U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

76–718 PDF 2001

S. HRG. 107–204

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 423 S. 1105

S. 941 H.R. 640

S. 1057

JULY 26, 2001

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

JEFF BINGAMAN and FRANK H. MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

JOHN WATTS, Counsel

JEFF MOW, Bevinetto Fellow

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Arnold, Ron, Director, Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments, Cheyenne, WY ............................................................................................................... 29

Baird, Hon. Brian, U.S. Representative from Washington .................................. 6

Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., U.S. Representative from California ................................ 5

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California ......................................... 2

Lantos, Hon. Tom, U.S. Representative from California ...................................... 3

Leslie, Wayne, Kealakekua, HI .............................................................................. 27

Medeiros, Jim, Sr., Honaunau, HI ......................................................................... 25

Reynolds, John J., Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park

Service, Department of the Interior, Oakland, CA, accompanied by Chris

Powell, Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area .................... 9

Rust, Audrey C., President, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Menlo Park, CA ...... 32

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 8

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 1

Wu, Hon. David, U.S. Representative from Oregon ............................................. 23

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 10

APPENDIX

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 39

(1)

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2001

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:48 p.m. in room

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka

presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. The chairman is held up for a little while. I

know some of you have commitments. We will go ahead and get

started, and I am sure he will be here soon.

Today, we will hear testimony on five legislative bills regarding

the National Park Service. Four of the bills adjust boundaries and

the fifth bill proposes an exchange to reduce the number of

inholdings in Grand Teton National Park.

I have introduced S. 1105, along with Senator Enzi, to expedite

the acquisition of State-owned inholdings within Grand Teton

Park. This legislation ensures that school trustlands within the

park will not be developed. In the past few years, the State of Wyoming has become more aggressive in trying to raise funds for their

school trustlands.

Needless to say, the location of the school trustlands within the

park and being in close proximity to Jackson makes them attractive, so we are hopeful that we can make an exchange so there will

not be the inholdings, the park can be better managed, and the

school sections will bring income back to the schools. In addition, since 1972, Congress has appropriated over $93 million of land acquisition to the Golden Gate Recreation Area. In the

106th Congress we added an additional 105 acres to the park at

a cost of $3.5 million. This brings the total cost of lands remaining

to be acquired at $66 million.

Today, we are hearing testimony on authorizing an additional acreage at a cost of $15 million. The National Park Service has

many land acquisition priorities. We need to ensure that we do not

tie up our commitments in one park unit.

There are also concerns about the north boundary of the Golden

Gate National Recreation Area. About 8 miles along Highway 1,

both local residents and businesses are continually confused by

signs on one side which read, Point Reyes National Seashore. The

sign on the other side reads, Golden Gate National Recreation

2

Area. Perhaps we ought to take a look at those boundaries while

we are looking at this bill.

Also, there are concerns about the amount of private land within

the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area. The situation here is that there are entire neighborhoods and

housing subdivisions within the boundary. We are going to take a

look at how we handle those subdivisions in the recreation area.

So thank all of you for being here, and we will go ahead and

move—if you have no objection, Congressman Lantos, we will just

start and move right down.

[A prepared statement from Senator Feinstein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CALIFORNIA

Today, I am pleased to testify in support of legislation to add approximately 5,000

acres of land to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Mateo County,

and 3,700 acres to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Ventura County, California.

Both of these bills would help protect pristine natural land that is critical habitat

for various plant and animal species, and provide outdoor recreational opportunities

for millions of people.

The Golden Gate Recreational Area property to be added is one of the most visible

and important pieces of land on the San Mateo coast north of Half Moon Bay. The

largest parcel to be added is a 4,262 acre stretch of land known as the Rancho Corral de Tierra. The Rancho Corral de Tierra is one of the largest undeveloped tracts

remaining on the San Mateo Coast and is constantly under threat of development.

The mountainous property, which surrounds the coastal towns of Moss Beach and

Montara, was previously purchased by the Peninsula Open Space Trust. The Trust

has agreed to transfer the land for $30 million. The Federal Government’s share

would be roughly $15 million. It is this type of public-private partnership that Congress needs to support in our efforts to preserve open space.

The ‘‘Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary

Act of 2001’’ has the support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation. Similar legislation is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Tom

Lantos with co-sponsors Anna Eshoo, Nancy Pelosi, George Miller, Lynn Woolsey,

Ellen Tauscher, Pete Stark, Mike Thompson, Barbara Lee, Mike Honda, and Zoe

Lofgren.

The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will result in the protection

of all or part of four watersheds, and several endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin butterfly, San Francisco garter snake, and the redlegged frog. Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude

changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the world.

This legislation will also reauthorize the Golden Gate National Recreation Area

and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission for another 20 years. The

Advisory Commission was established by Congress in 1972 to provide for the free

exchange of ideas between the National Park Service and the public. The Commission holds open and accessible public meetings monthly at which the public has an

opportunity to comment on park-related issues.

The Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area stretches from West Hollywood in

California’s Los Angeles County to Point Mugu in Ventura County. This is the largest urban unit of the National Park System, comprising more than 150,000 acres.

It is home to a number of natural communities ranging from freshwater wetlands

to oak woodlands. It is a critical haven for more than 450 species of animals, including the bobcat and golden eagle.

Congressman Elton Gallegly’s bill (H.R. 640) will add 3,700 acres of donated public and private lands to the National Recreation Area at no cost to the taxpayer.

The 3,700 acres represent the last remaining open space parcels connecting the

Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills across U.S. Highway 101. Protecting this

corridor will promote greater ecosystem health and biodiversity in the region, particularly for larger mammals such as badgers, bobcats, and mountain lions.

I have always felt that protecting our nation’s unique natural areas should be one

of our highest priorities. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Santa

Monica Mountains Recreation Area are two of our nation’s most heavily visited

urban national parks, in close proximity to millions of people. I hope that members

3

of the Subcommittee on National Parks will join me in supporting these park boundary adjustments. I would emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that all transactions are between willing sellers and willing buyers, so I see no reason why the Committee cannot report these measures expeditiously. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. LANTOS. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing, and I am delighted that I am accompanied by my

friend, colleague, and neighbor, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who

has been one of the leaders in the field of adding spectacular pieces

of California property to our perpetual legacy that we leave for our

children and our grandchildren, and Audrey Rust, who is the president of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and under whose leadership the Peninsula Open Space Trust has been responsible for the

protection of thousands of acres of land on the San Francisco peninsula, and has been pivotal in bringing us to the point where we

are with respect to this acquisition.

With your permission, I would like to submit my prepared statement and just summarize my observations.

Senator THOMAS. It will be included fully in the record.

Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

This GGNRA Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001 comprises three

major parcels of approximately 5,000 acres. I brought you, Mr.

Chairman, a set of photos that I would like to present to you.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS. And as you look at them I think you will probably

agree with me that one’s soul soars when one sees the spectacular

vistas.

Our legislation will be financed through a remarkable public-private partnership, 50 percent Federal funding, 50 percent private

and State funding. It is unanimously supported not only by the

congressional delegation of northern California, both of our U.S.

Senators, the county board of supervisors, and a range of organizations much too long to repeat.

Our legislation will protect four sensitive watersheds containing

steelhead trout, coho salmon, and others. We protect rare and endangered plant and animal species. We protect against development along this spectacular scenic California coastline, and it provides recreational opportunities not only for the millions of citizens

of the San Francisco Bay Area, but to the millions of our fellow citizens from all over the United States, and literally millions of visitors from all over the world.

I earnestly hope that this legislation will be expedited, and I am

deeply grateful for your time. I would like to turn the microphone

over to my friend, Anna Eshoo.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lantos follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to

appear before your subcommittee today. I am most grateful that your subcommittee

is holding hearings today on S. 941, the ‘‘Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001’’. I am the principal sponsor of the companion legislation to S. 941 in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R.

1953). S. 941 will add over 5,000 acres of pristine natural land to the Golden Gate

4

National Recreation Area (GGNRA), one of our nation’s most visited national parks.

The legislation is sponsored by both California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and has the strong and enthusiastic support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation.

Mr. Chairman, the GGNRA is a true national treasure. It provides open space and

recreation in the midst of a densely populated urban area and it is one of our Nation’s most heavily used national parks. S. 941 would adjust the boundary of the

GGNRA to permit the inclusion of lands directly adjacent to existing parkland as

well as nearby lands along the Pacific Ocean. The upper parcels of land offer spectacular vistas, sweeping coastal and bay views and stunning headland scenery. Inclusion of these lands would also protect the important habitats of several species

of rare or endangered plants and animals.

The new additions to the GGNRA will be accessible to more than 6 million people

who live within a one hour’s drive of the park and will provide national park programs and experiences to millions of national and international visitors. The dramatic ascent of Montara Mountain from the sea, 2,000 feet in just over 1 mile, is

a spectacular sight not duplicated anywhere else in the Park and in few other places

on the California coast. And we can accomplish permanent protection of these lands

through a tripartite partnership involving Federal, State and private contributions.

THREE IMPORTANT NEW ADDITIONS TO GGNRA

The Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary

Adjustment Act of 2001 contains three important additions to the GGNRA. The largest parcel, the Rancho Corral de Tierra addition is one of the largest undeveloped

parcels on the San Mateo coast. It is comprised of the four main peaks of Montara

Mountain rising 2,000 feet from sea level. This 4,262-acre property includes a panorama of amazing views, important watersheds, miles of public trails, and an incredible array of wildlife and plantlife. The Rancho Corral de Tierra shares three miles

of boundary with the GGNRA. Its relatively untouched upper elevations preserve

rare habitat for several threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The

property also contains four important coastal watersheds, which proved riparian corridors for steel head trout, coho salmon and other aquatic species.

S. 941 also authorizes the National Park Service to include within the GGNRA

the Martini Creek-Devil’s Slide Bypass right-of-way, which was purchased by the

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to build a highway across

Montara Mountain. When San Mateo voters overwhelmingly decided in a local referendum in favor of building the Devil’s Slide tunnel rather than the Martini Creek

Bypass, this right-of-way became obsolete. This property covers approximately 300

acres and divides the Rancho Corral de Tierra property and connects the proposed

additions to the GGNRA to existing State parkland, creating a seamless belt of

parkland. Once the GGNRA boundary is adjusted through this legislation to include

this right-of-way, Caltrans will be able to donate the property to the National Park

Service.

S. 941 also authorizes the National Park Service to include within the GGNRA

boundaries approximately 500 acres of land along the Devil’s Slide section of Coastal

Highway 1, the scenic highway that winds its way along the entire California coast.

These properties will make a logical addition to the park by filling in gaps to adjacent and existing State and Federal parkland. Caltrans either already owns or will

acquire these lands when it builds the Devil’s Slide tunnel and will then donate

these properties for open space use after the tunnel is built. It is not the intention

of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, to interfere with Caltrans’ responsibility for building the tunnel at Devil’s Slide. This legislation will simply make it possible for

Caltrans or any other state or local agency to donate th6se properties to the National Park Service when the Devil’s Slide tunnel is completed and when the National Park Service has determined that the acquisition of these lands is appropriate.

PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Chairman, the Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation

Area Boundary Adjustment Act provides the federal government a unique opportunity to place approximately 5,000 new acres of pristine land under permanent protection. The Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) purchased the Rancho Corral de

Tierra site for $29.75 million to save the site from development and to preserve this

important natural area. POST is a local land conservancy trust in the San Francisco

Bay Area and has a remarkable track record in working with and assisting the federal government with the protection of other important open space in the Bay Area.

5

POST has offered to donate a significant amount towards the federal acquisition of

the Rancho Corral de Tierra property through private contributions.

Under this legislation, the Rancho Corral de Tierra will be preserved through a

tripartite partnership between the National Park Service, California State Parks

and the Peninsula Open Space Trust. For the Corral de Tierra property, we will

seek 50% of the acquisition from the federal government and 50% through state and

private contributions. The other properties will be donated by Caltrans.

STRONG LOCAL SUPPORT

S. 941 enjoys strong local support. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area and

Point Reyes National Seashore Citizens Advisory Commission adopted a resolution

endorsing this legislation and supporting the addition of these areas into the

GGNRA after holding a public hearing and receiving public comment from local residents. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors also passed a resolution supporting enactment of S. 941. The legislation also has the strong support of local environmental advocacy and preservation groups. The proposed additions were studied

by POST in accordance with National Park Service criteria and in consultation with

National Park Service staff. The study found that the three tracts of land meet the

criteria for additions to units of the National Park Service. The study found that

the properties will preserve significant natural, scenic and recreational resources

that are equal to or unparalleled in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

S. 941 REAUTHORIZES CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION

S. 941 will also reauthorize the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point

Reyes National Seashore Citizens Advisory Commission for an additional 20 years.

The Advisory Commission has been an invaluable resource for park management

since its inception in 1972. It provides an important forum for the gathering and

receipt of public input, public opinion and public comment and allows the park to

maintain constructive and informal contacts with both the private sector and other

federal, state and local public agencies. The Advisory Commission aids in strengthening the spirit of cooperation between the National Park Service and the public,

encourages private cooperation with otter public agencies, and assists in developing

and ensuring that the park’s general management plan is implemented.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, preserving our country’s unique natural areas must be one of our

highest national priorities, and it is one of my highest priorities as a Member of

Congress. We must preserve and protect these unique and rare areas for our children and grandchildren today or they will be lost forever. Adding these news lands

to the GGNRA will provide greater recreational opportunities for the public to enjoy

and will allow us to protect these fragile natural areas from encroaching development or other inappropriate uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural

character of this key part of the California coast. The California coast is a true national treasure and with your help we can preserve it for the generations that follow

us. I strongly urge your support of S. 941, the Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate

National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Thank you to my colleague, my wonderful colleague, Tom Lantos, and to you, Mr. Chairman, for welcoming us and giving us a moment to speak on behalf of an acquisition

that we in the bay area, in northern California, in California, and

as Americans I think will all be able to applaud and be proud of.

I promise to be brief. We not only have a vote on, but we do not

want to wear out our welcome. The project enjoys across-the-board

support. There is not any opposition, and we in Congress like to see

these issues settled at home so that we do not have to become referees, so the meritoriousness of the case has been applauded and

embraced by not only organizations, but by elected officials, city

and county, and the people at home.

6

It is a smart investment of the taxpayers’ Federal dollar. Why?

Because we are not asking the Federal Government to put all of

the money up. Audrey Rust, if you really knew her, Mr. Chairman,

you would want to take her to your State. She is the best of the

best, and so private dollars are being invested in this as a magnate

for public funds, and so it is, as we say, half and half.

