[Senate Hearing 110-539]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-539
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1774 S. 3017
S. 2255 S. 3045
S. 2359 S. 3096
S. 2943 H.R. 1143
S. 3010 H.R. 3022
__________
JUNE 17, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-853 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii.................. 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California................ 8
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 2
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., Delegate to Congress, U.S. Virgin
Islands........................................................ 4
Knechtel, Jon, Director of Trail Management/Acting Executive
Director, Pacific Northwest Trail Association, Sedro-Woolley,
WA............................................................. 24
Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator From Florida.................... 10
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 6
Taylor-Goodrich, Karen, Associate Director, Visitor and Resource
Protection, National Park Service, Department of the Interior.. 12
Veni, George, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Cave and Karst
Research Institute............................................. 37
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM
HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Good afternoon everyone. The Subcommittee on
National Parks will come to order.
Despite holding hearings on almost 20 park and historic
preservation bills in April and reporting most of those from
the full committee in May, we still have many requests to
consider new bills. Like the previous hearings, this hearing
will cover a wide range of subjects including two national park
wilderness proposals, new national trail designations, the
first proposed national heritage area in the Forest Service, a
historical commemorative commission, and a proposal to lease
high value, national park lands to allow for continued
operation of a resort.
At this point I'd like to list the specific bills that we
will be hearing today. They include:
S. 1774 and H.R. 3022, which would designate certain lands
as wilderness in the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in
California;
S. 2255, to authorize studies of the Chisholm Trail and the
Great Western Trail for potential addition to the National
Trails System;
S. 2539, to establish a commission to commemorate the 450th
anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, Florida;
S. 2493, to designate the Pacific Northwest National Scenic
Trail;
S. 3010, to reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Preservation
Program;
S. 3017, to designate the Beaver Basin Wilderness in
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan;
S. 3045, to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Forest Heritage Area in Alaska;
S. 3096, to authorize appropriations for the National Cave
and Karst Research Institute; and
H.R. 1143, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
lease the Caneel Bay property in Virgin Islands National Park.
While many of the bills on today's agenda are supported by
the Park Service and are not controversial, others raise
important policy issues. I hope to use this afternoon's hearing
to better understand some of the issues of concern. At this
time I'd like to recognize Senator Burr, our ranking member of
the subcommittee for his opening statement.
Senator Burr.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From Washington
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing on several
important public lands bills and for including a bill I introduced with
Senator Murray to designate the Pacific Northwest Trail a National
Scenic Trail.
I'd also like to specifically welcome Jon Knechtel (Kuh-necktell)
from Washington state, the Director of Trail Management and Acting
Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Trail Association.
Mr. Knechtel has worked tirelessly over the years, together with
volunteers, partners, and students to promote, share, and bring greater
recognition to the Pacific Northwest Trail.
My home state of Washington, and the Pacific Northwest in general,
is home some of the most pristine nature and breathtaking scenery this
country has to offer.
The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from the Continental Divide to
the Pacific Coast, is 1,200 miles long and ranks among the most scenic
trails in the world.
This carefully chosen path runs through the Rocky Mountains,
Selkirk Mountains, Pasayten Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic
Mountains, and Wilderness Coast.
From beginning to end it passes through three states, crosses three
National Parks, and winds through seven National Forests.
Designating the Pacific Northwest Trail a National Scenic Trail
will give it the proper recognition, bring benefits to countless
neighboring communities, and promote its protection, development, and
maintenance.
In 1980, the National Park Service and the Forest Service completed
a feasibility study of the proposed Pacific Northwest Trail.
The study concluded that the Pacific Northwest Trail has the scenic
and recreational qualities needed for designation as a National Scenic
Trail.
Today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest Trail are
completed and provide significant outdoor recreational experiences to
citizens and visitors of the United States.
Three segments of the Trail have already been designated as
national recreation trails.
Adding the Pacific Northwest Trail to the National Trail--System
has gained the support of Commissioners in Clallam, Jefferson, Island,
Skagit, Whatcom, Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties in
Washington and Boundary County in Idaho.
Many County Commissioners and Mayors in numerous cities along the
trail support the national scenic designation and the economic impact
the trail has had on their communities.
National Scenic Trails provide recreation, conservation, and
enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural
qualities. The Pacific Northwest Trail is a national prize and should
be recognized as such.
I look forward to working with this committee to properly recognize
one of the truly most scenic trails in our nation's land.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
Thank you for convening this very important meeting.
Now we do have a full agenda as usual. All of these bills
are important. But two have caught my attention as I prepared
for this hearing.
First is S. 3045 which would establish the Kenai Mountain
National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska. Senator
Murkowski can be assured that I'm not questioning the merits of
this area for national designation. But we need to take a close
look at how it's been structured.
Of 40 National Heritage Areas that currently exist, all of
them are placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior. S. 3045 would make the Department of Agriculture
responsible for the Kenai Mountains Heritage Area. Why is it
necessary to place it within agriculture? Is it the right thing
to do? I'd like to discuss that with our witnesses today after
receiving their testimony.
The second item of concern is H.R. 1143 a bill to authorize
the National Park Service to arrange a long term lease with the
proprietors of Caneel Bay Resort in the Virgin Islands National
Park. At first glance this looks like we're authorizing a sole
source contract and a sweet deal for a profit making company. I
understand that the National Park Service views it as a
beneficial arrangement for the U.S. Government and supports the
legislation. I'm very interested in hearing the logic behind
the Park Service's position this morning.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I
look forward to hearing their testimonies. At this time, Mr.
Chairman, I would yield back.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. Now I'd
like to call on Senator Murkowski for her statement.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chairman. You know between
the McCaskill, Mikulski and Murkowski, all three women. The
fact that you got close was just fine.
Chairman, I want to thank you for adding S. 3045, which
will establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National
Forest Heritage Area. This is in my State. I appreciate it
being on the agenda today.
We have a very rich history in the State. But in spite of
nearly a decade of effort, Alaska hosts not one single National
Heritage Area. This would be the first for Alaska. I do believe
it's about time.
The proposed Heritage Area designation has been endorsed by
the municipality of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Burrow and
the Cities of Seward and Whittier as well as numerous
conservation and historic preservation groups. This proposed
Heritage Area would encompass some of Alaska's most beautiful
and most accessible and most heavily visited places including
the communities of Girdwood, Cooper Landing, Hope, Seward and
Whittier. This area in the State draws many, many visitors,
tens of thousands of visitors each year from every part of our
Nation and around the world. Yet few of our visitors know much
more about the area than that it offers some of the most
picturesque scenery that our Nation has to offer.
The Kenai-Turnagain Arm Corridor Communities Association
was created back in 2000 to promote the historic and cultural
significance of this area. In 2000 the Senate passed
legislation designating a heritage area under the auspices of
the National Park Services National Heritage Area program. This
legislation wasn't enacted into law, but the Corridor
Communities Association didn't give up. They worked over the
past several years to refine their proposal.
The current proposal that we see in the legislation would
establish our Nation's first National Heritage Area under the
auspices of the Forest Service. This is the product of several
years of conversations between the Chugach National Forest and
National Park Service in the Alaska region. I'm told that the
proposal fits within the strategic direction of the Chugach
National Forest.
It is an outside the box, innovative approach to the
Heritage Area concept. It was custom designed to address the
capabilities, the limitations of the communities involved. It
steers clear of some of the criticisms about National Heritage
Areas that are often advanced here in the Senate. It's been
described as a low budget approach which would leverage
partnerships and existing facilities to tell the stories of
these unique communities to the visitors that are drawn to the
region.
This afternoon we'll hear from the Department of
Agriculture and the National Park Service on S. 3045. The
Corridor Communities Association has submitted testimony for
the record along with supporting resolutions. I would ask that
they would also be included in the record, and further ask that
the endorsing letter of the National Park's Conservation
Association be included in the record.
I'm pleased that we have the witnesses with us today and
look forward to the testimony on this bill and the other
matters on the agenda. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. Now
I'd like to call on Congresswoman Donna Christensen for your
statement on H.R. 1143.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, DELEGATE TO CONGRESS,
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Ms. Christensen. Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon,
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, Senator Murkowski. It's
good to be back here again.
Senator Akaka. We're pleased to welcome you back to the
subcommittee.
Ms. Christensen. Yes, thank you and thanks for once again
allowing me to make a brief statement in support of legislation
that I sponsored, H.R. 1143 which would authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to enter into a lease with the owners of Caneel
Bay Resort in my Congressional District. I want to thank you
for such a timely scheduling of this hearing on the bill.
Mr. Chairman and ranking member, members of the
subcommittee, Caneel Bay traces its roots to Lawrence
Rockefeller's coming to the Island of St. John in 1952. He
purchased a then existing resort facilities and also acquired
more than 5,000 surrounding acres to protect the area. In 1956
he donated the additional land to create the Virgin Islands
National Park. At the same time he created Caneel Bay Resort
comprising of 170 acres which complements and is
environmentally consistent with the natural beauty of the park
setting and that remains the case today.
Mr. Rockefeller subsequently decided to transfer the land
underlying Caneel Bay to the National Park Service while
retaining the improvements and continuing the Caneel Bay
operations. He accomplished this through the execution of a
series of unique agreements generally known as a retained use
estate or RUE. H.R. 1143 became necessary because the RUE is
slated to expire in 2023 and its current owners require more
than its remaining 15 years to provide the capital and long
term financing necessary to reverse some of the decline that's
happening at the facilities at the resort and to make sure that
we return it and keep it at the grandeur and stature that it
deserves.
Mr. Chairman, other than the Virgin Islands National Park,
Caneel Bay Resort is perhaps the single most important entity
to the tourism based economy of St. John and the Virgin Islands
in general. It is not an exaggeration to say that Caneel Bay
helped to establish the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Island of St.
John, in particular is a major tourist destination point
playing a prominent role in the Islands economic renaissance.
Since its founding in October 1956 it has been and remains
the paradise of choice for generations of families, many of
whom return every year. It is the largest employer on St. John,
employing approximately 475 workers. Many of whom spend their
entire careers spanning two or three decades, some even more,
as employees of Caneel.
The National Park Service testified in support of the bill
when it was considered in the House. I hope that they will do
so again today. We also worked with the executors of Lawrence
S. Rockefeller's estate and the trustees of his family's
conservation, non-profit, Jackson Hole Preserve to secure their
support of the legislation which would provide the National
Park Service leasing authority with certain conditions which we
all believe can be addressed in the negotiations between the
two parties.
In conclusion let me thank you once again, Mr. Chairman for
holding this hearing on H.R. 1143 today. I look forward to
working with you and your colleagues to move the bill to the
floor of the full Senate and on to the White House for the
President's signature.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. Now
I'd like to call the witnesses. Before we do that, are there
any questions for our Congressman Christensen?
Thank you very much, Congresswoman Christensen. We normally
have a separate panel for Administration witnesses. So we'll
call on them. I want to thank you for being here and welcome
your statement.
I would like to invite all three of our witnesses to come
to the table at this time. In our next panel are the Honorable
Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture;
Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director, Visitor and
Resource Protection, National Park Service;
Jon Knechtel, Acting Executive Director, Pacific Northwest
Trail Association.
Now I'd like to call on Honorable Mark Rey to begin with
your statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank Senator Murkowski,
Senator Burr. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here
today on S. 3045 which would establish the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area in South Central
Alaska.
In previous testimony before this subcommittee on similar
legislation the Administration has recommended that the
committee defer action on proposed individual heritage area
designations until national program legislation is enacted that
establishes guidelines and a process for the designation of the
National Heritage Areas. We still support that position. As
other specific designations have programmatic authorizations
like the National Wilderness Act, the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, the National Trails Act, designations that the
Heritage Areas lack.
Notwithstanding that view, the Administration appreciates
the strong community advocacy for designation of the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area. If
feasible this designation would recognize the nationally
significant history of the Kenai Peninsula by providing for the
interpretation of the history and culture of the area. This
designation upon a determination of the feasibility would also
facilitate public enjoyment of these resources and would foster
cooperative planning and partnerships among communities and
State and Federal Government.
S. 3045 would designate one million, two hundred and 17
thousand and 600 acres on the Kenai Peninsula as a National
Forest Heritage Area. Modeled after other National Forest
National Heritage Areas administered by the National Park
Service this would be, as already indicated, the first to be
administered by the Forest Service. 89 percent of the lands
within the proposed boundaries are part of the Chugach National
Forest. The proposed Heritage Area is also surrounded by the
remainder of the more than 5.3 million acres of the Chugach
National Forest.
Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service values
heritage resources and considers it part of the agency's
mission to preserve and interpret them for the public. Indeed,
this year, the Forest Service was given a Preserve America
award for agency action in the heritage preservation arena by
the First Lady.
The Administration believes that the rich history,
spectacular natural resource values and community support
merits the completion of a Heritage Area feasibility study will
offer the evaluation of the area prior to designation.
Completion of the study for this heritage area would assure the
alignment with the management goal of the Chugach National
Forest and provide a strong framework for collaborative
management under which the significant historical resources of
the area would strive, thrive and grow. Information covering
many of the criteria for a National Heritage Area feasibility
studies has already been gathered in previous studies for the
Iditarod National Heritage Area--National Heritage Trail and
the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway.
We recommend that a final feasibility analysis which could
be conducted relatively quickly, be prepared that would
consolidate all of this information into one document, make any
Federal boundary adjustments that may be necessary or identify
any further unknowns. We would be more than willing to work
with the committee on this scope of such an analysis.
Finally Section Eight of the bill would provide that all
laws applicable to the Federal, tribal, State, local and
private lands in the designated area would continue to apply.
As part of the extensive public involvement in developing the
revised management plan for the Chugach National Forest, the
Forest Service worked directly with the proponents of the
Heritage Area to incorporate goals and objectives into the
forest plan that express the mutual interest in protecting and
interpreting the cultural resources of the Kenai Peninsula. The
local coordinating entity has worked tirelessly to bring the
concept of a heritage area for this part of Alaska to reality.
The Administration supports its energy and enthusiasm as it
dovetails with Forest Service support for local communities on
the Kenai Peninsula.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to submit the
entire statement to the record and respond to any questions
that you've got.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture, on S. 3045
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today on S. 3045 which would establish the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area in the
State of Alaska.
In previous testimony before this Subcommittee on similar
legislation, the Administration has consistently recommended that the
Committee defer action on proposed heritage area designations until
national program legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines and
a process for the designation of national heritages areas. We still
support that position and recommend that the Committee defer action on
S. 3045. The Administration appreciates the strong community advocacy
for designation of the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest
Heritage Area. If feasible, this designation would recognize the
nationally significant history of the Kenai Peninsula by providing for
the interpretation of the history and culture of the area. This
designation upon a determination of feasibility would also facilitate
public enjoyment of these resources, and would foster cooperative
planning and partnerships among communities, and State and Federal
governments.
S. 3045 would designate 1,217,600 acres on the Kenai Peninsula as a
National Forest Heritage Area. Modeled after other National Heritage
Areas administered by the National Park Service, this would be the
first to be administered by the Forest Service. Eighty-nine percent of
the lands within the proposed boundaries are within the Chugach
National Forest. The proposed heritage area is also surrounded by the
remainder of the Chugach's more than 5.3 million acres.
Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service values heritage
resources and considers it part of the agency's mission to preserve and
interpret them for the public. The Administration believes that the
rich history, spectacular natural resource values, and community
support merits the completion of a heritage area feasibility study that
would allow for evaluation of the area prior to designation. Completion
of a feasibility study for this heritage area would assure alignment
with the management goals of the Chugach National Forest and provide a
strong framework for collaborative management under which the
significant historical resources of the area would thrive and grow.
