[Senate Hearing 108-278]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-278
KATE MULLANY SITE; AMEND THE ANILCA; CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED; AND
CUMBERLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 1241 S. 1433
S. 1364 S. 1462
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-435 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 7
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from New York......... 36
Francis, Sharon F., Executive Director, Connecticut River Joint
Commissions.................................................... 31
Jones, Randy, Deputy Director, National Park Service
Opening statement............................................ 4
S. 1241...................................................... 9
S. 1364...................................................... 10
S. 1433...................................................... 11
S. 1462...................................................... 12
Leahy, Hon. Patrick, U.S. Senator from Vermont................... 3
McKeon, Sean, Executive Director, The Northeast Regional Forest
Foundation, Brattleboro, VT.................................... 25
Miller, Hon. Zell, U.S. Senator from Georgia..................... 3
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 6
Neuhauser, Hans, Executive Director, Georgia Environment Policy
Institute, Athens, GA.......................................... 20
Paxton, Gregory P., President and CEO, The Georgia Trust for
Historic Preservation.......................................... 16
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from New York............. 38
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 41
KATE MULLANY SITE; AMEND THE ANILCA; CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED; AND
CUMBERLAND ISLAND WILDERNESS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. There's supposed to be a vote at 10:05, but
it's been now delayed until 10:30, so we'll go ahead and get
started. Then if we're interrupted by the vote, why, so be it.
At any rate, welcome. Welcome the witnesses to the
subcommittee hearing. Our purpose is to hear testimony today on
four Senate bills: S. 1241, a bill to establish the Kate
Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York; S.
1364, to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act to authorize the payment of expenses after the death of
certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska; S. 1433, a
bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide
assistance in implementing cultural heritage, conservation, and
recreation activities on the Connecticut River watershed in the
State of New Hampshire and Vermont; and, finally, S. 1462, a
bill to adjust the boundary of the Cumberland Island
Wilderness, and to authorize tours of the Cumberland Island
National Seashore.
So that's what we have today, and we certainly welcome the
witnesses to be here. I think members are not able to be here
right now, so, if we might, Mr. Jones, if you could go ahead,
sir, Deputy Director of the National Park Service, for your
administrative comments on these matters.
[The prepared statements of Senators Chambliss, Leahy, and
Miller follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Saxby Chambliss, U.S. Senator From Georgia
Mr. Chairman, Cumberland Island is one of Georgia's ``Golden
Isles,'' a 36,415-acre ecological and historical treasure trove that is
home to birds, sea turtles, wild horses, and an abundance of other
animals which inhabit or visit the island's pines, beaches, and rich
wetlands. This pristine island off of Georgia's coast is one of our
most important natural resources. As author Charles Seabrook has
written, ``Cumberland's natural splendor, its unsullied beach nearly
eighteen miles long, its big houses, its unfettered horses, its ruins
of mansions and slave cabins, its little white church--all cast a
mystique, an aura over the islands.''
Cumberland is unique both as a National Seashore and a Wilderness.
It is a magnificent island that wins the hearts of virtually everyone
who visits its shore and forests. It is also unique in the wilderness
system in that it bears the broad imprint of a rich and diverse human
impact. Cumberland is not an ``ordinary'' seashore, and it is not an
``ordinary'' wilderness.
The historic structures on the island and the stories they tell are
compelling. The legislative history shows that those sites were always
considered an important priority when Congress made Cumberland a
National Seashore and when it subsequently designated portions of the
island as a wilderness and potential wilderness.
Native Americans were attracted by the rich wildlife and settled
the island nearly 5,000 years ago, leaving behind burial grounds and
other evidence of human habitation. In more recent history, large
plantations raised cotton, corn, and rice. Newly-freed African-
Americans bought homes and established the village of Half Moon Bluff.
After the Civil War, descendants of Andrew Carnegie built or expanded
existing homes, such as Plum Orchard Mansion and Dungeness. Congress
recognized the value of preserving this rich natural and historical
heritage and passed Public Law 97-250, which designated approximately
8,840 acres of Cumberland Island as wilderness area under the National
Wilderness Preservation System. Congress also authorized an additional
11,718 acres to be designated as potential wilderness. This designation
places strong restrictions on land usage to preserve the wilderness.
However, this designation resulted in an unintended consequence where
the wilderness area severely restricts access along the only routes
leading to Plum Orchard and the other historic structures.
As a result of the restrictions, the National Park Service reports
that efforts to preserve these historic structures are hamstrung
because it is both difficult and prohibitively expensive to transport
crews and supplies to the sites of these historic buildings in order to
perform regular and necessary maintenance and preservation work.
Consequently, we may very well lose these extraordinary buildings
simply due to neglect. Future generations of Americans would be shocked
if they learned we lost these historic buildings to weather, termites,
and age simply because we did not allow vehicles to use roads
established over a hundred years of use.
To use just one example, Plum Orchard, built in 1898, is at serious
risk. Not only is it Georgia's largest historic house, it is part of a
historic district placed by the World Monuments Fund on its 2004 list
of the 100 most endangered sites. However, because of the wilderness
designation, the National Park Service is unable to perform the work
necessary to preserve this monument.
Cumberland is also an island with an array of retained right
properties. The retained rights agreements in many cases reflect the
fact that some major land owners voluntarily agreed to property sales
at bargain prices in order to facilitate the establishment of the
National Seashore. Appropriately, those agreements allow the retained
right holders and their families, among others, to use motorized
vehicles along the access roads that are addressed in my legislation.
So the issue is not whether vehicles will be on the roads--they
will be, with or without this bill. This bill will not open a flood
gate of new vehicle use. It will simply allow the Park Service to
maintain the structures, and it will allow public visitors to see the
historic sites in a practical way. Today, families with small children,
the elderly, and others who cannot make a hike of many miles, are
essentially left without a reasonable way to traverse the island to the
historic properties.
The evidence of the need for this bill is the fact that the
historic buildings are in a perennial state of neglect, and public
visitation to the buildings is for many citizens unattainable.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, the ``Cumberland Island National Seashore
Wilderness Revision Act of 2003'', addresses this dilemma by simply
removing the main road, spur road to Plum Orchard, and North Cut Road
from the wilderness designation and allowing their use at the same time
designating 952 acres as potential wilderness on the southern end of
the island so that there is no net loss of wilderness. The bill does
not open up development or otherwise degrade Cumberland Island's
habitats. By allowing the use of these roads, the Park Service can
provide critical and necessary maintenance of the island's precious
historical buildings, and allow more Americans to experience and
appreciate the beauty and history of Cumberland Island. Let me be clear
that this bill does not increase the number of people authorized to
visit the island each year or allow increased tourist traffic on the
island.
This legislation gives us a rare positive preservation opportunity.
The National Park Service will be able to better manage the island and
preserve vanishing parts of our history while at the same time
protecting and preserving our natural environment. Our proposal has
gained the support of visitors to Cumberland Island, Georgia's Trust
for Historic Preservation, and the National Park Service. Again, I
would emphasize that this bill does not open up roads that are not
already being used by motorized vehicles. It does not unleash a flood
of new visitors. But it does allow ordinary citizens the chance to do
the thing that author David McCollough has so often spoken ofto grasp
the power of the history of this country by being able to see and touch
and walk within the historic homes and buildings that tell the story of
our country.
It is my hope that this committee will be able to support this
proposal as well.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator From Vermont
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking today in support of the Upper
Connecticut River Partnership Act which is currently before the
Committee. This legislation will help bring recognition to New
England's largest river ecosystem and help the communities along the
river protect and enhance their natural, cultural and recreational
resources. I am pleased to note that Senators Jeffords and Gregg are
also original cosponsors of this bill.
For years, our offices and our states have worked together to help
communities on both sides of the river develop local partnerships to
protect the Connecticut River valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. This
valley is a scenic region of historic villages located in a working
landscape of farms and forests. Historically, the Upper Connecticut
River Valley has functioned cooperatively even though the River is the
actual boundary between two states. The River serves to unite Vermont
and New Hampshire communities economically, culturally and
environmentally.
Citizens on both sides of the river know just how special this
region is and have worked side by side for years to protect it. The two
states came together to create the Connecticut River Joint Commissions,
which help coordinate the efforts of towns, watersheds and other local
groups to implement the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan.
This Plan has become the blueprint for how communities along the river
can work together, with the states of Vermont and New Hampshire and
with the federal government to protect the river's resources.
The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act would help carry out
the recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan,
developed under New Hampshire law, but wit the active participation of
Vermont citizens and communities.
This Act would provide the Secretary of Interior with the ability
to assist the States of New Hampshire and Vermont with technical and
financial aid for the Upper Connecticut River Valley through the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions. The Act would also assist local
community efforts to continue cultural heritage outreach and education
programs while enriching the recreational activities already active in
the Connecticut River Watershed of Vermont and New Hampshire.
The bill also will require that the Secretary of Interior establish
a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to help
local community groups develop new projects as well as build on
existing ones to enhance the river basin. Over the next few years, I
hope this bill will help bring new recognition to the Connecticut River
as one of our nation's great water resources.
I urge the committee to take favorable action on this legislation.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Zell Miller, U.S. Senator From Georgia
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on S. 1462, of which I am a co-sponsor.
Cumberland Island National Seashore is an invaluable historical and
environmental resource in which all Georgians take great pride. Since
1972, Cumberland Island has been entrusted to the federal government
for the protection of its unique beauty for future generations to
enjoy.
The National Park Service has many different issues to balance
while managing the island. The Park Service must protect access for
island residents, protect the environment, facilitate visitor access
consistent with federal laws and preserve the cultural and historical
treasures on the island. That is a tall order--especially considering
that the Park Service must do all of this on a budget of less than $2
million a year.
I co-sponsored S. 1462 because it will give all members of the
public the opportunity to enjoy Cumberland Island by permitting
reasonable access. Specifically, this bill will remove from the
wilderness designation the 200-year-old main road, which is listed on
the National Register, and two spur roads. This will allow access to
numerous historic sites on the western and northern edge of Cumberland.
Under this legislation, the majority of the wilderness on Cumberland
Island will be preserved, and there will be an additional wilderness
designation of 210 acres on the south end of the island.
The National Park Service has been unable to draft or put into
place a Wilderness Management Plan for Cumberland Island because of the
lack of reasonable access to and use of these three dirt roads. The
current wilderness restrictions against driving on these three roads
make it nearly impossible for the National Park Service to use or
maintain the historic buildings on the island. How are you, supposed to
maintain buildings when the only way to reach them is by walking 10 to
12 miles each way?
One of these historic buildings is Plum Orchard. This mansion has
30 rooms spread over 22,000 square feet in the middle of a 600-acre
estate. In 1972, the Carnegie family donated its island property along
with $50,000 to the National Park Service to be incorporated into the
Cumberland Island National Seashore. The Park Service has tried
numerous times to develop a public/private partnership to save this
grand old house, but these attempts have failed because of the lack of
reasonable access to Plum Orchard.
Cumberland Island is an ideal, one-of-a-kind educational
opportunity for school children, but those opportunities are being
wasted because of the accessibility issue. The National Park Service
helps school teachers create history lessons about the island, but
there's little chance the students will get to see the historical
treasures on the north end of Cumberland Island. They simply can't get
there. I don't know of a school system in Georgia that can afford to
rent a boat to ship their 8th grade Georgia History class to Cumberland
Island's north end. I don't know of too many students or teachers who
are willing to hike 12 miles each way to see the Plum Orchard mansion,
the First African American Church and the High Point/Half Moon Bluff.
While I'm on the subject of access, let me point out that the
elderly and the disabled cannot enjoy these historically significant
structures on the north end because of the wilderness restrictions.
Every tax-paying citizen should have the ability to visit these sites
without having to hike very long distances or obtain access to a boat.
The purpose of this legislation is to allow very limited vehicle
access to the northern part of Cumberland Island. In no way would this
bill allow visitors to put their SUVs or motor coaches on a ferry over
to the island for a day of joy riding up on North Cut Road. Visitors
are not even allowed to bring a bicycle over to the island. Under our
bill, the Park Service would continue to monitor the visitation to the
island and there would still be a limit of 300 visitors per day. The
bill would simply allow the Park Service to offer tours to the island's
north end, or to contract out those services.
This bill would allow everyone the opportunity to view all of the
vastly different and historically significant structures located on
Cumberland Island's north end, while also allowing the Park Service to
more effectively maintain these structures for future generations to
enjoy.
When Cumberland Island was transferred to the federal government, I
believe the intent of the families who owned it was clear. The land was
to be preserved and the rights of the families were to be safeguarded.
I think Cumberland Island is a great success story of private
landowners and public interests working in harmony to save
environmental, historical and cultural treasures.
The island is the largest undeveloped barrier island in the United
States, and our bill won't change that. Cumberland Island will remain
undeveloped. It will remain the natural and historical treasure it has
always been.
Thank you again for allowing me to comment on S. 1462.
STATEMENT OF RANDY JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Jones. I do ask that my statements be inserted into the
record, and I'd be happy to summarize them, in the interest of
time.
Senator Thomas. It will be in the record.
Mr. Jones. Do you want me just to go through all of them
first, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jones. Okay.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views
of the Department on S. 1462, a bill to adjust the boundary of
Cumberland Island Wilderness, and to authorize tours of the
Cumberland Island National Seashore, and for other purposes.
The Department strongly supports S. 1462.
This bill would remove three roads--the Main Road, the
Northcut Road, and the Plum Orchard spur from designated as
wilderness or potential wilderness. Removing these roads from
wilderness, which have existing vehicle traffic on them today,
would allow the National Park Service, its concessioners, and
permittees to have vehicular access to Plum Orchard, the
settlement, and the beach at the north end of the island. S.
1462 would also amend significant provision of the seashore's
enabling legislation, expressly authorizing tours by
concessioners.
Conflict has encumbered the management of the Cumberland
Island ever since the enactment of the wilderness designation,
with the principal point of contention being a network of
existing roads located within the wilderness and potential
wilderness areas of the seashore which are legislatively
designated in both areas.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that we have tried for
the last 20 years to make this legislation work, to implement
and continue to have good public access and protect the
resource, and we have not been successful in doing that, to
date.
At the time it enacted the Cumberland Island Wilderness,
Congress expressly acknowledged the existing legal rights of
island residents to use roads through the wilderness. This
result has been conflicts between those wishing to uphold the
vision of the wilderness of the island and those wishing to go
about their lives on the island as they always have.
One of these conflicts impose motorized tours through the
wilderness provided by the Grayfield Inn. For many years, the
owners of the inn have offered commercial tours on roads
designated and potential wilderness. At present, we have been
challenged, and it was suggested we should stop these tours,
arguing that it is unlawful to conduct motorized tours in a
designated wilderness. Some have also complained that the
wilderness restrictions limit vehicular access to two of the
nation's National Seashore's more noteworthy historic and
cultural features, the Plum Orchard Mansion and the High Point-
Half Moon Historic District, an African American settlement.
We have been trying, Senator, for several years to provide
an appropriate adaptive use of the Plum Orchard facility, for
example, so that we could bring in some private capital to help
save and protect this nationally significant resource. And we
have not been successful, for the main reason that potential
bidders are not interested, because there is insufficient
access to the site. And so finding an appropriate successful
adaptive use, we believe, is critical to the long-term
preservation of this nationally significant historic structure.
The map that accompanies S. 1462 depicts an area of
approximately 952 acres on the southern tip of Cumberland
Island that would be newly designated as wilderness to offset
the acreage in the High Point-Half Moon Historic District, as
well as these three roads, which would be removed from wildness
or potential wilderness. The National Park Service supports
this concept of assuring that there is no net loss of
wilderness at Cumberland Island.
And I would like to add, as a final note, Senator, that
there is precedent for this legislation that originated in this
committee, in Alaska. It is the Arctic National Park, in the
Anaktuvuk Pass area, where the Congress came back after
designating the wilderness, and recognized that a off-road
vehicle motorized trail was not appropriate in the wilderness.
It was later removed from wilderness and alternate acreage of
the development-loss concept developed by this committee, and
we feel that this is consistent with that attempt in view of
earlier action by this committee.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Mr. Jones, I'm going to
interrupt you just a moment.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. The Senator has joined us, and I'd ask if
she has any comment, opening comment, or comment on her bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you for S. 1364 and to allow me to
make a few comments this morning.
This legislation is--we refer to as ``Lucy's Law,'' and it
would authorize the Federal land management agencies in Alaska
to provide limited financial assistance to the surviving family
members of their ANILCA local-hire employees who might die in
their line of duty. This legislation is named for Lucy O'Hara,
the widow of Tom O'Hara, who lost his life on December 20,
2002, while serving as National Park Ranger assigned to the
Katmai National Park, in Alaska.
This was a line-of-death duty. Tom O'Hara was 41 at the
time of his death and left behind his wife, Lucy, and three
children. In the year following Tom's death, Lucy and her
family have been working to put their lives back together. They
have relocated from Tom's duty station, which was in the
village of Naknek, to the Anchorage area. But this is not a
move that, I think, most people can appreciate. Naknek is a
bush village in rural Alaska. It's not connected to any road
system whatsoever. So for the O'Hara family, this is not an
issue of renting a moving van and packing up the family in the
car and moving; this is quite a considerable expense. The move
cost the family about $14,000.
If Ranger O'Hara was a career National Park Service
employee from the lower 48, the Park Service could use existing
government-wide authority to relocate his family back to the
lower 48, at government expense. But Ranger O'Hara was one of a
small number of Alaskans who were employed under the ANILCA
local-hire program. These are noncompetitive appointments to
individuals from the local area who have special expertise or
special knowledge about a particular park, wildlife refuge, or
forest. So the existing law does not give the Park Service the
authority to relocate Ranger Tom's family to a location where
they can essentially get a new start on their lives, so this
legislation is essentially designed to set things right.
This would put the families of ANILCA local-hire employees,
like Tom O'Hara, on an equal footing with those career National
Park Service employees imported to Alaska from the lower 48.
And, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we, in the Senate, deal in
matters of great financial importance, many times involving
millions of dollars, or occasionally billions of dollars. This
legislation does not have significant financial import. If it
were enacted, it would involve a financial commitment of about
$14,000, but that $14,000 will make a huge different to a
family in my State, a big difference to that family that has
already paid a supreme sacrifice.
I thank you for your leadership and allowing this small
bill to move forward that will have a big impact on one of my
Alaska families--and thank you for your consideration.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
We've also been joined by Senator Akaka. Any opening
comments, Senator?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for scheduling this hearing.
All four of the bills on today's agenda address important
issues, and I look forward to learning more about each of them
this morning.
S. 1241 would designate that the Kate Mullany National
Historic Site in Troy, New York. I understand that the site,
which has been designated as a national historic landmark by
the Secretary of the Interior, is an important part of the
history of the American labor movement.
I look forward to working with Senators Clinton, Schumer,
and Chairman Thomas in addressing this issue raised with the
National Park Service, so that we can move the bill through the
Committee.
S. 1364 is Senator Murkowski's bill to correct an
unintended consequence of existing law so that the Department
of the Interior would be able to pay certain expenses following
the death of Federal employees in Alaska. I support the purpose
of this bill, which I believe is non-controversial.