I think that this project really speaks to some of the deepest values of the American people. In the bay area, the GGNRA is not just

the jewel in the crown, it is the crown, and I would like to think

of the addition—good afternoon, Mr. Chairman—the addition of

and the acquisition of these pieces of land becoming the southern

gateway to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area that we will

be taking jewels and adding them to that crown.

So on behalf of my constituents, my colleagues in the House, and

my gratitude to our two Senators, your colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and to all the members of this committee, but

most especially the chairman and you, Senator Craig, we thank

you for this opportunity to come and speak on behalf of something

that we just could not be prouder of, and stand behind, and look

for your very important support to make this great dream come

true.

Thank you. Can I give these to you, too?

Senator THOMAS. If you needed to leave, you could come back.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BAIRD,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON

Mr. BAIRD. I will be all right I think, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, Senator Thomas, Thank you very much. David Wu,

my colleague from Oregon, is unable to join us. He is, I am sure,

over on the floor right now. He was involved in the prior debate.

I want to thank you for this brief opportunity to testify in support

of S. 423, a bill to expand Fort Clatsop National Historic Site and

also to study the feasibility of including Washington State sites.

Very briefly, as you know, I am sure, the 200th Anniversary of

the Lewis & Clark journey of discovery is coming up. 2003 will be

the bicentennial of when they started, and 2005 is when they

reached the coast. We are expecting literally millions of visitors

from around the country and from around the world. In fact, they

are already starting to come in.

Fort Clatsop has some valuable area nearby to the current site,

and a small expansion would allow it to preserve historical features, and also to provide a better experience for the public.

On the Washington State side, there are valuable resources. Let

me cite two for example. A place now called Station Camp, where

Lewis & Clark had the difficult decision of where do they spend the

winter. It was not an easy one. The mouth of the Columbia River

is rough country, and they took a vote.

What was so remarkable about the vote was that they involved

York, who was actually Clark’s slave, and Sacagawea in the vote.

This was 100 years before suffrage, and more than 60 years before

the Emancipation Proclamation, so here we are, a critical site, a

critical journey in American history. We would like to commemorate that site.

7

If you were to visit it today it is almost unrecognizable in the

sense it has not been touched much since Lewis & Clark, but there

is really no recognition of the site to speak of. Also, Fort Canby,

which is on the coast of Washington State, currently a State park,

we would like to explore some alternatives for working with the

Federal Government to commemorate that site.

We think the Senate bill is an outstanding one. Congressman

Wu, myself, and Congressman Souler have introduced a companion

in the House. We look forward to working with this committee and

this body to make this a reality.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BAIRD, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM WASHINGTON

The Bicentennial Commemoration of the Lewis and Clark expedition is only two

years away. In 2003, communities across the nation will begin commemorating the

Corps of Discovery and the promise that they brought back. It is my hope that during this commemoration, Americans will visit important stops along this journey of

discovery in the Third Congressional District, including Station Camp and Fort

Canby State Park.

On November 15, 1805, William Clark stopped at Station Camp, sometimes referred to as Megler’s Rest, and proclaimed, I am in ‘‘full view of the ocean.’’ It was

at this historic site that Clark penned his famous map indicating that the Corps

had completed one of Thomas Jefferson’s directives—to reach the Pacific Ocean.

This is also the site of the historic vote taken by Captains Meriwether Lewis and

William Clark to determine where the Corps would camp for the winter. Although

the year, was 1805, nearly 60 years before the emancipation of the slaves and a century before women were given the privilege of voting, Lewis and Clark called for

a vote by the entire Corps. Both Sacagawea, the Shoshone interpreter, and York,

Clark’s slave, were allowed an equal vote with all other members of the Corps. This

historic moment occurred at Station Camp. It is indicative of the forward thinking

employed by the Captains throughout the journey which led to their incredible level

of success.

Today, I have the pleasure of introducing legislation with Congressman Wu that

seeks to expand the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial. This is the only unit in the National Park System that is solely dedicated to the amazing journey of Lewis and

Clark. Of great importance to my congressional district, the legislation calls for the

Secretary of the Interior to study the inclusion of the ‘‘Station Camp’’ site and Fort

Canby within the Fort Clatsop National Memorial.

The legislation calls for the National Park Service to work collaboratively with the

States of Washington and Oregon and Indian tribes on the expansion of Fort

Clatsop to study including these new sites before the start of the bicentennial of the

Lewis and Clark Expedition, planned to take place from 2003 to 2006. I appreciate

your careful consideration of this request for inclusion of these important historical

sites within the Fort Clatsop National Memorial.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. Do

you have any questions?

Senator THOMAS. No, I do not, thank you.

Senator AKAKA. I do not have any questions. I again want to say

thank you.

I would like to take a minute to make a brief statement about

S. 1057, legislation which I recently introduced with my colleague,

Senator Inouye, to provide authority to Pu’uhonua o Honaunau,

formerly the City of Refuge National Historical Park, to expand its

boundaries by 238 acres, the preferred option in recent park service

studies.

The modest expansion of Pu’uhonua o Honaunau, which means

‘‘a place of refuge at Honaunau,’’ would allow for the inclusion of

an area that contains cultural and historical resources of national

significance. This expansion has been in the making for a long

8

time. For over 30 years, the National Park Service has planned for

the eventual expansion of the park from its existing 180 acres in

order to protect the spiritual nature of the area.

The 1977 master plan for Pu’uhonua proposed several expansions, including the one we are addressing in this hearing. In 1992,

a boundary study was prepared identifying options for expansion,

once again including consideration of the Ki’ilae village parcel. At

the time, the owners of the Ki’ilae village property had not expressed a desire to sell. In July 2000, the situation changed dramatically when the land was sold to a development corporation.

The proposed development would subdivide approximately 804

acres within Ki’ilae and the neighboring ahupua’a, which are Native Hawaiian mountain-to-sea resource management areas.

The new owners have indicated an interest in selling a 238-acre

parcel of the land, and have had discussions with the National

Park Service. At the same time, the Park Service undertook a resource reconnaissance study and an appraisal of the property. Public meetings have been held to discuss the potential expansion with

the community. Expansion is broadly supported, and I would like

to submit letters from Hawaii County Mayor Harry Kim and Hawaii County Council Member Julie Jacobson for the record.

All of the witnesses testifying today have traveled a long distance

to be here. I would like to welcome all of you. I am especially

pleased to welcome two witnesses from the Aloha State, Mr. Jim

Medeiros, Sr., and Mr. Wayne Leslie, who will be testifying on the

Pu’uhonua bill a little later this afternoon.

Senator Feinstein has asked to have her statements including in

the record related to S. 941, the Golden Gate National Recreation

Area expansion, and H.R. 640, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area legislation, and without objection they will

be included in the record.

Mr. John Reynolds, Regional Director of the Pacific West Region

of the National Park Service is the next witness, so will you be

seated?

Senator Smith. Well, we are glad to have Senator Smith on the

dais with us, and Mr. Reynolds, will you hold a second while I have

Senator Smith make his statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka, and Senator Thomas, for holding this hearing. I want to extend a warm

welcome to Don Striker, who is the superintendent of the Fort

Clatsop National Memorial. We both share a love of Oregon history, and I am very glad to have him here today.

We are rapidly approaching, Mr. Chairman, the bicentennial of

the Lewis & Clark journey which ended at Fort Clatsop that they

established at the most remote corner in what is today the State

of Oregon. They spent 106 rainy days there and on Christmas Day

of 1805 William Clark wrote, ‘‘the day proved showery, wet, and

disagreeable.’’ Although the winter weather in Oregon has not changed much,

much of our history has been very bright and clear for the two centuries since then in terms of the westward expansion. I know that

9

I am not alone in my appreciation of Lewis & Clark history. We

have seen the wonderful history by Mr. Ambrose on undaunted

courage, and I think America is very much awakening to the bicentennial that we will celebrate of this great journey of discovery.

The legislation I have cosponsored with Senators Wyden and

Murray is an important and timely endeavor to expand the Fort

Clatsop National Memorial in Oregon. It will authorize the extension of the park’s boundaries to include the trail from Fort Clatsop

to the Pacific Ocean. Our legislation will also promote a study of

Station Camp in Washington State to determine its suitability for

inclusion in the National Park System. Like all those involved in

this project, from the wiling sellers of the land to those fluffing up

their coonskin hats to celebrate this bicentennial, I am excited to

earn the support of my colleagues in the Senate and make this legislation a unanimous reality.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your statement, Senator Smith,

and thank you for being here.

Mr. Reynolds, it is nice to see you again.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

PACIFIC WEST REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OAKLAND, CA, ACCOMPANIED BY

CHRIS POWELL, SUPERINTENDENT, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here, and may I just say to the three of you, you are all three people who are highly and deeply respected around the National Park

Service, and we appreciate the degree to which you care for the

parks and for how they are administered, and thank you. It is always an honor to appear before you.

I assume, sir, that I should go through the testimony for each of

the five areas and then have questions, or would you like me to

pause between each one?

Senator AKAKA. Well, let me welcome you. Welcome to the subcommittee.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Oh, I am sorry. My apologies.

Senator AKAKA. We will include your full statement on each bill

in the hearing record, so please feel free to summarize your remarks. Please proceed with your statements on all of the bills in

whatever order you would like, and then we will go to questions

from members of the committee. That will be the order, so with

that, will you please proceed?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to

present the Department of the Interior’s views on these several

bills. The first is S. 423, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Fort

Clatsop National Memorial. The Department of the Interior supports S. 423, to expand the boundaries of Fort Clatsop National

Memorial.

This bill will authorize implementation of the 1995 general management plan for the memorial, which calls for the establishment

of a trail linkage between Fort Clatsop and the Pacific Ocean and

adds sufficient land to the memorial to provide for the protection

of scenic and natural resources that frame the park setting.

10

This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support at all levels, including

local and State bicentennial planning committees and Oregon and

Washington, Clatsop County, the Chinook Tribe, and the National

Council of the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial.

S. 423 also includes a provision to authorize the Secretary of the

Interior to conduct a study of the area known as Station Camp,

which is located on the Washington side of the Columbia River,

and is where Lewis and Clark camped from November 15 through

24, 1805. The Department supports this study provision in concept.

This concludes my testimony on S. 423.

Second is S. 941, a bill to revise the boundaries of the Golden

Gate National Recreation Area and to extend the term of the advisory commission for the recreation area. The Department of the Interior supports S. 941. S. 941 would add lands to the recreation

area known as the Rancho Corral de Tierra and the Devil’s Slide

Area. The Rancho property, approximately 4,262 acres, has recently been acquired by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, known as

POST, and is being held in anticipation of being included within

the boundaries of the recreation area.

In addition to the Corral de Tierra property, S. 941 would also

include the area known as the Devil’s Slide. These lands represent

an unparalleled opportunity to include within the recreation area

lands of exceptional natural, scenic, and recreational value. There

are several options under consideration for the long-term stewardship of these lands, including partnership arrangements involving

the National Park Service, the California State parks, and POST.

That concludes my testimony concerning S. 941.

Third is S. 1057, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Pu’uhonua o

Honaunau.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Reynolds, may I ask you to suspend?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Of course.

Senator AKAKA. We have Senator Wyden from Oregon who is

here, and I would like to give him an opportunity to make his

statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON

Senator WYDEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for

your courtesy, and to our witness. I will be very brief.

Senator AKAKA. Without objection.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard part of my

colleague’s remarks, and he and I and Senator Murray have all

been working together on this legislation for some months. I was

recently in Astoria on the coast for a special program put together

by Don Striker, who I think is with us today, and I cannot recall

a time in our State where I have seen this level of enthusiasm. I

mean, this is an extraordinary coming together of citizens in both

the public and the private sector.

Of course, there is going to be a huge influx of visitors. There

will be over a 1/4 million people who are going to visit the Fort

Clatsop Memorial during the bicentennial years. Don Striker and

his team have really done this job right.

Suffice it to say, Senator Smith and I made a real challenge. We

made it clear that this was not going to be something where WashVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
11

ington, D.C. could just come on in and wave a wand and suddenly

make vast sums of money and land come together. These folks

went out and mobilized the community. The Park Service now realizes that this is one of their highest priorities, and this is an example of how you go about doing the job right, working with local

landowners and bringing together the relevant Government agencies in a partnership effort.

I thank you especially for letting me, having been late, come on

in and offer this comment, and we appreciate very much the support, and also special praise to Don Striker and his whole team.

That day when I was in Astoria I was just struck as I looked out

over the audience. There were hundreds of people there at all of

the individual contributions, and that is what makes these programs a treasure, and we appreciate your help.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden. We appreciate your statement.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Reynolds, will you continue?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, sir. Senator Wyden, thank you very

much.

The third bill is S. 1057, the bill to adjust the boundaries of

Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park in Hawaii. The

Department supports S. 1057. This legislation will adjust the authorized boundary of the park to include the remainder of Ki’ilae

Village within the park. The proposed expansion is located on lands

immediately adjacent to, but outside of the existing southern park

boundary. It would add 238 acres to the 182 acres presently within

the park. The addition of another 165 acres would also be authorized if those lands are acquired in the future.

Both parcels contain important physical remains of the Native

Hawaiian culture that is directly associated with the Pu’uhonua o

Honaunau. There is strong local support to protect and include

these resources within the park. This reflects the high level of cooperation and strong commitment of local communities and governments towards the park.

That concludes my testimony on S. 1057.

The fourth bill is S. 1105, a bill to provide for the completion of

the acquisition of State of Wyoming lands within the boundaries of

Grand Teton National Park. The Department supports the legislation, and thanks Senator Thomas and Senator Enzi for their continued interest and support of the National Park System and

Grand Teton National Park.

Jack Neckels actually tells me, Senator Thomas, that you folks

have been working on this for a long, long time to bring this to a

conclusion.

S. 1105 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire

from the State of Wyoming 1,366.32 acres of land and mineral interests on 39.59 acres, all within the current boundary of Grand

Teton National Park, in exchange for other Federal lands and/or

other Federal assets of equal value. The legislation also details the

process under which the exchange would take place.

There is broad support for making these exchanges, and that

support has been expressed in a variety of ways, including a letter

to Secretary Norton from Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer.

12

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony on S. 1105.

Finally, testimony on H.R. 640, a bill to adjust the boundaries of

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in southern

California. The Department supports H.R. 640. This legislation will

adjust the authorized boundary of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to encompass the most important wildlife

corridor in the area.

