Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I have a question.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Hartzog, are the people who own private homes on the island objecting to this project? A number of objections toMr. HARTZOG. Oh, we have some opposition, Mr. Skubitz. I would be less than candid if I told you everybody was all for this.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Off the record.

(Off the record discussion.)

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Hartzog, do property owners now have their automobiles located on the island?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; they do.

Mr. TAYLOR. Under this legislation you recommend that visitors not be permitted automobiles on the island. What about your recommendation concerning the property owners who will retain their homes?

Mr. HARTZOG. I would recommend that they be allowed to keep their automobiles but that they not be allowed to drive them on the beaches which they now do, that they be confined to the use of the jitney road system.

Mr. TAYLOR. You recommend that no motorized equipment be allowed on the beaches?

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right, unless in an emergency it is necessary to get down to the beach with a jitney service in order to get through because of high water, or some such thing as that.

Mr. TAYLOR. The House now has a roll call vote on and we recess until 2:30 this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. TAYLOR. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will reconvene.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. TAYLOR. Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Joe D. Tanner, commissioner, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Tanner, it is good to see you again. I saw you when we were down making inspection of the island.

STATEMENT OF JOE D. TANNER, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ACCOMPANIED BY SAM CHANDLER, DIRECTOR, NATURAL AREAS COUNCIL

Mr. TANNER. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission I would like to ask Sam Chandler, Director of Natural Areas for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to join me, and if I could also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that my statement as presented to the committee be included in the record and then I will try to summarize and add thereto.

Mr. TAYLOR. So ordered.

Mr. TANNER. Thank you, sir.

(Mr. Tanner's statement referred to above follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOE D. TANNER, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL RESOURCES

In 1955, the National Park Service carried out an extensive survey of the remaining opportunities to preserve outstanding natural seashore resources along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Three of the five best areas identified have been acquired as suggested, but Cumberland Island, which they cited as being "of national significance and one of the two (with Cape Cod) most outstanding seashore areas remaining along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts," remains unprotected. Two years ago we narrowly averted the first residential subdivision on Cumberland Island. The forces that paved the way for that development-the upward spiral of land values, the rising taxes, and the diminishing supply of open space— promise that, unless there is federal legislation to preserve this Island, there will soon be little left to protect.

I have come here today to represent Governor Carter and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources in asking you to support the creation of a national seashore on Cumberland Island. We have seen the preservation of Georgia's unique natural areas as one of our chief responsibilities to the people of the State and the nation. No area has been of greater concern to us than the coastal lands and waters.

We therefore support the thrust of House Resolution 9859. It is because we are so anxious to see the Island protected that we have reservations about some of the bill's provisions.

The resolution speaks of the potential of the Island for recreational use and enjoyment; it does not manifest similar concern for the protection of the delicate ecological balances. Few natural features are more fragile than sand dunes, salt marshes, and the water table upon which the unique freshwater marshes on Cumberland depend. Vulnerable as they are to insensitive recreational development. the bill makes no provision for their conservation.

Absent from the preamble of this Act is the declaration of purpose included in the bill which established Fire Island National Seashore:

For the purpose of conserving and preserving for the use of future generations certain relatively unspoiled and undeveloped beaches, dunes, and other natural features . . . which possess high values to the Nation as examples of unspoiled areas of great natural beauty.

Nor is there anywhere the commitment included in the Act establishing Cape Cod National Seashore, which provides:

In order that the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its present state, no development or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing or with the preservation of such historic sites and structures as the Secretary may designate. We urge the inclusion of these sorts of guidelines in the resolution. We need recreational beaches. But Cumberland Island is much more than a beach. On its west are the largest salt marshes south of Chesapeake; inland is the largest fresh-water lake so close to ocean; wild hogs, turkeys, and alligators still roam the Island, along with the Cumberland Island Pocket gopher which is found nowhere else. On the dunes and in the forests of Cumberland are the marks of human life stretching back 10,000 years: the remains of Indians, and the Spanish who followed them; the remains of pirates, and the British who followed them. Above all, on Cumberland Island, the impression is one of nature in process.