Information covering many of the criteria for national heritage area
feasibility studies has been gathered in previous studies for the
Iditarod National Heritage Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic
Byway. We recommend that a final feasibility analysis be prepared that
would consolidate all this information into one document, make any
final boundary adjustments that may be necessary, or identify any
unknowns. We would be willing to work with the Committee on the scope
of the analysis.
Section 5 of the bill would designate a local non-profit
coordinating entity to develop and implement a management plan for the
heritage area. Section 6 would require the entity to submit the
management plan to the Secretary of Agriculture for approval or
disapproval. The management plan would be consistent with the
applicable Federal, State, borough, and local plans.
Section 7(a) would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enter
into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of the Interior
to establish a general framework for cooperation and consultation in
the review and implementation of the management plan. The Forest
Service and the National Park Service will work cooperatively to
support this community-based effort.
Section 7(c) would require the Secretary of the Interior to include
the heritage area in nationwide releases, listings, and maps developed
by the National Park Service about national heritage areas. The
Administration recognizes the advantages and efficiencies to be gained
by this requirement.
Section 8 of the bill would provide that all laws applicable to the
Federal, Tribal, State, local, or private lands in the designated area
would continue to apply. As part of the extensive public involvement in
developing the revised Land Management Plan for the Chugach National
Forest, the Forest Service worked directly with proponents of the
heritage area to incorporate goals and objectives into the plan that
express the mutual interest in protecting and interpreting the cultural
resources of the Kenai Peninsula. The local coordinating entity has
worked tirelessly to bring the concept of a heritage area for this part
of Alaska into reality. The Administration supports its energy and
enthusiasm, as it dovetails with Forest Service support for local
communities on the Kenai Peninsula.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, should S. 3045 be enacted to include a
feasibility study that meets applicable standards for other heritage
areas and provides Congress with the necessary information and
assessment upon which to base its decision regarding designation in the
future, the Forest Service looks forward to working with you, the local
coordinating entity, and the National Park Service to carry out the
intent of the amended bill. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much Mr. Rey for your
statement and your full statement will be included in the
record.
At this point I'd like to call on Senator Boxer and ask you
for your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and
members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for considering
S. 1774, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act
and for giving me the opportunity, which I greatly treasure, to
testify in front of you today. Co-sponsored by Senator
Feinstein this bipartisan, bicameral effort will protect almost
115,000 acres of spectacular high Sierra lands within Sequoia
and Kings Canyon National Parks, including majestic, granite
peaks, deep canyons, extensive caverns and awe inspiring
Sequoia groves.
This bill is sponsored in the House by Representatives Jim
Costa and Devin Nunes, a democrat and a republican. I'm so
proud to have worked in close partnership with these Members of
Congress over the last year and a half to get this bill
negotiated, drafted and moved. Indeed just last Monday, this
bill passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote. As
you know in these contentious times it's--and that doesn't
happen very often.
Specifically the bill would create one new wilderness area.
We want to name it the John Krebs Wilderness, named after a
former Congressman who is really an unsung conservationist and
a man of extraordinary political courage and will expand one
other, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness. These areas, much
loved by Californians and Americans from all over the country
will remain open to the public for recreational activities,
such as camping and hiking and horseback riding, so future
generations can enjoy them just as we have.
My testimony is brief. I have about another 2 minutes. I'd
like to just show you what we're talking about in these
magnificent photographs.
Senators, I think if you look at these photographs you'll
see why this has no opposition. This is Mineral King Valley,
the spectacular valley in the heart of this bill. We'll show
you Mineral King in winter and about 7,000 of those are the
John Krebs Wilderness Area. There. That's it.
Naming the new wilderness area, again created by this
proposal after former Congressman Krebs, who's 82 now, is an
overdue and fitting tribute to a great conservationist. He
deserves our gratitude for preserving the pristine natural
beauty of the park that we enjoy today.
I want to show you Redwood Mountain at sunrise. Redwood
Mountain. The bill includes a designation for the Redwood
Mountain Grove, the park's largest grove of the world's largest
trees, sequoias.
The area also includes California's longest cave, Lilburn
Cave with over 17 miles of surveyed caverns, the historic, old
Hockett Trail, one of the cross Sierra routes in the Southern
Sierra Nevada Range. This is Hockett meadow. This is so
beautiful.
The tremendous diversity of the elevations and geology of
these areas yield an equally diverse array of terrestrial,
aquatic and subterranean ecosystems. Here's a chart of Chimney
Rock. This image of Chimney Rock helps to demonstrate the vast
array of geologic diversity here.
In turn the lands provide much needed habitat for wildlife
including the Golden Eagle, Bighorn Sheep, the Spotted Owl and
the Mountain Yellow Leg Frog. We need to preserve these species
here. So we develop elsewhere, they have a place to go.
The last thing I'm going to show you here is Big Baldy
Mountain. Finally, this picture shows the magnificent high
Sierra that Americans recognize as, I'd say, quintessentially
Western. My legislation, our legislation will ensure that these
beautiful areas will be sustained and preserved as part of
America's identity and rich, natural heritage.
In closing I want to note that this legislation was
developed in close consultation with local communities, elected
officials, recreation organizations, businesses, Federal and
State agencies and local property owners. I look forward to
working with each and every one of you as well as Chairman
Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici to move this bill forward
before the end of the session. I think by any measure that you
could choose, bipartisan support, business support, community
support, home owner support, the beauty of the area. It passes
the test with flying colors.
I thank you so much, members, for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for considering S. 1774, the Sequoia-
Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, and for giving me
the opportunity to testify in support of my legislation.
Cosponsored by Senator Feinstein, this bipartisan,
bicameral effort will protect almost 115,000 acres of
spectacular High Sierra lands within Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks, including majestic granite peaks, deep canyons,
extensive caverns and awe-inspiring Sequoia groves.
This bill is sponsored in the House by Representatives Jim
Costa and Devin Nunes--a Democrat and a Republican. I am so
proud to have worked in close partnership with these members of
Congress over the last year and a half to get this bill
negotiated, drafted and moved.
Indeed, just last Monday, this bill passed the House of
Representatives by a voice vote.
Specifically, this bill would create one new wilderness
area, the John Krebs Wilderness--named after the former
Congressman, an unsung conservationist hero and a man of
extraordinary political courage--and expand one other, the
Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness.
These areas, much loved by Californians and Americans from
all over the country, will remain open to the public for
recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and horseback
riding so future generations can enjoy them just as we have.
Let me take a few minutes now and show you why this public
land is so special and why it deserves Wilderness protection.
First, is the spectacular Mineral King Valley, the heart of
this bill.
Our bill designates the John Krebs Wilderness--almost
70,000 acres, including the 15,000 acre Mineral King Valley.
As many of you may recall, John Krebs, the former Fresno
County Supervisor and U.S. Congressman tirelessly and
successfully fought to keep Mineral King Valley undeveloped in
the 1970's by transferring the land into the Park.
Naming the new wilderness area created by this proposal
after former Congressman Krebs, now 82 years old, is an overdue
and fitting tribute to a great conservationist and legislator.
John deserves our gratitude for preserving the pristine natural
beauty of the Park that we enjoy today.
Next, is Redwood Mountain. The bill includes a designation
for the Redwood Mountain Grove, the Park's largest grove of the
world's largest trees--Sequoias.
The areas also include California's longest cave, Lilburn
Cave, with over 17 miles of surveyed caverns, and the historic
Old Hockett Trail, one of the first cross-Sierra routes in the
southern Sierra Nevada range.
This chart shows a picture of Hockett Meadow, along this
route.
Additionally, the tremendous diversity of elevations and
geology of these areas yield an equally diverse array of
terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean ecosystems.
This image of Chimney Rock helps to demonstrate the vast
array of geologic diversity.
In turn, these lands provide much needed habitat for
wildlife, including the California Spotted Owl, Golden Eagle,
bighorn sheep, and mountain yellow-legged frog.
Finally, this picture on top of Big Baldy Mountain shows
the magnificent High Sierra that Americans recognize as
quintessentially California.
My legislation will ensure that these beautiful areas will
be sustained and preserved as part of California's identity and
rich, natural heritage.
I would also like to note that this legislation was
developed in close consultation with local communities, elected
officials, recreation organizations, businesses, federal and
state agencies and local property owners.
In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to testify
in support of this important legislation to protect
California's Sierra Nevada range and honor former Congressman
John Krebs.
I look forward to working with each of you, as well as
Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, to move this
bill forward before the end of this session.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Thank
you for your statement. Are there any questions to her?
Otherwise, let me ask--thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
Senator Martinez, do you have any statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR
FROM FLORIDA
Senator Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I do indeed. Thank you for
calling on me and for holding this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I
wanted to speak on behalf of Senate bill 2359, is the St.
Augustine 450th Commemorative Commission Act.
Today marks another important step for the people of St.
Augustine, Florida to honor the incredible history and the
significance of its founding as the first permanent European
colony in 1565. So I wanted to take this opportunity to
recognize Mayor Joe Boyles of St. Augustine and all of the
State and local stakeholders that have come together to begin
the preparation for this exciting event. I also would like to
ask that a letter from Mayor Boyles to the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee be submitted for the record.
St. Augustine has been at the very center of our Nation's
founding. Its old and complex history mirrors much of the
American experience. This city was the birthplace of
Christianity in the New World. It was truly our first blending
pot of cultures that included peoples of Spanish, English,
French, Native American and African decent.
Many do not know that St. Augustine is the location of the
first parish mass in the United States. It was the location of
the first free black settlement in North America.
Nearly a century before the founding of Jamestown, Spanish
explorer Juan Ponce de Leon landed off the coast of St.
Augustine. He was looking for the fabled Fountain of Youth. But
instead he founded a colony known as La Florida.
He discovered very favorable currents that would later be
known as the Gulf Stream which would serve as straight routes
for European explorers to discover other parts of the New
World. Because of St. Augustine's location along the strategic
trade routes, Spain constructed the Castillo de San Marcos in
1762 to protect the capital of La Florida from French and
British interest. The Castillo de San Marcos is built on the
ruin of the original fort that was burned to the ground by
famous British sailor and explorer, Sir Francis Drake. The fort
still stands today and has had six different flags fly above
its ramparts. It's the oldest surviving European fortification
in the United States.
The legislation before the committee today is modeled
largely along the lines of the Commission authorized by
Congress for the founding of Jamestown in Virginia. The St.
Augustine Commission, Mr. Chairman, is necessary to help
organize a tremendous amount of historical and cultural events
that will take place in Florida's first coast. In addition the
Commission will provide the necessary framework to navigate the
significant logistical challenges that the city of St.
Augustine, the State of Florida and the National Park Service
will face in coordinating efforts for an event of this
magnitude.
The Commission will encompass a broad array of members from
Federal, State, local and academic backgrounds to ensure they
have the diverse make up of professionals to assist the city of
St. Augustine in celebrating its founding. This legislation is
bipartisan and is co-sponsored by my good friend and colleague,
Senator Bill Nelson, as well as St. Augustine's Congressman,
John Mica. So I urge the committee to quickly take up and pass
this important legislation and help write a new chapter in the
history of our Nation's founding. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Martinez. Now
I'd like to return to the panel and ask Karen Taylor-Goodrich
for your statement.
STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR
AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon, Senator Burr, Senator Martinez. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Department of
the Interior and to speak on today's bills.
We have nine bills that I would like to submit my testimony
in full for the record. But I'd like to do a quick summary of
each of these bills, if you may permit me.
S. 1774 and H.R. 3022 would both designate additional
wilderness areas in Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon
National Park and would name one of the new wilderness areas
after Mr. John Krebs, a former Member of Congress. The
Department supports these bills if they are amended in
accordance with our testimony.
S. 2255 would amend Section 5C of the National Trails
System Act directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
studies of the Chisholm Trail and the Great Western Trail in
order to consider both trails for inclusion in the National
Trails System. The Department supports S. 2255 with an
amendment. However we do feel that priority should be given to
the 38 previously authorized studies that have not yet been
transmitted to Congress.
S. 2359 would establish the St. Augustine 450th
Commemoration Commission that Senator Martinez spoke of. The
Department has no objection to the concept of an advisory
commission. But we would like to work with the committee to
address a few of our suggested amendments and our concerns as
noted in our full testimony.
S. 2943 would designate the Pacific Northwest National
Scenic Trail, an approximately 1,200 mile route from the
Pacific Ocean and Olympic National Park in Washington to the
East Side of the Continental Divide in Glacier National Park in
Montana. The Department does not object to this bill if amended
to authorize an update to our 30-year-old Pacific Northwest
Scenic Trail feasibility study. We do feel that's outdated and
would need to be updated. We believe priority should be given,
however, to the 38 previously authorized studies that have not
yet been transmitted to Congress.
S. 3010 would reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program for 10 years from 2009 to 2019. We do not
have an objection to this bill.
S. 3017 would designate 11,740 acres, or 16 percent, of
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore on Lake Superior in the upper
peninsula of Michigan as a federally protected wilderness area
called the Beaver Basin Wilderness Area. The Department
strongly supports this bill.
S. 3045 would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Forest Heritage Area in Alaska. Based on our
experience over the past 24 years working with our National
Heritage Area System, we've learned that a critical component
for this, in order to be successful, would be completion of a
feasibility study that would evaluate the proposed area against
the interim criteria before designation.
We defer to the Department of Agriculture for the official
position on this legislation. The completion of the Heritage
Area feasibility study based on that interim criteria would
allow for an evaluation of the area prior to designation.
S. 3096 would amend the National Cave and Karst Research
Institute Act of 1998. The bill would strike a portion of the
Act that would allow the Secretary of the Interior to spend
only Federal funds that are matched by an equal amount of funds
from non-Federal sources. The Department supports this bill if
amended to retain a requirement that any annual appropriations
to the Research Institute under this Act would still be subject
to a non-Federal matching requirement.
H.R. 1143 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to
enter into lease with the current holder of the retained use
estate at Virgin Islands National Park the Caneel Bay property,
currently operated as a luxury resort, after the termination of
a retained use estate and donation of all improvements to the
National Park Service. The Department supports the general
intent of H.R. 1143 and what it seeks to accomplish.
However, we would like to suggest a few amendments. We did
have some success in amending the bill after testifying before
the House. However, we'd like to work with the committee to
clarify additional terms and conditions of this proposed lease.
Mr. Chairman and members, that concludes my statement. I
would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Taylor-Goodrich follow:]
Prepared Statement of Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director,
Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior
H.R. 1143
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1143, a bill to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands
National Park, and for other purposes.
The Department previously testified in support of the intent of
H.R. 1143 before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands, on October 30, 2007. After that hearing, H.R. 1143 was
amended, addressing several of the concerns that the Department raised.
The Department supports the general intent of H.R. 1143 and what it
seeks to accomplish. However, we would like the opportunity to work
with the Subcommittee to clarify some additional terms and conditions
of the lease.
H.R. 1143 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a
lease with the current holder of a retained use estate at Virgin
Islands National Park for the Caneel Bay property, which is currently
operated as a luxury resort, after the termination of the retained use
estate and donation of all improvements to the National Park Service
(NPS).
Without H.R. 1143 the NPS does not have the authority to enter into
a lease, in accordance with 36 CFR Sec. 18, Leasing of Properties in
Park Areas, without issuing a Request for Bids or a Request for
Proposals. A noncompetitive lease could only be issued under two
circumstances--by issuing the lease to a nonprofit organization or unit
of government, or by entering into a short-term, 60-day or less lease,
neither of which would apply in this case.
