79–010

Calendar No. 679

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–340

YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT OF 1999

JULY 12, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1998]

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was

referred the bill (S. 1998) to establish the Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area, having considered the same, reports favorably

thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as

amended, do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 6, line 26, after ‘‘Heritage Area Board of Directors’’ insert ‘‘which shall include representatives from a broad cross-section

of the individuals, agencies, organizations, and governments that

have been involved in the planning and development of the Heritage Area to this point. The management entity should also reflect

those who may have an interest in the purposes and objectives of

the Heritage Area now and in the future.’’.

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 1998 is to establish the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in Yuma, Arizona, and to designate the management entity as the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

Board of Directors.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Thousands of years ago, prehistoric tribes, searching for a way

to cross the Colorado River, first came upon the Yuma Crossing, a

formation of two massive granite outcroppings on the Colorado

River. Years later, Spanish conquistadors planted their nation’s

flag at the Yuma Crossing, almost 100 years before the Pilgrim’s

landing at Plymouth Rock. As time passed, thousands more would

rely on the Yuma Crossing as it became a focal point for the NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:31 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR340.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR340
2

tion’s westward migration, bringing travelers, trappers, soldiers,

goldseekers and emigrants.

In recent years, various planning and development efforts have

brought renewed interest and activity to the City of Yuma. In 1998

the Heritage Area Task Force was formed to develop a heritage

plan, detailing its vision, design, and construction. The group developed a list of 150 cultural, historic, and natural resources within

the heritage area. Designation of Yuma Crossing as a National

Heritage Area would recognize the national significance of its resources and aid in their protection, preservation, and interpretation.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1998 was introduced by Senator McCain on November 19,

1999. Senator Kyl was added as a cosponsor on April 11, 2000. Testimony from witnesses on this bill was included in the record of the

hearing held by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic

Preservation, and Recreation on May 25, 2000. At its business

meeting on June 7, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources ordered S. 1998, as amended, favorably reported.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on June 7, 2000, by a unanimous vote of a quorum

present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1998, if amended as

described herein.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

During the consideration of S. 1998, the Committee adopted an

amendment to establish criteria for membership of the Yuma

Crossing National Heritage Area Board of Directors.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 designates the bill’s short title.

Section 2(a) contains congressional findings.

Subsection (b) describes the purposes of the bill. The purposes

are as follows: (1) to recognize the role of the Yuma Crossing in the

development of the United States; (2) to promote, interpret, and develop the physical and recreational resources of the communities

surrounding Yuma Crossing; (3) to foster a close working relationship between all levels of government and the local communities in

the Yuma region; (4) to empower the community to conserve the

heritage and natural resources of the region while pursuing economic opportunities; (5) to provide recreational opportunities; (6) to

optimize the use of riverfront property; and (7) to improve the ability of the Yuma region to serve visitors and enhance the local economy through the completion of major projects in the Heritage Area.

Section 3 defines the term ‘‘Management Entity’’ as the Yuma

Crossing National Heritage Area Board of Directors, and provides

definitions for other terms used in the bill.

Section 4 establishes the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area,

describes the boundaries of the area, designates the Yuma Crossing

National Heritage Area Board of Directors as the management entity, and establishes criteria for membership on the board.

3

Section 5 directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a compact with the management entity that includes a discussion of the

goals and objectives of the Heritage Area, an explanation of the

proposed approach to conservation and interpretation, and an outline of the protection measures to which the management entity

commits. The management entity is required to submit the proposed compact to the Secretary within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and the Secretary is to either approve or disapprove the compact within 90 days of its submission. If the compact is disapproved, the Secretary must advise the management

entity of the reasons why and provide recommendations for its revision. Upon receipt of the revised compact, the Secretary has 90

days to approve or disapprove the compact.

Section 6(a) directs the management entity to develop a management plan for the Heritage Area and describes 8 specific elements

that must be included in the plan. The management entity is required to submit the plan to the Secretary within 3 years after the

date of enactment of this Act, and the Secretary must either approve or disapprove the plan within 90 days of its submission. If

the plan is disapproved, the Secretary must advise the management entity of the reasons why and provide recommendations for

its revision. Upon receipt of the revised plan, the Secretary has 90

days to approve or disapprove the plan. Once the management plan

has been approved, any substantial amendments to the plan must

be reviewed and approved by the Secretary.

Subsection (b) describes the duties of the management entity.

The duties are as follows: (1) implement the compact and the management plan; (2) assist governmental and other organizations in

establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits, developing recreational resources, increasing public awareness and appreciation

for resources, and restoring historic buildings in the Heritage Area;

(3) encourage economic viability consistent with the goals of the

management plan; (4) encourage the adoption by local governments

of policies consistent with the goals of the management plan; (5)

consider the interests of governmental business, and nonprofit

groups within the Heritage Area; (6) conduct quarterly public meetings; and (7) ensure that all records relating to the expenditure of

Federal funds are made available for audit.

