[Senate Hearing 111-129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-129
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 635 S. 1418
S. 715 H.R. 2330
S. 742 H.R. 2430
S. 1270
__________
JULY 22, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-002 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 3
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington............... 3
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 13
Lindquist, Kirk L., Member, Michigan Lighthouse Project and Past
President, Michigan Lighthouse Fund, Okemos, MI................ 30
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
Walter, Greg, Jefferson State Financial Group, Cave Junction, OR. 26
Wenk, Dan, Acting Director, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior................................................... 6
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 5
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 45
NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order.
Following up on last week's hearing, the Subcommittee on
National Parks meets this afternoon to consider several bills.
Although I understand a couple of the bills may require
additional discussion and review, I believe most are
noncontroversial.
The bills on today's agenda include: S. 635, which
designates a segment of the Illabot Creek--I will let Senator
Cantwell clarify my pronunciation--in Skagit County,
Washington, as a component of the National Wild and scenic
River System; S. 715, to establish a pilot program to provide
for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic
lighthouses; S. 742, to expand the boundary of the Jimmy Carter
National Historic Site in the State of Georgia and to
redesignate the site as a National Historical Park; S. 1270, to
modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument; S.
1418 and H.R. 2330, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
study the suitability and feasibility of establishing Camp Hale
in Colorado as a unit of the National Park System; and H.R.
2430, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue
stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades National
Park and other National Park Service sites in Washington State.
I would like to take a minute to discuss the Camp Hale
study bill, which I have sponsored, along with Senator Bennett.
We also have the House-passed bill before us, which Congressman
Lamborn has championed. Camp Hale, which is located in the
mountains of central Colorado was a facility that trained a
number of soldiers for combat in high alpine and mountainous
conditions. Principally it was a training venue for the Army's
10th Mountain Division and other elements of the United States
Armed Forces. The geography of the area was vital for winter
and high altitude training with steep mountains surrounding a
level valley suitable for housing and other facilities.
Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the
Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training
Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese
occupation of their mountainous country.
In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated and control of the
lands was returned to the Forest Service in 1966.
Today the camp is part of the White River and San Isabel
National Forest.
It is an important part of our Nation's proud national
defense legacy and it deserves to be recognized and protected.
The area's historical significance has already been recognized
as Camp Hale was included in the National Register of Historic
Places in 1992. But I think it is appropriate to conduct a
study to assess whether the area should be incorporated into
the National Park system. The people, understandably, who
trained at Camp Hale are proud of their accomplishments and I
am certainly proud to join Representative Lamborn and Senator
Bennett in recognizing the historical significance of their
work through this legislation.
Although the bill calls for the study to be conducted by
the National Park Service, it is important to note that the
lands are currently managed by the Forest Service. When we
asked the agencies to comment on these bills, we inadvertently
forgot to ask the Forest Service for its official comments on
the bill. To remedy that, I will be sending a letter asking for
the agency's official comments for the hearing record. Of
course, the Forest Service witness is free to make any comments
today on the bill if he desires.
With that, I would like to recognize the ranking member,
Senator Burr, from the great State of North Carolina.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patty Murray, U.S. Senator From Washington,
on S. 635
Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr, I would like to thank you
for holding today's hearing on S. 635, legislation which would amend
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 14.3 miles of Illabot Creek
in Skagit County, Washington, as part of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
This legislation is the result of a collaborative process, and is
supported by a wide range of community stakeholders including local
elected officials, environmentalists, fishermen, and agriculture
organizations.
Illabot Creek flows from an elevation of almost 7,500 feet in the
Glacier Peak Wilderness Area in the Cascade mountains into the upper
Skagit River.
Salmon are a way of life in Washington state and their protection
is critical to our heritage, our culture, and our economy. The creek's
free-flowing waters provide critical spawning habitat for the wild
Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout, all federally listed as
threatened, as well as pink, coho, sockeye and chum salmon. The mature
and old growth forest along the creek also provides valuable habitat
for many wildlife species including bald eagles.
I want to thank Congressman Rick Larsen, who led this effort by
introducing legislation in the House. I would also like to thank
Senator Maria Cantwell, who is a co-sponsor of the bill introduced here
in the Senate. I look forward to working with the Committee and my
colleagues to protect this crucial habitat for salmon, bull trout,
eagles and other species while preserving recreational opportunities,
such as hunting and fishing, for future generations.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you again for holding this
hearing on S. 635, and for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not exactly
sure why you stared at me on the CIA piece. Maybe you know what
I do every afternoon.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening this hearing before the National Parks Subcommittee.
It has only been a week since our last National Parks
Subcommittee hearing, but we have another full agenda today.
The first set of bills covered in this hearing reflects the
broad objectives of the National Park Service and, more
importantly, this subcommittee.
One bill, in particular, caught my attention, S. 715, the
lighthouse preservation grants bill. The bill would seek to
provide maintenance funding to non-Federal entities who
volunteer to acquire lighthouses from the Federal Government. I
am fairly familiar with this program. While I strongly support
the preservation of lighthouses, the bill concerns me since it
would appear to go against the intent of the underlying law,
the Lighthouse Preservation Act. In fact, in the Lighthouse
Preservation Act, there was a reversion clause. The reversion
clause basically reverted ownership back to the Coast Guard if
the nonprofit entities or communities chose not to maintain the
maintenance of them.
There is nobody that has supported any more than I have
especially nonprofit entities who choose to take on the
responsibility of the historic nature of preserving
lighthouses. Though, when we passed that preservation act, it
did not extend also our ongoing commitment to maintain, to
underwrite the maintenance of those lighthouses.
So I can only speak for myself, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to hearing more about this, but I have a major problem
with the belief that we can give this to an entity and then
turn around and be asked to fund the maintenance of a non-
Federal asset. So I look forward to hearing from out witnesses
today, and to hearing their testimony.
Senator Udall. I thank the ranking member for his comments.
Let me turn to Senator Cantwell. Hopefully, she will
correct my pronunciation of Illabot Creek.
Senator Cantwell. Illabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you and the ranking member both for holding this
important hearing today on legislation that we are considering,
and I would like to talk about two of those pieces of
legislation, a bill to designate Illabot Creek in Skagit County
as a Wild and Scenic River and a bill to clarify the Park
Service's authority to stock fish in certain high mountain
lakes in the North Cascades National Park.
First, I would like to talk about why designating part of
Illabot Creek in Skagit County as a Wild and Scenic River is so
important to Washington State. Senator Murray and I introduced
this legislation to designate 14.3 miles of a segment of
Illabot Creek as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
system. If enacted, this will ensure protection of its
important fish and wildlife habitat while also maintaining the
recreation opportunities such as fishing and hunting.
The Skagit River watershed supports one of the largest
wintering bald eagle concentrations in the lower 48 States, and
because of this abundance of salmon and high quality habitat,
Illabot Creek is the center of bald eagle foraging activity in
this area.
The legislation being proposed is a result of a
collaborative vetting process that involved local stakeholders
and community members, including public land agencies and local
county governments and private forest landowners. The 14.3-mile
proposed designation has gained significant support through
these efforts of outreach.
The proposed designation runs from the headwaters to the
county-owned right-of-way to a bridge at Rockport Cascade Road.
While we considered including the final 2 miles to the
confluence of the Skagit River, this was excluded after a
vetting process because of concerns from local officials. So
the designation of the upper 14.3 as Wild and Scenic, in
addition to conservation easements already in place on private
lands in the lower 2 miles, will ensure that the free-flowing
waters of the significant fish and wildlife habitat are
maintained for generations to come.
The second bill the committee is considering would clarify
that the Park Service authority to allow the Park Service the
authority for fishing stock in the North Cascades National
Park. The North Cascades contains over 245 mountain lakes, of
which 91 have been historically stocked with fish. In some
cases, the stocking of fish in these lakes dates back to the
1800s. For decades, volunteers, working with the State of
Washington, have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this
area and under carefully constructed management plans written
by the Park Service biologists.
In addition, congressional consideration of the creation of
the North Cascades National Park indicated that fish stocking
would continue. The legislation creating the park even
identified fishing as an important recreational use.
When questions were raised about environmental impacts of
fish stocking, the Park Service prepared an EIS on the
fisheries in the mountain lakes, and this included a 12-year
scientific research project conducted by Oregon State
University. The preferred alternative selected in the Park
Service final record of decision is to allow continued fish
stocking in 42 lakes where the agency has concluded there would
be no adverse impact on native ecosystems. In its report, the
Park Service also requested explicit authority to allow fish
stocking to continue within the park.
So I have heard from many of my constituents in and around
the North Cascades National Park, and they want the fish
stocking to continue. Many tourists visit the park for its
scenic beauty as well as its fishing opportunities, making the
fish stocking an important component of our North Cascades
National Park system throughout the State of Washington to our
economy.
I have also heard from constituents who are concerned about
the potential impacts of continued fish stocking. So I am
looking forward to hearing from the Park Service on how
allowing fish stocking would work and allow for no adverse
impacts on our native ecosystem.
So I thank the chairman for having both of these bills on
the docket. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the
Department of the Interior and others on these issues.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
We have been joined by Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden, would
you like to make an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing.
I am very pleased that today we are going to be looking at
S. 1270, legislation that I have introduced to expand the
boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument. We very much
thank you for holding the hearing.
Particularly, we want to welcome and thank Greg Walter for
making the trek back here from Cave Junction. In addition to
running his own business, Mr. Walter is a member of the
Illinois Valley Community Development Organization, and he is
doing a lot of good work to advance the community's quality of
life.
The legislation that I have introduced would expand the
monument boundary by 4,070 acres to include the entire Cave
Creek watershed, management of which would be transferred from
the United States Forest Service to the National Park Service.
Expanding the boundary would allow for better protection of the
stunning majesty of both the underground caves and the above-
ground treasures found at the monument.
Because the current 480-acre boundary is insufficient to
adequately protect the cave system and its water quality, the
Park Service has formally proposed a boundary modification
numerous times, first in 1939, then again in 1949, and most
recently in 2000.
The Oregon Caves National Monument makes an extraordinary
contribution to southern Oregon's economy and to the national
heritage. The monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually
and is the second smallest unit of the National Park System. A
larger monument boundary would help us showcase more fully the
recreational opportunities on these lands within the proposed
monument boundary and provide visitors more chances to enjoy
them. I feel very strongly that recreation is a special
economic engine for Oregon, and I certainly want to see the
opportunities that would come about through a larger monument
boundary for additional recreational opportunities.
Now, my legislation would additionally designate at least
9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild and Scenic or
recreational, including the first subterranean Wild and Scenic
River, the River Styx.
This bill would also provide authorization for the
voluntary retirement of existing grazing allotments. The
current grazing permittee, Phil Krauss and his family, had the
Big Grayback grazing allotment, which is over 19,000 acres
since 1937. Mr. Krauss now favors lease retirement and private
compensation for his allotment. My bill would allow a local
solution to go forward to protect the monument resources.
Only a couple of other points, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
We have got to particularly get the Forest Service on track to
make sure that this special treasure has the protection that is
needed. Again and again, we have seen a failure to cooperate
with respect to steps that are needed to protect the monument's
resources.
Today the Forest Service asks for yet more time to figure
out a way to work cooperatively with the Federal partners. They
say that no coordinated study or formal dialog has occurred
between the Departments to discuss expansion. Yet, this
proposal has been discussed for years, and a hearing was held
on similar legislation a year ago and the Forest Service asked
for time to discuss this with the Park Service then. But the
testimony that we are getting today indicates that Forest
Service has not even utilized the last year to fully tap the
opportunities for interagency cooperation.
So we have got to, in this committee, stay at this, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to working with you. I note my friend
from North Carolina who gave me that glowing, glowing
introduction this morning when I came to the Veteran Affairs
Committee. But we are going to work on this in a bipartisan
way.
I will close simply by saying thank you to the great
volunteers and supporters in the local business and
conservation community in southern Oregon, to Phil Krauss for
his commitment to Oregon's natural resources, to Craig
Ackerman, the former superintendent of the Oregon Caves
National Monument, and all of my colleagues in the Oregon
congressional delegation, Senator Merkley, who was a cosponsor
of the bill, of course, my partner here in the Senate, and
colleagues in the other body, Representatives DeFazio,
Schrader, Blumenauer, and Wu, who have introduced the companion
legislation.
So, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, thank you very much. This
is an important day for our State and to have Greg Walter
having made that long trip across the country is an indication
of how strongly my constituents feel about S. 1270 that would
let us finally expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
If the two administration witnesses would come forward and
join us at the table, we will move right to your testimony. We
have been joined by Daniel Wenk, who is the Acting Director of
the National Park Service, and Joel Holtrop, who is the Deputy
Chief of the National Forest System. Thank you both for being
here.
Mr. Wenk, why do we not start with you? Same time, same
place. Great to have you back on the Hill. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAN WENK, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to present the
Department of the Interior's views on the five bills on today's
agenda. I would like to submit our full statements for the
record and summarize the administration's positions on these
bills.
S. 715 would establish a 3-year pilot program to provide
financial assistance to nonprofit organizations, States, or
local government entities for the preservation and
rehabilitation of historic lighthouses.
The Department was not able to determine a position on this
legislation in time for this hearing. We will provide our
position in a letter to the committee in the very near future.
S. 742 would expand the boundary of Jimmy Carter National
Historic Site in Georgia and redesignate the unit as a National
Historical Park.
The Department supports enactment of S. 742. This
legislation would authorize the addition of several properties
to the Jimmy Carter Historic Site that would help broaden
public understanding of the life and work of President Carter
and enhance the visitor experience in Plains, Georgia.
The redesignation of this site as a National Historical
Park is appropriate for a unit of the National Park System that
has multiple, noncontiguous sites as this unit has.
S. 1270 would adjust the boundary of Oregon Caves National
Monument to include the addition of approximately 4,070 acres
as a national preserve to the existing monument. The lands that
would be added are currently managed by the United States
Forest Service as part of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest.
The Department supports the intent of this bill as
consistent with the general management plan for the park, but
recommends deferring action on the bill to give us the
opportunity to continue exploring ways to maintain interagency
coordination. The Department of the Interior and Department of
Agriculture look forward to reporting back to the committee on
these discussions within 6 months.
S. 1418 and H.R. 2330 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to carry out a study to determine the suitability and
feasibility of establishing Camp Hale in Colorado as a unit of
the National Park System.
Camp Hale was established to provide winter and mountain
warfare training during World War II. It is currently managed
by the United States Forest Service as part of the White River
National Forest and used for public recreation.
The Department supports this legislation with amendments to
include the United States Forest Service in the study and to
remove the section dealing with water rights, which is, we
believe, unnecessary.
H.R. 2430 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
continue stocking fish in certain lakes in North Cascades
National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake
Chelan National Recreation Area.
The preferred alternative in the park's 2008 fishery
management plan would allow stocking of non-reproducing fish at
low densities to continue in up to 42 lakes, subject to
additional monitoring. However, this action requires
legislation.
The Department does not oppose this bill, but we would like
to work with the committee on amendments to the bill. The
National Park Service is interested in ensuring that the
legislation is guided by science and an understanding of the
impact that such policies would have on park resources.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer questions that you or members of the
committee may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Wenk follow:]
Prepared Statements of Dan Wenk, Acting Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
s. 715
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 715, a bill to create a pilot program
to provide for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic
lighthouses.
The Department was not able to determine a position on this
legislation in time for this hearing. We will provide our position in a
letter to the committee in the near future.
S. 715, titled the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act of 2009,
would amend the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
470w et seq.) to create a three-year pilot program to provide financial
assistance to non-profit organizations, States, or local government
entities, for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic light
stations, a significant component of our nation's maritime history. The
proposed bill would bolster the effort to preserve these historic
maritime structures already underway through the National Historic
Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 (NHLPA). In addition, the bill
would also provide financial resources and technical advice to the
stewards of historic light stations.
Lighthouses are historic aids to nautical navigation and many are
found in remote locations and all have an exposure to the extremes of
weather. Such exposure promotes the deterioration of the historic
fabric of the light station. And, the fact that these light stations
have not been manned by the U. S. Coast Guard in decades has
accelerated their rates of deterioration.
Under the NHLPA, the value associated with historic light stations
is recognized by allowing them to be transferred at no cost to Federal
agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit corporations,
educational agencies, or community development organizations. The
National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 provides a
mechanism for the disposal of historic light stations. Entities that
receive light stations must make them available for education, park,
recreation, cultural, or historic preservation purposes and provide
public access. The program is a successful partnership among the U. S.
Coast Guard, the General Services Administration, and the National Park
Service. Forty-four historic light stations have been transferred
through NHLPA to governmental agencies or community organizations that
have agreed to take on the daunting task of preserving and maintaining
these historic structures for the public good. These groups have
stepped forth to preserve these icons of American history, which is no
small commitment of both volunteer hours and private financial
resources.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to communicating with you about this
bill after we have the opportunity for further consideration of its
implications.
s. 742
Mr. Chairman, 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. 742, a bill to expand the boundary of
the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site, to redesignate the unit as a
National Historical Park, and for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of S. 742. This legislation would
authorize the addition of properties to the Jimmy Carter historic site
that would help broaden public understanding of the life and work of
President Carter and enhance the visitor experience in Plains, Georgia.
Legislation authorizing the establishment of the Jimmy Carter
National Historic Site and Preservation District was enacted in 1987 to
preserve the key sites and structures associated with President Jimmy
Carter during his life, provide for the interpretation of the life and
presidency of Jimmy Carter, and present the history of a small rural
southern town. The historic site consists of President Carter's boyhood
home in the community of Archery, Plains High School, the Plains depot,
and the Carter compound, where President and Mrs. Carter reside. The
site also includes 100 feet of scenic easements along both sides of Old
Plains Highway west of Plains. The preservation district consists of
the Plains Historic District, Bond Street, and 650 acres of
agricultural lands within which the Secretary is authorized to acquire
easements to protect the scenic values of the community around the
historic site.
President and Mrs. Carter both grew up in and around Plains. Except
for time spent in college, the Navy, the Georgia governor's mansion,
and the White House, the Carters have made their home in Plains, where
they continue to be very engaged in community affairs. In large part
because of the historic site and preservation district, the town of
Plains and its environs, a community of about 700 people, looks much
the same today as it did during the earlier years of the Carters'
lives. We believe the boundary changes proposed in S. 742 are
consistent with President and Mrs. Carter's vision for Plains as both a
modest hometown of a U.S. president and a community that has preserved
the history of life in a small, southern agricultural community in the
early to middle years of the 20th century.
