problems. For this
reason, the Department believes it is appropriate to move forward with
this bill at this time.
Johnstown Flood National Memorial comprises nearly 165 acres in
western Pennsylvania. The park's mission is to tell the stories of the
events leading up to the Johnstown flood, of the flood itself, and of
its effects on Johnstown and the nation. The addition of the South Fork
Fishing and Hunting Club properties would significantly increase the
park's capability to interpret the important events surrounding the
Johnstown flood and the individuals associated with it.
On May 31, 1889, a poorly maintained earthen dam breeched, sending
20 million tons of water down the Little Conemaugh Valley into
Johnstown and other surrounding communities. A 36-foot wall of water
rolled over the town at 40 miles per hour, flattening houses, trees,
locomotives, and everything else in its path. By the disaster's end,
2,209 people had perished in the flood, another 40 died in the weeks
after from typhoid, and property damage was estimated at $17 million.
It was the worst inland flood in the nation's history and the first
test of the newly formed American Red Cross, headed up by Clara Barton.
A pivotal part of the story revolves around the South Fork Fishing
and Hunting Club, located in Saint Michael, which in 1879 had purchased
an abandoned reservoir, repaired the old dam, and created a private
lake and recreational area for its members. Because the dam was not
properly constructed or maintained, it gave way after heavy rains
pounded the area, overtaxing the Lake Conemaugh dam spillway and
eventually causing the dam to fail.
In 1986, the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historic District
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the state
level of significance.
In 1989, the Park Service and residents of Saint Michael undertook
a joint planning effort, which produced the Preservation and
Interpretation Plan for the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club
Historic District. This plan outlined concepts and guidance for basic
visitor services, interpretation, cultural resource preservation and
maintenance. As a result of the plan, there developed a structured
partnership between the village of Saint Michael and the Park Service,
designed to protect, maintain and manage the South Fork Fishing and
Hunting Club clubhouse and other significant cottages in the historic
district. The 1889 South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historical
Preservation Society was formed to be the principal community body
working with the Park Service in the implementation of the plan. Since
the original planning efforts, the Society has obtained ownership of
the Clubhouse, the Annex, the Moorehead Cottage, and the Brown Cottage.
These properties were not originally included within the boundary of
the park because it was understood that a local entity could adequately
provide for their protection and interpretation.
Unfortunately, the Society lacks the resources to continue to
maintain the properties they own, let alone preserve and develop them
according to approved plans. The Society is struggling to make mortgage
payments, and while they are desperately seeking a solution, the
properties are deteriorating and losing historic integrity. In 2000,
the Society worked with a private, non-profit historic property
development company to try and obtain private sector interest in
purchasing the properties, but was not successful. There is an imminent
threat to the protection of these resources. The private owner has
already listed these historic structures and properties for sale on the
open market.
In 2001, the National Park Service completed a special resource
study and environmental assessment to evaluate options for protection
and interpretation of the additional parcels of land. Based upon the
report, the Park Service proposed to add these parcels of land to the
boundary of the park and to acquire the parcels in fee simple. Within
the village of Saint Michael, four historically significant properties
would be acquired. These structures include the former clubhouse of the
South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, the Clubhouse Annex, and two
cottages built by club members. One undeveloped parcel, the Clubhouse
Side-yard that sits between the Clubhouse and the Clubhouse Annex,
would also be added. The final parcel would protect the historic
viewshed of the park, preserving the rural character of the Unger House
property (Elias Unger was president of the South Fork Fishing and
Hunting Club), owned by the National Park Service.
If the Park Service acquired the historic buildings, we would
explore the option of a public-private partnership to lease the
buildings to the private sector for commercial and residential use.
Through our historic leasing program, the private sector could sign a
long-term lease with the Park Service that would cover a portion of the
operations and maintenance costs of the properties, which ranges from
$75,000 to $310,000. In addition, the private sector could rehabilitate
the buildings, estimated to cost upwards of $2.9 million, using private
funds in return for Federal historic preservation tax credits. This
would decrease the financial burden placed on the Park Service by the
addition of these properties to the park. There has already been
interest expressed by local businesses in this proposal.
The proposal to add these properties to the boundary of the park
has widespread support among the property owners, state and local
governments, and the public who attended a public meeting in July 2001
in Saint Michael. Public comments received were unanimous in support of
the proposal.
