[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3786, H.R. 3942 and H.R. 4622
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 7, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-480 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Chris Cannon, Utah Hilda L. Solis, California
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Jim Gibbons, Nevada
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 7, 2002...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 3942.......................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 3786, H.R. 3942 and H.R. 4622. 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Davidson, Todd, Vice Chairman, Western States Tourism Policy
Council, Portland, Oregon.................................. 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 25
Hale, Betsey, Commissioner, Montrose County, Colorado........ 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 35
Loomis, Laura, Director of Visitor Experience, National Parks
Conservation Association, Washington, D.C.................. 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 38
Manning, Gloria, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C............................................ 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 15
Ring, Richard G., Associate Director, Park Operations and
Education, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.................................. 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 3786.......................... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 3942.......................... 20
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management
and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 7
Thomas, Stephen, Northern Plains Regional Director, Sierra
Club, Sheridan, Wyoming.................................... 43
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 45
Warren, Bob, Chairman, National Alliance of Gateway
Communities, Redding, California........................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 4622.......................... 30
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3786, To revise the boundary of the Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona; H.R.
3942, To adjust the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site,
and for other purposes; and H.R. 4622, To require Federal land managers
to support, and to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with,
designated gateway communities, to improve the ability of gateway
communities to participate in Federal land management planning
conducted by the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the
Interior, and to respond to the impacts of the public use of the
Federal lands administered by these agencies, and for other purposes.
----------
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the
Subcommittee this afternoon. The Subcommittee will come to
order. We will be addressing testimony on three bills today,
H.R. 3786, H.R. 3942 and H.R. 4622. Our first bill, H.R. 3786,
is introduced by our Subcommittee colleague, Chris Cannon of
Utah, and would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreational
Area in the States of Utah and Arizona as well as increase the
overall acreage ceiling for the park unit.
Our second bill, H.R. 3942, is introduced by our Committee
colleague, Mr. George Miller of California, and would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary of the
John Muir National Historic Site to settle an ownership
question over a small tract of land within the historic site.
The last bill is H.R. 4622, which I introduced and would
require Federal land managers to support, communicate
coordinate and cooperate with ``gateway communities'' with
units of the National Park System, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service lands, Bureau of Land Management holdings and U.S.
forest service lands.
I strongly believe that good communication, coordination,
cooperation between gateway communities and Federal land
managers can have an enormously positive impact upon these
lands and the communities that surround them. Too often there
is a sour relationship between Federal land managers and
gateway communities due to poor communication and coordination.
Those who view this legislation as something that is
designed to help the gateway communities themselves are
unfortunately viewing the legislation too narrowly and
discounting the positive environmental benefits to the parks,
forests, refuges and public lands that these good relationships
can offer. I think we will hear from witnesses today who will
attest to the positive environmental impact that good
coordination and good information can have on national parks,
not to mention the positive impact upon the local gateway
community.
As we examine this issue, it has been interesting to note,
generally speaking, that agencies whose procedures and policies
require close coordination generally enjoy better relationships
with their gateway communities than agencies that don't. Last
month, this Subcommittee examined the 2001 National Park
Service management policies. These policies very broadly direct
the local superintendent to monitor and actively participate in
local planning and zoning decisions.
In my mind, it would be unconscionable to expect that the
local gateway communities should not enjoy a reciprocal
relationship in which they are an active and meaningful
participant in the same manner. I believe good coordination,
communication and cooperation as the basis for informed
decisionmaking and the very basis of good public policy.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about
how this might be achieved. At this time, I ask unanimous
consent that Congressman Miller be permitted to sit on the dais
following the testimony. Without objection, so ordered. And I
would like to thank all of our witnesses today especially those
who have traveled from the west coast. We appreciate you being
here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee
on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands
Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee
will come to order. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on three bills: H.R.
3786, H.R. 3942, and H.R. 4622.
Our first bill, H.R. 3786, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague
Chris Cannon of Utah, would authorize the Secretary of Interior to
revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the
States of Utah and Arizona as well as increase the overall acreage
ceiling for the park unit.
Our second bill, H.R. 3942, introduced by our Committee colleague
George Miller of California, would authorize the Secretary of Interior
to adjust the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site to
settle an ownership question over a small tract within the Historic
Site.
The last bill, H.R. 4622, which I introduced, would require Federal
land managers to support, and communicate, coordinate, and cooperate
with ``gateway'' communities near units of the National Park System,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, Bureau of Land Management
holdings, and U.S. Forest Service lands. I strongly believe that good
communication, coordination, and cooperation between gateway
communities and federal land managers can have an enormously positive
impact upon these lands and the communities that surround them. Too
often there is a sour relationship between federal land managers and
gateway communities due to poor communication and coordination.
Those who view this legislation only as something that is designed
to help the gateway communities themselves are unfortunately viewing
the legislation too narrowly and discounting the positive environmental
benefits to the parks, forests, refuges, and public lands that these
good relationships can foster. I think we will hear from witnesses
today who can attest to the positive environmental impact that good
coordination and good information can have upon the parks, not to
mention the positive impact upon the local gateway community. As we
have examined this issue, it has been interesting to note that,
generally speaking, agencies whose procedures and policies require
close coordination generally enjoy better relationships with their
gateway communities than agencies that do not.
Last month, this Subcommittee examined the 2001 National Park
Service Management Policies. These policies very broadly direct the
local superintendent to monitor and actively participate in local
planning and zoning decisions. In my mind, it would be unconscionable
to expect that the local gateway communities should not enjoy a
reciprocal relationship in which they are active and meaningful
participants in the same manner. I believe good coordination,
communication, and cooperation as the basis for informed decision
making are the very basis of good public policy. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses today about how this might be achieved.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Miller be
permitted to sit on the dais following his testimony. Without
objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses today, especially those
who had to travel from the West Coast. We appreciate your being here
today.
______
And I understand Mrs. Christensen is on her way, but she is
not here yet. With that, I think we are going to our first
witness on H.R. 3942 to adjust the boundary of the John Muir
National Historic Site and further purposes.
George, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much and thank you for
scheduling me to testify at this time on this legislation. This
is a not monumental bill, although it is dealing with a
monumental person, John Muir. My home district has the
residence of John Muir in that district, and matter of fact, it
is in my hometown of Martinez, California, where the Park
Service has been able to preserve the house and the orchards
and much of the land around this home for historical
significance.
In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to expand the Muir
historic site. Included within the boundary was a 3.3 acre
parcel owned by the city of Martinez, which was later donated
to the National Park Service. Following a survey conducted as
part of the development of the general management plan, we
discovered there is a two-tenths of an acre triangle adjacent
to the newly acquired land that did not belong to the city. In
fact, we can't show that it belongs to anyone at the moment,
which is unusual for California.
The 9,500-square-foot parcel did not have a tax assessor,
parcel number, no taxes have been collected since the 1960's.
It appears the time when we were widening Highway 4, the land
around this area was acquired--a larger parcel next to it was
acquired from a Mary Pereira. Interestingly with all the
Pereiras we have, we cannot find an heir to Mary Pereira in the
area and obviously the park service would now like to be able
to acquire this land.
It is not very large, but it is very important because it
would help us deal with the issue of parking. We have a number
of festivals, a number of events. And just on weekends, people
who now want to hike Mount Wanda, want to tour the John Muir
home, picnic in the orchards, is growing every year, but it is
on a very busy street with very little parking. This would
allow us to add parking for 32 vehicles. It would allow us to
have, during the week, parking for school buses and school
children that come and visit this site. And it is our hope that
we would be able to provide for this transfer.
We would--the bill would allow the Park Service to acquire
the land if an heir or former owner is identified or condemn
the property if no heir is found. And it is fairly simple and
straightforward. I must say that in all my time of riding out
here and driving by on the freeway, I always thought why isn't
this land used for parking? And then I found out nobody knew
who owned it. Now they want to use it for parking, and I think
it would be a great benefit to the historic site. And I
appreciate your consideration of this legislation.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on H.R. 3942, a bill to
adjust the boundary of the John Muir National Historic Site.
My district is home to the residence of John Muir, his orchards,
and Mt. Wanda, named for his daughter. In addition to its historical
significance, the former Muir estate provides valuable open space in
the rapidly growing Bay Area. In 1988 Congress enacted legislation to
expand the John Muir Historic Site. Included within the boundary of the
site expansion was a 3.3 acre parcel owned by the City of Martinez
which was later donated to the National Park Service. Following a
survey conducted as part of the development of the General Management
Plan, the Park Service discovered that a .2 acre triangle adjacent to
the newly acquired parcel did not belong to the City. In fact, it did
not belong to anyone.
The 9,500-square-foot parcel of land did not have a tax assessor
parcel number and thus, the County tax assessor has not collected taxes
on it since the 1960s. It appears that fee title to this area became
ambiguous when the California Department of Public Works (now known as
the California Department of Transportation) was acquiring lands for
rights of way for State Route 4, which now intersects the Muir estate.
During the process, a larger parcel adjacent to the Muir site was
acquired in fee from the estate of Mary Pereira. The California
Department of Public Works had only acquired the smaller parcel in
question through a temporary easement which expired in 1967. Despite
extraordinary measures to identify relatives or heirs of Mary Pereira,
the Park Service has failed to locate a potential owner of this parcel.
In order to meet the growing needs of site users, the Park Service
would greatly benefit from a boundary adjustment to finally put to rest
the question of property title to this small triangle of land.
Enactment of this legislation would allow the Park Service to either
acquire the land if an heir or former owner is identified or condemn
the property if an heir is not found. Once the title to the land is
clear, the Park Service would be free to begin construction on a 32
vehicle parking area that would utilize the .2 acre parcel. This 9,500
square foot addition would allow the proposed parking area to
accommodate school buses and provide 12 additional parking spaces.
I urge this subcommittee to bring this bill to the floor as soon as
possible. As I said earlier, this is a completely non-controversial
boundary adjustment which is supported by Contra Costa County and the
City of Martinez. Enactment of this legislation allows the Park Service
to enhance public understanding of John Muir's contributions while also
facilitating access to an important recreation area in my district.
Thank you for your time today, I am pleased to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. With that, we will go ahead and begin with
our second panel which includes the honorable Lynn Scarlett,
who is the Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget
of the Department of Interior; Ms. Gloria Manning, Associate
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System; and Richard Ring,
the Associate Director of Park Operations and Education for the
National Park Service.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Committee and go ahead
and get settled. Normally we have 5-minute presentations from
each of the witnesses and then we ask the full panel questions
afterwards. I am going to deviate from that a little bit as
Lynn Scarlett needs to leave fairly quickly so we will hear her
testimony and offer a few questions and open it up for
questions and then go on to the testimony of the remaining
panel.H.R. 4622
Mr. Radanovich. So Ms. Scarlett, welcome and good to have
you before the Committee and please begin your presentation.
STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you. Delighted to be here. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Lynn Scarlett,
Assistant Secretary of Policy Management and Budget at the
Department of Interior. I thank you for this opportunity to be
before you to discuss the department's views on H.R. 4622, the
Gateway Communities Cooperation Act of 2002. I would like to
note that the department strongly supports H.R. 4622 and its
goals of increasing communication, cooperation and coordination
between Federal land managers and the local communities
impacted by the decisions of our land managers.
As you are well aware, the Department's eight bureaus
manage more than one out of every five acres of land in the
United States. Lands under our jurisdiction include vast
multiple use areas and our bureaus host almost half a billion
visitors a year, creating economic opportunities for
communities across the country. As with the countless species
that depend on land to sustain life, many families in these
communities also depend on this land for community and economic
well-being.
Given this, we realize that the resource management
decisions that we take can greatly impact these local
communities and the people who live in them. Often these
impacts are especially felt by the gateway communities that are
adjacent to our Federal lands. As a result, we realize that
work in partnership with the people who live on private lands
bordering our national parks, our national wildlife refuges and
other Federal lands is extremely important.
Recognizing this dynamic, the administration has been
promoting a new era of conservation that will help build
healthier environments, dynamic economies, and sustainable
communities. At the center of the Department's plan to
implement this new environmentalism is what Secretary Norton
has termed the four Cs, conservation through cooperation,
communication and consultation. The focus of the four Cs rests
on the belief that enduring conservation indeed springs from
partnerships involving people that live on, work on and love
the land. Our land managing bureaus are implementing this
collaborative approach, and as I mentioned earlier, they are
working with gateway communities.
These communities are often subject to unusual pressures
and problems including those brought by their popularity as
entry points to visitors onto Federal lands. As a result, they
may incur particular costs for additional services, law
enforcement, for example, search and rescue and many public
works as well. Mutual benefits flow from cooperating with these
communities. Gateway communities often take on the additional
infrastructure and environmental duties that come with the
visitors headed to nearby Federal lands. This has the effect of
reducing pressure on Federal resources while stimulating
gateway economies.
In my written statement, I gave several examples of how the
Department has worked cooperatively in the recent past with
gateway communities. Our goal is to build upon these efforts
and to buildupon this progress of partnerships. For example,
the Department is now striving to ensure that all of its
management and policy decisions are made using a collaborative
approach with States and local communities. The Department
believes that H.R. 4622 will positively promote this goal
across land management agencies by requiring agencies more
effectively to communicate, coordinate and cooperate with the
communities affected by their management decisions.
Given the short time I have, I would like to offer just a
few thoughts on some additional issues the Committee might want
to consider addressing in this bill. First, for example, the
bill's collaborative approach might be strengthened by calling
on agencies to develop and use incentives when possible to
encourage staff to more effectively communicate, coordinate and
cooperate with gateway communities. We also note that the bill
does not address the status of tribal governments and
communities on reservation lands as potential gateway
communities and believe this should be considered for inclusion
in the bill. The administration also shares your desire to
increase local government participation as cooperating agencies
under NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality, as you know,
recently issued guidance to facilitate that result. We would
like to work with you and build language to address our concern
with the provisions addressing cooperative agency provisions.
In closing, the Department believes that this legislation,
if enacted, will result in better land management decisions
accruing to the benefit of private and public lands and the
people who live and work on them. The path to the new
environmentalism moves us away from conflict and toward
peaceful problem solving and partnership. H.R. 4622 begins to
move us down that path by requiring better communication,
coordination and cooperation between Federal land and gateway
communities and their citizens. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Lynn Scarlett,
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department). This is my first occasion to
testify before you, and I thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on H.R. 4622, the ``Gateway Communities Cooperation
Act of 2002.'' The Department strongly supports H.R. 4622 and its goals
of increasing communication, cooperation, and coordination between
federal land managers and the local communities impacted by federal
land management decisions. At this time, the Department would like to
offer a few suggested enhancements; when the Administration completes
its review of the bill, we will forward any other amendments that the
Administration believes necessary to improve the legislation.
The Department's eight bureaus manage more than one out of every
five acres of land in the United States, with most of these lands in
the West. For example, the Department manages 72 percent of Nevada,
almost 50 percent of Utah, and 62 percent of Alaska. Lands under our
jurisdiction include vast multiple-use areas, and our bureaus host
almost half a billion visitors a year, creating economic engines for
communities across the country. However, population growth and economic
expansion have increased pressures on our undeveloped land, water
resources, and wildlife.