S. 742 would include several new areas to the boundary of the Jimmy
Carter National Historic Site. Of critical importance to the National
Park Service would be the addition of properties in the vicinity of the
Carter residence that, if acquired, would serve an immediate park need.
One of these properties would be appropriate for relocation of the
park's maintenance and curatorial facilities. The maintenance division
for the park is currently housed in a dilapidated structure built by
high school students in the 1950's on the grounds of the former Plains
High School. Adjacent to the structure is an unsightly maintenance
yard, where trucks, tractors, lawn mowers and other equipment is stored
and refuse is temporarily held. The curatorial storage facility is
located next to the maintenance building. It was meant to be temporary
and is inadequate for processing and storing important historical
records and artifacts. Neither the maintenance yard nor the temporary
curatorial facility fit with the historic character and qualities of
the former school, which is now the park's visitor center, or with the
center of Plains generally.
The bill would also add to the park boundary several other
properties, including:
The Billy Carter Service Station Museum at 104 West Church
Street, the site of the iconic gas station operated by
President Carter's brother during the Carter presidency. The
museum is currently owned and operated by the Plains Better
Hometown Group, a non-profit organization that assists
community development.
The property at 147 Old Plains Highway, known locally as the
``Haunted House.'' This house is recognized as the oldest home
in Sumter County and was the residence of President Carter and
his family after he left the Navy.
The Georgia Welcome Center on State Route 280/27, a state-
owned facility that was built to accommodate visitors to
Plains; and
Two corridors of land no wider than 50 feet each between the
Georgia Welcome Center and the President Carter boyhood home,
which could be used for multi-use trails. The trails, running
along each side of the Southwest Georgia Railroad lines that
stretch along the same corridor, would connect a new campground
proposed for the current Georgia Welcome Center property, the
city of Plains and the boyhood farm.
The National Park Service anticipates that there would be no
acquisition costs for the Georgia Welcome Center, the Haunted House, or
the Service Station museum. We do not yet have cost estimates for the
acquisition of the other properties, or for the maintenance and
operation of any of these properties, but plan to estimate these costs
in the near future. All funds for such activities would be subject to
National Park Service priorities and the availability of
appropriations.
S. 742 would also change the designation of the historic site to
the Jimmy Carter National Historical Park. This proposed designation is
appropriate for a unit of the National Park System that has multiple,
non-contiguous sites, as does the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site.
With the addition of the properties authorized for acquisition under
this bill, the designation of ``national historical park'' would be
even more apt than it is today.
Finally, the bill includes references for a map that would depict
the revised boundary of the park. We will provide this boundary map to
the committee in the near future.
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. 1270
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1270, a bill to modify the boundary of Oregon Caves National
Monument, and for other purposes. The Department supports the intent of
S. 1270 as consistent with the General Management Plan (GMP) for the
park, but recommends deferring action on the bill to give us the
opportunity to continue exploring ways to maintain interagency
coordination. DOI and USDA look forward to reporting on these
discussions within 6 months. S. 1270 would adjust the boundary of
Oregon Caves National Monument to include the addition of approximately
4,070 acres to enhance the protection of resources associated with the
monument and to increase quality recreation opportunities. The lands
that would be added are currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service as
part of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. S. 1270 would designate
approximately 7.6 miles of these waterways as wild, scenic, or
recreational under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the first
subterranean designated waterway in the country, the River Styx, which
flows through the caves as a ``recreational'' river. S. 1270 provides
authority for the Secretary to protect the water quality--in the caves
and for public consumption--and to administer the lands in accordance
with current laws and regulations. The Secretary is also directed to
carry out ecological forest restoration activities that would establish
a fire regime, manage revegetation projects, and reduce the risk of
losing key ecosystem components. The land that this bill would transfer
is categorized by the U.S. Forest Service as condition class 3--high
risk of fire. Most of it is also designated as Late Successional
Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan. We understand that the Forest
Service is currently working on a multi-year effort to reduce fuels
under a comprehensive forest plan which is intended to help restore the
appropriate role of fire in the entire ecosystem, which in turn would
benefit monument resources that are at risk from fire and fire
suppression damage. The bill also requires the Secretary to accept any
grazing lease or permit that is donated by a lessee or permittee and
further requires that no new leases or permits be granted.
In 1907, the Secretary of the Interior withdrew approximately 2,560
acres for the purposes of establishing a national monument. The 1909
presidential proclamation establishing Oregon Caves National Monument
included only 480 acres. The monument was managed by the U.S. Forest
Service until its administration was transferred to the National Park
Service in 1933. The remaining withdrawal outside of the monument is
administered by the USFS as part of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest.
S. 1270 restores these lands to the original monument boundary. The
explorer Joaquin Miller extolled ``The Wondrous marble halls of
Oregon!'' when speaking about the newly proclaimed Oregon Caves
National Monument in 1909. Oregon Caves is one of the few marble caves
in the country that is accessible to the public. This park, tucked up
in the winding roads of southern Oregon, is known for its remoteness,
the cave majesty and unusual biota. The stream flowing from the cave
entrance is a tributary to a watershed that empties into the Pacific
Ocean. There are no human-made obstructions that would prevent salmon
migration, which makes this the only cave in the National Park Service
with an unobstructed link to the ocean. The caves are nationally
significant and a favorite visit for school kids and travelers alike.
They remain alive and healthy because of the watershed above them. The
park recognized this when developing the 1998 GMP and accompanying
Environmental Impact Statement. The plan recommended the inclusion of
the watershed into the park to provide for better cave protection and
to protect the surface and subsurface hydrology and the public water
supply.
If S. 1270 were enacted, there would be no acquisition costs
associated with the boundary expansion and we estimate National Park
Service's management, administrative, interpretive, resource
protection, and maintenance costs to be approximately $300,000 to
$750,000 annually. The Department has four major issues with the bill
at this time:
1. Section 6 of the bill designates the River Styx as a
recreational river. The recreational status does not afford any
additional protection to the water or cave resources and may
encumber the current management of the cave resources.
2. Section 7 of the bill requires the Secretary to ensure
that forest attributes remain intact and functioning within a
``historical range''. However, because of environmental
uncertainties, it may be more prudent to use ``normal range of
ecosystem variability'' rather than ``historical range''.
3. Section 8 of the bill requires that if a grazing permittee
or lessee chooses to voluntarily donate a grazing permit or
lease within either the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (managed
by the U.S. Forest Service) or the Billy Mountain Grazing
Allotment (managed by the BLM) the Secretary shall accept the
donation, terminate those permits or leases and that those
allotments shall be permanently retired. It is our
understanding that the same individual runs livestock on both
the Big Grayback and Billy Mountain Allotments. We note that
the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment is approximately 15 miles
from the boundary of the proposed monument expansion. We would
like the opportunity to work with the Committee and sponsor to
further explore these grazing provisions.
4. Section 9 of the bill discusses hunting, fishing and
trapping. We support the Administrative Exceptions under
subsection (b) since it provides flexibility in managing the
resources within the preserve. With respect to Section 9, we
would like to terminate hunting within the preserve after five
years with the acreage being converted to national monument
status. We base this request on the information collected
during the public participation process for the General
Management Plan. Of the 892 comments received on the plan, only
8, less than one percent, expressed concern about the loss of
hunting should the added acres be designated as part of the
national monument.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
s. 1418 and h.r. 2330
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. 1418 and H.R. 2330, the Camp Hale Study Act. The
U.S. Forest Service (White River National Forest) currently manages
Camp Hale as a part of the National Forest System.
The Department supports both S. 1418 and H.R. 2330, with an
amendment to section two to include the US Forest Service in a joint
study with the National Park Service for the future management of Camp
Hale and to delete section three. However, we feel that priority should
be given to the 47 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 Congress.
S. 1418 and H.R. 2330 are almost identical and both bills would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to conduct a
special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of
designating Camp Hale as a unit in the National Park System. The study
would also determine the methods and means for protection and
interpretation of the Camp Hale site by the National Park Service,
other federal, State, or local government entities, or private or
nonprofit organizations. Not later than three years after funds are
made available, the Secretary is directed to submit the results and
recommendations of the study to Congress. The bill includes language to
assure the study would not impact valid existing water rights in place
upon the date of enactment. S. 1418 also specifies that the study would
not impact the ability to construct and operate infrastructure
necessary to develop and use those water rights. We estimate that this
study will cost approximately $300,000.
Located in and managed by the White River National Forest, in west-
central Colorado, Camp Hale was established in 1942 to provide winter
and mountain warfare training during World War II, because of the
natural setting of a large, flat valley bottom, surrounded by steep
hillsides suitable for training in skiing, rock climbing and cold
weather survival skills. The size of Camp Hale varied between 5,000 and
247,243 acres when it was an active military installation.
Managed by the US Forest Service (White River National Forest), The
Camp Hale Formerly Used Defense Site, is now used year-round by the
public as a recreation area and is included on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Since the time Camp Hale was used for military training, there have
been numerous discoveries of unexploded ordinance (UXO) there. As
recently as 2003, during efforts to contain a wildfire, UXO used during
the training of U.S. troops in World War II was found on the site.
Efforts to remediate public risk from any remaining UXO at Camp
Hale continue. The funding for any response actions at Camp Hale will
depend on how the UXO sites there rank nationally. Depending on that
rank, and available federal dollars, the remedial investigations for
some or all Camp Hale munitions may not occur for several years. The
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has discussed
evaluating the hazard liabilities and remediating the site with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to a transfer.
The story of Camp Hale and the men and women who trained there
reflects the adaptability our nation showed during the last World War.
Many of those who trained there went on to develop alpine skiing as a
recreational activity, significantly influencing the economy of
Colorado and many other western States. Studying and determining how
best to preserve and protect Camp Hale and to commemorate the sacrifice
and heroism so many Americans exhibited as a result of their training
is laudable.
We suggest that both bills be amended in section two to include the
US Forest Service in the study to determine the future of Camp Hale and
to remove section three, which includes language concerning water
rights. The study recommended in both bills would examine the
suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a unit in the
National Park System, including evaluating all current uses and rights
associated with the land. Since the bill only authorizes a study of the
site, there is no possibility of the study having any affect on any
water rights. As such, we believe the water rights language in both
bills is unnecessary and redundant and we recommend the section be
deleted.
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.
h.r. 2430
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2430, a bill to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in
North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (hereafter referred to as ``North
Cascades Complex'').
The Department does not oppose H.R. 2430; however we would like to
work with the committee on amendments to the bill.
The National Park Service collectively manages North Cascades
National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan
National Recreation Area as North Cascades National Park Service
Complex. All of the 245 mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex
area were naturally fishless. Fish stocking in this area began in the
late 1800's. During this period, approximately 91 lakes were stocked at
one time or another and 154 lakes were never stocked. This fish
stocking provided the opportunity to fish in these mountain lakes. The
issue of continued fish stocking arose in 1968 when the proposal to
create the park was introduced. Although the enabling legislation does
reference the requirement for a Washington state fishing license, it is
silent regarding fish stocking. Stocking continued after the park was
established. However, concerns over the ecological impacts of fish
stocking in naturally fish-free waters continued. Then soon after the
park complex was created, the National Park Service policy regarding
fish stocking was revised to provide that fish stocking in naturally
fish-free waters should not occur. Fish stocking was phased out in many
national parks across the country to restore natural conditions and to
preserve native species. In 1988, Congress designated ninety three
percent of the North Cascades as the Stephen Mather Wilderness and 90
of the 91 lakes that had historically been stocked are within the
Wilderness area. At the time the Wilderness was designated, Congress
did not address the issue of stocking the lakes.
The 2006 Management Policies of the National Park Service (NPS)
allow for the management of fish populations when necessary to restore
resources to their natural state or reestablish a native species that
has been extirpated. Stocking of other plants or animals is also
allowed under certain circumstances. Specifically, the policies provide
that ``In some special situations, the Secretary may stock native or
exotic animals for recreational harvesting purposes, but only when such
stocking will not unacceptably impact park natural resources or
processes and when:
the stocking is of fish into constructed large reservoirs or
other significantly altered large water bodies and the purpose
is to provide for recreational fishing; or
the intent for stocking is a treaty right or expressed in
statute, applicable law, or a House or Senate report
accompanying a statute.
The Service will not stock waters that are naturally barren of
harvested aquatic species.''
The NPS appreciates the collaborative partnership with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at North Cascades
Complex and throughout the State of Washington. Despite this strong
working relationship, a number of challenges have historically arisen
when trying to reconcile the missions and policies of the WDFW and NPS
on this stocking program. However, multiple attempts have been made to
negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome on this issue. For example, in
1987, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, negotiated an agreement allowing fish stocking to continue in
certain lakes while simultaneously conducting research into the
ecological impacts of stocking. In 1991, the National Park Service
entered into a Consent Decree to resolve litigation challenging the
fish stocking program wherein NPS agreed to conduct research into the
ecological impacts of fish stocking at North Cascades and then to
conduct a NEPA review of the fish stocking of naturally fish-free
lakes.
A decade of research, conducted in the North Cascades Complex
through Oregon State University and the USGS Biological Resources
Division, documented in the North Cascades lakes where fish had been
stocked in low numbers and could not reproduce, no statistically
significant ecological effects to native aquatic species were detected.
However, in self-sustaining populations, non-native trout can have
significant effects on native aquatic organisms such as amphibians and
zooplankton.
In 2002, the NPS in collaboration with WDFW began development of a
comprehensive Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement (Plan/EIS). The purpose of the planning effort was to
apply the results of the research and resolve the longstanding conflict
over fish stocking in the mountain lakes.
On November 26, 2008, the NPS issued a Record of Decision for the
final Plan/EIS and selected the preferred alternative that would stop
stocking and remove fish from lakes where significant impacts were
occurring (49 lakes) but allow stocking of non-reproducing fish at low
densities to continue in up to 42 lakes, subject to additional
monitoring. In this manner, the EIS found that the stocking would not
unacceptably impact park natural resources or processes in some lakes.
However, the Record of Decision (ROD) also notes that fish stocking in
the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness does not meet the minimum requirements
analysis conducted under section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act. In
addition, the ROD recognizes that to be consistent with NPS policy, the
NPS would need the legal authority to implement the preferred
alternative. The ROD further provides and that if the legal authority
was not provided to the NPS by July 1, 2009, the NPS, consistent with
NPS policy, would discontinue the stocking program in its entirety and
work to restore the natural ecology of all the mountain lakes. In the
majority of lakes this would be accomplished through the combination of
not stocking and continued fishing. Over time, natural mortality would
remove the remainder. In lakes where naturally reproducing populations
were found, the NPS would work to remove these fish. Realistically at
least ten lakes are so large that no known removal techniques will work
and fish populations will remain for the foreseeable future.
The NPS is interested in ensuring that any legislation regarding
fish stocking is guided by science and an understanding of the impact
that such policy decisions would have on park resources. We recommend,
for example, that any stocked fish be both native to the local
watershed and be functionally sterile. And we request that the
Secretary continue a program of monitoring the impacts of fish stocking
in order to determine if further adjustments are needed to protect
aquatic resources. We would welcome an opportunity to work with the
Committee and the sponsors of this legislation on the language of these
proposed amendments.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Wenk.
Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 1270, the Oregon
Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act, and S. 635, to
designate a segment of Illabot Creek as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Thank you. I will also comment on S. 1418 to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study to determine
suitability and feasibility of establishing Camp Hale as a unit
of the National Park System.
S. 1270 would modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument to include approximately 4,070 acres of land
currently managed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
The USDA believes that interagency coordination and
cooperation with joint public involvement to ensure that public
concerns and desires are addressed is the most effective way of
managing the Oregon Caves National Monument and surrounding
National Forest System land.
USDA looks forward to working together with the Department
of the Interior over the next 6 months to develop interagency
direction. Regardless of the outcome, our common goal is to
best manage the monument and the surrounding national forest
for the benefit of the public.
The land managers of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest have three priorities for this area. One is maintaining
and protecting cave resources, hydrologic resources,
watersheds, and view sheds. A second is improving forest health
by addressing hazardous fuels, and a third is managing for
multiple uses while minimizing any potential impact.
With regard to Wild and Scenic River provisions of the
bill, the proposed legislation provides for the addition of six
river segments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
four of which are in the proposed expansion area or in the
current Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
The Forest Service studied these four rivers and found that
they did not meet criteria for eligibility and we would
recommend that the four rivers that the Forest Service studied
be re-evaluated for their eligibility to the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
S. 635, Illabot Creek, meets the criteria to be included in
the Wild and Scenic Rivers because of the exceptional spawning
for Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon, native steelhead.
Both Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, which are
also in the Illabot Creek are listed under the Endangered
Species Act.
In addition, Illabot Creek provides habitat for wintering
bald eagles, and the eagles using the Illabot roost are a part
of one of the largest concentrations of wintering bald eagles
in the continental United States.
We strongly support the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, we do recommend the subcommittee consider
designating all of Illabot Creek from its headwaters to its
confluence with the Skagit River, 16.3 miles, as recommended in
the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Plan. This includes
the lower 2 miles classified as a recreational river, of which
approximately 1.4 miles is in the Skagit Wild and Scenic River
corridor.
Finally, we are preparing written testimony for the
subcommittee on the Camp Hale Study Act and look forward to
working with the National Park Service to complete an
integrated joint agency study of the historic attributes of
Camp Hale located on the White River National Forest. We have a
long history of working cooperatively with the National Park
Service for the preservation and interpretation of significant
lands and sites.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 1270, the Oregon Caves
National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009, and S. 635, to Amend
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to Designate A Segment of Illabot Creek
in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
s.1270
S.1270 would modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument to include approximately 4,070 acres of land currently managed
by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The resulting Monument
would be designated as the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve.
The bill would also designate six segments of rivers as part of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and it would provide for
possible termination of grazing use on a Forest Service-managed grazing
allotment, a portion of which is located within the proposed boundary
of the Preserve. USDA believes that interagency coordination and
cooperation, with joint public involvement, is the most effective way
of managing the Oregon Caves National Monument and surrounding forest
service land. USDA and DOI look forward to reporting on the progress of
our interagency coordination efforts within 6 months.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the current status
of cooperative management of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
and the Oregon Caves National Monument and provide a few comments to
the bill.
