that authority and we think that the Advisory Commission is very important and ought to be set up promptly in the case of each national park area.

That is the essence of our testimony, Mr. Clairman. We are fully in support of this legislation and we do feel strongly that it is a unique natural area and it should be protected as such.

Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think your point is well taken. I think we do need, and I hope counsel listens to this, I think we do need an appropriate amendment in the bill which directs the National Park Service to make it more as a natural area than as a public use area or a recreation area. I think it lends itself to that type of management. The gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. BEGICH. No questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RUPPE. You indicate, and perhaps I lost you for a moment during the testimony, that the park Advisory Commission should be extended in life?

Mr. MORRIS. We think it should be permanent. The legislature I believe calls for a 10-year duration.

Mr. RUPPE. As far as the power of the Commission is concerned, it is my understanding the present Supervisory Commissions are just exactly that, advisory only in their recommendations to the Secretary of Interior or the Director of the Park Service.

Mr. MORRIS. That is right.

Mr. RUPPE. Do you contemplate any change in the authority to be given to this Advisory Commission?

Mr. MORRIS. NO, I would-we would say an Advisory Commission must indeed be advisory. Where they are composed of-properly composed, we are sure that the Park Service would be responsive to the advice by the Commission, but we recognize that the final decisions must be placed in the Park Service.

Mr. RUPPE. You do feel a continuation of the advisory group, however, would certainly have a bearing and an influence on the direction the seashore management would take?

Mr. MORRIS. Yes. We are confident that it would, yes. Since planning and management obviously is a long term thing, it would be important to have the Advisory Commission there on a permanent basis. Mr. RUPPE. Do you have any comment, having heard Mr. Foster's comments this morning, concerning the placement of his land in some sort of a natural conservatory or conservation group?

Mr. MORRIS. I have no comment really about that. We are fully supportive of his desires to see it managed in the way that he has described.

Mr. RUPPE. Although not his techniques, you certainly support the management goals, conservation goals, limitations on usage by either certain types of vehicles?

Mr. MORRIS. Absolutely.

Mr. RUPPE. Also concern over the vast numbers of people who have used Assateague, and so forth?

Mr. MORRIS. Absolutely.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas.

82-773-728

Mr. SEBELIUS. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Morris.
(The statement referred to above follows:)

STATEMENT OF JONAS V. MORRIS ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL PARKS AND
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jonas V. Morris, and my offices are located at 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. This statement is presented on behalf of the National Parks and Conservation Association, a private nonprofit organization, educational and scientific in character. It publishes the monthly National Parks and Conservation Magazine, the Environmental Journal, which goes to each of the more than 50,000 members of the Association.

NPCA, as the only national organization whose major field of interest is the national park system, appreciates your invitation to express its views on HR 9859, a bill to establish the Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia. These islands, in combination with a staging area on the mainland as envisioned under HR 9859, would be a valuable addition to the national park system. Recreational opportunities within the proposed boundaries are significant, and under the Park Service' current plans many more people will be able to enjoy the area.

This area is one which lends itself extremely well to a policy of restricting automobile access and providing alternative means to move people through the area. The Park Service' plans in this regard are good, and we fully support the proposals for a passenger ferry system to bring people to the island, and the motor jitney service to transport them once they get there. This system will provide greatly improved access for the public, while at the same time preserving the natural and historic resources of the islands. NPCA has long advocated such a policy in units of the park system where excessive automobile use detracts from the visitor's enjoyment. In this instance, the Park Service has foreseen the problems in advance, and we commend them for their decision to prohibit visitor automobile access to the islands. (Access for life tenants, obviously, will continue to be available.)

We also believe the Park Service plans for the islands, which include both the development of recreational facilities and the establishment of natural and historic areas, will ensure a wide range of different recreational opportunities to cater to the varied demands of visitors. We are particularly glad to see the establishment of ecological and environmental research areas, and with the plans for providing cycle rentals and trails.