S. 1433 would authorize the Department of the Interior to
provide technical and financial assistance to help with the
management of the Connecticut River watershed in Vermont and
New Hampshire. I understand that there is strong local support
from affected communities along the river in both States, as
well as bipartisan support from the congressional delegation of
both States. I know that the Park Service has raised concerns,
in general, with pass-through rent programs, but I would like
to work with the bill sponsors to try and address those
concerns as we take up this bill.
The final bill on the agenda is S. 1462, which would
exclude certain lands, primarily roads, from wilderness
designation at the Cumberland Island National Seashore, in
Georgia. I know this proposal is controversial, and we will
hear from witnesses on both sides of the issue. The removal of
previously designated wilderness, especially within the
National Park System, is always a concern to me. I look forward
to learning more about this bill and the specific issues.
I would like to add my welcome to all of the witnesses to
the subcommittee, and I look forward to hearing that testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Jones, if you'd care to proceed.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One last comment on Cumberland Island. We have heard
comments from some folks who have said that if we take these
roads out of wilderness, it would create all kinds of new road
traffic on those roads, and I just want to make sure that the
committee understands that that is not the case. It is still an
island, there are still heavy restrictions on access to the
islands, and what we do see is to essentially allow the kinds
of uses that have occurred in the past to continue so that the
public can, in fact, have some access to the historic
structures and recreation resources on this island, and to take
those existing roads that have existing highway traffic out of
the wilderness, which we think is an appropriate action.
Moving on to S. 1364, a bill to amend the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, Senator Murkowski
very eloquently stated the position that we totally agree with
and support. We strongly support this piece of legislation. And
as she pointed out in her testimony, the key thing, from our
point of view, is that this is allowing employees who were
hired under special authority of ANILCA to have the same rights
and benefits that any other Federal employee in Alaska already
has. And under rule-making that was done by the Office of
Personnel Management, interpreting ANILCA, that essentially
waived several requirements of Federal personnel practices,
their rule-making also essentially excluded some of the
benefits that other Federal employees have, and so we think
this is very equitable and very deserving. Since ANILCA was
enacted, this would be the only case that this has happened,
and we certainly hope that we will not have to use this
authority again.
The one main change we do recommend to the legislation is
to clarify that this provision would be retroactive to include
the widow of Ranger O'Hara, as far as the effective date on
this legislation.
Moving on to S. 1241, a bill to establish the Kate Mullany
National Historic Site in the State of New York, the Department
opposes enactment of this legislation. The bill proposes
establishment of the Kate Mullany National Historic Site as a
new unit of the National Park System. The site would comprise
approximately one-twentieth of an acre in Troy, New York, and
would include the southern half of a three-story brick
apartment house now designated as the Kate Mullany House
National Historic Landmark.
The Department opposes enactment of this legislation for
three main reasons. First, there are already authorities and
mechanisms in place at the Federal, State, and local level to
support the preservation interpretation of this historic
landmark, and we feel it is being adequately protected at this
time. And based on that, therefore, it has been our policy that
areas already receiving adequate protection do not need to be
added to the National Park System. And, third, to meet the
President's initiative to eliminate deferred maintenance
backlog, at this point, we, frankly, feel that we cannot afford
these costs at this time.
There is no doubt of the significance of Katherine Mullany,
as a labor leader from the 19th century, and her leadership.
Our biggest concerns are about the integrity of the site, the
surroundings, the interior, and the structure. And, therefore,
as well as being adequately protected now, we feel that this
legislation is not necessary. Given the overlapping local,
State, and Federal designations and active interest by
nonprofit organizations, we feel the establishment of this area
as a unit of the National Park Service would be redundant.
Finally, on the S. 1433, the Upper Connecticut River
Partnership Act, which would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to provide assistance in implementing cultural
heritage, conservation, and recreation activities in the
Connecticut River watershed, the Department appreciates the
efforts of this commission and their exemplary work of the
Connecticut River watershed. We have had a long working
relationship with them, as have the other agencies in the
Department of the Interior. However, we do oppose enactment of
S. 1433 because it would necessitate the creation of a new
Federal grant program focused exclusively on one particular
watershed in one particular State. We feel it would be
inappropriate for the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to take on such new funding
responsibilities at a time when we are trying to focus our
resources in caring for existing areas.
We also believe that there are other existing funding
mechanisms within the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of Transportation, and other
Federal agencies that can foster the type of partnership
efforts in addition to this bill. So we feel that new authority
and new earmarking of funds at this time is not appropriate.
And so, at that point, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer
any questions you have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Jones follow:]
Prepared Statements of Randy Jones, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, on S. 1241, S. 1364, S. 1433, and S. 1462
s. 1241
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1241, a bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in
the State of New York. The Department opposes enactment of this
legislation.
The bill proposes establishment of a Kate Mullany National Historic
Site as a new unit of the National Park System. The site would comprise
approximately 1/20 of an acre at 350 Eighth Street, in Troy, New York,
and would include the southern half of a three-story brick apartment
house now designated as the Kate Mullany House National Historic
Landmark. The bill would authorize the Secretary to acquire the site
and additional real and personal property, to administer the site, and
to enter into cooperative agreements with the Hudson-Mohawk Urban
Cultural Park Commission and other public and private entities to
facilitate preservation and interpretation of the site and related
historic resources.
The Department opposes enactment of this bill for three main
reasons. First, there are already authorities and mechanisms in place,
at the federal, state, and local level, to support the preservation and
interpretation of the Kate Mullany House National Historic Landmark.
Second, the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-5) and
National Park Service Management Policies 2001 state that areas should
not be added to the National Park System if preservation and management
alternatives exist. And third, to meet the President's Initiative to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to continue to
focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park
System.
The building at 350-352 Eighth Street is the only surviving
structure known to be associated with Catherine A. (Kate) Mullany--an
immigrant laundry worker who organized and led Troy's Collar Laundry
Union from 1864 through 1870. The Collar Laundry Union was one of the
first all-female unions in the United States to operate over a
sustained period. Mullany was recognized in 1868 and 1869 at the
meetings of the newly formed National Labor Union both for her work
with the Collar Laundry Union and for that union's support and
financial contributions to striking union iron molders in Troy and
bricklayers in New York City. Kate Mullany lived with her widowed
mother and sister in an apartment on the top floor of 350 Eighth Street
from 1869-75, inherited the house when her mother died in 1876, moved
away, returned in 1903, and died there in 1906.
The southern half of 350-352 Eighth Street was designated as the
Kate Mullany House National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1998. The
building remained in private ownership until the spring of 2003 when
the southern half (the NHL portion) was purchased by the New York AFL-
CIO on behalf of the newly established American Labor Studies Center, a
501(c)(3) educational corporation.
The 1997 National Park Service (NPS) theme study on American Labor
History noted that the Mullany House should be considered further for
inclusion in the NPS system because it illustrated previously under-
represented stories. A Reconnaissance Study, underway by the Northeast
Region of the National Park Service in 2003, suggests that while the
Mullany House is nationally significant, there are questions regarding
the suitability and the need for NPS management. Additionally, the cost
to operate the site and to provide adequate visitor services would be
more than if the site was near an existing NPS unit where
administrative functions could be shared.
Section 8 of the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-5)
and NPS Management Policies (Management Policies 2001) state that
studies evaluating the suitability and feasibility of areas proposed
for inclusion in the National Park System ``shall consider whether
direct National Park Service management or alternative protection by
other public agencies or the private sector is appropriate for the
area'' and ``identify what alternative or combination of alternatives
would be most effective and efficient in protecting significant
resources and providing for public enjoyment.'' In this instance,
several authorities and mechanisms already exist for the protection of
the Kate Mullany House and the public interpretation of her work and
the larger story of the labor movement in the Hudson-Mohawk region and
the nation as a whole. Given the overlapping local, state, and federal
designations and active interest by a non-profit organization,
establishing the site as a unit of the National Park System would be
redundant.
NPS acquisition or management of the Kate Mullany House is not
recommended because funding and technical support for its preservation
and interpretation are already available through the Hudson River
Valley National Heritage Area, New York State's Hudson-Mohawk Heritage
Area (RiverSpark), grant programs administered by the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and existing
non-profit organizations particularly the New York AFL-CIO and its
American Labor Studies Center. The site has also received assistance
and funding from the National Historic Landmarks and Save America's
Treasures programs.
Given the funding and personnel needs of existing units of the
National Park System, the fact that the site has been purchased by the
AFL-CIO, the existence of established authorities and mechanisms to
support the preservation and interpretation of the Kate Mullany House
National Historic Landmark, and direction from the NPS Organic Act and
Management Policies that areas not be added to the system if
preservation and management alternatives exist, we respectfully oppose
enactment of S. 1241.
s. 1364
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 1364, a bill to amend the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act to authorize the payment of
expenses after the death of certain federal employees in Alaska.
For reasons related to the tragic death of a valued employee, the
Department supports S. 1364 with one minor modification. With this and
other provisions offered by the bill, we believe that a full measure of
fairness and compassion is assured for families of this group of
federal employees in Alaska. The Department would like to note that
this is a unique case, limited to a certain small category of Federal
employees in Alaska, and does not set a precedent for other categories
of Federal employees.
The need for this legislation came to light after a tragic accident
last winter. National Park Service Ranger/Pilot Tom O'Hara, 41, was
killed on December 20, 2002, when his plane crashed on the tundra in
the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. O'Hara and his
passenger, a biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were
conducting a moose tracking survey in Alaska Peninsula NWR. His
passenger was severely injured, but survived.
Mr. O'Hara and his family lived in the small village of Naknek,
Alaska, near his boyhood home where they were dedicated community
members. His widow, Lucy, however wished to move to Anchorage, Alaska,
to be closer to her family, and did so earlier this year at her own
expense.
Mr. O'Hara came to work for the National Park Service under a
special authority in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act, (ANILCA), which authorizes Federal land managers to extend a
hiring preference to those with special knowledge about a Conservation
System Unit. In the parlance of the bureau, he was a ``local hire.''
Under Federal Travel Regulation, when a federal employee dies
outside the Continental United States, the Federal Government will
reimburse the members of his or her household for the cost of
relocating to their permanent residence. Alaska is regarded as outside
of the Continental United States under this regulation. But, if a
deceased employee is a local hire employee, the regulation does not
authorize the Federal Government to reimburse the surviving family
members for their relocation cost because the deceased employee's home
town is deemed to be the local hire duty station. In the case of the
O'Hara family, the government was not authorized to move Mr. O'Hara's
widow and their children out of Naknek to Anchorage.
S. 1364 would allow the Federal Government to reimburse the
surviving immediate family for the cost of transporting the deceased
within the State of Alaska for any employee who dies on or after
October 1, 2002. It would also authorize the Federal Government to
relocate the immediate family members to a community in the State of
Alaska that is selected by the surviving head of household. To assure
the O'Hara family is assisted by this legislation we recommend two
minor amendments as follows: On page 2, line 14 strike ``pay
reasonable'' and insert ``pay or reimburse reasonable''. On page 2,
line 19 strike ``pay reasonable'' and insert ``pay or reimburse
reasonable''.
The reimbursable expense of the O'Hara move is approximately
$14,000. The National Park Service believes there will be very few, and
hopefully no more, instances where this bill's authority is needed.
While the numbers vary, there are generally fewer than 150 local hire
employees among all Department bureaus in Alaska (see report pursuant
to P.L. 106-488). However, should this type of incident happen to a
Department of the Interior local hire employee again, we would refer to
this law to help the surviving family members.
s. 1433
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1433, the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act, which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in
implementing cultural heritage, conservation and recreational
activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the States of New
Hampshire and Vermont.
The Department appreciates the efforts of the Connecticut River
Joint Commissions and their exemplary work in the upper Connecticut
River watershed. Many local, state, regional and federal organizations
have worked in partnership with the Commissions for many years to
support numerous efforts to improve water quality, promote sustainable
tourism, protect unique natural and rural resources, and improve
recreational opportunities. However, the Department opposes S. 1433,
because it would necessitate the creation of a new grant program
focused exclusively on one specific watershed. It would be
inappropriate for the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to take on such a new funding responsibility at a time
when we are trying to focus our resources on caring for existing areas
and meeting the President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred
maintenance backlog.
While we certainly support helping to fund activities that conserve
and enhance the cultural, environmental and recreational resources of
the upper Connecticut River watershed, we believe that there are
existing funding mechanisms within the National Park Service, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and other federal agencies that can foster the
type of partnership efforts envisioned in this bill. For example,
technical assistance is available through the National Park Service's
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, while grants are
available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's North American
Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program, the Department of
Transportation's surface transportation programs or the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) community-based
restoration programs.
The upper Connecticut River watershed encompasses 41 percent of the
state of Vermont's total area and 33 percent of the state of New
Hampshire's. It has been the subject of many past studies, including
National Park Service (NPS) studies, which document its natural and
cultural resources. The upper Connecticut River watershed was
recognized by Congress in 1991 as part of the Silvio O. Conte National
Fish and Wildlife Refuge; the refuge manages the Nulhegan Basin unit
and sponsors education centers at the Montshire Museum in Norwich,
Vermont as well as in Colebrook, New Hampshire and Turner's Falls,
Massachusetts. The watershed also contains units of the National Park
System including Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park,
Saint Gaudens National Historic Site, and sections of the Appalachian
Trail. The NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program field
office in Woodstock, Vermont has projects in the watershed, and the
Hydropower Relicensing and Wild & Scenic River programs serve the
region from the Northeast Region's office. There are 75 National
Register Historic Districts in the 207 towns of the region. The
Connecticut River was designated an American Heritage River in 1998,
and is home to the Connecticut River Scenic Byway, designated by the
States of Vermont and New Hampshire in 1999.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions was formed in 1989, uniting
separate commissions that had been formed by the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire previously. In 1997, working with 5 bi-state local
subcommittees, they produced the Connecticut River Corridor Management
Plan. From 1992 to 1999, through Congressional earmarks, the NPS
provided $1.325 million to the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, as
well as technical assistance, for work in the upper Connecticut River
watershed. The NPS will continue as an enthusiastic supporter and work
with the Joint Commissions. The agency, however, will not be able to
provide the financial support that they seek.
s. 1462
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to present the views of the Department
of the Interior on S. 1462, a bill to adjust the boundary of the
Cumberland Island Wilderness and to authorize tours of the Cumberland
Island National Seashore, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 1462. The bill would remove three roads;
the Main Road, North Cut Road, and the Plum Orchard Spur, from
designation as wilderness or potential wilderness. Removing these roads
from wilderness would allow the National Park Service (NPS), its
concessioners and permittees to have vehicular access to Plum Orchard,
The Settlement, and the beach at the north end of the island.
S. 1462 would also amend a significant provision of the seashore's
enabling legislation to expressly authorize tours by concessioners. The
enabling legislation currently states that the island shall be
permanently preserved in its primitive state and no ``development . . .
or plan for the convenience of visitors'' shall be undertaken that
would be incompatible with preserving the island's natural resources.
The bill provides that, notwithstanding this prohibition, the National
Park Service may enter into concession contracts for tours of the
island, thereby enabling the public to visit portions of the island
that otherwise would be difficult to access.
When President Reagan signed the act establishing the Cumberland
Island Wilderness, he noted ``[i]ncluding areas [of Cumberland Island]
into the National Wilderness Preservation System which do not meet the
suitability criteria of the Wilderness Act System will necessarily
create conflicts in management of the area.'' These words from 1982
have proven to be prophetic. Conflict has encumbered the management of
Cumberland Island ever since enactment of the wilderness legislation,
with the principal point of contention being a network of roads located
within the wilderness and potential wilderness areas at the seashore
which are legislatively designated in both areas.
At the time it enacted the Cumberland Island wilderness
legislation, Congress expressly acknowledged the existing legal rights
of island residents to use roads through wilderness to reach their
property. The result has been conflicts between those wishing to uphold
a vision of wilderness for the island and those wishing to go about
their lives on the island as they always have.
One of these conflicts involves motorized tours through the
wilderness provided by the Greyfield Inn. For many years the owners of
the inn have offered commercial tours on roads in designated and
potential wilderness. Wilderness advocacy groups have vigorously
opposed this use and dispute Greyfield's claim that it has a pre-
existing legal right to conduct the tours. At present some of these
groups are seeking to stop the tours through litigation, arguing that
it is unlawful to conduct motorized tours in designated wilderness. The
Court has remanded the case to the NPS to decide whether Greyfield has
a pre-existing right to conduct the tours and the NPS is in the process
of doing so.
Some have also complained that the wilderness restrictions limit
vehicular access to two of the national seashore's more noteworthy
historical and cultural features, the Plum Orchard mansion and the High
Point-Half Moon Bluff Historic District (an African-American
settlement). While Plum Orchard is accessible by water, neither of
these sites is accessible by vehicle except by using roads that cross
wilderness or potential wilderness. Under NPS policy, both designated
and potential wilderness areas must be managed as wilderness, meaning
that mechanized transport is prohibited subject to the limited
exception of the Wilderness Act. Past efforts to lease Plum Orchard for
adaptive re-use and preservation have not been successful, in part,
because the principal access road, the Plum Orchard Spur, lies in
potential wilderness. Finding an appropriate and successful adaptive
use is critical to long-term preservation of this nationally
significant historic structure.
It is our understanding that part of the intent of the legislation
is to enhance the ability of the NPS to maintain the cultural resources
of the High Point-Half Moon Bluff Historic District by removing this
area from potential wilderness. However, while this intent is apparent
from the map that accompanies the bill, the legislation itself does not
contain language that would expressly accomplish this result. We
suggest that the bill be amended to remove this possible confusion. Our
suggested amendment is attached to this testimony as well as some
additional technical amendments.
The map that accompanies S. 1462 depicts an area of approximately
952 acres on the southern tip of Cumberland Island that would be newly
designated as wilderness, to offset the acreage in the High Point Half
Moon Bluff Historic District, as well as the three roads, that would be
removed from either wilderness or potential wilderness. The NPS
supports this concept of ensuring that there is ``no net loss'' of
wilderness at Cumberland Island. In fact, support for S. 1462 is based
in large part on the addition of these lands at the south end of the
island to the designated wilderness.
Potential costs associated with enactment of S. 1462 would include
the cost of a feasibility study and environmental compliance that would
be required before a concession contract would be awarded for tours of
the island. This type of concessions study usually costs between
$25,000 and $35,000. Other costs that might be required on NPS lands in
order to support concessions operations, such as facilities, would be
determined by this study. There might also be some costs associated
with managing lands that will change designation under this bill but
they are expected to be minor.
That concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
proposed amendments
S. 1462, Cumberland Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act of
2003
Page 2, line 5, strike ``640/20,038F, and dated April 2003'', and
insert ``640/20,038G, and dated September 2003''.
Page 2, line 11, insert a new paragraph, ``(4) POTENTIAL
WILDERNESS--The term Potential Wilderness means the 10,500 acres of
potential wilderness described in subsection (c)(2), but does not
include the area at the north end of Cumberland Island known as the
High Point-Half Moon Bluff Historic District.
Page 2, line 24, strike ``approximately 210 acres of land
identified on the map as `The Nature Conservancy' '', and insert
``approximately 231 acres of land identified on the map as `Areas
Become Designated Wilderness upon Acquisition by NPS' ''.
Senator Thomas. With respect to this Connecticut River one,
then, this is already, what, being worked on by a joint
commission, is that correct?
Mr. Jones. That's correct. There were two commissions, one
in Vermont, one in New Hampshire, that merged into a joint
interstate commission.