We believe interagency cooperation would carry out the purpose of
the bill to enhance the protection of the resources associated with the
Monument and increase public recreation opportunities through a joint
public involvement and review process, to ensure that public concerns
and desires are addressed.
Boundary Adjustment and Management
Section 4 of the bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
transfer management of the National Forest System Lands to the
Secretary of the Interior, and to adjust the boundary of the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest accordingly. The 1998 Oregon Caves
National Monument General Management Plan by the Department of the
Interior (DOI), developed through the public National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, recommended a similar boundary expansion.
However, no coordinated study or formal dialogue between the
Departments (beyond that provided under NEPA during development of the
1998 plan) has taken place on the issue of expansion.
The U.S. Forest Service is committed to cooperative management
across our respective jurisdictions.
The land managers of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest have
three priorities:
Maintaining and protecting cave resources, hydrologic
resources, watersheds, and view sheds. Critical landscapes,
including cave resources and watersheds, are managed by
interagency collaboration. These resources, and the need to
manage them in a cooperative manner, extend well beyond the
proposed Monument boundary.
Improving forest health by addressing hazardous fuels. Most
of the proposed expansion area is designated in the Land and
Resource Management Plan as ``Late-Successional Reserve'' (LSR)
as defined under the Northwest Forest Plan. These areas are
intended to serve as habitat for late-successional and old-
growth related species. A majority of the LSR landscape within
this watershed, and the larger surrounding landscape managed by
the Forest Service, is in fire condition class 3--high risk of
damaging wildfire. Currently the Rogue River-Siskiyou National
Forest is removing hazardous fuels using timber contacts to
reduce fuels, both around the immediate vicinity of the
Monument and across watersheds. The Forest plans to treat
approximately 1550 acres to reduce hazardous fuels within the
proposed expansion area. ARRA funds are helping increase the
implementation rate of treatment in this area. Of the 1,550
acres, approximately 100 acres of hazardous fuels will be
removed by timber contract with volume estimated at 560
thousand board feet and an appraised value of approximately
$168,000. The remaining acreage will be treated using other
methods. These treatments are designed to restore the fire to
this ecosystem and will help ensure that the forest attributes
intended for the LSR, including bigger, older, more fire
resistant trees, remain intact. To that end, we fully endorse
the intent of section 7 of the proposed legislation to have
forest restoration activities continue on the proposed
expansion area. The hazardous fuel challenge in this region and
the danger of catastrophic fire cross all jurisdictions and is
one we all must work together to address.
Managing for multiple uses while minimizing any potential
impacts from harvest, grazing, mining, and road construction.
On National Forest lands surrounding the Monument, timber
harvesting, grazing and special forest product harvesting (i.e.
bear grass, firewood, mushrooms, etc.) are allowed only if they
meet resource objectives, as described above. Road management
is limited to maintenance and reconstruction activities; no new
roads are planned. Moreover, interagency collaboration provides
additional oversight of these multiple-use activities.
Relinquishment and Retirement of Grazing Permits
Section 8 of the legislation would require the Secretary of the
Interior to permit livestock grazing at a level not greater than the
level at which grazing exists on the date of enactment. The legislation
also would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to accept any donation
of a grazing permit by the permit holder for grazing on the Forest
Service managed Big Grayback grazing allotment and if such a donation
is received, ensure an end to grazing on the entire allotment. Under
this legislation, only a small portion of the Big Grayback allotment
would become part of the proposed Preserve, but the legislation would
end grazing on a large area of land outside the Preserve. We look
forward to working with the Committee to address grazing management
issues.
Recreational opportunities
Current recreation on the portion of the National Forest proposed
to be transferred includes horseback riding, hunting and fishing,
gathering, camping, backpacking, and hiking. We support the requirement
in section 9 that fishing, hunting and trapping be permitted in the
proposed National Preserve with some limitations.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Section 6 of the proposed legislation provides for the addition of
six river segments to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
(NWSRS). The Siskiyou National Forest analyzed all tributaries to the
Illinois River on National Forest System lands for eligibility for
inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as part of a
1989 settlement agreement to an appeal of the Land and Resource
Management Plan. None of the four rivers included partly or entirely in
the current Monument expansion proposal were found to meet the criteria
for eligibility at that time. The segments within the proposed
expansion area should be re-evaluated for their eligibility to be
included in or added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
s. 635
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq.) protects
the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable
natural, cultural, and recreational values of some of our most precious
rivers. It also provides an opportunity to build partnerships among
landowners, river users, tribal nations, and all levels of government.
This bill would amend sec. 3(a) of the Act to designate a segment
of Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It adds 14.3 miles in two
segments: 4.3 miles from the headwaters to the Glacier Peak Wilderness
boundary classified as wild, and 10 miles from the Glacier Peak
Wilderness boundary to 1000 feet south of the Rockport-Cascade road
classified as recreational.
We strongly support the legislation.
The segment to be designated by S. 635 is a tributary of the Skagit
River, which was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in
1978. It is located on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest,
approximately 100 miles northeast of Seattle, Washington and flows from
the glaciers of the North Cascades into the upper Skagit River, the
largest tributary to Puget Sound.
lllabot Creek provides exceptional spawning and rearing habitat for
summer and fall Chinook, coho, chum and pink salmon; native steelhead;
and, one of the largest populations of bull trout in the Skagit River
watershed. Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead and bull trout are listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Illabot Creek also supports the
highest density of chum and pink salmon in the Skagit River watershed
and provides habitat for wintering bald eagles. Eagles using the
Illabot roost are a part of one of the largest concentration of
wintering bald eagles in the continental United States.
Mr. Chairman, we recommend the Subcommittee consider designating
all of Illabot Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the
Skagit River (16.3 miles) as recommended in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest Plan (June 1990). This includes the lower 2 miles,
classified as a recreational river, of which approximately 1.4 miles is
in the Skagit Wild and Scenic River Corridor. With the designation of
Illabot Creek as proposed in S. 635, only 0.6 mile is not included in
either Illabot Creek Wild and Scenic River or the existing Skagit Wild
and Scenic River corridor. The lower 2 miles includes some of the most
important fish spawning habitat and an important foraging and roosting
area for wintering bald eagles. Much of this area is in the Skagit
River Bald Eagle Natural Area and dedicated to resource protection.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop.
What I would like to do is turn to Camp Hale and ask a
couple questions in regards to Camp Hale, and then we will work
through the Senators who have joined us. I know they all have
specific interests in these specific bills.
I think, Mr. Holtrop, did you have anything else to add
about Camp Hale, or did you fit your remarks into your previous
statement?
Mr. Holtrop. I finished my remarks in my oral statement. If
there are some questions that I can add to, I will be happy to
do so. We are preparing written testimony as you requested.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that.
Let me turn to Mr. Wenk. You have indicated that the Park
Service supports amending the Camp Hale bill to provide for a
joint study with the Forest Service. Are you proposing that the
Forest Service should help determine whether Camp Hale is
appropriate for a park designation or rather whether the study
should explore other Forest Service management options?
Mr. Wenk. I believe we are supportive of working with the
Forest Service to determine based on the National Park Service
criteria whether or not Camp Hale meets the requirements of
significance, suitability, and feasibility, which would look at
management options. We believe that this is best done in
cooperation with the Forest Service and would prepare that
study to come back to the committee and the Senate for
consideration.
Senator Udall. So what I hear you saying is you would like
to keep a number of options alive for the time being and pursue
those conversations, make your best analysis, and then come
back to the committee.
Mr. Wenk. Yes. I know working with the Forest Service we
can provide the answers to our questions about meeting the
criteria of significance, suitability, and feasibility.
Senator Udall. To respond to Senator Burr's question about
why I looked at him when I mentioned the Central Intelligence
Agency, I did look at him in part because he serves on the
Intelligence Committee, but I thought he also would be, as many
are when they hear the story, very intrigued by the training
that occurred there for Tibetan refugees who did return and in
some cases engaged in actions in Tibet to deter and challenge
the Chinese invasion of Tibet. The history is fascinating and
one that will be well served if we do, in fact, set aside Camp
Hale. I wanted to make that comment.
Senator Burr brought up concerns about the historic
lighthouse grant program. You mentioned you will get comments
from the administration. Do you have a date in mind when those
comments would be forthcoming?
Mr. Wenk. We were working very hard yesterday to resolve
the issues, I think, that Senator Burr addressed in terms of
the base legislation and the apparent potential conflicts with
the proposed legislation. I would suggest within--I will throw
out--2 weeks we should be able to easily get that back up to
you.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification.
Let me turn to the ranking member, Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Both administration witnesses, welcome. We have had an
opportunity to be together before.
Let me go very quickly because I am going to have to run
out for a few minutes, if I could, Mr. Wenk, to the issue of
the lighthouses. It is my understanding there are 608
lighthouses listed by the Maritime Heritage Program within the
United States. Do you have any idea how many lighthouses would
be eligible for the lighthouse preservation grants?
Mr. Wenk. Actually, I do not believe that is clear in the
legislation, whether it is just those lighthouses that have
been conveyed under the National Historic Lighthouse
Preservation Act or if other lighthouses would also be
included. That is a clarification, I think, that we would need
to make.
Senator Burr. My understanding is that there are some that
are included and there are many that are not. There would be a
great inconsistency in us offering preservation or maintenance
dollars to some and not all. Would you agree?
Mr. Wenk. I think you are hitting on the exact conflicts
that we are trying to resolve in coming up with our position on
the bill.
Senator Burr. Are you fairly confident, as I am, that the
reversion clause was there for a reason, that the Federal
Government at the time believed that preserving those
lighthouses were important if there was local interest
committed to do it? It was defined a number of different ways:
community, nonprofit. I cannot remember all the different
categories, but it sort of left it open for many different
participants but with the understanding that transfer of title
was the transfer of responsibility for all aspects of it. Is
that the way the Park Service understood it?
Mr. Wenk. My understanding is exactly that about the
transfer of title--that the entity that it was transferred to
did take on the responsibility for the preservation and
maintenance and to provide access to the facility. Correct. I
am not as familiar with the reversion clause that you are
referring to, however.
Senator Burr. But, in fact, this new grant program would be
inconsistent with what I think the original intent was of the
legislation.
Mr. Wenk. Senator, that is the exact reason we were having
trouble coming up with a position--because we were trying to
reconcile our concerns about the base legislation with this
proposed legislation.
Senator Burr. I look forward, when you can get back with us
on the position. I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Mr. Wenk about the fish stocking issue,
if I could. Obviously, after 12 years of studying, research
found that native or functionally sterile fish at a low
population density in certain carefully selected lakes would
not lead to impairment of the Park Service resources. So if
resources would not be impaired by limiting fish stocking in
certain high lake mountains, does that mean there are no
ecological impacts of stocking fish in these lakes?
Mr. Wenk. No. I think we believe that it does not rise to
the level of impairment, but there are impacts certainly of
introducing a non-native species. They were fishless lakes. So
by introducing fish within these lakes, there is an effect on
the system itself that the fish has been introduced to. But we
do not believe that in the lakes that we said could be stocked,
that it rises to the level of impairment.
Senator Cantwell. The record of decision had its preferred
alternative known as Alternative B. Does the Park Service
headquarters support implementation of Alternative B as
described in the recent record of decision?
Mr. Wenk. We support it with the recognition that we would
need the legislation in order to implement it.
Senator Cantwell. Why did the Park Service change the
policy here, the management approach in the 1980s?
Mr. Wenk. I think it was a determination that, in terms of
natural areas, we were trying to maintain and preserve natural
areas in their natural state to the greatest extent possible.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop, about Illabot Creek and its ecosystem. Can you
talk about that and how it relates to the Skagit River and how
it relates to the health of Puget Sound, which is obviously a
big issue in the State?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, I would be happy to.
First of all, the Skagit River, to which Illabot Creek is
tributary, is one of the most important, if not the most
important, fish spawning rivers in the entire Puget Sound area.
Illabot Creek is to the Skagit River as the Skagit River is to
Puget Sound. The spawning grounds throughout that system are
significantly important for the entire Skagit River fish
spawning opportunities and significant in their own right.
Senator Cantwell. How do you currently manage Forest
Service land around there and how will the Wild and Scenic
designation affect that?
Mr. Holtrop. The upper 4.3 miles of the designation is in
designated wilderness, and that is the segment of the river
that would be designated wild. That portion of the river that
would be designated recreation flows through the areas of the
Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests which are managed in
areas where we are managing for old growth ecosystem
characteristics or very little development use, and it is the
designation of a recreation river, and it is very consistent
with the way that land is already being managed.
Senator Cantwell. So the feasibility study listed some of
the benefits to habitat and other species that exist there by
doing this. Is that correct?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct. The eligibility study, first
of all, found that it was free-flowing and had outstandingly
remarkable values, and then the suitability study found that it
was suitable to be designated both because of the interest of
the Washington State Fisheries Department to continue to work
in the stream system, strong local public support for the
designation, as well as the outstandingly remarkable values for
both fisheries and wildlife.
Senator Cantwell. How does a designation like this add
value to the community and to those opportunities?
Mr. Holtrop. I think it adds value in many ways. It
recognizes the significance of the stream for those values, the
fisheries and wildlife values. I think there is pride that
comes with that in the local area. Illabot Creek would be just
the fourth Wild and Scenic River designated in the State of
Washington, if it were to be designated Wild and Scenic, which
also indicates the significance of the area.
Senator Cantwell. A special value that is recognized by
many people.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holtrop, I am just trying to figure out what is behind
your opposition to my legislation. I think you understand that
I am not at all satisfied with the agency's position here.
The reason that I am pushing hard for this legislation, to
protect this treasure and what amounts to 4,000 acres and you
all running the forest there--that is 1.8 million acres. You
got a lot to do there--is that why the agency has not responded
to what the Park Service has brought to your attention in the
past? They brought to you examples of clear-cutting, clear-
cutting right up to the monument boundary. That was the case in
the late 1980s. There has been concern about grazing in the
sensitive botanical areas. The Park Service keeps bringing you
these concerns, and for one reason or another, you are not
responsive to them. Yet, you keep asking for more time to
somehow do something to work this out.
Now, I have had my legislation out there for a year, and
you talk about how you are doing various things to work this
out with the Park Service. But I do not see it. So what has
been accomplished specifically in the last year? What has been
accomplished with you all and the Park Service to get this
worked out in the last year? Why was it not done in the last
year? That would have been great and I could have moved on and
do other things and my constituents would have been plenty
happy.
Mr. Holtrop. I think there has been a great deal of dialog
that has occurred in the last year.
Senator Wyden. That is not the question. Why has it not
been worked out? Why has it not been accomplished in the year
that I have introduced this legislation, that you all and the
Park Service have not figured out a way to address these
concerns?
Mr. Holtrop. Again, I think we have been addressing those
concerns. We have not worked it all the way to conclusion for
the mutual satisfaction of both of the agencies. But as my
testimony indicates, at the end of the day, it is going to be
very important to both organizations to recognize whether there
is a 480-acre national monument or a 4,000-acre national
monument. It is, as you stated, going to be in the midst of an
over million-acre national forest. Both the national monument
and the national forest will be significant environmental,
economic, and social drivers in that community and all the
communities of interest in that area, and we want to make sure
that there has been a joint effort with joint public
involvement to allow us to look at what are some of the issues,
what are some of the approaches that we can take to be
responsive to that.
I would also like to add that, for example, with the
grazing use, when the National Park Service took over the
national monument back in the 1930s from the management of the
national forest, the grazing permit at that time had 200 head
of cattle. We made adjustments in the grazing use to 70 head
over the past several years, and we are in the process right
now of reducing that again to 56 head of cattle on an allotment
that is 26,000 acres in size, of which 1,000 acres is in the
proposed expansion of the national monument.
I think we have been responsive and continue to be
responsive and look forward to continuing to work with the Park
Service to resolve the issues to meet the objectives of this
legislation.
Senator Wyden. Why do you not give me the written records
that would describe what has been accomplished in the last
year? Because I will tell you, all I see is foot-dragging, and
it is not acceptable to me. I am going to push this legislation
because my constituents feel very strongly about it. As far as
I can tell, there has not been much accomplished in the last
year since you have seen that my constituents care a great deal
about it and that I care a great deal about it. We are just
going to stay with this until it gets addressed.
I would certainly like to see my legislation become
irrelevant. I would love to be able to see an agreement that
would have some teeth in it for cooperative management, but I
just do not see any evidence that that is going to take place
under what is being talked about. The fact of the matter is
that the Park Service has asked for an expanded monument
boundary going back to the 1930s. Do you not think the
communities I represent have waited long enough, Mr. Holtrop?
Do you want to make them wait another century? I mean, they
have been waiting since the 1930s on this. You come and tell me
about dialog.
Mr. Holtrop. There have been requests in the 1930s and
1940s and the end of the last century, as you indicated. There
was also a request in 1985 by the Park Service for the Forest
Service to take over the management of the management of the
monument. There was an analysis done by the National
Speleological Society in the earlier part of this decade
considering whether the Forest Service should take over. I do
not suggest that at all.
But I would just point that out to point out the fact that
when there have been several studies and several analyses, my
30-plus years of experience in public land management is people
do not want to do that because they enjoy doing the analysis.
They do it because they find that there really are issues that
are difficult to work out. I think we need to work out some
issues. I think we can do that in a joint manner.
Senator Wyden. You and I just disagree on the nature of the
problem. The reason it is not getting done is because there is
no leadership. That is why it is not happening. They want to
get it done. But to get problems solved, you have got to have
people step up, and unfortunately, that has not taken place.
Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of other questions.
Would it be all right if I asked those at this point?
Mr. Wenk, I am trying to figure out what the Park Service's
position actually is at this point. You all have been in favor
of what I have been talking about for some time, and there has
been longstanding Park Service support for this. There was a
recent article at home in the paper indicating that you all
were for it. Now it seems that you all have changed your
position or at least it looks to me like you all have changed
your position. So I am reading what the newspapers say which is
that you all support it, and then there is past information
from you all indicating you supported it. Now you seem to have
changed your position, and I want to see if that is the case
and, if so, why?
Mr. Wenk. Senator, we definitely support the intent of the
legislation. We have agreed, if you will, to try to work with
the Forest Service to see if we can work through the issues
that we have, but our general management plan in 1999 or 1998
actually is the official position, if you will, of the National
Park Service.
