[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10537-S10539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE WILDERNESS ACT
The bill (H.R. 233) to designate certain National Forest System lands
in the Mendocino and Six Rivers National Forests and certain Bureau of
Land Management lands in Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, and Napa Counties
in the State of California as wilderness, to designate the Elkhorn
Ridge Potential Wilderness Area, to designate certain segments of the
Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic
river, and for other purposes was considered, read the third time, and
passed.
section 10
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with Senators Domenici, Boxer, and Feinstein concerning a provision in
H.R. 233, the Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.
Although I strongly supported the Senate companion measure, S. 128,
which passed the Senate last year, I am concerned with some of the
changes made by bill as passed by the House of Representatives. Of
particular concern is section 10, dealing with commercial fishing
permits in Redwood National and State Parks in California. The section
directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for authorized
vehicle access for commercial surf fishing at designated beaches within
both the National and State Parks. The section provides that the number
of permits
[[Page S10538]]
shall be limited to the number of valid permits that are held on the
date of enactment of this Act, and that the permits ``so issued shall
be perpetual and subject to the same conditions as the permits held on
the date of enactment of this Act.''
I understand from the National Park Service and the bill sponsors
that presently 15 permits are issued for commercial surf fishing within
the park. I was concerned that the language stating that the permits
shall be perpetual might be construed as creating a right vesting in
the permit holder, which would be contrary to the way permits are
issued throughout the National Park System. However, I understand that
the intent of this language is simply to ensure that the National Park
Service not reduce the number of permits issued below the current level
of valid permits, assuming there is sufficient demand for the remaining
permits. Furthermore, I understand that there is no intent for the
requirements of section 10 to be construed as an implied waiver of
applicable laws, including the National Park Service Organic Act and
the Endangered Species Act, but rather a directive to the Park Service
to discontinue its plan to completely phase out these permits. I would
like to ask Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, and Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the Senate
sponsors, whether they agree with me that it is their intent that the
language in section 10 does not create a property right and whether
they also agree that the sole purpose of the language is to limit the
number of permits to the number of valid permits in existence as of the
date of enactment of H.R. 233.
Mrs. BOXER. I agree with Senator Bingaman's understanding. It is not
our intent to create any new right with respect to these permits.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICl. I agree.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The language in section 10 requires the Secretary of
the Interior to issue permits allowing for authorized vehicle access to
designated beaches, including Gold Bluff Beach, within Prairie Creek
Redwoods State Park, which is located within the broader national park
boundary. This provision is unusual in that, on its face, it appears to
require the Secretary to authorize access to a beach that is within a
State Park and managed by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation. However, I understand that nothing in this section is
intended to override the responsibilities of the State of California
and its management of state park. Is that the understanding of the
chairman and bill sponsors as well?
Mrs. BOXER. I agree. The language in this bill does not impose
requirements on the State of California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleagues for helping to clarify this
issue. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Congressman Thompson,
the sponsor of H.R. 233, be printed in the Record. His letter indicates
his agreement with our colloquy. Based on the common understanding of
the purpose and intent of section 10, I will support passage of the
bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2006.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee,
Dirksen Senate Offlce Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Bingaman, Senator Feinstein and Senator
Boxer: I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my
intent on a provision in H.R. 233, the Northern California
Wild Heritage Act.
Section 10, which deals with commercial fishing permits in
Redwood National and State Parks in California, directs the
Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for authorized
vehicle access for commercial surf fishing at designated
beaches within both the National and State Parks. The section
provides that the number of permits shall be limited to the
number of valid permits that are held on the date of
enactment of this Act, and that the permits ``so issued shall
be perpetual and subject to the same conditions as the
permits held on the date of enactment of this Act.''
I want to clarify that this language should not be
construed as creating a right vesting in the permit holder,
which would be contrary to the way permits are issued
throughout the National Park System. The intent of this
language is simply to ensure that the National Park Service
not reduce the number of permits issued below the current
level of valid permits, assuming there is sufficient demand
for the remaining permits. Furthermore, there is no intent
for the requirements of Section 10 to be construed as an
implied waiver of applicable laws, including the National
Park Service Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act, but
rather a directive to the Park Service to discontinue its
plan to completely phase out these permits. The language in
Section 10 does not create a property right and the sole
purpose of the language is to limit the number of permits to
the number of valid permits in existence as of the date of
enactment of H.R. 233.