Senator Thomas. And they, of course, can apply for various
monies from the Department now?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. In fact,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has, in fact, granted grants
to this commission and asked for some of their work for habitat
protection and species management.
Senator Thomas. As I recall, looking at this, it authorizes
the appropriation of a million dollars per year, with no
limitation on the number of years.
Mr. Jones. That's correct, and that's one of the reasons
we're concerned.
Senator Thomas. Senator?
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jones, most of these bills, for me, are pretty
straightforward. However, S. 1462, the Cumberland Island bill,
is, I feel, a little more complicated for me. I would like to
ask a few questions with respect to your testimony on that
bill.
As I understand the purpose of the bill, Mr. Jones, it
would exclude about 890 acres of previously designated
wilderness within the National Seashore, including a 21-foot
right-of-way running along the main road. The primary road in
the--and that's a primary road in the seashore. It appears that
the lands adjacent to the road will remain in wilderness
status.
I looked at the map of the park yesterday, and this island
appeared to be very small. According to the map legend, the
distance between the road and the far edge of the wilderness
boundary is only a few hundred feet. If the road is excluded
from the wilderness designation, and new motorized access is
allowed, won't that have an effect on the remaining small
wilderness area?
Mr. Jones. We do not believe there will. We think that
there has already--there exists today extensive motorized use
and--extensive as far as the local concern, because a visitor
going to the island cannot take their car out to the island.
You can only get to the island by ferryboat. And so the
vehicles that are out there are owned by local individuals, by
the National Park Service. And under this bill, we would
propose to allow a concessioner to also provide tours. And so,
to the extent that there would be an increase in vehicle
traffic, we think it would be very minimal over the vehicle use
that is there today. And, therefore, we think it can be done in
a manner that's compatible with the adjacent wilderness and, at
the same time, as I mentioned earlier, would provide us an
opportunity to preserve the historic structures on the island
that we have just encountered numerous challenges trying to
protect over the years.
And I would note, as an example of where we have taken
extraordinary efforts to try to make this work, is a few years
ago we signed a 14-party agreement with all the stakeholders
groups to try to lay out what is appropriate use, how it should
work, and we feel that was a very good agreement. But, as we
find in today's society far too often, is that even though we
thought we'd identified all the stakeholders, we missed a
couple, and we're being sued, saying that that agreement and
its implementation is illegal. And that's going through the
courts now. And should those groups prevail, it will actually
result in a reduction over current use as it exists today.
Senator Akaka. As you noted in your testimony, the bill
authorizes commercial tours, notwithstanding section 6(e) of
the park's enabling statute, which directs that the seashore,
and I quote, ``shall be permanently preserved in its primitive
state, and no development for the convenience of visitors shall
be undertaken,'' unquote. Given that legislative purpose for
the establishment of the National Seashore, why does the
National Park Service, an agency charged with protecting this
area, support a proposal which is clearly inconsistent with the
park's authorizing legislation?
Mr. Jones. Well, by--if this legislation and the amendment
were enacted, of course, it would amend the enabling
legislation and, we think, clarify it in an appropriate way.
The northern end of the island, for example, has major historic
resources, archeological resources. For example, the remnants
of a 19th century African American community, and there still
remains today a church and other buildings associated with that
historic site that people like to get to and view a historic
resource. And we think asking them to walk to get to it is not
appropriate and that, therefore, limited--and I emphasize
``limited''--access of the road to get to--allow the public to
access these areas is important, and it's appropriate.
Senator Akaka. Section 3 of S. 1462 authorizes the Park
Service to enter into concession contracts to allow for
commercial tours consistent with the relevant clause, including
the Wilderness Act. Section 4 of the Wilderness Act states
that, and I quote, ``there shall be no commercial enterprise
within any wilderness area,'' unquote.
Now, in your view, how is a commercial tour concession
operation consistent with the Wilderness Act?
Mr. Jones. Well, and I would say it's not, which is why
we're recommending the road be removed from wilderness, so that
we don't have that very conflict.
Senator Akaka. Well----
Mr. Jones. And because the concessions used--and, again, we
would be more than happy to work with the committee to clarify
the intent to keep the scope of it as very narrow, very direct.
But the concept of having a concessioned use is to essentially
allow the types of van tours that exist today and are operating
today would be allowed to continue.
Senator Akaka. Well, I thank you so much for your
responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Just as a matter of information, when this
was designated, did these roads exist?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, they did. In fact, when President
Reagan signed the act into law, he raised, in his statement
accompanying the signing of the legislation, a major concern
that this was a conflict or a train wreck that was going to
happen, and that's, in fact, exactly what has happened.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Well, we thank you very
much.
And we'll go ahead, again, knowing there's going to be a
vote here before too long. We'd like to ask the witnesses to
join us at the table, please--Mr. Gregory Paxton, president of
The Georgia Trust, Mr. Sean McKeon, executive director of the
Northeast Regional Forest Foundation, in Vermont, Mr. Hans
Neuhauser, director, Georgia Environmental Policy Institute,
and Ms. Sharon Francis, executive director of the Connecticut
River Joint Commissions.
Thank you all for being here, and we appreciate it very
much. I'm just going to follow the listing, as they were in the
program here. So, Mr. Paxton, if you'd care to begin. And, for
all of you, your total statements will be in the record, and if
you would hold your comments to about 5 minutes, why, that
would work well.
Mr. Paxton.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. PAXTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE GEORGIA
TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Paxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Akaka.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify today.
I am president of The Georgia Trust for Historic
Preservation. With nearly 8,000 members, we are one of two of
the largest statewide nonprofit preservation organizations in
the country. Our mission is to promote an appreciation of
Georgia's diverse historic resources and provide for their
protection and use.
I've been actively involved in Cumberland Island at the
trust and through serving on the Cumberland Island Historic
Foundation since its founding in 1982.
Cumberland Island is a large and complex island, with a
rich natural and human history. A multitude of significant
historic and cultural resources within the island's natural
setting represents a unique opportunity to preserve and
interpret the island's natural environment while conserving the
island's historic resources. Save America's Treasures Program
has designated Cumberland Island's diverse historic resources
as nationally significant.
When signing the original legislation, as was mentioned by
the Park Service, both President Reagan and soon-to-be
Secretary of the Interior, Donald Hodel, expressed concern and
noted conflicting mandates between the wilderness and historic
preservation laws governing this designation, and these
conflicts remain unresolved. Cumberland Island has a rich
5,000-year history of human habitation, including a Native
American village, two 16th century Spanish missions, 450
African American slaves lived there in 1850, and the
southernmost fort in the 13 original colonies was located on
Cumberland Island. The evidence of human habitation is
everywhere on the island. Historic and natural resources are
both important elements of Cumberland Island's past, present,
and future.
Managing part of the island so that it meets wilderness
criteria in the future should not be carried out in a manner
that prevents or undermines preservation, access, or use of
current historically significant sites, and that is currently
the case. S. 1462 will permit public access to numerous
historic sites along the island's western and northern edge by
removing from the wilderness the 200-year-old Main Road, which
itself is listed in the National Register of Historic Places,
and two spur roads.
Legislation adds 210 acres, as has been noted. Private
landowners have donated a hiking path in the middle of the
island and in the middle of the wilderness designated area to
provide a heightened wilderness experience.
The intent of this bill is misrepresented by stating that
its purpose is to benefit private and commercial interests.
Under the current status, access to many historic resources is
prevented to the vast majority of visitors because of the
distances between the sites. And a survey of island visitors
have indicated that they overwhelmingly want to see both
natural and historic resources. This bill retains the island's
natural areas while allowing provision of tours to these sites,
including the average day-tripper and those unable to hike
great distances.
The lack of general accessibility also prevents viable
attempts to adequately preserve and maintain the historic
buildings, themselves. And three large historic structures, and
more than half of the structures located in the northern
historic district, have all been demolished by neglect or for
other reasons since the designation of this area.
S. 1462 will permit road access to the north end of the
island, allowing visitation of the African American settlement,
a late 1800's community, and an adjoining history cemetery, a
rare, tangible link to the slaves who once occupied the island.
In fact, the entire northern end of the island to be served by
two of these roads is a National Register historic district.
The bill will also facilitate preservation of the 1898 Plum
Orchard. It is Georgia's largest historic house, which part of
the Carnegie family donated with 12 acres in 1970 to help
establish the National Seashore. The Park Service struggles to
preserve it, and, as you heard, several recent attempts to
establish a public/private partnership to assist have failed
due to lack of reasonable road access, and that's what the
third road in this bill provides.
The current uncertainty about driving on these historic
roads make using and maintaining historic buildings, such as
Plum Orchard, which require continual upkeep, nearly
impossible. The World Monuments Fund has recently listed Plum
Orchard as a threatened building, joining only six listings in
the United States.
The island was designated a National Seashore in 1972
because it offered such a wonderful mix of both natural and
cultural resources. It was clearly intended that structures
like Plum Orchard would be preserved and used.
Private landowners, including the proprietors of Grayfield
Inn, already have the right to drive on these roads through
longstanding practice and retained rights with the Park
Service. The general public does not have a right to bring or
drive a car on the island now, nor will it under this bill. The
goal of the legislation is to allow reasonable access under the
aegis of the Park Service for members of the general public to
the island's numerous historic sites.
The proposed legislation is a compromise. It doesn't take
into account all the areas that we'd like to see, but it's a
reasonable compromise that balances the interests of wilderness
advocates, historic preservationists, island residents, and,
most importantly, Cumberland Island visitors.
Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation strongly supports
this bill, and we commend Senators Chambliss and Miller for
their bipartisan leadership in forging a creative solution for
Cumberland Island National Seashore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paxton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory B. Paxton, President and CEO,
The Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I am
Gregory B. Paxton, President and CEO of The Georgia Trust for Historic
Preservation. With nearly 8,000 members, the Georgia Trust is one of
the two largest statewide, non-profit preservation organizations in the
country. Our mission is to promote an appreciation of Georgia's diverse
historic resources and provide for their protection and use. That is
why I am here today to speak to you about Senators Chambliss' and
Miller's legislation, Senate Bill 1462, the Cumberland Island National
Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act of 2003. I have been actively involved
in the preservation of the outstanding historic resources on Cumberland
Island through my role at the Trust and through serving on the
Cumberland Island Historic Foundation since it's founding in 1982.
Cumberland Island is a large and complex island with a rich natural
and human history. The multitude of significant historic and cultural
resources within the island's natural setting represents a unique
opportunity to preserve and interpret the island's cultural heritage
while conserving the ecosystems and animal species that comprise the
island's natural environment. The National Trust for Historic
Preservation's Save America's Treasures program has designated
Cumberland Island's diverse historic resources as nationally
significant.
The original legislation establishing Cumberland's wilderness set
up a conflict between protecting the island's historic resources and
its natural resources. In fact, President Reagan and his soon-to-be
Secretary of Interior Donald Hodell noted conflicting mandates between
wilderness and historic preservation laws when signing the act into law
in 1982. The Wilderness Act prohibits any use of buildings within a
designated wilderness area, but the National Historic Preservation Act
calls for preservation of historic resources. These conflicts remain
unresolved.
In a letter dated July 12, 1982 to the Hon. James A. McClure,
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Secretary Hodell wrote:
We have serious reservations as to whether the [Cumberland
Island] lands to be designated as wilderness under S. 2569 meet
the criteria set forth in the Wilderness Act. However, because
wilderness designation will help maintain the area in its
natural state to a greater degree than other environmental laws
alone, and because of strong public support for the wilderness
designation, we support enactment of this bill, if it is
amended to reflect the concerns noted below. However, the
requirements of section 106 [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 with S. 2569 should be resolved before the
bill is enacted into law. [Emphasis added]
While Cumberland Island today is a barrier island with much of its
land area returning to a natural state, the island also represents a
rich 5,000-year history of human habitation, revealed in the island's
landscape, archaeological remains and extant historic resources. The
island has been occupied by Native Americans, Spanish and French
explorers, the English Lord Proprietor of the Georgia Colony, American
generals, enslaved and free African Americans, and more recently the
Carnegie and Candler families and descendants. The evidence of this
human habitation is everywhere from the Native American burial grounds
and shell middens to the crumbling chimney pots and tabby ruins; from
the 1890 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 are re-growing wild around
them. Historic and natural resources are both important elements of
Cumberland Island's past, present and future.
Throughout much of the last 200 years the vast majority of the
island has been cleared and cultivated. Horses and pigs are among the
dominant animal species on the island. In fact, the areas designated
wilderness and potential wilderness do not currently meet the criteria
for designation of wilderness, but contained in these areas are
districts that do currently meet the criteria of historic significance.
These districts should have their wilderness or potential wilderness
designations removed in order to provide access for visitors and
feasible preservation, maintenance and active use.
Managing portions of the island with the goal of meeting wilderness
criteria in the future is a worthy one. However, the designation or
management of portions of the island to meet this future goal should
not be carried out in a manner that prevents or undermines
preservation, access to or use of current cultural and historic
significant resources; and that is currently the case.
S. 1462 will not prevent the island's natural areas from being
preserved as wilderness. It will permit public access to numerous
historic sites along the island's western and northern edge by removing
from the wilderness the 200-year-old main road, listed on the National
Register, and two spur roads. The bill leaves intact the vast majority
of the acreage designated wilderness or potential wilderness, as a
contiguous area in the middle of the island more than six miles long
and two miles in width. Indeed, the legislation adds 210 acres to the
wilderness, while removing less than 30 acres of roadbed. Though it is
seldom used, private landowners have donated a hiking path in the
middle of the island to provide an opportunity for a heightened
wilderness experience.
The intent of this bill is misrepresented by those who state that
its purpose is to take portions of the island out of protective status
to benefit private and commercial interests. Under the current status,
access to many historic resources is prevented for the vast majority of
visitors because of the distances between historic sites. Surveys of
island visitors have indicated they overwhelmingly want to see both
natural and historic resources. According to the CUIS Visitors Study,
83 percent went to the Dungeness historic area and 64 percent visited
the Ice House Museum. Sixty-two (62) percent of visitors, asked to list
reasons for visiting the park, chose ``visiting historical areas.''
This bill protects the island's natural areas while allowing provision
of tours to the island's historic and cultural sites for visitors,
including the average day-tripper and those unable to hike great
distances.
This lack of general accessibility also prevents viable attempts to
adequately preserve and maintain the historic buildings themselves.
Three important historic structures listed on the National Register of
Historic Places have fallen to the ground from neglect. These include
the Dungeness Recreation Building, designed by the nationally
recognized firm of Peabody & Stern, and the Plum Orchard Carriage
House. In addition, more than half the 13 structures located in The
Settlement, or Half Moon Bluff, and identified in the National Register
of Historic Places nomination have been lost. Plum Orchard, despite
expenditures of great public and private funds, has greatly
deteriorated since its acquisition by the Park Service, although the
Trust appreciates that this deterioration is now partially being
addressed.
S. 1462 will permit road access to the north end of the island,
providing access to the historic African-American Settlement, a late
1800s community made famous as the site of John Kennedy, Jr.'s wedding;
and an adjoining historic cemetery, a rare tangible link to the slaves
who once occupied the island. Nearby are Native American shell mounds
in an area once containing a 1595 Spanish mission and Gen. Oglethorpe's
1736 fort.
The bill will also facilitate the preservation of 1898 Plum
Orchard, Georgia's largest historic house, which part of the Carnegie
family donated with 12 acres and $50,000 in 1970 to help establish the
National Seashore. The Park Service struggles to preserve it, and
several attempts to establish a public/private partnership to save the
house have failed for lack of reasonable road access. The current
limitations to driving on these historic roads make using and
maintaining historic buildings such as Plum Orchard, which require
continual upkeep, nearly impossible. The World Monuments Fund has
recently listed Plum Orchard as a threatened building, joining only six
(6) listings in the U.S. and 100 worldwide.
The island was designated a National Seashore in 1972 because it
offered such a wonderful mix of both natural and cultural resources. It
was clearly intended that structures like Plum Orchard would be
preserved and used. Many of the private owners of Cumberland Island
have been instrumental in the preservation and protection of the
island. They fought development proposals, lobbied for Seashore and
Wilderness designations and donated, bargain sold or voluntarily sold
their property to the National Park Service in order to preserve the
island's historic and natural resources, as they were. These owners and
former owners who retain rights on the island are not interlopers in
the wilderness. They are its creators. Private owners have also
preserved and continue to preserve many of the island's historic
resources and their agreements with the Park Service provided for it to
preserve the historic properties under its care.
These private landowners including the proprietors of Greyfield Inn
already have the right to drive on these roads through long-standing
practice and retained rights with the National Park Service. The
general public does not have a right to bring or drive a car on the
island now nor will it under this bill. The goal of this legislation is
to allow reasonable access under the aegis of the Park Service for
members of the general public to the island's numerous historic sites.
After thousands of years of often-intensive human occupancy,
Cumberland Island is a rich and fragile combination of natural,
prehistoric and historic resources that together make it a special
place worthy of protection. S. 1462, the Cumberland Island National
Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act of 2003 provides a more balanced
approach to protecting the island's resources by providing access for
the purposes of maintenance, preservation and limited visitation. The
Subcommittee Report should make clear that this change to the
wilderness designation is not to set a national precedent of de-
designating wilderness, but to rectify a legal conflict preventing
preservation of the island's significant historic areas that has
existed since the Cumberland Island designation was first considered.
The proposed legislation is a compromise, as it leaves in the
potential wilderness High Point, a National Register of Historic Places
district with 14 buildings. But it is a reasonable compromise,
balancing the interests of wilderness advocates, historic
preservationists, island residents and most importantly, Cumberland
Island visitors.
The Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation strongly supports this
bill and we commend Senators Chambliss and Miller for their leadership
in forging a creative solution for Cumberland Island National Seashore.
Senator Thomas. I think in order to have continuity, we'll
go to the gentleman from Georgia now, Mr. Neuhauser.
STATEMENT OF HANS NEUHAUSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGIA
ENVIRONMENT POLICY INSTITUTE, ATHENS, GA
Mr. Neuhauser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
invitation to testify.
The existing Cumberland Island wilderness was established
after 10 years of debate discussion. Support for the measure
was bipartisan. The Carter administration endorsed the measure,
and President Reagan signed it into law.
The present bill is close to a secret. Few people,
including Georgians, are aware of the bill, and even fewer have
seen the map that accompanies it. Hardly anyone has seen the
new map that the National Park Service proposes in its
testimony today, as a substitute for the one referred to in S.
1462. And the map is where the devil is.
As people do become aware of the bill and its assault on
the Cumberland Island wilderness, the opposition to it grows.
For the record, I will submit a letter from a number of these
groups who oppose the bill.
Let me cut to the chase. The effect of S. 1462 goes far
beyond the seemingly innocuous readjustment of Cumberland's
wilderness map. The bill overturns the National Seashore's
original purpose, to be permanently protected in its primitive
state, and substitutes commercial tours as the paramount use.
The bill strikes the existing Cumberland Island wilderness and
its primitive legislative history, and creates a series of
fragmented wilderness areas of far less value to the American
people, reference the map to my right.
By creating a second high-density-use area on the north end
of the island, and by connecting the two high-use corridors,
the main road and the beach, the bill will eclipse the public's
opportunity to enjoy Cumberland's unique wilderness experience.