Senator Wyden. So you say today you support the intent of
the legislation, but you do not support the legislation.
Mr. Wenk. Senator, what we are saying is that we have
agreed with the Forest Service to work diligently to see what
we can work out in the short term.
Senator Wyden. So you would like to have this worked out
what? In 60 days?
Mr. Wenk. I think the number we have talked about is trying
within 6 months to work it out.
Senator Wyden. So you want another 6 months on top of the
fact that I introduced the legislation a year ago, on top of
the fact you all were supportive of it in the past. Now you
want 6 months. What is going to be accomplished in this 6
months that has not been accomplished in the last year?
Mr. Wenk. I cannot answer that question, Senator.
Senator Wyden. Then why would I support your position? This
is what is so baffling about it. You just said you need 6 more
months. I want to be responsive to your interests, and I said
what are you going to accomplish in the next 6 months that you
have not accomplished in the last year, and you do not have an
answer to it.
I mean, I am not going to belabor this. Gentlemen, I hope
you will put your heads together because it is my intent to
work with the chairman and the ranking minority member to move
this legislation as quickly as possible. This is darned near a
textbook case for lack of cooperation between the Forest
Service and the Park Service on something my constituents feel
very strongly about, and I am going to do everything I can as a
member of this committee to get this worked out.
Thank you for your time.
I thank Senator Burr for the extra time to be able to pose
the questions on something that folks at home feel very
strongly about. I thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
I have one last question before I check with Senator Burr
to see if he has any other questions, and then we will bring up
the next panel.
Mr. Wenk, the final question I have concerns H.R. 2430, the
North Cascades fish stocking bill that Senator Cantwell
discussed with you. As presently written, the bill would direct
the Park Service to authorize the stocking of fish in the
identified parks. If the bill were amended to make that
authority discretionary instead of mandatory, would the Park
Service still be able to continue with the fish stocking
program, or do you need an explicit override of park management
laws?
Mr. Wenk. With discretionary authority--we would still be
able to stock the lakes, sir.
Senator Udall. I was curious. I was visiting with the staff
about Rocky Mountain National Park and whether the questions
that are being asked here would also apply to Rocky Mountain
National Park. I have fished in some of the high lakes there. I
do not know if they have been stocked. I imagine some of them
have been. I just draw that to your attention and my intention
perhaps for a future conversation.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Senator. It has been the policy of the
National Park Service to not stock fish in lakes for--and I
cannot give you the exact date--for quite a period of time to
try to return the natural systems. This case at North Cascades
is an exception.
Senator Udall. It is an exception. I appreciate that
clarification. I do know that well-meaning anglers and back
country enthusiasts have, through the decades, carried fish,
more appropriately fingerlings, to some of these high lakes. I
know of certain cases too where those pilots who own airplanes
have been convinced to make fly overs and stock lakes in that
same way. I finally appreciate the way in which the Park
Service has kept faith with the National Environmental Policy
Act and with the Organic Act of the Park Service. So these
conversations will, obviously, continue and we will grapple
with the right outcomes and the right approaches. So thank you.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Senator Burr, do you have any--thank you,
again, for joining us. Next week perhaps, same place, same
time?
With that, let me call the second panel forward. We look
forward to the second panel's testimony.
As the second panel takes its seats, let me do a little bit
of housekeeping. Senators Levin and Stabenow have statements on
their lighthouse bill to be included in the record. Without
objection, we will order that to happen.
[The prepared statements of Senators Levin and Stabenow
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator From Michigan,
on S. 715
Chairman Udall and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
holding this hearing on S. 715, the National Lighthouse Stewardship
Act. This legislation creates a three year competitive grant program at
the Department of the Interior that will help to pay for the
preservation and rehabilitation of historic lighthouses across the
country. The grants will help nonprofit organizations, which serve as
caretakers for these historic landmarks, to help them preserve and
rehabilitate the historic lighthouses and keep them accessible to the
public.
This legislation complements a bill that was enacted in October
2000, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act, which I joined
Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK) in offering. With the Coast Guard getting
out of the lighthouse business, the National Historic Lighthouse
Preservation Act helped facilitate the process of transferring historic
lighthouses from the government to nonprofit historical organizations
that would take over the responsibility for their care. It established
an expedited process through the Government Services Agency to help
ease lighthouse transfers by helping to cut through the bureaucratic
red tape. As a result of the law, 51 lighthouses to date--13 in
Michigan--have been transferred to custodians who will preserve them
and keep them accessible to the public.
Many of these lighthouse structures are in need of significant
repair and rehabilitation, which is now the responsibility of their
nonprofit custodians. Unfortunately, after obtaining custody of the
lighthouses, many of the nonprofit organizations have struggled to
raise the funds to adequately restore and maintain the lighthouses. To
address this problem our legislation establishes a pilot program that
would enable state and nonprofit groups to apply for competitive grants
to help with restoration and maintenance efforts. This pilot program
would authorize the secretary to distribute $20 million a year for
three years.
Funding for lighthouse restoration is important to Michigan and to
the nation's historic preservation efforts. There are approximately 740
lighthouses in 31 coastal states. Michigan alone has over 120
lighthouses, more than any other state. They draw thousands of visitors
to Michigan and other states each year and create jobs throughout our
states. Michigan's and the nation's lighthouses are national treasures
that beautify our shorelines. These historic lighthouses are part of
our nation's rich maritime heritage. The grants are needed to help
nonprofit organizations, which serve as caretakers for the historic
landmarks, to maintain the beauty of the lighthouses and keep them
accessible to the public.
My office worked closely with lighthouse preservation groups in
drafting this legislation. The Michigan Lighthouse Fund in my home
state was invaluable in providing information on the needs of our
nation's lighthouses. The funding that would be provided by this bill
is desperately needed by these groups that work tirelessly to preserve
our nation's maritime heritage.
This funding would help ensure our lighthouses remain cultural
beacons for generations to come. America's lighthouses are national
treasures that we cannot let deteriorate to the point beyond repair. I
hope the subcommittee will support the National Lighthouse Stewardship
Act.
I ask that the following letters from lighthouse organizations in
support of this legislation be included with my testimony in the
hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator From Michigan
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing
and for considering this important piece of legislation that I have co-
authored with Senator Levin. I would also like to thank Senators
Burris, Collins, Durbin, Schumer, and Snowe for co-sponsoring this
legislation, and emphasizing the importance of this bi-partisan effort
to restore our nation's lighthouses.
I also would like to extend a very warm welcome to Dr. Kirk
Lindquist. Dr. Lindquist has been a strong advocate for lighthouse
restoration for years, and I greatly appreciate him sharing his
expertise with us in this area. It is a pleasure having him here on
behalf of the Michigan Lighthouse Project.
Michigan's lighthouses are an important part of our history, and
the history of the Great Lakes. For decades these unique structures
have helped to guide marine vessels of all sizes to our shores, and
help the flow of goods and services to the Great Lakes and other
coastal regions. Lighthouses also serve as tourist destinations for
thousands of visitors each year, and generate much needed revenue for
their surrounding communities. Perhaps no other region in the United
States is as closely tied to their lighthouses as the Great Lakes
community.
The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of the world's fresh water
supply, and thirty-three million people rely on the Great Lakes for
their drinking water, including 10 million for Lake Michigan alone. The
Great Lakes' coastlines also are home to wetlands, dunes and endangered
species and plants. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal
wetlands, the most of any Great Lake.
The Great Lakes are not just an important natural resource, but
they are a critical part of Michigan's economy and quality of life.
Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy our beaches,
fishing and boating. Often during vacations, residents and visitors
make time to visit one of Michigan's 130 lighthouses located on our
nearly 3,288 miles of coastline. However, Michigan will not be the only
state that will benefit from this legislation, this bill will help
restore lighthouses all along the thousands of miles of coastline on
the east and west coasts of the United States.
Unfortunately, the lack of available funding has caused many of our
lighthouses to deteriorate. In 2006, I authored the Michigan Lighthouse
and Maritime Heritage Act, a bill that Senator Levin joined me in
introducing to help preserve the history of this precious natural
resource. The legislation required the National Park Service to study
and make recommendations as to the best way to promote and protect
Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. I mention this
legislation because the bill that we are considering today would build
upon past preservation efforts with new funding.
I am proud to co-sponsor The National Lighthouse Stewardship Act.
As has been noted, this legislation would create a three year
competitive grant program. This program would be administered by the
Department of the Interior, and would provide grants to stewards of
historic lighthouses to help preserve and rehabilitate the areas they
are caring for.
Given the funding constraints that have hampered past restoration
efforts, the funding from this program is critical. Each lighthouse is
unique, with a history that must be shared and preserved. Lighthouse
restorations can sometimes be a financial burden to the local
government or nonprofit group making the repairs. By allowing these
groups to apply for additional assistance through a competitive grant
program, we can minimize their financial burden, and maintain the
quality and integrity of the restorations. These restorations will not
only preserve our lighthouses, but they will also create jobs and
promote tourism at a time when our economy, especially in Michigan, is
struggling.
I look forward to working together to preserve our nation's
lighthouses for future generations through the National Lighthouse
Stewardship Act. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Senator Stabenow asks that I convey her
regrets that she could not testify in person today on her
lighthouse bill. She is on the Agriculture Committee holding a
hearing on the climate change. So I know, Dr. Lindquist, you
are a constituent of the two Senators I just mentioned, and she
wanted you to know that she sends her best wishes. I am certain
the two of you have worked together in crafting the legislation
that we will hear about.
We have been joined by Greg Walter, who is from Cave
Junction, Oregon, a constituent of Senator Wyden. Senator
Wyden, did you want to say anything about Mr. Walter?
Senator Wyden. I just am so glad he came. He is involved in
just about every good cause in his community, and we are so
appreciative of his involvement and particularly this cause. I
think for you it has almost been a crusade to expand the
boundary, and I really appreciate your coming back. I know it
is a long, physically tiring trip. I welcome you and the other
witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Mr. Walter, with that nice introduction, why
do we not turn to you for your testimony? We grant you, give or
take, 5 minutes. If you could keep your remarks in that
timeframe, then we will look forward to asking you some
questions. Dr. Lindquist, you will follow with your testimony
when Mr. Walter is finished. Mr. Walter?
STATEMENT OF GREG WALTER, JEFFERSON STATE FINANCIAL GROUP, CAVE
JUNCTION, OR
Mr. Walter. I would like to start by thanking everyone for
hearing my testimony today. Hello, all. My name is Greg Walter
and I am an independent health insurance agent and co-owner of
Jefferson State Financial Group in Cave Junction, Oregon. We
service the community with health insurance, and we commend Mr.
Wyden's efforts for the health insurance stuff. We will talk.
I am here to speak today on the positive benefits that an
expanded Oregon Caves National Monument will bring to our
community in the Illinois Valley of southwest Oregon.
The Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909
by President Taft to acknowledge and protect the marble halls
of Oregon, as author Joaquin Miller described the caves in
1907. While 2,560 acres were originally withdrawn for the
monument, President Taft designated a small 480-acre
rectangular boundary in 1909. At that time, it was assumed that
protecting the immediate area above the cave was sufficient to
protect the caves.
Scientific studies over the century, however, have made it
clear that below-ground caves interact with the environment
above ground. It is obvious that protecting the cave creek
watershed and also the lake creek watershed is key to
protecting this unique cave system. Indeed, impacts on the
surface environment influence the sensitive underground
processes of the caves and the River Styx, which would become
one of the first underground Wild and Scenic Rivers under the
proposed legislation.
The current boundary simply cannot protect this cave
system. While more information has been made available in
recent years, the Park Service acknowledged the need for an
expanded Oregon Caves National Monument as far back as 1939 and
1949 and again in their 2000 general management plan. It is
long past due to fully protect this national treasure.
In order to protect cave ecology, surface and subsurface
hydrology, forest ecology, view sheds, and public water supply
at the national monument and also for rural economic
development of Josephine County, the Oregon Caves expansion
should, one, include a surface drinking water supply for the
over 80,000 visitors annually--that is primarily for the
Chateau--two, to protect additional surface and subsurface
natural resources for current and future generations of
Americans; and three, provide local rural economic development
opportunities and expanded recreation at the monument.
The historic and majestic Chateau at the Oregon Caves is
part of a concession operated by our Illinois Valley Community
Development Organization and seasonally employs about 30 people
from the local community. Operated as a local nonprofit
organization, all profits are put back into the community in
the form of community grants.
I also want to add that the local community development
organization that operates the Chateau sees this as an economy
of scale, meaning that unless we draw up a way to retain our
visiting public longer, that their concession will fold or go
out of business. There are only 23 rooms in the Chateau. There
are about 50 seated at the dining room. They are running about
50 percent capacity. So the expansion proposal would help in
this. We would be able to better retain our visiting public
that is already there. Maximizing concessions at the Oregon
Caves is important to our community.
According to the National Park Service, 73 percent of
visitors would stay longer at the Oregon Caves if there were
more to do than a 90-minute cave tour currently offered. One of
the most botanically rich and scenic forests in America
surrounds the Oregon Caves and offers visitors breathtaking
views, abundant wild flowers, wildlife viewing, and memorable
hikes. The Oregon Caves is an appealing asset that increases
the quality of life for residents and brings visitors that
contribute to our local economy.
Protecting the caves via an expansion and through the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act would safeguard water supplies, sensitive
ecology, and local business.
Included in my written testimony are 25 letters* from local
businesses that support this legislation that I gathered in
just a few days. This is from a broad base or community
support. I can, obviously, get more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I just want to thank everybody for your time and hearing
me on this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg and Mary Walter, Jefferson State Financial
Group, Cave Junction, OR
My name is Greg Walter. I am an independent health insurance agent
and co-owner of Jefferson State Financial Group, LLC located in the
Illinois Valley. Our business serves the Southern Oregon area by
helping our clients find the best health coverage for the lowest cost.
I am a member of the Illinois Valley Community Development Organization
Revolving Loan Fund Board where we award small business U.S. Department
of Agriculture low interest loans. Additionally, I study regional
history, work with our local historical societies and have a private
map collection that pertains to what has occurred on public lands post
European settlement with an emphasis towards the history of the U.S.
Forest Service and forest policy.
I am here to speak today on the positive benefits that an expanded
Oregon Caves National Monument (OCNM) will bring to our community of
Cave Junction in the Illinois Valley of Southwest Oregon. I want to
approach this from both a business and social perspective and hopefully
bring to light where our community currently stands economically and
where we hope to see ourselves in ten years.
First a little background on whom we are as a community.
The Illinois Valley is in the southern part of Josephine County
with approximately 10,000 residents. Cave Junction is the second
largest city in the county with a population of about 1,700 people
located in the Illinois Valley 27 miles southwest of Grants Pass on Hwy
199 and is 12 miles north of the California border. Cave Junction got
its start in tourism as the gateway to the Oregon Caves providing
tourists with services. After World War II logging became the economic
focus but ``by the late 50's the logging boom had played itself
out''\1\. At one time there were 56 saw mills in the county but now
only 1 remains. The top employers in the Illinois Valley are Josephine
County School District, the Forest Service, two small grocery stores
and the lumber mill. The other employers are made up of tourism
businesses, small service companies, four wineries and one sausage
manufacturing company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Piraino Realty Brochure c1972, page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 2007 census for the county, logging and mining made
up 2.75% of the overall employment picture and manufacturing made up
22%. The large employers in the county are 30 miles away in Grants
Pass: Fire Mountain Gems and Master Brand Cabinets, to name a few.
The Illinois Valley is a remote rural area in Josephine County. Low
wages, a lack of economic opportunity, high unemployment and rural
poverty characterize this area. We have basically condemned the
community pool, we have no public library and our local Boys and Girls
Club struggles annually to keep its doors open operating out of the
local elementary school with no facility of its own. The County
receives federal funding through the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act.
A diversified, sustainable local economy is our best hope for a
stable, healthy future. Josephine County's success is dependent on
nurturing a diversified economy that includes developing a sustainable,
restoration-based forest industry that can rely on a non-controversial
supply, and it includes protecting the natural treasures of our region.
There are appropriate places for logging and appropriate places for
permanent protection. Safeguarding the Oregon Caves is good for nature
and for business.
The Chateau at the Oregon Caves is a concession operated by our
Illinois Valley Community Development Organization and seasonally
employs about thirty people from the local community. Being operated as
a local non-profit organization all profits are put back into the
community in the form of Community Grants.
The Chateau has twenty three rooms and can seat about fifty people
in their dining room on any given night. Their operating season begins
in mid May and traditionally goes through September. The Illinois
Valley Community Development Organization buys local food products and
markets local artwork. This is an economy of scale, and because the
scale is relatively small it cannot continue its operation and
concessions unless we see some growth in visitation and duration of
stay.
As the name implies, Cave Junction is a gateway community to the
Oregon Caves. Visitors travel on Hwy 199 (The Redwood Highway) usually
going to the Redwoods from Crater Lake National Park or vice-versa. The
economic opportunity that Highway 199 offers to our small rural
community through travel spending is considerable. There are about
300,000 tourist vehicles traveling through this corridor annually, each
carrying an average group size of three people who spend an average of
$135 per day on lodging, food, gas, and other items. The total spending
potential of this tourist corridor is about $40 million dollars
annually. The Illinois valley has not taken advantage of this economic
engine in our backyard. According to a fall 2006 report released by the
Outdoor Industry Foundation, outdoor recreation contributes $730
billion annually to the U.S. economy, and supports nearly 6.5 million
jobs across the country. We should do a better job at protecting and
marketing this area.
According to the National Park Service statistics, approximately
73% of visitors would stay longer if there was more to do than the 90-
minute cave tour. One of the most botanically diverse national forests
in America surrounds the Oregon Caves and offers visitors breath-taking
views, abundant wildflowers, wildlife viewing and memorable hikes.
Unfortunately, the surrounding landscape is not marketed by the Forest
Service in a way that maximizes the public enjoyment or economic
potential of this unique area.
Currently, the exceptionally scenic trail system from the Bigelow
Lakes trailhead (that is part of the proposed expansion area) has been
cleared, but the Forest Service has not provided clear signage on the
trails within the proposed monument expansion. More pointedly, there is
a confusing network of roads to get to the undesignated trailhead, most
of which are unmarked and the signs vandalized or removed. If the
expansion bill passes the subsequent Park Service improvements could
lead to the development of a more family-oriented, user-friendly place
that visitors could hike to and they would stay longer.