The legislation requires that acquisition of lands within the expansion area be accomplished only through donation, a provision

that reflects the high level of cooperation and strong commitment

of local communities and governments towards the park. Acquisition of these lands is important to protect critical habitat required

for the free movement and migration of wildlife, specifically mountain lions, bobcats, and similar species, between the Santa Monica

Mountains and the Simi Hills, thereby preventing local extinction

of species in the park.

Together with existing National Park Service lands, these three

parcels form the only remaining wildlife corridor in the region

which connects the park to the national forestlands to the north.

In addition, this legislation would protect a significant portion of

Upper Las Virgenes Creek, which is part of the Malibou Creek Watershed, the largest fresh water system within the recreation area

which flows into the Santa Monica Bay, on which approximately 30

million people recreate annually, so the clean water is important

in that area.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to support this proposal, and all

the lands reserved through the efforts of local communities and

governments for transfer to the National Park Service may be

worth as much as $60 million under current market conditions.

The legislation before you today is a testament to the cooperation

and commitment of the citizens, local governments, and the park

agencies in the Santa Monica Mountains.

This concludes my testimony on all five bills. I will be more than

happy to answer any questions that any of you may have on any

of the bills, and with me today, as you know, is Superintendent

Don Striker from Fort Clatsop, Superintendent Geri Bell from

Pu’uhonua o Honaunau, and Chris Powell from Golden Gate National Recreation Area, who is on assignment on an executive leadership training program.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Reynolds on S. 423, S. 941, S.

1057, S. 1105, and H.R. 640 follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST

REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OAKLAND, CA

S. 423

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 423, S. 941, S. 1057, S. 1105,

and H.R. 640.

S. 423, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Fort Clatsop National Memorial.

The Department of the Interior supports S. 423 with a technical amendment as

outlined in this testimony. This legislation will expand the boundaries of Fort

Clatsop National Memorial, as called for in the site’s General Management Plan, to

include lands on which a trail linkage between Fort Clatsop and the Pacific Ocean

will be established. The bill would also include within the boundary lands that will

13

create a buffer zone to protect the scenic and natural resources that frame the park

setting.

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark set off with their Corps of Discovery on May

14, 1804 on an incredible journey that was to be a pivotal event in helping to shape

the young United States. Their instructions from President Thomas Jefferson were

to explore the Missouri River to its source, establish the most direct land route to

the Pacific Ocean, and to make scientific and geographic observations along the way.

A year and a half later, having traversed the continent, the expedition arrived at

the Pacific Ocean and soon thereafter found a site that was suitable for winter quarters on what is known today as the Lewis and Clark River. On December 8, 1805,

the expedition members began building a fort, and by Christmas Eve they were

under shelter. They named the fort for the friendly local Indian tribe, the Clatsops.

It would be their home for the next three months.

Life at the fort was far from pleasant. It rained every day but 12 of the 106 days

at Fort Clatsop. Clothing rotted and fleas infested the furs and hides of the bedding.

The dampness gave nearly everyone rheumatism or colds, and many suffered from

other diseases. With all the adversity, the members of the expedition continued to

prepare for the return trip that would take some home to family and friends, some

to wealth and fame, and others to new lives in the wilderness. All gained a place

in history among the greatest of explorers. They were truly the ‘‘Corps of Discovery.’’

Fort Clatsop National Memorial marks the spot where Lewis and Clark and the

Corps of Discovery spent the winter of 1805-1806, and is the only unit of the National Park System solely dedicated to the Lewis and Clark expedition. The bicentennial of the historic journey is fast approaching, and it is expected that well over

a million people will visit the site during the bicentennial years of 2003 through

2006.

The historic site of Fort Clatsop was originally preserved and protected by the Oregon Historical Society, and local citizens constructed an exact replica of the fort

itself, which had long ago disappeared, except for drawings and descriptions in the

journals of Lewis and Clark. In 1958, Fort Clatsop National Memorial was established by Public Law 85-435, which authorized the inclusion within the memorial

of lands that are associated with the winter encampment of the Lewis and Clark

Expedition, including adjacent portions of the old trail which led overland from the

fort to the coast, where members of the expedition worked to make salt for their

trip back across the continent. The act also limited the site to no more than 125

acres.

Soon after the enactment of Public Law 85-435, the National Park Service acquired the land immediately surrounding the fort, and in 1978, the Salt Cairn site

on the coast was added to the memorial by Public Law 95-625. However, the lands

between the fort and the ocean, including the trail, have not been acquired. Legislation is needed to accomplish this goal since the memorial has already effectively

reached its acreage limitation.

The 1995 General Management Plan for the memorial calls for the establishment

of the trail linkage between Fort Clatsop and the Pacific Ocean, and in addition proposes to add sufficient land area to the memorial to provide for the protection of

the scenic and natural resources that frame the park setting. Since the natural setting of the encampment area is an important component of the Lewis and Clark

story, its preservation would assist in public interpretation at the fort, along with

providing a corresponding benefit to the natural environment surrounding the fort.

S. 423 increases the authorized size of Fort Clatsop National Memorial from 125

acres to 1,500 acres and reflects the intent of the General Management Plan to include these lands within the park’s boundary.

In addition, this legislation includes the addition of a ‘‘non-development buffer

zone’’ at the request of Willamette Industries, who suggested that these additional

lands, totaling approximately 300 acres, be included to protect the viewshed from

their timber operations. The Department and Willamette have agreed that these

lands should be acquired by condemnation because Willamette’s title to the property

is not clear. Since obtaining a quiet title to the standards required by the Department of Justice would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, both parties have

agreed that condemnation is the best alternative.

The Department believes that this legislation is important for several reasons.

First, time is of the essence in completing the land acquisition, environmental reviews, engineering and design, and trail construction that is necessary to complete

this final link in the Lewis and Clark National Historical Trail for the bicentennial

commemoration. Secondly, this legislation represents the completion of a process

heavily influenced by local stakeholders. Third, this bill enjoys broad, bipartisan

support at all levels, including local and state bicentennial planning committees in

14

Oregon and Washington, Clatsop County, the Chinook Tribe, and the National

Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial.

As you know, the Department is committed to the President’s priority of eliminating the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog and is concerned

about the development and life cycle operational costs associated with expansion of

parks already included in the National Park System. However, in light of the increasing interest in the Lewis and Clark story as we approach the bicentennial of

the expedition, the Department believes that the $7.5 million needed for land acquisition, and the $1.1 million for development costs associated with trailhead facilities,

parking lots, and other associated infrastructure are justified. Funding for land acquisition and development would be subject to NPS servicewide priorities and the

availability of appropriations.

In addition, we note that the Fort Clatsop Historical Association has already purchased some of the lands associated with this legislation and will donate them to

the park after the boundary has been adjusted. We expect that the government’s efforts will be leveraged through several partners, including the Army National

Guard, local trail enthusiasts, and the local high schools, who have agreed to volunteer with trail construction and maintenance. We anticipate the park would seek

only minor increases in operational costs (below $250,000) beyond its existing base

funding of $1.1 million.

S. 423 also includes a provision to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the area known as ‘‘Station Camp,’’ which is located on the Washington side of the Columbia River and is where the Lewis and Clark expedition camped

from November 15-24, 1805. While the Department supports this study provision in

concept, we believe that the study should carefully examine the full life-cycle operation and maintenance costs that would result from each alternative considered. In

addition, in light of our commitment to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog

in the national parks, our support for the study does not necessarily indicate that

the Department would support any new commitments that may be recommended by

the study, and that could divert funds from taking care of current responsibilities.

We recommend one technical amendment to the bill, which is attached to the testimony.

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you

or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Proposed Amendment to S. 423:

On page 4, line 13 strike ‘‘newly expanded boundary’’ and insert ‘‘boundary as depicted on the map described in section 2(b)’’.

S. 941

S. 941, a bill to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation

Area and to extend the term of the advisory commission for the recreation area.

The Department of the Interior supports S. 941. The addition of these lands will

preserve exceptional natural, scenic and recreational resources displaying values

commensurate with or exceeding those of the lands currently within the boundary

of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In addition, these properties, if added to

the park, will provide it with a logical and understandable southern boundary,

which is currently lacking.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area was established in 1972 by Public Law 92-

589 ‘‘. . . to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San

Francisco Counties . . .’’ and has since been expanded to include lands within San

Mateo County. Located at the center of a major metropolitan area of more than 5

million people, a major factor in Golden Gate’s significance is its ability to provide

national park experiences to unprecedented numbers of local, regional, national, and

international visitors.

In 1980, Congress passed legislation that expanded the boundaries of Golden Gate

National Recreation Area to include substantial areas of San Mateo County. The

legislation was engendered by a proposal to develop the 1,100-acre property known

as Sweeney Ridge, which included the presumed location of the first European

siting of San Francisco Bay in 1769. In order to minimize the cost of the project

and to keep the focus on the development threat, the legislation limited the inclusion of private land strictly to the Sweeney Ridge property. The outcome was somewhat of a patchwork, leaving out significant privately owned open space and natural

resources and creating a boundary that is difficult to recognize and manage in the

field.

S. 941 would add lands to the recreation area known as the Rancho Corral de

Tierra and the Devil’s Slide area. The Corral de Tierra property includes approximately 4,262 acres and contains the headwaters and most of the watershed of the

15

four major coastal stream systems, providing riparian habitat for a number of

threatened and endangered animal species, and a scenic backdrop that visually distinguishes the San Mateo mid-coast region. The peaks of Montara Mountain rise to

more than 1,800 feet just two miles from the water’s edge, providing some of the

most spectacular panoramic views to be found in northern California. The property

has recently been acquired by the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), and is being

held in anticipation of being included within the boundaries of the recreation area.

In addition to the Corral de Tierra property, S. 941 would also include within the

boundaries of the recreation area lands in the area known as the Devil’s Slide.

These lands, comprising approximately 500 acres, are associated with plans by the

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to reroute Highway 1 through

a new tunnel that is to be constructed in the area. When the tunnel project is complete, the existing surface road will be abandoned, thereby severing access to several

properties in the Devil’s Slide area. In the way of mitigation, it is expected that

Caltrans will purchase the properties from the current owners to be dedicated as

permanent open space. The existing roadbed will be donated by Caltrans for use as

a trail. Inclusion of these lands within the boundaries of the recreation area will

allow for their conveyance to the National Park Service. Also included in this addition is a Caltrans right-of-way which was purchased for the construction of a highway over Montara Mountain. Since Caltrans will be constructing a tunnel instead,

the right-of-way is surplus to Caltrans’ needs. This property divides the larger Corral de Tierra parcel included in this legislation, and thus is important for connecting

these two parcels and ensuring contiguous open space.

These proposed additions to the recreation area are in accordance with a recent

boundary study conducted by POST in consultation with National Park Service

staff. The study found that these properties meet the criteria established by the National Park Service for addition of land to units of the National Park System. In

this case, these lands represent an unparalleled opportunity to include within the

recreation area lands of exceptional natural, scenic, and recreational value. The

properties include many old trails and farm roads that could be easily adapted to

recreational use, which may become the principal visitor activity within the area.

In addition, these lands will be of great value through their role in protecting important wildlife habitat and maintaining the integrity of scenic views. There are several

options under consideration for the long-term stewardship of these lands, including

partnership arrangements involving the National Park Service, California State

Parks, and POST.

As you know, the Department is committed to the President’s priority of eliminating the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog. We are also concerned about the development and life cycle operational costs associated with expansion of parks already included in the National Park System. With that in mind, we

expect that the costs of acquiring the Corral de Tierra property would be shared between the federal government, the State of California, and private donations raised

by POST, who acquired these lands in the Spring of 2001 for $29.7 million. It is

anticipated that the Federal portion of the acquisition cost will be $15 million with

the remaining costs contributed locally by California State Parks and POST. Funds

to purchase this property would be subject to NPS service-wide priorities and the

availability of appropriations.

The Devil’s Slide parcels, associated with the Caltrans project, would be acquired

only through donation.

Since protection of these lands will be through a partnership with California State

Parks and POST, it is anticipated that the National Park Service will only be responsible for a portion of the operating costs. The life cycle costs of maintaining

these additions will be moderate, as these lands contain few buildings or structures

and we do not anticipate major development of facilities. These lands will be used

for low impact recreation, such as hiking and biking. Therefore, we anticipate most

of the future upkeep of these lands will include trail and fire road maintenance,

minimal new trail construction, trail signage and resource protection. These costs

will be leveraged with funding from the private sector.

Although GGNRA’s general management plan does not address these areas, it is

anticipated that these land will be less heavily impacted than other areas of the

park, such as Marin Headlands and Muir Woods. Adding to that the steepness of

the terrain, recreation will be confined to the lower portions of the land.

S. 941 also extends the term of the advisory commission for the recreation area

until December 31, 2022. The advisory commission was established by the same law

that created the recreation area and serves to provide for the free exchange of ideas

between the National Park Service and the public. The law provided a 30-year term

for the commission, which expires on December 31, 2002. S. 941 extends the term

for another 20 years.

16

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you

or the members of the subcommittee may have.

S. 1057

S. 1057, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park.

The Department supports S. 1057. This legislation will adjust the authorized

boundary of Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park to include the remainder of Ki’ilae Village within the park. The proposed expansion is located on lands

immediately adjacent to, but outside the southern park boundary, and would add

238 acres to the 182 acres already within the park. The addition of another 165

acres would also be authorized if the lands are ever acquired.

Ki’ilae is an ancient Hawaiian settlement dating back to the late 12th or early

13th centuries. The settlement remained active until the 1930’s, making it one of

the last traditional Hawaiian villages to be abandoned. The proposed boundary adjustment consists of adding lands containing the archeological remains of this Hawaiian village. Lands to be added to the park contain more than 800 archeological

sites, structures and features. These include at least 25 caves and 10 heiau (Hawaiian temples), more than 20 rock platforms, 26 rock wall enclosures, over 40 burial

features, residential compounds, a holua (recreational slide used by Hawaiian royalty), canoe landing sites, a water well, numerous rock walls and a wide range of

agricultural features.

The proposed expansion dates back to a 1957 archeological survey conducted by

the Bishop Museum. This survey found that the greater part of the ancient village

of Ki’ilae, as well as other significant Hawaiian archeological resources, were left

outside of the park boundaries established by Congress in 1955. Pu’uhonua o

Honaunau’s 1972 Master Plan identifies Ki’ilae Village as one of the park’s major

resources and the master plan graphics show village remains extending well beyond

the existing park boundaries. In 1992, a boundary study was prepared for the park.

Both the master plan and the boundary study call for adding the ‘‘balance of Ki’ilae

Village’’ to the park. Up until last year, the property was unavailable because its

ownership was not clear. The three heirs to the property have now settled the ownership issue, thereby clearing the way for the Park Service to acquire the land. S.