Caneel Bay Resort is one of two large resorts on the island of St.
John. The resort is located on a 150-acre peninsula on the northwest
side of the island of St. John and caters to an upscale clientele that
stays an average of 6 nights and 7 days. The resort has approximately
425 to 450 employees and serves as one of the primary economic engines
for the U.S. Virgin Islands. A large number of employees travel daily
to St. John from their residences on neighboring St. Thomas. The resort
is also an Economic Development Center beneficiary and, as such,
receives various tax exemptions from the Government of the Virgin
Islands.
The resort was established in 1956 by Laurance S. Rockefeller and
the Jackson Hole Preserve. In 1983, Jackson Hole Preserve donated the
land at Caneel Bay to the United States Government for inclusion within
Virgin Islands National Park and reserved the right to continue its
operations under a retained use estate. Jackson Hole Preserve did not
convey the improvements on the land to the United States at that time.
The reserved use estate is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2023.
The warranty deed stipulates that when the retained use estate
terminates, the owner of the retained use estate must donate the
buildings and other improvements to the NPS.
Enactment of H.R. 1143 would allow the current holder of the
retained use estate to negotiate a long-term lease with the NPS that
could extend the Caneel Bay Resort operation well beyond the year 2023.
Such an extension could allow the leaseholder to secure financing and
undertake other long-term operational measures that might not be
possible under the provisions of the current retained use estate.
The NPS has evaluated various options for the future use and
management of the Caneel Bay property. Based upon a value analysis, we
believe that the continued future operation of Caneel Bay as a resort
under a lease would provide the greatest advantage to the NPS and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. A lease could provide economic and administrative
benefits to the NPS and the lessee that are not available or not as
viable as under a retained use estate or a concession contract, two of
the other options that were examined.
H.R. 1143 was amended by the House and requires that the operations
and maintenance of the resort be conducted in a manner consistent with
the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the
park. Additionally, the lease proposed by the bill would address the
continued protection, preservation, and restoration of the property's
structures, many of which are more than 50 years old, and may be
National Register eligible. Any work conducted on the structures would
have to be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The lease also
would address the fair market value rent of the property, constraints
on development of property during the term of the lease, and the
ability to transfer the lease in the future.
When the current retained use estate was created there were three
small properties that are integral to the operation of the Caneel Bay
resort that were not included. We would like to include these
properties under the terms of the lease. Finally, H.R. 1143 may need to
be amended to clarify the intent of the bill regarding when the current
retained use estate would expire and when the new lease would begin,
the terms and conditions of the lease, and whether or how often the
property's fair market value rent would be re-assessed. We will be
happy to work with the Subcommittee to develop these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members might have.
S. 1774 AND H.R. 3022
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1774 and H.R.
3022, bills to designate the John Krebs Wilderness in the State of
California, to add certain land to the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National
Park Wilderness, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 3022 and S. 1774 if amended in
accordance with this statement. Both S. 1774 and H.R. 3022 would
designate additional wilderness areas in Sequoia National Park and
Kings Canyon National Park, and would name one of the new wilderness
areas after John Krebs, a former Member of Congress. While we believe
these designations are appropriate, we would like to work with the
committee on amendments that would address concerns raised by some of
the specific provisions in the bills. H.R. 3022, as passed by the House
of Representatives, addresses many, but not all of our concerns.
Sequoia National Park, established in 1890, and Kings Canyon
National Park, established in 1940, have been administered jointly
since 1943. The California Wilderness Act of 1984 designated about
723,000 acres in the two parks, or 84 percent of the land base, as the
Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness. Both bills would designate as
wilderness virtually all the remaining land in the two parks that is
appropriate for that designation, adding about 114,488 acres. With this
legislation, about 97 percent of the land base of the two parks would
be designated as wilderness.
The area that the bills propose as the John Krebs Wilderness
consists of the Hockett Plateau and Mineral King areas of Sequoia
National Park, and totals about 69,500 acres. The other area, which
would add about 45,145 acres to the existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon
Wilderness, consists of lands in and around the North Fork of the
Kaweah River in Sequoia National Park and the Redwood Canyon/Chimney
Rock area of Kings Canyon National Park. The lands other than Mineral
King and Chimney Rock underwent formal wilderness studies in the early
1970's and are recommended by the National Park Service for wilderness
designation. The Mineral King and Chimney Rock areas underwent
wilderness eligibility assessments in 2003 and both were found to have
characteristics which support their designation as wilderness.
The Hockett Plateau protects vast rolling forests of lodgepole pine
surrounding spectacular sub-alpine meadows, and is a favorite
destination for equestrians, backpackers, and anglers. This area, which
has been part of Sequoia National Park since the park was established
in 1890, includes the route of the old Hockett trail that was one of
the first trans-mountain routes in the southern Sierra Nevada and is
popular with hikers, fishermen, equestrians and backpackers. The
Mineral King portion includes much of Mineral King Valley, a striking
and spectacular example of sub-alpine and alpine environments unlike
any other in the Sierra Nevada.
The North Fork Kaweah area includes extensive lower-and mid-
elevation vegetation communities that are rarely represented in Sierra
Nevada wilderness areas. The area contains foothill oak woodland,
chaparral, and low-elevation hardwood and conifer forest types. The
river is an exemplary foothill river with beautiful pools, riparian
borders, and is rich in wildlife including western pond turtle, bear,
and mountain lion. The Redwood Canyon area includes all or part of
eight Giant Sequoia groves including the Redwood Mountain Grove, the
largest Giant Sequoia grove inside Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks.
We believe it is appropriate to name the Hockett Plateau and
Mineral King area as the John Krebs Wilderness. The National Park
Service considers it a high honor to be permanently commemorated in a
national park and seeks to reserve this honor for cases where there is
a compelling justification for such recognition, as there is here. Mr.
John H. Krebs, who immigrated to the United States in 1946 and obtained
his citizenship in 1954, served on the planning commission and the
board of supervisors for Fresno County through the 1960's and 1970's
and in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975-1979. In 1978, he
secured passage of legislation that transferred management of the
beautiful Mineral King Valley to the National Park Service. The Valley
at that time was slated for development as a downhill ski area, and he
led a hard-fought battle to assure the long-term protection of this
very special place as a natural area. Mr. Krebs currently resides in
Fresno.
We recommend changes to S. 1774 to mirror H.R. 3022, plus several
additional changes to ensure that the National Park Service is able to
manage the lands the bills would designate as wilderness consistent
with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the California Wilderness Act of
1984, as explained below.
First, we recommend that the bills be amended to provide for the
treatment of roads and development in wilderness that conforms to the
standard practice used in other wilderness legislation. That would
require revising the bills' referenced maps in their depiction of the
wilderness boundary delineated for Mineral King Road and cabins along
the road. The maps for both H.R. 3022 and S. 1774 show a ``cherry-
stem'' of Mineral King Road, a relatively quiet, 1= lane-wide road,
with a boundary at up to one-half mile (2,640 ft.) from center line of
road and from one-quarter to one-half of a mile from cabin
developments. The National Park Service and other wilderness land
management agencies primarily use a road corridor exclusion area of 100
feet off both sides of the center line of a road for major roads, and
from 100 to 200 feet away from existing developments. The standard road
corridor exclusion is recognizable on the ground and provides for
consistent, effective management. It is also the boundary delineation
guidance that Congress provided in committee report language (House
Report 98-40) for the Generals Highway, a busy, two-lane-wide paved
road, when the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness was established as part
of the California Wilderness Act of 1984.
Second, S. 1774 excludes from wilderness designation four check
dams located in the Hockett Plateau/Mineral King. We prefer that the
dams be designated as potential wilderness additions, as they are under
H.R. 3022, rather than be set aside as exclusions. Designation as
potential wilderness additions would allow Southern California Edison,
the operator, to continue its hydroelectric power operation as long as
it wants. However, in the event that the operator of the dams ceases to
operate them in the future, the National Park Service would have the
option to convert the area to wilderness through administrative action.
The designation of ``potential wilderness addition'' has been used in
the existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness and in other wilderness
areas in similar cases of non-conforming uses.
Third, Section 4(c)(1) of S. 1774 states that if nonmotorized
access is not available or time is of the essence, nothing in the Act
prevents limited motorized access to hydrologic, meteorologic, or
climatological devices or facilities. The existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon
Wilderness addresses maintenance and access to these types of devices
consistent with House Report 98-40. This committee report language
states that, ``Modifications, relocations, adjustments and maintenance
of these devices are therefore acceptable, but it should remain an
objective to minimize any adverse impact of these devices upon
wilderness resources where possible, especially as improved technology
(e.g. miniaturization) and other factors permit.'' We prefer the
language in H.R. 3022, which directs the National Park Service to
continue managing maintenance and access to these devices and
facilities consistent with the House Report 98-40, allowing current
practice to continue throughout both the previously designated
wilderness areas and the new wilderness areas designated by this bill.
Fourth, Section 4(c)(2) of S. 1774 and Section 3(d) of H.R. 3022
address the use of helicopters for the operation and inspection of
utility facilities. We recommend that these sections be struck, as they
are unnecessary. The use of helicopters in the vicinity of designated
wilderness is permitted currently, when conditions warrant, as a means
of access for inspection and maintenance of hydrometeorological
facilities, pursuant to the minimum requirement provision of the
Wilderness Act and also as provided in House Report 98-40.
Fifth, Sections 4(d)(2) of both S. 1774 and H.R. 3022 address
nonwilderness activities outside of designated wilderness. We are
concerned that these sections could affect the National Park Service's
ability to protect the designated wilderness. Exempting activities
outside wilderness could affect the National Park Service's ability to
address noise, pollutants, or other undesirable effects on wilderness
that come from outside the parks. While we prefer the narrower language
in H.R. 3022, which focuses on authorized activities by cabin owners in
the Mineral King Valley area, or the property owners or lessees in the
Silver City private inholding, to the broader language in S. 1774, we
recommend that these sections be removed from the bills.
Sixth, Section 4(e) of both bills states that nothing in the Act
precludes horseback riding in, or the entry of recreational commercial
saddle or pack stock into an area that would be designated as
wilderness under this bill. The intent of this language is unclear and
has been interpreted several different ways. It appears to limit the
ability of the National Park Service to manage these operations
consistent with the park's enabling act as well as the Wilderness Act.
By not clarifying this language, it could lead to management conflict
by setting different standards for the previously designated wilderness
areas and for the new wilderness areas that would be designated by
these bills. The parks have long recognized and documented that the use
of pack and saddle stock is an appropriate and historically accepted
recreational activity in wilderness. The acceptance of this use has
been reaffirmed in the parks' 2006 General Management Plan. However, we
strongly believe the National Park Service should retain the ability to
determine the impacts of these operations on park resources and to take
actions necessary to regulate their use when resources are being
adversely affected. The language of Section 4(e) is ambiguous about the
Secretary's authority and we, therefore, recommend that it be deleted.
Finally, as technical matters, we note that H.R. 3022 correctly
refers to the ``Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness,'' the name of the
existing wilderness area given by that act, and that the maps
referenced by H.R. 3022 include map numbers in addition to titles and
dates as is standard practice for legislative maps. We would be happy
to work with the committee on similar revisions to S. 1774.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
S. 2255
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 2255, a bill to amend the National Trails System
Act to provide for studies of the Chisholm Trail and Great Western
Trail to determine whether to add the trails to the National Trails
System, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 2255 with an amendment. However, we feel
that priority should be given to the 38 previously authorized studies
for potential units of the National Park System, potential new National
Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System
and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been
transmitted to the Congress. We estimate the cost of this study to be
approximately $250,000 to $300,000.
S. 2255 would amend Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act
by directing the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to conduct
studies of the Chisholm Trail and the Great Western Trail for
consideration of both trails for inclusion in the National Trails
System. As a part of the study, the Secretary shall identify the point
at which both the Chisholm and Great Western Trails originated south of
San Antonio Texas. The bill also states that land for the trails may
not be acquired outside the boundaries of any federally administered
area without the consent of the owner.
A network of scenic and historic trails has been created since the
enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1968. These trails
provide for outdoor recreation needs and the enjoyment and appreciation
of historic resources, which in turn, promotes good health and well-
being. They traverse resources that connect us to history and provide
an important opportunity for local communities to become involved in a
national effort by encouraging public access and citizen involvement.
The importance of trails to Americans is evident, as was witnessed in
the recent celebration of National Trails Day.
During the cattle drive era, in the decades following the Civil
War, it is estimated that approximately ten million Longhorn cattle
were driven out of Texas to railheads in Missouri and Kansas. Two of
the largest trails that were used were the Chisholm Trail and the Great
Western Trail.
The route of earlier trails that went from Texas to Missouri was
found to be undesirable due to heavily forested territory that the
trails passed through and the presence of bandits, mob violence, and
lawlessness.
In 1867, Joseph McCoy convinced railroad executives to extend the
rail line to the eastern prairies of Kansas. Stockyards were completed
at what was then a small town called Abilene. The trail with its feeder
trails that led to Abilene became known as the Chisholm Trail and in
1871 more than 1.4 million cattle had been herded along this trail.
As the railroads continued to press on across Kansas, the terminus
of the cattle trails also moved west. Due to the panic of 1873,
construction stopped for three years at Dodge City, Kansas. In 1876, a
new cattle trail was blazed to Dodge City that became known as the
Great Western Trail. This trail was twenty to thirty days shorter than
the Chisholm Trail and contained ample water and grass. While the two
trails were in use, four million cattle were driven from Texas to
Abilene along the Chisholm Trail and five million to Dodge City along
the Great Western Trail.
In 1975, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation completed a study
entitled ``Old Cattle Trails of the Southwest, a National Scenic Trail
Study.'' In that study, several trails were examined, including the
Chisholm and Great Western Trails. The study determined that the two
trails did not meet the criteria for establishment as National Scenic
Trails. However, the study recommended that the trails should be
reassessed as possible National Historic Trails.
The Department recommends that Section 3 of the bill be deleted.
Since this legislation only authorizes a study of the potential
national historic trails, there is no possibility of land acquisition
while the study is being completed.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee might have.
S. 2359
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2359, a bill to establish the St.
Augustine 450th Commemoration Commission, and for other purposes. The
Department has no objection to the concept of an Advisory Commission
but we would like to work with the Committee to address a few suggested
amendments and concerns with this bill as noted in the testimony.
St. Augustine, Florida is the oldest European city in the United
States. The area was first visited by Ponce de Leon in 1513, but it was
Pedro Menendez de Aviles, who on September 8, 1565, established the
first settlement. This came 21 years before the English settlement at
Roanoke Island in Virginia Colony, and 42 years before the successful
settlements of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Jamestown, Virginia. In 1586,
St. Augustine was attacked and burned by Sir Francis Drake. In 1668, it
was plundered by pirates and most of the inhabitants were killed. In
1702 and 1740, it was unsuccessfully attacked by British forces from
their new colonies in the Carolinas and Georgia. The most serious of
these came in the latter year, when James Oglethorpe of Georgia allied
himself with the Alachua band of the Seminole tribe and conducted the
Siege of St. Augustine during the War of Jenkin's Ear. Although
initially repulsed at St. Augustine, the forces under Oglethorpe
defeated the Spanish counter-attack at the Battle of Bloody Marsh on
St. Simons Island, one of the Sea Islands of Georgia.