Across the United States, there is growing recognition of the link
between attractive public lands such as national parks, and the well-
being of the communities that provide access to them. These ``gateway
communities'' generally provide food, lodging, and other services for
visitors. But the parks are more than simple magnets for visitors. Many
gateway communities have thriving, diverse economies that are not
primarily dependent upon tourism and recreation. Yet the natural appeal
of these areas is at the heart of their economic success.
The Oregon Caves is an appealing asset that increases the quality
of life for residents and brings visitors that contribute to our local
economy. Cave Junction, the Illinois Valley in general and Grants Pass
all stand to benefit from increased protections and visibility of this
special place. In addition to the economic benefits of protecting this
recreational magnet, protecting the caves via an expansion and through
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would safeguard water supplies,
sensitive ecology and wildlife habitat.
The Oregon Caves National Monument was established in 1909 by
President Taft to acknowledge and protect the ``Marble Halls of
Oregon,'' as author Joaquin Miller described the caves in 1907. While
2,560 acres were originally withdrawn for the Monument, President Taft
only designated a small 480-acre rectangular boundary in 1909. At that
time, it was assumed that protecting the immediate area above the cave
was sufficient to protect the subterranean ecology. However, scientific
studies and new technology over the past century have made it clear
that the complexities of cave ecology most definitely include an
interaction with the terrestrial and aquatic environment above ground.
It has become obvious that the protection of the Cave Creek watershed
is instrumental in protecting this unique subterranean system. Indeed,
impacts on the surface environment influence the sensitive hydrological
processes of the caves. The current boundary size simply cannot protect
this cave system. While more information has been made available about
the complex interaction of surface and subsurface ecology in recent
years, the Park Service acknowledged the need for an expanded Oregon
Caves National Monument and made such proposals in 1939, 1949 and again
in 2000. It is long past due to fully protect this national treasure.
Expanding the Oregon Caves will benefit our gateway community in
the following ways:
1. Fully protecting the complex ecology of this cave system
by protecting the interconnected terrestrial and aquatic
environments above ground.
2. It will bring an increase in the number of visitors, but
more importantly they will have incentive to stay longer and
visit a spectacular example of a very accessible backcountry
glacial cirque, high mountain lakes and expansive views of
northwest California and southwest Oregon, including the
Siskiyou Crest, Red Buttes, Mt Shasta, Marble Mountains and
Siskiyou Wilderness areas. This is all seen from the high point
of Mt Elijah in the expansion area (the peak is named in memory
of Elijah Davidson, who discovered the Oregon Caves in 1874).
The Park Service has statistical evidence that the longer
visitors stay in an area, the infusion into that local economy
multiplies exponentially. OCNM surveys of visitors indicate
that 73% of visitors would stay longer if there were more
trails with features.
3. Expansion will also bring the resources and expertise of
the National Park Service as far as maintaining access, trails,
signage and campgrounds. Most importantly it brings Park
Service branding. When visitors see the National Park Service
arrowhead and national monument sign, they know they have
arrived at their destination. It means they have arrived at a
visitor friendly and family safe place. A bigger place with
more things to do can attract more visitors and longer stays.
4. The historic Oregon Caves Chateau could be showcased as
one of the great lodges of the northwest along with Mt.
Rainier's Paradise Lodge, Mt Hood's Timberline Lodge, the
Crater Lake Lodge, and the Benbow Inn in California. The
Chateau may benefit from the expansion because the rooms could
be occupied more consistently and local campgrounds will see
greater use. While staying longer they will enjoy fine dining
as well as have access to purchase local artwork at the Chateau
gift shop. The season could also be extended an additional two
months with increased visitation.
5. The Chateau is currently undergoing various stages of
restoration from funding provided both by private donations and
pending federal funding, which has resulted in an increased
interest.
6. There is a component to this expansion that will allow for
the retirement of a cattle grazing allotment and the removal of
cattle from the Bigelow Lakes and Lake Creek drainage, which
will provide the Chateau with cleaner water. For years, the
Park Service has expressed concern about the contamination of
the Monument's drinking supply due to cattle grazing. The
allotment retirement would protect water quality, as well as
sensitive and unique meadows that provide exceptional hiking
opportunities around the Caves.
7. Above the Caves in the High Siskiyou Mountains are the
Bigelow Lakes. Formed in a glacial cirque the lakes are
surrounded by meadows and primeval forests. Ancient species of
Brewer's Spruce and rare flowering plants inhabit the area as
relics from the ice age. Due to its unique characteristics the
area has been given special botanical area designation.
However, the Forest Service has done little to manage for and
protect this valuable resource. The Park Service has a proven
track record for managing natural areas. For example, a rare
botanical specimen, the California globe mallow, which grows in
the area, requires periodic burning to germinate its seeds. The
Park Service would be able to meet the plants needs with
prescribed burning. Currently, the Forest Service emphasizes
cattle grazing which is harmful to the plant and is
contributing to the need to list the plant under the Endangered
Species Act. Most people visit natural areas where they are
sure to see rare botany or wildlife, not grazed meadows and cow
patties.
8. Another important point is that the original Monument
boundaries did not take into consideration the extent of the
cave network underground, which extends outside of the current
boundaries. Expanding the Monument boundaries will provide
protection for the entire cave network, including the
terrestrial and aquatic environment above the caves, which are
essential to cave ecology.
9. The expansion would open the door for Park Service nature
tours in the upper Lake Creek watershed and evening
presentations at Caves Campground that would better inform the
American public about public lands, cave ecology, the role of
fire in western forests, climate change, and the need to
protect native plant diversity.
10. Lastly, the local art and tourism business and
organizations are working together to produce brochures and
information on the wealth of local attractions and products
uniquely available to this community. The Illinois Valley has a
large population of artists and entrepreneurs that are
currently struggling due to lack of exposure. The Monument
would be the initial destination to draw the tourist here but
once they discover venues of interest, statistically they will
come back again and again as well as tell friends about what
they have found here.
In review, the Oregon Caves National Monument is currently an
important draw to the area, but it is not comparable with other primary
park and recreation destinations in the region. With all of its scenery
and grandeur, Oregon has so few National Park units and we deserve
more. This could be addressed by expanding and protecting the
Monument's resources, providing greater access to the visiting public
and improving a diversified business climate by increasing
opportunities to make the Caves and Chateau as successful and
regionally important as they can be. This will bring the valley
community great pride and positive economic growth from the ability to
showcase this backcountry crown jewel and historic Chateau that will
benefit all Americans for generations to come.
I thank you all for your time.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Walter.
Mr. Lindquist, you are from the Michigan Lighthouse
Project, and you hail from--how do you say your hometown?
Mr. Lindquist. Okemos, sir.
Senator Udall. Okemos, Michigan. Thank you for joining us.
Mr. Lindquist. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. You have 5 minutes to share your perspective
with us.
STATEMENT OF KIRK L. LINDQUIST, MEMBER, MICHIGAN LIGHTHOUSE
PROJECT AND PAST PRESIDENT, MICHIGAN LIGHTHOUSE FUND, OKEMOS,
MI
Dr. Lindquist. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, members of the
subcommittee, my name is Kirk Lindquist, member of the Michigan
Lighthouse Project. This is the interagency work group
established to facilitate the orderly transfer of federally
owned lighthouse properties. I am also past President of the
Michigan Lighthouse Fund, the statewide nonprofit organization
dedicated to securing financial resources for Michigan
lighthouse stewardship organizations.
I am very pleased to be here to present comments and
discuss the merits of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act
of 2009 and urge the committee to report out favorably S. 715.
This bill would authorize grants to all 31 coastal States
to protect and preserve our Nation's historic lighthouses.
Stewardship grants would be awarded in a manner consistent with
existing Federal law and State historic preservation
regulations.
It would also support rehabilitation efforts for
lighthouses managed within the National Seashore and Lakeshore
systems, as well as other Federal agencies, provided there is
involvement of the nonprofit stewards.
The Federal Government has provided funding for lighthouse
operations and maintenance since the beginning of the
lighthouse program in 1787. This is no longer the case. Many
properties have been excessed over the last 35 years and
transferred or sold. Once these properties were removed from
the Federal hands, no Federal funding has been available for
maintenance or major repair.
The pace of transfers has picked up considerably after
1995. Technological developments in geo-positioning and other
navigational aids during the 1990s prompted the United States
Coast Guard to get out of the lighthouse business. Since that
time, many lighthouse properties maintained by the Coast Guard
have been transferred or sold to governments, nonprofit
organizations, and private interests.
In 2002, the National Historic Preservation Act, the NHLPA,
became law. This was cosponsored by Senator Frank Murkowski and
Senator Carl Levin. This legislation established a process to
facilitate these transfers and gave priority to State/local
governments and nonprofit lighthouse stewardship organizations.
The NHLPA program is administered through the combined efforts
of the National Park Service in cooperation with the United
States Coast Guard and General Services Administration and has
been a notable success.
The financial need of our Nation's lighthouses has been
difficult to estimate. Deferred maintenance has created major
problems for their new owners. Normal maintenance costs for
each of these 150-year-old structures can easily exceed $80,000
per year. Rehabilitation estimates are much more, as much as
$1,500,000 per lighthouse. It is easy to predict the fate of
these properties that cannot be maintained by volunteer or
private landlords. They will be abandoned. The need exists even
though the Coast Guard is no longer in the lighthouse business.
Just as there are 31 coastal States with lighthouses, there
are at least 31 different approaches to their maintenance and
rehabilitation. 10 States have specialty license plates
featuring lighthouses, but only one has a sustained grant
program for lighthouse preservation. This bill encourages the
Department of the Interior to work through existing grant
programs where practicable, especially in partnership with
State historic preservation offices. This is why a pilot
program is suggested. Through experience gained during this 3-
year period, a preferred process will evolve and applied in a
longer-term grant program.
The purpose of the excess program is to save Federal money,
and these properties have been expeditiously transferred to
local governments and nonprofit stewards. However, many of
these groups have budgets supported by less than $20,000 in
annual revenue. The purpose of S. 715 is to provide for the
difference between what they can afford and the amount needed
to preserve and rehabilitate their structures.
We suggest only that the Federal Government should do the
right thing. We are not asking that the traditional funding
source be restored; only that the commitment to maintain these
properties be respected.
Lighthouse and other maritime interests strongly support S.
715. I request that letters of support be included in the
hearing record, along with my written testimony. S. 715 would
be an important tool for preservation and protection and as an
instrument of economic growth for our Nation's coastal
communities. It is my hope that the committee will support its
enactment.
This concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you very much for
the invitation to testify about issues addressed by this bill.
I would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindquist follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kirk L. Lindquist, Member, Michigan Lighthouse
Project and Past President, Michigan Lighthouse Fund, on S. 715
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Kirk
Lindquist, member of the Michigan Lighthouse Project: the interagency
work group established to facilitate the orderly transfer of federally
owned lighthouse properties to government agencies, local governments
and non-profit organizations. I also have served as President of the
Michigan Lighthouse Fund: the statewide nonprofit organization
dedicated to securing financial resources for Michigan lighthouse
stewardship organizations. I am pleased to be here to present comments
and discuss the merits of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act of
2009, and urge the committee to report out favorably S. 715.
This bill would authorize grants to all 31 coastal states to
protect and preserve our nation's historic lighthouses. Stewardship
grants would be awarded in a manner consistent with existing federal
law and state historic preservation regulations.
Provide grants to states, local governmental units, and
nonprofit stewardship organizations for lighthouse
rehabilitation and preservation
Support rehabilitation efforts for lighthouses managed with
in the National Seashore and Lakeshore systems, as well as
other federal agencies
Authorize $20,000,000 per year during the 3-year pilot
program for lighthouse preservation
federal funding for lighthouse operations
The Federal Government has provided funding for lighthouse
operations and maintenance since the beginning of the lighthouse
program in 1797. This is no longer the case. Many properties have been
excessed over the last 35 years and transferred or sold. Once these
properties were removed from federal hands, no funding has been
available for maintenance or major repair. The pace of transfers picked
up considerably after 1995. Technological developments in geo-
positioning and other navigation aids during the 1990's, prompted the
USCG to get out of the lighthouse business. Since that time, many
lighthouse properties maintained by the Coast Guard have been
transferred or sold to governments, non-profit organizations, and
private interests.
In 1995, the U.S. Government accelerated the pace of transfers of
light station properties from federal ownership. In 2002, the National
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA; co-sponsored by Senator
Frank Murkowski and Senator Carl Levin) became law. This legislation
established a process to facilitate these transfers, and gave priority
to state/local governments and nonprofit lighthouse stewardship
organizations. The NHLPA program is administered through the combined
efforts of the National Park Service, in cooperation with the U.S.
Coast Guard and the General Services Administration, and has been a
notable success.
The revenue stream from the Tonnage Duty continues to support the
U.S. Coast Guard, through the Department of Homeland Security, but
little federal money has been spent on lighthouse repair. Deferred
maintenance has created major problems for their new owners. Normal
maintenance costs for each of these 150 year old structures can easily
exceed $80,000 per year. Rehabilitation estimates are much more: as
much as $1,500,000 per lighthouse. It is easy to predict the fate of
properties that can not be maintained by volunteer or private
landlords: they will be abandoned. Nationally, a conservative estimated
need for lighthouse rehabilitation and protection is more than
$110,000,000. The need exists, even though the Coast Guard is no longer
in the lighthouse business.
proposed national lighthouse stewardhip act of 2009
Just as there are 31 coastal states with lighthouses, there are at
least 31 different approaches to their maintenance and rehabilitation.
Ten states have specialty license plates featuring lighthouses, but
only one has a sustained grant program for lighthouse preservation.
This bill encourages the Department of Interior to work through
existing grant programs, where practicable, especially in partnership
with State Historic Preservation Offices. This is why a pilot program
is suggested. Through experience gained during this 3-year period, a
preferred process will evolve, and applied in a longer term grant
program.
The purpose of the excess program is to save money, and these
properties have been expeditiously transferred to local governments and
non-profit stewards. However, many of these groups have budgets
supported by less than $20,000 in annual revenue. The purpose of S.715
is to provide funding for the difference between what they can afford
and the amount needed to preserve and rehabilitate their structures.
We suggest only that the Federal Government should do the right
thing. We are not asking that the traditional funding source be
restored; only that the commitment to maintain these properties be
respected.
Lighthouse and other maritime interests strongly support S.715. I
request that letters of support be included in the hearing record along
with my written testimony. S.715 would be an important tool for
preservation and protection, and as an instrument of economic growth
for our Nation's coastal communities. I hope the committee will support
its enactment.
This concludes my prepared remarks.
Thank you very much for the invitation to testify about issues
addressed by this bill. I would be happy to respond to any questions
you or the subcommittee might have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Dr. Lindquist.
Let me turn to Mr. Walter for a question. Thanks again for
your testimony. Your passion for the area clearly comes
through. I enjoyed reading about the history of the Oregon
Caves, the proximity to Crater Lake, and other great areas in
Oregon. I had a chance to live in Portland and work in eastern
Oregon in the Elkhorn Mountains and the Wallowa Mountains and
am familiar with some of the beautiful natural areas in Oregon.
Your testimony clearly highlighted the many reasons that
you believe the Park Service had managed this addition as a
part of the national monument. Given the testimony you heard--
and I am sure you are familiar with it--recommending additional
time for the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service
to explore ways to increase their coordination, how do you view
this approach to managing the Oregon Caves resources? Do you
think a partnership between the two could adequately protect
the monument, or do you bring a different perspective?
Mr. Walter. I think that it would be nice to see the Forest
Service and the Park Service work together. The expanded
monument is going to be surrounded by Forest Service land
regardless. So they are going to have to work collaboratively.
Senator Udall. Regardless of whether that land transfer
occurs, one way or the other, they are going to have a common
boundary. Are they not?
Mr. Walter. Yes.
The only thing that I could think of to say is that as far
as the cattle grazing, somebody has to explain to cows where
the boundaries are.
But also the other thing about that too is that right now I
know that they have funding for an additional--not to mention
what they have already done--400 acres to do some restoration
forestry up there, and it is really good work. Everybody
applauds it, and I would like to see it written into the
language of the bill that the Forest Service could continue to
do that good work, as far as that goes. I do not know about
beyond that.
As far as the collaborative efforts between--or whatever
issues that they have, as a local business person, obviously,
we would like to see them work together. But we also want to
see the area managed for the visiting public, and that is one
thing that I think the Forest Service has not done a really,
really good job with. Some of that is just local vandals
tearing down the signs, but the signs do not come back up
again. So what happens is that we do not get people going back
into these areas that we have up there. So we have the
resources and we have the trails even, but we just do not have
proper signage and proper parking to allow for the visiting
public to safely access in a family friendly manner.
Senator Udall. Is one of the key concerns that you have and
those who are advocating for the expansion that the grazing
that is occurring, as legitimate as grazing is, is not as
compatible with the monument as you think is necessary?
Mr. Walter. Yes, insofar as the--there are several issues
that are going on there. It could be the water supply since the
lake creek drainage--this is where they get their water from as
far as the Chateau. So it is something that we want to see. We
would like to see the hydrology of the drainage cared for in a
better manner.
Senator Udall. I read the summaries of the Park Service and
the Forest Service and, of course, advocates in your community
for these new steps forward. It is common-sensical, but it was
helpful to see it written, and I know Senator Burr has in his
State incredible below-ground natural wonders and resources.
But what happens on the surface of the earth then can affect
cave ecology and cave life and cave dynamics. I think that is
what you are speaking to here as well, that although you would
like to think maybe that the two environments are segregated or
separated, actually they are linked. Again, I do not want to
put words in your mouth, but I think that is the concern that
you are expressing, is to manage those surface activities in
ways that are compatible with the cave ecosystem and the cave
environment as well so that they are maintained for the
enjoyment of the visitors and therefore your local economy is
strong.
Mr. Walter. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Thank you again for your testimony.
Let me turn to Senator Burr for questions or comments he
might have.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand we are
going to have a couple of stacked votes here in the next 20 or
so minutes. So just to let the chair know that.
Mr. Lindquist, I am sorry to sort of put you in the cross
hairs with my opening statement, and I truly hope you do not
take it personally. I was involved significantly in the
original creation of this program. I value the Michigan
lighthouses, value the North Carolina lighthouses. I have a
real problem anytime we look back at things that we did and
forget the reasons that we did them.