Remaining wilderness areas will be fragmented and relegated to
those areas left over after the island's development, reference
the other map that's in your package.
The bill expands existing valid rights of retained right-
holders to add new rights not currently held, including,
without limit, the right to run tours from one end of the
island to the other and on Northcut Road, which is presently
part of the Cumberland Island wilderness.
The bill trades a potential wilderness addition at the
north end of the island for a new wilderness area in the south.
This is not an equal trade, especially in terms of wilderness
value. The proposed southern wilderness is an isolated, small
fragment that consists largely of marsh and tidal creek
inaccessible to the visitor. For the people who do manage to
visit the area, the view includes a number of manmade
intrusions, including three paper mills, the container cranes
at a nearby port, two mile-long jetties, a fishing pier, and a
19th century fort. The bill is an unprecedented and devastating
assault on the national wilderness preservation system that the
Congress has created for the benefit of all Americans and
supposedly for all time. It suggests that this great American
legacy hangs by the thinnest of threads, about to be undone by
the self-serving interests of a few.
We do not challenge the rights of those families who sold
their land to become part of the National Seashore, nor do we
challenge the National Park Service's administrative
responsibilities to maintain the historic structures in the
wilderness, as long as they use the minimum tools necessary as
provided for in the Wilderness Act of 1964. What we do
challenge is the sacrifice of the unique experience of visiting
the Cumberland Island wilderness for the rather common
experience of driving to see some old buildings. The National
Park Service should not be obligated to allow or provide
vehicular access to every site on Cumberland, any more than
they should provide vehicular access to the top of every peak
in the Grand Tetons National Park.
The Cumberland Island wilderness created by Public Law 97-
250 does not conflict with historic preservation. Most of
Cumberland's buildings lie outside of the designated wilderness
and potential wilderness. Their degradation was not a result of
wilderness designation.
Yes, there are management challenges created by the
retained rights held by life stakeholders, which will expire
over time, and by the wilderness designation. These challenges
were clearly recognized in the legislative history supporting
Public Law 97-250. Also recognized in that legislative history
is the evolution of the wilderness area as private retained
rights were extinguished over time.
The National Park Service can meet these challenges under
existing authorities. It does so in Mesa Verde, for example,
where the public chooses to walk into the wilderness to view
some of the historic Native American structures and artifacts.
Cumberland's unique wilderness experience will be gone if
this bill is allowed to pass, and the national wilderness
preservation system will be significantly weakened.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neuhauser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hans Neuhauser, Executive Director,
Georgia Environmental Policy Institute, Athens, GA
introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the invitation to
testify today on Senators Chambliss and Miller's bill (S. 1462)
regarding Cumberland Island National Seashore.
I am Hans Neuhauser, Executive Director of the Georgia
Environmental Policy Institute located in Athens, Georgia. My testimony
is being presented on behalf of The Wilderness Society, Wilderness
Watch, The Georgia Conservancy, National Park Conservation Association,
Georgia Forest Watch and Wilderness Watch Georgia Chapter.
My familiarity with Cumberland Island began in the mid 1960s as a
scientist studying the island's ecology for The University of Georgia
and the National Park Service. I then became a citizen advocate for the
establishment of the Cumberland Island National Seashore, assisting
Congressman Stuckey in his promotion of the legislation that resulted
in Public Law 92-536. Joining the staff of The Georgia Conservancy in
1972, I became actively involved in the planning for the future of the
island as a National Seashore. In that role, I helped design and
promote the Cumberland wilderness plan which eventually became law in
1982 (PL 97-250). I continue to be involved in discussions about the
future of the National Seashore.
origins of the wilderness plan
The wilderness plan for Cumberland Island evolved over more than a
ten year period and included extensive public involvement along the
way. There were public meetings, hearings, site visits, draft plans,
revised draft plans and more site visits. The end product, the
Cumberland Island Wilderness, was not casually arrived at.
In November 1971, prior to the establishment of Cumberland Island
National Seashore (CINS) in October 1972 (PL 92-536), and without
extensive knowledge of the island, George Hartzog, the Director of the
National Park Service (NPS), advanced plans for the development of the
entire island to accommodate an expected 10,000 visitors a day. He
provided no indication that the NPS had even considered any part of the
island as suitable for wilderness designation.
In 1973 and 1974, the Conservation Fund and The Georgia Conservancy
conducted a follow-up study to the Fund's study, National Parks for the
Future (1972). Teams \1\ were formed to examine park access, carrying
capacity, environmental education and natural area protection. The
latter team concluded that much of the island could qualify for
wilderness designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Team members were selected from a variety of stakeholder
groups; they included the chairman of the Camden County Commission, the
head of the Brunswick Pulp and Paper Company, a Professor from the
University of Georgia, an environmental educator from the Savannah
Science Museum and a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1976, the NPS's initial response was to the effect that after
developments in the north, central and southern portions of Cumberland
to accommodate thousands of visitors a day, the leftovers would be
proposed for wilderness designation.
After consultation with members of the Georgia Conservancy and
others, I developed an alternative wilderness plan which was then
presented to the NPS and Representative Bo Ginn in 1977. At the request
of President Carter, NPS Director Bill Whelan visited Cumberland on
October 25, 1978 to resolve the two wilderness concepts: the
``leftovers'' plan and ``the northern half of the island as
wilderness'' plan. He listened to island residents and other local
stakeholders. He talked with visitors who were hiking in the proposed
wilderness area. Than afternoon, Director Whelan endorsed the new plan.
a bipartisan consensus
The final plan for Cumberland's wilderness was a consensus plan
that had bipartisan support. The Carter administration approved the
plan. Congressman Ronald ``Bo'' Ginn (D-GA) introduced the bill (H.R.
4713) in the House on October 7, 1981 and promoted its approval by the
House. The House bill was then shepherded through the Senate with the
active support of both Senator Mack Mattingly (R-GA) and Senator Sam
Nunn (D-GA). The measure was signed into law on September 8, 1982 by
President Ronald Reagan.
wilderness for people
The Cumberland Island Wilderness established in PL 97-250 creates
four areas on the island with differing levels of public visitation.
The first area between Dungeness and Sea Camp supports the highest
levels of public use. People access the island here. The on-island
visitor contact points are here. The majority of the island's historic
features are here. The Sea Camp campground is here.
Adjacent to this high density use area are regions of medium public
use. To the south, the area extends to the Jetty; to the north, the
area extends to Stafford Beach and Hickory Hill.
These three regions of high and medium visitor use (plus Plum
Orchard) encompass most of the island's visible historic features and
many of its archaeological features. Representative examples of
Cumberland's major natural communities are also here: the beach and
dunes, the maritime forest, fresh water ponds and sloughs and salt
marsh estuary.
North of Stafford to the tip of Long Point (and not including Plum
Orchard) is the region of low density. It is this area that PL 97-250
identifies as Wilderness and Potential Wilderness Addition areas, the
latter to be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System when
they qualify.
It is in this low density area that a visitor will, when the
retained rights expire, be able to have a wilderness experience where
nature is dominant and where buildings, automobiles and roads do not
intrude. Of course, the nature of the wilderness experience will be
variable with each visitor. For me, the experience is exemplified as
being on Cumberland's broad, white sandy beach, watching the sun rise
seemingly out of the Atlantic Ocean. To your back is the Spanish moss-
draped live oak forest sculpted by the salt spray of the surf. To the
north and south, the beach stretches away and eventually disappears
over the curvature of the earth without a house or gazebo or automobile
or light to interrupt your reverie. The noises you hear are natural:
the surf, the wind, the whoosh of the dolphin, the mew of the gull, the
territorial imperative of the woodpecker. This is a place of great
spiritual value, a place for re-creation as well as recreation. It is a
magical place, its beauty inspirational. Nowhere else in the world will
a person a citizen without special connections or wealth be able to
have the wilderness experience of the type offered by Cumberland. The
wilderness experience is unique.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There are other barrier island wilderness areas in the National
Park Service but their natural communities--and thus the experience of
visiting them--are very different from Cumberland's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those involved in crafting the Cumberland Island Wilderness
recognized that over time, the intrusions of the retained rights
holders would diminish and eventually come to an end.
impacts of the proposed legislation
Senate bill 1462 proposes seemingly innocuous adjustments to the
boundary of the Cumberland Wilderness. The true impact of the proposal
is to return Cumberland's wilderness to the ``leftovers'' proposed by
the NPS in 1976 and by so doing, eliminate the American public's
opportunity in the not-too-distant future to have a wilderness
experience on Cumberland. The bill will permanently do away with what
is most special about Cumberland. It will do away with the best that
Cumberland has to offer, and that no other barrier island does better.
In the map accompanying Senate Bill 1462, the use of the north end
of Cumberland is to be changed from ``Potential Wilderness Addition''
to ``historic district.'' A new region of high visitor use will be
established in the area between Terrapin Point on the west and Lake
Whitney and the beach to the east. This high use area will be connected
permanently to the southern high use area by two high use corridors:
the Main Road and the beach. The high density region will sprawl into a
medium density area, further encroaching on the wilderness. The result
will be the virtual elimination of the unique wilderness experience.
Other consequences include the degradation of the primitive
backcountry campsites at Brickhill Bluff and Lake Whitney. It also
opens the door for the NPS to widen the Main Road from one lane (about
10 feet wide now) to two lanes (21 feet) to accommodate both private
and public tours.
Another ``slight-of-hand'' feature of S. 1462 is the trade-off loss
of the north end wilderness and the addition of wilderness south of
Dungeness. These two areas may be close to being of equal acreage, thus
satisfying a ``no net loss'' of wilderness. But the two areas are in no
way equal in terms of wilderness value, where nature is dominant and
man comes as a visitor. The proposed south end wilderness is mostly
marsh and much of it is inaccessible to visitors. The intrusions of man
are also far more evident, with three paper mills, the container cranes
of a nearby port, two mile-long rock jetties and other features clearly
visible.
changing the purpose of cumberland island
The law establishing Cumberland Island National Seashore is unusual
for National Park enabling legislation in that the protection of the
island's natural resources are paramount:
. . . the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its
primitive state, and no development . . . shall be undertaken
which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique
flora or fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing .
. . (Section 6b of PL 92-536).
S. 1462 seeks to amend this to make concession tours \3\ supersede
the ``permanently preserved'' mandate. By so doing, the primary purpose
of Cumberland becomes concession tours and not preservation of the
island's primitive state. Who benefits from this and who looses from
this change?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Strangely, the bill does not authorize the NPS to run its own
tours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recognition of retained rights
The enabling legislation for both the Cumberland Island National
Seashore and the Cumberland Island Wilderness recognize the legitimate
rights of the individuals and their descendants who sold their land to
the U.S. Government to become part of the National Seashore, and who
received life estate agreements with the National Park Foundation and
the National Park Service. These legitimate retained rights are
specific and are defined in the deeds of record. The NPS is legally
bound to respect these rights.
To my knowledge, no wilderness advocate, then or now, seeks to
restrict the legitimate retained rights contained in the deeds. The
temporary intrusions in the wilderness experience, to terminate with
the end of the retained rights agreements, were seen as part of the
price the public had to pay in order to create that wilderness
experience.
What is of concern is both the expansion of those rights beyond
those already held and the establishment of the new rights as
permanent, as created in S. 1462.
historic structures in the north end
There are historic structures on the north end of Cumberland. On
that issue we have no quarrel with historic preservation. Nor is the
argument over whether the structures can be maintained. To the extent
that the NPS needs access to these structures for its administrative
responsibilities, it can do so as it does historic structures elsewhere
in the wilderness areas of the National Park System, or as the Forest
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management
do with respect to wildernesses they administer. Throughout the
Wilderness System, agencies typically access such structures by non-
motorized means. If motorized access is necessary, the Wilderness Act
already provides for it if such access is the minimum required for
administration of the area for the purpose of that Act. It should be
noted that Cumberland's relatively small size and flat terrain make the
structures on the north end much more accessible than many of the
structures the Park Service routinely accesses by primitive means
throughout the park system.
Regarding vehicular access by commercial vehicle, the issue is what
is more important: providing a unique wilderness experience to the
general public or allowing commercial tours? The National Park Service
should not be obligated to allow vehicular access to every site on the
island just as it is not obligated to provide vehicular access to the
top of every peak in the Grand Tetons National Park or to Mount LeConte
in the Great Smokies or to Native American dwellings in Zion National
Park. Because almost all of the visible historic structures on
Cumberland are located outside of the designated Wilderness and
Potential Wilderness additions, visitors can easily access them.
Visitors can visit the publicly-owned structures at the north end now
with a commitment of time and effort.
wilderness preservation system
The National Wilderness Preservation System was established to
preserve the remnants of wild America in their natural condition. It is
a legacy for all Americans, those alive today as well as the untold
generations not yet born. Survey after survey have shown that one of
the greatest benefits the American people derive from our Wilderness
System, including the vast majority of Americans who may never visit a
Wilderness area, is the knowledge that these areas have been set aside
in perpetuity, that they will remain inviolate as time marches on. S.
1462 is an unprecedented and devastating assault on this ideal. It
suggests that this great American legacy hangs by the thinnest of
threats, that the self-centered demands of a single private interest or
handful of local residents can undo what the U.S. Congress has done for
the benefit of all Americans and, supposedly, for all time. S. 1462 is
a bad bill that deserves no ones support.
in conclusion
This bill is not an innocuous re-adjustment of Cumberland's
wilderness boundary. It changes the overriding purpose of the Seashore
the provision of commercial tours of the entire length and breadth of
the island, making them more important than ``the permanent protection
of the island in its primitive state'' as called for in the 1972
legislation establishing the Cumberland Island National Seashore. The
bill relegates the wilderness to virtually inaccessible leftovers after
the development of Cumberland for the convenience of visitors.
Cumberland's unique wilderness experience will be gone if this bill is
allowed to become law.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be please to
respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McKeon.
STATEMENT OF SEAN McKEON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION, BRATTLEBORO, VT
Mr. McKeon. My name is Sean McKeon, and I'm the executive
director of the Northeast Regional Forest Foundation, in
Brattleboro, Vermont, and I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for this opportunity to present this testimony.
There are a lot of documents that I've sent down, and they,
I hope, will be included in the record also with this
testimony.
The Northeast Regional Forest Foundation is a nonprofit
education and conservation organization dedicated to promoting
the wise use of natural resources in a free-market economy. Our
directors include private consulting foresters who manage more
than 60,000 acres of mostly private forest land, and almost all
of that is in the Connecticut River Valley region. They have
more than 50 years experience working in the forest-products
industry, as well as more than 25 years experience working to
educate the public through outreaches such as Vermont teachers
tours, booths at the Champlain Valley Fair, Maine, teachers
tours, legislative tours, public outreach in schools at all
levels, from grammar school through high school, college, and
also graduate school. They work with New England organizations
across the region.
Our directors have testified on a wide range of issues in
Vermont and neighboring States, and have been invited to speak
at the United Nations Academic Council on United Nations in
Mexico City, in the summer of 2000.
Our own media task, as a foundation, is to highlight the
connection between America's stand of living, which we believe
is the finest in the world, and the proper and sustainable
utilization of our natural resources. Our foresters are both
green-certified through the FSC program, and also SFI-certified
through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program. We believe
that the private sector is most able to meet the growing
demands for natural resources, while at the same time protect
the environment and the rural communities that produce the
goods desired by the American people.
Government, for all of its good intentions, cannot
adequately address the problems and concerns of the local
citizens, as well as those citizens, themselves. To a large
extent, organizations that rely on government money,
particularly Federal money, to promote their agendas and their
prescription for largely private lands, operate in a vacuum,
and they tend to alienate rather than bring together competing
interests with respect to land-use decisions. The recent
Champion Lands issue in Vermont is a case in point, and I have
included a statement from our organization about how that
played out.
For me, Mr. Chairman, the most troubling aspect of S.
1433--and on this, I would concur with Mr. Jones, from the Park
Service, who just testified--is that it sets a precedent with
respect to Heritage River sites, in our view. It's our
understand that the Heritage River designations are honorary,
and they're not supposed to be including appropriations of
money, particularly for the potential of land acquisition, in
these type of grants that can go to any number of
organizations.
If this bill passes, with an annual appropriation of a
million dollars specifically for the Connecticut River, we
believe it will open up the floodgates for requests of this
committee to allocate funds for every single Heritage River
designation in the country. And I believe, at last count, there
were 14, although I think there may be something pending or
being added as we speak.
The enormous costs associated with setting a precedent here
will exacerbate the current problems associated with river
stewardship and make it more difficult for State and local
governments to decide how best to protect and enhance their
rivers and communities.
In our opinion, the consideration of this bill is an
excellent opportunity for this committee, the Senate, and the
House to investigate how much money has already been spent on
river conservation efforts, what have been the results of those
efforts so far, and how many Federal agencies are already
charged with river protection and monitoring, a detailed
accounting of the duplication of efforts by Federal, State, and
local agencies. Rather than throwing good money after bad, this
bill highlights the need for a proper accounting of past and
current expenditures before any new money is authorized to be
distributed to organizations that have no mandate or authority
to do many of the things that they are attempting to do.
Of course, we will hear, from those that are supporting
this bill, the need for conservation along our most precious
river systems, how worthy and vital this effort is in
safeguarding our river and valley resources, and we would not
argue with the work that they do. Those are good goals, and we
would not argue at all with that.
But I think the essential questions for this committee with
respect to S. 1433 are not whether we should conserve our vital
God-given resources--all of us who live and work in this area
believe that we should be preserving the environment and be
good stewards--but what has already happened to the money
that's been dedicated to this effort so far? And, second, what
are the unintended consequences of establishing this precedent
of annual appropriations of a million dollars or more, with no
end in sight, without answering these questions first?
Redirecting money to these types of organizations for these
purposes will only serve to prevent real conservation efforts
by agencies already charged to do so and, more important,
discourage private efforts that a notable history of success.
And I have just a couple more sentences, if that's all
right, Mr. Chairman.
My conversations with organizations and individuals in both
New Hampshire and Vermont highlight the concern that they have
about this bill and other pieces of legislation that directly
impact our way of life in that area and our ability to conduct
business in a reasonable manner. I've spoken with Vermont
Traditions Coalition, Coalition of Sportsmen, including
hunters, trappers, anglers, snowmobile clubs, motorized
recreational organizations, Associated Industries of Vermont,
the largest manufacturing organization in the State of Vermont,
Vermont Farm Bureau, Vermont Forest Products Association,
Vermont Forestry Foundation, the New Hampshire Timberland
Owners Association, various manufacturing companies up and down
that region, and all of them are concerned that once again
their tax dollars are going to be used against them, when
there's already myriad organizations, in duplication, charged
with these tasks.
And the rest of my remarks, I will include in the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean McKeon, Executive Director,
The Northeast Regional Forest Foundation, Brattleboro, VT
My name is Sean McKeon; I am the executive director of the
Northeast Regional Forest Foundation in Brattleboro, Vermont. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify on the proposed
bill, S. 1433. There are several source documents that I will reference
today which I will make available to the committee for inclusion in the
record.