We look forward to working with the local communities in Saint
Michael and Johnstown to acquire these historically significant
properties that will help tell the entire story of the events of the
1889 Johnstown Flood, from the actions leading up to the flood through
its devastating aftermath.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or
the members of the Committee may have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7905.001
Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant to the Director,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. H.R.
2055
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2055. This bill would
increase the number of free roaming horses at Cape Lookout National
Seashore.
The Department supports H.R. 2055's efforts to adjust the number of
free roaming horses within Cape Lookout National Seashore (Seashore)
with an amendment, as stated in this testimony, that clarifies the
population range of the horses. The Department is strongly committed to
conserving, protecting, and maintaining a representative number of
horses on the Shackleford Banks portion of the Seashore, as we have
done in other units of the National Park System which contain horses,
and believes that the number of horses on Shackleford Banks should be
determined by the ecology of the island and by means which protect the
genetic viability of the Shackleford Banks horses. Without this
legislation, NPS would manage this herd consistent with P.L. 105-229
which provides for a herd of 100 free roaming horses.
H.R. 2055 amends P.L. 89-366 by changing the number of free roaming
horses at Cape Lookout National Seashore from 100, to not less than
110, and establishes a target population of between 120 and 130 horses.
The bill also changes one of the criteria that the Secretary of the
Interior may use to remove free roaming horses from the Seashore,
allowing removal as part of a plan to maintain viability of the herd.
Congress established Cape Lookout National Seashore (Seashore) on
March 10, 1966. Encompassing more than 28,000 acres of land and water
about 3 miles off the mainland coast, the Seashore protects one of the
few remaining natural barrier island systems in the world with
excellent opportunities for fishing, shellfishing, hunting,
beachcombing, hiking, swimming, and camping in a wild and remote
setting.
The enabling legislation for the Seashore did not address the issue
of free-roaming wild horses on Shackleford Banks. Public comments on
the Seashore's 1982 Draft General Management Plan demonstrated
widespread concern about, and interest in, the future of the horses on
Shackleford Banks. The Final General Management Plan stated that a
representative number of horses would remain on Shackleford Banks after
the privately owned land on the island was purchased by the United
States.
In 1996, following a series of public meetings, as well as
discussions with scientists and professional managers of wild horse
herds, the Seashore developed an Environmental Assessment (EA) with
alternatives for managing the Shackleford Banks horse herd. That plan,
while acceptable to the public, was opposed by some groups who rejected
the idea of any management intervention. The plan proposed to maintain
a representative herd of horses by using a combination of contraceptive
drugs and periodic roundups and removal of horses.
On November 11, 1996, the National Park Service (NPS), with
assistance from state veterinarians from the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture, initiated a roundup of the Shackleford horses. State
law required testing the horses for Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA). Out
of the 184 horses on the island, 76 tested positive for EIA and were
removed to the mainland for temporary quarantine. On the advice of the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, these horses were euthanized.
In December 1996, the NPS established the Shackleford Banks Horse
Council, representing a wide variety of interests and stakeholders, as
a working committee to assist the park with plans for managing horses.
In 1997, a second roundup and testing program was conducted on the
Shackleford horses. Of the 103 horses on the island, five tested
positive for EIA. By this time, the Foundation for Shackleford Horses,
Inc. had secured a state-approved quarantine site and the five EIA
positive horses were transferred to it. In the transfer document, the
Foundation and the Service committed to develop a long-term Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) to cooperate in the management of the Shackleford
Banks horses. On an interim basis, the Service issued a special use
permit to the Foundation to allow it to assist with the management of
the herd.
On August 13, 1998, Congress passed P. L. 105-229, ``An Act To
Ensure Maintenance of a Herd of Wild Horses in Cape Lookout National
Seashore.'' This act directed the NPS to maintain a herd of 100 free
roaming horses and to enter into an agreement with the Foundation for
Shackleford Horses, Inc. or another qualified nonprofit entity, to
provide for the management of free roaming horses in the Seashore. In
April 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding with the Foundation for
Shackleford Horses, Inc. was signed.
P.L. 105-229 requires an annual Findings Report that provides the
public with information regarding the population, structure, and health
of the horses on Shackleford Banks. Research, monitoring and record
keeping, with the goal of informed decisions for removal and
immunocontraception, is ongoing, as is consultation with
internationally recognized advisors in the fields of equine behavior,
genetics, virology, immunocontraception, management, humane issues, and
island ecology. The NPS continues to work with the Foundation under the
MOU and management decisions regarding the horses are reached jointly
with the Foundation and with the advice of scientists.