While countless species depend on the land to sustain life,
families depend on the land for community and economic well-being.
Given this, we realize that the resource management decisions we make
can greatly impact local communities and the people who live in them.
Often these impacts are especially felt by ``gateway'' communities--
including those on Indian Reservations--that are adjacent to our
federal lands. As a result, we realize that we must work in partnership
with the people who live on the private lands that border our National
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and other federal lands, and work on
those lands or have access to resources on those lands.
Recognizing this dynamic, the Administration has been promoting a
new era of conservation--a ``new environmentalism''--that will help
build a healthier environment, dynamic economies, and sustainable
communities. At the center of the Department's plan to implement this
new environmentalism are what Secretary Norton has termed the ``Four
C's''--Communication, Consultation, and Cooperation, all in the service
of Conservation. The focus of the Four C's is the belief that enduring
conservation springs from partnerships involving the people who live
on, work on, and love the land.
The Department's land managing bureaus are implementing this
collaborative approach. And, as I mentioned earlier, they are working
with gateway communities. These communities are often subject to
unusual pressures and problems, including those brought about by their
popularity as entry points for visitors onto federal lands. They may
also incur costs for additional services such as law enforcement,
search and rescue, and public works.
Mutual benefits flow from cooperating with these communities.
Gateway communities often take on the additional infrastructure and
environmental duties that come with visitors headed to nearby federal
lands. This has the effect of reducing the pressure on federal
resources while stimulating gateway economic growth and creating jobs
in those communities.
If I may take a moment, I would like to relate several examples of
how the Department has worked in the recent past with gateway
communities to jointly address--and solve--a variety of issues. We view
these as examples of real success and we look to build on this
progress.
The town of Sonoita, Arizona, is the gateway to the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) Las Cienega National Conservation Area (NCA). Local
citizens formed the Sonoita Planning Partnership, which produced a
proposed land-use plan for the NCA that provides for partnerships
between public land managers and the Sonoita community. The plan--which
is the BLM's preferred alternative for NCA management--provides the
community with the means to articulate and achieve its goals in the
NCA's management. The plan is a performance-based plan that relies on
incentives and flexibility to achieve common land-use goals.
Collaborative efforts between the community of Springdale, Utah,
and Zion National Park arose out of necessity because of the impact of
a steadily growing number of park visitors. To address the large
numbers of tourists, the park and community engaged in a joint planning
effort to establish a shuttle system between the city and the park,
with multiple shuttle stations in Springdale. City residents ride the
shuttle free of charge. The effect of the shuttle has been positive;
the local economy has gained from more visitor dollars, which have been
used to finance landscape and other improvements throughout the
community. This, in turn, has attracted even more tourist business. The
success of this initiative has led to further collaboration between the
city and the park, including joint trail design and construction. Park
staff have even volunteered to paint buildings in the town. More
recently, the city and park began work on design guidelines to help
protect the community's small town character.
Bluff, Utah, is the gateway community to a culturally rich and
highly popular public recreation area at the confluence of the San Juan
River and Cottonwood Wash. Faced with increasing numbers of visitors,
the community formed a local non-profit organization to address the
unique problems of being a gateway community. The Bluff City Historic
Preservation Association was formed, which helped create a Bluff
historic district, preserve an Anasazi Great House and pioneer
cemetery, as well as establish a conservation easement on 25 acres of
Calf Canyon to protect Anasazi relics. The Association has also worked
on a 100-acre community preserve and trail system connecting the town
to key historic sites and open spaces, as well as BLM lands along the
San Juan River. The effort has improved the economic well-being of the
community from conservation activities linked to its gateway status.
In 1994 Grand County, Utah, signed the Sand Flats Agreement with
the BLM. Sand Flats is a 7,000-acre BLM recreational area outside Moab,
Utah. It is highly popular, particularly with mountain bikers. In the
early 1990s, its popularity increased so much that the BLM was no
longer able to manage and police the area. Under the 1994 agreement,
fee collection was turned over to the county, and the receipts were
made available to the county for use in managing and policing the
highly popular recreational area. The program has proven very
successful. The county has been able to control tourism in a way
compatible with the wishes of its citizens; the BLM now has a signature
recreation area; and the Sand Flats area is available to users with
certain safety and enjoyment. The agreement has also resulted in a more
vigorous tourist trade to benefit the local economy.
Finally, the town of Dubois, Wyoming, is the gateway to some of
that State's most scenic and visited high country. The mountains around
Dubois--all on federal land--are home to the largest bighorn sheep herd
in the country. With this in mind, the town brought together federal
and state agencies and economic development and conservation groups to
create the National Bighorn Sheep Center. The Center operates a museum
for visitors, provides educational programs for school children, and
performs bighorn sheep research. The facility, located in downtown
Dubois, helps attract thousands of visitors each year who, in turn,
significantly boost the local economy.
These are just a few examples of the efforts in which the
Department's bureaus have been engaged with gateway communities. As I
previously noted, the Department is currently striving to ensure that
all of its management and policy decisions are made using a
collaborative approach. The Department believes, however, that H.R.
4622 will positively promote this goal across land management agencies
by affirmatively requiring agencies to more effectively communicate,
coordinate, and cooperate with the communities that are affected by
their management decisions. The Department also believes that this
affirmative requirement could be strengthened by calling on the
agencies to develop and use incentives, when possible, to encourage
staff to more effectively communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with
gateway communities. Moreover, the relationships created will stimulate
the long-term stability needed for investment in these communities.
As an initial matter, the Department notes that the legislation
does not address the status of Tribal governments and communities on
reservation lands as potential gateway communities. Many of these
communities would similarly benefit from the collaborative approach
fostered by this legislation.
The Department believes that H.R. 4622 fosters more effective
decision-making by requiring agencies to involve officials from
impacted communities early in the development of federal plans,
programs, regulations and decisions; by requiring federal agencies to
provide local officials with plain-English summaries of the
assumptions, purposes, goals, and objectives of decisions, as well as
any anticipated impacts on the community; and by providing these
communities, to the extent practicable, with early public notice of
proposed decisions that may significantly impact them.
The bill also makes community input more potent by requiring that
federal land agencies provide training to gateway community officials
to ensure that they understand agency planning processes and
opportunities for participation. Further, the legislation's requirement
that agencies assist communities in reviewing plans and policies and,
where practicable, provide technical assistance to help localities
better develop data and analysis of agency plans will further
strengthen this collaborative relationship.
The legislation provides a framework for increased cooperation by
allowing, where possible, federal land management agencies to enter
into cooperative agreements with gateway communities to coordinate
planning and management between agencies and those communities, to
facilitate cooperative conservation, and to consolidate planning to
facilitate the participation of local communities in the process. The
legislation does not, however, address direct gateway community
involvement in federal land management, such as indicated by the model
of the Sand Flats Agreement. The success of this agreement is notable
and its adoption elsewhere could help both small towns and federal land
managers better serve the general public. The Administration shares
your desire to increase local government participation as Cooperating
Agencies under NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality recently
issued guidance to facilitate that result. We will work with you on
bill language to address our concern with the provisions addressing
Cooperating Agency status.
Finally, a discretionary grant program will ensure that small
communities, which may not have the funds to carry out large-scale
planning or analysis, are given the opportunity to fully and
constructively participate in the process.
Looking back, one of the ideas behind the National Environmental
Policy Act was that informed decision-making would result in the making
of better decisions. The Department believes that this legislation, if
enacted, will result in better land management decisions accruing to
the benefit of private and public lands and the people who live and
work on them. The path to the new environmentalism moves us away from
conflict and toward peaceful problem-solving and partnership. H.R. 4622
begins to move us down that path by requiring better communication,
coordination, and cooperation between federal land and gateway
communities and their citizens.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I do have a couple questions that I would
like to ask, if I may. As I mentioned earlier, we will ask
questions of this witness and then go on to the following
witnesses, as the Assistant Secretary needs to leave fairly
soon. So I do have a question, and that is, it has been stated
that the legislation that we are speaking of here today would
have a positive effect on local economies. But can you offer an
opinion about how legislation like this could also possibly
result in more positive environmental benefits?
Ms. Scarlett. I think there are many opportunities. One of
the examples we stated in our written testimony of a
collaborative and cooperative effort between a gateway
community and our national parks was in Zion National Parks,
when that community teamed up with our national park to develop
a shuttle system going between the park and the community. Of
course, that means fewer cars, fewer emissions, much less of
the problems that come attached to that. So that would be one
example.
But there are many others that one could imagine in terms
of resource protection efforts cooperating. I have been
recently on the Channel Islands opposite California Santa
Barbara coast, where the Nature Conservancy owns a small piece
of land, and the parks own the rest and they have an invasive
species effort they are working jointly on. Many other
communities around the Nation face similar challenges, and this
cooperation could facilitate that effort.
Mr. Radanovich. Do you believe that this bill, H.R. 4622,
would weaken or strengthen NEPA or NEPA process?
Ms. Scarlett. I think it could unequivocally enhance the
NEPA process. NEPA has always been intended as a process to
encourage participation and engagement of the citizens and the
communities in which they live. What this does is to really put
front and center stage in the minds of our public land managers
the importance of engaging early on those potential publics and
those potential communities. So I think they work as
complements in a very positive way.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. One last question. Do
you think that H.R. 4622 in effect might actually help local
governments and the National Park Service save money and be
more efficient with the money that it does have to spend?
Ms. Scarlett. Again, I will point to the Zion National Park
example as exemplary of what we might expect. In that
particular example, you could have envisioned the situation in
which the Park Service proceeded to develop a transportation
infrastructure completely separate from the gateway community
in which or with which it worked. Ultimately by working
together, they were able instead of duplicating to complement
and provide a single service. So you can envision all manner of
similar kinds of endeavors that would avoid duplication,
enhance efficiency and therefore improve the overall community,
public land and the gateway communities infrastructure.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Scarlett. And I
would like to recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands,
Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize
for getting here late and I did miss some of your testimony.
But let me ask, as you know, I represent at least one of my
islands that has a large park presence. And while we may get
some complaints, it is usually because they disagree with the
decisions not necessarily because they have had the opportunity
to provide input. But are you aware of any circumstances where
local communities have been denied access or the opportunity to
communicate with Federal land management--because it seems to
me that they are usually are there and there are usually
several hearings, as a matter of fact. And are there instances
where the access to the Federal land managers and their ability
to communicate has been denied?
Ms. Scarlett. Let me give two responses to that. On the one
hand, you are absolutely right to point out there have been
many opportunities and many instances of cooperation, and we
celebrate and applaud those instances, and I gave the example
of Zion National Park as one example. There are others. But by
the same token, we have had experiences or situations where the
public land managers have not necessarily gone that extra mile,
not simply to provide some opportunity kind of late in some
decisionmaking stage to comment on decisions being made but
rather right up front, being involved in thinking through what
opportunities might be.
I gave the Zion National Park instance where the gateway
community worked with Zion National Park right up front to
think about how they could join their transportation
infrastructure and work together. That occurred because of the
particular motivation of the park superintendent at the time,
an individual I have had an opportunity to meet. It was really
his initiative and his inspiration. But we do not find that
same kind of vigor necessarily occurring all across our public
lands. And this bill, we believe, would put this on all our
public land managers' radar screens so they would think right
from the beginning let us cooperate, not simply provide a kind
of reactive forum for comment, but a proactive engagement and
cooperation and upfront communication and see if we can't
cooperatively solve problems.
Mrs. Christensen. I had another question as to the
interpretation of the phrase meaning for public involvement,
but is that what you mean? And isn't that already implicitly
included in the NEPA--in NEPA?
Ms. Scarlett. I think of course, participation can go along
a continuum from comment to more upfront generation of ideas.
And I think what this bill would do and what we have seen, but
only seen in its inception, is for our public land managers to
reach out right at the early stages of any challenge or any
problem and to identify, perhaps, common issues and new ideas
and initiatives that might really address problems that might
not have been identified just in the park manager or the
wildlife refuge management tool kit.
So yes, you are right. We have to have a lot of public
processes that allow commentary. I think the idea here is to go
beyond commentary to tap those creative ideas right at the
beginning and get better results as a consequence.
Mrs. Christensen. Based on the experience and the issues
that my community deals with, I don't disagree that there is a
need for that kind of proactive involvement in the community
from the park, but it just seems to me that it is mainly an
administrative function. However, Mr. Chairman, I would be
happy to work with you on your bill--well, we would be happy to
work with you on your bill and see how it comes out. I have
mixed feelings about the bill because there is the opportunity
for meaningful public involvement already. I agree, though,
that it isn't uniformly applied throughout the park system.
And with that, I will just withhold any further questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen. Are
there any other questions of the witness?
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. I don't have any questions. I would just say
that I am pleased to hear Secretary Scarlett say that they are
attempting to move away from conflict in this new
environmentalism, I think you said, and trying to develop much
more collaboration with the local and State agencies. I might
just say, you know, in the past there has been a problem
because in some of these things--maybe not most, but some in
the Park Service and some in the Forest Service and some in the
BLM have moved in and they have people who come in and they are
brand new to an area and just because they have a Ph.D. Or
Master's degree, maybe they don't realize it, but they seem to
have an attitude of looking down on some of the local people
who have lived there all their lives.
And then they say well, we got public involvement and the
public they talked to the most are the other people who have
just moved in in the last 2 or 3 years. And there is a big
difference at the way people look at land when they have lived
their all their lives as opposed to people who have just moved
in or just been there for a year or 2.
And I hope that in some of your training programs that you
will attempt to point that out, because this is not supposed to
be a government of, by and for the bureaucrats. It is still
supposed to be a government of, by and for the people.
Everybody who works for the Park Service, Forest Service or BLM
are supposed to be working for people who they might not like
and might look down on but they are still supposed--local
people are supposed to be their bosses and not the other way
around. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you Mr. Duncan. And I would like to
interject. I spent most of my life living next to Yosemite
National Park in Mariposa, California and probably have gone
through at least 10 superintendents in Yosemite National Park.
And it has been very interesting to--each superintendent comes
with their own personality mix and their own idea about their
role as a national park director, and in some cases some
believe that the--that everything stopped at the border of the
national park and didn't go beyond its borders. And we have
enjoyed good relationships, I think, with the past few
superintendents at Yosemite because they are making that effort
to reach out but they are not required to.
And you are not under any control of the superintendent
that does go into the area. I think under existing law they can
or they don't have to if they don't want to. And that is why we
felt the need because we see the obvious benefits of a good
working relationship, both for the park and for the outlying
communities.
One other thing I did want to go into the record while we
are here is the testimony of Congressman Chris Hansen on H.R.--
Chris Cannon on H.R. 3786, and it is his personal testimony. I
would like to submit his testimony for the record and if there
is no objection, so ordered. And on this one, I would like to
read in for the record, a memo from July, 1999, from George
Frampton, the then acting Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality, a memo from him to the heads of Federal agencies,
wherein he stated that the purpose of this memorandum is to
urge agencies to more actively solicit in the future the
participation of State, tribal and local governments as
cooperating agencies in implementing the environmental impact
statement process under the national poll--Environmental Policy
Act as soon as practicable, but no later than the scoping
process. Federal agency officials should identify State, tribal
and local agencies which have jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to reasonable alternatives or
significant environmental, social or economic impacts
associated with a proposed action that requires the preparation
of an environmental impact statement.