The National Park Service wrote of the Island:

"Forming first under a prehistoric sea, then emerging from the receding ocean, the Island continues to be molded and reshaped by changing winds and moving tides... the overall effect is one of pristine beauty and serenity achieved in a forest type that is not now adequately represented in any unit of the National Park System."

If we establish the Island as a National Seashore, but forget the Island's natural uniqueness and promote a typical recreation area, then we have not done much better than those who would subdivide it.

The State of Georgia opposes the construction of a causeway to the Island. There is no real justification for the bridge, because, other than limited camping

facilities, there will be no accommodations on the Island. We recommend that you remove from this Act provisions that encourage the building of such a causeway, and instead prohibit it. No bridge has ever been built to a National Seashore once established, and there is no reason to begin the practice.

An island connected to the mainland by a highway is not an island. With roads come cars and their offspring-gas stations, convenience stores, motels. The land their construction destroys is only the most obvious victim. More damaging by far is the fact that in their coming natural process loses dominion, and dunes, forests, and marshes all become simply background scenery.

The State of Georgia sees no need for the establishment of an Advisory Commission. We cannot help but see such a body, in view of its make-up and assigned responsibilities, as a lobby for development. Development has quite sufficient a lobby already; it needs no additional voice.

If you feel, nevertheless, that there must be such a Commission, we hope that you will change its composition so as to more adequately represent the interests of the State in guiding natural resource policy. If there is to be a Commission, let it be one composed of persons who understand the land and water and can design policies which protect the Island while promoting maximum public benefit. Reorganization of State Government has led to the abolishment of the Ocean Science Center of the Atlantic Commission; therefore, some reconstitution of the Commission is necessary in any case.

Even without a bridge, the establishment of a National Seashore will give a tremendous economic boost to surrounding counties. According to a 1968 study by the University of Georgia, the establishment of a National Sea-Shore on Cumberland Island, with no bridge, would result in expenditures of $81 million by an estimated 11.5 million visitors in Camden and Glynn Counties in the first 15 years of the Seashore. The Seashore would create 915 new jobs, and generate $5,300,000 revenue in Camden County alone through the creation of new homes and businesses.

The Cumberland Island National Seashore would quadruple the beach area available in Georgia. It would constitute Georgia's only major component of the National Park System. We are anxious that the Seashore be created and that it be designed with appropriate respect for the integrity of this natural resource. We have learned that wilderness cannot be considered a luxury and left to the end of a long list of priorities. We do a disservice to ourselves if we do not show a sensitivity to the dictates of nature. It is important that Georgiansand Americans in general-be able to visit areas where nature still holds dominion.

I trust in your good judgement. Thank you.

Mr. TANNER. Let me first thank you for the privilege and the opportunity to come up and testify concerning Cumberland Island. I am here today representing Governor Carter and representing the new Georgia Department of Natural Resources, which is a result of reorganization, an agency of our State government that represents 33 previously existing agencies and departments of the State government. We are charged with all of the natural resources and all of the coastal resources management and protection in our State.

We consider one of our great callings to be the preservation of Georgia's unique natural areas and one of our chief responsibilities and one of our chief interests is our concern for the rich coastal lands and waters of our State.

As you know, Georgia perhaps is more blessed than any other State in the Nation with resources on our coast, Cumberland Island being one of the tremendous resources we do have. The National Park Service during its various studies dating from 1955 has recognized that Cumberland Island is one of the most significant national seashores that remains along the Atlantic and gulf coasts, but at the same time Cumberland Island is still unprotected to this day.

Only about 2 years ago did we narrowly avert the first residential subdivision on Cumberland Island. We prevented a subdevelopment

from taking place on its east coast. The upward spiral of land values, the rising taxes, the diminishing supply of open space, are continuing and the need to protect Cumberland Island is greater than ever.

We support the House resolution. We do have one or two suggestions we would like to submit for your consideration.

The resolution before your committee speaks about the potential of the island for recreational use and enjoyment. It does not in our opinion manifest enough concern for the protection of the environmental or delicate ecological balances of this unique resource.

We would like to see included in the present amendment such protective language as included in the Fire Island National Seashore language and also the Cape Cod National Seashore language.