So let me, if I could, do you believe that it was
understood by non-Federal entities who acquired lighthouses
that there was not a Federal responsibility that extended to
fund the maintenance and existence of those lighthouses?
Mr. Lindquist. I can respond to that in my capacity as
working on the Michigan Lighthouse Project. As the interagency
team, including Federal agencies and State and local
governments, I have worked with these applicants, although
there is the National Park Service process as articulated in
NHLPA.
Each time a property is excessed or a notice of excess is
issued, applicants have an opportunity to visit that site and
make an assessment. They receive copies of the condition
reports as they have been prepared and are available. It is our
opinion, as the decision is made and whether or not a
particular applicant is appropriate or not, that their eyes are
open, that they fully understand that this is a transfer. There
is a transfer of responsibility, as well as a transfer of
right. The assumption on everybody's part is that an applicant,
in fact, will follow through and carry out the same custodial
role as implemented and carried out by a Federal agency.
Senator Burr. he reversion clause is clear in the
application.
Mr. Lindquist. Certainly it is. Not to comment on the
intent because I certainly was not involved in any of the
discussions leading up to NHLPA, but the reversion clauses
clearly not only provide for what happens when the wheels fall
off the cart. It provides likewise for a subsequent notice of
availability and the property will be, once again, subject to
the process where an applicant organization would come forward
and seek responsibility. So in a sense it is not so much a
closed loop, but it is a feedback loop, if you will, very
similar to that, and the intent that is to dispose of and
follow the intent of the excess is to make sure that the
properties are in the hands of a capable organization.
Senator Burr. There was a tremendous lack of confidence as
to whether the Federal Government would do anything other than
stand by and watch these historic landmarks disintegrate and
deteriorate.
Mr. Lindquist. That is true, and actually we have watched
that happen during this process. We have a number of properties
that have not transferred. We have one in particular in
Michigan, just to use a Michigan example, in St. Joseph, where
we have a property which is unbelievably beautiful. It is
whitewashed. It has red roofs. It sits on a pier head. Tourist
councils in the area, as well as the West Michigan Tourist
Council, feature it in all their literature. The one thing to
keep in mind, however, is that as you are taking a look at that
pier head, the keeper's quarters has no second floor. It has
fallen through. That is still under Federal ownership and
responsibility.
It would be presumptuous to say that the new transferee, if
you will, be it the city, would be able to do anything more
than the Federal Government has in terms of safeguarding or
protecting these structures from their own resources. This is
clearly a plight that our lighthouses, especially the ones that
are well over 100 years old, are facing.
Senator Burr. Let me, if I could, recap what the bill does.
It creates a 3-year pilot program.
Mr. Lindquist. That is right.
Senator Burr. It authorizes $20 million a year for each of
those 3 years. You identified in your testimony that a
conservative number is $110 million to rehab these lighthouses
in total. So we are asking in the 3-year pilot program to fund
over 50 percent of the identified rehab that is needed for the
lighthouses, funded through a tonnage tax that currently all
the funding of the tonnage tax goes to the operations of the
United States Coast Guard.
Mr. Lindquist. One difference in interpretation I believe.
This does not utilize the tonnage tax to pay for this program.
The tonnage tax revenue is referenced as a ceiling or a maximum
in terms of the total amount of available for this grant
program.
Senator Burr. OK. So the authors offered no offset from the
standpoint of----
Mr. Lindquist. No. As authorization bill, it does not have
the offset. That is true.
Senator Burr. How much is currently being funded from the
Michigan legislature for Michigan lighthouses?
Mr. Lindquist. The only money going out for Michigan
lighthouses is from the license plate, and we have
approximately $200,000 per year generated through those people
who are purchasing a Michigan lighthouse license plate. That
translates into for approximately 18 of our 120--18 grantees in
any particular year, usually a grant on the order of $15,000 to
$35,000 depending on the nature of the application. A person or
a group that receives money does not receive money the
following year.
Senator Burr. I understand the tremendous tourism benefit
that these lighthouses provide in addition to the pride of a
community at preservation of a historic structure. But
rationalize for me why it is in the United States taxpayers'
interest if the State of Michigan or the State of North
Carolina or any other State that is home to these historic
properties do not see the value to their own tourism to put
their own money in it over and above what has become, I think,
a novel thing in many States, and that is designer license
plates that law enforcement is now having a very difficult time
distinguishing whose license plate it is from the standpoint of
State. We will probably see a great curtailing of the number of
these personalized license plates for that one reason. But
share with me why this is in the taxpayers' interest of the
country.
Mr. Lindquist. First of all, from the local perspective, to
the extent that we are talking about local money, local
investment, and local support for an organization that is
attempting to maintain and keep a property open to the public,
there is absolutely no question about the intent and desire of
those communities to do so. This is not just a recent
development, but it is certainly one that is commonly reported
these days.
Because of the plight that all of our States have been
encountering since 2001, the amount of money that is available
locally through revenue sharing from State governments has been
progressively and systematically nearly being reduced to the
point where now there is no State role in the financing of
local projects. This is a Michigan example but I believe that
it is common in most State governments these days. If they had
the money, absolutely.
I think that you would probably--but these lighthouses are
located in rural areas. Many of them are located in areas where
you have a county government with all the pluses and minuses of
trying to run a county government. These are people who have
second and third jobs in addition to perhaps serving on their
county councils. These county governments will do whatever they
can to give moral support, but their total budgets can very
easily be a shadow of what the lighthouse requirements----
Senator Burr. So if for some reason I said to you, geez, we
could do this but let us incorporate it in the pot of money
that is already going to that county. We will let the county
decide, are you going to build the road, are you going to do
the sidewalk, are you going to have a partnership with a
nonprofit organization. Let us just say we put all the moneys
together that we send to localities. Where do you think
lighthouses are going to be in their choice?
Mr. Lindquist. I think for some of the larger communities
where lighthouses are located and it is not only a focal point
but is the identity for that community, the preservation and
protection of that lighthouse, especially for those people
involved in tourism, will be a high priority.
The question is whether or not it ranks equally to other
priorities of that government, specifically security of its
citizens, provision of protection from fires and whatever else
untoward might happen within the community. We would always
envision--and I think this is the case perhaps regardless of
what jurisdictional level we are looking at--that the care and
the safety of its citizens will be cared for primarily and
principally before the other interests.
Senator Burr. I think you and I totally agree with that,
and the likelihood is that as they prioritize the needs in that
local community, lighthouses are going to be on that second
half of that list. There are going to be those things up top
that every community is struggling with right now.
I might say I have a piece of property in Michigan in Mason
County. Governor Engler was nice enough, before he left office,
to make those of us who did not live there permanently pay one
and a half times the property tax so that we could educate
Michigan kids. So I do not go into this with a great deal of
warm and fuzzies relative to the way Michigan treats outsiders,
but I also know that I have gotten numerous times letters from
Mason County talking about the incredible unemployment, the
incredible needs in the community. Oddly enough, I have never
seen a community reach out to property owners for volunteer
donations to help county government fill the needs, whether
that is food, whether it is clothes of the residents. But it
has happened. So I understand just how desperate it is up
there.
Let me just suggest to you I think it is good that we try
to preserve this piece of history. I am not sure that the
Federal Government is the appropriate person to come to the aid
of these projects, and that is with full recognition of just
how tough it is from a standpoint of you as an entity of a
volunteer organization who tries to raise money statewide or
nationally or the community's desire that that piece be filled
out.
But I think we are at a point where there is a
prioritization at a local level, there is a prioritization at a
State level, and contrary to what the American people believe,
we are out of money here. We have got to take it from
somewhere. I think we would have the same prioritization
problem as we went through having many things that rank above
this that do fill the need of safety, all the things that a
local community would go through.
So I will continue to watch the progress of this. I cannot
make you any promises relative to any support I can bring to
it. I would encourage you to look for other avenues or to
encourage Senator Stabenow or Senator Levin to find other
funding mechanisms that might be appropriate, but clearly, it
would only be where you found a program that there was not a
need for and you replaced it with something historic.
Let me ask this. Do you have any idea of how much money
currently is in the grant stream for lighthouse preservation?
Mr. Lindquist. I do not believe that there is an existing
grant program through the Federal Government for lighthouse
preservation and protection. There are grant programs existing,
Save American Treasures, for example, and other programs
congressionally controlled or legislatively controlled where
funding through the grant program has been made available for
lighthouse preservation and protection. But to my knowledge,
there is no dedicated grant program for lighthouses.
Now, potentially within the historic preservation program,
there are grants through the historic preservation offices.
There are Federal funds there. To the extent that they have any
State appropriation which is also dedicated for the same
purpose, then there may be a grant program through which a
lighthouse organization might apply.
Senator Burr. Let me make you this promise today. I have
already asked my committee staff to review all Federal grant
programs and to make me a list of all the appropriate grant
programs that lighthouses would be eligible to go in and
compete. When I get that list, I will share it with you----
Mr. Lindquist. Thank you.
Senator Burr [continuing]. Encourage you and others,
including my State of North Carolina--you know, there is a big
difference.
My good friend here may be thinking, well, the Federal
Government put a lot of money into Hatteras when it was moved.
That is owned by the National Park Service. It is still part of
the Park Service. That is not one that was gifted, was titled
over to a nonprofit, to a community. It is an integral part of
our tourism business on the Outer Banks. We have got others
that are part of the National Park Service. We have got others
that are not and were titled over and organizations did go
through the rehab and preservation, and they are tremendous
tourism tools. So I recognize the value of it.
Let me work with you to identify some other areas that
potentially might have an interest in funding some of this
preservation and I hope that they bring some added options to
you. I thank you.
Mr. Lindquist. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr, for this very
informative and illuminating discussion.
Thank you both for taking the time to come to Washington,
DC, on behalf of the causes and projects that you hold dear.
As the hearing closes, I would like to make note that some
members of the committee may submit additional questions in
writing, and if so, we may ask you to submit answers for the
record. To that end, we will keep the hearing record open for 2
weeks to receive any additional comments.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Dan Wenk From Senator Wyden
Question 1. Following up on the Administration's request to try to
find a cooperative management approach, can you point to any successful
examples where the Forest Service and Park Service have successfully
co-managed a Park unit and its surrounding natural resources, such as
the Cave and its watershed?
Question 2. Isn't it the case that even if a cooperative agreement,
such as a Memorandum of Understanding, was entered into by the agencies
it could be easily terminated or modified and therefore provides no
permanent protection for this natural treasure?
Question 3. How is your testimony, which appears to be a shift from
the 1998 General Management Plan--which recommends expansion--
consistent with the Centennial Challenge, which seeks to expand and
enhance National Parks, and the Park's own 2007 Centennial Strategy
document which lays out a goal of providing further education on the
plan to expand the boundary?
Question 4. Mr. Wenk, my understanding is that every National Park
has a fire management plan and officer assigned to it and that last
year's fires in California demonstrated that National Park Service
lands have responded well in slowing down advancing fires because they
have been well managed to withstand these fires, including undertaking
necessary forest health projects, such as hazardous fuels removal. Can
you elaborate on the experience the National Park Service have in
managing lands for fire resiliency?
Question 5. What fire and forest restoration activities have been
undertaken by the Park Service in the Oregon Caves National Monument?
Question 6. Can you tell me of any reason why you believe the
National Park Service would be unable to undertake the forest health
projects needed in the area proposed for expansion?
Question 7. My legislation includes language providing for forest
management activities in the land proposed for inclusion in the
Monument. Do you believe this language is sufficient or is further
legislative language required to ensure that forest health treatments
occur?
Question 8. Can you provide me a copy of all the correspondence
between the National Park Service and the Forest Service regarding the
potential contamination of the Caves' drinking water supply from
grazing?
Questions for Dan Wenk From Senator Burr
s. 715 lighthouse preservation grants
Question 1a. The original intent of the National Lighthouse
Preservation Act was to provide for the transfer of historic
lighthouses no longer needed by the Federal Government to Non-Federal
entities under the condition that they would assume management and
preservation responsibilities for the lighthouses. Does this new grant
program contradict the original intent of the bill by forcing the
Federal Government to pay for maintenance of these lighthouses?
Question 1b. A reversion clause exists within the National
Lighthouse Preservation Act, which states that if the non-Federal
entities are no longer able to maintain their acquired lighthouses,
then control and management of the lighthouses would revert to the
Federal Government. Do you believe it was the intent of the original
law to provide for Federal Government funding to the non-Federal
entities? If so, why was the reversion clause placed in the Act?
Question 1c. How will funding for this program affect other
programs funded through the National Historic Preservation Act?
s. 1270 oregon caves national monument
Question 2a. I have a February 26, 1998 letter from then Siskiyou
National Forest Supervisor Michael Lunn to then Oregon Caves
Superintendent Craig Ackerman related to the Cave's Draft General
Management Plan and EIS that is the most disparaging letter I have seen
between two agencies. It accused the Oregon Caves management team of
misrepresentation of facts, far reaching speculative statements,
repeated statements that are not supported by science, and a general
failure to recognize either the Forest's land management plan for the
area, or the Pacific Northwest Forest plan's management scheme for the
area.
i. Given the Park Service's inability to faithfully describe
the land management that was planned for this area by the
Forest Service, as well as its apparent willingness to cook the
science in its document; why is the Park Service a more
trustworthy land management agency to oversee management of
this area?
Question 2b. I also have an article from a 2003 National Cave and
Karst Management Symposium where Mr. William Halliday, founder of the
Cascade Grotto Speleological Society, and Mr. Jay Swoford, founder of
Friends of Oregon Caves, both long-time caving experts called the
transfer of the Oregon Cave National Monument to the Park Service an
``irresponsible political action.''
i. Can you tell us why two wrongs will make a right in this
instance?
ii. If in the eyes of some, the Park Service has never
invested the time and money deserved by the Cave, why should we
be enlarging the area of the Cave the Park Service would
oversee now?
iii. If this Committee were to add an provision that required
the Park Service to transfer a like amount of current National
Park Service land, in Oregon, to the United States Forest
Service would you still support this legislation?
Question 2c. How many acres of Condition Class II or III forestland
currently managed by the Forest Service are included in the areas being
proposed for expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument?
Question 2d. If these lands are left untreated what risk does this
pose to the National Forest, the neighboring Oregon Caves Monument and
the only road access into the Monument via State Highway 46?
Question 2e. Are these lands at a high risk of catastrophic
wildfire?
Question 2f. What is the Forest Service doing to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire to the forests surrounding the Oregon Caves
Monument and how long will it take to accomplish this effort?
Question 2g. Is there anything keeping the agency from completing
these projects over the next several years?
Question 2h. Is the Park Service committed to complete this work
and then maintain these fuel breaks if these lands are turned over to
the Oregon Caves Monument?
Question 2i. Has the Forest Service prepared any NEPA documents for
forest management and hazardous fuels projects to address the fire
hazard in the area through forest thinning and fuels breaks? If so, how
many acres have been approved for treatment? At what cost were these
NEPA documents prepared?
Question 2j. Do you have a detailed set of forest management and
thinning projects planned within the proposed monument expansion area
and when are these projects scheduled to be implemented? Are any of
these projects scheduled to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2010 and
Fiscal Year 2011? If so, please provide detailed information on those
specific planned projects.
Question 2k. If this expansion legislation were enacted as written
this year what will happen to these planned projects? What will happen
to the NEPA analysis and documentation already prepared?
______
Questions for Joel Holtrop From Senator Wyden
Question 1. Following up on the Administration's request to try to
find a cooperative management approach, can you point to any successful
examples where the Forest Service and Park Service have successfully
co-managed a Park unit and its surrounding natural resources, such as
the Cave and its watershed?
Question 2. Isn't it the case that even if a cooperative agreement,
such as a Memorandum of Understanding, was entered into by the agencies
it could be easily terminated or modified and therefore provides no
permanent protection for this natural treasure?
Question 3. The Forest Service was provided an opportunity to
comment and did in fact provide comments to the 1998 General Management
Plan--the Forest Service submitted correspondence with comments and the
National Park Service undertook changes to be responsive to those
comments. Why doesn't that constitute adequate interagency consultation
regarding the expansion?
Question 4. Can you provide the comments the Forest Service
submitted to the National Park Service for the 1998 General Management
Plan?
Question 5. Can you provide the comments the Forest Service has
submitted to the National Park Service regarding transfer of land to
the National Park Service?
Question 6. What specifically do you intend to produce and commit
to in the next six month to ensure adequate protection of the Caves
resources?
Question 7. Can you detail and provide evidence of any special
measures the US Forest Service has undertaken to further protect the
natural resources and water supply of the Oregon Caves National
Monument?
Question 8. Can you follow up with me and provide me a copy of all
the correspondence between the National Park Service and the Forest
Service regarding the potential contamination of the Caves' drinking
water supply from grazing?
Question 9. Can you provide notices of violations issued on the Big
Grayback Allotment?
Question 10. Can you provide the Resource Management Plan direction
on grazing in Research Natural Areas and Botanical Areas in the Big
Grayback Allotment?
Question 11. Your testimony mentions the Forest Service's planned
fuels management and forest restoration activities. I certainly support
performing those important projects. Can you tell us what the priority
of those thinning projects in the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest
is, what percentage of those projects has been completed and whether
all funding has been secured to complete those projects?
Question 12. My bill specifically includes language providing for
forest management and the recent fires have illustrated the Park
Service's capabilities in managing for fire. Can you tell me why the
Agency believes the National Park Service would be unable to complete
those projects if the land was transferred to their management?
Question 13. Do you believe additional legislative language is
required to ensure that such treatments can occur, either under the
Forest Service or the National Park Service?
Question for Joel Holtrop From Senator Burr
s. 1270 oregon caves national monument
Question 1a. How many acres of Condition Class II or III forestland
currently managed by the Forest Service are included in the areas being
proposed for expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument?
Question 1b. If these lands are left untreated what risk does this
pose to the National Forest, the neighboring Oregon Caves Monument and
the only road access into the Monument via State Highway 46?
Question 1c. Are these lands at a high risk of catastrophic
wildfire?
Question 1d. What is the Forest Service doing to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire to the forests surrounding the Oregon Caves
Monument and how long will it take to accomplish this effort?
Question 1e. Is there anything keeping the agency from completing
these projects over the next several years?
Question 1f. Is the Park Service committed to complete this work
and then maintain these fuel breaks if these lands are turned over to
the Oregon Caves Monument?