1057 would allow the boundary of the park to be expanded to protect this significant

cultural resource.

In light of the President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System before incurring additional financial

burdens, it is encouraging to note that the present owner may consider donating one

portion of the property to the National Park Service, while the other portion would

be available for purchase and has been appraised at $4.6 million. Funds to purchase

this property would be subject to NPS servicewide priorities and the availability of

appropriations. Since no development is contemplated within the boundary adjustment area, no line item construction or significant development costs are anticipated, although there would be some one-time costs after acquisition to conduct an

inventory of archeological resources and remove non-native vegetation. We expect

that the park would seek to increase its base-operating budget in the range of

$250,000 in order to hire two additional resource management employees, as well

as two employees to provide services such as interpretation and law enforcement.

This increase would have to compete against other demands for limited operational

funds.

There is strong local support to protect and include these resources within the

Pu’uhonua o Honaunua National Historical Park. This reflects the high level of cooperation and strong commitment of local communities and governments toward the

park. This kind of local support for land acquisition projects is an important part

of the Department’s support for this legislation.

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you

or the members of the subcommittee may have.

S. 1105

S. 1105, a bill to provide for the completion of the acquisition of State of Wyoming

lands within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park.

The Department supports the legislation and thanks Senator Thomas and Senator

Enzi for their continued interest and support of the National Park System and

Grand Teton National Park.

S. 1105 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire from the State

of Wyoming 1,366.32 acres of land, and mineral interests on 39.59 acres of land, all

within the current boundary of Grand Teton National Park in exchange for other

17

federal lands and/or other federal assets of equal value. The state trust lands and

mineral interests were among the non-federal lands incorporated into the newly designated national park on September 14, 1950, bringing it to its present size (approximately 310,000 acres).

The legislation also details the process under which the exchange would take

place, including selection of an appraiser, approval of the value of the lands as well

as a mechanism by which an appeal can be made in case the process fails.

This acreage includes two full 640-acre sections. One section lies in the southeast

area of the park known as Antelope Flats which is an open expanse of grasses and

sagebrush that provides habitat for birds (including the declining sage grouse) and

many large mammals (deer, antelope, elk, bison, coyotes, and wolves) and also provides the scenic foreground of the Teton Range. In the past, the state has leased

the land for grazing.

The second full section lies on the eastern boundary of the park, adjacent to the

Bridger-Teton National Forest. The vegetation is a mix of grasses, sagebrush, and

trees. The area provides excellent habitat for a variety of large and small animals.

The state currently leases this section for grazing.

The remaining acreage is located in the southwestern part of the park and is part

of a 301-acre state parcel that straddles the park boundary. The Snake River runs

through the parcel, which offers excellent riparian and wetland habitat. In the past,

the state has leased the land for grazing.

Finally, the state also owns the mineral interests on approximately 39 acres of

undeveloped sagebrush flats in the center of the park, slightly to the east.

Over the last fifty-one years, the State of Wyoming and Grand Teton National

Park have worked together on a variety of issues including compatible land uses.

The National Park Service (NPS) has been interested in the purchase of, or exchange for, these lands for a long time. The Park’s land protection files contain more

than thirty years of correspondence on how to appropriately compensate the state

for bringing the lands under federal ownership.

The draft 2001 Grand Teton Land Protection Plan places fee acquisition of the

state lands and mineral interest sixth on a list of fifteen priorities. Only some private lands that contain critical resources, or that are under intense development

pressure in the high-stakes, Jackson Hole real estate market are listed higher. The

NPS believes that federal fee acquisition, through either purchase or exchange, is

the best alternative for the Park. A federal appraisal has not been completed on the

State lands and there have not been any sales or exchanges similar to the one proposed, so it is difficult to estimate either the cost of purchasing the state lands or

how much federal land or interest in federal land would be required to exchange

for them. Funding to purchase these lands would be subject to NPS servicewide priorities and the availability of appropriations.

The State of Wyoming is actively pursuing disposing a different State owned section near Teton Village. Teton Village is located near the southwest corner of Grand

Teton National Park and at the base of the Jackson Hole Ski Area. Currently, the

State is negotiating the sale of the section for $30 million. Because the state lands

described in the bill are inside a national park and bordered by permanently protected lands, we understand that they may be viewed as more valuable.

The NPS will not require additional funds or staff to bring these lands under federal management. The additional lands would increase the acreage of Grand Teton

National Park by approximately one half of one percent. Currently the State owned

lands are surrounded by national park lands and have no roads or other formal access, although hikers use the lands occasionally. If acquired, the State lands can be

managed by the park with existing staff and with no additional resources.

There is broad support for making these exchanges and that support has been expressed in a variety of ways, including a letter to Secretary Norton from Wyoming

Governor Jim Geringer. Editorials in the Jackson Hole News and Casper Star call

the proposal, ‘‘a win for all sides.’’

In his May 16, 2001, letter Governor Jim Geringer wrote, ‘‘We would like to express to you our full support for the National Park Service acquiring our state trust

lands located within Grand Teton National Park . . . We ask your support in accomplishing this acquisition for the benefit of the people of Wyoming and the United

States.’’

The Department believes that S. 1105 demonstrates the value of reaching a broad

based consensus on potentially challenging resource management questions between

local parties, the State, and the federal government.

We appreciate the committee’s interest in this legislation and the efforts of the

senators from Wyoming. This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to respond

to any questions that you may have.

18

H.R. 640

H.R. 640, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National

Recreation Area.

The Department supports H.R. 640. This legislation will adjust the authorized

boundary of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to encompass an

important wildlife corridor and provide for the protection of a key watershed. The

legislation requires that acquisition of lands within the expansion area be accomplished only through donation, a provision that reflects the high level of cooperation

and strong commitment of local communities and governments toward the park.

Furthermore, in light of the President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of

deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System before incurring additional financial burdens, it is important to note that this legislation authorizes the

lands within the boundary adjustment area to be acquired by donation only. Therefore, no public funds will be required for land acquisition. In addition, life cycle

operational and maintenance costs are expected to be minimal. The park anticipates

providing only minimal facilities such as trails, emphasizing habitat preservation for

wildlife movement. Since no development is contemplated within the boundary adjustment area, no line item construction or related operational funding will be required.

Within the 3,697-acre expansion zone, three parcels of land totaling about 2,800

acres are owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, an agency of the

California Resources Department that was established in 1981 to complement and

assist with the establishment of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area. The three parcels are the 2,300-acre Las Virgenes Canyon Dedication, the

390-acre Liberty Canyon tract, and the 107-acre Abrams property. These lands are

held by the Conservancy on behalf of local governments, principally the governments of Ventura County and Los Angeles County, and are slated to be donated to

the National Park Service once they have been included within the authorized

boundary of the recreation area. H.R. 640 adjusts the boundary in order to accomplish this purpose.

Acquisition of these lands is important in order to protect critical habitat required

for the free movement and migration of wildlife between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Simi Hills, thereby preventing local extinction of species in the park.

Together with existing National Park Service lands, the three parcels form the only

remaining wildlife corridor in the region to connect with national forest lands to the

north.

In addition, this legislation enables the protection of a significant portion of Upper

Las Virgenes Creek, which is part of the Malibu Creek Watershed, the largest freshwater system within the recreation area. The quality and condition of this watershed is of critical concern because it drains into Santa Monica Bay. The beaches of

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, surrounding the Bay and running west from the Santa Monica Pier for 45 miles along the Malibu coastline, are

principally managed by the Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors and

the California State Parks. In all, this complex of beaches supports in excess of 30

million recreation visits annually, which suggests that it is one of the most valuable

recreation assets in California.

Within the existing boundary of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area, some 70 governmental jurisdictions operate and work together. Unlike many

park areas where lands within the authorized boundary are almost entirely in federal ownership, there exists an extremely complex mosaic of publicly and privately

owned lands within the recreation area’s boundary. The entire city of Malibu, as

well as portions of the cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Los Angeles, Thousand

Oaks, and Westlake Village are within the current park boundaries. The National

Park Service works cooperatively with other governments and private landowners,

and shares its resource management knowledge with the local communities. The

National Park Service, however, does not regulate land use on private or non-federal

parklands within the park.

In addition to the 2,800 acres that are owned by the Conservancy, approximately

900 acres of private and non-federal public lands are located within the expansion

zone, including two neighborhoods that are situated within the cities of Agoura Hills

and Calabasas. The two neighborhoods comprise roughly 330 acres. The two cities,

as well as the homeowner associations representing the neighborhoods concerned,

are longtime supporters of the park and this legislation. We understand that letters

in support the boundary enlargement have been provided to the subcommittee from

each of these governments and associations. Under the classification process used

by the park, the neighborhoods are designated as ‘‘developed areas,’’ where the National Park Service will not acquire lands.

19

There are also lands within the expansion zone under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County that are largely undeveloped, or held by the county to support operations such as the Calabasas landfill. The legislation would permit the National

Park Service to accept these lands, only by donation, if it were determined that they

could further park purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to support this proposal. In all, the lands reserved

through the efforts of local communities and governments for transfer to the National Park Service may be worth as much as $60 million under current market conditions. The legislation before you today is a testament to the cooperation and commitment of the citizens, local governments, and the park agencies in the Santa

Monica Mountains.

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you

or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds, for your

testimony. It is well-received, and it will help us with our deliberations.

I would like to begin a round of questions, and we may have additional rounds after this.

Mr. Reynolds, I have a few questions for you. I would like to ask

about S. 1057. That is the Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park expansion. I thank you for your support for that. I understand an appraisal of the 238-acre Ki’ilae village parcel has been

completed. Can you please provide the appraisal figure, and share

with us any reactions from the owners of the property, and do you

believe the appraisal figure accurately reflects the market value of

property in the area?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that what

we have is an estimate of current market value which has not yet

been confirmed by a formal Federal appraisal. That estimate is

$4,600,000. We will be glad to inform you as soon as we know of

the approved Federal appraisal price, and if there are any differences. The local developer has been working very well with the

National Park Service with this proposal, and the community, as

I understand it, as this proposal has been put together.

Senator AKAKA. The possibility of expanding Pu’uhonua boundaries to include another parcel to the south has been suggested.

This option would add approximately 800 acres to the park. Would

you mind sharing your thoughts on this larger expansion?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. The 800 acres includes the lands which

are currently under consideration in this bill. The remainder of

that 800 acres further to the south and adjacent may well have significant qualities related to the cultural resources of the Native Hawaiians, and I say may well because we have not yet completed

any analysis or studies of what exists on those lands. We will be

more than happy to get that information and of course pass it on

to you and any others who are interested as soon as we know.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I would appreciate that.

I am concerned that the best possible interpretation of the cultural sites and features, whether spiritual, agricultural, or other,

be provided for the public in our national parks. Would you please

explain how the Park Service works with cultural practitioners and

people in the community who are resources for interpreting sites,

and is there a specific plan to take advantage of such opportunities?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I would be pleased to. The Park Service,

probably within the last decade or decade and a half has become

20

very much more aware and sensitized to the idea that the different

cultures who were related to an individual piece of land and the

remnant resources relating to their culture on that land are the

ones who know most about how that should be preserved, protected, and interpreted, and the knowledge about it made available

to the public, and so with that recognition, and I think it is particularly exemplary at Pu’uhonua, with that recognition we have

joined—I almost hate to use the word partnership, because I think

it has become stronger than that, with local cultural representatives to inform us and guide us in how to put together the interpretive programs and the cultural use programs that would exist within the park as we preserve those resources together for the future.

In response to your question about, is there a specific plan, no,

there is not a specific plan. I would only say there is a heartfelt

commitment within the superintendent and the staff of that park

to work directly with the rest of the community and let the plan

evolve together with the community, rather than trying to impose

some plan upon them, so from that point of view I suppose that is

something of a plan, but it is not a step A, step B, step C kind of

a plan.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses.

Senator Thomas, do you have questions?

Senator THOMAS. Yes, a couple of questions.

On S. 423, this legislation increases the limitation on acreage.

Does it include the possibility of incorporating Station Camp?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir. It includes the authority to study whether or not Station Camp should be included.

Senator THOMAS. So if you should decide to include it, do you

have to go back and get the authority?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Senator THOMAS. Do you envision additional boundary adjustments?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Without benefit of a full study that is hard to

say, but the evidence so far is pretty compelling that Station Camp

is an extremely important part of this story.

Senator THOMAS. With regard to the Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, I think the previous Congress authorized acquisition of 525 acres, at a cost of about $15 million. What is the

progress on that acquisition?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Sir, I will have to—well, Chris Powell might be

able to help me with that question. If she cannot, I will have to

provide that for you right away. I do know that at least one of the

properties has been acquired, but I do not know about the other

two. Chris, are you there? Is it okay, Mr. Chairman, to ask Chris

to come up?

Ms. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reynolds was correct on that.

Senator AKAKA. Would you state your name?

Ms. POWELL. Oh, I am sorry. My name is Chris Powell. I am

with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and as far as the

status of the last boundary expansion, one of the properties has, indeed, been acquired, and is now managed by the Park Service, and

the park is underway, talking with three of the owners of the other

parcels that will be donated to the park, and looking at what we

21

have to do to take those into management, so probably they will

look to be managed by the park within the next year or so.

Senator THOMAS. As you look at the map, these are obviously

very nice areas, beautiful areas, and much of it is State land. Why

don’t you let the State do most of the development in the park?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, in fact on these lands there is virtually no development proposed, and in fact we are in a formal

written partnership arrangement with the State to provide for the

common visitor use of all of the lands within the Golden Gate,

whether they be State or not, and as I said, in the lands under consideration both last year and this year, there is envisioned to be

very little development, development being things like continuation

of the maintenance of existing trails so people, hikers and bikers

can use it.

Senator THOMAS. I understand. What I am saying, though, is in

the overall scheme of things there is a limit to what the Park Service is going to be able to do, and when there is an instance where

it could apparently be done just as well by the State, why is that

not the emphasis?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe what we have done in the case of the

existing bill that we are talking about today is made a determination, and in consultation with the State, that these lands are of national significance, and this is the role of the Federal Government

as part of the national recreation area.

Senator THOMAS. If you look at the map—have you looked at the

map?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.

Senator THOMAS. Kind of curious, national significance on all

this? Really.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe so, sir.