We do need recreational beaches but Cumberland Island is far more than a recreational beach. It contains some of the largest salt water marshes on the coast. It abounds with deer, turkey, and alligators. There are many unique animals that reside in Cumberland Island. Cumberland Island is perhaps the most outstanding refuge in the Nation. So Cumberland Island is more than just a recreational area and we would encourage your comittee to consider language to make it very clear that we would like Cumberland Island to be natural and left in its natural state as much as humanly possible.

The State would also like to go on record in opposition to the construction of a causeway. We don't believe that there is any justification for a bridge or causeway to Cumberland. There will be no camping facilities there. There will be no overnight accommodations on the island and we hope that none are considered in the future.

We would recommend to you that you remove from the act provisions that would encourage the building of a causeway and in fact we would encourage you to include language that would prohibit the building of a causeway.

If a causeway is built, we have a number of concerns. No. 1, we would lose beautiful and valuable marshlands. The increased traffic and lack of control as a result of the causeway we feel could overtask the resources of Cumberland Island. We are very concerned that things like dune buggies and motorcycles and gas stations and motels "t some time in the future could possibly be built if a causeway is constructed. I will make a statement a little later concerning the economics of the matter without the causeway being built.

The State of Georgia would also like to go on record as being opposed to the advisory commission. We see no need for an advisory commission. It would seem to us that it would simply serve as a lobby for development and we do not believe that development needs any lobby, that it is more than adequately represented at the present time. If there is to be a commission we would suggest that it be composed of persons who understand the land and water of this unique area and who can design policies which protect the island while promoting maximum public benefit.

I would also like to point out to your committee that as a result of the reorganization of the State government, the Ocean Science Center of the Atlantic Commission has been abolished. As you know, this bill calls for four members of the Ocean Science Center of the Atlantic Commission to serve on the advisory commission. I am certain you

would have to reconstitute the Commission, if you feel it is necessary, since there is no longer an Ocean Science Center.

I would like to briefly describe the economic impact of the national seashore as we see it on the area without the bridge or without the causeway being built over to Cumberland. This is a result of a 1968 study by the University of Georgia which projects that the national seashore on Cumberland would result in $81 million being spent by an estimated 11.5 million visitors in Camden and Glynn Counties in the first 5 years of the seashore. The seashore would create 915 new jobs. It would generate $5,300,000 revenue in Camden County alone through its creation of new homes and businesses as a result of the seashore.

Cumberland Island would constitute the only major component of our national park system. This is particularly important to us in Georgia as I think you will note the Land and Water Conservation Fundsthose funds of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which have been made available to the National Forest Service in Georgia over the past 7 years have amounted to over a million dollars a year. We understand that this next fiscal year we can expect a cutback from over a million dollars a year back to $143,000 of Land and Water Conservation funds to be expended on acquisition of new national forest lands and as a result of this, there will be no funds available, either State or Federal, of any magnitude whatsoever to purchase and preserve unique natural areas in our State.

So I would urge very strongly your committee to report this bill, to do everything that we can for the passage to create the Cumberland Island National Seashore.

At the same time, I would like to pledge to the committee and to the Federal Government of the State of Georgia's absolute and total cooperation in this endeavor and we stand ready, willing and able to work hand in hand with the Federal Government in this endeavor. Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much for a very fine position statement. I agree with you that Georgia is blessed with some very beautiful offshore islands. I spent a week once at Saint Simon's. I visited Sea Island several times. They have a beautiful golf course. We have been to Jekyll Island a number of times. They have been great vacation spots for me and people in my State and I think Cumberland Island is the most beautiful one and I think we have a great opportunity here.

You express concern with regard to the causeway. As I understand it, no bridge or causeway is planned. What provision in the bill do you think encourages construction of a causeway?

Mr. TANNER. As I understand the language in the last bill that I saw there were provisions that the Secretary along with this advisory committee could in fact determine that if the ferry service was inadequate, that a causeway could be constructed, I would assume considering that moneys would be appropriated.

We would like to see-we believe this frankly to be the primary reason for the advisory commission. We would frankly like to see language in the bill which would prohibit construction of the cause

way.