```

[Senate Report 106-340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 679
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     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

                              R E P O R T

                         [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 Nation'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.
    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 planis 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.
    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 
estimates 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.
    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. The testimony provided by the 
National Park Service at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

    Statement of Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural 
    Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, 
                       Department of the Interior

    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 multi-agency 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 
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 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.

                                

```