On October 29 and 30, 2002, the NPS hosted a roundtable meeting
with the aim of reaching a consensus on the free roaming horse
population range and the strategy for achieving that range.
Participants included the Seashore Superintendent and staff, staff from
Representative Jones' office, and representatives from the Foundation
for Shackleford Horses, Inc. Three leading scientists considered
experts in their respective fields also participated: Dr. Dan
Rubenstein of Princeton University, Dr. Gus Cothran of the University
of Kentucky, and (by telephone) Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick of ZooMontana.
Included in the discussion was the value of occasional herd
expansion to maintain genetic variability in the population. The
conclusion reached was that the population should be allowed to
fluctuate between 110-130 individuals. The methodology of conducting
removal and contraception toward this goal was also discussed and
agreed upon. The range of 110 to 130 horses is based on sound science
and provides the population changes, which are necessary for
maintaining the genetic viability of the herd.
Based upon the October roundtable discussion, we recommend an
amendment to the bill that is attached to this testimony. We believe
that this amendment will more clearly reflect the need to allow the
population bloom necessary for maintaining the genetic viability of the
herd.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
Suggested Amendment, H.R. 2055:
On page 2, line 1, delete ``with a target population of between 120
and 130'' and insert, ``allowing periodic population expansion of the
herd to a maximum of 130 horses''.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
I recognize Mrs. Christensen for any questions you may
have.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would ask my questions of Dan Smith, the special
assistant to the director. This is on the Johnstown Flood bill.
Your testimony is that one reason it was fairly urgent for the
National Park Service to acquire these properties for addition
to the memorial is that the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club
Historical Preservation Society has run into financial
difficulties and is struggling to make mortgage payments.
However, you also said that a private owner had actually listed
the properties for sale.
So who is the private owner and is it the bank which holds
the mortgage for the society or is it the society itself?
Mr. Smith. Mrs. Christensen, I believe the answer to that
is it is the society. They actually went to a developer and
tried to package it and sell it. This was in a 2000-2001
timeframe. They were not successful. Currently the society does
hold the mortgage. They actually, quite truthfully, are waiting
to see what happens with this legislation, if this is going to
be the way that this will be resolved. It is that society
trying to find a way to handle this situation where they just
do not have the finances to continue it, but it has not been
repossessed by the bank; the society still does hold title to
these properties.
Mrs. Christensen. And also, since they have not been
successful in the public/private partnerships to lease and
rehabilitate the buildings, are we also assuming that should
this go through and the National Park Service were to manage
it, that they would be in a better position to forge those
public/private partnerships?
Mr. Smith. We would hope so. There is no guarantee, Mrs.
Christensen. However, the difference would be the Park Service
would own the fee simple and these would be long-term, very
attractive leases, including to allow for the historic tax
credit that is used for billions of dollars of this type of
effort around the country.
This major building was used as a hotel for most of this
century until it did come into the society, so locally we do
understand from the superintendent that under the historic
leasing program there is a possibility someone would take that
on, not with the actual ownership, but with a very conducive
long-term lease.
Mrs. Christensen. On H.R. 2055, the Cape Lookout horses,
how would you rate the health of the herd?
Mr. Smith. In conversations just Saturday 2 weeks ago with
both the biologist who actually is there and the
superintendent, the herd is right now about 119 horses. That
was the last accurate count in January of this year. They
reduced it from 131.
The herd is very healthy. There is no sign of any of the
equine viruses in them. This plume that has been discussed
seems to be the exact thing to work. They lost a few in
hurricanes in the late 1990's. They lost one just recently, a
wonderful mare, because she was tangled up in fishing
equipment. But with all of those types of things that do happen
where you do lose horses here and there, it is a very healthy
herd. And it has to be one of the most studied herds in the
country, with these three wonderful doctors who Congressman
Jones said just pay so much attention to them. Very healthy,
120 plus or minus herd right now.
Mrs. Christensen. Great. Any damage to the park from wild
horses and if so, has the park taken any specific measures to
avert that, or not a problem?
Mr. Smith. Actually in discussions yesterday with again
this local biologist, the horses kept at this number seems to
work wonderfully on that 3,000-acre coastal barrier. Part of
that is because earlier in the 1980's all the other feral
animals--the pigs, the cows, and whatever--were removed and now
that the horses have that free range, all the ecology of the
grasses and all that seems to be working absolutely wonderfully
and the park has no problem with it at all.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
I now recognize Mr. Pombo for any questions.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to welcome my constituent, Mr. Arnaiz, here today.