Subsection (c) authorizes the management entity to use Federal

funds to make grants, enter into cooperative agreements, hire and

compensate staff, and enter into contracts for goods and services.

Subsection (d) prohibits the management entity from using Federal funds received under this Act to acquire real property or any

interest in real property.

Subsection (e) clarifies that nothing in this Act prohibits the

management entity from using Federal funds from other sources.

Subsection (f) clarifies that the management entity may use Federal funds received under this Act to carry out activities on property that is not owned by the Federal Government.

Section 7(a) authorizes the Secretary to provide technical and financial assistance to the management entity.

Subsection (b) requires the Historic American Building Survey/

Historic American Engineering Record to conduct any study necessary to document the natural, cultural, historical, recreational,

and scenic resources of the Heritage Area.

4

Section 8 terminates the authority of the Secretary to make

grants or provide assistance under this Act on September 30, 2015.

Section 9 authorizes the appropriation of $10 million, limited to $1 million in any one fiscal year, subject to a 50 percent match of

non-Federal funds.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of the cost of this measure, has been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, June 20, 2000.

Hon. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1998, the Yuma Crossing

National Heritage Area Act of 1999.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis and Ali

Aslam (for federal costs) and Natalie Tawil (for the private-sector

impact).

Sincerely,

STEVEN LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 1998—Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 1999

S. 1998 would establish the Yuma Crossing National Heritage

Area in the county and city of Yuma, Arizona. The bill would direct

the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Board of Directors, the designated management entity for the area, to conserve and interpret

area resources. The board would develop a management plan that

identifies activities and sources of funding to protect and manage

the heritage area. In addition, the board would make grants to

state and local agencies and other entities to implement the plan.

For these purposes, the bill would authorize the appropriation of

$10 million, not to exceed $1 million annually.

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing S. 1998 would cost $10 million over the

next 10 to 15 years. Such amounts would be used to cover a portion

of the costs of establishing, operating, and interpreting the heritage

area. The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

S. 1998 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The state of Arizona

and local governments within the state might choose to participate

in the planning for and management of the national heritage area

and would incur some costs as a result. Such costs would be voluntary. Participating governments would be eligible to receive

grants to cover a portion of the costs associated with those activities. S. 1998 would impose no costs on other state, local, or tribal

governments.

5

The bill would impose private-sector mandates, but CBO estimates that the total direct costs of those mandates would fall well

below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($109 million in

2000, adjusted annually for inflation) during the first five years

that the mandates are in effect.

S. 1998 would impose new private-sector mandates on the Yuma

Crossing National Heritage Area Board of Directors, which the bill

would designate as the management entity for the heritage area.

The bill would require the board to submit a proposal for a compact

with the federal government that addresses objectives and interpretation of the heritage area. The bill also would require the board

to develop, and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval,

a management plan for the heritage area. S. 1998 also would require the board to conduct public meetings regarding the plan and

to assist local governments and other organizations in activities related to the purposes of the heritage area. Based on information

provided by the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Task

Force, CBO estimates that the total direct costs of mandates in the

bill would fall well below the annual threshold established in

UMRA in any of the first five years that the mandates would be

in effect. The bill would authorize appropriations to cover up to 50

percent of the costs of developing and implementing the management plan and would direct the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the management entity upon request.

On June 20, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.

2833, the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000, as

ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on June 7,

2000. These bills are very similar and our cost estimates are the

same.

The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis and Ali Aslam (for federal costs), Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the state and local impact),

and Natalie Tawil (for the private-sector impact). This estimate

was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for

Budget Analysis.

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out

S. 1998. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses.

No personal information would be collected in administering the

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy.

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 1998, as ordered reported.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On, May 23, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of the

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting forth

Executive agency recommendations on S. 1998. These reports had

not been received at the time the report on S. 1998 was filed. When

the reports become available, the Chairman will request that they

be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate.

6

The testimony provided by the National Park Service at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIREC- TOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNER- SHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE IN- TERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank

you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the

position of the Department of the Interior on S. 1998, a bill

to establish the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.

The Department supports S. 1998, with the amendment

outlined in our testimony. Last month we testified on similar legislation, H.R. 2833, before the House Subcommittee

on National Parks and Public Lands. At that hearing we

recommended that the House bill be revised to incorporate

some of the concepts found in S. 1998. The recommendations included defining the boundary and using a multiagency approach to complete a master plan based upon

studies that meet National Park Service criteria. We are

pleased with the approach taken by S. 1998 which will ensure that the resources of the National Park Service as

well as the proposed Heritage Area are efficiently used to

focus and protect the important resources of this area.