Altogether, we believe Park Service plans will ensure that the unique natural values of the area are preserved, while at the same time greatly expanding the opportunities for visitor use, and NPCA therefore supports the bill before you (HR 9859). We would, however, like to recommend an amendment to Section 7 of the bill.

NPCA supports the establishment of an Advisory Commission for Cumberland Islands, authorized under Section 7, as a provision which should ensure public participation in the planning and operation of the Seashore. However, we can see no reason to limit the life of this Commission to ten years. Planning for areas of the national park system is a continuous process, as the areas must adapt to changing use patterns and changing visitor demands. Park Service master plans are revised periodically-sometimes as often as every four or five years-and public participation is desirable both in the initial planning stage and in these periodic reviews. Although all of the park Advisory Commissions created by statute are temporary bodies, those established by the Park Service can be permanent. We believe that the Congress should change its policy in this regard, and amend Section 7 to make the Commission a permanent body.

A second problem with the Advisory Commission is the question of who is to serve on such a body. Traditionally, these Commissions have not proved to be representative of the general public, or of interested groups who could offer some significant insight into park planning. Some recommendation in the language of the bill is necessary to ensure that local conservation interests and representatives from conservation and environmental groups and organizations, as well as the general public participate in these Advisory Commissions.

Finally, we would like to commend the provision in Section 4(d) of this bill to permit the creation of a trust for the preservation of the resources of Little Cum

berland Island. Such an arrangement, if it can be satisfactorily drawn up, is far preferable to federal acquisition and will free money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund for use by the Park Service in other areas.

In conclusion, NPCA supports the bill, but recommends amendments to Section 7, as outlined above.

Mr. TAYLOR. Kenneth L. Harrison, Camden County Tribune.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. HARRISON, CAMDEN COUNTY TRIBUNE

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I am here as an individual, and not as a business. I am Kenneth L. Harrison. My purpose here is to state my objection to section C, page 4, lines 22, 23, and 24 and page 5, line 1 of House Resolution 9859. To the best of my knowledge, this date, February 1970, will allow every homeowner on Cumberland Island to keep their homes, except three families, whose homes were completed and occupied before the introduction of H.R. 9859 in July 1971. We purchased our property on Cumberland on July 1968, before any land transfers were made to the National Parks Foundation, and began plans on our home. We drilled a well in 1969 and established a temporary shelter and began transporting building materials and supplies. Due the the difficulty of building on an undeveloped island, actual construction did not begin until summer of 1970.

Our home was completed and occupied in 1970. It was returned for taxes in Camden County and homestead exemption claimed in January 1971, all before the introduction of H.R. 9859 in July 1971.

I would like to call your attention to an official resolution of the Board of Camden County Commissioners which in part states: "The provision in the bill, page 5, line 1, designating February 1970 as the last date for any construction of dwellings should be stricken." The resolution also strongly objects to the condemnation of any property on Cumberland Island.

My wife, my three sons and I put many months of hard work into our home. We love the island and have not, nor ever would do anything to harm it in any way. We are nature lovers and wish to simply enjoy the island as other homeowners.

I therefore appeal to you as public officials to exercise justice and fairplay to assure us equal rights and privileges to our property. Thank you, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Harrison, you stated that only three homes have been constructed on Big Cumberland Island since February 1970?

Mr. HARRISON. That is to my knowledge. I don't go on other people's property and I haven't observed what has been done on Little Cumberland Island and other places.

Mr. TAYLOR. Suppose the cut-off date were changed from February 1970 to July 1971, using the date that the bill H.R. 9850 was introduced. Would that take care of your situation?

Mr. HARRISON. That seems fair to me; yes, sir. That would be fair. Mr. TAYLOR. I think that would be a fairer date than the other.

Mr. HARRISON. Well, that is when Congressman Stuckey introduced the bill, July 1971.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

The gentleman from Alaska, any questions?

Mr. BEGICH. I wonder if we could, Mr. Chairman, verify the actual number of homes that are there. Can we get that record from somebody?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. There was testimony

Mr. HARRISON. It is not available to me, sir. I am only interested in my situation.