So, with that, Secretary Scarlett, I want to thank you for
being here with us and do appreciate your testimony.
Mrs. Christensen. I just wanted to say, this is your first
time before the Subcommittee?
Ms. Scarlett. That's correct.
Mrs. Christensen. I am remiss in not welcoming you to the
Subcommittee. Thanks for being here and thanks for your
testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary and
with that, you are excused and thank you for being patient, the
other members of the panel.
Next to speak is Ms. Gloria Manning, the associate deputy
chief of the National Forest System. Gloria, welcome back to
the Committee. It is good to see you again. And you may begin
your testimony and we will go on with the testimony of Mr. Ring
and then we will open the panel for questions.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM
Ms. Manning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
Gloria Manning, associate deputy chief of National Forest
System, USDA Forest Service. I am here to provide the
Department's views on H.R. 4622, the Gateway Communities
Cooperation Act. The Department supports this bill. Enactment
of H.R. 4622 would require Federal land managers to take
specific action regarding designated gateway communities for
the purpose of improving the ability of these communities to
participate in Federal land management planning conducted by
the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of Interior.
In addition, we would have to respond to the impacts which
our management imposes. Specifically, H.R. 4622 includes
improving agency relationships with the communities, enhancing
facilities and services that are compatible with management of
the lands and result in better local land use planning and
decisions by Federal managers. The importance in recognizing
and responding to the needs of communities to the gateways of
national forests is unquestionable.
This principle forms the very core of Secretary Veneman's
and Chief Bosworth's desire to establish cooperative
relationships at local levels for all Forest Service
decisionmaking processes. We believe that the required action
and responses and desired outcomes indicated in H.R. 4622 are
compatible with the current Forest Service support to land
management planning under existing statutes.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to briefly describe our ongoing work
with local communities relevant to land management planning.
The Forest Service considers gateway communities as vital
partners in delivering services to forest visitors and helping
us accomplish our agency mission. District rangers are
generally our first point of contact for community queries and
involvement. Across the entire National Forest System, we work
closely with local communities, including those that would be
designated under H.R. 4622 as gateway to coordinate with them
on our management actions and involve them in our
decisionmaking to the maximum extent feasible.
We are extremely committed to and interested in building
and maintaining strong mutually beneficial relationships with
these communities. Many of our national forest units have
actively involved local community people in training
opportunities both as providers to the agency of local
expertise and insight and as learners to better understand
agency planning processes and the venues through which they can
help.
Under the current statutes, forest service involvement with
communities extends well beyond land management planning to
very innovative projects and partnership that support and
benefit local community services and activities which
contribute to multiple use outcomes under land and resource
management plan. A key benefit of this extended involvement is
the building of a solid foundation of relationship and trust
that is absolutely essential for successfully working together
on the specific issues and processes of land management
planning. The agency has staff members from national
headquarters to forest level units working on behalf of
community involvement interests, including those that would be
designated as gateway communities.
We have several examples of successfully working with local
communities. We have been working on the Dixie National Forest
with 75 rural communities in four Utah counties. We have been
working on the Lincoln in New Mexico, the San Juan in Colorado,
especially one of the things we are most proud of is the San
Juan Skyway, all American road which was a cooperative
endeavor. We acknowledge and agree with the planning Congress
stated in H.R. 4622, the communities adjacent to our Federal
lands affected by our management action and public use of the
land that the communities contribute to our mission through
provision of services and products to both our employees and
those who visit our lands.
The gateway communities serve as point of entry and source
of service and information for Federal land visitors and that
our coordination and communication with communities is
essential to prevent unintended consequences of agency's
decisions. We feel we have several authorities that allow us to
do this, including as was mentioned earlier, the National
Environmental Protection Act, the National Forest Management
Act, the Economic Diversification Act of 1960, Public Law
105277 section 322, better known by most of you as the Wyden
amendment.
We have partnership authorities, Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act of 1968 that authorized Forest Service to
provide services to States or subdivisions of States. Those are
the key authorities in which the Forest Service involves and
assists local communities carrying out its land management
project and coordination activities.
In general, we believe these authorities support a broad
range of community involvement and technical assistance to
gateway communities. We do, however, recognize the need for
improved interagency planning policy for gateway communities
within similar regional geographic and customer marketed areas
that contain multiple Federal land management activities.
Therefore, we think this bill is important. Mr. Chairman,
we want to continue working with you and the Committee to
explore possible improvements, especially to the interagency
policies for joint land management planning and assistance to
affected local communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me this opportunity
to testify on H.R. 4622 and the Department supports this bill.
Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Manning. I
appreciate your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]
Statement of Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Gloria Manning, Associate
Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. I am
here today to provide the Department's views on H.R. 4622 Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act.
Enactment of H.R. 4622 would require Federal land managers to take
specific actions regarding designated ``gateway communities'' for the
purpose of improving the ability of these communities to participate in
Federal land management planning conducted by the Forest Service and
agencies of the Department of Interior. It would further require our
response to the impacts, which the management of our lands imposes.
Specifically, the requirements of H.R.4622 are to improve agency
relationships with the communities; enhance facilities and services,
when compatible with management of the lands; and result in better
local land use planning and decisions by Federal land managers.
The importance in recognizing and responding to the needs of
communities at the gateways to National Forests is unquestionable. This
principle forms the very core of Secretary Veneman's and Chief
Bosworth's desires to establish cooperative relationships at local
levels for all Forest Service decision-making processes. We believe
that the required actions, responses, and desired outcomes indicated in
H.R. 4622 are compatible with the current Forest Service approach to
land management planning under existing statutes.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to briefly describe our ongoing work with
local communities relevant to land management planning. The Forest
Service considers gateway communities as vital partners in delivering
services to forest visitors and helping us accomplish our agency
mission. District Rangers are generally our first point of contact for
community queries and involvement. Across the entire National Forest
System we work closely with local communities, including those that
would be designated under H.R.4622 as ``gateway'' to coordinate with
them on our management actions and involve them in our decision
processes to the maximum extent feasible. We are extremely committed to
and interested in building and maintaining strong, mutually beneficial
relationships with these communities. Many of our national forest units
have actively involved local community people in training
opportunities--both as providers to the agency of local expertise and
insight and as learners to better understand agency planning processes
and the venues through which they can help.
Under current statutes, Forest Service involvement with communities
extends well beyond land management planning to very innovative
projects and partnerships that support and benefit local community
services and activities which contribute to multiple-use outcomes under
land and resource management plans. A key benefit of this extended
involvement is the building of a solid foundation of relationship and
trust that is absolutely essential for successfully working together on
the specific issues and processes of land management planning. The
agency has staff members from national headquarters to forest-level
units working on behalf of community involvement interests, including
those that would be designated as ``gateway communities.'' The examples
are many, but I will mention five here.
Examples include the Dixie NF working with 75 rural communities in
four Utah counties; the Lincoln NF working with multiple communities
and reservations in New Mexico; the Green Mountain National Forest's
innovative work with communities now bridging into their involvement
with the Forest Plan Revision; the Huron-Manistee National Forests
working with the Oscoda, Michigan school district and community on a
fuel reduction project; and the Gifford Pinchot NF working with
Washington state, the National Park Service, and surrounding
communities in the Mount Rainer area. The latter example reflects our
increasing commitment to interagency partnerships involving local
community participation.
We acknowledge and agree with the findings of Congress stated in
H.R. 4622 that communities adjacent to our Federal lands are affected
by our management actions and public use of the lands; that the
communities contribute to our mission through provision of services and
products to both our employees and to those who visit our lands; that
gateway communities serve as point of entry and source of services and
information for Federal land visitors; and that our coordination and
communication with communities is essential to help prevent unintended
consequences of agency decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I will now briefly discuss the current authorities
under which we do land management planning which require and enable us
to involve local governments across multiple phases of the planning
process, beginning in the earliest stages of discussion. Further, the
agency has authority to form partnerships with local governments and
community leaders, and to provide assistance to rural communities that
can serve to benefit their involvement in our planning processes. This
broad scope of opportunity for community involvement is a priority in
the FS. It serves as a centerpiece in our efforts to accomplish on the
ground results and exceptional service to the public. Specifically,
these key authorities are:
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Section 6 (d) of this
Act requires the Secretary to provide for public participation in the
development, review, and revision of land management plans and
specifies required elements of that participation. The Act further
states how the public is to be involved over the life of the plan. The
specific requirements and procedures for complying with NFMA are
contained in the agency planning regulations at 36 CFR 219. The public
participation requirements apply to all types of communities,
regardless of special designations such as ``gateway.'' Section 6,
paragraphs (a) through (f) of the 1982 regulation specify and enable
participation that both informs and engages individuals in process
activities. Those regulations as revised in 2000 enabled broader
opportunities for communities to be involved through emphasis on
collaboration. Currently, the agency is working on a revision of the
2000 rule (to be published soon as a proposed rule) and it too, will
provide for a broad scope of involvement by local communities. It will
also require our close coordination with other land management agencies
in our mutual planning processes, a factor that will benefit the
ability of communities to better understand and participate in overall
Federal land management activity.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The public
involvement provisions of NEPA are stated in 40 CFR 1506.6 (a) through
(f). This regulation requires, in part, making diligent efforts to
involve the public including local governments in preparing and
implementing NEPA procedures (as is required for land management
plans), and providing public notice of hearings, meetings, and
documents for keeping interested people informed. Forest units exercise
considerable innovation in applying these requirements to community
diversity and expertise for involvement throughout the stages of
planning.
The Forest Service fully complies with letter and intent of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) direction regarding cooperating
Agency status for communities and local governments. Local governments
with special expertise or jurisdiction by law are invited to be a
cooperator in the preparation of environmental assessments (EA) or
environmental impact statements (EIS). Cooperating agencies participate
in the analysis and environmental document preparation process.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). While this involvement
under NFMA and NEPA by community members, including local officials, in
discussions about pending decisions and their anticipated effects is
subject to provisions of the FACA, the Act does not preclude such
involvement nor does it necessarily require that involvement be
formalized and structured under FACA.
The Economic Diversification Act of 1990. The Forest Service also
has authority under this Act to work with dependent rural communities.
This in turn has often been a vehicle for interested communities to get
involved in land management planning activity. Specifically, this
authority is in Section 2371, Subtitle G, Chapter 2, Section 2373, P.L.
101-624, 7 U.S.C. 5511, as amended. The program objectives are to
provide accelerated assistance to rural communities located in or near
a national forest and are economically dependent upon forest resources.
Aid is extended to help them develop strategic plans that can diversify
their economic base and improve overall community well being. In fact,
under the grant opportunities afforded by this Act, Fiscal Year 2001
results show that over 950 communities are operating under strategic
Local Action Plans aimed at helping build local capacity, strengthen
relationships, and diversify local economies. This includes work on
non-timber forest products, heritage tourism, eco-tourism, value-added
wood products, bio-energy, ecosystem restoration, and more. Program
direction and guidance under this Act is through our State and Private
Forestry (S&PF) mission area, specifically the Rural Community
Assistance (RCA) program.
Section 322 of Public Law 105-277. This act, better known as the
Wyden Amendment, is an authority widely used by the Forest Service,
particularly in the West, to provide technical assistance to local
communities. For example, the Siuslaw NF, using this amendment for land
stewardship, developed an agreement with the Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde Reservation. The purpose was to develop a land management
plan alternative for 20,000 acres of NFS lands that are adjacent to
their existing Indian reservation. Although this was a tribal
application of the amendment, it has also been creatively applied to a
variety of community types.
Partnership authorities. A current priority in the Forest Service,
for which we now have authorities, is to form partnerships with local
governments and community leaders. This capability, which we are
working to expand, serves as a centerpiece in our efforts to accomplish
on the ground results and exceptional service to the public. We work on
mutually beneficial projects under the Challenge Cost-Share Authority,
develop educational partnerships under the Co-operative Funds Act. We
have the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 that authorizes the
Forest Service to provide services to states or subdivision of states.
These are the key authorities under which the USDA, Forest Service
involves and assists local communities carrying out its land management
planning and project coordination activities. In general, we believe
these authorities support a broad range of community involvement and
technical assistance to gateway communities. We do however recognize a
need for improved interagency planning policy for gateway communities
within similar regional geographic and customer market areas that
contain multiple federal land management agencies. In particular, the
western part of the country has several major common regional tourism
destinations where National Parks, National Forests and other agencies
all combine to serve the same customers and impact a similar group of
communities. This issue is also manifested for watershed restoration,
fire regime and wildlife habitat range management coordination.
Mr. Chairman, we want to continue working with you and the
committee to explore possible improvements to these interagency
policies for joint land management planning and assistance to affected
local communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me this
opportunity to testify on H.R. 4622. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next is Mr. Richard Ring, associate
director of the Park Operations and Education of the National
Park Service. Mr. Ring welcome. And you may begin your
testimony and thank you for coming to the Committee. I
appreciate it. H.R. 3786
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF PARK
OPERATIONS AND EDUCATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me here today.
I would like to take the opportunity to present the Department
of Interior's views on two bills today, the first is H.R. 3786.
This bill would revise the boundary, authorize a land exchange
and revise the acreage of the Glen Canyon National Recreational
Area in the States of Utah and Arizona. The Department supports
this bill.
A local developer, Mr. Brent Coleman helped initiate the
proposal for the exchange. And although the Service has not yet
appraised the parcels involved, the developer's appraisal
indicates the Service will receive lands with a higher value
than those the Service would exchange, which would remove the
need for any additional land acquisition funds in pursuing this
exchange. The bill would give the Secretary of Interior
authority to exchange the land, to change the current boundary
by adding 152 acres that is currently outside the boundary of
the park, and deleting 370 acres that is currently inside the
park in the area of Kane County, Utah. I believe you have a map
that was provided that shows you the parcel as well as the
location on the boundary of the park.
The bill would also revise the total acreage authorized for
the park from 1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000 acres. This change
would correct the total acreage within the boundary that was
incorrectly identified in the parks enabling legislation.
Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling would not add, by
the way, nor would this exchange add any new facilities,
increase operating costs, or require any additional staffing.
The 152 acres that the Service would acquire as a part of this
exchange are located east of Highway 89, approximately 5 miles
south of Big Water, Utah, and contiguous to the existing park
boundary.
The 370 acres that the Service would exchange are located
west of Highway 89 and are adjacent to privately owned lands.
Although within the boundary of the recreation area, the 370
acres the Service would exchange are physically and visually
isolated from the rest of the recreation area by topographic
features.
The owner of the private land has had an appraisal
completed on the lands that are proposed for exchange. And if
the legislation is enacted, the Service would conduct its own
appraisal of the two parcels as part of an environmental
analysis on the exchange.
The owner's appraisal determined that the 152-acre parcel
which appraised for approximately $5,500 per acre, and which
the Service would receive, was worth approximately seven times
more per acre than the 370-acre parcel that the Service would
give up, which appraised for approximately $750 per acre.