The British ultimately gained control of St. Augustine in 1763 and
it remained loyal to Britain during the Revolutionary war. It was
briefly returned to the Spanish in 1784 because of a provision of the
Treaty of Paris. The Spanish who had left during British control came
back and tried to return the city to its former appearance but were
thwarted by the decline of Spanish fortunes everywhere.
The Spanish sold Florida to the United States of America in 1821.
St. Augustine prospered during the Seminole war of the 1830s due to its
military involvement in the war. The city eventually developed good
road systems and the population grew. In 1883, oil tycoon and Florida
railroad pioneer Henry Flagler visited the city. He was so impressed
that he invested in St. Augustine's restoration and development of the
city as a winter resort. Flagler contributed some of the city's
grandest architecture, such as the Alcazar hotel (now the Lightner
Museum), and the Ponce de Leon Hotel (now Flagler College). Today, the
heart of St. Augustine retains the distinctive plan of a 16th century
Spanish Colonial walled town, much of which has been preserved or
restored. The numerous remaining colonial buildings in the historic
district present an impressive array of architecture from 1703 to 1898.
The National Park Service preserves, maintains, and interprets the
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, an imposing star-shaped
citadel that dominates the landscape in the center of the historic area
of St. Augustine. The Service also preserves the related coquina
watchtower known as Fort Matanzas National Monument near the Matanzas
Inlet approximately 14 miles south of the Castillo. The State of
Florida, the city of St. Augustine, and the University of Florida
collectively own and operate additional significant resources related
to the history of St. Augustine.
S. 2359 and an identical bill in the House of Representatives, H.R.
4258, would establish a 16-member commission to include one employee of
the National Park Service having experience relevant to the historic
resources relating to the city of St. Augustine and its commemoration,
the Mayor of St. Augustine or the Mayor's designee, one employee of the
State University System of Florida, and five nonresidents of the State
of Florida who have an interest in, support for, and expertise
appropriate to the commemoration. The commission members would be
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior based, in part, on
recommendations of the St. Augustine City Commission, the Governor of
Florida, and the Congress.
The duties of the Commission would include:
1) the planning, development, and execution of programs and
activities appropriate to commemorate the 450th anniversary of
the founding of St. Augustine, Florida;
(2) the general facilitation of St. Augustine commemoration-
related activities throughout the United States;
(3) the encouragement of civic, patriotic, historical,
educational, religious, economic, and other organizations
throughout the United States to organize and participate in
anniversary activities to expand understanding and appreciation
of the significance of the founding and continuing history of
St. Augustine;
(4) coordination and facilitation of scholarly research on,
publication about, and interpretation of, St. Augustine for the
education of the public; and
(5) the assurance that the 450th anniversary of St. Augustine
provides a lasting legacy and long-term public benefit for the
United States by assisting in the development of appropriate
programs and facilities to accommodate those programs.
The Department does have four suggested amendments for S. 2359.
First, we suggest that Section 2(b)(4) (Purpose) be revised to
include a specific reference to the experiences of Native Americans as
follows: ``(4) assist in ensuring that the St. Augustine 450th
anniversary observances are inclusive and appropriately recognize the
experiences of all peoples in St. Augustine's history, including
indigenous peoples who inhabited the area prior to the Spanish arrival
and certain western tribes who were incarcerated at the Castillo (then
known as Fort Marion) during America's westward expansion in the late
19th century''.
Second, we recommend amending section 6 to include two additional
members, after the Secretary receives recommendations from the
leadership of the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes of Florida.
Third, we are concerned that the designation of some specific
members of the commission may not be in conformance with the
Appointments Clause of the Constitution. We would like to work with the
committee to revise the language to address this concern.
Fourth, we recommend that the duties of the Commission be limited
to serving in an advisory capacity and leaving the execution of
programs and activities to Federal agencies under existing authorities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or any members of the Subcommittee
may have.
S. 2943
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee today to present the views of the Department of the Interior
on S. 2943, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act by
designating the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail as a component
of the National Trails System.
The Department does not object to S. 2943 if amended to authorize
an update to the nearly 30-year-old Pacific Northwest Scenic Trail
feasibility study. However, we believe that priority should be given to
the 38 previously authorized studies for potential units of the
National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and
potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and
Scenic River System that have not yet been transmitted to the Congress.
S. 2943 would designate an approximately 1200-mile trail route from
the Pacific Ocean in Olympic National Park, Washington, to the east
side of the Continental Divide in Glacier National Park, Montana as the
Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. S. 2943 assigns responsibility
for administering the trail to the Secretary of the Interior.
In 1977, Congress authorized a study to determine the feasibility
and desirability of constructing the Pacific Northwest National Scenic
Trail (Public Law 94-527). The study was initiated in 1978 and
completed in 1980, and conducted jointly by the National Park Service
and the U.S. Forest Service. The study evaluated four alternatives and
three potential trail corridors, and concluded that a Pacific Northwest
Trail would have the scenic and recreational qualities needed for
designation as a National Scenic Trail, noting that the trail ``would
cross some of America's most breathtaking and varied landscapes.''
However, the study concluded that its construction was neither feasible
nor desirable. This conclusion was based on concerns with the cost of
land acquisition and construction, a perception that there were already
adequate trails available in the area, and concerns about the trail's
potential impact on grizzly bear habitat and fragile high-elevation
areas.
In spite of the study's conclusions, trail supporters moved forward
with the creation of the Pacific Northwest Trail and established a
private volunteer organization, the Pacific Northwest Trail Association
(Association), to build, maintain, and promote the trail. The
Association informs us that trail construction has been completed on
approximately 950 miles of the proposed 1,200 mile route. According to
the Association, an estimated 59% of the proposed Pacific Northwest
National Scenic Trail is on National Forest land in seven National
Forests, 20% in on National Park Service land in three National Parks,
10% is on state-owned land, 6% on city and county-owned land, and 5% on
privately owned land. Much of the trail route on federal land is in
Congressionally designated wilderness. The segments of the Pacific
Northwest Trail in Olympic National Park, North Cascades National Park,
and Glacier National Park have been designated as National Recreation
Trails under the National Trails System Act.
We recommend that S. 2943 be amended to authorize an update to the
1980 feasibility study and that this update be conducted jointly by the
U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. This update is
necessary because so much has changed since the 1980 feasibility study
that the study's conclusions merit revisiting. A route for the trail
has been selected and much of the trail has been constructed. The route
that S. 2943 would designate as the Pacific Northwest National Scenic
Trail was not studied in the 1980 study, although it is similar to one
of the routes studied. An updated feasibility study would allow the
agencies to consult the public as well as the states, counties,
municipalities and private landowners who own portions of the
underlying route, and complete an analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act. An updated feasibility study would also allow
the agencies to revise cost estimates, evaluate management strategies
and responsibilities, and evaluate how trail designation might impact
wilderness values through Congressionally designated wilderness areas.
We anticipate that an updated feasibility study would cost
approximately $250,000-$500,000 and would be completed 3 years after
funds are made available.
Section 5 (b)(7) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244)
states that feasibility studies should identify the proposed Federal
administering agency, ``which in the case of a national scenic or
national historic trail wholly or substantially within a national
forest, shall be the Department of Agriculture.'' For this reason we
recommend that if the committee moves forward with designation, the
bill should be amended to assign trail administration to the Secretary
of Agriculture.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
S. 3010
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 3010, a bill to reauthorize the Route 66
Corridor Preservation Program.
The Department has no objection to S. 3010, which would amend
Public Law 106-45 to extend the time period for the expenditure of
authorized appropriations for ten years from 2009 to 2019.
Route 66 charts a nationally significant path of 20th-century
American history. The promise of free land and economic opportunity
drew thousands of Americans westward on the Oregon, California and
Santa Fe trails during the 19th-century. A century later, those rutted
corridors yielded to smoother, faster highways. Foremost among those
early ribbons of asphalt was U.S. Highway 66, popularly known as Route
66.
It is ironic that Route 66's success led to its own demise. As
Americans of the Baby Boom era became increasingly mobile, this two-
lane road could not handle the booming rise in car and truck traffic.
The interstate highway system, with its wide and divided pavement,
became the new and improved way to cross the continent by land.
However, Route 66 remains embedded in the scenic landscape and in the
minds of so many Americans who traveled it or came to know it through
its iconic depictions in American popular culture.
Public Law 106-45 directs the National Park Service (NPS) to
develop guidelines, provide technical assistance and matching grants
for State, local and private preservation efforts, serve as a
clearinghouse for communication, and help states determine ways to
continue the program after federal support ends. This led to the Route
66 Corridor Preservation Program, administered by the NPS, to help
local, State, Tribal and federal agencies, nonprofits, and individuals
set preservation priorities. Partners now include individuals, business
owners, State Historic Preservation offices, Scenic Byway and Main
Street programs, Route 66 groups, departments of transportation, tribal
agencies, environmental protection agencies, The National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and others.
Matching grants, technical assistance and clearinghouse services
help with historic preservation, research, oral history,
interpretation, and educational outreach. In addition, collaboration
and partnerships help stimulate business and economic growth and
community revitalization across the eight states and 36 congressional
districts through which Route 66 passes. Grants are awarded in an
annual competitive cycle. Special projects also are undertaken
according to need and available resources. Public Law 106-45 authorized
up to $10 million over 10 years for program work. In FY08, about
$300,000 was appropriated.
In 2007, Route 66 was put on most-endangered-places lists by the
World Monuments Fund, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and
at least two state preservation organizations. Momentum continues to
grow at grassroots and governmental levels, boosting awareness of Route
66's significance and the need to save it as a part of 20th-century
American history.
The partners of the Route 66 Preservation Program have expressed
gratitude for the Federal government's support, which has triggered
interest from other local governments, nonprofits, and individuals to
supplement and boost those funds, thus increasing preservation efforts
in the Route 66 corridor.
The partners and individuals who share interest in the Route 66
historic corridor believe reauthorization of Federal support is vital
to preserving the historic roadway. The Administration has no objection
to reauthorization of continued federal funding, subject to NPS
priorities and the availability of appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee
may have.
S. 3017
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 3017, a bill to designate the Beaver Basin
Wilderness at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in the State of
Michigan. The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 3017. The
Administration transmitted a similar proposal to Congress on May 8,
2008.
S. 3017 would designate 11,740 acres, or 16 percent of Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan's Upper Peninsula as federally
protected wilderness. It defines the boundary of the wilderness area as
the line of demarcation or the point on the bank or shore at which the
surface waters of Lake Superior meet the land or sand beach. Management
of the wilderness area would be in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was authorized in October, 1966
as America's first National Lakeshore ``to preserve for the benefit,
inspiration, education, recreational use, and enjoyment of the public a
significant portion of the diminishing shoreline of the United States
and its related geographic and scientific features.''
The park extends over 40 miles along the southern shore of Lake
Superior, the largest and cleanest of our Great lakes. It is the
largest freshwater lake in the world and contains approximately 10
percent of the planet's surface supply of fresh water. The National
Lakeshore protects and preserves superlative scenic and recreational
resources including fifteen miles of spectacular multi-colored
sandstone cliffs that rise over 200 feet above Lake Superior; miles of
beautiful white sand beaches and numerous backcountry lakes, streams
and waterfalls; five square miles of perched sand dunes that rise as
high as 300 feet; important wetlands, and a upland beech-maple Northern
Hardwood Forest. This landscape is home to timber wolf, moose, black
bear, deer, fisher and marten, raptors and many species of songbirds.
Federally threatened and endangered species include the Piping Plover
and Pitcher's Thistle as well as several state listed species.
The park includes historic U.S. Life Saving, Lighthouse Service,
and Coast Guard facilities. Many of these facilities including the Au
Sable Light Station, a majestic lighthouse and keeper's quarters that
dates to 1874, remain open for public enjoyment. There are also
remnants and active interpretation of historic mining activity, white
pine and hardwood logging, and commercial fishing.
The park operates three drive-in campgrounds, over 100 miles of
backcountry trails, and 14 backcountry camping areas. It receives over
425,000 visitors each year who enjoy commercial boat cruises to view
the Pictured Rocks cliffs and underwater shipwrecks, hiking, camping,
backpacking, hunting, fishing, bird watching, kayaking, cross-country
skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, ice climbing and more. The National
Park Service (NPS) estimates that the presence of the National
Lakeshore brings nearly $20 million of economic benefit to the local
community each year. Native American use of the area extends some 4,000
years into the past and is represented today by the Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the nation's second largest tribe. Nothing
in S. 3017 would modify, alter, or affect any treaty rights.
The park encompasses a total of 73,235 acres, managed in two zones:
(1) the Shoreline Zone, 33,929 acres owned in fee simple by the NPS,
and (2) the Inland Buffer Zone, 39,306 acres of mixed ownership, where
sustained yield timber harvests and other residential and commercial
activities are permitted by the park's enabling legislation. Pictured
Rocks is the only unit of the National Park System with a legislated
buffer zone.
The Beaver Basin portion of the park, including the entire proposed
11,740-acre wilderness area, has been managed as a backcountry/
wilderness area, or a ``Primitive Management Prescription'', since the
first comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) was published in
1981. Since that time, motor vehicles have been prohibited in this
portion of the park. Also, for over 25 years, this area has provided
outstanding recreational opportunities for hikers, backpackers,
anglers, boaters and hunters (allowed in accordance with State
regulations). A network of hiking trails and designated campsites will
continue to be maintained in this portion of the park, even with
wilderness designation. Since formal wilderness designation would not
change the way in which visitor use is currently managed in this
portion of the park, there is no reason to believe it would have any
detrimental impact on visitation or the local economy.
The proposed wilderness area does not include Little Beaver Lake,
Little Beaver Lake Campground, the campground access road corridor, and
the access road to the Beaver Basin Overlook. Although the National
Lakeshore boundary extends one-quarter mile out into Lake Superior,
none of the waters of Lake Superior are proposed as wilderness. S. 3017
would authorize the use of boats powered by electric motors on Little
Beaver and Big Beaver Lakes as well as the use of motors on the surface
water of Lake Superior adjacent to the wilderness and beaching of those
boats at the line of demarcation, subject to applicable laws. This is
to ensure continued access by boaters to the shoreline beach adjacent
to the wilderness area. This has been an area of significant public
concern.
Designation of the Beaver Basin Wilderness Area will not limit
public access to this area or change the way this portion of the park
is currently being managed for public use and enjoyment. County Road H-
58, the dirt and gravel primary access road to and through the National
Lakeshore, is scheduled to be reconstructed and paved within the next
two years. While the NPS supports this upgrade and improved access, we
anticipate it will lead to increases in both overall park visitation
and development outside the park as well as impacts to front and
backcountry resources. Permanent wilderness designation in the Beaver
Basin area will ensure protection of significant ecological resources
and wilderness values along with solitude, quiet, and unconfined
recreation for this and future generations in this portion of the
National Lakeshore.
Between 1999 and 2004, the NPS developed an updated GMP for the
park. In compliance with law and NPS policy, a formal Wilderness Study
was conducted as part of this comprehensive planning effort. During the
Wilderness Study, 18,063 acres within the Lakeshore were identified as
being potentially eligible for wilderness designation (12,843 acres in
Beaver Basin and 5,220 acres in the Chapel Basin area of the park). All
of the lands and waters in the study area are in fee-simple Federal
ownership within the Shoreline Zone of the park. After extensive public
involvement, review, and comment, including overwhelming public support
for this wilderness designation, the preferred alternative in the final
GMP/Wilderness Study was approved by the Midwest Regional Director on
November 23, 2004. The final GMP/Wilderness Study does not propose
wilderness in the Chapel Basin area of the Lakeshore. Also, the removal
of the one-quarter mile strip of surface water from the proposed
wilderness resulted in the reduction of proposed acres from 12, 483 to
11,740 in the Beaver Basin area.