The Northeast Regional Forest Foundation is a non-profit education
and conservation organization dedicated to promoting the wise-use of
natural resources in a free-market economy. Our directors include
private consulting foresters who mange more than 60,000 acres of
private forestland--mostly in the Connecticut River Valley region, who
have more than 50 years experience working in the forest products
industry as well as more than 25 years experience working to educate
the public through outreaches such as Vermont Teacher's conventions,
Champlain Valley Fair, Maine Teacher's Tours, legislative tours, public
outreach in schools, (at all levels including college/graduate) working
with organizations across the New England region on issues that affect
the natural resource based communities. Our directors have testified on
a wide range of issues in Vermont and neighboring states and have been
invited to speak at the United Nations Academic Council on United
Nation's Systems in Mexico City in the summer of 2000. Our immediate
task is to highlight the connection between America's standard of
living (the finest in the world) and the proper and sustainable
utilization of our natural resources. Our foresters are both ``Green''
certified through the Forest Stewardship Council's FSC program and the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) program.
We believe that the private sector is most able to meet the growing
demands for natural resources while at the same time protect the
environment and the rural communities that produce the goods desired by
the American people. Government, for all of its good intentions, cannot
adequately address the problems and concerns of the local citizens as
well as those citizens themselves. To a large extent, organizations
that rely on government money (particularly federal money) to promote
their agenda and prescription for largely private lands operate in a
vacuum and tend to alienate rather than bring together competing
interests with respect to land-use decisions. The recent Champion Lands
issue in Vermont is a case in point. (See Foundation statement on
Champion Lands)
The most troubling aspect of S. 1433, Mr. Chairman, is that it sets
a president with respect to Heritage River sites. It is our
understanding that the Heritage River designation is an honorary
designation that is not supposed to include appropriations of money,
particularly for land acquisition. If this bill passes with an annual
appropriation of $1,000,000 for the Connecticut River, it will open the
floodgates for requests of this committee to allocate funds for every
Heritage River designation in the country, and I believe there are 14
such river designations at last count. The enormous costs associated
with setting a precedent here will exacerbate the current problems
associated with river stewardship and make it more difficult for state
and local governments to decide how best to protect and enhance their
rivers and communities.
The consideration of this bill is an excellent opportunity for this
committee, the Senate and the House to launch an investigation into how
much money has already been spent on river conservation efforts, what
have been the results of those efforts, how many federal agencies are
already charged with river protection and monitoring, and a detailed
accounting of duplication of efforts by federal, state and local
agencies. Rather than throwing good money after bad, this bill
highlights the need for a proper accounting of past and current
expenditures before any new money is authorized to be distributed to
organizations that have no mandate, or authority to do many of the
things they are attempting to do.
We will hear from those pushing this bill about the need for
conservation along our most precious river systems, and how worthy and
vital this effort is in safeguarding our river valley resources. But,
the essential questions for this committee with respect to S. 1433 are
not whether we should conserve our vital, God-given natural resources,
(all of us who live and work in the natural environment believe in
conservation and in being good stewards), but what has happened to the
money already dedicated to this effort and what have been the results?
And second, what are the unintended consequences of establishing this
precedent of annual appropriations for the Heritage River program?
Without answering these questions first, redirecting money to NGO's
such as the Joint Commission and its allies will only serve to prevent
real conservation efforts by agencies already charged to do so, and
more important, discourage private efforts that have a notable history
of success.
My conversations with organizations and individuals in both Vermont
and New Hampshire highlight the concern that many have about this bill
and other pieces of legislation that directly impact our way of life
and our ability to conduct business in a reasonable manner without
undue regulations and burdens. All of those I have spoken to, Vermont
Traditions Coalition (Coalition of sportsmen including hunters trappers
and anglers), Vermont Farm Bureau, Vermont Forest Products Association,
Vermont Forestry Foundation, New Hampshire Timberland Owners
Association, and various manufacturing companies along the entire
stretch of the Connecticut River Valley, agree that this bill is
unnecessary and potentially dangerous as it changes the region's land-
use ethic from one where private ownership is foundational to
stewardship to one where unelected and accountable individuals seek to
control heretofore private property thorough a maze of quasi-government
organizations and ``ad-hoc'' committees and groups. Many of the people
I have spoken with are concerned that, once again, their own tax
dollars are being used against them and the interests of their
businesses and families. (I ask that the text of my full remarks be
included in the record)
As mentioned above, S. 1433 is not only duplicative of already
existing programs and is, therefore, unnecessary, but will also reroute
money that could be used by state and federal agencies for legitimate
conservation efforts to organizations that have no authorization or
legal right to dictate land use policy along the Connecticut River
Valley. Money could be better-utilized funding local Natural Resource
Conservation Districts, the Resource Conservation and Development
Councils, filling gaps in the funding of federal programs in the
Vermont and New Hampshire Agencies of Natural Resources, and federal
programs in both states' Departments of Agriculture; programs and
agencies created to achieve the stated purposes of this bill. There are
so many on-the-ground projects that need funding, projects that will
help sustain both the economy of our region and the ecology; Congress
should look to fund those projects before it pours more money down the
black hole of efforts such as this one.
Fiscal restraint at the federal level is crucial with a deficit
approaching half a trillion dollars. Priorities need to be set and it's
hard to imagine that enlarging the scope, power and bureaucracy of the
Commission and their political allies rises above the already
staggering demands on the taxpayers of this country to fund education,
healthcare, security and infrastructure to name a few. At a time when
many political leaders in our country, including many on this
committee, are calling for cost containment measures up and down the
scope of government, it seems axiomatic that this type of federal
expense should be far down on the priority list of programs funded with
taxpayer money, since as has already been mentioned, the precedent set
here will be duplicated across the country.
Currently, there are more than 100 federal programs in eight
different Cabinet-level departments and agencies charged with
protecting rivers, rejuvenating the areas that surround them and
stimulating economic growth. This number does not include state and
local efforts, which add to the layers of bureaucracy and inefficiency.
(For the record I would like to include a Heritage Foundation
``Backgrounder'' entitled ``Navigating the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative: Wasting Resources on Bureaucracy.'') Congress should take a
closer look at these programs and ask the GOA to determine how much
money is being spent by federal agencies on programs that are redundant
or ineffective, before it allocates additional funds to support bills
such as S. 1433.
According to the language of the bill, S. 1433 will ``effectuate
certain recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management
Plan'' which, according to the Plan include; ``a healthy ecosystem with
no degradation as a consequence of human activity''; ``river shores and
flood plains remain forever undeveloped''; ``primary agriculture lands
remain permanently secure from development''; ``that a sustainable
economy is developed in a manner that does no harm to our river''; ``a
single 7-mile natural section for non-motorized boating"; ``gives the
authority and responsibility for river protection, planning and permit
reviews to the New Hampshire Connecticut River Valley Resource
Commission of the CRJC [Connecticut Rivers Joint Commission] and the
five local subcommittees.'' (Emphasis mine) This last item is
particularly troubling since it posits the notion that an unelected and
unaccountable organization will enforce its agenda and policies on
landowners and communities along the Connecticut River Valley. This
despite the fact that the Management Plan also states, ``Both
commissions are advisory and have no regulatory powers, preferring
instead to advocate and ensure public involvement in decisions that
affect the river and its valley.'' (Connecticut River Corridor
Management Plan Riverwide Part One.) The language used here; ``no
degradation,'' ``permanently secure from development'', etc. invites
the possibility of future, costly litigation when the Commission or one
of its tentacle organizations decides a landowner is violating one of
these ``recommendations.''
Another troubling aspect of the proposed bill is that while it
purports to be inclusive in terms of participation and input about the
direction that conservation efforts should take in Vermont and New
Hampshire, in reality the Connecticut River Joint Commissions
represents a small fraction of so-called stakeholders, mostly
organizations with a bias against traditional uses of the land such as
forestry and certain recreational uses. Notably absent from the long
list of recipients of grants the past two years are organizations that
deal directly with forestry interests or sportsmen's organizations.
(See list of grants for the record) Also, there is precious little time
spent in the material from the Joint Commissions or in the Management
Plan document dealing with the fact that most of the land in question
is private land. There are myriad organizations representing private
interests, and none of them seem to find there way onto the preferred
list of organizations worthy of support. This is a most glaring
paradox, in that while this bill calls for the protection of this
natural heritage site, it neglects to point out in any meaningful way
the contributions and importance of private ownership to conservation.
Private conservation is an asset to the American taxpayers, not a
liability.
If this river valley is deemed worthy of this elaborate and
expensive conservation effort, and all of the efforts to date, it is
because those charged with its stewardship, the private landowners,
have done an excellent job of conserving the land that they own. The
private property mosaic that makes up much of the area in question is a
fact no one can argue with. For example, voluntary programs such as
Vermont's AMP's (Acceptable Management Practices) and New Hampshire's
BMT's (Best Management Practices) are documented success stories. In
fact, both New Hampshire and Vermont have excellent programs sponsored
by their respective forestry and farm organizations that deal with
landowner education and the principles of sustainability, including
water resource issues along the river.
This bill highlights the Congressional designation of the upper
Connecticut River watershed as part of the Silvio O. Conte National
Fish and Wildlife Refuge, but does not mention the concern and or
opposition of farming organizations in surrounding states. According to
the American Farmland Trust's document entitled ``Dialogues with
Agriculture,'' the ``Massachusetts Farm Bureau was concerned that
refuge lands (Silvio Conte) would increase crop damage on neighboring
properties. The organization also was concerned about the effect of
land acquisition on the local tax base.'' Vermont's Farm Bureau Policy
(2003) 43 states in part, ``VFB believes that the designation of the
entire Connecticut River Watershed as the Silvio Conte National Refuge
has serious implications for farming and forestry. We support efforts
that would:
1) Remove farm and forest land from the refuge.
2) Address the concerns of landowners and private property
owners.
3) Protect agricultural and forestry operations in the
watershed from adverse impacts of refuge activities.
Vermont Farm Bureau Policy (2003) 17 states, ``VFB opposes the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) or any similar acts and
recognizes that private ownership of property is the foundation of a
prosperous economy and a free society. VFB opposes expanded government
ownership of working rural lands because of the threat to the resource
base of the farm and forest industries, the threat to the tax base of
many rural communities and in some cases, the threat to the survival of
rural communities.''
Two other aspects of S. 1433 and its effects on the tax base are
noteworthy here. First, large acquisitions of land (either fee-simple
or the purchase of conservation easements) by either federal agencies
or non-profits exacerbate the economic distortions of increasing tax-
free or reduced tax paying property over tax paying property. According
to the recent World Bank paper on ad valorem taxes this is exactly the
wrong direction to go with respect to emerging and struggling
economies, and be assured, Mr. Chairman, the economies in this region
are struggling. The World Bank recommends government agencies and non-
profits should submit their land to appraisal by local listing
agencies, and should pay full ad valorem market based taxes for
everything except uses such as schools, municipal offices, etc. (World
Bank, Reform Toward Ad Valorem Property Taxes in Transition Economies,
June 2000.) With nearly $3,000,000,000 valuation excluded from taxation
in Vermont alone, the distortion imposed on private tax rates is very
aggressive. Add to this valuation problem a proposal such as H.R. 7 in
the House, (which would give landowners a 50% reduction in capital
gains taxes if he sells to a non-profit or government agency) and the
fact that this bill proposes $1,000,000 a year for potentially more
land acquisition, and private conservation efforts will grind to a
halt. Even without HR7, $1,000,000 a year for acquisition is a lot of
money and sets a dangerous precedent for other Heritage River sites
across the country.
In short, this proposed piece of legislation is totally unnecessary
and will create an enormous drain on the already scarce resources of
our federal agencies. The stated goal of the Connecticut River Joint
Commissions, as stated in the Connecticut River Corridor Management
Plan is to, ``assure responsible economic development and sound
environmental protection.'' How they plan to ``assure'' those goals is
a question causing much concern. Further, as we have already seen there
are myriad federal and state agencies charged with this task and adding
an additional layer of bureaucracy and expense is not prudent when many
questions remain about the current situation regarding river
stewardship and conservation efforts at the state, local and federal
level.
Many organizations and individuals who live and work in the
Connecticut River Valley are wondering why they are constantly faced
with new and well-financed threats to their livelihoods and way of
life. Remember, S. 1433 is one of many pieces of legislation (proposed
or passed) that seeks to direct money to organizations that see the
eventuality of mandatory regulations as the only way to gain what they
cannot gain at the ballot box, de facto control of all activities on
private land stretching from Connecticut to Canada.
In a brief conversation I had with Sharon Francis from the
Connecticut Rivers Joint Commission about this bill, she told me that
in 14 years of work she has never had anyone opposed to the work that
she and her group propose. In all due respect to Ms. Francis, it is
long past time that this Congress, particularly in light of its
overwhelming responsibility and commitment to the security and safety
of our fellow Americans, says ``no'' to this type of spending scheme
and allows the citizens of Vermont and New Hampshire to address the
issues raised here amongst themselves and with input from all affected
parties.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify against S. 1433. I will
provide the committee with all relevant material referenced here today.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Ms. Francis.
STATEMENT OF SHARON F. FRANCIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONNECTICUT
RIVER JOINT COMMISSIONS
Ms. Francis. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas and
Senator Akaka. It's a pleasure to be here with you.
I am Sharon Francis. I'm the executive director of the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, and I advocate the
measure, S. 1433, and would like to share with you why.
And, first of all, however, I'd like to give you a little
description of the area that we're talking about so you can
begin to get a feel for the Connecticut River of New Hampshire
and Vermont.
This is the preeminent argument that while the river
legally belongs to New Hampshire, well over half of its
watershed lies within Vermont and comprises two-fifths of that
State, as well as a full third of neighboring New Hampshire.
The river is a living thread that binds together the people of
both States in one valley.
The upper Connecticut River is what you would consider
authentic New England, of small towns, expansive farmlands and
forests, with a river that flows free in some sections and is
harnessed by dams to provide power in others. It's a place
where fishermen find some of the best wild trout fishing in
this whole country, and where valiant efforts are slowly
bringing back the great migratory Atlantic salmon. The soils
are the finest ag soils in the Northeast. Tourists marvel over
the white steepled churches, the town greens, handsome brick
mill buildings that are now finding new uses in the 21st
century. Cooperation across the river is a way of life for
people who live in the valley but frequently have jobs, family,
or schooling on the other side of the river.
This common geographic heritage took new form in the late
1980's, when valley residents on both sides of the river
lobbied their State legislatures for a pair of commissions to
work together to preserve and protect the valley's resources
and guide growth and development. Both legislatures responded
affirmatively, and the result is our Connecticut River Joint
Commissions that, for the last 14 years, has fostered a unique
approach to bi-State cooperation and local empowerment. Both
commissions are advisory and have no regulatory authority, nor
would they want to be, preferring instead to educate and
empower local stewardship and leadership.
Additionally, the legislatures authorized the commissions
to form bi-State local river subcommittees comprised of people
of diverse backgrounds, all of whom are nominated by the select
boards or sitting councils of their riverfront towns. This
network of unified commissions and five unified bi-State local
river advisory committees has provided a set of forceful
quorums for developing initiatives and addressing issues and
opportunities.
One of our first initiatives was to create the Connecticut
River Partnership, a program of small grants that is at the
heart of our work . . . empowerment of local talent, and
leadership, and our success. Each year, we ask for proposals of
local projects aimed at implementing the Connecticut River
Corridor Management Plan and the Connecticut River Scenic Byway
Plan. We pick good projects and good people, and our trust in
them has been more than repaid by their accomplishments.
In our formal statement, there is appended a list of
partnership projects last year. Multiply that by 14, and you
begin to see some of the variety and the stimulation that these
small grants has provided.
The unifying agenda for partnership projects comes from the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan and the Scenic Byway
Plan. We did not go to planning consultants or professional
planners to do a management plan for this river corridor.
Rather, we went to our own commissioners and local river
subcommittee members. And I stress, these are farmers,
foresters, business people, people who work and live, and the
teachers involved day-to-day for their livelihood in the river
valley, with its natural resources.
It took 4 years of discussion and consensus-building, but
those local representatives are the people who wrote the six-
volume plan for the river. State and Federal agencies have been
very supportive in addressing its recommendations, because they
know that plan is well-rooted in local opinion and knowledge of
the river.
Working with an array of partners that includes local
historical societies and chambers of commerce, we facilitated a
Scenic Byway Plan that unifies heritage preservation and
tourism promotion along more than 500 miles of roadway on both
sides of the river. It was in recognition of the citizen-
written Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan, with its
many common-sense recommendations--should I break off?
Senator Thomas. Yes, if you could conclude, please. You've
exceeded your 5 minutes.
Ms. Francis. Pardon?
Senator Thomas. Yes, if you could wind up, yes. You've
exceeded the five minutes.
Ms. Francis. All right.
The partnership is a gem of a public program. It's proven a
success. But it has always relied on Federal support that has
come each year only as a result of the goodwill of members of
the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Judd Gregg and
Patrick Leahy have been good friends of the partnership, and
they believe it is time to secure a more permanent
authorization. The State legislatures of New Hampshire and
Vermont think so, too, and both have passed resolutions calling
on Congress to establish a program on a permanent basis.
Our geographical area is bi-State. We need Federal
authorization for our interstates. Federal agencies----
Senator Thomas. All right, thank you very much. We will
include all of your statement in the record. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Francis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Francis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon F. Francis, Executive Director,
Connecticut River Joint Commissions
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify of S. 1433, a measure we strongly support. This
statement will provide the context of our unique bi-state watershed,
and the unique partnerships that have led to the introduction of S.
1433.
description of the upper connecticut river watershed
For 275 miles, the Connecticut River flows from the Canadian border
southward between the adjacent states of Vermont and New Hampshire.
While royal decree gave the river to colonial New Hampshire in the
seventeenth century, well over half of its 4.5 million acre upper
watershed lies within Vermont, and comprises two fifths of that state,
as well as a full third of neighboring New Hampshire. The river is a
living thread that binds together the people of both states in one
valley.
The Upper Connecticut River Valley is the authentic ``New England''
of small towns, expansive farmlands and forests, with a river that
flows free in some sections and is harnessed by dams to provide peaking
hydroelectric power in others. It's a place where fishermen find some
of the best wild trout fishing in the entire country, and where valiant
efforts are slowly bringing back the great migratory Atlantic salmon.
Tourists marvel over the white steepled churches, town greens, and
handsome brick mill buildings that are now finding new uses in the 21st
Century. There are 169 towns in the bi-state watershed, and the largest
of these has only 20,000 people. Most communities are under 2,000 in
population. People govern themselves at town meetings where once a year
they decide the town's business and budget.
Cooperation across the river is a way of life for people who live
in the valley but frequently have jobs, family, or schooling on the
other side of the river. Thirty bridges tie Vermont and New Hampshire.
Two hundred plus years ago, people in communities along the river tried
to form their own state, but the states of New Hampshire and New York,
plus President George Washington, had different ideas, and the result
was a new state of Vermont that ended at the river's edge. The unity of
people in the bi-state river valley has, however, never ceased.
the connecticut river joint commissions
This common geographic heritage took new form in the late 1980s
when valley residents on both sides of the river lobbied their state
legislatures for a pair of commissions to work together to preserve and
protect the valley's resources and guide growth and development. Both
legislatures responded affirmatively, and the result is the Connecticut
River Joint Commissions, that for the last fourteen years has fostered
a unique approach to bi-state cooperation and local empowerment. Both
Commissions are advisory and have no regulatory authority, preferring
instead to educate and empower local stewardship and leadership.