H.R. 3786 would also correct the acreage ceiling error
stated in Public Law 92-593, the 1972 enabling legislation for
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. That law incorrectly
estimated the National Recreation's acreage within the
boundary.
Using the same boundary identified on the map referenced in
1972, the application of modern map reading and geographic
information system technologies have determined that an acreage
of 1,256,000 acres more accurately reflects the amount of land
within the 1972 boundary. This bill and the exchange that it
would authorize would provide an opportunity also for private
development at one of the main access points to lands held
within the Utah school and institutional trust lands
administration could enhance approximately 40,000 acres held by
SITLA. We understand the exchange is also supported by the
State of Utah and Kane County as well. We recommend two minor
technical amendments to the bill, and that concludes my remarks
on H.R. 3786. H.R. 3942
Mr. Ring. I would like to move now to H.R. 3942, which is a
bill to adjust the boundaries of John Muir National Historic
Site in Martinez, California. And Mr. Miller ran down the
particulars of this bill and its situation as well as I could.
We support this bill. It would allow for us to acquire, give us
authority to modify the boundary by a minor amount,
approximately two-tenths of an acre, and allow us to acquire
the property, because after an exhaustive search, we have not
been able to find the owners and we would continue to do this--
attempt to find them, but if we could not, we would acquire it
by clearing title by an eminent domain proceeding.
The general management plan for the park calls for this
area to be developed for parking for visitors to the site and
without this parcel, we would have a tremendous amount of
difficulty developing the adjacent area for that purpose. This
concludes my remarks on both bills and would be happy to take
any questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Ring.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R. 3786 follows:]
Statement of Richard G. Ring, Associate Director, Park Operations and
Education, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
H.R. 3786
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3786. This bill would revise
the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States
of Utah and Arizona.
The Department supports H.R. 3786. The revision of the boundary
would not contribute to the National Park Service (``Service'')
maintenance backlog because the exchange would not result in any
additional facilities, increased operating costs, or additional
staffing. The current owner of the private property to be exchanged
initiated this proposal and although the Service has not yet appraised
the parcels involved, the owner's appraisal indicates that the Service
will receive lands with a higher value than those the Service would
exchange, which should remove the need for any land acquisition funds.
H.R. 3786 would amend Public Law 92-593 and give the Secretary of
the Interior the authority, through an exchange, to change the boundary
of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (``Park'') by adding 152 acres
and deleting 370 acres in Kane County, Utah. The bill would also revise
the authorized acreage of the park from 1,236,880 acres to 1,256,000
acres. This change would correct the total acreage within the park
boundary that was incorrectly identified in the park's enabling
legislation. Correction of the authorized acreage ceiling also would
not add any new facilities, increase operating costs, or require
additional staffing.
The 152 acres that the Service would acquire are located east of
Highway 89, approximately 5 miles south of Big Water, Utah and are
contiguous to the existing park boundary. The 370 acres that the
Service would exchange are located west of Highway 89 and are adjacent
to privately owned lands. Although within the boundary of the
recreation area, the 370 acres are physically and visually isolated
from the rest of the recreation area by topographic features.
The owner of the private land has had an appraisal completed on the
lands that are proposed for exchange. If this legislation is enacted,
the Service would conduct its own appraisal on the two parcels.
However, the owner's appraisal determined that the 152-acre parcel
($5,500 per acre for a total appraised value of $836,000), which the
Service would receive, was worth approximately seven times more per
acre than the 370-acre parcel ($750 per acre for a total appraised
value of $277,500) the Service would exchange.
H.R. 3786 would also correct the acreage ceiling error stated in
Public Law 92-593, the 1972 enabling legislation for Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area. Public Law 92-593 incorrectly estimated Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area's acreage within the boundary to be
1,236,880 acres. Using the same boundary identified on the map
referenced in the 1972 enabling legislation, application of modern map
reading and geographic information system technologies have determined
that an acreage of 1,256,000 acres more accurately reflects the amount
of land within the 1972 boundary.
H.R. 3786 enjoys a broad cross section of support. The nearest
communities to the lands proposed for exchange, Big Water, Utah and
Page, Arizona, recognize the importance of protecting the National
Recreation Area. Also, this exchange would provide an opportunity for
private development at one of the main access points to lands held by
the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA).
Such private development could enhance the 40,000 acres held by SITLA
and is supported by the State of Utah and Kane County, Utah.
We recommend two amendments to the bill. On page 2, line 10, strike
``November 11,'' and insert ``November 30,''. On page 2, line 12,
insert the following after the last period, ``Upon conclusion of the
exchange, the boundary of the recreation area shall be revised to
reflect the exchange. At the time of the exchange, the Secretary shall
place deed restrictions on the area identified on the map as ``No
Development Restricted Area'' in order to preserve the resources of the
recreation area.''.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ring on H.R. 3942 follows:]
Statement of Richard G. Ring, Associate Director, Park Operations and
Education, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
H.R. 3942
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Interior's views on H.R. 3942, a bill to adjust the
boundaries of the John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez,
California.
The Department supports H.R. 3942. It will enable us to fulfill one
of the General Management Plan objectives for the park by providing a
parking area to serve visitors to the Muir House and those who wish to
hike Mt. Wanda. Because of the steep terrain in the area, no other
suitable location for a parking lot exists inside current park
boundaries. The City of Martinez supports our efforts to acquire the
small parcel for this parking lot.
The proposed land to be acquired in this boundary adjustment has a
strange history. The parcel is only 9,500 square feet--about 0.2 acre.
To acquire a parcel of this size, the National Park Service generally
would negotiate the purchase of the land with the current owners using
our minor boundary adjustment authority. However, because the National
Park Service has been unable to identify the current owners of this
plot, legislation is necessary to proceed at this time.
The National Park Service has managed the Muir home, adobe, and
orchards in Martinez for almost 40 years. The original holdings of John
Muir, however, were much larger and included Mt. Wanda, named for his
daughter with whom he would take walks to the top. Today, state highway
4 and Franklin Canyon Road run between Mt. Wanda and the home. The
National Park Service completed a survey of Mt. Wanda in the 1990s in
connection with its acquisition under previous boundary legislation.
This survey discovered the tiny 0.2 acre plot located between Franklin
Canyon Road and Mt. Wanda.
The 0.2 acre plot was proposed in the 1991 General Management Plan
to be developed as a parking area for users of the trails on Mt. Wanda
and also to serve as a bus parking and overflow lot for the visitor
center and historic Muir home. At the time, it was assumed that the
plot was included in the lands that had been transferred to the park
and would be available for the proposed parking area.
The National Park Service has been unable to locate the current or
previous owner or heirs. We do know that the 0.2 acre plot is
completely surrounded by publicly owned land. The National Park Service
owns the land on the west, south and east sides and the City of
Martinez owns the right-of-way for Franklin Canyon Road on the north
side. Directly across the road on the north side is the right-of-way
for state highway 4.
We understand that in the 1960's the California Department of
Public Works (now known as CalTrans) acquired the right-of-way for
state highway 4, including a large parcel that was mostly acquired in
fee from the estate of Mary Pereira. The far southeast corner of that
parcel, comprising the 0.2 acre plot was not acquired in fee, but as a
temporary construction easement. The construction easement expired on
December 31, 1967. Neither the owner nor the Contra Costa County
Assessor apparently was aware that this parcel had never been acquired.
No parcel number has been assigned to it and no property taxes have
ever been assessed or paid on it.
The park superintendent has called all the Pereiras listed in the
various Bay Area phone books and has spoken with the heirs of Mary
Pereira. We also have advertised for the owner. Since no owners can be
located, the National Park Service cannot negotiate the purchase of
land under its minor boundary adjustment authority.
This legislation would adjust the park boundary line northward,
approximately 80 feet to the south edge of the Franklin Canyon Road
right-of-way. The National Park Service would be authorized to purchase
the land if an heir to the former owner could be found, or the land
condemned if an owner or heir cannot be located.
The Department is committed to the President's Initiative to
eliminate the National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog.
However, this acquisition and the subsequent construction of the
parking lot are part of the park's plan to address health and safety
issues and are, therefore, consistent with the President's Initiative.
That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I point out the need for parking as much as
I support this site for--the John Muir Historic Site and the
acquisition for more parking. I would ask for support for more
parking spaces in Yosemite valley. Making sure everybody has a
parking space here. Thank you very much for being here. I will
ask a couple of questions. Ms. Manning, what positive effects
can you see from better coordination and communications from
Federal agencies through H.R. 4622?
Ms. Manning. Well, the thing that I think it does, it also
allows the communities to know that we are required to
coordinate with them. An example would be about a year ago,
Coldwell County in North Carolina didn't know anything about
our planning, and they called themselves a gateway community to
the mountains. And I just happened to have been visiting with
some county commissioners who heard about it and said, you mean
all of this time we have been missing out on the opportunities
to become a model community within a forest because we didn't
know you had all these programs.
So while we know and because I have been around awhile and
some of the forest people have been around for awhile, we know
what our obligations are. This bill to me lets the communities
know that we are required to do this and they can knock on our
door and we just--my frame of reference a big happy family,
because I think it does wonders for that.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. I know we are bouncing
here around a bit, but Mr. Ring, on H.R. 3786, does the
revision in the authorized boundary acreage reflect the current
acreage included in the land exchange or is the 1,256,000
number allowing room for the additional land acquisition?
Mr. Ring. I believe it is a figure that includes the
authorized exchange, but I will check that and provide that for
the record.
Mr. Radanovich. And Mr. Ring, in reference to H.R. 3942,
the John Muir Historic Site, since it remains unclear as to who
owns the land in question, do you believe the bill should be
amended to make it clear that no other title or claim may be
made against the parcel upon enactment of this Act?
Mr. Ring. I believe we feel the need to clear the title and
we certainly are supportive of making sure that just
compensation for the parcel gets to whoever the legal owner is,
and we simply feel that we need to have the adjustment so that
we can proceed and allow the courts ultimately to dispose of
any funds that represent the value of that property.
Mr. Radanovich. OK, great. Thank you very much. Any
questions from any other members?
Mrs. Christensen. I have a couple of questions. Associate
Deputy Manning, you cited an example of where one community
didn't know what was available to them, but couldn't that be
overcome with our legislation by USDA and Department of
Interior, just increasing their outreach and information
campaign without legislation?
Ms. Manning. Well, it could in one sense, but then budgets
and personnel sometimes prevent us from doing that. And
communities sometimes feel the need to know that they have the
authority to make--sometimes we need a little push and they--if
they know that this bill is out there, gives them that little
push to make us and hold us accountable for what we are
supposed to do.
Mrs. Christensen. You have the authority to do it already
and you could do it.
Ms. Manning. We could, yes, but this bill adds--sort of
makes us coordinate with our sister agencies and do it
together.
Mrs. Christensen. I understand your answer, but I still
think that that authority and the ability to do that is already
available to you. And your testimony like that of the Assistant
Secretary cited many examples of great cooperation, great
outreach, great local participation, for example, where you
cite on page 2. And then you talk about some of the current
authorities and you cite the National Forest Management Act and
section 6(d), which requires the Secretary to provide for
public participation in the development, review and revision of
land management plans and specifies the required elements of
that participation.
Can you explain how adding meaningful--I forget the
language, the statement about meaningful participation would
enhance the authority that you already have?
Ms. Manning. I used to be a planner and I started with the
Agency doing that, and our interpretation of that was simply
notification that we are about to begin in asking local
communities, Governors to just designate somebody, and if they
didn't answer us, we had fulfilled our obligation. And what we
are talking about, I think now, is kind of--it is a two-sided
thing. The communities' feeling that we are really there at the
table together and we are planning for the land together. We
take into consideration what they want to achieve versus what
our needs are and we do it together. And I think that is what
we are talking about when we talk about meaningful public
involvement.
Mrs. Christensen. OK, I am not going to pursue the line of
questioning anymore, but I really think that putting
meaningful--a word like ``meaningful'' needs to be defined and
it seems to me that the definition under that one particular
act is very specific, and I can't see how you can get more
meaningful than the review and all of that and specific
requirements. So let me just go on to bill to H.R. 3786. There
is an area on the map labeled restricted no development zone.
Can you explain, Mr. Ring, what that term means, the restricted
no development zone, how it will be enforced, against whom it
will be enforced, and why is that needed?
Mr. Ring. As I understand it right now, that area would be
part of the 370 acres that would be given up in the exchange.
However, deed restrictions would be placed on it that would run
with the land and basically enforceable by anyone is the way
the proposal has currently been put forward and it is--it
represents an area of land on the heights above the rest of the
parcel so that there would not be development above it on the
bluffs above that parcel in the future.
Mrs. Christensen. The other question--it is not really
noted in the bill particularly, that is on the official map,
but it is not included in the legislation. Is there anywhere
that it is written that there should be no restriction other
than on that map? The only place we could find it is on the
map.
Mr. Ring. The bill would authorize the exchange of the 152
acres for the 370 without condition. The process that we would
move through from there is to consider that appraisal as part
of an environmental analysis with public review that would look
at the specifics of the proposal and any conditions on it or
deed restrictions that have been presented, and reach a final
detailed conclusion related to the particulars of the exchange.
Mrs. Christensen. So it would be exchanged without any
restrictions at the time of the exchange and you are saying
that after the exchange, then a process would be put in place
to decide what restrictions might be--
Mr. Ring. No. There would be an evaluation through an
appraisal as part of an environmental analysis that the
National Park Service would do as--once this authority was in
place that would look at the particulars of the proposal and
any deed restrictions that might be associated with the parcel
and reach a final determination on the exchange, which then
would be concluded.
Mrs. Christensen. I see. OK, the legislation also--am I out
of time--the legislation contains a provision increasing the
acreage limit for the NRA. Why is there a need for a limit in
statute, and could the NRA be substantially expanded without
congressional approval?
Mr. Ring. To answer your last question first, no, it could
not be substantially expanded without specific congressional
approval. There is some authority for minor boundary
adjustments where they are willing--landowners who are willing
to sell lands to the government, but without specific
legislative authority to change the boundary, we couldn't do
that and the acreage is associated with the mapped authorized
boundary. It typically is a factual statement of how many acres
are within that authorized boundary, and it is just a way of
double-checking that we are within the right footprint.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen, and I want to
thank the panel for your testimony here today. Ms. Manning,
thank you very much. Mr. Ring, appreciate your testimony here
today and we will call the next panel of witnesses.
Next up will be Mr. Todd Davidson, Vice Chairman of the
Western States Tourism Policy Council from Portland, Oregon;
Mr. Bob Warren, Chairman of the National Alliance of Gateway
Communities, Redding, California; The Honorable Betsey Hale,
Commissioner of Montrose County, Montrose, Colorado; Ms. Laura
Loomis, Director of Visitor Experience, National Park
Conservation Association in Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Stephen
Thomas, Northern Plains Regional Director of the Sierra Club,
Sheridan, Wyoming. Ladies and gentlemen welcome to the
Committee and I want to thank you very much for taking time out
of your busy schedules to testify here today. We will start
from my left to right for testimonies. If you would please keep
your testimony under the 5-minute mark I would appreciate it
very much. H.R. 4622
Mr. Radanovich. And again, Mr. Todd Davidson, welcome, and
you may begin your testimony. And then we will go right down
the line.