Passage of S. 3017 would support the overarching concept in the new
GMP for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, which is to provide
additional and more convenient access to significant lakeshore features
on the east and west ends of the park and to preserve the central
portion of the national lakeshore in a primitive, relatively
undisturbed state.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
S. 3045
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 3045, a bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area in the State of Alaska.
Similar legislation has passed the Senate in earlier Congresses and
a small, grassroots organization in Alaska has continued to be an
articulate advocate for this proposal. In these earlier bills, the
National Park Service (NPS) and the Secretary of the Interior were the
principal federal government partners; in S. 3045, the U.S. Forest
Service and the Secretary of Agriculture would be given that role.
Based on our experience over the past 24 years working with
National Heritage Areas, the NPS has learned that a critical component
for success is the completion of a feasibility study that evaluates a
proposed area against interim criteria before designation. A study
should be prepared that demonstrates evidence of place-based resources
that tell a nationally important story, that has the support and
involvement of the local community, and that evaluates the commitment
and financial capability of the local coordinating entity and partners
to carry out the approved management plan for the heritage area.
Studies that were done for the designation of the Iditarod National
Historic Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway have
confirmed the national importance of the region; however, they were
undertaken before generally accepted criteria for designating heritage
areas had been established, and were directed at a smaller region than
the area encompassed by this bill. While we defer to the Department of
Agriculture for the official position on this legislation, the
completion of a heritage area feasibility study, based on interim
criteria used for similar studies, would allow for evaluation of the
area prior to designation. The Department of the Interior is willing to
provide advice or assistance to the Department of Agriculture in the
completion of a study that meets applicable standards for other
heritage areas and provides Congress with the necessary information and
assessment upon which to base its decision regarding designation in the
future.
With 40 National Heritage Areas designated across 28 states, and
more heritage area legislative proposals forthcoming, the
Administration believes it is critical for Congress to enact National
Heritage Area program legislation. This legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed National Heritage Areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. Program legislation would
also clarify the expectation that Heritage Areas would work toward
self-sufficiency by outlining the necessary steps, including
appropriate planning, to achieve that goal.
We would note that the majority of the acreage in the proposed
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area is under
U.S. Forest Service management. The park contributes to the themes
noted in the Section 1 of the legislation, particularly with regard to
recreational resources, history, natural landscapes, and climate
change.
If the Committee chooses to move forward with this bill, the
Department would recommend that the bill be amended to include an
additional requirement for an evaluation to be conducted by the
Secretary of Agriculture, three years prior to the cessation of federal
funding under this act. The evaluation would examine the
accomplishments of the heritage area in meeting the goals of the
management plan; analyze the leveraging and impact of investments to
the heritage area; identify the critical components of the management
structure and sustainability of the heritage area; and recommend what
future role, if any, the Forest Service should have with respect to the
heritage area. We would recommend also that the Subcommittee make the
appropriations language in Section 9 consistent with other recent
National Heritage Area bills.
Should S. 3045 be enacted, the NPS looks forward to working with
both the U.S. Forest Service and the local coordinating entity as a
management plan and other provisions are carried out. We would be happy
to share what may be applicable lessons learned from working with the
other 37 heritage areas in 27 states that Congress designated prior to
this year.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
may have.
S. 3096
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 3096, a bill to amend the National Cave and
Karst Research Institute Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations for
the National Cave and Karst Research Institute.
The Department supports S. 3096 if amended to retain a requirement
that any annual appropriations to the National Cave and Karst Research
Institute under this Act would still be subject to a non-federal
matching requirement. S. 3096 would amend The National Cave and Karst
Research Institute Act of 1998, Public Law 105-325, by striking the
portion of the Act that allows the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to spend only those federal funds that are matched by an
equal amount of funds from non-federal sources.
Public Law 105-325 directed the Secretary to establish the National
Cave and Karst Institute near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The National Park
Service (NPS) was directed to administer the Institute with one or more
partners. The purposes of the Institute are to further the science of
speleology, to encourage and provide public education, and to promote
environmentally sound cave and karst management. An interim Director
was first named in 2000 and the Institute now has a permanent Director
and facilities.
Since the Institute was established, it has suffered from a
provision in Public Law 105-325 that specifies that in operating the
Institute, the Secretary may spend only an amount of federal funds that
are matched by funds from non-federal sources. Federal funds have been
interpreted to mean not only funds that are appropriated to the NPS,
but also funds appropriated to other federal agencies and quasi-federal
agencies.
This provision has had a chilling affect on the ability of the
Institute to partner and collaborate on mutually beneficial projects
and initiatives with federal agencies. Because of the matching fund
language, the Institute has not submitted grant proposals to partner on
cave and karst projects with the National Science Foundation, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute
of Health, or the Department of Energy. The Institute has been advised
that if it were successful in obtaining a grant from one of these
agencies, it would need to find matching, non-federal monies before
being able to accept and spend the federal funds.
The matching funds provision also appears to present a disincentive
for federal agencies to partner with the Institute because of federal
fiscal year spending limitations coupled with the additional time and
lack of predictability associated with the Institute's ability to
secure non-federal matching funds. As a result, opportunities to engage
in mutually beneficial projects have been passed up to the detriment of
the Institute and the federal agencies.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee might
have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement. Now
we will hear from Mr. Jon Knechtel, the Acting Executive
Director.
STATEMENT OF JON KNECHTEL, DIRECTOR OF TRAIL MANAGEMENT/ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION, SEDRO-
WOOLLEY, WA
Mr. Knechtel. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee
it's truly an honor to appear before you today. My name is Jon
Knechtel. I am the Director of Trail Management and the Acting
Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Trail Association.
I am here today as a designee of all of our members,
volunteers, partners and students who have kept alive the
vision of the trail, the Pacific Northwest Trail.
To testify before a Senate committee is a rare opportunity
for any citizen. I'm extremely grateful to Chairman Akaka for
the invitation to be here today. When President Lyndon Johnson
signed the National Trails Act legislation in 1968 and the
Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails became our first two
National Scenic Trails. Those people who were avid through
hikers and explorers of new territories envision a network of
trails crisscrossing the United States.
One such visionary was a young college student from
Georgetown University named Ron Strickland. In 1971 and on
through the early 1970s he and some of his friends would spend
their winter months pouring over available maps of the Pacific
Northwest. Summers were then spent hiking segments of what was
to become the PMT.
By 1977 segments have been put together. Ron and his hiking
friends have hiked these segments. The trail was born along
with the non-profit organization that bears its name.
A feasibility study was completed in 1980 on the PMT.
Though it met all the criteria that a National Scenic Trail
needs, the cost of implementing the trail was astronomical,
around 95 million dollars. Much of this cost was intended to
acquire a wide right-of-way for the Trail.
Since that time much of the route of the Trail on lands
that were not in public ownership have been acquired by cities
and counties that the Trail passes through. Also at that time
the feasibility study was done commercial use of our National
Forest was in full swing. The opportunity cost of removing
these lands from the timber base was high.
Since the early 1980s commercial forest use has dwindled.
Numerous new wilderness areas have been designated along with
the course of the trail or the route of the trail. Today the
majority of the trail is protected by its very location.
Sections of the trail in the lower elevation areas often
employ the use of old rail corridors. Many of these corridors
have been acquired over the last two decades by local
municipalities and converted to trail. There are still areas
where the trail crosses the State or private land where
commercial use still takes place. The PMT has worked very
diligently over the years to work with and not impede the
various guidelines under which these lands are managed.
The PMT has a conglomerate of trail types under the
recreational opportunity spectrum. There are rural-urban
trails, front country trails, back country trails and
wilderness trails. There are sections of the trail that only
receive 50 to 100 hikers a year. While others sections like
Deception Pass State Park in Washington receive over three
million. Almost all of who have set foot on the PMT.
There are sections of trail where use may be restricted to
protect threatened and endangered animal species such as the
Grizzly bear or Woodland Caribou. Maximum group size is
restricted in Federal wilderness areas and limited entry
permits are required in some sections. Illegal use by off
highway vehicles is still a problem on some sections of the
trail. The PMT is and always should be a hiker, equestrian and
where permitted bicycle trail.
You know the Department of Interior under the National
Trail System Act has designated the PMT segments through North
Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park and Glacier
National Park as National Recreation Trail, a total of 254
miles. Under the Clinton Administration the entire PMT was
named a millennium trail. These are all great accolades.
However, the vision of those who have been involved with PMT is
to someday see it become a National Scenic Trail. Over the last
30 years since the PMTA was founded more than 131,000 hours of
labor on the trail have taken place for the benefit of to our
agency partners of over one and a half million dollars.
That's the extent of my testimony. Thank you, chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knechtel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon Knechtel, Director of Trail Management/Acting
Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Trail Association, Sedro-Woolley,
WA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is truly an honor
to appear before you today. My name is Jon Knechtel and I am the
Director of Trail Management and Acting Executive Director of the
Pacific Northwest Trail Association (PNTA). I am here today as the
designee of all of our members, volunteers, partners, and students who
have kept alive the dream of the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT). To
testify before a Senate committee is a rare opportunity for any
citizen, and I am extremely grateful to Chairman Akaka for the
invitation to be here today.
When President Johnson signed the National Trails System
legislation in 1968, and the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails
became our first two National Scenic Trails, those people who were avid
through-hikers and explorers of new territory envisioned a network of
trails crisscrossing the United States. One such visionary was a young
college student from Georgetown University named Ron Strickland. In
1971, and on through the early 1970's, he and some of his friends would
spend their winter months pouring over available maps of the Pacific
Northwest, summers were then spent hiking segments of what was to
become the PNT. By 1977 segments had been put together, Ron and his
hiking friends had hiked these segments and the trail was born, along
with the association that bears its name.
A feasibility study was completed in 1980 on the PNT, and though it
met all the criteria that a National Scenic Trail needs the cost of
implementing the trail was astronomical, around $95 million dollars.
Much of this cost was intended to acquire a wide right-of-way for the
Trail. Since that time much of the route of the Trail on lands that
were not in public ownership has been acquired by the cities and
counties that the Trail passes through. Also, at the time the
Feasibility Study was done, commercial use of our national forests was
in full swing and the opportunity cost of removing these lands from the
timber base was high. Since the early eighties, commercial forest use
has dwindled, and many new wilderness areas have been designated along
the route of the Trail. Today the majority of the trail is protected by
its very location. Sections of the Trail, in the lower elevation areas,
often employ the use of old rail corridors. Many of these corridors
have been acquired over the last two decades by local municipalities
and converted to trail. There are still areas where the trail crosses
state or private land where commercial use still takes place. The PNTA
has worked very diligently over the years to work with and not impede
the various guidelines under which these lands are managed. Adopt-a-
Trail agreements are in place with the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (as well as a Land-use Agreement) and the Washington
State Parks, through which the trail goes. Land-use Agreements are in
place with some of the private landowners and these continue to be
obtained as needed. Help and support by the Pacific Northwest Trail
Association for land purchases and exchanges for the trail and
trailheads have been negotiated with cities and counties along the
trail, as well as with federal land managers.
The PNT is a conglomerate of trail types under the Recreational
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). There are rural-urban trails, front country
trails, back country trails, and wilderness trails. There are sections
of the trail that only receive 50-100 hikers per year, while other
sections (like Deception Pass State Park) receive over 3 million
visitors per year, most of whom set foot on the PNT. There are sections
of the trail where use may be restricted to protect Threatened or
Endangered animal species such as the Grizzly Bear or Woodland Caribou.
Maximum group size is restricted in federal wilderness areas and
limited entry permits are required in some sections. Illegal use by Off
Highway Vehicles (ORVs) is a problem on some sections of the Trail. The
PNT is, and should always be a hiker, equestrian, and where permitted,
bicycle trail. Existing trail management objectives set forth by the
governing agencies or land owners will govern the maintenance and use
of the PNT. Trails will not be upgraded to meet a minimum PNT
``standard'', as is the case for the Pacific Crest National Scenic
Trail. Changes in management direction would be done on a case by case
basis, based on other recreational management objectives, with the
caveat that the trail use remains non-motorized.
When I first became an employee of the PNTA in late 2003 (having
been a board member for three years prior to my retirement from
Weyerhaeuser Corporation), my first job was to travel the trail, meet
with all my partners and the agencies through which the trail
traverses. There were many issues that were brought forth by the 1980
study that I personally wanted to rectify if at all possible without
jeopardizing the scenic beauty and wild places through which the trail
passed. Starting in Glacier National Park, the Flathead, Kootenai,
Idaho Panhandle, Colville, Okanogan National Forests, North Cascades
National Park, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, the Olympic National Forests,
and the Olympic National Park, I met with the recreational staff from
each park, forest, or district and asked the same questions. What are
the concerns? Because there are hikers hiking the trail, whether you
recognize it or not, where would you like to see them hike? I talked
with local groups who used trails in their areas and relied on their
expertise to determine the most feasible routes for the Trail. By doing
these things, all but one bushwhack has been removed from the trail.
The Trail route has been relocated in numerous spots to locate it on
system trails and/or abandoned logging roads. The PNT, with agency
support, will probably, like the other National Scenic Trails, continue
to evolve.
Although the PNT was not originally recommended for National Scenic
Trail Status, the members and volunteers would not let the vision of a
Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail die. In the mid 1980's the PNTA
formed a partnership with the British Army. The Army crew worked for
three summers building new sections of the trail on Blanchard Mountain,
in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, in the State of Washington. Our
volunteers worked to keep the trail in Skagit and Whatcom Counties
maintained along with some new trail construction in Island County
during the late 1990's.
In 2000 we developed our Service-Knowledge-Youth (SKY) Education
Program and Curriculum thanks to funding from the Ford Motor Company
and Tully's Coffee Company. This program was instituted in 2001 with
help from the Sedro-Woolley and Mt. Baker School Districts by putting
at-risk youth out to work on trails in the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie
National Forest. Thanks to Title II monies from the Secure Rural
Schools Act we were able to provide a stipend to the students for their
efforts, while they earned additional school credits. In 2001, when
falling budgets on the Olympic National Forest threatened to eliminate
an innovative youth work experience program known as the Quilcene
Ranger Corps, the PNTA stepped in to manage it through a partnership
with the Forest Service and Washington State University 4-H.
In 2002, again thanks to Title II and Title III funds, we were able
to expand our youth programs to Jefferson and Clallam Counties on the
Olympic Peninsula. This enabled us to help our agency partners,
performing trail work for which they had neither the manpower nor
funding to accomplish. We also developed, through private donations, a
Native Plant Nursery in Mt. Vernon, WA. This had a three-fold purpose;
(1) to give youth an opportunity to learn about native plants and their
effect on the environment, (2) to supply native plants to local
communities and private developers for mitigation/restoration projects,
and (3) to replant native vegetation along impacted areas along the
PNT.
From 2003-2007 we were able to expand the programs to the Okanogan,
Colville, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests under Title II and
Grants from the National Forest Foundation. Through other funding
avenues work took place in the Olympic and North Cascades National
Parks. These programs will continue through 2008 unimpeded, however
with the Secure Rural Schools Act not being renewed, some of the
programs may be in jeopardy after this year.