I know that when this started several years ago you had no idea
it was going to take an act of Congress to solve this problem.
I welcome you here and hopefully we will be able to move this
and remove any doubt or cloud that exists. Thank you for being
here.
Mr. Anderson, I wanted to ask you a question. In reviewing
your testimony you bring up the 1862 act and you state that the
1994 act was necessary to remove any cloud on the title of the
small landowners. Can you explain a little bit to me how the
1862 act is referenced in this case in light of the bill that
you are testifying on today?
Mr. Anderson. Well, in the 1862 act that was a transfer of
property to the railroad companies, who in turn had the right
to sell those lands to others within the railroad.
Mr. Pombo. Let me stop you right there. The 1862 act
partially was the right-of-way that was given to Central
Pacific, in this case Central Pacific. The odd sections were
treated differently than the right-of-way itself.
Mr. Anderson. Well, there were different types of railroad
acts and this particular one did not offer the checkerboard or
every-other-section opportunity that----
Mr. Pombo. So it is just the right-of-way.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, that provided so many feet from the
center line of the railroad a grant that was----
Mr. Pombo. 200 feet on either side of the center line of
the railroad?
Mr. Anderson. That is right.
Mr. Pombo. And it did not allow them to sell that right-of-
way.
Mr. Anderson. That is right. If they failed to use that
right-of-way for railroad purposes----
Mr. Pombo. It was to revert back to the adjoining property
owners.
Mr. Anderson. Right.
Mr. Pombo. Now how in the case of 1658, how does the
original generic act come in in that case?
Mr. Anderson. Well, you had some encroachments into the
right-of-way by folk and I am sure it was unbeknownst to the
railroad at the time. I am not sure how that happened bur there
were encroachments and they were conveyed to these adjacent
landowners.
Mr. Pombo. So because--and I remember the last time that we
did this--because there were places where towns grew up, things
got built that were closer than within that historic right-of-
way, it became necessary for Congress to quitclaim or to give
clear title to those property owners who happened to be within
those areas.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, that was provided for in the 1922 act
that said that Congress must ratify any of these sales that
have been made by the railroad company.
Mr. Pombo. So the 1922 act is what requires us to act on
every single one of them.
Mr. Anderson. That is exactly right.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Mrs. Bordallo, did you have any questions?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one for Mr.
Smith on H.R. 1521.
This community of Saint Michael, what is the historical
significance of this community and is it a visitor destination
in the state?
Mr. Smith. Congresswoman, it would be a visitor destination
because it is immediately adjacent to where the Johnstown flood
occurred. The lake that was contained by the dam is located at
Saint Michael. So in the late 1800's it was a resort for the
very wealthy from Pittsburgh to come up and recreate in this
wonderful hill country of Pennsylvania and today it does have a
mixture, as I understand it, of antique shops, bed and
breakfasts, and that type of thing, so it is a destination.
And, as Congressman Murtha said, the 150,000 to 160,000
people who visit the Johnstown Memorial site each year, that is
actually the town that they are in. The flood occurred much
further down the river in Johnstown.
Ms. Bordallo. I was going to ask that question. Were there
any casualties or fatalities in Saint Michael itself?
Mr. Smith. None that I am aware of. Basically the dam
breached at the lower end of the town and it just flowed out.
It was amazing how fast. I think the engineer onsite there said
whatever the huge volume of water was emptied out within
several hours but no, there was nothing there.
The significance of this is these are the homes and the
actual buildings that were associated with that club that
maintained this lake, so it has that significance to the
memorial.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Then I have one on H.R. 1658, on the railroad, for Mr.
Anderson. How many grants from Congress to the railroads over
the years have been reverted to Federal ownership?
Mr. Anderson. I do not know, ma'am, but we conveyed or
testified in 1994 about 40 other parcels and under this
particular scenario they were ratified by Congress, parcels
like the ones that we are talking about today.
Ms. Bordallo. There are more tracts that have been turned
over to private hands than----
Mr. Anderson. Yes, there were 40ish.
Ms. Bordallo. Forty. Are there still more to come?
Mr. Anderson. That is a good question. I do not know.
Ms. Bordallo. Maybe we ought to just recognize everything
that is left over and say that whatever comes in the future
that it be turned over to private hands, if they so desire. I
am just thinking. Is there still quite a bit of land that would
have to come through Congress?