STATEMENT OF TODD DAVIDSON, VICE CHAIRMAN, WESTERN STATES
TOURISM POLICY COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
I am Todd Davidson. I am pleased and honored to be able to
speak to you this afternoon, both as the executive director of
the Oregon Tourism Commission and the Vice Chair of the Western
States Tourism Policy Council, the WSTPC. To express our strong
support for H.R. 4622, the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act
of 2002. Formed in 1996, the WSTPC is a consortium of 13
western State tourism offices, including the States of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
The mission of the Western States Tourism Policy Council is
simple. It is to advance the understanding and support for
public policies that enhance the positive impact of travel and
tourism on the economy and the environment of the member
States. The WSTPC is proud of the close productive relationship
that we have developed with 11 Federal agencies that have a
significant impact on tourism and recreation in the west. We
meet with our Federal partners on a regular basis to exchange
information and ideas, to develop joint projects including
several successful conferences on topics of mutual concern. As
no surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, tourism is a vital part of
the economic vitality of the west.
It is a powerful economic engine that generates billions of
dollars and millions of jobs. In the west, more than half of
the total land area is Federal land, and 11 of the Western
States Tourism Policy Council member States are among the 12
top States in percentage of Federal land acreage. Furthermore,
hundreds of communities in the west serve as gateways, as you
heard this afternoon, for millions of visitors to these Federal
lands.
So the 13 individual State tourism offices that comprise
the WSTPC each work closely with the gateway and their States
providing advice and counsel and marketing support. Each WSTPC
member state tourism office also strives to work closely with
their Federal land agency partners in their respective States.
We understand that the policies and programs and the activities
of those agencies have a direct and significant impact on
gateway communities and the State. In September 1998, the
WSTPC, with all its Federal partners, organized a major
conference on the subject of gateway communities. There were
nearly 500 folks in attendance evenly split between gateway
leaders and agency staff.
That conference was so successful that we are currently in
the planning process with our Federal partners in the National
Alliance of Gateway Communities on a second gateways conference
that will be held December 3 through 5 on the Santa Ana Pueblo
near Albuquerque, New Mexico. And Mr. Chairman, I hope you will
be able to join us this December. It is following the election.
It is because of our substantial experience working with both
gateway communities and with our Federal land management
partners that the WSTPC enthusiastically endorses and supports
H.R. 4622. But in discussing H.R. 4622, let me first try and
clarify some of the possible misperceptions.
First, we do not read H.R. 4622 as an invitation to bash
the agencies. Many local and national Federal land managers
understand the importance of good relations with their gateway
communities and make the proactive attempt to cultivate those
good relations and they are to be commended. Second, we do not
see that H.R. 4622 gives the gateway communities any type of
veto over policies, decisions or programs or activities of any
Federal land agency. It does not give gateway preference or
priority over any other stakeholders. That has never been the
intent of this bill, and if necessary, we would support
amending the language to clarify that point.
Third, we don't think that H.R. 4622 is contrary to the
environmental values and goals of our Nation. No one loves the
natural beauty and wildlife of our national parks, forests and
other Federal public lands more than many of those that have
chosen to spend their lives in the communities next door to
them.
Fourth, we don't believe this bill elevates local interests
over national interests. We recognize we are talking about
national parks and national forests and we must always be
responsive first and foremost to national priorities.
Fifth, this bill does not place any additional mandates on
gateway communities because it will be their voluntary choice
to participate. But what the bill does do is provide a balanced
reasonable response to a widespread concern. Many Federal land
managers and local leaders do indeed understand the importance
of gateway communities, but it is not always the case. As we
heard at our Gateway's Conference in 1998, two of the common
refrains were that the agencies too often ignore the interest
of gateways without reason, and that many gateways have
insufficient staff and expertise to participate in a truly
meaningful way.
Therefore, the greatest value of H.R. 4622 is to declare as
a matter of national policy that Federal land managers are
required to support and communicate and cooperate with the
designated gateway communities. Second, the small gateway
communities are expected to interpret and comment on complex
agency draft planning documents without the staff and expertise
to interpret and evaluate the potential ramifications of those
plans. But this bill would enable gateways to be much more
involved as meaningful participants in those agency-planning
efforts.
In essence, H.R. 4622 institutionalizes the gateway's
community involvement with their Federal land management
neighbors. So Mr. Chairman, this seems to us to be fair and
reasonable legislation. It is long overdue recognition of the
importance of gateway communities and describes a carefully,
thought-out strategy to make them stronger, more effective
partners. Robert Frost told us that good fences make good
neighbors. We believe that H.R. 4622 shows how good laws can
also play a key role in helping make good neighbors of gateway
communities and Federal land management agencies.
Mr. Radanovich. Good point. Thank you very much Mr.
Davidson for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]
Statement of Todd Davidson, Vice Chairman, Western States Tourism
Policy Council, Executive Director, Oregon Tourism Commission
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am
Todd Davidson and I am pleased and honored to speak to you this
afternoon as Vice Chairman of the Western States Tourism Policy Council
(WSTPC) to express our strong support for H.R. 4622, the ``Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act of 2002.'' I also serve as executive
director of the Oregon Tourism Commission.
The WSTPC
Formed in 1996, the WSTPC is a consortium of thirteen western state
tourism offices, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. The mission of the WSTPC is to advance
understanding and support for public policies that enhance the positive
impact of travel and tourism on the economy and the environment of its
member states and their communities.
The WSTPC is proud of the close and productive partnership it has
developed with eleven Federal agencies that have a significant impact
on tourism and recreation in the West, including all the major Federal
land management agencies. We meet with our Federal partners on a
regular basis to exchange information and ideas and to develop joint
projects, including several successful conferences on topics of mutual
concern. Two memoranda of understanding, in 1997 and in 2001, have
defined our partnership.
Tourism and Gateways in the West
Tourism is a vital component of the economy of the American West, a
powerful economic engine that provides millions of jobs. Nature and
history have combined to make the West immensely appealing to visitors
from throughout the United States and the world. Eight of the states
that comprise our Council are among the twelve most tourism dependent
states in the nation in terms of per capita receipts.
In the West much, if not most, tourism is public lands tourism. In
the West, more than half of the total area is Federal land, and eleven
of the WSTPC member states are among the top twelve states in
percentage of Federal land acreage.
Hundreds of communities in the West serve as ``gateways'' for
millions of visitors to these Federal lands. For these communities,
which are typically small and rural, the business generated by these
visitors is a vital component of their local economies. The cumulative
impact is significant for our state economies.
The thirteen individual state tourism offices that comprise the
WSTPC each work closely with the gateway communities in their states,
providing advice, counsel and marketing support to enable those
communities to reach their tourism and recreation business goals.
Each WSTPC member state tourism office also strives to work closely
with the Federal land agencies in their respective states. We
understand that the policies, programs and activities of those agencies
often have a direct and significant impact on nearby communities and,
indeed, on the entire state.
In September, 1998, the WSTPC, with all its Federal partners,
organized a major conference in Tacoma, Washington, on the subject of
gateway communities. There were nearly 500 in attendance, evenly split
between gateway leaders and agency staff. Nearly everyone agreed that
it was an extremely worthwhile exercise as both gateways and agencies
exchanged viewpoints, candidly talked about problems in their
relationships and learned how they could work more closely together.
That conference was so successful that we are currently working with
our Federal partners, and with the National Alliance of Gateway
Communities on a second Gateways Conference, that is scheduled later
this year, on December 3-5, on the Santa Ana Pueblo in Bernalillo, New
Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, please let me take this opportunity to invite you and
the other members of the Subcommittee to participate in this second
gateways conference in December.
It is because of our substantial experience working with both
gateway communities and with the Federal land agencies that the WSTPC
enthusiastically endorses and supports H.R. 4622. We commend you, Mr.
Chairman, for having the vision to introduce it.
What This Bill Will Not Do
Let me first try and clarify some possible misimpressions about
this legislation as we understand it.
First, we do not read H.R. 4622 as an invitation to ``bash the
agencies.'' Many local Federal land managers understand the importance
of good relations with their gateway communities and make an active,
proactive attempt to cultivate those good relations. They are to be
commended. At the national level, the Federal land agencies over the
last decade have increasingly the importance of gateways and have
organized seminars and training programs for their senior staff on
gateway relationships. These programs should continue.
Second, we do not see that H.R. 4622 gives gateway communities any
type of veto over policies, decisions, programs or activities of any
Federal land agency. It does not give gateways preference or priority
over any other stakeholders. That has never been the intent of the bill
and, if necessary, we would support amending language to clarify these
points.
Third, we do not think that H.R. 4622 is, in any, contrary to the
environmental values and goals of our nation. No one loves the natural
beauty and wildlife of our magnificent national parks, forests and
other Federal public lands more than those who have chosen to spend
their lives in the communities next door to them.
Fourth, we do not believe that H.R. 4622 elevates local interests
over the national interests. We recognize that we are talking about
national parks and national forests, and they must always be responsive
first and foremost to national priorities.
Fifth, H.R. 4622 does not place any additional mandates on gateway
communities. It will be the voluntary choice of the gateway as to
whether it seeks to utilize any of the provisions of the bill.
What This Bill Will Do
H.R. 4622 is a balanced, reasonable response to a widespread
concern. As we have noted, in many instances, relationships between
Federal land agencies and their gateway communities are harmonious and
productive. Many Federal land managers and local leaders do indeed
``get it'' and work harmoniously together.
They understand that the community and the Federal land are
inevitably interconnected. They understand that it is not a ``zero sum
game,'' but that the health and vitality of one has a direct impact on
the other. They understand the imperative of being ``good neighbors''
with their gateways. They understand that the Federal lands are poorly
served by gateway communities that are weak and resentful,
But this is not always the case. At the 1998 WSTPC-Federal Agencies
Gateway Conference, two common refrains were that the agencies too
often ignored the interests of gateways without reason and that many
gateways have insufficient staff and expertise to participate in a
truly meaningful way in agency policy-making processes. At present, it
is up to each Federal land manager to decide what relationships he or
she wants to have with gateway communities. There has never been a
statutory declaration that gateway communities are critical to the
mission of the agencies and that cooperation and coordination should be
fostered.
The first and greatest value of H.R. 4622, therefore, is to declare
as a matter of national policy that Federal land managers are required
``to support, and to communicate, and cooperate with designated gateway
communities.'' The bill provides historic recognition by Congress that
gateway communities are integral to the mission of the public lands,
the first points of contact for visitors and the providers of essential
services to both visitors and the public lands.
In the closing days of the Clinton Administration, T. Destry
Jarvis, then Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Interior for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, wrote: ``... no land-use decision around a
national park is exclusively local or national, but always has
implications on both. The National Park Service should realize its
affirmative responsibility to actively participate in local land-use
decisions, and should similarly be aware of the effects of its
decisions on its neighbors, allowing them to be involved in the process
of arriving at those decisions.'' H.R. 4622 would be an historic step
towards that goal.
Too many times, small gateway communities--towns and counties--are
expected to interpret and comment on complex agency draft planning
documents without staff and expertise to interpret and evaluate the
potential ramifications of those plans for the communities. H.R. 4622
would enable gateways to be much more meaningful participants in those
agency planning processes by:
(1) Lreceiving early, non-technical summaries of such plans, their
assumptions and objectives and the anticipated impact on gateway
communities;
(2) Lreceiving the earliest practicable public notice of proposed
decisions that may have a significant impact on gateway communities;
(3) Lreceiving training from the agencies about their planning
processes and how they can best participate;
(4) Lreceiving technical assistance from the agency, including
assigned agency staff or contractor to work with the gateway to
understand and respond better to proposed agency plans;
(5) Lreceiving, on request, a review from the agency of its land
use, management or transportation plans likely to affect the community;
(6) Lentering into cooperative agreements to coordinate local land
use plans with those of the Federal land agency, other Federal
agencies, State governments and tribal governments;
What these provisions would do is to institutionalize gateway
community involvement with their Federal land neighbors. It would
systematize and set parameters on planning processes that have until
now been inconsistent and unclear from the perspective of local
communities. Plans do matter. The Federal land agencies are guided in
future years by the assumptions and conclusions of their plans. They
will be better plans--more effective and more accepted--with greater
community involvement.
It is also worthy of special note that H.R. 4622 will require
interagency coordination and consolidation when the plans and planning
processes of two or more Federal land agencies are anticipated to have
an impact on a gateway community. This will go a long way towards
reducing overlap, redundancy and confusion for gateways near multiple
Federal lands with multiple plans.
With the support and assistance provided by these provisions,
reinforced by the agency grants authorized by H.R. 4622, gateways will
be prepared and qualified to participate as cooperating agencies under
NEPA processes as allowed under this legislation.
Conclusions
Mr. Chairman, this seems to us fair and reasonable legislation. It
is long overdue recognition of the importance of gateway communities
and prescribes a carefully thought out strategy to make them stronger
and more effective partners of their Federal land neighbors. Robert
Frost told us that ``Good fences make good neighbors.'' We believe that
H.R. 4622 also shows how good laws can also play a key role in helping
make good neighbors of gateway communities and the Federal land
agencies.
We urge that H.R. 4622 be enacted as early as possible.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Warren, welcome to the Committee and
again you may begin your testimony and abide by the traffic
lights we have out there.
STATEMENT OF BOB WARREN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF GATEWAY
COMMUNITIES, REDDING, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Warren. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich, and other
Committee members for the opportunity to testify today. I am
here representing the city of Redding, California, and as
Chairman of the National Alliance of Gateway Communities.
Redding is the perfect example of a gateway community. Within a
10-mile radius, they are the boundaries of an NPS unit, BLM
lands and the national forest. I am also representing the
National Alliance Gateway Communities as the only national
organization solely dedicated to representing the interest of
gateway communities.
In California and in the west, many communities are
transitioning to more diversified economies less based on
resource extraction. We know in the future, visitors to public
lands will play an increasingly more important role in the
economies of our gateway communities. In light of the impact on
tourism of the events of last September, we also know that
luring back many of the visitors to rural America will be
difficult. Those of us in the west also know that public lands
will be the magnet that draws both domestic visitors and
internationals back to our rural communities. Many of the
supervisors, superintendents and managers of public land
management units are keenly aware of the importance of working
with their gateway communities.
I know in my area, many of them make daily efforts to
interact with community leaders. Unfortunately this is not
always the case. There are too many examples where
relationships are inconsistent and unreliable and often too
dependent on the personalities involved. What we want to do by
enacting this legislation is to take a major step toward
institutionalizing those relationships.
Mr. Warren. Many of the management plans for significant
public land units devote hundreds of pages to natural resource
preservation while devoting just a paragraph or two to the
people who live in or adjacent to their unit. For example,
although economic and social impacts are supposed to be
considered in national forest management plans, the plan for
one national forest in Utah has about one paragraph that
addresses these issues with more than 100 pages addressing
various habitat scenarios.