Question 1g. Has the Forest Service prepared any NEPA documents for
forest management and hazardous fuels projects to address the fire
hazard in the area through forest thinning and fuels breaks? If so, how
many acres have been approved for treatment? At what cost were these
NEPA documents prepared?
Question 1h. Do you have a detailed set of forest management and
thinning projects planned within the proposed monument expansion area
and when are these projects scheduled to be implemented? Are any of
these projects scheduled to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2010 and
Fiscal Year 2011? If so, please provide detailed information on those
specific planned projects.
Question 1i. If this expansion legislation were enacted as written
this year what will happen to these planned projects? What will happen
to the NEPA analysis and documentation already prepared?
Question 1j. If this Committee were to add an provision that
required the Park Service to transfer a like amount of current National
Park Service land, in Oregon, to the United States Forest Service would
you support this legislation?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Jack H. Swift, Vice-Chairman and Spokesman, Southern
Oregon Resource Alliance
Southern Oregon Resource Alliance is a non-profit association of
individuals, organizations, and businesses dedicated to the
conservation and sustained utilization of natural resources in the
southern Oregon area. SORA has been active and influential in the
determination of government policies in these regards for several
decades. In that regard SORA is representative of a wide array of
interests in the area, both public and private.
In terms of conservation policy SORA finds itself in exact accord
with the policy reasons advanced by Teddy Roosevelt when he advocated
the national forest system. Our natural resources should not be
squandered and eradicated. The wealth of the nation depends upon their
sustained utilization. The profits derived from their responsible
utilization should accrue to the public as well as private enterprise.
In that regard, we see the National Forest system as the better manager
of these assets.
The Oregon Caves are not a major tourist attraction. There has been
no serious or studied business model or plan proposed that supports a
contention that the expansion of the monument will change this reality.
The Oregon Caves cannot compete with the scope and grandeur of the
Carlsbad Caverns. They are at best a side trip located between the
glory of the redwoods of northern California, the Smith River drainage
to the south, and the draw of Crater Lake to the north. The trip
between these two genuine attractions transits the Illinois Valley,
from which Oregon Caves N.M. is accessed. The Illinois Valley is a
semi-arid geography in which trees take twice as long to grow and
mature as in areas to the south and north. The valley itself is a
rather bleak perspective. It is not a Yellowstone of the West. Simply
acquiring more of its surrounding hills for National Park management
will do nothing to enhance its appeal.
The economic management of the lands in the proposed expansion
under national forest policies is more than beneficial to the economy
of southern Oregon whose timber industry has been devastated by the
Northwest Forest Management Plan in combination with the current
economy. Revenues from the public lands are crucial to the support of
local schools. The expansion proposed will be a loss to those interests
with no mitigation.
The fire management of these lands under national forest policies
is infinitely preferred to those of the national park system. We have
the egregious example of the Yellowstone fire. Locally, we have the
recent experience of the Biscuit fire which began in a wilderness area
precluding effective rapid response. It should be kept in mind that
under the Northwest Forest Management Plan and traditional
Congressional funding for the national forest, effective fuel
management has not existed for almost two decades. We are discussing an
area which historically has been visited by low intensity fuel
eradication fires every ten--twelve years. There have been no such
fires for decades and manual eradication has been non-existent. Again
this is a semi-arid geography and the intermixed and adjacent BLM lands
in the area are all rated extreme hazard for a catastrophic stand
replacement event. We doubt sincerely that the national park service
appreciates the hazard, has the resources to undertake the management
required or even operates under the philosophical inclination to do so.
In sum, we see the expansion as a bad idea and wish our opposition
to be a matter of record. Thank you.
______
Statement of Joseph Vaile, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildands Center, Ashland
OR; Sean Smith, National Parks Conservation Association, Seattle, WA;
Barbara Ullian, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Grants Pass, OR; Shane
Jimerfield, Siskiyou Project, Grants Pass, OR, on S. 1270
On behalf of the undersigned organizations we appreciate the
opportunity to offer written testimony before the Subcommittee on
National Parks of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Committee concerning S. 1270 the Oregon Caves Boundary Adjustment Act
of 2008 would offer tremendous ecological and economic benefit through
the retirement of the Big Grayback and Billy Mountain grazing permits
and adjusting the boundaries of the Oregon Caves National Monument
(OCNM) to (1) include the surface drinking water supply for the 80,000
visitors annually; (2) protection additional surface and subsurface
natural resources for current and future generations of Americans; and
(3) provide local rural economic development opportunities. Legislation
also proposes to add 7.6 miles of the Cave Creek watershed to the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act.
background on the oregon caves national monument
The OCNM is a 480-acre national monument located in the botanically
rich Siskiyou Mountains. The monument is important to the economy and
identity of the local area; the nearest town is named Cave Junction
after the Oregon Caves. OCNM receives about 80,000 visitors annually,
but it is one of the smallest natural area units (in area) of the
National Park System. Oregon Caves is the only cave system in the
nation with its particular geologic history. It is one of the few
marble caves in the nation available for public tours and is longest
tour cave west of the Continental Divide. The cave tour route, with its
twists, turns, climbs, descents, narrowness and length is one of the
most adventurous cave tour routes in North America.
A perennial stream, the ``River Styx,'' (an underground portion of
Cave Creek) flows through part of the cave system. The cave ecosystem
provides habitat for numerous plants and animals, including some state
sensitive species such as Townsend's big-eared bats and several
caveadapted species of arthropods found only on the national monument.
While the 1909 proclamation that established the national monument
focused on unique subsurface resources, the significance of the land
surface above the cave must not be overlooked. Surface processes,
especially through the exchange of air, water and food, closely
influence many of the geological and biological processes within the
cave.
Recent discoveries indicate that this network of caverns possesses
a significant collection of Pleistocene aged fossils, including jaguar
and grizzly bear. Grizzly bones that were found in the cave in 1995
were estimated to be at least 50,000 years old--the oldest known from
either North or South America. The monument preserves an excellent
example of the Siskiyou Mountain's primeval forest: an area with one of
the highest percentages of endemic plants in the country.
the need to adjust the boundaries
When the OCNM was established in 1909, the small rectangular
boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. Through the
years, scientific research and technology has provided new information
about cave ecology, how it is influenced by its surface environment and
related hydrological processes. The current 480-acre boundary is
insufficient to adequately protect this cave system and its unique
contributions to local economies and our national heritage. The
National Park Service proposed expansion numerous times, first in 1939,
again in 1949 and most recently in 1999. Most of the boundary
adjustments proposed in S. 3148 are part of the 1998 General Management
Plan for the monument when the National Park Service deemed the greater
Lake Creek watershed suitable for inclusion in the OCNM.
We provide the following excerpts from 1999 U.S. DOI National Park
Service General Management Plan, so that the committee can be assured
that the most comprehensive study of this issue to date
incontrovertibly concluded that expansion was in the best interest of
the Caves and the nearby communities:
The transfer of the 3,410 acres of adjacent federal land
within the Siskiyou National Forest to the Monument are
included in the proposed action because they are integral to
the future management, protection and public use of the Oregon
Caves National Monument...
...the present size and rectangular configuration of the
Monument at 484 acres is inadequate to provide for the long-
term protection and public use of the Monument, and does not
provide a logical topographical related boundary that makes
sense from a land management perspective. The current Monument
boundary does not ensure the long term protection of cave
resources, nor does it ensure protection of the Lake Creek and
upper Cave Creek watersheds, the potable water supply that
serves both visitors and Monument and concession employees, and
the scenic foreground and middle ground views as seen from
various points within the Monument, or the protection of forest
ecology above and adjacent to the cave.
The proposed boundary change would address all these current
deficiencies by providing a watershed based boundary.... The
proposed boundary adjustments to OCNM would help fulfill the
purposes for which the OCNM was established by President Taft.
His July 18, 1909 proclamation setting aside the caves notes
its, ``...unusual scientific interest and importance.'' The
proclamation also states that, ``...the public interest will be
promoted by reserving these caves with as much land as may be
necessary for the proper protection thereof, as a National
Monument.''
The boundary change would enable the Monument managers to
better meet their legal responsibilities for protection of
Monument resources, including providing for the important
protection of Monument's national and visual resources and
protection to the upper Lake Creek watershed which is the
source of the Monument's public water supply...
In order to protect cave ecology, surface and subsurface
hydrology, forest ecology, foreground and middle ground
viewsheds, and the public water supply used by employees and
visitors to Oregon Caves National Monument, a boundary
modification will be recommended. Including the 484 acres
already within the Monument, the modified boundary will
encompass approximately 4,375 acres, or an addition of 3,410
acres....
Through this change, greater protection under NPS
administration will be afforded to the upper Lake Creek
watershed. Since the public water supply for the Monument is
located in the upper Lake Creek watershed, grazing will be
eliminated as a permitted use. Human use of the watershed area
will be limited to those uses that will be compatible with the
protection of a public watershed....
Greater protection will also be afforded to upper Cave Creek
watershed as well, which is the principal water source of the
River Styx and subsurface hydrological flows into the marble
cave....
Finally, since the boundary change is primarily
topographically based, it will also provide greater protection
for the foreground and most middle ground views form the
Monument's developed area and adjacent trails.
-Pages 5-8 of the 1999 General Management Plan.
increasing visitation and advancing community development
The boundary adjustments proposed in S 1270 are needed for several
reasons. A larger monument would increase the monument's visibility and
attractions. This could lengthen visit time of the OCNM leading to
economic development in local communities. The average visit to OCNM is
only 2.5 hours, and the most common question is, ``What can we do after
the cave tour?'' Economic models indicate that if the 2.5-hour average
visit were extended to a one-day visit, local businesses would
significantly benefit from added tourist dollars. (Personal
communication with Craig Ackermann, Superintendent, OCNM, February 20,
2007.) The OCNM is surrounded by excellent outdoor opportunities
including hiking, horseback riding, and bird-watching. Adjacent
recreation opportunities should be protected within the OCNM
boundaries, and marketed along with cave tours. In addition nearby
Forest Service campgrounds would be incorporated into the monument.
The four trails within the current OCNM range from 0.7-3.3 miles. A
number of longer trails around the monument offer visitors stunning
views. Most of the trails weave in and out of the present OCNM
boundary, and some connect with larger hiking trail systems including
the Boundary and Pacific Crest Trails, giving hikers access to the Red
Buttes Wilderness, Bigelow Lakes, Mt. Elijah (named for Elijah
Davidson, the first Euro-American to see the Oregon Caves), and other
popular areas.
Located in the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Josephine County,
OCNM offers great potential for one of the state's most struggling
economic communities by nurturing a budding tourism and recreation
economy. According to a 1994 Illinois Valley Tourism Assessment
developed for the Oregon Economic Development Department, Oregon Caves
is a ``centerpiece attraction'' for the tourism industry in the
Illinois Valley area.
Highway 199, stretching the length of the Illinois Valley, is a
popular travel route between Redwood National Park and Crater Lake
National Park, as well as a corridor for visitors who travel from the
cultural center of Ashland to visit the Pacific Coast, as well as the
OCNM. Surveys conducted in southwest Oregon and northern California
describe visitors to this region to be primarily families taking a
short vacation from the metropolitan areas of Portland, Seattle,
Sacramento, San Francisco, and southern California (Smokejumper Base
Interpretive Plan, undated).
Highway 199 has an annual traffic load of about one million
vehicles. In 1992, the state estimated that 289,000 vehicles, about one
third of the vehicles traveling Highway 199, represented tourist
traffic. Surveys conducted at OCNM indicate that average daily spending
per tourist group is $90. These numbers indicate that more than $26
million in tourism dollars pass through the Highway 199 corridor
annually (Letter to Oregon Tourism Commission from OCNM Chief of
Interpretation Roger Brandt, 18 April 2004). Compared to neighboring
northern California counties, where tourism dollars per tourist group
range from $95-$154 (Sheffield, Emilyn, 1998. Northern California
Scenic Byway Network Newsletter, Chico, California), Josephine County
clearly has room for economic development in this sector.
A 1995 survey of visitors at the OCNM found that the top reasons
for travel were viewing scenery, doing something with the family, and
to learn more about nature. (Rolloff, David, Rebecca Johnson, and Bo
Shelby, 1995). Similar studies have found that people come to Oregon to
indulge in their interest in outdoor recreation, nature experiences and
historic sites (Brandt, 2004).
During the recent Senate hearing on this bill, government officials
with the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service stated they'd
like more time to work out a joint management agreement for the
potential expansion area. The impression was left that Forest Service
management produces the same benefits as Park Service management and
all that is needed to produce these benefits is better coordination
between the two agencies. However, along with ecological benefits,
expanding Oregon Caves National Monument will generate significant
economic benefits, but only if the expanded area is placed under the
care of the Park Service. In NPCA's recently released report entitled
U.S. National Park System: An Economic Asset at Risk, some parks,
including Acadia and Point Reyes, generate economic benefits that
exceed the government investment in their annual budgets by as much as
14 times. The average return for all parks is for every one dollar
invested in parks, four dollars are returned to the local economy.
In addition, the intrinsic values of national parks also attract
small businesses and new residents to their region, resulting in
economic growth in areas near parks that is an average of 1 percent per
year greater than statewide rates over the past three decades.
In addition, National Parks and Monuments are weathering the
economic downturn very well. In Utah for example, park visitation is up
14 percent from the same time last year. In the Pacific Northwest, year
to date park visitation is up nearly 90,000. Expanding the area under
Park Service management would likely raise the area's profile and
increase visitation even more, thereby producing expanded economic
benefit for surrounding gateway communities such as Cave Junction and
surrounding Josephine County.
fuels reduction and forest management
It has been implied that fuels reduction or other forest thinning
operations would not occur in the adjusted OCNM boundaries (see the
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System of the
U.S. Forest Service). The truth is that the National Park Service has a
very active fire management and fuels reduction program on units where
fire management is an issue. In fact, there is evidence that the
National Park Service is more equipped and better funded to carry out
fuels reduction projects in a timely and efficient manner due to larger
budgets.
Broadly, we agree with the Forest Service that fire and fuels
issues are extremely important on the 1.8 million acres Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest. However, the OCNM boundary adjustments area
(4,070 acres), only constitute 0.23% of the forest area, an immaterial
portion of the landscape to affect fire behavior. We do agree that the
Forest Service and Park Service should continue collaborating on fire
and fuels reduction projects in this area and we support section 5(b)
of the S. 1270 regarding forest restoration as long as it is consistent
with the National Park Organic Act.
Mr. Haltrop's characterization of the efforts of the Forest Service
in the OCNM area are overstated. Through a collaborative effort with
support from the very organizations providing this testimony, the U.S.
Forest Service produced the East Illinois Young Managed Stands project.
This project looked at a 70,000-acre project area and identified
approximately 4,000 acres for treatment. Only 100 acres were identified
in the OCNM expansion area. No other specific treatments have been
identified to date.It is obvious that the Forest Service has more
thinning and fuels reduction work than it could possibly accomplish on
this 1.8 million acre National Forest. Transferring this small amount
of land will not significantly affect the outcomes of a fire and fuels
reduction program. Moreover, we are convinced that the Park Service
could perform the necessary management activities to restore the
forests to more natural fire and fuel conditions as is laid out in the
1999 Oregon Caves GMP.
grazing and equitable compensation
The undersigned also supportive of the provision the bill to
provide for the donation of a Forest Service grazing permit and a
Bureau of Land Management grazing lease. The Rogue River-Siskiyou
National Forest's Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (17,703 acres)
overlaps about half of the 4,070-acre OCNM expansion area. National
Park Service regulations would prohibit continued livestock grazing in
the expanded national monument. Currently livestock that use the Big
Grayback Grazing Allotment tend to concentrate in the Bigelow Lakes
area, a designated botanical special interest area.
Continuing to grazing livestock on the remainder of the Big
Grayback Grazing Allotment is problematic for several reasons. First,
as noted, livestock concentrate in the Bigelow Lakes area. Second,
there are two other designated botanical areas (Miller Lake, 588 acres;
Grayback Mountain, 591 acres) and the Oliver Matthews Research Natural
Area, where livestock grazing occurs, contrary to the purpose of the
protective designation. In addition, there are 3,553 acres of Riparian
Reserves, where livestock need to be limited. Parts of the allotment
are also in the Sucker Creek Key Watershed for salmonid recovery.
Finally, much of the allotment is in the Kangaroo Inventoried Roadless
Area.
Additionally, surface water sources used for the OCNM potable water
supply are located on national forest land. Water is piped to park
facilities where it is treated. Actions affected drainage in the
national forest--upslope from the monument--have the potential to
impact the monument. Activities such as mining, logging, grazing and
stock use, have the potential to contaminate the OCNM water resources
(OCNM General Management Plan, 1999, 8).
The 4,758-acre Bureau of Land Management Billy Mountain Grazing
Lease is on the on the Ashland Resource Area of the Medford District
BLM, approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the town of Applegate in
Jackson County, Oregon. The grazing allotment is leased by the same
rancher that leases the Forest Service's Big Grayback Grazing
Allotment. The allotment is next door to the rancher's base property.
He uses the BLM allotment in the spring and the Forest Service
allotment in the summer.
The Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment includes the Enchanted forest,
a grove of oak, pine and maple, and a popular hiking trail. The
allotment is interspersed with private land and, while it is Open
Range, there have been several complaints over the years by landowners
dismayed by cows on their property. Billy Mountain also includes
habitat for the federally protected Gentner's fritillary (Fritillaria
gentnerii), a member of the Lily family. This rare plant is found in
the Applegate Valley in and near allotment. Its growing season includes
the period when livestock may be using the allotment.
Expansion of the national monument makes continued grazing of the
Big Grayback Grazing Allotment very problematic, which therefore makes
continued grazing of the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment also
problematic.
Conservation interests (specifically Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center) and rancher on the allotment have an understanding in which the
rancher will received compensation from KS Wild in return his donation
of his federal grazing permit and lease to the federal government, as
provided in the legislation.
In the spring of 2008, the Forest Service issued a decision to
continue grazing on the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment for 10 years.
While not reducing the amount of livestock grazing for the allotment,
the decision requires investments in fences and changes in management
to prevent overgrazing of Botanical Areas and to evenly distribute
livestock. To comply with its own forest management plan, the Forest
Service requires a 1/4-mile fence must be built in the Bigelow Lakes
area.