S. 1998 would create the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in Yuma, Arizona, based on work that has been

conducted for more than twenty years by the city and

county of Yuma. This work culminated in an executive

summary in 1999 prepared by the Heritage Task Force, a

cross-section of citizens in the region. The report and previous work conducted in Yuma has also included organizations, agencies and potential partners in the creation and

management of a National Heritage Area.

This bill calls for the Secretary of the Interior to enter

into a compact with the Yuma Crossing National Heritage

Area management entity for the purposes of further refining the area’s goals and objectives and outlining the protection measures that will guide the management entity’s

efforts. S. 1998 calls for the development and approval of

a management plan for the Heritage Area. If the plan is

not submitted within three years, the Heritage Area becomes ineligible for Federal funding. The bill also outlines

the duties of the management entity and prohibits it from

using Federal funds to acquire real property or interests in

real property. S. 1998 authorizes the management entity

to spend Federal funds on non-federally owned property.

At the request of the management entity, the Secretary

would be authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to develop and implement the management plan.

S. 1998 authorizes appropriations and limits Federal funding to 50 percent of the total cost of any assistance or

grant and bars the Secretary from providing any assistance under this Act after September 30, 2015.

The National Park Service has defined a National Heritage Area as a place where natural, cultural, historic and

7

recreational resources combine to form a nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity.

Heritage conservation efforts are grounded in a community’s pride in its history and traditions, and its interest

in seeing them retained. Preserving the integrity of the

cultural landscape and local stories means that future generations of the community will be able to understand and

define who they are, where they come from, and what ties

them to their home. Heritage areas are designed to protect

large, regional landscapes and resources that tell the story

of its residents.

The National Park Service testified before the House

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands last

October 26 on H.R. 2532, a bill which would provide a

process for the establishment of national heritage areas.

We outlined four critical steps that needed to be completed

prior to designation. Those steps are:

(1) completion of a suitability/feasibility study;

(2) public involvement in the suitability/feasibility

study;

(3) demonstration of widespread public support

among heritage area residents for the proposed designation; and

(4) commitment to the proposal from the appropriate

players which may include governments, industry, and

private, non-profit organizations, in addition to the

local citizenry.

We believe S. 1998 meets a large portion of the intent

and spirit of those steps.

Much of the work Yuma has done in studying and developing popular support for this proposal has been accomplished with minimal involvement of the National Park

Service or a traditional suitability and feasibility study.

However, it has built upon work, studies and reports

which have identified natural, historic, and cultural resources representing a distinct, and yet familiar, story of

the development and settlement of the West. These efforts

have also identified new recreational and educational opportunities such as a river walk, and wetlands restoration

projects. The studies and projects have incorporated the

time and efforts of thousands of citizens, the City and

Chamber of Commerce for Yuma, local Indian tribes, historical societies, state parks, community development

groups, and members of the Cocopah Tribe. In essence,

these groups have made great strides in accomplishing the

goals of a National Park Service suitability study in a

unique way.

More than 150 natural and cultural resources within the

proposed boundary for the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area have been identified. These resources tell the

story of the growth and development of an area from ancient times to the present—all focused and based around

the Colorado River and the natural crossing of that river

that drew ancient and modern man alike to the place.

Nearly 1,000 acres of wetlands have been identified for

8

protection and improvement for native vegetation and

wildlife, which will enhance opportunities for birding and

birding festivals. A natural history museum would focus

interest and educational opportunities on the role this riparian environment plays in the middle of the Sonoran

Desert. River walks would link parks, the historic Arizona

Territorial State Prison, and downtown Yuma.

We recommend one amendment that would provide a

broader definition or description of the management entity

to ensure that it reflects the cross-section of agencies, organizations, citizens and governments essential to any heritage area’s success. We have attached a copy of our proposed amendment to this testimony.

We believe that the natural and cultural resources protected in this proposal are well documented and retain integrity. They will provide for recreational and educational

opportunities, and help tell the story of the development of

the West, a critical part of this nation’s heritage and identity.

I would be happy to respond to any questions that you

may have.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO S. 1998, TO ESTABLISH THE

YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

On page 6, line 26, insert ‘‘which shall include representatives from a broad cross-section of the I individuals, agencies, organizations, and governments that have been involved in the planning and development of the Heritage

Area to this point. The management entity should also reflect those who may have an interest in the purposes and

objectives of the Heritage Area now and in the future.’’

after Heritage Area Board of Directors.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 1998, as ordered reported.

Æ