Senator THOMAS. You talked about the southern boundary, which

is constantly moving. What about the northern boundary? I mentioned there is a 4-mile-long strip, where you have one park on one

side and one on the other. Would it not make sense to make those

both Point Reyes?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am personally very familiar with that situation,

and last year, in fact, asked the same question myself within the

staff and within the congressional delegation, and the conclusions

that I came to were based on the history of how Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area came

into being, and their direct relationship to Congressman Phil Burton’s legacy, and as I began to get beyond the geography and into

the history and the strong community feelings, particularly within

the congressional delegation, that the form of Congressman Burton’s legacy, one side being Point Reyes and the other side being

Golden Gate, should be retained, and so I did not ask the Park

Service to advance a formal recommendation to make that management switch.

Senator THOMAS. I guess I do not understand that. It is not

called Burton, is it?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir, it is not.

Senator THOMAS. Well, what difference would it make whether it

was managed by Point Reyes or managed by——

22

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think to the visitor who did not know about

Phil Burton, or did not learn of the interpretive programs about

Phil Burton, probably they do not differentiate, but to those people

who were associated with Phil Burton through the time that those

two parks were created, I think it makes a very great difference.

Senator THOMAS. I am sorry, I do not understand that. I guess

that is all right. The parks would still be there.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, they would, sir.

Senator THOMAS. We need to find a little efficiency sometimes,

do we not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I do not know if this will help you or not.

As a matter of fact, Point Reyes National Seashore manages that

part of Golden Gate to which you are referring.

Senator THOMAS. Good, then—all right. All right. Let’s see, the

other one that was kind of interesting was the Santa Monica

boundary adjustment, here again, a real mixture of things, land

ownership, of subdivisions in the State, Federal—it is kind of—

well, Conservation is an agency of the California Resource Department. Why do they not just keep the land?

Mr. REYNOLDS. When Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area was created, and I spent 5 years there as assistant superintendent during the first 5 years, it was created by the Congress with the understanding that about half of the national recreation area would be managed by the State parks system, and those

State parks generally existed at the time, although they have been

added to since then, and that the Federal Government would create

additional lands to be managed, and that those two ownerships

would comprise about two-thirds of the land within the boundary

of the national recreation area.

The remaining third would always remain private, and would include the communities that were a part of the Santa Monica Mountains, and would include the opportunity for those communities to

participate as a part of the conservation management within those

boundaries, and so I have forgotten how many communities, but as

I recall we dealt with approximately 70 communities within the

boundaries, and still do, and generally speaking those communities

are very anxious to be retained within the boundary of the national

recreation area.

In the case of this legislation, the two communities affected have

both expressed their positive interest in having the boundary expanded around them, and to include these wildlife corridor lands

adjacent to them.

Senator THOMAS. Well, I appreciate your support on Grand

Teton. Jack Neckels’ highest priority has been to do something

with the inholdings that were there.

Mr. REYNOLDS. It sure is. He made that very clear to me.

Senator THOMAS. And he did not retire until after this bill was

filed. Did you notice?

[Laughter.]

Mr. REYNOLDS. That was brought to my attention, sir.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, sir.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your questions. May I ask, Senator Smith, whether you would yield?

23

Senator SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. I would

love to yield any time I might have to Congressman Wu, who is an

Oregon Congressman who represents the district in which Fort

Clatsop is located.

Senator AKAKA. May I ask Mr. Reynolds to hold for a minute?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Certainly, sir.

Senator AKAKA. I call Congressman Wu to the table.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID WU, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM OREGON

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator AKAKA. We welcome you and look forward to your testimony.

Mr. WU. Aloha, and thank you for having us here.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas, Senator Smith, thank you for

this opportunity to testify on behalf of S. 423. Its provisions are bipartisan, bicameral, and I am here to speak only briefly in favor

of expansion of the borders of Fort Clatsop Memorial. It, as you

know, is the only national park facility dedicated solely to the

Lewis & Clark expedition.

Yesterday, by the way, was the 195th anniversary of the only

physical mark left on the landscape by the Lewis & Clark expedition on the way back they carved into a cliff face in Yellowstone,

near the Yellowstone River in Montana, I believe, the name of

Sacagawea’s son.

There are all too few physical reminders of this great expedition,

and I am very proud to work with Senator Smith, his counterpart,

Senator Wyden, and my friend Brian Baird from the State of

Washington on this important legislation to look at a couple of additional sites along the Lewis & Clark trail, and also, very importantly, to expand Fort Clatsop Memorial to include those access

points that the expedition used to reach the Pacific Ocean,also to

extract salt from the Pacific Ocean so that they could have enough

salt for the trip back, and these are important historic sites.

These are expansions which the local property owners have

agreed to in principle, and I thank you for this opportunity to be

with you today and to briefly mention this project of great importance to our State and to our Nation, and thank you for your courtesy, Senator Smith.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID WU, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON

Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas and members of the subcommittee, thank you for

giving me the opportunity to testify today about S. 423. I will make my remarks

brief, as I know you have an aggressive agenda in front of you this afternoon.

I would like to commend my Senators, Senator Wyden and Senator Gordon Smith,

for introducing this bipartisan and important legislation. Yesterday, along with Congressman Brian Baird, and Congressman Mark Souder, I introduced the House version of S. 423, a bit different, but equally important.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, S. 423 would expand the boundary of the Fort

Clatsop National Memorial in my district in Oregon while studying the feasibility

of including the Station Camp site in the state of Washington into the memorial.

The bill that I introduced yesterday with Mr. Baird and Mr. Souder would also include studies of the feasibility of including the Megler Rest Area and Ft. Canby

sites, also in Washington. Congress originally designated the fort and corresponding

125 acres in 1958. It is the only part of the National Park System that is solely

dedicated to the Meriwether Lewis and William Clark expedition. This legislation

24

is needed to enlarge the boundary of Ft. Clatsop to incorporate the salt works and

trail that will lead to the areas that members of the Corps of Discovery often used

in their day-to-day operations.

To augment the expedition’s low supply of salt due to their cross-country expedition, Captains Lewis and Clark assigned members of the expedition to produce more

of the commodity. During the winter of 1805-06, as the Corps of Discovery wintered

at the fort, a salt-making camp was set up about 15 miles southwest of Seaside,

Oregon. Salt was obtained by boiling seawater in five large kettles and the crews

were able to extract about three quarts a day. A total of four bushels were produced

and three of these were carried eastward from Fort Clatsop when the expedition

began its journey home.

The original legislation, enacted in 1958, instructed the Park Service to include

the trail from the fort to the salt works. This is the missing piece of the national

Lewis and Clark Trail.

Mr. Chairman, time is of the essence. There is broad public support in my District

to get this bill passed and the trail completed before the beginning of the bicentennial celebration. Only by getting this legislation to the President’s desk will we be

able to prepare in time.

The stakeholders are in agreement. The bill caps the acreage, there are appropriate buffer zones, and only willing sellers will sell to add to the memorial.

In a little over two years, the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition will

commence across the country. Communities such as Astoria and Seaside in my District must be prepared for the people that will trek to their areas to celebrate the

bicentennial of the expedition. The time is now to pass the Ft. Clatsop Memorial

Expansion Act. The visitors who will flock to my District will be able to share in

what the members of the Corps of Discovery experienced almost two hundred years

ago. It will be an amazing experience for thousands.

I am pleased that the subcommittee is having a hearing on this legislation. I have

worked very closely with the Clatsop County Commissioners and the landowners in

Clatsop County to ensure that there is a consensus on the expansion. With hard

work and many hours of discussion, we have reached this bipartisan and consensus

bill.

I welcome the subcommittee’s questions and comments and look forward to working with all of you to get this bill signed into law as soon as possible.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Congressman Wu, for

your testimony. It will be helpful to us. Thank you.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. I know you are busy man. You may be excused.

If you want to remain you can, too.

Mr. WU. I would love to stay, but thank you for your courtesies,

and it is wonderful to be here, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Now I would like to call—Senator

Smith, do you have any questions?

Senator SMITH. No questions.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Reynolds, I have an additional question for

you. We have received several letters from some inholders in the

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area expressing concern about H.R. 640. Can you tell me what effect, if any, the expansion of the recreation area will have on existing inholders?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, this bill will have no effect on any

existing private lands within the boundary, with the exception of

those that are authorized to be donated under this bill, and actually, as I recollect, none of the lands in this bill are presently in

private ownership. If they—let’s see, that may not be true with the

Las Virgenes Watershed land at the far north, but that would be

a corporation, not a private individual, and so the effect on any

other landowner anywhere within the national recreation area

would be no effect.

Senator AKAKA. Senator Thomas, do you have any further questions?

25

Senator THOMAS. No, sir, thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Reynolds, thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon. Many of the parks covered by these bills are

in your region, and we look forward to working with you to ensure

that they are successfully implemented. Thank you very much for

being here.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman and Senator Thomas, thank you

both very, very much.

Senator AKAKA. Our next panel is Mr. Jim Medeiros from

Honaunau, Hawaii, Mr. Wayne Leslie from Kealakekua, Hawaii,

Mr. Ron Arnold, the director of the Wyoming Office of State Lands

and Investments from Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Ms. Audrey Rust,

the president of the Peninsula Open Space Trust in Menlo Park,

California.

Before we hear from this panel, I would like to briefly introduce

the two witnesses from Hawaii, and also to recognize Ms. Geri Bell,

who is superintendent of Pu’uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Jim Medeiros, Sr., is a descendant of the original families in

Pu’uhonua o Honaunau. He was born and raised there and has

knowledge of the practices, architecture, and meaning behind the

structures and sites that exist today. He is a cultural practitioner

who is learning and teaching the wisdom of those who came before,

passed down to him by his kupuna, or elders. He is president of

Protect Kaopuka Ohana, a community organization established for

the preservation of the Hawaiian culture.

Mr. Wayne Leslie is a fifth generation fisherman from

Kealakekua Bay. He has vast knowledge about the natural environment, which is central to Hawaiian values. He has participated

in community meetings regarding the expansion of Pu’uhonua o

Honaunau, is a board member of Protect Kaopuka Ohana, and is

active with the Hawaiian Island Burial Council, and I want to say

Aloha, and welcome both of you to the committee.

Mr. LESLIE. Aloha.

Senator AKAKA. At this time, I would like to call on you for your

testimonies, and may I ask first to hear the statement from Mr.

Jim Medeiros.

STATEMENT OF JIM MEDEIROS, SR., HONAUNAU, HI

Mr. MEDEIROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, Senator Thomas, for this opportunity to speak before you on the acquisition of the Ki’ilae village. Ki’ilae village is a very special place.

It is also a part of the Pu’uhonua o Honaunau. Upon reaching the

safety of the Pu’uhonua o Honaunau, the City of Refuge, you will

be blessed by the Kupuna, the priest, and then released into the

village of Ki’ilae and Kauleoli, where you would be free in those

areas, making Ki’ilae very much of a part of the Pu’uhonua in the

olden times.

Ki’ilae also is very special culturally. It is a part of an ancient

subterranean water course that runs from the mountain to the sea.

This water course was used by the ancient Hawaiians for aquaculture, for they would raise fish. Along this water course would be

different outlets, and this fish would be raised there for times of

high seas or kapu, when fishing was restricted in the ocean. It was

26

also used for agriculture and for sustaining life. This same water

course would lead into the ocean and percolate up into the front of

the ocean, where schools of fish would be congregating.

Also, Ki’ilae is home to hundreds of cultural sites, burials, sites

of the queen’s bath. Our ancient Hawaiian trail runs through this

property. This property is so rich in culture and history If this development goes through it will surely destroy all of our sites. We

have ancient sites called ahus. These ahus were stone formations

that were built by the ancient Hawaiians and used as markers for

our fishing grounds. We would line up with these markers from offshore, and that is where we would locate our special different species of fish that we would catch, and we still use them today. We

still practice our ancient cultural practices there.

I am one of 1,200 living descendants of the Pu’uhonua who still

practice there today. We gather medicines. We use woods there. We

still use these ancient markers to fish. The acquisition of Ki’ilae

would benefit not only the Hawaiian people and our culture, but

would benefit all people for generations to come.

Keeping our culture alive helps us to keep our Aloha spirit alive,

which brings all the visitors to Hawaii, is the spirit of Aloha, and

the spirit of Aloha will be kept by the children for future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madeiros follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM MEDEIROS, SR., HONAUNAU, HI

Aloha, my name is Jim Medeiros, Sr. My wife Jeana Kalani Kelekolio-Pahukula

Medeiros, my two sons, Jim Medeiros, Jr. and Jordan Medeiros, my parents, Clarence Mokuohai Puhalahua Medeiros and Pansy Wiwoole Kalalahua Medeiros are

descendants of Pu’uhonua ‘O Honaunau and adjoining ahupua’a, including Ki’ilae.

My wife and moms family are Lawai’a, fisherman that still fish these areas continuing our Hawaiian cultural practices.

I thank you for this opportunity to share some history of Ki’ilae with you that

was told and taught to me by my Kupuna (elders). In ancient Hawaii, Ki’ilae village

was a part of Pu’uhonua ‘O Honaunau. After arriving at the safety of Pu’u honua

‘O Honaunau the Kahuna (priest) would perform the sacred rituals and release the

pursued individual to the village of Ki’ilae and Kauleoli to live in freedom therefore,

making Ki’ilae very much a part of Pu’uhonua ‘O Honaunau. Ki’ilae holds many irreplaceable cultural properties such as, a subterainian fresh water coarse that leads

from the mountain to the ocean. In the old times, wai (water) was of great importance, for water was the giver of life. Ki’ilae village was a place where agriculture

took place because of its dirt and water. My grandparents would grow their food

there as did the people of Pu’uhonua ‘O Honaunau. Aquaculture was also a part of

this special place where inland ponds were used and maintained by the people to

raise mullet and other types of fish. These fish were harvested during the times

when ocean fishing was kapu (restricted), or when high seas prevented fishing.

There are hundreds of cultural sites, from the burials of my ohana as well as those

of the people of Pu’uhonua ‘O Honaunau, Heiau’s (sacred temples), ancient trails,

queens bath, site of an old school and gathering of herbs for medicines of which the

Hawaiian people of today still practice. Land marks called ahu were built out of

stones that marked fishing grounds. From the ocean we line up with ancient ahu’s

to catch different varieties of fish. We continue this practice today.

The acquisition of Ki’ilea by the National Park service will benefit not only the

Hawaiian people and culture, but will also benefit all peoples for generations to

come. Only through the preservation of the Hawaiian culture can the Hawaiian people be Hawaiian and perpetuate the aloha spirit that lives today. What makes Hawaii such a special place is the spirit of aloha. The children will be the keepers of

the aloha spirit so it can continue to be felt by all who come to Hawaii.

The acquisition of Ki’ilae by the National Park service will save it from the destruction of a planned development of a private gated community that has benefit

only to the rich. The destruction of culture is inevitable once construction begins.