Careful consideration is given to the goshawk, but little
is given to the gateway communities and the people who live
there. We do not object to thorough consideration of
environmental and wildlife issues, but surely the interests and
concerns of gateways and the families that make their homes
there should also get serious consideration.
In the mid-1990's, the five communities that are gateways
to Yellowstone National Park decided to form the Yellowstone
Gateway Alliance to speak with one voice on issues of common
concern to all of them. The superintendent of the park at that
time flatly refused to talk with the gateways as a group.
H.R. 4622 would not compel any superintendent to talk to
such coalitions, but it would clearly declare that the intent
of Congress is to support much greater cooperation,
coordination, and communication.
In my written statement, other examples which emphasize the
need for this bill are also cited.
Under NEPA regulations, the State is always considered a
cooperating agency, and often counties. In rural locations this
may not be enough. We have all heard of the saying ``a sense of
community,'' but who has ever heard a sense of county or sense
of State? This is because communities are the social structure
of rural America.
When communities are making significant planning changes,
they are required to comply with numerous Federal environmental
mandates. This makes for a one-way street, as the communities
are provided no provision to comment on changes on adjacent
Federal lands. Although H.R. 4622 does provide gateway
communities a seat at the table, the bill does not give a
gateway community a veto over agency programs, actions or
policies. The bill would give local public land managers a
greater understanding of the needs and perspectives of their
adjacent communities.
In closing, I don't think we can any longer deny our
gateway communities legal standing in the Federal
decisionmaking process. Often parks are the foundation of a
community's culture, commerce, and heritage. The EIS process is
often highly politicized and charged with emotion. The politics
and emotions that dramatically play out in our communities over
this wrenching drama is for naught if our communities cannot
have a meaningful stake in the process.
Often this process is affected by the sparse rural
population representation in the West, pitted against well-
meaning urban political agendas driven by well-financed and
staffed special interest groups. This leads to many gateway
communities feeling as if they are being treated like children
when told to ``Eat your vegetables, it is what is best for
you.''
Leaders in gateway communities are faced with the daily
tension of attempting to balance commerce and conservation, of
preserving enduring wildness, while enhancing economic well-
being. This tension is of course by choice, as those of us who
live in rural gateway locations most often would choose to be
nowhere else.
We feel that this important bill will help bridge the gap
between today and tomorrow, while striving to preserve all that
is natural as well as maintaining the character of our
communities. A consistent Federal process of inclusion of the
leaders of gateway communities would improve the process, the
politics, and the outcome. All we ask is some say in our
future.
Mr. Chairman, your bill is landmark legislation. Its
enactment will open a new day for gateways. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Warren.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Warren follows:]
Statement of Bob Warren, Chairman, National Alliance of Gateway
Communities, Tourism Development Manager, City of Redding, California
Thank you Chairman Radanovich and other subcommittee members for
the opportunity to testify on behalf of HR4622. I am here representing
the City of Redding, California, as the Tourism Development Manager and
as Chairman of the National Alliance of Gateway Communities. Redding is
the perfect example of a gateway community. Within a ten mile radius,
there are the boundaries of a National Park Service Unit, Bureau of
Land Management lands, and a National Forest. The City benefits from
this close proximity in the form of significant tourism dollars, and of
course beautiful natural attractions. I am also here as the Chairman of
the National Alliance of Gateway Communities (NAGC). The NAGC was
formed at the encouragement of many Federal land use managers, who felt
there was a role for an organization to help small gateway communities
become more skilled at interacting with Federal agencies. This
organization is the only national organization solely dedicated to
representing the interests of gateway communities.
On behalf of the NAGC and gateway communities everywhere, we thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing this historic bill. To the best of
our knowledge, it is the first bill ever to recognize the importance of
gateway communities and focus exclusively on several of their major
needs and concerns.
Gateway communities, by their very nature, are close to public
lands. This symbiotic relationship creates an arrangement where the
public land units need the communities for their services, while the
communities need the public lands as attractions. In California and in
the West, many communities are transitioning to more diversified
economies, less based on resource extraction. We know in the future,
visitors to public lands will play an increasingly more important role
in the economies of our gateway communities. In rural California, every
$63,000 spent by travelers creates one new job. Also, many of those
visiting public lands are international visitors who often make their
visit to America a visit to rural America. Germans alone account for
hundreds of thousands of visits to public lands in California annually.
One national park in Northern California surveyed visitors during a
one-month period several years ago, and 11 percent of all visitors were
German. Obviously, the dollars spent by these foreign visitors and
others are important to both the economies of gateway communities as
well as to the national balance of trade. In light of the impact on
tourism of the events of last September, we know luring back many of
these visitors to America will be difficult. Those of us in the West
also know that public lands will continue to be the ``magnets'' that
draw both domestic visitors and internationals back to our rural
communities.
Many of the supervisors, superintendents, and managers of public
land management units are keenly aware of the importance of working
with their gateway communities. I know in my area, many of them make
daily efforts to interact with community leaders. Unfortunately, this
is not always the case. There are too many examples where relationships
are inconsistent and unreliable and are often too dependent on the
personalities involved. What we want to do by enacting this legislation
is to take a major step towards institutionalizing those relationships
by putting them on a firmer statutory base.
There are also examples of public land management unit managers
showing little concern for the economics of gateway communities and
purposefully attempting to affect development outside their management
units. In one instance in the Northwest, a new national park
superintendent was interviewed for an article in a major newspaper in
which he indicated opposition to a planned destination resort more than
11 miles from the park that he managed. In his zeal to develop a strong
relationship with the environmental community, he neglected to
communicate with the developer who had, for the previous nine years,
worked in concert with the park superintendent's predecessor and staff
on the planning of this resort. Although H.R. 4622 would certainly not
have affected his ability to speak out on this issue, he would have at
least known that he also would need to develop a relationship with the
adjacent communities, so when issues related to important park
management decisions came up, the community would be part of his
planning process.
Many of the management plans for significant public land devote
hundreds of pages to natural resource preservation, while devoting just
a paragraph or two to the people who live in or adjacent to that unit.
Their frustration is exacerbated when their communities do not have a
``seat at the table''.
For example, although economic and social impacts are supposed to
be considered in national forest management plans, the plan for the
Kaibab National Forest in Utah has about one paragraph that addresses
these issues with more than 100 pages addressing various habitat
scenarios. Careful consideration is given to the goshawk, but little is
given to the gateway communities and the people who live there. Now we
want to be clear. We do not object to thorough consideration of
environmental and wildlife issues; indeed we strongly support such
examination. But surely the interests and concerns of gateways and the
families and businesses that make their homes there should also get
serious consideration.
In another Utah example, at Escalante, we have seen a situation
where a multi-state, Federal, county, local joint visitor campus and
science education facility is being built in conjunction with the new
Grand Staircase National Monument that is under BLM management.
Unfortunately, Federal managers in this case are NOT engaged with the
local community. Quite the opposite, to the point that, against the
wishes of Congressional appropriators, there will be two competing
visitor facilities in Escalante--a serious case of waste and lost
opportunity.
In the mid-1990s, the five communities that are gateways to
Yellowstone National Park decided to form the Yellowstone Gateway
Alliance to speak with one voice on issues of common concern to all of
them. The superintendent of the park at that time flatly refused to
talk with the gateways as a group. H.R. 4622 would not compel any
superintendent to talk to coalitions of gateway communities, but it
would clearly declare that the intent of Congress is to support much
greater cooperation, coordination and communication between gateway
communities and Federal land managers.
In Alaska, two recent examples can be cited of failed relationships
between gateway communities and the National Park Service. One arose
when the NPS, contrary to its early promises, persisted in denying
local ``traditional'' use of the Dyea Valley (e.g. firewood cutting,
Christmas tree gathering and beach access) which the State of Alaska
allowed it to manage, and resulted in the State finally, in
frustration, agreeing to let the City of Skagway annex the valley. In
the other example, the McCarthy Area Council, a non-profit, quasi-
governmental organization representing residents of the McCarthy-
Kennecott area has encountered stiff NPS resistance to efforts to
develop interpretive sources that are locally derived. According to
Thea Agnew, the President of the McCarthy Area Council:
We feel strongly that local people need to be empowered to tell
the stories of the place. The problem is, however, that such a
small community lacks resources--particularly financial
resources--to compete (and it does feel like competition) with
the Park. They have an interpretive staff, a budget, visitors
centers, contracts with graphic artists to develop signs and
activities, the list goes on. We have a lot of volunteers, a
lot of interested people, and tiny, occasional pots of money to
do small projects with.
Lake Havasu and the lower Colorado River management team have
recently been wrestling with environmental impact statements and the
impacts of boating near one of the refuges. This environmental review
process does not include the communities that will be economically
impacted if boating regulations are modified in this area. There has
been an effort by both Lake Havasu City and Yuma, Arizona, to become
part of the planning process. Because there is no stipulation for
including communities at the table, the land use managers have not had
the opportunity to receive meaningful input from them.
A recent prominent instance reported in the news where communities
were completely shut out of the planning process occurred at our first
national park. The gateway communities around Yellowstone National Park
count on winter access into Yellowstone as part of their economic
viability. The 2000 winter use plan for Yellowstone called for a ban on
snowmobile usage in the park. This would have devastated several
communities adjacent to Yellowstone. Despite repeated attempts by local
gateway towns to obtain cooperating agency status during the
development of that winter use plan, they were never given the
opportunity to be ``at the table'' with the neighboring states and
adjacent counties during this process. Fortunately, a supplemental EIS
is now under review that includes additional options for consideration.
Another example involves the Bureau of Land Management in
California and Arizona. When the BLM was sued to close off-road vehicle
access to the Imperial Sand Dunes in California, the City of Yuma,
Arizona, located directly across the Yuma River from the Dunes was not
informed by the BLM of the litigation until the day before the court
hearing in San Francisco. The BLM said because they regarded the matter
as a California issue, even though Yuma is the gateway community for
the Dunes. The result was that 45,000 acres of the Dunes were closed to
off-road vehicle use, with a sharp negative economic impact on Yuma,
without the gateway community ever getting an opportunity to comment or
respond prior to the decision. (At a recent Yuma community meeting
about the issue, nearly 400 local citizens attended and more than a
hundred testified against the ban. It should also be noted that the
plants said to be endangered are now doing more poorly in the banned
area than in the area not affected.)
Under NEPA regulations, the State is always considered a
cooperating agency, and often counties are also included. In rural
locations, this may not be enough. We have all heard the saying, ``a
sense of community'' but who has ever heard ``a sense of county or a
sense of State?'' This is because communities are the social structure
of America. Those living in communities always have a vested interest
in preserving adjacent public lands, as without them, the communities
would suffer economically, and spiritually. Although there may be
individual business operators looking for a ``quick buck,'' communities
for the most part must be into the conservation of our public lands for
the long haul. Any short-sighted decisions would adversely affect their
communities both socially and economically.
When communities are making significant planning changes,
especially involving land use issues, they are required to comply with
a host of Federal environmental mandates. Many agencies often comment
on their proposed planning efforts. This makes for a one-way street, as
the communities have far less opportunity to comment on proposed
changes on adjacent Federal lands. Although H.R. 4622 does provide
gateway communities a ``seat at the table,'' the bill does not give a
gateway community a veto over agency programs, actions, or policies.
The bill would promote cooperation and coordination and give local
Federal land managers a greater understanding of the needs and
perspectives of their adjacent communities. I might add that it will
also give local leaders a greater understanding of the needs and
perspectives of their local Federal land managers.
In closing, I don't think we can any longer deny our gateway
communities legal standing in the Federal decision-making process.
Often, parks are the foundation of a community's culture, commerce, and
heritage. The EIS process is often highly politicized, charged with
emotion--a veritable lawsuit waiting to happen. The politics and
emotions dramatically play out in our communities. This wrenching drama
is for naught if our communities cannot have a meaningful stake in the
process. Often, this process is affected by the sparse rural population
political representation in the West, pitted against well meaning,
urban political agendas driven by well-financed and staffed special
interest groups. This leads to many gateway communities feeling as if
they are being treated like children, when told to ``eat your
vegetables, it's what's best for you''. H.R. 4622 will reform the
process and level the playing field by appropriately including gateway
communities.
Leaders in gateway communities are faced with the daily tension of
attempting to balance commerce and conservation, of preserving enduring
wildness while enhancing economic well-being. Our communities will
survive only if we are constantly ensuring that the needs of nature are
met while people are allowed to make a living. This tension is of
course by choice, as those of us who live in rural, gateway locations
most often would choose to be nowhere else. We feel that this important
bill will help bridge the gap between today and tomorrow, while
striving to preserve all that is natural, as well as maintaining the
character of our communities. A consistent Federal process of inclusion
of the leaders of gateway communities would improve the process, the
politics, and the outcome. All we ask is some say in our future.
Let me conclude with a statement that another NAGC director has
asked me to present to the subcommittee today. This statement is from
Karen Alvey, former mayor of Kanab, Utah, who has tried hard to ensure
that the Escalante National Monument is developed in accord with
national and local values and goals.
After much thought, I have decided that the whole process of
planning on public lands must be done with the communities at
the table and early on. Most of the public officials have other
jobs, cannot afford full time staff to attend and gather
information, and lack the knowledge to make good decisions on
management issues. If it is mandated to invite the community's
leaders in early so that they can become educated, then better
decisions are made. Planning seems to go on forever, then
decisions are made and announced to the communities.
H.R. 4622 would result in closer, more productive cooperative
relationships between gateways and Federal land managers, benefiting
both the communities and the Federal lands, responding to both national
and local values. H.R. 4622 would enhance the capability of gateways to
participate more effectively and more meaningfully in agency planning
processes for the betterment of all. It should become law.
Mr. Chairman, your bill, H.R. 4622, is landmark legislation. Its
enactment will open a new day for gateway communities throughout the
nation.
______
Mr. Radanovich. The Honorable Betsey Hale, welcome to the
Committee--from Montrose County, Colorado. And please begin
your testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BETSEY HALE, COMMISSIONER, MONTROSE COUNTY,
MONTROSE, COLORADO
Ms. Hale. It is an honor and privilege to testify before
you today. My name is Betsey Hale, and I am a county
commissioner in Montrose County, Colorado. I am here today
representing my community of Montrose County, Colorado
Counties, Incorporated, and the National Association of
Counties, NACo.
We strongly support the principles underlying the Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act of 2002. In fact, NACo's American
County Platform reads in relevant part: NACo believes that the
most basic principle that must be followed in all actions by
State and Federal agencies is consultation with local county
officials as well as municipal and tribal officials who have
been elected to represent the concerns of those directly
affected by public land management decisions. NACo encourages
county officials to take affirmative steps toward developing
appropriate land management strategies and plans, and believes
that Federal agencies must make every effort to create a
cooperative policy that is consistent with these local land use
plans. Historically, the voices of the counties who are
directly affected has been largely ignored in the creation of
lands policy. Therefore, it is imperative that the Federal
Government work cooperatively with the county and other local
governments on such policies in the future.