Fencing Bigelow Lakes is controversial from the standpoint of both
conservation and ranching interests because not enough of the botanical
area will be fenced, fences are expensive, often fail and do not last.
Fencing is a bad solution because of the high initial cost ($7,030/mile
according to the Forest Service), as well as the high ongoing
maintenance costs. Fences in forests and deep snow require endless
maintenance; they don't always work and are always an impediment to
wildlife. The agency places additional requirements on the permittee to
keep livestock out of certain areas.
costs of grazing
Both the ecological and fiscal costs of various alternatives to
continue livestock grazing on the Big Grayback allotment are such that
the best and least costly option is to simply buyout the grazing permit
and not spend tax dollars endlessly to build and maintain fences.
The annual income to the federal treasury from the Forest Service
grazing permit and the BLM grazing lease is $118.13. The cost of
preparing the Environmental Assessment to update the Big Grayback
Grazing Allotment is at least $100,000. On average, the Forest Service
and BLM lose $12.26/AUM and $7.64/AUM respectively, (GAO, 2005.
Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending
Upon Agency and Purpose of Fee Collection) or an average of $8,174.80
annually. Based on the simple analysis above, the taxpayer would save
an estimated $8,056.68 annually, by not grazing livestock in the two
allotments.
conclusion
In sum, adjusting the boundaries of the OCNM is in the best
interest of the Oregon Caves resources, the local communities where
this is a ``centerpiece attraction'' and businesses in the region that
are dependant on a thriving tourism economy.
______
PugetSoundPartnership,
Olympia, WA, July 22, 2009.
Hon. Patty Murray,
173 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for your leadership in sponsoring
S.635, which would designate a segment of Illabot Creek in Skagit
County as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
S.635 is an important element to accomplishing Washington State's goal
to restore and protect the Puget Sound by 2020.
The Puget Sound Partnership was established by the Washington State
Legislature to unify, coordinate and prioritize all of the work
currently being done in Puget Sound. Working collaboratively with
regional scientists, policy experts, businesses, environmental
organizations, tribes, all levels of government and citizens all around
the Sound, we created the Action Agenda--a roadmap for the Sound's
restoration and protection.
The designation of the Pratt River and expansion of the Alpine
Lakes Wilderness is a highpriority in the Action Agenda (A.2.2 on page
38). As you know, the protection of intact habitat is one of the most
important, cost effective and sustainable tools for protecting
ecosystem structures, processes, and functions. Wild and Scenic
designation protects intact and high quality aquatic and riparian
habitat, and we appreciate your leadership to include Illabot Creek in
Skagit County.
Thank you again for your leadership in sponsoring S.635. We look
forward to working with you and your staff to advance this important
bill, as well as the companion proposal by Representative Larsen, H.R.
1593.
Sincerely,
David D. Dicks,
Executive Director.
______
American Rivers,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2008.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Burr: On behalf of American
Rivers' 65,000 members and supporters across the nation, thank you for
holding a hearing on legislation that will designate outstanding rivers
in Oregon and Washington as National Wild and Scenic Rivers. American
Rivers strongly supports S. 635, to designate Illabot Creek in Skagit
County, Washington as a component of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, and S. 1270, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary
Adjustment Act of 2009.
illabot creek
Wild and Scenic River designation of Illabot Creek in Skagit
County, Washington is a well-deserving addition to the Skagit Wild and
Scenic River system, designated in 1978. Illabot Creek has outstanding
fish and wildlife values that would be protected and enhanced by Wild
and Scenic River designation. Illabot Creek provides crucial habitat
for threatened wild Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout as well as
for pink, coho, and chum salmon, and is one of the two most productive
bull trout streams in the entire Skagit River system. Due to the strong
salmon presence, Illabot Creek attracts a large number of bald eagles,
which roost at night in the stands of mature and old-growth forest
along the creek. The Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area is regionally
famous for the magnificence of its bald eagle population.
Significant investment has been made at the local level to protect
this special area, including ongoing salmon recovery efforts in the
Skagit basin. S. 635 will complement these investments and will ensure
permanent protection for Illabot Creek's free-flowing character, water
quality and outstanding fish and wildlife values. Additionally,
protecting headwater streams like Illabot Creek is a critical component
of Puget Sound health and recovery and can also bring economic benefits
to the surrounding region by supporting recreation and tourism and
protecting the region's quality of life.
oregon caves national monument
The Oregon Caves National Monument (Monument), located in the
botanically rich Siskiyou Mountains, hosts a spectacular cave system
with a rich geologic history and a river system which provides clean
drinking water for the Monument, and is nationally significant for its
hydrological, ecological and geological features. Designation of Cave
Creek and its tributaries, Lake Creek, No Name Creek, Panther Creek,
Upper Cave Creek, and the River Styx, as National Wild and Scenic
Rivers would protect these outstanding values.
The cave resources of the Monument are directly affected by water
entering the cave. The River Styx is a unique segment of Cave Creek
that flows underground through the cave system and significantly shapes
the subterranean geologic formations and biological processes within
the caves. Surface water percolates through the soil, acquiring carbon
dioxide from sources such as decaying plant materials. This interaction
forms a weak carbonic acid that dissolves calcium carbonate from the
bedrock as it percolates downward. When the solution reaches the cave,
the calcium carbonate is deposited, thus creating the formations inside
the cave. Changes in the chemical and biological composition of the
water can permit changes in the processes affecting the cave.
Protecting the River Styx as the first underground Wild and Scenic
River, is therefore fundamental to protecting and maintaining these
subterranean processes.
Cave Creek and its tributaries are part of the larger Wild and
Scenic Illinois River watershed, which itself is a tributary of the
Wild and Scenic Rogue River watershed. The cold waters and many miles
of spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead are critical
not only for the survival of these fish, but for the economic
livelihoods of the multi-million dollar sport and commercial fishing
industries that rely on healthy native fish runs in the region. A
recent economic study by ECONorthwest found that salmon and steclhead
in the larger Rogue River watershed in southern Oregon provide more
than .5 billion in economic benefits each year to West Coast residents.
In addition, Lake Creek is the main drinking water source for the
Monument, and Wild and Scenic designation would preserve this clean
drinking water source into the future.
Thank you again for holding a hearing on S. 635 and S. 1270.
American Rivers looks forward to working with you and your staff to see
these important pieces of legislation enacted into law this Congress.
Sincerely,
David Moryc,
Senior Director, River Protection.
______
Hampton's Rock Shop,
Kerby, OR, July 18, 2009.
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks;
We are small Southwest Oregon business owners living here in the
Illinois Valley. We would very much like to submit, to you, our
approval of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this
legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument. This expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking
water at the Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources
associated with the Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial.
Thank you,
Gabrielle & Fredrick Hampton.
______
Statement of James A. Minervini, DC, Chiropractic Wellness Center, LLC,
Cave Junction, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks;
We are small Southwest Oregon business owners living here in the
Illinois Valley. We would very much like to submit, to you, our
approval of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this
legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument This expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking
water at the Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources
associated with the Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of John L. Gardiner, PhD, PE Oregon, Suri Futures, Inc.,
Cave Junction, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and Senate
Subcommittee on National Parks;
As a small business owner in Cave Junction and the Illinois Valley
here in Southern Oregon, I want to submit my approval of S. 1270. I
support this legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument.
This expansion will increase the tourism economy, bring more
visitation dollars coming into SW Oregon, and it protects the drinking
water at the Oregon Caves Chateau. All with plenty of support from the
local community!
Additionally, it would be a significant gift to the American people
to pass this legislation while we're celebrating the 75th Anniversary
of the Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument and Oregon's Sesquicentennial.
This kind of thinking represents the innovation needed to jump-
start the New Economy, and is just exactly what is needed now to bring
sustainable jobs to our region. We need standing trees conserving
carbon in the soil for the long term. Expanding the Oregon Caves
National Monument takes us all in the right direction.
Thank you for supporting S. 1270.
______
Statement of Kerry Whitehead, Owner, Renewable Energy Systems
Greetings!
As a small business owner in Cave Junction and the Illinois Valley,
directly involved in resource conservation and environmental
stewardship and sustainability, I want to submit my approval of S. 1270
(and its twin HR 2889) and support this legislation to expand the
boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument. This expansion will
increase visitation to the National Monument and it help to improve the
watershed feeding the Illinois valley. This will create a win-win
situation to both our ecomomy and our environment.
The timing of this legislation could not come at a more poignant
time as we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Chateau located
within the boundaries of the National Monument, as well as the 100th
anniversary of the founding of the Oregon Caves National Monument and
also Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Dr. Dave Perry, Selma, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks;
I am a retired professor of forest ecology living here in the
Illinois Valley. I would very much like to submit, to you, my approval
of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this legislation to
expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument. This
expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking water at the
Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources associated with the
Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Jusint, Lisa, Jade, & Tao Rohde, Rogue Natural Living,
Cave Junction, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks;
As a small business owner in Cave Junction and the Illinois Valley
here in Southern. Oregon, I want to submit my approval of S. 1270 (and
it's twin HR 2889) and support this legislation to expand the boundary
of the Oregon Caves National Monument. This expansion shall increase
visitation and improve the tfrinking water at the Oregon Caves Chateau.
Additionally, it will be a nice touch and a generous gift to the
American people to do this while we are celebiating the 75th
Anniversary of the Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument and Oregon's Sesquicentennial.
Our family moved to this area for the quality of life and natural
beauty. We have come to love the area near the caves for it's great
hiking trails and natural wonders. We believe that expanding the
monument will help bring visitors here and improve our local tourism
economy.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Robert Ward, President, CEO, Home Valley Bank,
Grants Pass, OR
As a community bank in Josephine County, Home Valley Bank believes
in supporting our community and supporting the positive changes and
growth within the Illinois Valley. With the 100th Anniversary of the
Oregon Caves National Monument upon us we would like to express our
strong support for the legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon
Caves National Monument.
With the passing of the legislation we will see many positive
changes with the expansion. We hope to see the Monument grow from 480
acres to over 4,000 acres which will sipificantly increase recreation
opportunities, improve the drinking water at the Chateau and most
importantly protect the many resources associated with the Monument.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Statement of Sandi Martin, Martin's Design & Print Studio, Grants Pass,
OR
We are small Southwest Oregon business owners living here in the
Rogue Valley. We would very much like to submit, to you, our approval
of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this legislation to
expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument This
expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking water at the
Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources associated with the
Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Joan M. Perry, Hair Art Thou
We are small Southwest Oregon business owners living here in the
Rogue Valley. We would very much like to submit, to you, our approval
of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this legislation to
expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument This
expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking water at the
Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources associated with the
Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Cynthea M. Deas, Bonanza Consulting, Bonanza, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources Senate
Subcommittee on National Parks;
As a small business owner in Cave Junction and the Illinois Valley
here in Southern. Oregon, I want to submit my approval of S. 1270 (and
it's twin HR 2889) and support this legislation to expand the boundary
of the Oregon Caves National Monument. This expansion shall increase
visitation and improve the tfrinking water at the Oregon Caves Chateau.
Additionally, it will be a nice touch and a generous gift to the
American people to do this while we are celebiating the 75th
Anniversary of the Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument and Oregon's Sesquicentennial.
Our family moved to this area for the quality of life and natural
beauty. We have come to love the area near the caves for it's great
hiking trails and natural wonders. We believe that expanding the
monument will help bring visitors here and improve our local tourism
economy.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Christine Perala Gardiner, Ph.D., WaterCycle, Inc., Cave
Junction, OR, on S. 1270
Our company WaterCycle Inc works in the field of watershed science
and restoration. We are based here in the Illinois Valley, Josephine
County Oregon, and our company works around the Western US.
As a small business owner in Cave Junction, we want to submit our
endorsement of S. 1270. We support this legislation to expand the
boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument.
The watershed protected by this expansion is vital to our region,
as a source of clean water and a priceless Wild Salmon Habitat Refuge
for this part of the great Rogue River Basin.
This expansion will improve the local tourism economy, and will
protect the drinking water at the Oregon Caves complex and the Chateau
resort. This legislation will be an important gift to the American
people, to honor our country's commitment to protect America's
increasingly fragile environmental heritage.
Now is the time to do this while Oregon is celebrating the 75th
Anniversary of the Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument and the State of Oregon's Sesquicentennial.
Please lend your support to SB 1270. Thank you.
______
Statement of Lane Cosner, SiskiyouArt.com, Cave Junction, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks;
We are small Southwest Oregon business owners living here in the
Illinois Valley. We would very much like to submit, to you, our
approval of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this
legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument This expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking
water at the Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources
associated with the Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Gloria & Bob Ziller, R.H. Ziller & Co., Inc., O'Brien, OR
We are small Southwest Oregon business owners living here in the
Illinois Valley. We would very much like to submit, to you, our
approval of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and support this
legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument. This expansion will increase visitation, improve the drinking
water at the Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many resources
associated with the Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Debbie Lukas, Siskiyou Mountain Herbs, Cave Junction, OR
I am writing as a small business owner in the Illinois Valley
(Southern Oregon) who supports the expansion of the Oregon Caves
National Monument. Please promote S. 1270 to expand the boundary of the
Oregon Caves National Monument. The transfer of land from the US Forest
Service and BLM to the US Park Service would be of benefit to the
American public. Many of us hike and camp in the area, and this
transfer will aid the continued enjoyment of the amazing Oregon Caves
by local people as well as tourists for years to come! In addition,
this transfer is necessary to protect Lake Creek, the source of
drinking water for the Monument, which is plagued by cattle that wander
from the other side of the mountain (BLM land).
In the past I have worked at the Caves, and have urged this
expansion for years. Now is the time! This is the 100-year Anniversary
of the Oregon Caves National Monument. It is an amazing place, worth
the long travel to visit! Please do what you can to support this
important bill and protect our national treasures.
______
Statement of Carol Ronan, Executive Director, Illinois Valley Family
Coaltion, Cave Junction, OR
The Illinois Valley Family Coalition is a non-profit organization
helping needy families in Cave Junction and other areas in the Illinois
Valley of Southern Oregon. As Executive Director of the Coalition, I
approve and support of S. 1270 to expand the boundary of the Oregon
Caves National Monument. This expansion shall increase visitation to
our community and could have a profoundly positive impact on the needy
families and general economic conditions in our area.
Given that this is the 75th Anniversary of the Chateau, the 100th
Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument and Oregon's
Sesquicentennial, this would be a momentous occasion for our community
and state. This would also be a perpetual gift for the citizens of the
USA now and for generations to come.
I hope you will approve this very worthy legislation.
______
Statement of Dennis H. Strayer, Retired Federal Agency Visitor Center
Manager (1980-2009)
Subject: Letter of Support for the Proposed Expansion of the Oregon
Caves National Monument, Cave Junction, Oregon
To: Whom it May Concern: As the retired Visitor Center Manager of
the Illinois River Valley Center, Cave Junction, Oregon, I would like
to add my personal support for the proposed expansion of the Oregon
Caves National Monument from its existing 480 acres to the proposed
4,000 acres.
During my 26 \1/2\ years as a Federal Agency Visitor Center
Manager, Interpretive Ranger and Naturalist/Historian, I have had the
distinct pleasure of personally guiding grade and middle school
students on day hikes throughout Southern Oregon from 1996 to 2006.
The landscape that surrounds the Oregon Caves National Monument
contain a diverse range of wildlife and plant species that have
traditionally been part of this great natural landscape for thousands
of years.
It is my understanding that the current Grazing Allotment Holder,
of the grazing allotment that is located at the northeast corner of the
watershed that serves as the sole water source for the Oregon Caves
National Monument, is willing to return their allotment to the Federal
Government provided that they are given some financial settlement.
Having this change supported by Congress is essential to both the
safety of visitors and staff at the Oregon Caves National Monument.
The expansion efforts would also provide the current small Oregon
Caves National Monument with a larger land area that has been managed
by the USDA Forest Service--Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest since
1907. This would simply be a land exchange from the USDA Forest Service
to the USDI National Park Service and would provide a significant long
twit benefit not only to the National Monument but to the entire
Illinois Valley by providing an expanded opportunity to hike and enjoy
lands under the expanded Oregon Caves National Monument.
I urge each member of Congress (U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate) to support the proposed Expansion of the Oregon Caves
National Monument. It would be a legacy that would be enjoyed by both
local citizens and visitors alike for years to come.
______
Statement of Rachel Goodman, L.M.T., Cave Junction, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks: As a small business owner in Cave
Junction and the Illinois Valley here in Southern Oregon, I want to
submit my approval of S. 1270 (and its twin HR 2889) and support this
legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National
Monument. This expansion shall increase visitation and improve the
drinking water at the Oregon Caves Chateau.
Additionally, it will be a nice touch and a generous gift to the
American people to do this while we are celebrating the 75th
Anniversary of the Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument and Oregon's Sesquicentennial. Thank you.
______
Statement of Michael Yanase, Yanase Jewelers, Kerby, OR
To the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Parks: We are small Southwest Oregon business
owners living here in the Illinois Valley. We would very much like to
submit, to you, our approval of S. 1270 (and it's `twin H.R. 2889) and
support this legislation to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves
National Monument. This expansion will increase visitation, improve the
drinking water at the Oregon Caves Chateau and protect the many
resources associated with the Monument.
It would prove a perfect match and a generous gift to U.S. citizens
for this to happen while we are celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the
Chateau, the 100th Anniversary of the Oregon Caves National Monument
and Oregon's Sesquicentennial.
______
Statement of Katherine Mechling, M.D., Clear Creek Family Practice,
Selma, OR
Re: Expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument
To: Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources and
Subcommittee of National Parks
Dear Committee members: I strongly support the expansion of the
Oregon Caves National Monument for many reasons. This is an area of
incredible beauty and unique biological diversity. I have personally
hiked and studied the bird, plant and moss populations of the Caves
National Monument and surrounding areas, and I have never seen anything
so rich. It is also clear that there are many discoveries right here to
be made. All of the most important pharmaceuticals have come from
discovering new organisms. Some pivotal climate change research is
happening at the Caves.
I am the only physician in Selma, Oregon, and I have been the
medical advisor for the paramedics at the Caves National Monument for
several years. It is a place where anyone can go, no matter their
health, and almost always find a place alone in the forest, where they
can hear the sounds our ears are supposed to hear and smell the smelts
we are supposed to smell, and feel connected to the life on Earth.
Please vote to expand the Oregon Caves National Monument.