Also, in 2003 we developed a partnership with Cascade Job Corps in
Sedro-Woolley, WA wherein we provide work-based training to young
people prior to their going out in the workforce. This has proven to be
a wonderful year-round program where we can provide more services to
our agency partners. These students do a myriad of different projects
where they are needed. They have worked in Mt. Rainer National Park,
Idaho, Eastern Washington, the Olympic Peninsula, and the entirety of
the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest. The crews have built new
trail bridges and removed damaged ones, built and maintained trails
while obliterating user made trails. They have removed toilet buildings
from campgrounds and trailheads in preparation for the installation of
new ones, done stream restoration for the protection of the Bull Trout,
installed new trailhead sign kiosks at trailheads, removed hazard trees
from trails and campgrounds and saved our agency partners large amounts
of money. In the winter they work on mitigation projects for local
municipalities and agencies, and have provided labor sandbagging during
flooding in western Washington.
With these programs, we've been able to get a tremendous amount of
work done for our partners, not only on the PNT but also on other
trails on federal lands. Over 950 youth have participated in our
programs over the last 7 years, the graduation rate at the schools
where the programs have been implemented has increased, juvenile
delinquency rates have dropped, at-risk youth who have never had the
opportunity are getting out and learning to be stewards of the
environment, and the agencies have benefited by getting projects
accomplished.
The Department of Interior, under the National Trails System Act
has designated the PNT segments through North Cascades National Park
(2002), Olympic National Park (2003), and Glacier National Park (2005)
as National Recreation Trails, a total of 254 miles. Under the Clinton
Administration the entire PNT was named a Millennium Trail. These are
all great accolades; however the vision of all who have been involved
with the PNT is to someday see it become a National Scenic Trail. The
hikers who through-hike the PNT are astounded by the beauty, the
elevation changes, the variety of wildlife and flora, and the serenity
as they head for their final destination at Cape Alava on the Pacific
Ocean.
Creating a Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail makes sense!
From East Glacier National Park the PNT is a direct connector; tying
the already designated Continental Divide Trail and the Pacific Crest
Trails to one another, with the possibility of someday tying the PNT to
the North Country Trail and creating a Sea-to-Sea Trail. This was all
part of the vision in 1968 of a National Trail System tying the country
together, north-to-south, and east-to-west.
Over the last 30 years, since the PNTA was founded, more than
131,000 hours of labor on the Trail have taken place with a benefit to
our agency partners of over 1.5 million dollars. A breakdown on land
along the Trail where these hours were spent is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service...................................... 13,376
US Forest Service.......................................... 79,337
Bureau of Land Management.................................. 272
Bureau of Indian Affairs................................... 966
WA Department of Natural Resources......................... 26,931
WA State Parks............................................. 4,337
County Lands............................................... 3.120
City Lands................................................. 305
Private Lands.............................................. 2,698
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 131,342
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PNT is broadly supported by many groups such as the Backcountry
Horseman of Washington, Washington Trails Association, the
Mountaineers, Jefferson Trails Coalition, Quimper Trail Association,
Peninsula Trails Coalition, Colville Trails Coalition, Volunteers for
Outdoor Washington, Washington States Trails Coalition, and Tobacco
Valley Highcountry Horseman in Eureka, MT.
County Commissioners in Clallam, Jefferson, Island, Whatcom,
Okanogan, Ferry, and Pend Oreille counties support a Pacific Northwest
National Scenic Trail. The mayors of Eureka, MT, Metaline Falls, WA,
Forks, WA, have sent their support for the Trail.
Numerous through-hikers, members, students, volunteers, and
corporations have voiced their support either by sending letters,
signing petitions, voting and/or commenting on the Washington Watch
website.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I want you to know that
each of your full statements will be included in the official
hearing record. Now we'd like to begin with the questions to
each of you.
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, before turning to questions on the
bills you testified on, I have a question relating to two
national park advisory boards. I understand that the authority
for both the National Park System Advisory Board and the
National Park Service Concessions Management Advisory Board
will expire at the end of this year. Have these Advisory Boards
been helpful in providing useful advice and recommendations to
the Park Service?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Yes, sir. They have been very helpful
in providing recommendations on a variety of issues.
Senator Akaka. I thought it would be useful to get that
response on the record in case the committee decides to extend
the authorization for either or both of the commissions through
legislation.
My next question is on S. 3096 relating to the Cave and
Karst Institute. The 1998 law that established the Institute
states that it will be jointly administered by the National
Park Service. If the Park Service is a partner in this, why
should there be any requirement for matching funds?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. What we found is the requirement for
the Federal match to the non-Federal dollars has kept the
Institute from doing business and taking advantage of grant
opportunities available from other Federal entities. Removing
the matching provision will allow the Institute to take
advantage of a number of opportunities to support itself.
Senator Akaka. I have a couple of questions on H.R. 1143
which authorizes the lease of property in Virgin Islands
National Park. As you know the Park Service concession law
provides for a standard contract of 10 years with a maximum of
20 years if the Park Service determines that a longer term is
needed for construction of capital improvements.
If 20 years is adequate for other lodging operations in
National Park units, why should Caneel Bay be given a 40-year
term?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. The current operator is CBI
acquisition. They have expressed the need to have additional
time in order to make improvements to the property and remain
profitable and competitive in the local hotel market in the
Virgin Islands.
Senator Akaka. Last year the Inspector General issued a
report that criticized the Park Service for allowing private
use of public lands. In her response to the IG, Director Bomar
ensured that Park management would move quickly to open these
areas to the public. I understand that the Caneel Bay property
that would be leased in H.R. 1143 is reserved for use of the
resort guests, and not open to the general public. If the Park
Service entered into a long term lease, would the public be
allowed to access the property, consistent with Director
Bomar's statement?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the
report from the Office of Inspector General, but it is more
specific to private clubs and having established private clubs
on National Park Service managed property and controlling
access to public lands. In the case of this lease, in
particular, the public would be allowed to use the property as
a guest of the resort similar to how other operations and the
public areas of the resort, grounds, food, beverage and other
facilities would be open to the public.
Senator Akaka. Your testimony indicates the Park Service
would be willing to work with the subcommittee to develop your
recommended amendments. Will you please provide us with a
written draft of your proposed amendments?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We'd be happy to provide that for you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. You mentioned that based on a
value analysis, the Park Service has determined that a lease
would provide the greatest advantage to the park. Would you
please provide the subcommittee with a copy of that analysis?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Yes, we'd be glad to provide a copy.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Rey, I understand that
Congress previously authorized a heritage area in Iowa to be
administered by the Department of Agriculture. Eventually, the
law was amended to transfer the area to the Interior
Department, because the Heritage Area was not receiving any
attention in the Department of Agriculture. The Park Service
already administers a large number of heritage areas. Why does
it make sense to duplicate this program in the Forest Service?
Mr. Rey. The Heritage Area that you were referring to was
the Silos and Smokestacks Heritage Area in the Midwest. That
unfortunately did not have a logical home within the Department
of Agriculture. There was no land management involved with
Agriculture Department lands in the Heritage Area proper.
This, we think, is a different circumstance for three
general reasons. First, 89 percent of the land involved in this
Heritage Area is already managed by the United States Forest
Service. So that any project that's associated with this
Heritage Area would have to be approved by the Forest Service.
The process would be much more streamlined if the Forest
Service would have direct participation as the management
entity and with the local cooperator. So I think from a
practical standpoint the first reason is that we own almost all
of the land involved. Therefore it could expedite meeting.
Second, unlike the balance of the Department of
Agriculture, the Forest Service has a very active Heritage
Program, both archeological and historical resources. We have
many sites registered on the National Register of Historic
Sites. We are representing the Department on the Advisory
Council, the National Historic Preservation. As I indicated
earlier we did receive the First Lady's Preserve America award
this year for our Heritage Programs.
Finally, although it's not apropos, but I think we know
which six flags flew over St. Augustine. The third general
reason is that in all of the other special land use
designations, save this one, the Forest Service, the Park
Service and to some extent the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Bureau of Land Management all manage areas under those
programs. They all have National Wilderness Areas, elements of
the National Wilderness System.
We just celebrated the designation of Big Sky Wilderness at
Index, Washington a few weeks ago. Congratulations. We have
National Scenic or rather National Trails that are the National
Trail Program. We have National Wild Scenic Rivers. We have
National Recreation Areas. The Forest Service even has a
National Seashore in Oregon at Oregon Dunes.
So this Heritage Area System is an exception to a general
rule where the Forest Service, the Park Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to one
degree or another, have all managed units of these systems. So
this isn't that extraordinary an exception to what has
generally become the rule.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rey, or excuse
me, Ms. Goodrich. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas that
currently exist do you know how many of those contain National
Forest Land within the Heritage boundaries?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. I don't have that information. But we
can provide it to you.
Senator Burr. Do you know if the Association with National
Forest Service land has created any unique challenges?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Burr. Ok. Thank you. Mr. Rey, does the Department
of Agriculture have a mechanism for funding Kenai Mountains
Heritage Area if this legislation were enacted?
Mr. Rey. If this legislation were enacted we would fund it
as part of the budget request for the Forest Service's State
and Private Forestry Program and the Chugach National Forest
Budget in the years after enactment.
To your first question, I'm aware of only one National
Heritage Area where the significant amount of Forest Service
ownership. That's the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage
Area which is in all honesty, having some problems getting
enacted because of a disconnect or getting implemented because
of the disconnect between the ownership and the heritage
activities.
Senator Burr. We'll certainly look at that. Would the
Department of Agriculture raise any opposition if S. 3045 is
amended to place the Kenai National Heritage Area under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior?
Mr. Rey. Our working relationship with the Department of
the Interior is such that, you know, our primary objective
would be to support the designation. We'll work out the
operational details later. But as, you know, we indicated, and
we can submit for the record, there will be some logistical
complications associated with using another heritage area
administrator over top of the management of the National Forest
lands involved.
Senator Burr. Ms. Goodrich, let me come back to you if I
could. In relation to the Caneel Bay Resort lease, I'll say to
the subcommittee and to the chairman, I've got some real
questions on this that will take me more time to dig into than
we've got today. I would ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to send additional questions to be answered.
Has the Rockefeller estate taken a position on the proposed
lease arrangement? Have they conveyed their position in written
form to the National Park Service?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. If you would allow me, Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Member Burr, I have with me today our Chief of
Concessions Management for the National Park Service, who has a
more in depth understanding of the Rockefeller's relationships
with Caneel Bay. Would you mind if I ask her to address that
question?
Senator Burr. Be happy to do that, but if she could also,
if you can't, do we have a written conveyance on their part
that they're ok with this?
Ms. Pendry. Yes, sir. My name is Jo Pendry. I'm the Chief
of the National Park Service Concession Program. We do have
something in writing from the representative of the
Rockefeller's stating that they do support. They do have
certain caveats that they would like to see which I believe are
already incorporated into the draft legislation. We can provide
a copy of that letter for you.
Senator Burr. Ok. To either one of you that can answer it.
What was the purchase price CBI paid for the lease in 2004?
Ms. Pendry. I can't remember the exact price, we could get
that for you for the record.
Senator Burr. Would you provide that for the record?
Was CBI acquisition LLC fully aware of the lease expiration
date when they purchased this property?
Ms. Pendry. It's my understanding that they were aware that
the RUE was up in 2023.
Senator Burr. So that's not a question on their part?
Ms. Pendry. I don't believe so.
Senator Burr. Did the National Park Service inquire from
CBI if they were interested in selling back the remainder of
their lease? I guess some 15 years?
Ms. Pendry. Yes, we have had those discussions.
Senator Burr. What was their reaction to that?
Ms. Pendry. I don't think they were interested in doing
that at this time. I don't think the Park Service would be
aware of all of the implications of doing that until we are
able to complete a fair market value assessment of the
property. So they did not indicate opposition or support of
that.
Senator Burr. Caneel Bay is a very sought after piece of
property. It somewhat surprises me that the National Park
Service would come in as enthusiastic as they are about a sole
source contract extension of a lease. Not knowing what the
marketplace might bid the price to, if in fact you had the
ability to open it to others to bid on.
The only way that you could do that is if you had explored
the buyout of the current lease which has 15 years left on it
by CBI. The fact that they showed little if no interest in
allowing the National Park Service to buy back those 15 years
might suggest that what they see as most attractive is the
ability not to compete with anybody for that property. I don't
have too great of a confidence in any entity of the Federal
Government in determining what the value of an asset is. I
think I can only share this with you that there will have to be
a great deal more, I believe, addressed in this before I'm
going to be supportive of moving forward.
I'm not exactly sure what those questions will be, but I
will assure you over the next 10 days I'll get those to the
Department. I think we have rushed this before we were ready to
fully think it through. I would ask the chair to pay particular
attention to this as we think about any type of mark up on
legislation. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. Let me
ask Senator Cantwell for any statement you may have.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
enter a statement into the record about what we were trying to
do in the Northwest.
Welcome Mr. Knechtel for being here today. We appreciate
you being here very much. Sorry to hear about the loss in your
family. We appreciate you coming to testify about this
important legislation.
Obviously the Pacific Northwest Trail which really goes a
great distance across a large part of the Northwest is
something that we think should be designated even more as a
national treasure. But Mr. Knechtel, because the trail connects
three major National Parks from the Olympic coast all the way
to Montana, I really have a question for you about the who
should manage this area if such designation is given.
The Park Service does currently manage, I think, five of
the eight National Scenic Trails. Three of which are over 1,000
miles long. So I don't know if you have any thoughts that you
want to share on that particular question.
Mr. Knechtel. Thank you, Senator. When I first started
working with Tom Gilbert, who is an employee of the Park
Service last year, we had the Department of Agriculture as the
administering agency for the trail. After quite a bit of
thought and when it got to your office it was decided that it
made more sense that the Department of Interior over administer
the trail because of the North Country Trail being a National
Park Service administered trail, their Board having looked into
the possibility of adopting that section in North Dakota and
Montana that would connect the Pacific Northwest Trail to the
North Country Trail at the Continental Divide which would make
it a sea to sea trail.
When I was talking with Mr. Merkel in your office, we
changed that language in the legislation to Department of
Interior and that was the main reason. The Pacific Northwest
Trail is a vital link connecting the Continental Divide Trail
and the Pacific Crest Trail which are both Forest Service
Trails along the Northern tier of the United States and then
continuing on to the Pacific Ocean. I work with both agencies.
Over the last 7 years we've done 70 some thousand hours
worth of work for the Forest Service, 15,000 for the Park
Service. It's been a little easier through the Secure Rural
Schools Act to get money to work on Forest Service land than it
has been through NRTP to do work on Park Service land. So
that's what brings about the discrepancy in the amount of
volunteer hours that have been put out there by not only by our
sky education programs but our volunteers and everything.
It makes no difference to me in the long run whether it be
the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service or Department of
Interior Park Service who administers the trail.
Senator Cantwell. Ok.
Mr. Knechtel. I would just like to see the trail
designated.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. I see that there is
a great deal of support from the Commissioners from most of
those counties, Cowlitz, Jefferson Islands, Skaqit. Why do you
think it's getting such support from all those counties?
Mr. Knechtel. We have, with our youth education programs
and over the last 7 years, we developed the sky program which
is service, knowledge and youth, and that has been done under
the Secure Rural Schools Act, has put this curriculum into
schools. We've employed over 950 youth, ages 13 to 21 over the
last 7 years. They have done numerous jobs.
The counties in the State of Washington have been very
impressed with the inclined rate of graduation from the schools
where the program is plus the decline in juvenile delinquency.