Our experience illustrates the rationale behind NACo's
platform language as well as the need for Congress to enact
H.R. 4622. Montrose County is located in southwest Colorado; 68
percent of our 1.4 million acres are publicly owned, including
land managed by the State of Colorado, the Bureau of Land
Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation
and the National Park Service. While the Federal lands are a
tremendous asset to the citizens of my county in many ways, we
find that we are simply unable to be the kinds of partners with
the Federal land managers that we would like to be.
There are currently eight different land use and management
plans being drafted by Federal land managers in Montrose
County. These eight plans affect the gateway to the Black
Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, the Grand Mesa
Uncomphagre in Gunnison National Forest, and the Curecanti
National Recreation Area. County elected officials, county
staff, and many of our citizens as well, are all trying to
provide meaningful input to these Federal plans in progress.
At the same time, we are in midst of developing a regional
wildfire management plan. Simultaneously, we are working with
the Forest Service to develop a forest restoration partnership
to improve forest management in three States. As if that
weren't enough, we are in the process of rewriting our county
master plan and our zoning and subdivision regulations to
address the impacts of a 38 percent growth rate which we have
experienced in the last 10 years.
With all this going on, Mr. Chairman, our planning and
zoning staff are already stretched to the limit just providing
basic services to our citizens. As you can see, we simply
cannot do any more to demonstrate our good faith as partners
with the Federal land managers. Unfortunately, the multitude of
plans being drafted at the moment leaves us feeling
overwhelmed, confused, and wondering how it will all affect us.
We wonder which meetings, which open houses, public hearings,
and work sessions we should attend as we struggle to hold down
jobs, raise families, eat, and even grab a few hours of sleep.
We worry that decisions are being made by Federal land managers
that will profoundly affect our livelihoods in agriculture,
tourism, forestry, and mining.
Mr. Chairman, we also recognize that collaboration and
communication works both ways. We know that the decision we
make on the land under our jurisdiction as county commissioners
will affect the resources managed by Federal agencies. Yet,
sadly, we fail to collaborate and communicate on these issues
of mutual concern because we are simply overwhelmed by the
sheer volume of work being done all around us. Unfortunately,
feeling overwhelmed can often lead to a sense of being
besieged, which in turn contributes to an atmosphere of fear
and mistrust, where there should be a shared sense of
partnership and cooperation.
We believe that if H.R. 4622 is enacted, we would be much
better off. First of all, the requirement for early notice to
officials in the gateway communities would enable us to keep
better track of the Federal management plans and prepare to
participate. Furthermore, we strongly endorse the provision of
training and technical assistance. We fear that sometimes, even
when we are given the opportunity to participate in Federal
processes, we are not as effective as we should be, simply
because we don't know how to explain ourselves in the
appropriate Federalese or don't have the resources to compile
the data to support our point of view.
Perhaps the most valuable piece of the bill, however, at
least from the perspective of Montrose County is the provision
for consolidated and coordinated interagency planning. We
would, of course, prefer that the requirement to be more
stringent than ``to the extent practicable,'' but we strongly
support the intent of the bill in this regard and would expect
that the agencies would make every effort to comply with the
spirit of the law.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The chief of the Forest Service has recently spoken out against
the ``analysis of paralysis'' which can prevent even the most
commonsense management activities on the part of his agency.
But interagency cooperation will better enable county officials
to build a community by and around sound proposals, giving us a
clear picture of what is going on.
Thank you so much for your time today, and I look forward
to answering your questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Hale, appreciate
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hale follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Betsey Hale, Commissioner, Montrose County,
Colorado, on behalf of Montrose County, Colorado, Colorado Counties,
Inc. & The National Association of Counties
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Betsey Hale, and I am a county commissioner in Montrose County,
Colorado. I am here today representing my community of Montrose County,
Colorado Counties, Inc. and the National Association of Counties
(NACo).
We strongly support the principles underlying the Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act of 2002. In fact, our American County
Platform reads, in relevant part:
NACo, its Western Interstate Region, state associations of
counties and individual county governments have a critical role
to play in the policy planning and management of the 775
million acres of federally owned lands. The policies, plans,
and activities for federal lands have a great impact on
adjacent state and local and private lands. In counties with a
high percentage of public lands, federal decisions often
dictate social and economic conditions.
NACo believes that the most basic principle that must be
followed in all actions by state and federal agencies is
consultation with local county officials, as well as municipal
and tribal officials, who have been elected to represent the
concerns of those directly affected by public land management
decisions. NACo encourages county officials to take affirmative
steps towards developing appropriate land management strategies
and plans and believes that federal agencies must make every
effort to create a cooperative policy that is consistent with
these local land use plans. Historically, the voice of counties
who are directly affected has been largely ignored in the
creation of lands policy. Therefore, it is imperative that the
federal government work cooperatively with county and other
local governments on such policies in the future.
Our experience in Montrose County illustrates the rationale behind
NACo's platform language as well as the need for Congress to enact H.R.
4622.
Montrose County is located in southwest Colorado. Sixty-eight
percent of our 1,437,712 acres are public lands, including land managed
by the State of Colorado, the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service. While
the federal lands are a tremendous asset to the citizens of Montrose in
many ways, we find that we are simply unable to be the kinds of
partners with the federal land managers that we would like to be.
There are currently eight different land use and management plans
being drafted by federal land managers in Montrose County. These eight
plans affect the Gateway to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park, the Grand Mesa Uncomphagre National Forest and the Curecanti
National Recreation Area. County elected officials, county staff and
many of our citizens, as well, are all trying to provide meaningful
input to these federal plans in progress. At the same time, we are in
the midst of developing a regional wildfire management plan. And we are
also working with the Forest Service on a forest restoration
partnership which will address forest management in three states. On
top of all this, we are in the process of rewriting Montrose County's
Master Plan and zoning and subdivision regulations to address the
impacts of the thirty-eight percent growth we have experienced over the
past ten years. With all this going, Mr. Chairman, our planning and
zoning staff are already stretched to the limit just to provide basic
service to our citizens.
As you can see, we simply cannot do any more to demonstrate our
good faith as partners with the federal land managers. Unfortunately,
the multitude of plans being drafted at the moment leaves us feeling
overwhelmed, confused and wondering how it all will affect us. We
wonder which meetings, open houses, public hearings and work-sessions
we should attend. As we are trying to hold down jobs, raise families,
eat and even sleep, we worry that decisions are being made by federal
land managers that will profoundly affect our livelihoods in
agriculture, tourism, forestry or mining.
Furthermore, we know that the decisions we are making on the land
under our jurisdiction as county commissioners will affect the
resources managed by the federal agencies. Yet, sadly, we fail to
collaborate and communicate on these issues of mutual concern because
we are simply overwhelmed by the sheer volume of work being done all
around us. This sense of being besieged contributes to an atmosphere of
fear and mistrust where there should be cooperation.
We believe that were the provisions of H.R. 4622 to be enacted, our
situation would be greatly improved. The requirement for early notice
to the officials in gateway communities, as well as the provision of
training and technical assistance would be very helpful. Perhaps the
most valuable, however, at least from the perspective of Montrose
County, is the provision for consolidated and coordinated interagency
planning. We would, of course, prefer that the requirement be more
stringent than ``to the extent practicable'' but we strongly support
the intent of the bill in this regard and would expect that the
agencies would make every effort to comply with the spirit of the law.
Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier, Montrose County, the counties of
Colorado and the National Association of Counties strive to be good
partners in the stewardship of the land we all love, particularly those
of us in counties which are gateways to the public lands. All we ask is
that the federal land managers reciprocate by fulfilling their
obligation to be good partners in return. H.R. 4622 is a good step in
that direction.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Laura Loomis with the National Parks
Conservation Association. Welcome to the Subcommittee. I
appreciate you being here.
STATEMENT OF LAURA LOOMIS, DIRECTOR OF VISITOR EXPERIENCE,
NATIONAL PARK CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Loomis. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I
am Laura Loomis. I am director of the Visitor Experience
Program for the National Parks Conservation Association. We
have submitted our testimony, full testimony, to the Committee,
so I am just going to summarize here.
We respect the Chairman's interest in enhancing the
relationship between gateway communities and the national
parks. However, we believe H.R. 4622 requires significant
revision before it provides the appropriate mutual incentives
and resources that facilitate genuine cooperative efforts
between national parks and gateway communities.
We believe that an evaluation of this issue must begin with
a discussion about the purpose of our national parks and their
place in society. As Freeman Tilden, who is recognized as the
father of interpretation in our national parks, so eloquently
stated half a century ago, quote, ``The national parks are not
in the least degree the special property of those who happen to
live near them. They are national domain. The people of the
States in which national parks happen to exist are rightly
proud of them, and should normally be the first to rise against
any spoilation of them; but the preemption and settlement of
land that happens to border on the present parks, or any that
may be created later, imply no title to any rights in the
reserved area beyond what belong to any American,'' close
quote.
Given the essential democracy of our parks, the first duty
of the National Park Service is to manage those parks in the
national interest. Although gateway communities are expected to
contribute to the determination of what is the national
interest, that determination is a task of all the American
people. Nevertheless, it is also beneficial for the parks and
their gateway communities to be good neighbors and develop
mutually respectful relationships.
The proximity of gateway communities to national parks has
obvious implications. For example, the desire of many Americans
to escape to gateway communities that offer clean environments,
safe neighborhoods, small town atmosphere, and recreational
opportunities they lack in cities and suburbs brings change to
those communities. And the folks sitting here to my right, I am
sure, can all attest to the change that occurs. For example
Estes Park, Colorado, which borders on Rocky Mountain National
Park, has seen a 70 percent increase in population in the last
10 years. And that is largely because it sits on the doorway of
one of the greatest parks in the world.
Mr. Radanovich. That would be Yosemite National Park.
Ms. Loomis. Excuse me, the next greatest. My mistake.
There have been surveys done that have looked at the
challenges facing gateway communities, and they have found that
it is not only important for the parks to be good neighbors to
the gateway communities, it is important for the gateway
communities to be good neighbors to the parks. Unfortunately,
in some corners, it appears that national parks are creating
crushing burdens on the gateway communities. While the
desirability of these areas can create challenges for these
communities, sometimes significant ones, one should not discuss
impacts without focusing on the enormous benefits of living at
the doorstep of a national park.
Those who live by our national parks have unparalleled
opportunities to experience a piece of our Nation's natural or
cultural heritage on a daily basis. In addition to the
recreational life-style benefits that attract so many Americans
to gateway communities, national parks also produce significant
economic returns to those communities. They serve as the
economic anchors, they provide jobs, and they foster economic
opportunities.
MPCA recognizes the unique role that gateway communities
play by virtue of their proximity to the national parks. We
agree that gateway communities can and should have a voice in
park policies that affect them. I would argue that they do
today.
We also agree that the National Park Service has not always
done the best job of communicating with gateway communities
when their interest was involved. On the other hand, gateway
communities do not always have a perfect record of cooperation
and communication with their national park neighbors.
Now, we have heard the officials from the Department, Ms.
Scarlett in particular mentioned Zion, and there have been
numerous others; as I mentioned, Estes park, Rocky Mountain;
Cape Cod has had a wonderful working relationship with the
park; Bar Harbor, Maine and Acadia National Park; Fort Scott,
Kansas and Fort Scott National Historic Site, and on and on.
And so I am not going to go into detail. I do that in my
testimony.
However, there are gateway communities that that have not
always chosen to fully participate. For example, Voyageurs, in
the development of the management plan, had invited to
participate, the local communities around Voyageurs. But when
they realized they weren't going to have a sort of veto
authority over the plan, they withdrew.
As far as 4622 is written, we have four significant
concerns: One is that it provides preference to gateway
communities over the rest of the public by exempting policy act
requirements that dictate when cooperating status is justified.
We believe that gateway communities by their unique position of
being right next to the park already have a unique opportunity
and enhanced opportunity to communicate their concerns.
Second, at a time when the National Parks System is
underfunded by 32 percent and the national parks maintenance
backlog exceeds 5 billion, the bill causes the parks to further
deplete their scarce resources by providing financial grants
and technological assistance to gateway communities. It is not
that we don't think this is a good idea, it is just that we
would like to see it come from somewhere else besides the base
funding for the national parks.
Third, the bill appears to require that Federal land
agencies produce regulatory impact statements for an enormous
range of activities. We believe this just creates an excessive
burden on both the staff and the paperwork requirements that
would be involved.
And, finally, we believe that the application of 4622 is
overly broad. Think about it; we have 385 National Park System
units. They range from the greatest park, Yosemite National
Park and its hundreds of employees, down to tiny little parks
that are a quarter of an acre that may have two employees. So
we need to kind of look at the impact that would have.
We would suggest a different approach. First, we would like
to see an analysis of existing authorities for the Park Service
in how they provide financial and technological assistance to
gateways. Second, we would like to see the grant program
reworked, as I said, so that it isn't funded out of the already
scarce funds.
And, finally, we would like to encourage the Committee to
require agencies that undertake and propose actions near
national parks that could have adverse effects on the resources
of the park to be required to work with the Park Service. That
is where I think the requirement for cooperation is the
greatest need.
I know I am over my time. Thank you very much. I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Loomis follows:]
Statement of Laura Loomis, Director of Visitor Experience, National
Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Laura Loomis,
Director of Visitor Experience for the National Parks Conservation
Association. Thank you for inviting NPCA to testify at today's hearing
to discuss H.R. 4622, the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act of 2002.
NPCA is America's only private, nonprofit advocacy organization
dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the National
Park System. Our association was founded in 1919 and today has
approximately 400,000 members who care deeply about the well being of
our national parks. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
As the title of the H.R. 4622 indicates, it is intended to promote
increased cooperation between our national parks and the communities at
their doorstep, often called gateway communities. NPCA agrees that
cooperation and coordination between parks and gateway communities can
be quite beneficial in certain circumstances. In fact, more and more
national park managers and gateway communities are realizing that they
frequently have common interests that can be furthered by working
together. However, although we respect the Chairman's interest in
enhancing the relationship between gateway communities and national
parks, we believe H.R. 4622 requires significant revision before it
provides appropriate mutual incentives and resources that facilitate
genuine cooperative efforts between national parks and gateway
communities.
We believe that an evaluation of this issue must begin with a
discussion about the purpose of our national parks and their place in
society. Therefore, I will begin by focusing my remarks on the national
interest in our parks. I will then discuss some of the issues that
confront gateway communities and the parks, and discuss NPCA's position
on H.R. 4622.
The National Interest
President Theodore Roosevelt called the preservation of our parks
and wild lands ``essentially a democratic movement.'' As such,
Americans in every community across our land have a claim to how our
parks are protected, whether they live near them or never set foot in
one. When we create a national park, we preserve a piece of our natural
or cultural heritage because it is in the national interest to do so,
and because future generations have as much a right to experience them
unimpaired in their time as we and do today.
As Freeman Tilden, the father of interpretation in our national
parks, so eloquently stated half a century ago, ``the national parks
are not in the least degree the special property of those who happen to
live near them. They are national domain. Yellowstone and Yosemite
belong as much to the citizens of Maine as to those of Wyoming and
California; Isle Royale to the New Mexican as much as to the people of
Michigan. The people of the states in which national parks happen to
exist are rightly proud of them, and should normally be the first to
rise against any spoliation of them; but the pre-emption and settlement
of land that happens to border on the present parks, or any that may be
created later, imply no title to any rights in the preserved area
beyond what belong to any American.''