Mr. Pombo. If the gentlelady would yield, there are
hundreds if not thousands of properties that could possibly
fall into this same category. The original grants that the
railroads had in the 1862 act, what was given to the railroad
was a right-of-way. It is surface right-of-way. They do not
have any subsurface rights and if they ever give up the right-
of-way for railroad purposes, it is supposed to revert back to
the adjoining property owners, who historically had that
property or through succession ended up buying that property.
This has been an area of some controversy throughout the
West because there were a number of right-of-ways that were
given to railroads that have since become abandoned and there
is a cloud over who actually owns those properties. The 1862
act said that once they gave it up it reverted back to the
property owners. Some of the railroads have tried to maintain
that right-of-way, to maintain some kind of ownership, even
though they abandoned it. Some communities have tried to go in
and buy those from the railroad either as a recreational trail
or a transportation corridor. So there is some controversy over
this.
With Mr. Arnaiz's case it is just someone who, because
either the railroad moved or the property was developed into
that right-of-way, it became in dispute as to who actually
owned that land.
If you go back and actually look at the 1862 grants, it is
not really specific where the original right-of-way was and in
a lot of them, and I have spent a great deal of time going
through these, it says that the railroad has a right-of-way
that is 200 feet on either side of the track, but it does not
say exactly where the track was. So if they straightened out
the railroad or moved the track one way or another, a property
like this could end up all of a sudden being within that 200
feet center line and it may not have been originally when the
railroad went through there.
Ms. Bordallo. I see.
Mr. Pombo. So there is some controversy around it.
Ms. Bordallo. But a precedent has been set.
Mr. Pombo. Yes, we dealt with these----
Ms. Bordallo. That is what I am saying. Once a precedent
has been put in place I feel that for the future if we have to
go before Congress--so it has to be case by case? Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. Pombo. Yes. Apparently because of the 1922 act, we have
to deal with every one of these individually.
Ms. Bordallo. Right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, I appreciate the work you did a few years ago on
this bill and also the position of the Park Service. I want to
read a statement that I have submitted from Dr. Dan Rubenstein,
genetic scientist at Princeton, who the Committee might be
interested to know that for the last 30 years he has been
taking 25 or 30 students to sleep out on the Shackleford Banks
and study these horses. Actually, Dr. Rubenstein was featured
on the Discovery Channel about four or 5 years ago, the Peter
Graves show, about all this fine work that he has been doing.
Mr. Smith, the question that I want to read, part of a
statement that Dr. Rubenstein writes in this letter, which
again I am submitting, he says, ``By supporting the goal of
managing numbers to remain close to 120 yet also allowing the
population to periodically bloom to 130 so that successful
genes could occasionally increase in frequency and spread
through the population before numbers are again reduced.'' Your
technical amendment would not alter what Dr. Rubenstein
believes needs to be done to ensure the diversity of this herd?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Jones, I do not believe so. Basically it
would just delete the current bill ``with a target population
of between 120 and 130'' and instead would insert ``allowing
periodic population expansion of the herd to a maximum of
130.''
My interpretation of this, which I would get on the record,
is that we are talking about 110 to 130 horses. Obviously 120
is right in the middle. It is a technical amendment and
certainly if the doctor had trouble with that, it is just
offered as a technical amendment. It just did not peg it--I
think everybody understands 120 probably is the optimum number
but you need allowances on top of that.
Mr. Jones. Well, I trust you. We had kind of a fight for
this bill back in 1997, as you well remember, because you were
on the staff then.
Mr. Smith. I vaguely remember, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. But this concern that Rubenstein has about
allowing the bloom, so to speak, you do not see that your
amendment would restrict what he thinks is necessary for the
science to adequately assure the future of the herds?
Mr. Smith. I do not, Mr. Jones. And again, as you review
that and go back to the good doctor, it is offered only as a
technical amendment and certainly it does not jeopardize the
Department's support of the bill whichever way it ends up in
the final legislation.
Mr. Jones. Thank you and the Department for your support.
Mr. Smith. You are very welcome, Congressman.
Mr. Radanovich. Are there any other questions of the panel?
All right, that being the last panel, this concludes our
hearing on these three bills. Gentlemen, thank you very much
for your testimony and this concludes our hearing. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2055 by Carolyn
Mason, President and Chairman, Foundation for Shackleford
Horses, Inc., follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7905.003