It's been an extremely beneficial program, especially to the
Forest Service, who has benefited most by it.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I
could, as I said, put a longer statement in the record. Thank
you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. You
know that the Park Service has no objection to that and also
was asking that we authorize the feasibility study for that.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
the folks who have testified today. Mr. Rey, a couple questions
for you about the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Corridor.
Before I begin those I wanted to just note for the record,
Senator Burr you had mentioned, you asked about the cost. In my
opening statement I kind of referred to this as the low budget
option. We're trying to figure out a way that it isn't a burden
to the taxpayer, something that will work. I think that the
folks that were working to put this proposal together were
looking for just that.
They have indicated that, in so far as, we know the moneys
ultimately come from the appropriations process. The Corridor
Communities Association will have to come up with 25 percent
match on the Federal grants. The Association strongly believes
that they can make this concept work even if there's little or
no new Federal money made available. They believe they can do
so by leveraging partnership in the existing resources. There
won't be any Federal grants to support the heritage area that
would come from the National Park Service accounts. It's my
understanding.
I want to explore a little bit the suggestion that both
you, Mr. Rey and Ms. Taylor-Goodrich have suggested that we
need to move forward with this feasibility study. This idea
that the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Corridor area become a
Heritage area has been around for about a decade. It's passed
the Senate before.
The historic, the cultural attributes of the area are very
well documented. What do you think we gain from the feasibility
study that we don't already have?
Mr. Rey. What we have is much of the underlying information
that would go into a single feasibility study spread across a
couple of different documents. Some of it's in the Chugach Land
and Resource Management Plan. Some of it's in the Iditarod
Trail proposal. Some of it's in the Seward Highway proposal,
not proposal, project.
So I think what we're seeking is to collect all of that
information in one location so that it does have a totality to
it. Do one more evaluation to see if there's anything else that
we're overlooking. There are a few boundary adjustments that
may need to be made, things like that.
Senator Murkowski. But I----
Mr. Rey. I don't look at it as a major project, a fairly
quick action.
Senator Murkowski. Ok. Because the concern, of course, that
we have in going back to Senator Burr's point which is
absolutely legitimate. We don't want to spend money
unnecessarily doing things that we've already done before
gathering more information. So you feel that we could do
something that kind of wraps it all together. Do so in a manner
that is fiscally responsible or frugal without necessarily
reinventing the work that is already out there.
Mr. Rey. I think we're talking about bringing that work
together and combining it with a multi year action plan at a
cost of probably somewhere around 100,000 dollars total.
Senator Murkowski. You think that you can do that in a
timely manner?
Mr. Rey. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, do you concur?
Ms. Taylor-Goodrich. We concur. We'd be glad to provide any
advice and assistance needed to Mr. Rey.
Senator Murkowski. In response to Chairman Akaka's question
about, you know, why the Forest Service as opposed to the Park
Service. I think your outline of why the Kenai Mountains-
Turnagain Arm Corridor is a little bit different, the fact that
89 percent of the lands are managed currently by the Forest
Service, primarily there in the Chugach. Can you perhaps
elaborate for the committee some of the other things that the
Chugach National Forest is doing that would be complemented by
a National Heritage designation?
Mr. Rey. Sure. The management of the Iditarod National
Heritage Trail which would be in this Heritage Area in part,
the management of the Seward Highway Heritage Corridor, the
Alaska Railroad Whistle Stop Tour which we've constructed and
interpreted as a recreational and heritage resource. I believe
we've got some sites on the Chugach that would be within this
Heritage Area that are probably eligible for the National
Register of Historic Sites. There is an active archeological
program on the Chugach National Forest that interprets a number
of archeological and historic sites, both Native American as
well as early settlement.
The area is a corridor that essentially opened up the
interior of Alaska to settlement by, you know, the Russians and
then subsequently, America. So it's rich in historic resources
and rich in archeological resources since the Alaska native
population used some of those travel corridors before the post
Columbian population did.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate your comments. I think it
is important to identify how this particular corridor or area
might be appropriate for oversight by the Forest Service as
opposed to the National Park Service because I think we need to
be sensitive to duplication of efforts within agencies. But I
think when you have agencies that recognizes that because of
all the other things that are going on under that oversight
currently that really in order to gain as many efficiencies as
possible the best thing to do is to mirror the program that is
happened or taking place in another agency and yet have that
oversight be done by the Forest Service as we're proposing
here. You gain the best of all worlds.
Mr. Rey. Yes. I think the objective here is to try to avoid
duplication. You know we have many jointly managed areas.
So what we always try to do with the Park Service and with
the Bureau of Land Management is to try to manage them jointly
on the basis of what the greatest level of efficiency we can
achieve. Through that effort would be where we've got the
preponderance of the underlying resource, we take the lead.
When they've got the preponderance of the underlying resource,
they take the lead.
In the case that we were just describing which is the
Pacific Northwest Trail, it's about, you know, an even bet.
There are three National Parks and seven National Forests. I
think we've got about 60 percent of the trail corridor. You've
probably got about 38 percent of the trail corridor. So, again,
you all decide who you want and we'll figure out the
operational details.
But you can make it easier for us by reflecting what's
really there on the ground. The fact that this is the first
Forest Service Heritage Area is, you know, an anomaly that
isn't necessarily dis-positive as opposed to how we could best
manage the heritage resources in this area.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate those comments. Mr.
Chairman, I would hope that we could work with Mr. Rey and Ms.
Taylor-Goodrich and others to make this a reality in this
incredibly historic and scenic part of the State of Alaska. So
thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. Let
me follow up by asking a question of Mr. Rey. I understand that
you are asking that the area feasibility study be completed, I
think you had asked that. What does it require to complete it?
Mr. Rey. I think what would be required here is to take the
information that currently exists in four separate studies,
consolidate them into one, make sure we've answered all the
remaining questions. We still are adjusting boundaries a little
bit. Then use that study as the conclusion for proceeding.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. I have a question for Mr.
Knechtel. The study for the Pacific Northwest Trail is now
almost 30 years old. That study did not recommend, as you know,
including the trail in the National Trail System.
Mr. Knechtel. Right.
Senator Akaka. As you have heard today, the Park Service is
recommending that the bill be amended to require an update of
the study. I think you have the proper knowledge here to answer
my question. My question to you is, what are your thoughts on
their proposal?
Mr. Knechtel. I think, you know, I've read the 1980
feasibility study numerous times. Most of the people who were
against recommending the trail in 1980 have now come around and
are supporting it, such as the Department of Interior. You know
the Mountaineers in the State of Washington were very much
against the trail. They're very much in favor now.
Most of the trail has been, in the 1980s wasn't on trail. A
lot of the trail was bushwhacked, which, you know, cross
country, which is a no-no with the Forest Service. Those have
almost all been taken out. There's one left in Northern Idaho.
I've been working with the Idaho State Forest and also the
U.S. Forest Service on trying to get a trail, either do the
NEPA and build a trail. The State Forest Service has said that
they would support that. I haven't got that commitment from the
Forest Service yet, but it would be about a mile of new trail
on Forest Service land.
I guess where I'm coming from, Senator Akaka, is I don't
feel that there is a true need to do a complete feasibility
study review. I'd rather see that $250,000 or half a million
dollars be put into the trail. As far as building or finishing
it, there is a couple of sections where NEPA would have to be
done to get the trail off of some roads in Stevens County in
Washington.
You know I'm not going to fight the government if they do
want to update the feasibility study. You know I'm going to
work with my partners and with the agencies. That's my firm
belief.
You don't get anywhere by fighting the system. You work
with the system. You support them. Hopefully in return, they'll
support you.
I just, you know, the trail is all on trail. People hike it
every year. There are some sections that need to be moved off
of major roads. I'd rather see that money for the feasibility
study be spent there.
Senator Akaka. I'm really taken with what you said. The way
it came to me was, the connection made will be from sea to
shining sea.
Mr. Knechtel. Right.
Senator Akaka. Across the country.
Mr. Knechtel. This, Senator is a vision of a lot of people
is to see this sea to sea route from Cape--from, you know,
Massachusetts clear across to the Pacific Ocean. Andy Skurka
hiked this particular trail 3 years ago. It took him 11 months.
But he did make the hike using the Long Trail, the New England
Trail, the North Country and our trail to accomplish it.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for that. Senator, do
you have any?
Mr. Knechtel. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you. This has been a good
hearing. I want to thank each of you for testifying this
afternoon.
Without question, your statements and testimony will be
very helpful to us. We look forward to working with you, even
with your recommendations here to us on each of these bills.
Now before we close today I want to let you know that some
members of the committee who were not able to attend this
afternoon may want to submit additional questions in writing.
If they do, we will forward them to you and ask you to respond
to the questions.
I look forward to moving some of these bills. Thank you
again. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
National Cave and Karst Research Institute,
Carlsbad, NM, June 10, 2008.
Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 312 Hart Senate Office
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
S. 3096--Proposed legislation to amend Section 5(a) of the National
Cave and Karst Research Institute Act of 1998
Caves and karst are a hidden, little known, yet vital underground
resource that directly impact over 25% of the United States. The
National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) was created by the
U.S. Congress in 1998 to support and conduct research, education, and
sound management of these areas directly and through partnerships with
other entities. One group of crucial partners are federal agencies and
federally-funded organizations which hold properties that contain many
of the country's and world's most significant caves and karst areas.
Unfortunately, the legislation that created NCKRI had the unexpected
effect of severely limiting NCKRI's ability to establish those crucial
partnerships. As Executive Director of NCKRI, this letter is submitted
to strongly support passage of S.3096 so NCKRI can more effectively
fulfill its mandates.
Section 5(a) of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Act
of 1998 requires NCKRI to receive matching non-federal funds for the
federal funding it is allocated. While the intent of this requirement
seems clear, the reality is that NCKRI is either unable to work with
federal or federally-funded agencies, or can do so under conditions
that can seldom be achieved. The two fundamental problems are that in
many cases:
1) Non-federal matches may not exist for the specific needs,
or cannot be effectively located without disproportionate
expenditure of NCKRI resources;
2) There is often insufficient time to locate non-federal
funds.
In the case of grants, such as from the National Science
Foundation, potential non-federal sponsors do not want to commit funds
for protracted grant review periods without a clear end date (since
many grants are not accepted in the first round of review but years
later in future rounds) or reasonable degree of certainty that the
federal funds will be approved.
During the past year, I have met with staff from the Bureau of Land
Management, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Forest Service, and Geological Survey. They were all
supportive of NCKRI and interested in partnering, but put-off by the
matching funds requirement. For example, in May 2008, the Klamath
Network of national parks contacted NCKRI to develop a program for
inventorying and monitoring caves. Instead, the funds for that program
may likely go to a private consulting firm, which would provide no
match. Within the last week, the Bureau of Land Management released a
request for proposals for cave management and research needs in New
Mexico, with an estimated total 5-year budget that nearly matches
NCKRI's current combined federal and non-federal annual budget. Given
the constraints of time and personnel, NCKRI hopes for affiliation with
whichever organization receives this project, but will not benefit from
the funds, growth, and prestige that receiving this project would
provide.
Should S.3096 be approved, there may be concern that the matching
funds currently provided by the State of New Mexico, through the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), may diminish or cease.
That will not occur. I have been assured by the NMT President and Vice-
President and Associate Vice-President of Research and Economic
Development that NCKRI has NMT's full support regardless of federal
funding, and have seen their words supported by actions. Additionally,
it is in NMT's and the State of New Mexico's best interest for NCKRI to
succeed and bring in additional funding, both of which would be greatly
facilitated by approval of S.3096.
In 1998, Congress took an unprecedented step in recognizing the
importance of cave and karst resources by creating NCKRI. Approval of
S.3096 will remove a well-intentioned but flawed clause that severely
limits NCKRI's ability to effectively fulfill the purposes Congress
intended.
Sincerely,
George Veni, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Jon Knechtel to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. Northwest National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 2943):
How much of the Pacific Northwest Trail is currently established, who
manages it, and how is it funded?
Answer. The majority of the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT) is on the
ground and people hike it on a yearly basis. 900 miles of the trail are
actual trail; the balance is on minimal-use roads (263 miles), minimal-
use paved roads (30 miles), city or county roads (130 miles), state
highways (30 miles), and US Highways (4 miles).
The National Park Service (NPS) maintains those sections of the PNT
within their boundaries. If the PNTA obtains grant money, we have been
able to put our youth crews within the parks to help with the
maintenance.
Very few districts of the United States forest Service (USFS) have
trail crews so the PNTA, as a non-profit, applies for and receives
substantial grant monies each year to place our Service-Knowledge-Youth
(SKY) Crews on USFS land to not only maintain the PNT, but help the
USFS maintain other trails, trailheads, and campgrounds. A lot of
maintenance on USFS land is also done by our volunteers.
Many sections of the trail (such as state, county, city, or private
lands) are maintained by volunteers from the Pacific Northwest Trail
Association and our SKY Youth programs. The PNTA has also implemented,
and supplied tools to, many Trail Maintenance Organizations (TMO's)
over the years such as the Quimper Trail Association (Port Townsend,
WA), the Skagit TMO (Mt. Vernon, WA), Glacier Trail Club (Bellingham,
WA), the Oroville TMO (Oroville, WA), and the 49th Parallel Mountain
Cursors (Eureka, MT). The PNTA has also formed partnerships with many
Trail Coalitions (TC's) such as the Peninsula TC (Port Angeles, WA),
Whidbey Island TC (Oak Harbor, WA), Skagit TC (Mt. Vernon, WA),
Okanogan TC (Okanogan, WA), and Colville TC (Colville, WA). The PNTA
has also developed partnerships with the Backcountry Horsemen of
Washington, Idaho, and Montana, Tobacco Valley High Country Horsemen
(Eureka, MT), Washington Trails Association, Washington, Idaho, and
Montana Conservation Corps, Cascade (Sedro-Woolley, WA) and Curlew Job
Corps Centers (Curlew, WA).
The PNTA has developed numerous youth programs which have been
funded by the Secure Rural Schools Act, NRTP Grants, and grants from
the National forest Foundation. Private funding has been available,
over the years, from companies such as Weyerhaeuser, Microsoft,
Williams Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Tully's Coffee, the Spring
Family Trust, Skagit Community Foundation and many others.
Question 2. Northwest National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 2943):
How many private property owners have land that is part of the Pacific
Northwest Trail corridor?
Answer. There are some private timber companies where Land Use
Agreements are in place, and the WA Department of Natural Resources and
State Parks where agreements are in place. The trail uses rural-urban
trails which are owned and protected by cities and counties. There are
some small landowners along the trail, where if permission has been
given the trail goes through their property; otherwise it traverses the
property on county roads.
Question 3. Northwest National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 2943):
Will any land need to be purchased to complete the Pacific Northwest
Trail, what is the estimated cost, and is the Federal government
expected to purchase it if the legislation is enacted?
Answer. To complete the trail on federal lands, there are a few
areas where new trail would have to be built to get it off roads. These
would require NEPAs to be done, however the trail would most likely be
built by volunteer labor.
There are some sections along the trail, through private land, that
could possibly be purchased. Most of these lands have had the
merchantable timber removed in the last 15-years and won't be harvested
for another 25-40 years, if then. I don't know what the costs would be
as we've never negotiated that.
State Lands in Washington, through which the trail passes, would
not be available for purchase under the RCW Codes of the State. There
is no language in the RCW Codes allowing the sale of, or 30-year
easements, through State Trust Land, however a permanent license to use
these lands is available under the RCW Codes.
If NST Status is granted for all the federal lands the trail passes
through, then purchases could be made of private lands as they come
available through yearly appropriation requests, private donations,
land swaps, or through the Land Conservation Acts.