In addition, the language in Section 10 requires the
Secretary of the Interior to issue permits allowing for
authorized vehicle access to designated beaches, including
Gold Bluff Beach, within Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park,
which is located within the broader national park boundary.
However, nothing in this section is intended to override the
responsibilities of the State of California and its the
management of the state park.
Thank you very much for all your time and effort on this
very important bill. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify
this issue.
Sincerely,
Mike Thompson,
Member of Congress.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a great day for California.
After years of hard work by my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and
Congressman Mike Thompson and I, the Northern California Coastal Wild
Heritage Wilderness Act passed the Congress today. It now goes to the
President's desk for his signature.
I want to thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and Congressman Mike
Thompson for all of their great work on this bill. Without their
tireless support, we would not have gotten to this point.
Anyone who has ever visited California or been fortunate enough to
live there is keenly aware of the State's natural beauty indeed, more
than most States, California's wild beauty--is an essential part of its
identity.
California's natural beauty and way of life has enticed millions to
come and live there but that very enticement is now threatened by
exponential growth--35,900,000 people live in my State, according to
the 2004 U.S. Census estimate, and that figure is growing by leaps and
bounds daily.
That is why so many Californians have come together to support this
bill and protect some of the last great natural places in the State.
Thousands of average citizens and over 200 local businesses, outdoor
groups, and other interests support the bill these include Harwood
Industries, the Adventures Edge Mountain Bike Store, and K.B. Homes,
the largest homebuilder in California.
There have been 23 supportive votes or resolutions from city
councils, county boards of supervisors, tribal councils, and other
boards since 2001.
Our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, supports it, as do 40 former or
current local elected officials of both parties in Lake, Mendocino,
Napa, and Humboldt Counties.
When one considers what we are trying to preserve, it is easy to see
why Congressman Thompson and I have such broad support for our
legislation. I would like to share a few examples.
First and foremost is the spectacular King Range, the wildest portion
of California's coast--it boasts the longest stretch of undeveloped
coastline in the lower 48 States. Next, I would like to share Cache
Creek it is home to the second largest wintering bald eagle population
in California and a herd of rare Tule elk, which is the world's
smallest elk. Cache Creek is popular with white water rafters for its
rapids and scenery.
Next, the Middle Fork Eel River, which hosts 30 to 50 percent of the
State's summer-run steelhead trout population, an endangered species,
and critical to California's fishermen and tribes. It also has
spectacular ancient forests of oak pine and fir. Our bill provides
improved protections for this pristine area.
These are but three of the dozens of examples I could show you today.
Californians want to protect the sanctity of these lands, and our bill
does just that.
[[Page S10539]]
Before I conclude, there are some people I need to thank. First, I
again thank Senator Feinstein, my partner in the Senate on this bill.
Her work on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee was invaluable,
and John Watts of her staff helped greatly. Congressman Thompson
tirelessly championed this bill in the House, and Jonathan Birdsong,
his legislative director, put in countless hours of work to accomplish
this.
I also thank Senators Bingaman and Domenici of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. They, along with Senators Craig and Wyden, have
worked very well with me to protect these special places and helped me
move this bill forward. Finally I need to thank David Brooks and Frank
Gladics of the Energy Committee staff for working so carefully and
conscientiously on this bill.
God has given Americans an exceptionally beautiful treasure in its
wild landscape, and my State is blessed with some of its best.
We must be good stewards of that gift and share it with future
generations that is what Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, John Wesley
Powell, Ansel Adams, and other great Americans did, and we have places
like Yosemite and Yellowstone to cherish because of their actions.
Mr. President, because the Congress passed this bill today, future
generations will be thanking us for preserving places like the King
Range and other parts of the stunning, wild, and unspoiled northern
California coast.
____________________