S-1876-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 215.
Sponsored by Thomas Tillis (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would authorize the U.S. Forest Service to relocate a memorial honoring nine Air Force crew members killed in a 1982 training mission crash in the Cherokee and Nantahala National Forests. Relocation would only occur if the current private landowner consents. The new site would be at the Stratton Ridge rest area on the Cherohala Skyway in Graham County, North Carolina, within the Nantahala National Forest, subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and, if adjacent to a federal-aid highway, the Federal Highway Administration.
Who benefits
Families and descendants of the nine Air Force crew members killed in the 1982 crash, who would gain a more publicly accessible and permanently protected memorial site on federal land. Veterans' groups and the general public who visit the Cherohala Skyway and Nantahala National Forest. The current private landowner, who would be relieved of hosting the memorial on their property if they choose to consent. Local tourism interests in Graham County, North Carolina, who may benefit from increased visitor interest at the rest area.
Who is hurt
No group is clearly harmed. The private landowner retains full veto power through the consent requirement. There is a minor administrative cost to the Forest Service, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and potentially the Federal Highway Administration to review and approve the relocation. Visitors who currently access the memorial at its private land location would need to travel to the new site.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that moving the memorial to federal land at a public rest stop on the Cherohala Skyway would ensure it is permanently accessible to the public, protected from future land-use changes, and properly maintained — honoring the nine crew members' sacrifice in a dignified, lasting way. They contend the bill is narrowly tailored, requiring both private landowner consent and multi-agency approval, ensuring no party is compelled to act against their interests.
Opponents argue
Opponents might argue that the federal government has limited reason to intervene in what is essentially a local or private commemorative matter, and that Forest Service resources and administrative attention could be directed toward more pressing land management priorities. They could also contend that if the current landowner is satisfied with the memorial's location, federal authorization to move it — even with a consent requirement — introduces unnecessary bureaucratic complexity into a straightforward private arrangement.