If granted NST Status by the Federal Government, the Pacific
Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNNST) would be in a better position
to garner private funds and different types of available grant monies,
than now exist to a strictly non-profit organization. More community
involvement along the trail would take place because of the economic
impact of having a National Scenic Trail in their backyard. I also feel
because of the diversity of trail types, under the Recreational
Opportunity Spectrum, the PNNST would allow more users to partake in
the outdoor experience. With the rail-trails along the PNT, handicapped
persons and mothers with baby strollers can join the ranks of trail
users.
Those of us who have spent many years working on the PNT, putting
these agreements together, building new sections of trail, getting
youth into the great outdoors, to learn about the environment and help
maintain, not only the PNT, but trails that our agency partners don't
have the funding to maintain feel that we have one of the most scenic
trails in the country.
Yes, there are issues to be faced and worked through, however these
issues are no different than those undertaken by all the other trails.
The PNTA has spent the last 30-plus years getting to this point without
the benefits provided the other NST and NHT Trails. We feel the PNT
should be a part of the National Trail System because it not only is an
extremely scenic and diverse trail, it provides a vital link to our
National Trail System connecting the Pacific Crest and Continental
Divide National Scenic Trails to the Pacific Ocean.
______
Responses of Mark Rey to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. The Secretary of Agriculture was previously given
responsibility for the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area.
The arrangement was not successful and the bill was amended to give
oversight authority to the Secretary of the Interior. What were the
circumstances that resulted in the transfer of oversight from
Agriculture to Interior and how has that been resolved for the proposed
Kenai Mountains Heritage Area?
Answer. The Secretary of Agriculture was originally designated in
1996, as the lead in assisting with the development of the Heritage
Area called ``America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership: Silos &
Smokestacks.'' However, the management entity later worked to change
this designation. The Silos & Smokestacks website provides the
following explanation for the change:
We have asked the Iowa Congressional and Senate delegation to
amend the original legislation and place us under the
Department of Interior where all other Heritage Areas are
established. AAHP was originally placed under the Department of
Agriculture because it was thought that our story fit their
mission. While the USDA will continue to assist Silos &
Smokestacks, from the standpoint of funding and technical
assistance, we have determined that our best ``home'' is with
the National Park Service, which is behind the development of
heritage areas.
In 2000, an omnibus parks bill was enacted that transferred the
responsibility for the Heritage Area from the Department of Agriculture
to the Department of the Interior.
In the twelve years since Silos & Smokestacks was established, it
has not received any Federal financial assistance through USDA because
Congress never appropriated funds despite the authorization for up to
$1 million annually, not to exceed $10 million by 2012. In contrast,
the National Park Service presented Silos & Smokestacks with a check
for $248,000 on May 5, 2000. The scenario described above did not
involve the Forest Service. The Forest Service has a rich and vibrant
heritage program established in 1980. In fact, in February 2008, the
Forest Service received the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
award for Federal Preserve America Accomplishment.
S. 3045, which would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Forest Heritage Area, would give the Department of Agriculture
responsibility because:
There is a long-standing and proven relationship between the
Forest Service and the management entity that has successfully
accomplished several heritage related projects.
The management entity has requested that the Forest Service
be the lead Federal agency.
The goals and objectives of the proposed heritage area are
very compatible with the land management plan for the National
Forest System (NFS) lands included within the boundary.
The Alaska Regional Office of the National Park Service has
been supportive and has agreed to collaborate fully with the
Forest Service.
Question 2. S. 3045 authorizes certain appropriations for use by
the Kenai Mountains National Heritage Area. Does Department of
Agriculture have a mechanism for funding Kenai Mountains Heritage Area
if this legislation is enacted?
Answer. S. 3045 authorizes appropriations to be made available to
the management entity for the development and implementation of the
management plan for the Heritage Area.
The Forest Service would have a mechanism for making that funding
available to the management entity if the legislation is enacted and
funds are appropriated as authorized. The Forest Service already has
resource staff in place throughout the Area, including archaeologists,
recreation/tourism planners, landscape architects, and engineers.
Within existing authorities and budgets, we can provide a limited
amount of technical assistance to local communities, and are now doing
so. Because the Forest Service manages most of the land within the
proposed Area, we have the resource information, visitor information,
and technical tools needed to support the goals of the proposed
Heritage Area, as well as working relationships already established
with local communities. In the past, we have provided financial
assistance to local communities through the Economic Recovery Program,
but due to national budget priorities, this program has not received
funding in the past few years.
Mechanisms are already in place to grant monies to other entities
through State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs and more recently,
through the National Forest System programs if funding is made
available. There are at least four grant authorities that could be
applied to this type of activity:
National and Community Service Act of 1990 (provides
broadest authority for National Forest System activities).
National Forest Dependent Rural Communities Economic
Diversification Act of 1990 (provides broadest authority for
State and Private Forestry program activities).
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.
National Trails System Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
To provide the same level of technical and financial assistance
that the National Park Service generally provides to Heritage Areas,
the Forest Service will need to have comparable level of funds
appropriated for this purpose. For a Heritage Area managed by the
Forest Service, funding appropriated to implement the legislation would
need to be within BLIs that are appropriate to the types of activities
being undertaken. Maintaining the existing level of funding for the
Chugach National Forest and S&PF programs is essential to managing
existing facilities and programs on National Forest System lands and
state and private lands in Alaska.
Question 3. Are we setting a precedent for other states or local
interest groups to request National Heritage Areas associated with the
Department of Agriculture if S. 3045 is enacted as introduced?
Answer. Since many lands administered by the Forest Service have
significant heritage resources and good working relationships with
local communities, it is possible that other local interest groups
could request similar legislation.
Question 4. Are you aware of any other National Heritage Areas that
are proposed for association with the Department of Agriculture?
Answer. We are not aware of any proposed heritage areas that would
be administered by the Department of Agriculture. But, of the bills
introduced in the 110th Congress that would designate 12 new heritage
areas and revise 4 existing heritage areas, we are aware of 5 proposals
that include NFS lands. Those 5 are Northern Plains National Heritage
Area (S. 2098), the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area, Colorado
(S. 443), the Cache La Poudre River National Heritage Area, Colorado
(S. 128), the South Park National Heritage Area, Colorado (S. 444), and
the Land Between the Rivers Heritage Area, Illinois (S. 956). In fact,
the proposed Land Between the Rivers Heritage Area would encompass the
entire Shawnee National Forest.
Question 5. Would the Department of Agriculture raise any
opposition if S. 3045 is amended to place the Kenai Mountains National
Heritage Area under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior
as is the case for all other National Heritage Areas?
Answer. The Alaska Region Forest Service has been working for many
years with the local management entity to articulate and accomplish
goals related to the proposed Heritage Area. Our mission is very
compatible with the proposed goals. We feel that this historically
significant area deserves recognition as a National Heritage Area, and
would support designation under whichever Department the members of
Congress see fit; however, we believe that designating the Department
of Agriculture as the lead would avoid unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy and duplication of efforts.
Question 6. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas that currently exist,
how many of those contain National Forest Service land within their
boundaries? Has the association with the National Forest Service land
created any unique challenges?
Answer. NFS lands are included within 12 of the 40 currently
existing National Heritage Areas (30 percent). The NFS land involved
ranges from 1 percent to about 50 percent of lands within individual
heritage area boundaries. Forest Service units work cooperatively with
the National Park Service on heritage tourism opportunities related to
the heritage areas. The amount of involvement by the Forest Service
varies greatly from one heritage area to the next due to differences in
the management plans for the heritage areas and the varying amounts of
NFS lands involved. We are not aware of any unique challenges with
current heritage areas.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Karen Taylor-Goodrich From Senator Bingaman
H.R. 1143--CANEEL BAY LEASE IN VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Question 1. H.R. 1143 provides for a lease for a term not to exceed
40 years. Has the National Park Service conducted any analysis to
determine what the appropriate length of the lease should be?
Question 2. It's my understanding that a concession contract may
not exceed a term of 20 years. Have companies providing lodging
services in national park system units under concession contracts been
able to obtain financing for capital improvements?
Question 3. H.R. 1143 requires the Secretary of the Interior to
require appraisals to determine the property's fair market value rent,
as determined by appraisals. Given the unique nature and location of
the Caneel Bay property, what do you expect to use as comparable
properties?
Question 4. Section 2(b) of H.R. 1143 requires any lease to include
``the property covered by the RUE and any associated property owned by
CBI donated to the National Park Service.'' What associated property is
CBI planning to donate to the Park Service? Does this paragraph cover
different associated property than that described in paragraph 3(e),
which requires the lease to take into account the value of any
associated property transferred by CBI to the National Park Service?
Question 5. Section 3 of H.R. 1143 provides that ``as a condition
of the lease, CBI shall relinquish to the Secretary all rights under
the RUE and transfer, without compensation, ownership of improvements
covered by the RUE to the United States.'' Section 2(c) requires the
lease to require payment to the United States of the property's fair
market value rent, taking into account the value of any associated
property transferred by CBI . . .''
Question 5a. Does the National Park Service interpret these
provisions to require that CBI will receive no compensation for any
property or improvements covered by the RUE, but will receive
compensation for any associated property conveyed to the National Park
Service?
Question 5b. Under the terms of the RUE, is CBI entitled to any
compensation for any structures or improvements covered by the RUE?
Question 6. Please provide a list of the specific properties owned
by CBI that would be conveyed to the National Park Service as
``associated property''.
Question 7. Please provide a copy of the retained use estate
referenced in H.R. 1143.
Question 8. If Caneel Bay operates under the lease authorized under
H.R. 1143, will the resort grounds and beaches be limited to use by
guests of the resort, or will they be available for use by park
visitors in general? If the general public (other than resort guests)
will not be allowed use of the Caneel Bay grounds and beaches, please
explain how that restriction is in the public interest.
Question 9. Does the National Park Service allow any concession
operators of hotels or lodging establishments at any other park to
preclude public access (other than guests of the lodge) to large areas
of public parkland?
Questions for Karen Taylor-Goodrich From Senator Burr
SEQUOIA-KINGS CANYON WILDERNESS DESIGNATION (S. 1774)
Question 10a. Approximately how many property owners have in-
holdings within the boundaries of the land designated as wilderness by
S. 1774? Are property owners currently allowed to use motorized
vehicles to access their property and will this change as a result of
designation?
Question 10b. Has the existing general management plan for Sequoia-
Kings Canyon treated the land as wilderness for management purposes or
will this designation constitute a major change in land use?
Question 10c. What types of activities will be allowed in the
proposed area that deviates from standard policy within wilderness
areas?
CHISHOLM TRAIL AND GREAT WESTERN TRAIL STUDY (S. 2255)
Question 11a. What is the length of each trail and how many states
are involved?
Question 11b. Will each private property owner with land containing
portions of the trail be notified of the study and given an opportunity
to provide comments?
Question 11c. Is this envisioned as a historic trail for
designation on a map or will it be a trail that can be used for
recreation in the form of hiking, bicycling, or horseback riding?
ST. AUGUSTINE COMMEMORATION COMMISSION (S. 2359)
Question 12a. What is the typical role of the Secretary of the
Interior and the National Park Service in a commemoration commission
and does S. 2359 establish any new role?
Question 12b. S. 2359 gives the commemoration commission the
authority to award grants up to $10,000 for projects associated with
the 450th anniversary of St. Augustine. Do other commissions have grant
authority and is this any different?
Question 12c. Does the National Park Service have any units in St.
Augustine, FL, that are planning activities associated with the 450th
anniversary?
Question 12d. Does the bill give the Secretary of the Interior
sufficient discretion to choose commission members that represent a
diversity of the culture of Florida and St. Augustine?
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL DESIGNATION (S. 2943)
Question 13a. What role does the National Park Service currently
have in managing, interpreting, and maintaining the Pacific Northwest
Trail?
Question 13b. Through which National Parks does the Pacific
Northwest Trail traverse and is the trail an integral part of the
history and culture of the area?
ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR REAUTHORIZATION (S. 3010)
Question 14a. When was the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
established and how much funding has it received since inception?
Question 14b. What is the goal of the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program and what is its highest priority project?
BEAVER BASIN WILDERNESS DESIGNATION AT PICTURE ROCKS NATIONAL
LAKESHORE (S. 3017)
Question 15a. How many private land owners have in-holdings within
the area designated as wilderness by S. 3017?
Question 15b. S. 3017 allows for continued use of electric motors
to power boats within the wilderness area. How unusual is it to allow
motorized transportation within a wilderness area and is this a
compatible use within Beaver Basin?
Question 15c. Does S. 3017 affect any existing activities within
Beaver Basin and how will the General Management Plan for Picture Rocks
National Lakeshore be changed as a result of the designation?
KENAI MOUNTAINS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA (S. 3045)
Question 16a. Has there been any previous attempt to place a
National Heritage Area under the jurisdiction of anyone other than the
Secretary of the Interior? If so, how did that work and who does that
national heritage area currently report to?
Question 16b. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas that currently
exist, how many of those contain National Forest Service land within
their boundaries? Has the association with National Forest Service land
created any unique challenges?
Question 16c. Is it possible for a feasibility study of the
proposed heritage area to be completed by a local entity and submitted
to the Administration for approval thereby avoiding the need for
legislation to authorize a study?
Question 16d. What advice or comments would you give to the
Department of Agriculture regarding oversight of National Heritage
Areas?
CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE AMENDMENT (S. 3096)
Question 17a. Since inception, the Cave and Karst Research
Institute has been required to match Federal funds 1 to 1 with a
nonfederal source. What is the total dollar amount they have obtained
from nonfederal sources during that time?
Question 17b. Want is the estimated annual funding needs for the
Cave and Karst Research Institute without the nonfederal matching
requirement?
CANEEL BAY RESORT LEASE AGREEMENT (H.R. 1143)
Question 18a. Does the National Park Service see any drawbacks to
having the management and operation of Caneel Bay Resort converted to a
long-term lease arrangement?
Question 18b. The proposed legislation establishes a long-term
lease with a for-profit firm on a sole source basis. Should we be
looking at amending the bill to authorize a long-term lease through a
competitive process rather than a sole source arrangement? Would that
cause any problems for the National Park Service?
Question 18c. How many buildings are part of the Caneel Bay Resort,
when were they constructed, what is their condition, and what is the
estimated cost to bring them up to standards for long-term use as a
resort?
Question 18d. Prior to supporting the legislation, what steps did
the National Park Service take to determine the fair market value of
the Caneel Bay Resort, approximate lease rate if the legislation is
enacted and estimated income to the Federal government during a 40-year
lease? If so, what were the findings?
Question 18e. What are the benefits to the National Park Service of
converting the current arrangement to a long-term lease?
Question 18f. Has the Rockefeller estate taken a position on the
proposed lease arrangement and have they conveyed their position in
written form that can be sent to us? If so, please provide a copy of
the opinion with your response to this question.
Question 18g. From whom did CBI purchase the retained use estate in
2003 and how much did they pay for it?
Question 18h. Was CBI aware of the retained use estate expiring in
2023 when they purchased the property and did they attempt to extend
the expiration date as a condition of purchase?
Question 18i. What is the estimated value of the retained use
estate if purchased by the Federal government in 2008?
Question 18j. Has the National Park Service proposed purchasing the
remainder of the retained use estate followed by solicitations for a
lease through a competitive process? If so, when did such discussion
occur and what was the conclusion? If not, why not?
Question 18k. What is the estimated income to the Federal
government if the proposed legislation is enacted and a 40-year lease
is signed?