There are thirty river commissioners, fifteen from each state,
appointed by their state's governor. The volunteer Commissioners are
business people, landowners, local officials, conservationists and
other citizen leaders who live and work in the valley and are committed
to its future.
Additionally, the two legislatures authorized the Commissions to
form bi-state local river advisory committees, comprised of people of
diverse backgrounds all of whom are nominated by the selectboards or
city councils of their river front towns. This network of unified
Commissions and five unified bi-state local river advisory committees
has provided a set of forceful forums for developing new initiatives
and addressing issues and opportunities along 275 miles of river.
the connecticut river joint commissions' timely and unique focus
The Commissions have approached their legislative charge by
carefully focused exploration of how to be good neighbors to a great
river. We consider ourselves students of the river, and as we learn, we
share our findings widely through our newsletters, fact sheets, and
other publications. We are also students of our valley's history.
Back in 1968, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation proposed a national recreation area along the Connecticut
River. The concept was considered enlightened for the times, in that it
proposed a few small federal recreation areas at key sites along the
river, supplemented by an array of state and local parks and trails
with the purpose of safeguarding significant natural and cultural
sites, and providing for public enjoyment. The proposal met a din of
opposition, however, and the dire threat of a federal greening of local
property is recalled by some even today, thirty five years later.
This opposition to a federal recreation plan did not mean that
people along the river were opposed to conservation and outdoor
recreation. To the contrary, they already engaged in excellent
conservation practices out of enlightened self interest, and outdoor
recreation was a central element of their lifestyle. The adverse
reaction was to the threat of an outside entity enforcing conformity
and limiting the use of private property.
After the NH and VT Connecticut River Joint Commissions were
established, we were approached by the Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance program of the National Park Service, offering to help.
Their professional staff aided us for several years, but ultimately, we
outgrew the relationship. They relied on deploying their professional
staff to assist sponsors in doing projects. We realized that very high
skill levels already existed in valley communities for planning and
building trails, restoring historic properties, conducting water
quality monitoring, or a myriad of other conservation endeavors.
the connecticut river partnership program
Instead, we created the Connecticut River Partnership, a program of
small grants that is at the heart of our work, our empowerment of local
talent and leadership, and our success. The Connecticut River Joint
Commissions have deliberately kept the Partnership from becoming
bureaucratic. Each year, we ask for a three page proposal. A selection
committee of commissioners reviews the packet of applications, ranks
them, and meets together for a day to select the awardees, based on
objective criteria and the proposal's relevance to implementing the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan and the Connecticut River
Scenic Byway Plan.
From 1992 through 2003, we have awarded $1.5 million in grants of
federal funds for local projects, and this investment has been matched
ten-fold, even though no local match was required. We pick good
projects and good people, and our trust in them has been more than
repaid by their accomplishments.
The success of our Partnership program rests on a few important
principles:
1. Communities and organizations in the Connecticut River
Valley have the savvy and determination to preserve their
environment, restore natural habitat, save historic sites,
build recreational trails or new access to the river, or invest
in tourism infrastructure.
2. They don't need a well-meaning distant government telling
them what to do.
3. They do, however, need seed money as incentive for
transforming their plans into reality and for gathering local
partners to help carry out their goals.
A summary of recent awards is appended to this statement.
the connecticut river corridor management plan and scenic byway plan
The unifying agenda for all partnership projects comes from the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan and the Scenic Byway Plan.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions did not go to planning
consultants or professional planners to do a management plan for the
river corridor; rather we went to our local river subcommittees whose
members had been appointed by local selectboards and town councils. To
them we put the hard questions: How can nonpoint pollution be curbed in
a rural, agricultural region? What kind of habitat is important and
why? How does economic prosperity relate to the natural resources of
the valley? What is a healthy relationship between our architectural
and cultural heritage, and our desired future? It took four years of
discussion and consensus-building, but those local representatives are
the people who wrote the six volume plan for the river. State and
federal agencies have been very supportive in addressing its
recommendations because they know the plan is well rooted in local
opinion and knowledge of the river.
The Corridor Plan emphasized the importance of heritage tourism as
an avenue for new economic development and a way to galvanize local
action to safeguard and interpret our rich heritage of historic asset--
covered bridges, brick mill buildings, historic downtowns, one room
schoolhouses, stone walls, old barns--the fabric of a working landscape
that has served its owners and communities for over 200 years. Working
with an array of partners, from local historical societies to chambers
of commerce to land trusts, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions
facilitated a Scenic Byway Plan that unifies heritage preservation and
tourism promotion along more than 500 miles of roadway on both sides of
the river.
One of our subsidiary projects is the Connecticut River Byway
Council that is bringing the Byway to life through a website,
www.ctrivertravel.net; a map and brochure, ten new interpretive centers
in communities along the Byway, exhibits in the centers, and a plan for
signage that will aid visitors in finding their way to the interpretive
centers and along the Byway. Visitors from Missouri, California,
Pennsylvania, and everywhere else are discovering the rich historic and
architectural heritage of New England along the Connecticut River
Byway.
american heritage river
In recognition of the citizen-written Connecticut River Corridor
Management Plan with its many common sense recommendations, as well as
the Joint Commissions= leadership in galvanizing widespread stewardship
in the upper Connecticut River Valley, our river was selected as one of
only fourteen American Heritage Rivers in 1998. This honor has
stimulated new pride in hundreds of people working for the river, has
brought us into partnership with several federal agencies, and has
enabled us to expand the technical assistance we provide for addressing
river issues.
riverbank restoration
The most prevalent problem facing riverfront land owners, not to
mention people who fish and depend on water quality, is erosion of
unstable riverbanks that break off and send torrents of sediment into
the river. Through the Partnership Program, we have supported the
county natural resource conservation districts in completing
inventories of the entire length of the river in our two states, which
amounts to hundreds of erosion sites. Some of these lend themselves to
restoration. Many do not because of the inherent patterns of river
dynamics in that area.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions convened technical advisors
from federal and state agencies to review the erosion site inventories,
and identify sites that were good candidates for restoration. This
analysis took many months, but ultimately three top priority sites were
selected and have been restored. The dedication ceremony for the third
site will take place in a few days, on November 14th. This site was
especially tricky to work on. Not only were there Native American
artifacts in the bank which could not be disturbed, but also a
federally-endangered species of mussel was found on the river bottom
immediately adjacent to the site. With legally enforceable ``thou shalt
not disturb'' mandates on both sides, we had to tread a thin line, and
did so thanks to the creativity of our design engineer and of the
contractor who did the work. A critical component of our work is
finding the expertise to address river challenges admirably and
successfully.
scenic byway
Another example of our role in providing technical expertise has
been for the Connecticut River Scenic Byway. We are concentrating on
building the infrastructure for heritage tourism so that visitors will
find a cooperating network of historic and scenic sites, as well as
recreational experiences. Our consultants have designed a logo for the
Byway, a handsome set of four-panel displays for each of the ten
interpretive centers along the route, and a system of attractive signs
that use the logo and will enable visitors to find their way.
the need for federal authorization
The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Program is a gem of a
public program that has proven its success, but it has always relied on
federal support that has come each year only as a result of the
goodwill of members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators
Judd Gregg and Patrick Leahy have been good friends of the Upper
Connecticut River Partnership, but in 1999, despite their best efforts,
when the dust settled on the Appropriations bill, our Partnership money
ended up elsewhere.
The Upper Connecticut River Partnership deserved a more certain
future. The State Legislatures of New Hampshire and Vermont thought so
too, and both passed resolutions calling upon Congress to secure a
permanent authorization for the Partnership.
Our geographical area is bi-state, and thus should have federal
authorization for our interstate role. Federal agencies come to the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions to deliver programs because we are
the only effective agent for bi-state cooperation. It is time for these
ad hoc relationships to be formalized with statutory authorization. We
base this request for Congressional authorization on the models
provided by similar multi-state programs such as the Chesapeake Bay
Gateways and Water Trails Network, and the Lake Champlain Basin
Program.
The scale on which we operate--275 miles of river--and a 11,000
square mile watershed--can only be embraced by intergovernmental
support through the cooperation fostered by the Connecticut River Joint
Commissions. S. 1433 recognizes and reinforces a longstanding
partnership and set of collaborative relationships between agencies of
New Hampshire and Vermont as well as with agencies of the federal
government.
Senator Thomas. Senator Clinton has joined us.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. I see we're a little pushed now for a vote
here, so----
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will submit my entire statement for the record.
But I want to thank you and Senator Akaka for including the
important legislation, S. 1241, which I introduced in June of
this year, to honor one of the real pioneer women in our
country's history. I will also be submitting with my testimony
letters of support from Representative McNulty, who represents
the area in which the Kate Mullany House is found, in Troy, New
York, along with the State majority leader of the New York
State Senate, Joe Bruno, and others, including Representatives
Sweeney and Bollard and Quinn, and Dennis Hughes, president of
the New York State AFL-CIO, Thomas Hobart, president of the New
York State United Teachers, and Mark Pattison, Mayor of Troy,
New York. And I request that these letters also be made part of
the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Without objection.
Senator Clinton. This is a very great delight for me,
because, as First Lady, I started a program called Save
America's Treasures, working in conjunction with the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. We worked with local officials
and private groups around our country to bring to greater
national attention some of the forgotten stories that make up
America's past.
One of those stories was of Kate Mullany, a young Irish
immigrant, who came to upstate New York, who went to work in
the collar industry. Troy, New York, became the center for
detachable collars and cuffs. And in the 1820's, a first
commercial laundry was established, where literally thousands
of these young immigrant women worked to clean the--to make
first, and then to clean the cuffs and collars.
In 1864, partly because of wage discrimination, the men who
worked in this industry were paid more than the women. And
partly because of working conditions, Kate Mullany and about
200 of her fellow female laborers organized the first woman's
trade union in the United States, the Collar Laundry Union.
They demanded to be paid the same as their male colleagues, who
worked in their industry, and they even went on strike to
secure a 25-cent wage increase, which was a lot of money back
then.
Her leadership, as a union leader and as a real pioneer,
enabled not only her family, but others, to have a decent
standard of living. And the Mullany family bought a small home
in Troy, which I had the privilege, in 1998, as designating a
national historic landmark. The National History Landmark Theme
Study on American Labor History concluded that the Kate Mullany
House appears to meet the criteria of national significance,
suitability, and feasibility for inclusion in the National Park
System.
I'm always looking for opportunities, Mr. Chairman, to make
sure that the roles and contributions that women made to
American history are recognized. This gives us an opportunity
to do just that. And the Kate Mullany House will become part of
a larger project of the American Labor Studies Center, a not-
for-profit corporation, which will tell the story of the
industrialization of America, of the fight for fair wages and
safe working conditions, and of the contributions that
extraordinary young women, like Kate Mullany, made to the
development of our nation's economy.
So, Mr. Chairman, I see this as the beginning of a
constructive process. I look forward to working with you and
Senator Akaka to turn this legislation into reality, and I
thank you for your time and attention to this important bill.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senator From New York
Mr. Chairman, I want to open my remarks by extending my
warmest thanks to you and to the ranking member, Senator Akaka,
for including S. 1241 in today's hearing. I introduced S. 1241
in June of this year. It is wonderful to have been given this
opportunity to discuss my legislation before your subcommittee
just a few months later. It is important to mention the
tireless efforts of Representative McNulty, my colleague from
New York, who has introduced this legislation in the House and
has been working hard to win its passage over the course of
several congresses. I know he is heartened by the decision to
hold this hearing.
And I am pleased to submit with my testimony letters of
support from Representative McNulty and from the Majority
Leader of the New York State Senate, Joseph Bruno, whose
districts encompass the site. In addition, I am submitting
support letters from Representative Sweeney, Representative
Boehlert, and Representative Quinn, from Denis Hughes, the
President of the New York State AFL-CIO, from Thomas Hobart,
the President of the New York State United Teachers, and from
Mark Pattison, Mayor of Troy, New York. I request that these
letters be made a part of the record.
I fully expect that you will receive more letters of
support from a variety of sources, including organized labor,
and other local and state officials from across the political
spectrum. The letters I am submitting show that this bill is
not a Democratic bill. It's not a Republican bill, or a labor
bill--it is a unique bill.
Mr. Chairman, it's not surprising that there should be such
a groundswell of local support for S. 1241, because the Kate
Mullany National Historic Site deserves to be established in
Troy, New York. Not only does this legislation honor Kate
Mullany's work and her life, but it would allow the National
Park System to provide the technical assistance needed to
ensure the site honors the national significance of Kate
Mullany.
I visited the Kate Mullany House during the summer of 1998.
I was honored to be present at a ceremony commemorating the
designation of the Kate Mullany House as a National Historic
Landmark. It was a highlight of my time as First Lady and of my
participation in the ``Save America's Treasures'' program.
Troy is located across the Hudson River and just north of
Albany, New York. The Hudson River was a great highway of
commerce in the 19th century and it remains an important
commercial route to this day. Situated at the junction of the
Hudson and the Mohawk Rivers, Troy has a featured place in the
development of the collar and cuff industry and the iron
industry in the 19th century, as well as in the growth of men's
and women's worker associations. Great businesses grew up, and
heroic labor leaders with them.
Kate Mullany was certainly one of those leaders. In fact,
she embodied the ideals of both the labor movement and the
women's suffrage movement. Kate Mullany's leadership role
occurred at around the same time as the increasing prominence
of notable suffragists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady
Stanton in the women's rights movement. In fact, Kate Mullany
has also been inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame
in Seneca Falls, New York.
Kate Mullany came to the United States as a young immigrant
from Ireland and grew into a dynamic and effective labor
organizer. This bill is an important tribute to her and to New
York's rich history of women's rights and the individuals who
fought so hard to improve the lives of women laborers and
immigrants all over the country.
Like so many other women, in order to help support her
family, Kate Mullany went to work washing, starching, and
ironing clothes at a commercial laundry in Troy, New York. Kate
worked outside the home, fourteen hours each day, for two
dollars a week, under harsh conditions.
Kate had other qualities in addition to this enormous
dedication and self-sacrifice. When a newspaper claimed that
there weren't enough women in New York to be labor organizers,
Kate Mullany said confidently: ``You show me the women and I'll
turn them into organizers.'' And she did.
In February of 1864, Kate Mullany and about 200 of her
fellow female laborers organized one of the first, if not the
first, sustained women's trade unions in the U.S., the ``Collar
Laundry Union.'' Together, they were a formidable force and,
after striking for a week, they were able to secure a 25
percent wage increase.
The Collar Laundry Union continued as an influential force
in the Troy collar and cuff industry for five years beyond its
formation, which was very unusual for women's labor
organizations at this time. Kate Mullany's leadership was
recognized four years later, when National Labor Union
President William Sylvis appointed her to the labor union's
national office. This was the first time a woman had been so
honored.
After the successful 1864 strike, Kate Mullany's family
used some of those increased wages to buy land. A double row
house was built on the land. The Mullany's lived on the top
floor at 350 8th Street. Many of their neighbors labored in the
collar and iron working industries. It was in this house that
Kate Mullany and her family spent many more years.
Based on a variety of factors, the National Historic
Landmark Theme Study on American Labor History concluded that
the Kate Mullany House appears to meet the criteria of national
significance, suitability, and feasibility for inclusion in the
National Park System.
It is important to add that the Kate Mullany House is one
piece of a larger project of the American Labor Studies Center,
a not for profit corporation. Working with the Center, the New
York State AFL-CIO has recently purchased the House and has
made arrangements to purchase an adjacent lot. They plan to
transform the lot into the Kate Mullany Park, which will honor
female trade union pioneers. I understand that funding for this
project is expected to come from New York State funds already
set aside for the purpose. According to the Center, the
technical assistance the Park Service is uniquely qualified to
provide is a critical element in the full development of the
site.
When the Kate Mullany project is fully completed and
becomes a part of the national park system, the rich and
vibrant history of the American labor movement will be featured
in a wonderful location. And when people come to study this
movement at the Kate Mullany site, they will know that the
voices of the men, and especially the women, who led the
American labor movement, have been preserved forever.
So, Mr. Chairman, I see this as the beginning of a
constructive process. And I look forward to working with you
and Senator Akaka to turn this legislation into a reality.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Senator Schumer.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to, first, join my colleague in supporting
this legislation, commend her for her great works on this. As
the cosponsor of this legislation, obviously I am in support.
I'd just like to say two things, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask
unanimous--I know we're pressed for time, so I'll be very
quick.
Two things. Number one, that the city of Troy is engaged in
a turnaround. It's coming back. And to remember its roots, to
remember the collar industry, and to remember the sacrifices
that men and women made to build this city, to build America,
immigrants and others, is really important. Second, of course,
it is fitting to realize that women played a very, very strong
role in not only building America, these women had to raise
families, as well as work so hard. And Kate Mullany symbolizes
them. So this is a wonderful thing for Troy, but it's a
wonderful thing for America.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Thanks to all of you. I thought that the Senator and you
made very good statements.
Some disagree here, and it's good to have sides represented
and to have women represented as we're talking here, Ms.
Francis.
Thank you so much, and the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Morris Law Firm,
Atlanta, GA, October 28, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I represent the Perkins branch of the Carnegie
family in connection with the property retained by them and me on
Cumberland Island, Georgia. I am writing to you on my own behalf and on
behalf of the Perkins family in order to seek your assistance in
forcing the National Park Service (``NPS'') to honor commitments made
to us in the 1970s and 1980s as part of the process that transformed
Cumberland Island (``Cumberland Island'' or the ``Island'') into the
Cumberland Island National Seashore. We seek your help in causing the
NPS to fulfill its promises to us of convenient vehicular access along
the South Cut Road that runs from our retained properties to the
Atlantic seashore. Specifically, we ask you to cause the NPS to
designate the South Cut Road as ``potential wilderness'' rather than
``wilderness'' throughout the term of the retained estate held by the
Perkins family and my family.
As you may know, during the latter part of the nineteenth century
and first half of the twentieth century the heirs of Lucy and Thomas
Carnegie of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Charles Howard Candler of
Atlanta, Georgia, primarily owned Cumberland Island. In the late 1960s
and early 1970s, in order to preserve the natural character of
Cumberland Island, the Carnegie and Candler families contacted the NPS
and proposed that legislation be enacted to prevent any commercial
development of the Island. The efforts of these families, among others,
resulted in the passage of legislation in 1972 which created the
Cumberland Island National Seashore. The Perkins family and I retain
life interests to our homes, including the right the use and to have
convenient access to our properties and the Atlantic seashore.
As part of our discussions with the NPS in the 1970's and 1980's
related to the creation of the Cumberland Island National Seashore, we
received explicit assurances from Mr. Joe Brown, then the Regional
Director for the Southeast Region of the NPS, and Mr. George Sandberg,
then the representative of the NPS and the National Park Foundation
responsible for negotiating with the families to transfer their lands
to the NPS. Stated briefly, the NPS promised us that we would have a
right of convenient access to the Atlantic seashore during the entire
term of our retained rights to use of and access to our properties on
Cumberland Island.