27

The lands of South Kona Hawaii, except for a few beach roads, are culturally fully

developed, virgin lands that have never been disturbed by heavy equiptment. These

lands were not destroyed by industry like sugar and ranching. Culture is still intact

for furture generations.

We thank the National Park service for preserving the Hawaiian culture so the

aloha spirit can live on and be shared by all the people of the future. I represent

the thousands of Hawaiians that came before me, and the generations to come. I

am one of twelve hundred descendants of Pu’uhonua ‘O Honaunau, President of Protect Keopuka ‘Ohana, a community organization made up of cultural practitioners,and environmental protectors established for the preservation of the Hawaiian

culture through the education of all people on the culture and history of the Hawaiian people.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. Wayne Leslie.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE LESLIE, KEALAKEKUA, HI

Mr. LESLIE. Thank you, Senator Akaka, for inviting us here. It

is encouraging, coming this long distance, to sit before an important body, and is most enriching to sit before you, my kapuna from

Hawaii. I am very honored to be here.

Va mauke’eao ka’aina Ika pono is the motto for Hawaii, and that

is translated as, the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness. S. 1057 is a perpetuation of righteousness. It ensures the life

of the land, and the spirit of Aloha, which everyone, Hawaiian and

non-Hawaiians, depend on for the goodness and the purity of love

and respect between one another in Hawaii.

From the year 1800 to the year 1850, 90 percent of the Hawaiian

population was wiped out from disease and viral infections from

European travelers. 90 percent of our population wiped out. 90 percent of our history can never be shared. By opening the boundaries

of the park to encompass these lands at Ki’ilae, it is like the opening arms of a loving mother welcoming back her lost children.

It is the ancient sites of the physical evidence of our people, and

it is not only for its interpretive values to the world, but its value

as a cultural identity to the Hawaiian people is priceless. As a Native practitioner, I recognize that these lands were walked by the

people of long ago who are from my lineage.

When we practice our Native arts, we recognize that we walk in

the footsteps of our ancestors, and that is the endeavor and aspirations of all Native Hawaiians, is to live the life of yesterday, and

to bring it forth for tomorrow’s people to enjoy, and I commend you

for proposing this bill that will make tomorrow a better place for

us all.

Hawaii is a jewel of the Pacific. As you know, it is the Piko of

the Pacific, and it is a natural resource that is invaluable. When

the Native Hawaiians first traveled, my ancestors, from Kahiki to

Hawaii, they knew that as they traveled these long distances on

their voyaging canoes in order to be fruitful and to be successful

on their voyage they needed to make the most of their natural resources, and their limited space, and the limited resources that

their voyaging canoes afforded them.

We apply this aspect of survival today in modern life, calling our

islands our canoes. The Island of Hawaii is my island canoe, and

we are all crew members of this island canoe, and in order to survive our journey we need to make the most of our limited space

and limited resources that our island affords us.

28

This bill will help to ensure the life of the land. It will help to

ensure that my children will never pose to me the question, Daddy,

who am I, where do I come from? As Native practitioners, to walk

in the footsteps of our ancestors is our deepest aspiration.

I am honored to be here, and I bring with me my kapuna and

my kamalii, my elders and my children. My kapuna I owe a debt

to for coming here, for giving me a sense of purpose, and giving me

the direction. The same with my kamalii, my children, who have

changed my perspective.

Since my first child was born, it really gave me a sense of purpose to protect the natural resources so they may identify themselves as kanaka maoli, Native Hawaiians, and their children may

also. As my kapuna has protected the natural resources so I may

walk in their footsteps, it is my cultural obligation and inherent

duty, as the kanaka maoli, to provide those natural resources so

that my children may walk in my footsteps, and as leaders, and

changers of the Nation, you, our elected officials, walk a path that

the future leaders will choose to walk.

As Native practitioners, we consider ourselves the keepers of the

flame, and the people like you who help to protect us are also keepers of the flame. This flame lights the path that leads to spiritual,

environmental, and cultural righteousness. (Hawaiian spoken) to

you for inviting us here. Thank you for letting me give my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leslie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE LESLIE, KEALAKEKUA, HI

Ua mau ke’ea o ka’aina I ka pono.

The life of the land is perpetuated through its righteousness. This is the motto

of Hawaii. This Senate bill 1057 is a perpetuation of righteousness and ensures the

life of the land and you are to be commended for this endeavor which is the epitome

of what is pono. Pono is a Hawaiian expression for that which is true and just and

is the way of life for the people of Hawaiian culture; the environmental stewards

of the aina. Aina is translated as that which gives you sustenance; physically, mentally and spiritually. We the people of Hawaii are the stewards of the aina, and you,

our elected officials, are the stewards of the stewards.

Senate bill 1057 is a testament to your open hearts and minds; to the importance

of preserving our ancient sites and cultural resources for all of tomorrow’s people

to experience and share with the world. Ultimately we would like to see all of the

lands abutting the national park to be acquired for protection and we see this Senate bill as a step in the [pono]direction. These lands are full of historic sites and

structures, some of which were used for agriculture,some were dwellings or used for

periodical habitation, and many of them are temples for prayer and burial sites. To

others these sites are piles of rock and rubble with little importance. To the native

populace, these sites are the physical evidence of our peoples existence and a testament to their perseverance and willingness to make the most of what little resources they had. These sites are our anchors to the past and helps us to culturally

connect to a time almost forgotten. This connection enables us to move forward with

a greater understanding of who we are and where we come from. When we look

upon these sites we see our ancestors of long ago gathered around and going about

their daily routines, such as praying, farming and living the lifestyles of ancient

Polynesia. When we touch these sites we feel the [mana] spiritual energy of our people and know that these stones were placed here by native Hawaiians (like myself)

dressed in traditional attire and having a mindset of living in harmony with their

resources and coexisting with the aina through a symbiotic relationship with the

natural order of Hawaiian living. Also fronting these lands are ancient [koa] which

are ancient fields of the sea which are maintained and harvested by lawai’a expert

fisherman, which is my lineage.

Senate bill 1057 helps to ensure no effluents from any proposed developments will

pollute these fishing grounds which we desperately depend on to feed our families

and perpetuate our cultural identity. When we travel the ocean to practice our nauVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
29

tical arts, which were passed down from our ancestors, we recognize the fact that

these ancestors traversed the same waters, under the same stars and with the same

aspirations 1000 years ago. When we harvest from these koa, we recognize the fact

that these fish are descended from the fish our ancestors harvested with the same

aspirations 1000 years ago. All aspects of cultural perpetuation are our means of

walking in the footsteps of our ancestors and identifying ourselves on a cultural

level. These cultural practices tell not only the stories of what we do but more importantly who we are! These priceless memories and gifts of cultural enrichment afforded to me by my ancestors can best be repaid by ensuring a viable resource for

tomorrow’s people so that they are afforded the same opportunity to walk in our

footsteps.

When my Tahitian ancestors set forth on their voyages of discovery they knew

that in order to succeed in their journeys they needed to make the most of their

limited space and resources their voyaging canoes could afford. This understanding

of survival is applied today with our islands being our canoes. As island residents

and political officials we are all crew members of our island canoes. To misuse our

limited space and resources will inevitably result in the sinking of our canoe and

we will all surely perish.

Prior to European contact with Captain Cook, in the year 1779, Hawaii’s environment was so pure not even the common cold of today existed. Between the years

1800 and 1850, 90% of Hawaii’s population was wiped out by disease and viral infections passed on to them from the vast numbers of European travelers coming to

our shores. Having no immune system to protect them from disease, the native Hawaiians were almost totally wiped out. Ancient Hawaiian culture dictates that our

history and genealogy are passed on through the ancient arts of: hula, chants, and

song which are only passed onto direct family members. This decimation of the Hawaiian populace by disease, which killed people of all ages, left the elders with no

one to pass their history on to and left the native youth with no one to pass onto

them their history and the stories of our evolution. We the generation of today are

on a voyage of rediscovery and aspire to reconnect all our people to their roots and

culture.

As practitioners of Hawaiian culture it is our inherent obligation to advocate cultural preservation and protect all the essentials needed to fully experience the ways

of old and modern Hawaii. With a heartfelt mahalo we thank you for the time and

effort invested in this Senate bill. You have reinstalled in us that this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people; and by being proactive in a pono

manner, we can still make a difference!

Ua mau ke’ea o ka’aina I ka pono.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your statement, and at this time

I would like to call on Ron Arnold, who is the director of the Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments from Cheyenne.

Senator THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome

Ron here. He is director of State Lands and Investments and therefore, of course, is very involved in State lands, school lands in particular, which is what we are talking about here. He has been in

the Attorney General’s Office and served Wyoming for a long time.

I welcome you here, sir.

STATEMENT OF RON ARNOLD, DIRECTOR, WYOMING OFFICE

OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS, CHEYENNE, WY

Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, my

name is Ron Arnold, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman

Akaka, and Senator Thomas for affording the State of Wyoming

this opportunity to comment on Senator Thomas’ bill, S. 1105. This

has been a long time in coming, and we do appreciate the efforts

of Senator Thomas in introducing this particular bill.

I would ask that my prepared remarks be made a part of the

record, and I did attach to those remarks, Mr. Chairman, a small

map. Just for ease of all the members of the committee, on this

particular map are the three areas of just the surface acres only.

It does not identify approximately the 40 acres of the mineral interVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
30

est. The 40 acres are also contained on the large map that you

have, but for the sake of reference point, the mineral interests, Mr.

Chairman, are approximately 10 miles north of section 16 on this

small map, so it would be up here and a little bit to the East, so

we did not want to mislead the committee in that regard, Mr.

Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Your full statement will be placed.

Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am appearing here today on behalf of the Board of Land Commissioners of the State of Wyoming. The Board of Land Commissioners is comprised of the five elected officials, Governor Jim

Geringer, we have Secretary of State Joe Meyer, State Treasurer

Cynthia Lummis, State Auditor Max Maxfield, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Judy Catchpole.

This is the body, Mr. Chairman, in Wyoming that has a duty and

a responsibility to make the trustlands. For your purposes, Mr.

Chairman, the lands contained within Grand Teton National Park

are those trustlands that were given to the State of Wyoming when

Wyoming was admitted in 1890, and Congress specifically intended

not only the State of Wyoming but all other States to take those

particular trustlands and manage them for the benefit of the common schools, so each State, including Wyoming, had a fiduciary responsibility, the same as a private fiduciary, in managing the trust

for the beneficiaries, which is the common schools.

I am sure most of you have had an opportunity to either visit

this part of the State, which is in the western part of Wyoming.

Jackson, the town of Jackson is immediately to the south of Grand

Teton National Park, a very, very beautiful area. We do have millions of worldwide travelers, tourists that come not only to Grand

Teton National Park, but also go to Yellowstone National Park.

We have this obligation to manage the trustlands in the State for

the maximum benefit of these schools. In this particular part of the

State presently land values are escalating, and presently we have

two grazing leases for these two sections of land, and the annual

income from these two particular sections are approximately $2,000

a year.

We know that probably the highest and best use for this particular property would be either commercial or industrial, but we do

not believe that is in the best interest of either the State of Wyoming, nor is it in the best interest of the Federal Government to

do any sort of development in this particular area. This is pristine

area. It is undeveloped. It is next to the Snake River. It has beautiful scenic value. It has crucial wildlife habitat, and it is contained

entirely within Grand Teton National Park.

As a practical matter it is just not wise to have a checkerboard

situation where you have different governing bodies that would

have to manage these lands in their own particular missions and

goals, and have to jump over other parcels that are not owned by

them. We feel that we would like to sort of partner with the Federal Government so that they can obtain these particular lands.

The National Park Service then would have the complete block

of lands within Grand Teton National Park to manage, and practically that is the best thing for that particular area, for the wildVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
31

life, for the tourists, and it fulfills the mission of the National Park

Service.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, we are in full support of Senator

Thomas’ bill, S. 1105. We applaud Senator Thomas, because we believe that this is just an ideal time for the State of Wyoming to give

up these lands and have the Federal Government acquire these

lands. It still remains public.

We have not seen any opposition in our State to this particular

bill because the members of the public will still continue to have

the access to these lands the same way as they do now, and it

helps tremendously the trust responsibility for the Board of Land

Commissioners to maximize that benefit to the schoolchildren, so

we are in full support, and we would ask that this bill go forward.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have,

Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnold follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON ARNOLD, DIRECTOR, WYOMING OFFICE OF STATE

LANDS AND INVESTMENTS, CHEYENNE, WY

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for affording the great State of Wyoming an opportunity to comment on the proposed exchange of its trust lands within Grand Teton

National Park to the federal government. I am appearing here today on behalf of

the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners which is comprised of Governor Jim

Geringer, Secretary of State Joe Meyer, State Treasurer Cynthia Lummis, State

Auditor Max Maxfield and Superintendent of Public Instruction Judy Catchpole.

STATE TRUST LANDS

The lands proposed to be exchanged are those trust lands originally granted to

the State of Wyoming by the federal government upon admission to the United

States in 1890. These land grants generally comprise section 16 and 36 in every

township and were specifically granted to the states for the support of the common

schools as states were admitted to the Union. In Wyoming, trust lands total 3.6 million surface acres and 4.2 million mineral acres.

The Wyoming Constitution, adopted in 1890, recognizes the trust obligations imposed by Congress in managing the land grants which are to preserve and protect

the lands, manage the lands for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust and create a permanent fund of proceeds of trust land sales and mineral production, the

income from which is to be annually distributed to Wyoming public schools.

Article 18, Section 3, Wyoming Constitution, provides that the five state elected

officials constitute a board of land commissioners, trustees of the land grant, ‘‘which

under the direction of the legislature . . . shall have direction, control, leasing and

disposal of the lands . . . for the support and benefit of public schools . . .’’ The

trust obligation of the five elected state officials is to prudently enhance value and

generate a reasonable annual income for the support of Wyoming public schools. Annually, state land activities and investments generate approximately $42 million.

STATE’S REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THE EXCHANGE

Wyoming supports the exchange as proposed in Senator Thomas’ bill 1105 because the bill allows Wyoming to achieve its responsibility to maximize the benefit

to the school trust while maintaining the mission of the park service and meeting

the demands of the National public in keeping the parks undeveloped. The bill is

successful in making all goals compatible.

GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK

In 1929, Congress established Grand Teton National Park and expanded the

Park’s boundaries in 1950. This expansion encompassed Wyoming’s trust lands

which are being considered by you in the proposed exchange. In other words, establishment and expansion of Grand Teton National Park created State Land in-holdings. Reasonably, the continuing management theme for Grand Teton National Park

is preservation of natural resources for the greatest good of the countryside as a

public park for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people. Wyoming’s Congressional and constitutional trust obligation to the beneficiaries of the public school

32

trust, created in 1890, became impossible once the lands became encompassed within Grand Teton National Park in part because of federally restricted access, development limitations and land protection plans implemented by the National Park Service.

In summary, the management trust obligations for Wyoming public schools imposed upon the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners by Congress and by the Wyoming Constitution for school trust lands in 1890 are realistically unable to be met

due to subsequent Congressional Acts creating Grand Teton National Park and National Forests.

SENATOR THOMAS’ BILL—S. 1105 GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE ACT

To be considered in Senator Thomas’ bill, S. 1105, are approximately 1,366 surface acres of land, and 40 acres of minerals. The surface acres consist of breathtaking mountains, vistas, Snake River frontage and crucial wildlife habitat. These

lands and minerals are undeveloped and are totally contained within Grand Teton

National Park. Presently, the only revenue derived from these lands is from two

grazing leases which produce approximately $2,000 annually.

Grand Teton National Park is located in the far western part of Wyoming, in

Teton County. It is the gateway to Yellowstone National Park and attracts worldwide tourists. It harbors an abundance of diverse wildlife species and has unrivaled

scenic beauty. The town of Jackson is located a few miles south of the current Park

boundary. Residential development is spreading ever closer to the Park boundaries

and interest in developing the state lands for residential and commercial uses is

growing. Presently, land values in Teton County are very high and Wyoming cannot

satisfy its trust responsibility to earn a reasonable return for the public school beneficiaries of the trust with the present status of its in holdings in Grand Teton National Park. The State of Wyoming should not be forced into a situation that would

substantially increase revenues for the public school beneficiaries of the land trust,

as contemplated by Congress in 1890, but in so doing would adversely change the

character of the land within or adjacent to the Grand Teton National Park as contemplated by subsequent members of Congress. An exchange to the federal government of this state trust land provides the greatest return to the Wyoming school

trust while protecting the integrity of the Park.

Wyoming believes the proposed exchange would benefit not only the school trust

but would benefit the federal government and all United States citizens. By acquiring these trust lands, the National Park Service could implement efficient and consistent management practices and policy for all of the public land within the park

boundary.

Senator Thomas’ proposed bill gives both the State of Wyoming and the federal

government an opportunity to help the school children in Wyoming financially while

keeping the lands within Grand Teton National Park public and pristine. This certainly is a win/win situation for both governments. The proposed bill will allow the

trust lands to remain accessible by members of the public and will place control and

jurisdiction with the federal government where it practically belongs. Most importantly, the exchange fulfills Congress’s intent for Wyoming to utilize these trust

lands for the support of its schools.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you

today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Audrey Rust is president of Peninsula Open Space Trust, Menlo

Park, California.

STATEMENT OF AUDREY C. RUST, PRESIDENT, PENINSULA

OPEN SPACE TRUST, MENLO PARK, CA

Ms. RUST. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me. My name

is Audrey Rust. I am the president of the Peninsula Open Space

Trust, and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Senator

Thomas, to come here today and talk about S. 941.

I think you have received copies of this packet that we put together, and the cover photograph shows you the dramatic terrain,

and you get a sense of what you might get, sweeping views, looking

at the photos inside the packet, but I think I am talking to two

gentlemen who know more about dramatic views and sweeping visVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
33

tas than most people in the country, given the States that you

come from.

It is a property with incredible biological diversity. It has four

watersheds with four year-round creeks that support wildlife that

is both diverse and federally listed. It has five different plants that

are federally listed, of which two grow only on Montara Mountain,

nowhere else in the world, but that is not just the amazing part

of this property. The real amazing part is that it was still available, because it is only 10 miles from San Francisco.

It is in an area that has incredibly dense urban development,

and where real estate prices have gone up astronomically. Anyone

who has visited the San Francisco Bay Area is aware of that fact.

We began negotiating on this property over a year ago, my organization, which is a nonprofit, at a time when the property was

listed at $52 million. We finally reached agreement with the landowners after a year for a price of $29,750,000, and we took that

risk, and we undertook a contract, we even purchased a small portion of the property, because we think this is so important to add

to the National Park System.

Today, we are talking about a boundary extension which would

include some 5,000 acres. Later, if we are successful here, and I

hope we will be, we will be looking for an appropriation. At that

time, we are looking for an appropriation for $15 million, half of

what the cost of one of those properties would be.

I am hoping that you will give your support today. The people

of the bay area are more than just enthusiastic supporters of the

GGNRA. Over the years, we have put millions of dollars of private

money into both acquisition and improvements of the GGNRA, and

we expect that we will continue to do that into the future.

Thank you very much for your time, and I am here for any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rust follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDREY C. RUST, PRESIDENT, PENINSULA OPEN SPACE

TRUST, MENLO PARK, CA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to meet with you today to request your support of S.

941, which extends the southwest boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation

Area (GGNRA) to encompass the 4,200-acre Rancho Corral de Tierra property and

some additional 800 acres of land located in coastal San Mateo County, California.

The availability of this much national park quality land in a metropolitan area that

has seen and continues to experience intense urban growth represents a rare opportunity.

My name is Audrey Rust. I am the president of the Peninsula Open Space Trust

(POST), a nonprofit land trust, located in Menlo Park, California. POST is the current owner and option holder of the 4,200-acre Rancho Corral de Tierra property

under consideration by this committee today. Our organization works in partnership

with public agencies and private citizens to create parks and to give permanent protection to open lands in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties in California. Since

our founding 24 years ago, we have participated in saving over 45,000 acres of wetlands, forest, grassland, beaches and farmland.

With the assistance of the federal government, POST has added the Phleger Estate to the GGNRA as well as Bair Island and other wetlands to the Don Edwards

National Wildlife Refuge. Our projects have brought together local, state and federal

agencies and have had substantial participation by the private donor community.

The bill before you today is a critical step in achieving a long-held goal to place

this dramatic and strategically important property into the ownership of the National Park Service. The passage of S. 941 will make possible federal ownership of

the unique lands of Montara Mountain, creating a highly visible and dramatic enVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
34

trance to the park along the Pacific coast, protecting significant ecological resources

and linking tens of thousands of acres of existing federal, state, and county parklands.

The 4,200 acres of Rancho Corral de Tierra encompass a nearly intact 1839 Mexican land grant, named Corral de Tierra-Palomares. It is adjacent on the north and

east sides to other GGNRA lands, most notably the 23,000-acre San Francisco Watershed lands over which the National Park Service holds a protective easement,

and to the north McNee Ranch State Park (780 acres) and San Mateo County San

Pedro Valley Park (978 acres), with further linkages to the GGNRA.

The lands proposed for annexation offer an unparalleled scenic addition to the

park. The ascent of Montara Mountain from the sea to nearly 2,000 feet is a striking sight. The coastal ridge-tops provide some of the most spectacular panoramic

views to be found in northern California, sweeping from the San Francisco Bay and

the East Bay hills, past the Point Reyes peninsula and Farralone Islands to

Pescadero Point—65 miles from north to south as the crow flies. The peaks of

Montara Mountain dominate the setting of this part of the GGNRA.

The properties contain four coastal creeks with runs of federally-listed threatened

steelhead trout, and possibly coho salmon as well. The riparian areas serve as habitat for the threatened California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake,

provide a vital source of water, increased cover, feeding and nesting opportunities

and migration corridors for the abundant wildlife in the area. Other species of concern that inhabit the properties are Cooper’s hawk, the dusky-footed woodrat, California brown pelican, common murre, and the San Bruno elfin butterfly. Bobcat,

brush rabbits, kestrels, California quail, several species of hawk, mountain lions

and eagles are among dozens of other wildlife species found on the property.

Due to the topography, climate and natural condition of the site, plant assemblages of Montara Mountain are considered by biologists to be genuinely unique,

displaying plants, soils and exposures found together nowhere else on earth. Seven

plants on site are included in the California Native Plant Society’s inventory of species of particular concern. Two of these plants, the Montara manzanita

(Arctostaphylos montaraensis) and Montara blue lupine (Lupinus eximius), are

found nowhere in the world other than Montara Mountain and are federally listed.

Three other federally listed rare and endangered plant species have been identified:

coast rock cress (Arabis blepharophylla), San Francisco wallflower (Erysimum

franciscanum) and Hickman’s cinquefoil (Potentilla hickmanii).

The boundary study undertaken by Peninsula Open Space Trust and prepared in

conjunction with the National Park Service found that acquisition of these properties will not impose a significant new management burden on the National Park

Service. Principal management requirements would include trail maintenance, fire

management and other natural resource management measures already carried out

in nearby areas of the park. In addition, the proposed park expansion would benefit

the recovery of species within the area and benefit populations existing on adjacent

lands already within the GGNRA. Further, preservation of these properties will contribute significantly to the effectiveness of ecosystem management in the area,

avoiding the problems that so often plague other park sites where important components of park ecosystems are outside of park control.

Inclusion of these lands in the GGNRA is endorsed by numerous groups and public officials. At the recently held well-attended public hearing in Half Moon Bay,

every speaker was in favor of this addition. Elected officials, representatives of the

Farm Bureau, equestrian groups, neighbors and environmental groups unanimously

applauded the project. No one voiced opposition at the hearing.

This project continues to demonstrate the kind of public-private partnership that

has led to so much success in land conservation on the San Francisco Peninsula.

If Congress approves the boundary extension, and later an appropriation for the

purchase of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property, POST has committed to raise

$15,000,000 in local and state funds to match the $15,000,000 needed in federal

funds. With this partnership the purchase of this significant and valuable property

is also a real bargain for the Park Service.

I ask for your support of S. 941.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I

have some questions here. First, I want to say thank you very

much, Mr. Medeiros, for coming all the way from Hawaii. I appreciated hearing your description of the area and its meaning to families and people there that have lived in Honaunau for generations.

My question to you is, would you be able to provide a general picture of the level of support for expansion of the park among Native

35

Hawaiians in particular? What is the general feeling about the expansion of the park to include the Ki’ilae village area?

Mr. MEDEIROS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have great support for

the acquisition of the Ki’ilae area from the Hawaiian community

and our community general. We have over 1,000 supporters in our

community who support what we are doing and what your bill will

do, and all we can say is, we are really grateful for this acquisition.

It will save us. It will enable our children to continue to be Hawaiian, and use these areas, and also benefit everyone with the

Pu’uhonua. It has great value to everyone. We have a lot of support.

Senator AKAKA. Would you please share with us what makes

Ki’ilae village and the adjacent parcels so significant, and would

make them good additions to Pu’uhonua o Honaunau?

Mr. MEDEIROS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Ki’ilae ahupua’a is a virgin ahupua’a. I call it virgin lands because it has never been disturbed by heavy equipment. Industry like sugar and ranching has

never destroyed these lands. These lands are culturally fully developed. Within these lands are just cultural sites in the hundreds,

burials, different water systems—it is such a valuable piece of

property. Saving it will save South Corner from being destroyed.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Leslie, I understand that you participated in

community meetings that were held by the Park Service last fall

to discuss the potential expansion with residents. Would you please

describe whether the support for the expansion is widespread on

the Island of Hawaii? Is there support among interested in parties

such as local businesses and tourism firms, homeowners nearby,

and other property owners?

Mr. LESLIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is unanimous support by

the populace of the Hawaii Island, Native and non-Native alike. To

expand the boundaries of the national park makes available to the

general public and to the Native Hawaiians access for interpretation and access for cultural identification, which is crucial to the

Native Hawaiians, to identify ourselves as kanaka. These are the

physical, the evidence of our people.

Through these lands also cross what are called the alakahakai,

which is an ancient trail used by Native Hawaiians to travel

through each ahupua’a, or section of land, to access shoreline for

subsistence gathering and mostly important subsistence gathering

for the young and for the old, because they cannot gather for themselves, and this is one of the only means of protein for the Native

Hawaiian people, so this ancient trail is an integral part of our culture, and encompasses all of these lands.

As Mr. Medeiros said, from a cultural perspective these lands are

fully developed. Anything else would be a degradation to the sanctity and to the spirituality of these ahupua’a.

Senator AKAKA. Senator Thomas, would you have any questions

for the witnesses?

Senator THOMAS. Just a couple.

Ms. Rust, do you foresee additional acquisitions, or additional expansion of the Golden Gate Recreation Area?

Ms. RUST. Of course, I represent a private nonprofit land trust,

and I do not have any control in general over what the GGNRA

would do, and I ought to clarify that our organization works south

36

of San Francisco, and the GGNRA, of course, stretches to the north

as well.

Within our area, this is the major, most important property.

Should there be a really important and good opportunity in the future with adjacent lands that looked and were measured to be of

national significance, I might come back again, yes.

Senator THOMAS. I would not be surprised, actually.

Ms. RUST. But I must say, it is not a frequent occurrence with

us. We work mostly locally with private landowners.

Senator THOMAS. I admire very much your doing what you are

doing. I just point out again that there are a number of options in

terms of easements, in terms of State lands.

Ms. RUST. Yes, I recognize that. When we began the process of

looking at this we conferred with the Park Service and asked if we

helped to pay for a boundary study at our expense, but to their

standards and with a person they would choose, would that be a

way to really identify if we were going in the right direction, and

they suggested that was a good idea, which we did.

That boundary study did identify the lands being of national

park quality. It also identified the fact that it was unlikely that

any local management would be able to hold the standards that the

national park would on this property.

Additionally, it is—although I feel I am singing to the choir on

this—very scenic, dramatic property, and lends an incredible southern entrance into the GGNRA which is currently not in existence.

Thirdly, the land is adjacent to 23,000 acres over which the Park

Service has an easement, and it is a very important part of the migration pattern of animals from those 23,000 acres over the hill to

the west-facing slopes of this very large property, and therefore

helps to protect some of the resources that the park is protecting

on the other side.

Senator THOMAS. Just, Mr. Chairman, a comment, I want to say

again how much I appreciate Mr. Arnold being here. Teton Park

is one of the most interesting places established back in 1929. It

was then expanded, and was made a national monument by Theodore Roosevelt. As late as 1950 was made part of the park, and

therefore these inholdings were already there.

One of the interesting things on the map is that the white area

around Phelps Lake is the Rockefeller Ranch, and they were the

ones, of course, who put most of this together, and they are in the

process of dedicating that back to the park as well. So that

inholding will be out of there. The whole park is about 300,000

acres. This 1,400 acres we are talking about would be a move towards getting the inholdings and then allowing the State to have

those lands for themselves.