Mr. MCELVAIN. I think there were several but we can get that from the Park Service.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think it was about 19 homes, residences, that are on Big Cumberland now.

Mr. HARRISON. A number of those have been started at different times. These three I am talking about were apparently not completed and occupied prior to the introduction of the bill but the date of the bill excludes us from the privileges which have already been offered by the national parks.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would state that in bills of this type a cutoff date is customarily placed in the legislation, because so often there is a rush after the bill is introduced or after it appears the park is going to be created; there is a rush to start new homes and to promote new building. That date is to prevent that.

Mr. HARRISON. I realize that, sir, and I wanted to emphasize that this was not my case. Since 1950 I have loved Cumberland İsland. That is when I first visited.

I might inject, you asked about hunting. The National Parks Foundation sold hunting rights this past winter and I saw deer slain more than you slay pigs and it was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life. I never killed a deer and it is just unbelievable. Mr. TAYLOR. I judge that they didn't permit the owners of the property to reserve hunting rights, did they?

Mr. HARRISON. They leased all of the lands in control of the National Parks Foundation to an individual who brought people for a fee to hunt and kill, which was disheartening.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RUPPE. What is the acreage of your property?

Mr. HARRISON. It is only 1 acre, sir, but it is my home. I live there. I feel real small sitting here with these big folks, but it is my home and I love it and

Mr. RUPPE. Do you live there most of the year, sir?

Mr. HARRISON. I live there all the time except I have a business in Saint Mary's. If the weather is bad-I don't go back in bad weather. That is my home. I claim homestead exemption and the boat trip is about 15 minutes to work. But yesterday it was brought out that Miss Lucy was the only permanent resident. I am one also.

Mr. BEGICH. Would the gentleman yield? Are your children of school age?

Mr. HARRISON. One is in high school.

Mr. BEGICH. Do you take them to school each day by boat?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes.

Mr. BEGICH. Well, that is getting close to my State of Alaska now. Mr. HARRISON. It is only a 15-minute run, so we don't have any problem.

Mr. BEGICH. In other words, you have heard about antibusing but not antiboating.

Mr. RUPPE. But you are antipipeline. [Laughter.]

Mr. HARRISON. I will tell you the truth, I am just anti-botheringmy-home.

Mr. BEGICH. There was a national story just the other day about Alaskans being against "planing," which is busing their children by plane.

Mr. HARRISON. Helicopters would be nice.

Mr. BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much for a very thoughtful statement. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Would you point out on the map basically where your home is located?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; if I can find it. It is right here. I am one of these dots.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison.

Mrs. Barclay McFadden, accompanied by Russell Brenneman. STATEMENT OF MRS. BARCLAY MCFADDEN; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. RUSSELL L. BRENNEMAN

Mr. BRENNEMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Russell Brenneman, a partner in the law firm of Copp, Brenneman & Tighe, of New London and Hartford, Conn., and I make this statement on behalf of Mrs. Barclay McFadden of Germantown, Tenn., who is the owner of approximately 75 acres of land on Cumberland Island.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you desire to place the entire statement in the record and summarize as you see fit?

Mr. BRENNEMAN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read my statement.

Mr. TAYLOR. Proceed.

Mr. BRENNEMAN. Departing from it for the moment, this land is shown as the first green band from the bottom on the map on the easel.

It may seem strange that a resident of Tennessee owning land in Georgia should seek the counsel of a law firm in Connecticut with respect to a legislative hearing in Washington, D.C. The primary reason is that our firm, for the past dozen years, has been involved in environmental law and consideration of the kinds of judgments which this subcommittee is now called upon to make in connection with H.R. 9859. Specifically, I am presently serving as special counsel to the newly created Department of Environmental Protection of the State of Connecticut and have experience both as a representative of the bureaucracy and as an attorney for individuals, foundations, and organizations in making such judgments.

More importantly, my presence here emphasizes that we are dealing here with a national resource. The Barrier Islands of Georgia are unique. Cumberland is among the last which is unspoiled. As citizens and taxpayers we New Englanders also have an interest in what happens to this island.