The NPS' assurances regarding our right of access to the Atlantic
seashore were confirmed in part by Special Use Permit No. 5:5630:29
(the ``Permit''), which was issued to Table Point Co., Inc., a company
formed to hold our interests on Cumberland Island, on September 30,
1980. Under that Permit, we were granted a right of ``convenient
access'' to the Atlantic seashore for a twenty-year period. The Permit
expressly references the South Cut Road as a mechanism for ``convenient
access'' to the Atlantic seashore, and during an earlier hearing before
Congress held on April 30, 1980, the members of Congress involved
determined, and the NPS agreed, that the South Cut Road provided the
only convenient access for us to the Atlantic seashore.\1\ Further,
although the NPS had promised us that the Permit would be automatically
renewable until such time as our retained rights expired, the Permit as
issued did not include an automatic renewal provision. When we brought
this omission to the NPS' attention, the NPS assured us that there
would not be any problem with renewing the Permit at the expiration of
its initial term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Sandberg confirmed the NPS' understanding in this regard in
a latter dated February 25, 2001, which clearly and unequivocally
recognizes that Table Point Co. retained the right to vehicular beach
access at a convenient location until such time as its retained rights
expired or the NPS installed some form of public transportation to the
Atlantic seashore. The only ``convenient'' access for the Table Point
Co. shareholders (the Perkins and Morris families) is the South Cut
Road, which runs directly east-west from our property to the Atlantic
Seashore. The South Cut Road could not be more convenient, nor could
any of the other alternatives be less convenient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS' assurances regarding our right of convenient access
pursuant to the South Cut Road were also confirmed in a letter from Mr.
Donald Paul Hodel, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary, dated December 15, 1981, to the Honorable
Morris K. Udall, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
regarding the position of the Department of the Interior on the bill
designated to propose portions of the Cumberland Island National
Seashore as wilderness. On page 2 of the letter, Under Secretary Hodel
specifically states that the South Cut Road is in an area intended for
future designation as ``wilderness'' at such time as the NPS acquires
all of the land that was formerly under Carnegie ownership. This
statement is an acknowledgement of the agreements reached between Mr.
Joe Brown, then Regional Director, and me in 1980 to the effect that
South Cut Road would be excluded from the wilderness designation until
such time as the Table Point Co.'s retained ownership rights expire.
Thus, as of December 15, 1981, the Office of the Secretary had
knowledge of our agreement and was operating under same, and directed
that South Cut Road be designated ``potential wilderness'' rather than
``wilderness'' until our retained ownership rights expire.
The Cumberland Island National Seashore resulted from the efforts
of the Carnegie and Candler families to preserve Cumberland Island from
commercial development. In pursing our goal of preservation and in
transferring the large tracts of private property to the NPS in order
to create the Cumberland Island National Seashore, we were assured the
rights to continue to use and enjoy our retained properties and the
related right to convenient access to the Atlantic seashore along the
South Cut Road. It is my sincere hope that you will help us to force
the NPS to honor its commitments to us regarding our right to use the
South Cut Road.
I have attached to this letter various materials, including a map
showing the locations of each of the various ``roads'' on Cumberland
Island, which provide more information related to the history of our
dealings with the NPS. I will be contacting you by telephone in the
next few days in order to discuss this letter and those materials with
you, and look forward to working with you on this difficult and
important issue.
Very truly yours,
Thornton W. Morris.
______
Morris Law Firm,
Atlanta, GA, October 28, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: The purpose of this letter is to outline to
you the history of the use by the shareholders of Table Point Co. Inc.,
the company formed to hold the interests of the Perkins branch of the
Carnegie family and myself in Cumberland Island, Georgia, of the beach
road running in a direct east-west line from our retained estate to the
Atlantic Ocean and known as ``South Cut Road.'' The history is as
follows:
1. The proposed Development Plan for the Cumberland Island National
Seashore, which was prepared in September 1967, contemplated a much
different picture of Cumberland than we presently have in existence.
Among other things, there was contemplated an Island shuttle service
which would move visitors in jitney trains up and down the Main Road
and possibly to the beaches. This plan shows the various locations of
the proposed shuttle service.
During this period of history many important things were happening
which affected Cumberland. A trust for one branch of the Carnegie
family sold its land to Mr. Charles Fraser, the developer of Hilton
Head Island, who proceeded to begin development of the southern and
northern tracts purchased. He built a visitors center which is now the
National Park Service Sea Dock house and was underway with additional
development, as well as beginning the construction of a significant jet
port located on the northern portion of the island. The scars from that
jet port still remain and can be seen from the air. Also, there was
significant pressure from certain portions of the Georgia Legislature
to pass legislation known as the Camden Recreational Authority Bill
which had as its purpose the condemnation of private lands on
Cumberland Island by a state development authority, and then conveying
such lands to Mr. Charles Fraser for development. In other words, to
the extent that Mr. Fraser was unable to negotiate a purchase from any
of the owners of Cumberland, since he was the moving force behind this
legislation, he would have been able to accomplish his ends
serendipitously.
In a hearing on the floor of the Georgia House of Representatives,
I, as a member of the Georgia Legislative Study Committee, known as the
Coastal Islands Study Committee, was able to bring to light the fact
that the bill had been introduced, and supported by a legislator/
attorney who was on retainer to Mr. Charles Fraser. This conflict of
interest killed the legislation and the political career of this
particular legislator.
I mentioned this bit of history to show you the minute-by-minute
events that were occurring in our fight to stop Mr. Charles Fraser from
developing Cumberland Island. It was at that point that I, representing
the residents of Cumberland Island, worked out with Mr. George Hartzog,
Jr., the invitation for the National Park Service to come to Cumberland
Island, and for the residents and the National Park Service to develop
the joint public/private ``co-stewardship'' concept for the future.
That relationship has, except for a few problems which the present
superintendent, Mr. Arthur Frederick, is attempting to resolve, on the
whole been a very productive working relationship, where the residents
have been instrumental in helping the National Park Service on many of
its projects.
The only disheartening issue which has developed between the
National Park Service and us has been the arbitrary and capricious
method by which the Park Service has attempted to deal with Table Point
Co. Inc., on its use of the South Cut Road.
2. The letter from me to Mr. George Hartzog, who, at that time, was
Director of both the National Park Service and the National Park
Foundation, dated April 30, 1970, was the invitation that we, as
owners, gave to the National Park Service to begin the process of
acquiring lands on Cumberland. You will notice that this letter refers
to our clients as the Cumberland Island Conservation Association. This
was an organization composed of the various owners and other residents
on Cumberland who were fighting Mr. Charles Fraser's proposal to
develop Cumberland Island.
3. The Memorandum dated June 26, 1970, from me to the Cumberland
Island Conservation Association, which as I said earlier was composed
of the landowners of Cumberland Island, is one in which I describe some
of the agreements reached between Mr. George Sandberg, the
representative of the National Park Foundation and National Park
Service handling the Cumberland Island Project and me. You will notice
that at that early stage, the landowners are assured the right to use
any and all roads on the island, so long as that road is not a private
estate road of another owner. The issue of road use was covered early
in our discussions with the National Park Service representatives and
the landowners were assured the right to use all of these roads. I then
advised the landowners that this was the position of the National Park
Service, and those understandings became as much a part of the various
agreements entered into between the owners and the National Park
Service as if written in them.
4. In my prepared remarks dated September 19, 1978, before a forum
sponsored by the National Park Service, on page 2, I discuss the
concept of how the retained estates were developed with the National
Park Service, and the concept upon which the various owners were
induced to transfer their land to the National Park Service. This
discusses the example used by Mr. Stuart Udall of the ``100 year
tunnel''. It again reflects a general philosophy of accommodation and
working together between the residents and the National Park Service
and a slow transition having minor effects on the usage by the
residents of the various areas on Cumberland.
5. In my letter to then Congressman Ronald ``Bo'' Ginn, dated June
19, 1979, I raised for the first time an issue which came to my
attention in 1979 by the National Park Service of its desire to close
our beach road. I objected strenuously with the National Park Service
and when I was unable to get any satisfactory hearing of our rights and
privileges, went to the Congress of the United States. The starred
paragraph of this letter describes the problem which we foresaw in 1979
and sought congressional support to alleviate.
6. My letter to Congressman Ginn dated February 7, 1980, again
outlines the issues regarding the rights of Table Point, Co. Inc., to
use the South Cut Road, and this was the basis upon which the ultimate
hearing was held in Washington. This letter reiterates again our
consistent position that Table Point Co. Inc. was assured the right to
use South Cut Road and our unwillingness to allow the National Park
Service to abrogate its agreements with us.
7. Both the Georgia and the Pennsylvania delegations were quite
active in requiring the National Park Service to live up to its word.
The letter dated February 22, 1980, from Congressman Doug Walgren of
the 18th District of Pennsylvania to Secretary Cecil D. Andrus is an
example of the bipartisan support we had in Congress for this issue.
8. On March 26, 1980, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Department of the Interior responded to Congressman Walgren in the
bureaucratic language of ``use of the Duck House Road would require the
Perkins family and Mr. Morris to drive only about four additional miles
to reach the beach''. Anyone with any knowledge of Cumberland Island
understands from the face of this letter the ridiculous position of the
Department of the Interior. The author of the letter, Acting Assistant
Secretary David Hales, obviously had never been to Cumberland Island
and knows nothing about the Duck House Road which at that time and is
today practically impassable even in a four-wheel drive vehicle. I am
including this letter to show the insensitivity of the National Park
Service at that time to the needs of Table Point Co. Inc. and its
shareholders.
9. Mr. George Sandberg, while still with the United States
Department of the Interior, wrote the enclosed letter in which he
reiterated the commitment to a ``convenient beach access'' until which
time as the National Park Service provided the jitney service. Also, he
makes clear that this commitment to convenient beach access was meant
to be a covenant running with the land as stated in the top paragraph
of page 3. This letter simply reiterated all of the statements that we
had made up until that point to the National Park Service to the affect
that Table Point Co. Inc. had been guaranteed this beach access.
10. On April 30, 1980, a hearing was held at the House of
Representatives attended by the following Congressmen: Ronald ``Bo''
Ginn, Butler C. Derrick, Newt L. Gingrich, M. Dawson Mathis, Billy
Evans, William S. Moorhead, Doug Walgren, Wyche Fowler, Jr. and Larry
McDonald, and the following Senators: Sam Nunn, Herman E. Talmadge, H.
John Heinz, III and Richard S. Schweiker, being the Congressmen and
Senators from Georgia, Pennsylvania, and in the case of Congressman
Derrick, South Carolina. At that hearing, it was determined and the
National Park Service agreed, that South Cut Road was the only
convenient access to the Atlantic Beach by the Table Point Co. Inc.
retained estate, that the South Cut Road would be designated as
``Potential Wilderness'' and not wilderness, and that Table Point Co.
Inc. and its shareholders, being the Perkins and Morris families, had
the right to use South Cut Road throughout the term of the retained
estate of Table Point Co. Inc. In making this final determination and
agreements, Mr. Joe Brown, then District Director of the National Park
Service, requested of me and Mr. William Boyd, Jr., both of us
representing Table Point Co. Inc., that we agree to the use of an
automatic renewable twenty-year Special Use Permit. Both Mr. Boyd and I
personally were promised that no problem would occur in the renewal of
the Special Use Permit throughout the term of the retained estate. It
was represented to us that this was the longest Special Use Permit
available to the National Park Service at that time and it would help
the National Park Service not to have to go back and redo all of its
planning for Cumberland Island. We agreed to this procedure, again
trusting the National Park Service to live up to its word. Also, I was
personally promised that the Special Use Permit would be delivered to
me in a matter of days, and that representation was given by Mr. Brown
to the Congress of the United States. From April 30 on, I began to
receive nothing but delays from the National Park Service in its
getting the documentation to me.
The use of the automatically renewable twenty-year Special Use
Permit was agreeable to us because we were assured that the permit
would be renewed throughout the period of the retained estate and that
there would be no problem from April 30, 1980 until the expiration of
the Table Point Co. Inc. retained estate in the use by Table Point Co.
Inc. of the South Cut Road. I am enclosing a copy of an affidavit
appearing in the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court of Camden
County, Georgia in Deed Records numbered 159, page 633, dated December
4, 1980, which outlines the understandings of such parties.
11. On April 24, 1980, Senator Talmadge wrote to Director William
Whalen to determine whether the April 30 meeting was sufficient to
cause the National Park Service to honor its promises to us. On June
17, 1980, Mr. Joe Brown, Regional Director, responded to Senator
Talmadge by saying that ``as a result of the April 30 meeting, special
consideration will be given to providing the Perkins family access to
the beach at a convenient location. As soon as we have prepared the
necessary Special Use Permit, we will present our proposal to Mr.
Thornton Morris.'' Thus, the National Park Service acknowledges itself
that the convenient location to the Atlantic Beaches by the retained
estate of Table Point Co. Inc. is South Cut Road. This letter reflects
this agreement.
Beginning approximately a week after the hearing, I began to phone
Mr. Joe Brown to inquire as to the status of the documentation of our
agreements. At that time, Mr. Joe Brown began to stall me and blamed it
on bureaucratic inertia. However, I have subsequently determined that
the real problem may well have been a fraudulent misrepresentation to
me and not just the slowness that is required in working through the
administrative process.
12. I have just recently uncovered evidence which reflects that Mr.
Brown was not truthful in his discussions with me. On May 23, 1980, he
wrote to Mr. G. Robert Kerr, Executive Director of The Georgia
Conservancy, apparently seeking its approval of the agreement he
entered into with Table Point Co. Inc. and represented to be our
agreement to the Congress of the United States. On June 13, 1980, The
Georgia Conservancy responded to Mr. Joe Brown in which The Georgia
Conservancy recommended that South Cut Road be designated as
``Potential Wilderness'' and that a Special Use Permit be granted to
the shareholders of Table Point Co. Inc. However, this recommendation
was not the unequivocal automatically renewed Special Use Permit which
was agreed to between us and which Mr. Joe Brown represented to
Congress. It appears now that Mr. Brown somehow felt that he needed to
have the support of The Georgia Conservancy even though he had already
promised to Table Point Co. Inc. and to the Congress of the United
States how the nature of the Special Use Permit would work. However,
this letter reflects the agreement to cause South Cut Road to be
``Potential Wilderness'' and that Table Point Co. Inc. was meant to
have the right to use it throughout our retained estate.
13. Then on July 3, 1980, the ``Director'' who apparently was Russ
Dickenson, wrote a letter to The Wilderness Society in which he stated
that ``our Southeast Regional Office is negotiating with Mr. Thornton
Morris on conditions of a Special Use Permit . . . ''. Nothing could
have been further from the case. There were no negotiations because all
of those occurred on April 30, 1980. Again, since I only received the
information of paragraphs 12 and 13 recently, I did not understand that
the National Park Service sought the approval of The Georgia
Conservancy and The Wilderness Society after it had made binding
commitments with me and representations to the Congress of the United
States. However, likewise, The Wilderness Society approved the
designation of South Cut Road as a ``Potential Wilderness'' and
recommended that Table Point Co. Inc. have the Special Use Permit.
14. In late September, after many, many phone calls by me to Mr.
Joe Brown, Regional Director of the National Park Service, demanding
the documentation reflecting our agreement, by letter dated September
22, 1980 Mr. Joe Brown sent to me what he referred to as the ``fully
prepared Special Use Permit''. This was a full five months after our
agreement and after Mr. Joe Brown represented to me and to the Congress
that the documentation would be handled ``in a matter of days''. The
second paragraph of this letter of September 22, 1980 was the first
time I ever heard that the Special Use Permit agreed to by the National
Park Service would not be automatically renewable. I immediately
contacted Mr. Brown and demanded that the document be prepared in
accordance with the representations to the Congress of the United
States and his agreement with me.
I met with Mr. Joe Brown and he ``pleaded'' with me to let the
National Park Service handle it this way and assured me again that
there would be no problem with the renewal. Also, he knew that we were
weary of having gone through the congressional process and wanted to
avoid another trip if possible. You will notice that in the second
paragraph that he calls to my attention the fact that the permit is not
on its face automatically renewable, although that was our agreement.
It is only after recently obtaining the documentation where he was
not truthful with us in his dealings, do I have an understanding of
what probably happened. It appears that Mr. Brown, being anxious to
please The Georgia Conservancy and The Wilderness Society, attempted to
mollify them with this language, at the expense of living up to his
word to us. This appears to be a fraudulent misrepresentation to the
shareholders of Table Point Co. Inc. and to the Congress of the United
States.
15. An issue developed with the South Cut Road in 1985, and I wrote
a letter dated March 15, 1985 to the Superintendent at the time, Mr.
Ken O. Morgan. In that letter, I stated again the agreements for the
Special Use Permit, and the fact that it was used at the request of the
National Park Service.
16. During 1997, I discussed with then Superintendent Denis Davis
the automatic renewable nature of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Denis
Davis asked me to forward the information to him which I did by letter
dated July 2, 1997. He assured me that there would be no problem with
the renewal and began to stall.
17. After Mr. Denis Davis was replaced with Mr. Arthur C.
Frederick, I contacted Mr. Arthur Frederick and discussed with him on
several occasions the renewal of the Special Use Permit. I was told
that there was ``no problem'' with its renewal but that the Park
Service was ``going through channels''. On May 31, 2000, I wrote a
letter to Mr. Frederick formally requesting the National Park Service
immediately issue the Special Use Permit. I still did not understand
that there might be a problem inherent with the automatic renewal
feature agreed upon.
When the Wilderness Management Plan came out, I obtained a copy and
found for the first time that the National Park Service was taking the
position that the Special Use Permit was expired and that the renewal
was not mandatory. No individual at the National Park Service ever
advised me of this until I read it in the proposed plan.
At this time, I am asking your office to cause the National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, to grant to Table Point Co. Inc.
and its shareholders written and binding understandings which carries
out the consistent promises of the National Park Service to Table Point
Co. Inc. for the use of the South Cut Road throughout the term of the
retained estate of Table Point Co. Inc.
Best wishes,
Thornton W. Morris.
______
Morris Law Firm,
Atlanta, GA, October 28, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am writing this letter for inclusion in the
record to be developed at a hearing in the United States Senate
scheduled for Thursday, October 30, 2003, related to the Cumberland
Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act of 2003, S. 1462 (the
``Bill''), which is intended to amend Public Law 97-250 (96 Stat--709).
I represent Table Point Co., Inc. (``Table Point''), the transferor of
substantial real property on Cumberland Island that enabled the
Cumberland Island National Seashore to become a reality. Table Point
includes members of the family of Coleman Perkins and myself, and we
want to express our support for the bill in the manner discussed below.
Although we support the bill in principle, we believe that Section
2(b)(2) of the bill must be amended in order to include the South Cut
Road, which appears to have been inadvertently omitted. As the attached
materials indicate, such an amendment would confirm the agreement
reached by the National Park Service (``NPS'') and Table Point with
respect to retained use rights involving the South Cut Road.
The Perkins family and my family have used the South Cut Road on a
regular basis for 30-plus years, and in 1980 the NPS promised us that
we would be able to continue to use the South Cut Road for the duration
of our retained rights on Cumberland Island. Amending Section 2(b)(2)
to include the South Cut Road will, therefore, both:
ensure that the NPS honors a longstanding commitment made to
us at the time that the Cumberland Island National Seashore was
created, and
be beneficial to Cumberland Island as a whole. Specifically,
continuing use of the South Cut Road will have less
environmental impact on the Island as a result of its direct
access to the coast, will be more convenient for current Island
residents than other roads, and will reduce fire hazards.