The idea is that the bill asks or requires the Governor or the

State board, the land board, superintendent, and the Secretary of

the Interior to come together with an appraisal. If they cannot find

one, they will come up with an intermediate appraiser to come up

with a value, and then figure out what method they will use to

make the exchange, whether it be royalties, cash, or lands.

So we are very excited about that, and of course Yellowstone and

Grand Teton are two of the most highly visited parks in the United

States, and one we need to take care of.

37

So thank you for holding this hearing. We appreciate very much

all of you being here, and Mr. Arnold, again, thank you.

Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Thomas, for being so faithful

here, and thank you to all the witnesses that have appeared today

before this committee. Again, I want to thank you folks from Hawaii for making such a long trip. Maybe some day you will tell us

how long it was.

Senator THOMAS. That is further than Wyoming, is it not?

Senator AKAKA. A little bit, yes.

[Laughter.]

Senator AKAKA. I want to thank Ron Arnold, too, and Audrey

Rust very much, and I would like to announce that the hearing

record will remain open for a week if anyone wants to submit additional comments on any of these bills.

So there being no further questions or comments, I would like to

again say thank you and to conclude this hearing today. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(39)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

COUNTY OF HAWAII,

Hilo, HI, May 16, 2001.

Hon. DANIEL AKAKA,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR AKAKA: The purpose of this letter is to request that you seek Congressional authorization to expand the boundaries of Pu’u Honua O Honaunau National Park.

As I am sure you know, our local media have given a good deal of attention to

a development proposed on 800 acres adjacent to Pu’u Honua O Honaunau. The

community, particularly the Hawaiian community, has been outspoken in its desire

to see this acreage preserved and the park enhanced. Numerous historic sites have

been identified or, this acreage, some or all related to the ancient Hawaiian village

of Ki’ilae.

My staff has spoken with Ms. Geri Bell, Park Superintendent, and she has said

that at least 238 acres (out of the 800) are closely linked to the park and associated

with the village of Ki’ilae. Moreover, she has indicated that the owner of the land

would willingly sell the 238 acres to the National Park. The next step is Congressional authorization.

The acquisition could be 238 acres, 800 acres, or something in between, and I

would leave that determination to the experts to decide. However, your support for

acquisition of at least the smaller portion would allow for a valuable addition to the

park and assure preservation of an important part of our ancient Hawaiian heritage.

I fully support the expansion of the park by acquisition of this acreage, and hope

you will let me know if there is any way in which I can be of assistance.

A similar letter has been sent to the other members of our Congressional delegation.

Aloha,

HARRY KIM

Mayor.

COUNTY OF HAWAII,

COUNTY COUNCIL,

Hilo, HI, March 19, 2001.

Hon. DANIEL AKAKA,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR AKAKA: Mahalo for your aloha during my recent visit with you on

March 6, 2001. I was gratified by your interest in the expansion of Pu’u Honua O

Honaunau National Park. I agree with you that public support for this expansion

of Pu’u Honua O Honauriau National Park is an important factor to examine. From

my own conversations with individuals and groups throughout my district, I have

gathered the clear impression that the people of this area want this expansion to

occur.

I would like to review the situation that I spoke with you about at our recent

meeting. Pu’u Honua O Honaunau National Park has a singular opportunity to add

irreplaceable culturally and historically important lands to its holdings. The park

officials are currently negotiating to expand its holdings by adding roughly 240

acres of adjoining land to its park area. This adjoining land is one of the only undisturbed burial grounds and cultural resources in Kona and perhaps this island. The

recently nationally designated Ala Kahakai Trail passes through this parcel.

40

I spoke with Pu’u Honua O Honaunau National Park Superintendent Geri Bell

about park expansion to the limits of the 800 acre CMI project. She responded that

she would be very happy to have the entire parcel included within the park’s borders, but had thought it was not a real possibility. When I explained to her that

the Trust For Public Lands was interested in this goal and that there are others

willing to help make this a reality, she expressed happiness and assured me that

she would be happy indeed to include the entire parcel in the park and would work

together with those willing to secure this outcome. She said she would be writing

a formal request to expand the boundaries of Pu’u Honua O Honaunau Park to her

superiors in the National Park Service.

Survivors of the MacCandless Ranch, that owned this parcel, have formed a partnership with a developer. That company has started bulldozing areas that include

graves and cultural sites to make way for a residential subdivision. The park is negotiating for 240 acres of this 800-acre parcel. The developer knows this particular

240 acres is too sensitive and covered with cultural resources to successfully develop

in the face of local opposition. I attended a public meeting held at Pu’u Honua O

Honaunau National Park in February 2001 concerning this proposal. All residents

expressed the opinion that this whole 800-acre parcel should be preserved and

added to the National Park if at all possible. Residents and cultural practitioners

provided witness to the fact that bulldozers had uncovered and disturbed known

gravesites. The archeological survey revealed the entire area of 800 acres was covered with known sites of significance. Residents were outraged that their ancestors’

graves were being treated in this fashion despite strict guidelines established by

state law and the Hawaiian Burial Council. The Trust For Public Lands has expressed interest in working with residents and park officials to obtain this 800 acre

tract for inclusion into Pu’u Honua O Honaunau National Park.

I feel that the residents and voters of this area have stated very clearly that they

support an intact culture and environment over a few short-term environmentally

destructive jobs. The people of my district know the value of preserving this intact

cultural and environmental resource. They have elected me twice knowing that this

is my outlook and goal. What Hawai’i has in this district is more valuable to our

culture, economy, and future than a new residential subdivision.

Please support legislation expanding the borders of Pu’u Honua O Honaunau National Park and pass legislation enabling the purchase of these 800 acres for inclusion into the national park system. By adding to this park now, I am sure that we

will have preserved these remaining cultural and environmental resources that are

perhaps more important than any other lands within the state of Hawai’i.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and the warm welcome my husband and I received at your office.

With aloha,

JULIE JACOBSON,

Councilwoman.

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2001.

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

Chairman, National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA: The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA),

the only private, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the National Park System, appreciates the opportunity to

comment on S. 1105, legislation to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of State of Wyoming lands within the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park.

NPCA supports the overall purpose of the Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act, to acquire State lands within the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park. However, we are seriously concerned with the potential impact of Sec.

5 of the bill, which provides for an exchange of federal land for the state lands inside the park.

NPCA is concerned that the bill does not identify which federal lands might be

considered for exchange with the state. This provision could lead to the disposition

of environmentally sensitive lands, including lands near or adjacent to national

parks or national forests. Subsequent development of the traded lands could negatively impact nearby federal property.

NPCA recognizes that some federal lands may be deemed surplus and suitable for

disposal or exchange. There is an established process for making such a determinaVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
41

tion that should be followed in all cases where federal land exchanges are considered.

In general, however, NPCA rejects the suggestion that the acquisition of additional federal lands necessitates the disposition of other federal lands. Protected federal land is one of our nation’s greatest assets and must not be disposed of without

great deliberation.

S. 1105 has the real potential to benefit both the American public by reducing

inholdings and protecting lands from potential development in Grand Teton National Park, as well as to benefit the State of Wyoming by raising needed funds for

public schools.

We suggest that the bill be amended to require the transfer of Federal assets,

other than land, to the state. Such assets could include mineral royalties that would

otherwise flow to the Federal Treasury.

We remain committed to working with the author of the bill, Senator Thomas,

and the Committee to arrive at legislation that will be a win-win for the park and

the people of Wyoming.

Thank you.

KEVIN COLLINS,

Acting Director, Government Affairs.

STATEMENT OF THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ON S. 1105, THE GRAND

TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE ACT

We would like to thank Senator Thomas for his leadership in introducing this legislation, and to thank Senator Enzi for co-sponsoring this important measure.

Grand Teton National Park was originally set aside by an act of Congress in 1929,

and included only the Teton Mountain Range and the glacial lakes at the base of

the mountains. Then in 1943 Franklin Roosevelt established Jackson Hole National

Monument through presidential proclamation, which combined Teton National Forest acreage and other federal properties. On September 14, 1950, the original 1929

Park, the 1943 National Monument, and a 35,000-acre donation by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. were united into the present Grand Teton National Park.

The Park covers over 300,000 acres and includes the Teton Mountain Range and

Jackson Hole, a mountain valley. First time visitors to the Park are taken by the

Grand Teton, which rises to 13,770 feet above sea level. Nearly a dozen other Teton

peaks reach above 12,000 feet elevation, supporting a dozen mountain glaciers. According to the National Park Service, these are the youngest of the mountains in

the Rocky Mountain system.

While the towering peaks capture the attention of visitors, it is the valley portion

of the Park that provides important wildlife habitat, from riparian areas bordering

rivers and streams, to sagebrush flats, lodgepole pine and spruce forests. The wide

range of plant communities create habitat for a variety of animals.

The State of Wyoming owns approximately 1,400 acres that are located primarily

on the valley floor within the boundaries of the Park. These lands were granted to

Wyoming upon statehoodin 1890, for the purpose of providing for the State’s educational system. However, the Wyoming’s school trust has realized little financial

benefit from the grant, as it is extremely difficult to develop at these sensitive locations. Further, development of these lands would threaten the national interest in

protecting the Park.

S. 1105 would exchange these state lands for mineral royalties, appropriated dollars, or unidentified federal lands. This forward thinking action would protect key

lands within Grand Teton National Park to protect the Park and important wildlife

wintering and migration corridors. The legislation would also allow the State of Wyoming to gain additional benefits from State lands in the area.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition strongly supports the exchange of these state

lands out of the Park. This would be a tremendous step for protecting Park values.

We also believe it is fair to compensate the State of Wyoming for these inholdings.

The legislation benefits both the national interest by protecting the integrity of one

of our best national parks, and the State of Wyoming’s interest by providing funding

for the State’s education system. This land exchange can truly benefit all interests

involved, the environment, the public and education.

We are, however, concerned with the possible unintended consequences of this bill

as drafted.

Section 5 states the Secretary of the Interior shall provide the State of Wyoming

with Federal lands or assets as compensation for the State lands acquired by the

United States government. We are concerned that, although it is not the sponsor’s

intention, this provision of unspecified land could lead to the disposition of environVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:34 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\76-718 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
42

mentally sensitive tracts of federal land that could then be developed. Further, the

legislation does not provide any limits on the pool of federal land from which the

State could make selections. For example, such lands are not limited to the State

of Wyoming. Nor is there a limit on whether lands could be taken from National

Parks, for example, or perhaps from National Forests.

This problem can be avoided by not offering the State real property as compensation. The Section 5 language currently provides that the Secretary of the Interior

‘‘shall exchange Federal lands of equal value or other Federal assets of equal value,

or a combination of both, for the State lands.’’ We suggest this language should be

amended to read ‘‘shall exchange Federal assets of equal value, exclusive of real

property, for the State lands.’’

We believe it would be advantageous to all interests if the State of Wyoming receives as compensation for the state parcels royalty payments due the United States

from existing development of energy tracts on federal lands. The State would receive

payments until it is fully compensated, then the royalty rights would revert back

to the United States.

The advantages of exchanging the state land for fuels royalties are several. First,

appraisals are only required on the State lands. Second, there is no environmental

downside because the possibility of the State of Wyoming acquiring sensitive lands

is eliminated. And finally, the State receives direct revenues to use for its education

system, as opposed to more land that must be developed before any benefit is derived.

Although it is not our preference, the legislation could also be amended by limiting the State’s selection to property that has been identified for disposal through

agreement by all of the interested parties. If this route is selected, we believe it

would be prudent to adhere to past models on this issue. For example, with the land

exchange legislation for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in the

State of Utah, the environmental community was involved in determining which

federal lands were suitable for disposal, and these lands were then specifically identified in the legislation.

We also note that Section 4 allows the Governor to petition to Federal Court in

the event of a dispute over valuation of exchanged lands, but the same option is

not provided to the Secretary. There should be parallel opportunities for resolving

potential disputes.

We believe that with resolution of these issues, the Grand Teton National Park

Land Exchange Act would be important and beneficial legislation both for our National Park System and the State of Wyoming. We appreciate the collaborative and

cooperative efforts to see the success of Senator Thomas’ commitment to what can

be a win for all interests. Improving this bill will improve that success and strengthen the Grand Teton National Park far into the future.

RESOLUTION N0. 64597

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 1953 (LANTOS) AND S. 941 (FEINSTEIN-BOXER)

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATIONAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of

California, that

WHEREAS, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) was created by

an act of Congress in 1972 to ‘‘preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas

of Marin and San Francisco counties . . . possessing outstanding natural, historic,

scenic and recreational values;’’ and in 1980 federal legislation was enacted to expand the boundary of the GGNRA to include significant lands in San Mateo County

including the 1,100-acre Sweeney Ridge property;

WHEREAS, the GGNRA consists of 74,000 acres of land and water, approximately 28 miles of coastline and specific sites including Alcatraz, Marin Headlands,

Fort Funston, Fort Mason, Muir Woods, Fort Point National Historic Site and now

the San Francisco Presidio; it offers diverse urban and rural lands that are regarded

as nationally significant cultural and natural resources;

WHEREAS, House Resolution 1953 (Lantos) and Senate 941 (Feinstein and

Boxer) would expand and adjust the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA) to include an area of about 5,000 acres of undeveloped land

known as the Devil’s Slide area and the Rancho Corral de Tierra located on the

coast in San Mateo County;

WHEREAS, the lands proposed to be added to the GGNRA under H.R. 1953 and

S. 941 according to a comprehensive study completed by the Peninsula Open Space

Trust in consultation with the National Park Service staff, would provide a logical

43

southern entry to the GGNRA and protect an unusually large piece of significant

scenic and ecological resource firmly linked to existing parkland;

WHEREAS, the Devil’s Slide properties will become landlocked when the tunnel

is built and the old Highway One alignment at Devil’s Slide is proposed to be kept

as a trail for nonmotorized use as it will be deemed excess;

Regularly passed and adopted the 24th day of July, 2001.

AYES and in favor of said resolution.

Supervisors: Mark Church, Jerry Hill, Richard S. Gordon, Rose Jacobs Gibson,

Michael D. Nevin.

NOES and against said resolution:

Supervisors: None.

Absent Supervisors: None.

MICHAEL D. NEVIN,

President, Board of Supervisors,

County of San Mateo,

State of California.

Certificate of Delivery

(Government Code section 25103)

I certify that a copy of the original resolution filed in the Office of the Clerk of

the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County has been delivered to the President

of the Board of Supervisors.

ASHNITA NARAYAN, Deputy,

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

Æ