If the NPS is allowed to break its promise to us related to our
continued use of the South Cut Road, then Congress can anticipate a
chilling effect on other landowners who might otherwise be interested
in donating land to the NPS. Such an effect will work to the detriment,
rather than the betterment, of our country's environmentally important
areas like Cumberland Island.
I appreciate your time on and attention to this important matter.
Very truly yours,
Thornton W. Morris.
______
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 28, 2003.
Chairman Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: I am writing in support of the Kate Mullany
National Historic Site Act (S. 1241), legislation that would establish
the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in Troy, New York. This
legislation is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks on
Thursday, October 30 at 10:00 AM.
National Historic Site Designation of the Kate Mullany House will
bring important national attention to a site that is historically
significant for the role played by Kate Mullany with the first all
female union in the 1860s. As a 19-year-old Irish immigrant, Kate
Mullany led the Collar Laundry Union in the United States and was the
first woman to serve as an officer of a national union. She was
recently inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca
Falls, New York for her outstanding achievements. The Mullany House was
declared a National Historic Landmark in 1997 and was recently
purchased by the American Labor Studies Center with funds provided by
New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno in whose district
the site is located. State Senator Bruno has also committed funds to
purchase the adjacent property that will become Kate Mullany Park where
trade union women pioneers will be honored.
The purpose of this designation is to have the National Park
Service provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to
properly maintain the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation
Assistance Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service visited
the property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential.
Development of the Kate Mullany Historic site has significant local
and state support. I urge you to join me in recognizing Kate Mullany
for her accomplishments and approve this legislation. Please feel free
to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
U.S. Representative, New York.
______
The City of Troy,
Office of the Mayor,
Troy, NY, October 29, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am writing to support approval of S. 1241,
the ``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act'' which will be considered by the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, October 30
at 10:00 a.m.
The designation of the Kate Mullany House is important to Troy, the
Capital District and New York State because it will bring important
national attention to a site that is historically significant for the
role played by Kate Mullany in the 1860s as a 19-year-old female Irish
immigrant who led the first all female union in the United States and
was the first woman to serve as an officer of a national union. She was
recently inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New
York. The Mullany House was declared a National Historic Landmark in
1997 and was recently purchased by the American Labor Studies Center
with funds provided by New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph
Bruno in whose district it is located. Senator Bruno has also committed
funds to purchase the adjacent property that will become Kate Mullany
Park and honor trade union women pioneers.
The purpose of the designation is to have the National Park Service
provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to properly
interpret the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation Assistance
Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service, visited the
property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential.
Development of the site has significant local and state support and
we urge your approval of the legislation.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Pattison,
Mayor.
______
The Senate,
State of New York,
Albany, NY, October 29, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am writing to you for your support of S.
1241, the ``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act,'' which will be considered
by your Subcommittee on Thursday, October 30 at 10:00 a.m.
The designation of the Kate Mullany House is important to Troy, the
Capital District and New York State because it will bring important
national attention to a site that is historically significant for the
role played by Kate Mullauy in the 1860s as a 19-year-old female Irish
immigrant who led the first all female union in the United States and
was the first woman to serve as an officer of a national union. She was
recently inducted into the women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New
York. The Mullany House was declared a National Historic Landmark in
1997.
I am proud to have been able to support the Kate Mullany House by
securing funds for the American Labor Studies Center to purchase the
House. I am also in the process of obtaining funds which will be used
to purchase the adjacent property that will become Kate Mullany Park
and honor trade union women pioneers.
The purpose of the designation is to have the National Park Service
provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to properly
interpret the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation Assistance
Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service visited the
property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential.
Development of the site has significant local and state support and
I would ask for your assistance in obtaining approval of this
legislation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Bruno,
NYS Senate Majority Leader.
______
Congress of the United States,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas, Chairman,
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Akaka: As the primary
sponsor of H.R. 305, the House companion legislation to S. 1241, the
Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act of 2003, I thank you very much
for bringing this bill before the subcommittee for consideration today.
I have introduced the Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act in
each of the last four Congresses. I am most grateful to my good friend
from New York, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for introducing the
Senate version earlier this year.
Many historians refer to the city of Troy, New York, located in my
congressional district in the Capital Region of New York State, as the
``cradle of the Industrial Revolution'' for the important role it
played in the development of the collar, cuff, and iron industries in
the mid-19th century, and in the development of early men's and women's
worker and cooperative organizations. At the heart of this city, at 350
Eighth Street, sits a modest, three-story house--but what a story it
has to tell. It is the only surviving structure associated with one of
the American labor movement's earliest women leaders, Kate Mullany.
Kate Mullany exemplifies the proud and rich history of both
America's organized labor movement and America's women's rights
movement. In the 1820s, local entrepreneurs established the nation's
first commercial laundry in Troy to wash, starch, and iron a local
invention, the ``detachable collar.'' By the 1860s, Troy supplied most
of America with detachable collars and cuffs, employing over 3,700
female launderers, starchers, and ironers. These women toiled in
oppressive heat, working 14-hour days for $2 a week. When factory
owners introduced new machinery that increased production but worsened
working conditions, one of these young women stepped up and organized a
union to demand change.
That remarkable and courageous woman was a young, Irish, immigrant
laundry worker named Kate Mullany. In February 1864, Mullany and 200
other workers formed the first-of-its-kind, all-female Collar Laundry
Union. The union went on strike and demanded a 25-cent raise. The
laundry owners capitulated a week after the strike began.
Under Mullany's leadership, the Collar Laundry Union, unlike most
unions at the time, remained an organized force for years after its
inception. The Collar Laundry Union remained active, often assisting
other unions, and even attempting to establish an employee cooperative.
Kate Mullany's hard work and commitment to fair treatment for workers
earned her national recognition in 1868, when National Labor Union
President William Sylvis made her the first female appointed to a labor
union's national office.
The New York State AFL-CIO stands ready to capitalize upon the
building's rich history by establishing the American Labor Studies
Center (ALSC) at the Mullany House. The ALSC will interpret the
connections between immigration and the industrialization of our
Nation, including the history of Irish immigration, women's history,
and worker history.
Thanks to the excellent leadership of Denis Hughes, Paul Cole, and
their colleagues at the New York State AFL-CIO, efforts to establish
the ALSC have already gained significant momentum. The New York State
AFL-CIO purchased the Mullany House earlier this year, and is in the
process of acquiring an adjacent park, which will become a memorial
park honoring female labor pioneers. Passage of S. 1241, to establish
the Mullany home as the Kate Mullany National Historic Site, is
essential to continuing this effort.
I strongly encourage the subcommittee, and the full committee, to
preserve the home of female labor pioneer Kate Mullany for the benefit,
inspiration, and education of the people of the United States of
America by favorably reporting S. 1241.
Sincerely,
Michael R. McNulty,
Member of Congress.
______
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 28, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am writing in support of S. 1241, the Kate
Mullany Historic Site Act, which will be considered by the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, October 30 at 10:00
AM.
The designation of the Kate Mullany House is important to Troy, the
Capital District and New York State, because it will bring national
attention to a site that is historically significant for the role
played by Kate Mullany. In the 1860s, Kate Mullany, a 19-year-old
female Irish immigrant who led the first all female union in the United
States, was the first woman to serve as an officer of a national union.
She was recently inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca
Falls, New York. The Mullany House was declared a National Historic
Landmark in 1997 and was recently purchased by the American Labor
Studies Center with funds provided by New York State Senate Majority
Leader Joseph Bruno in whose district it is located. Senator Bruno has
also committed funds to purchase the adjacent property that will become
Kate Mullany Park and honor trade union women pioneers.
The purpose of the designation is to have the National Park Service
provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to properly
interpret the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation Assistance
Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service, visited the
property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential.
Development of the site has significant local and state support and
we urge your approval of the legislation.
Sincerely,
John E. Sweeney,
Member of Congress.
______
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I am writing to support approval of S. 1241, the
``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act,'' which will be considered by the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, October 30
at 10:00 AM.
The designation of the Kate Mullany House is important to Troy, the
Capital District and New York State, because it will bring important
national attention to a site that is historically significant for the
role played by Kate Mullany in the 1960s as a 19-year-old female Irish
immigrant who led the first all female union in the United States and
was the first woman to serve as an officer of a national union. She was
recently inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New
York. The Mullany House was declared a National Historic Landmark in
1997 and was recently purchased by the American Labor Studies Center
with funds provided by New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph
Bruno, in whose district it is located.
The purpose of the designation is to have the National Park Service
provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to properly
interpret the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation Assistance
Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service, visited the
property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential,
Development of the site has significant local and state support and
we urge your approval of the legislation.
Very truly yours,
Jack Quinn,
Member of Congress.
______
New York State AFL-CIO,
New York, NY, October 27, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am writing to support approval of S. 1241,
the ``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act,'' which will be considered by the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, October 30
at 10:00 AM.
The designation of the Kate Mullany House is important to Troy, the
Capital District and New York State because it will bring important
national attention to a site that is historically significant for the
role played by Kate Mullany in the 1860s as a 19-year-old female Irish
immigrant who led the first all-female union in the United State and
was the first woman to serve as an officer of a national union. She was
recently inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New
York. The Mullany House was declared a National Historic Landmark in
1997 and was recently purchased by the American Labor Studies Center
with funds provided by New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph
Bruno in whose district it is located. Senator Bruno has also committed
funds to purchase the adjacent property that will become Kate Mullany
Park and honor trade union women pioneers.
The purpose of the designation is to have the National Park Service
provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to properly
interpret the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation Assistance
Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service visited the
property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential.
Development of the site has significant local and state support and
we urge your approval of the legislation.
Sincerely,
Denis M. Hughes,
President.
New York State United Teachers,
Latham, NY, October 29, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas: I am writing to support approval of S. 1241,
the ``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act,'' which will be considered by the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, October 30
at 10:00 a.m.
The designation of the Kate Mullany House is important to Troy, the
Capital District and New York State because it will bring important
national attention to a site that is historically significant for the
role played by Kate Mullany in the 1860s as a 19-year-old female Irish
immigrant who led the first all-female union in the United States and
was the first woman to serve as an officer of a national union. She was
recently inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New
York. The Mullany House was declared a National Historic Landmark in
1997 and was recently purchased by the American Labor Studies Center
with funds provided by New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph
Bruno in whose district it is located. Senator Bruno has also committed
funds to purchase the adjacent property that will become Kate Mullany
Park and honor trade union women pioneers.
The purpose of the designation is to have the National Park Service
provide technical assistance and advise on best ways to property
interpret the site. Bonnie Halda, Manager, Preservation Assistance
Group, Northeast Region of the National Park Service, visited the
property on June 22 and commented very favorably on the site's
potential.
Development of the site has significant local and state support and
we urge your approval of the legislation.
Sincerely,
Thomas Y. Hobart, Jr.,
President.
______
Statement of GoGo Ferguson, Cumberland Island Preservation Society,
Cumberland Island, GA
I am fifth generation on Cumberland Island. I have watched many of
the historic structures listed on the National Register fall in from
demolition by neglect. Greyfield Inn on Cumberland Island was my home
for many years; it is now a small inn and a very successful example of
an adaptive use of a structure within a national park. It provides an
experience for those who cannot or do not want to camp in a park, as
well as the ability to educate themselves to the rich cultural and
natural history through our naturalists.
Many of our guests are elder hostel groups or families who could
notexperience this national park without the educational tour by
Greyfield Inn's naturalists. My family helped create this park with the
vision of all being able to experience the incredible human history
that had the wisdom and long-term vision to protect the land. This did
not come without a great deal of sacrifice and work on the part of
many. The legislative agreements made at the establishment of the
seashore between the NPS and those people existing prior to the parks
creation, otherwise known as ``traditional people'' should be honored.
This park (the young, the elderly, those who have descendants
buried here, those who wish to see the Settlement and the First African
Baptist Church, and those who want to see the spectacular architectural
design of Plum Orchard mansion) should be able to. It is allowed in
many other parks and it is of no impact to the surrounding wilderness
here.
I strongly support this bill as a solution to manage this park in
the spirit of which it was given and to allow access for all to the
natural and historic sites. It will be impossible for the park to
properly access and maintain their obligation to these historic sites.
______
Statement of Georgia Forest Watch; Georgia Chapter, Sierra Club;
Georgia Chapter, Wilderness Watch; Georgia Center for Law in the Public
Interest; Coosa River Basin Initiative; Canoochee Riverkeeper; National
Parks Conservation Association; The Wilderness Society; Center for a
Sustainable Coast; Chattooga Conservancy; American Hiking Society
Dear Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss and Zell Miller have introduced
the Cumberland Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act of 2003
(S. 1462) that would in large measure destroy the Cumberland Island
Wilderness Area by undesignating the existing wilderness, then ``re-
establishing'' the wilderness with corridors for motorized access and
with large natural and historical areas open to development. S. 1462 is
an unprecedented gutting of a unit in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Currently, only a handful of island residents have
valid access rights and are legally allowed to drive the primitive
roads through the wilderness and potential wilderness areas. These
rights are designed to phase out over time. All development on the
island is prohibited. The proposed bill eliminates these protections,
and opens the wilderness, in perpetuity, to government vehicles,
commercial tours, and unmitigated development. We ask that you oppose
this ill-conceived legislation.
Cumberland is the largest undeveloped barrier island and is unique
on the east coast. In 1972, Congress set aside the island as a national
seashore, declaring that it ``shall be permanently preserved in its
primitive state.'' It is one of only six National Park Service
wilderness areas in the eastern United States, and one of only a
handful of United Nations International Biosphere Reserves. It offers
tremendous opportunities for a rich natural and historical experience.
An unspoiled beach of white sands stretches 17 miles along its eastern
shore, giving way to rows of sand dunes, uplands of saw palmetto,
forests of yellow pine and live oak, and flats of salt marsh and tidal
creeks. The only primary road on the island is a primitive, one-lane
dirt road called the Main Road, which runs south-to-north with only a
few primitive spur roads connecting to it.
There are many problems with S. 1462. The bill calls for the
undesignation of hundreds of acres of wilderness that will split this
already small wilderness area in two, having impacts that will reach
far beyond the corridors and areas that the bill seeks to undesignate.
S. 1462 would cut a permanent motorized ``loop'' through the heart of
this already modest wilderness area. The bill will allow special
interests to profit at the public's expense. The bill will open the
north end of the island to development.
In sum, this bill will undermine more than 30 years of public and
private efforts to preserve Cumberland in a primitive state. Congress
should soundly reject it. Please support America's Wilderness legacy
and oppose S. 1462.
We thank you for your attention to this important matter.
______
Statement of Richard Moe, President, the National Trust
for Historic Preservation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to submit remarks on behalf of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation concerning the Cumberland Island National
Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act of 2003, S. 1462. Let me begin by
commending Senators Chambliss and Miller for developing a bill that
would strike a reasonable compromise between the need to protect
Cumberland Island's rich inventory of natural resources with necessary
access to its diverse historic treasures. By amending the wilderness
boundaries created in 1982, the Senate would be taking a major step
forward in resolving twenty years of conflict between the goals of
wilderness protection and historic preservation. S. 1462 clearly shows
that these goals need not be mutually exclusive.
For more than 50 years, the National Trust has been helping to
protect the nation's historic resources. As a private nonprofit
organization with more than a quarter million members, the National
Trust is the leader of a vigorous preservation movement that is saving
the best of our past for the future. The need for the National Trust
has increased since its founding in 1949 just as the need for
wilderness areas has also grown. But when limitations on access result
in the deterioration and neglect of historic buildings and sites, we
not only stand to lose a part of our past forever, we also miss the
opportunity to let history come alive through experiencing its tangible
legacy. Access to historic resources is an integral part of their
proper interpretation and ongoing stewardship.
Cumberland Island unquestionably ranks among the nation's most
stunning unspoiled natural areas, but there are portions of this
10,000-acre wilderness designation that could never fit the Wilderness
Act's statutory definition of ``undeveloped'' and [devoid of]
``permanent improvement or human habitation.'' The Interior Department
noted this dichotomy way back when the original bill that created the
area was signed into law. The major problem in including historic
resources and the roads that lead to them within the boundaries of the
wilderness area is that it prohibits motor vehicles and certain
maintenance equipment from getting to those places.
When Europeans first explored the Island in the 1500s, the Timmucan
Indians were already well established there as the ancient shell mounds
indicate. We know that missionaries from Spain arrived to evangelize
the Native American population and built a settlement there in 1595,
but restricted access to archeological sites hampers a greater
understanding of the Spanish legacy. James Ogelthorpe founded Fort
Prince William there in 1736, the southernmost occupied site in what
would become the original thirteen colonies. An historic African-
American community with an adjacent cemetery provides us with an
important link to the slaves that once occupied the island. S. 1462
would simply make these places easier to get to so that they could be
appreciated by a wider audience and investigated more fully.
Lastly, there is Georgia's largest historic house, the 1898 Plum
Orchard donated to the National Park Service in 1970 along with 12
acres for a National Seashore. Here, access restrictions pose a threat
to the preservation of noteworthy intact structures themselves. Because
of the restrictions the wilderness designation places on the road
leading to the building, the NPS has found it extremely difficult to
perform its duties related to maintaining and preserving the historic
fabric. In September, the World Monuments Fund listed the Plum Orchard
Historic District among only a handful of American locations on its
2004 list of 100 Most Endangered Sites.
The Park Service, for example, has struggled to comply with its
mandate under the Historic Preservation Act to maintain approximately
25 designated historic structures that fall within the wilderness area,
but the Wilderness Act prohibits the needed access to do the work
successfully. Furthermore, some of the more innovative preservation
approaches that the Park Service has explored to save Plum Orchard and
allow it to benefit from increased visitorship have failed due to lack
of access. At the most basic level, the necessary vehicles and
equipment to preserve and maintain historic buildings need a way to get
there. Moreover, not only should sites of historic value be open to
public visitorship for their educational value, but in certain
instances they engender public/private partnerships that go a long way
to foster maintenance and upkeep. Cumberland Island is no exception.
The Chambliss Miller bill would amend Cumberland Island Wilderness
Area's boundaries to ensure the future protection of natural resources
and allow practical considerations for historic preservation. The
measure would remove the 200-year-old, National Register listed ``Grand
Avenue,'' the principal road, from the wilderness designation so that
visitors could again enjoy easy assess to the Plum Orchard and High
Point Historic Districts. Now, only a twice monthly ferry offers
expensive limited access to these locations, a 24-mile round trip hike
from the National Seashore. Two other lesser roads would also be
removed from the wilderness area to provide the only access to the
African-American Settlement, Native American shell mounds, and
potential archeological resources of the former mission and fort sites.
The National Trust applauds the way in which the S. 1462 would take
great care to lessen any effect on removing the roads from the
wilderness area by adding 210 new acres to the designation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, The National Trust
strongly supports S. 1462 along with the National Park Service, the
Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Cumberland Island
Historic Foundation. The bill before your consideration today is a
compromise that would balance the need to safeguard the natural
environment of one of the world's largest barrier islands with the
historic preservation of the structures and sites located therein.
Managing most of the island with wilderness area goals is important to
protecting its future, but meeting these goals at the expense of
cultural or historic resources is-not what Congress intended in passing
the Wilderness Act. Greater access that provides targeted locations the
benefit of the vehicles and equipment necessary for maintenance,
interpretation, and public benefit will ensure that Cumberland Island's
treasures--both natural and man-made--will be protected for future
generations.