Given the essential democracy of our parks, the first duty of the
National Park Service is to manage those parks in the national
interest. Although gateway communities are expected to contribute to
the determination of what is in the national interest, that
determination is a task for all the American people. Nevertheless, it
is also beneficial for the parks and their gateway communities to be
good neighbors and to develop mutually respectful relationships. And it
is understandable that those who reside in local communities around the
parks believe they have a unique interest in how the parks are managed.
Gateway Communities
The proximity of gateway communities to national parks has obvious
implications. For example, the desire of so many Americans to escape to
gateway communities that offer the clean environment, safe
neighborhoods, small-town atmosphere and recreational opportunities
they lack in cities and suburbs brings change to those communities'some
wanted, some unwanted. A survey conducted in the mid-1990s by The
Conservation Fund and The Sonoran Institute found that: (1) rapid
growth frequently overwhelms gateway communities and fails to meet
local needs and desires; (2) the vast majority of residents in gateway
communities want a healthy economy that does not jeopardize the
community's character or natural surroundings; and (3) many residents
in gateway communities lack information about the land-use and economic
development options available to them.
Just as importantly, the survey also found that many gateway
communities have developed successful initiatives to confront these
issues and protect their natural, historic and cultural character. This
is important not only for the gateway communities, themselves, but also
for their national park neighbors. Development decisions and other
actions taken or forgone by gateway communities can have an enormous
impact on adjacent national parks and on the experience of those who
visit them.
Unfortunately, the feeling in some quarters appears to be that
national parks somehow create crushing burdens on gateway communities.
While the desirability of these areas can create challenges for these
communities, sometimes significant ones, one should not discuss impacts
without focusing on the enormous benefits of living at the doorstep to
a national park. Those who live by our national parks have unparalleled
opportunities to experience a piece of our nation's natural or cultural
heritage on a daily basis. In addition to the recreational and
lifestyle benefits that attract so many Americans to gateway
communities, national parks also produce significant economic returns
for those communities. National park units do not achieve their status
by virtue of the economic development opportunities they present, but
the positive fiscal impact of national parks on gateway communities is
undeniable. National Parks serve as economic anchors in many
communities, providing jobs within the park and fostering economic
opportunity outside park boundaries. The park economy often replaces
declining sectors of existing rural economies, and can soften what
could otherwise be a significant economic blow to declining economic
opportunity in some rural communities.
Parks are economic engines that also create what some have called
``corridors of influence'' in adjacent communities and towns leading to
them. In these corridors, economic opportunities arise for restaurants,
hotels, gas stations, souvenir shops, and other service-oriented
businesses that cater to park visitors and bring valuable sources of
capital into local communities. At the same time, the development that
occurs adjacent to national parks is not always in the best interest of
the parks themselves, or of the purpose for which Congress created them
for the enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans.
NPCA recognizes the unique role that gateway communities play by
virtue of their proximity to national parks, and we agree that gateway
communities can and should have a voice in park policies that affect
them. They do today. We also agree that the National Park Service has
not always done the best job of communicating with gateway communities
when their interest was involved. On the other hand, gateway
communities do not have a perfect record of cooperation and
communication with their national park neighbors. We believe there are
enormous potential benefits of parks and gateway communities working
together to solve common problems, as is borne out by the growing list
of examples where national parks and their local neighbors have
developed impressive, coordinated solutions to challenges that affect
them both. And we are pleased to see attention being given to the
unique relationship that exists between national parks and gateway
communities. But a legal requirement that places the parochial desires
of gateway communities above the interest of all the American people is
not the answer.
Case Studies
Many examples already exist of exemplary cooperation between parks
and local communities. One excellent example involves Rocky Mountain
National Park and the town of Estes Park, Colorado. During the last
three years, representatives from the park and the local community have
worked closely to develop transportation solutions that benefit the
town and park, alike. The park superintendent serves on the town's
policy and oversight committee, and the park's chief ranger serves on
the technical committee developing the nuts and bolts of the plan. The
town and county are in the final stages of their transportation study,
and the park is helping the town devise a solution that reduces
congestion and leads to a common shuttle or transportation system
between the park and the town. Last year they worked together to
implement improved shuttle service in the park, and the town and county
both wrote letters of support to the regional director of the Park
Service that helped move the project forward
Another example is Zion National Park. In 2001, NPCA awarded the
Mayor of Springdale, the town council and its citizens our National
Park Achievement Award for their outstanding work with Zion National
Park officials to create a seamless public transportation system from
Springdale into Zion Canyon, the most heavily traveled portion of the
park. A transportation solution was needed because visitation to Zion
has increased from 1 million people in 1972 to 2.5 million visitors
today, subjecting many visitors to the park to city-like traffic jams.
Less patient drivers who couldn't get into one of the park's 400 spots
often parked illegally along the roadside, quickly destroying fragile
canyon habitat. Heavy exhaust fumes often hung in the canyon air.
Today, with the help of Zion's gateway community, gone is the
congestion, car exhaust, car noise and the string of cars parked along
the road. The visitor experience, natural resources, and businesses of
Springdale have all benefitted.
Another recent example involved the ban of personal watercraft at
Cape Cod National Seashore. After significant public input, the
National Park Service banned jet skis from federal waters, but waited
to implement the ban until the towns could develop their own jet ski
policies for contiguous waters. In this case, the towns had extensive
opportunity to comment on the Park Service's proposal, along with other
members of the public, and the Park Service then made its judgment
based on those comments and the information available to it. Then, the
Park Service provided ample opportunity for the towns to develop their
own policies.
None of these examples required the local communities to have
cooperating status under NEPA. In each case, communication and pursuit
of a respectful relationship by the Park Service and the local
communities created benefits for the park, the local community, and
park visitors.
There are many other such examples, including successful ventures
between Bar Harbor, Maine and Acadia National Park, between Fort Scott,
Kansas and Fort Scott National Historic Site, between Gettysburg
National Military Park and the borough of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and
between Saguaro National Park and Tucson, Arizona. All of these
endeavors were undertaken using current law, without any mandates, and
were successful because the parties wished them to be.
On the other hand, gateway communities do not always choose to
fully participate in opportunities presented to them by national park
representatives. For example, when Voyageurs National Park developed
its management plan in recent years, the park attempted to engage the
local government and the community in the process by forming what they
called a ``consultation group.'' But when local government
representatives realized the process would not be based on consensus
and that they could not dominate the discussions, they dropped out of
the process. Even when the park offered to pay for a person to work on
the General Management Plan on Koochiching county's behalf, the park's
offer was rejected.
In addition, actions by local communities are not always in the
best interests of their national park neighbors, and therefore not
always in the national interest. In an unfortunate case on Fire Island
National Seashore, for example, local communities have failed to
implement New York state law to prevent coastal erosion by limiting
construction in the dunes. Such construction destroys the dune system
and accelerates erosion, and could ultimately prompt property owners to
ask the Federal government to keep their houses from falling into the
ocean by implementing a costly and environmentally questionable re-
sanding program. In this case, the National Park Service's objections
to the building permits have been ignored.
And for many years, Gatlinburg, Tennessee refused to require the
use of bear-proof containers, despite the problems posed for Great
Smoky Mountains National Park and the bears by the town's refusal.
H.R. 4622
Although we agree that communication between parks and gateway
communities is important and worthwhile, and that cooperative endeavors
can produce excellent results, we believe that H.R. 4622 as introduced
would be counterproductive at best and harmful at worst. We are more
than willing to work with you to develop alternatives that facilitate
productive relationships between national parks and gateway
communities. However, we cannot support H.R. 4622 until significant
changes have been made.
First, the bill provides preference to gateway communities over the
rest of the public by exempting them from current National
Environmental Policy Act requirements that dictate when cooperating
status is justified. NEPA authorizes cooperating status where a
potential cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law over the specific
issue being considered or has special expertise. Therefore, we
emphatically reject the provision in the bill as unnecessary and
unwise. It provides gateway communities, as a matter of right, with
much greater weight in national park management and decision making
than the rest of the American public, regardless of the issue or the
expertise the community possesses. To paraphrase Freeman Tilden, the
cooperating agency provision implies title to rights for gateway
communities that elevates the interests of those communities in
national parks above the national interest.
In fact, by virtue of their proximity to parks, gateway communities
are already in a unique position to participate in public comment
processes with regard to park management. This, coupled with the many
examples where gateway communities and national parks are already
engaged in highly productive joint efforts, makes us question the
justification behind the cooperating agency provision. Furthermore, the
bill attempts to ``mandate'' cooperation in a one-sided fashion, when
we know that genuine cooperation is a function of partnerships and
relationships that build trust over time. A mandate to cooperate is not
likely to foster the kind of cooperative spirit that is already
developing between so many parks and their neighboring communities, and
could be counter productive.
Second, at a time when the national park system is underfunded by
32 percent and the national park maintenance backlog exceeds $5
billion, the bill calls for parks to further deplete their scarce
resources by providing financial grants and technical assistance to
gateway communities. But in many cases, parks simply lack key
personnel, and many parks likely lack the planners the bill envisions
should assist communities. We agree with the Chairman that technical
assistance can be useful and beneficial for the communities and the
parks, but the potential benefits have much to do with how the
assistance is structured and who is available to provide it. In
addition, we do not believe that 385 national park superintendents
should be required to administer the kind of new grant program the bill
contemplates, especially at the expense of their already scarce
resources. Furthermore, the bill creates a host of new paperwork
requirements for the National Park Service, which would undoubtedly
siphon precious resources away from the parks' core missions. Finally,
we urge the subcommittee to consider incentives that are better
directed at discouraging gateway communities from taking actions that
can adversely impact park resources and visitor enjoyment. The bill is
quite one-sided in this regard.
Third, the bill appears to require that Federal land agencies
produce regulatory impact statements for an enormous range of
activities that could impact local communities, including any ``plans,
decisions, or policies'' that could have a significant impact on them.
This has the potential to create an enormous burden for the National
Park Service and other Federal land management agencies, to delay
actions necessary to protect park resources, and to lead to litigation
or other legal maneuvering against parks over whether parks should have
produced such statements and over whether participation was
``meaningful''. Such a requirement is wholly inappropriate in the
national park context, and would provide gateway communities with
primacy over the national interest. Rather than foster cooperation, we
fear that this provision could generate conflict that gives gateway
communities far more leverage than is justified over the national
interest.
Finally, we believe the application of H.R. 4622 is overly broad.
It takes a one-size-fits-all approach to the missions of Federal land
management agencies and does not appear to acknowledge the vast
differences among many national park units.
Taken together, the provisions in the bill could easily be used by
some forces within gateway communities to stymie the National Park
Service's park management needs and requirements. We believe that
enacting them would be an enormous mistake and could unwittingly
jeopardize the precious treasures in our national parks.
We suggest a different approach. First, we recommend an analysis of
existing authorities for the Park Service to provide financial and
technical assistance to gateway communities. Clearly, technical
assistance for gateway communities in how to effectively engage in land
use planning can be beneficial, and if impediments exist, they should
probably be rectified. Any gaps identified in the review could be
addressed in legislation.
Next, we would rework the grant program in the bill to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to local governments to
develop plans that aid in park resource protection and facilitate
community involvement in the kinds of cooperative endeavors that have
been undertaken at many national parks. Clearly, such grants could be
beneficial to gateway communities. They should not, however, be
subtracted from Park Service operating funds.
Then, rather than focus so much effort legislating a preferred
position for gateway communities in national park decisions or
dictating how park superintendents assign their scarce personnel, we
respectfully suggest that the subcommittee should work aggressively to
encourage the Committee on Appropriations to provide parks with the
funds they need. Some parks already provide technical assistance to
their gateway community neighbors, but they frequently do so in the
face of very scarce resources. The better funded the parks are, the
more able they will be to provide technical assistance and have park
personnel work directly with communities on time consuming planning
matters.
Finally, we would encourage the subcommittee to require agencies
that undertake or propose actions that could have a significant adverse
effect on cultural or natural resources in national parks to work with
the parks to mitigate any such impacts before such actions are allowed
to proceed. Ideally, such a provision would also require the agency in
question to refrain from taking an action in an area adjacent to a
national park unit if the action was likely to have an adverse impact
on park values. Such initiatives would help address significant threats
to our national parks, where problems like sprawl place park ecosystems
under increasing stress.
Conclusion
In summary, we respect the Chairman's desire to enhance the
relationship between the National Park Service and local communities
where relationships could be improved. However, as the bill is drafted,
we believe its effect goes well beyond that goal and, in some cases,
could work against it. As introduced, H.R. 4622 places the desires of
local gateway communities above the national interest. The number of
successes where parks and local communities work together to devise
creative solutions to common challenges continues to grow without the
kind of mandate the bill includes, and we believe that rather than
facilitate cooperation, the bill would create roadblocks that inhibit
the National Park Service from doing its job. Finally, any legislation
related to gateway communities must also address the need to focus much
more on protecting parks against actions undertaken adjacent to park
boundaries that have an adverse impact on visitor experience, park
ecology, or a park's cultural or historic values.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Stephen Thomas, the Northern Plains
Regional Director of the Sierra Club, from Sheridan, Wyoming.
Welcome, and please begin.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN THOMAS, NORTHERN PLAINS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
SIERRA CLUB, SHERIDAN, WYOMING
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed an honor
for me to be here today. I don't often get to this part of the
world from Wyoming, but I am thankful to be here and glad you
allowed me to testify.
I served, as a little bit of background, I served as county
commissioner in Teton County, Wyoming for a couple of terms
where, incidentally, the county is 97 percent Federally
managed, including Yellowstone, Grand Teton National Park, two
national forests, and a national wildlife refuge. I also
served, at the request of the Wyoming State Governor, the Tri-
State Grizzly Conservation Committee, the State of Wyoming
Grizzly Bear Management Committee, and I presently serve on the
board of directors of the University of Wyoming Institute for
the Environment and Natural Resources.
During the years that I was county commissioner, I owned
and operated a store in Jackson, Wyoming, and I was dependent
on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park for my livelihood.
I must say, however, I felt very fortunate to be there, because
with 3 million people blowing through there every year, it is
darn hard not to make a living in that gateway community. It
would be--I thought it was, really--almost be impossible to go
broke there with that kind of a captive audience coming through
every year. And I always felt as the county commissioner and as
a business owner, we actually had more impact on the parks than
they did on us.
The parks, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, there are going to be
3 million people coming through there, and there has been for
the last 25 years, and there are going to be increased numbers
for the next 25 years. I would predict that we had a much
greater impact by what we did in planning and zoning outside
the park than what the park did to us.
And I agree that citizens in these communities should have
a say in or access to the planning process in the national
parks and national forests, just like other Americans. But, you
know, we already have that. I can walk down the street, talk to
the National Wildlife Refuge Superintendent, or the Forest
Service Supervisor or a National Park Superintendent. I know
him on a first-name basis. They notified me, when I was county
commissioner, of any plans they might have coming. I went and
talked to them.
The point is that we already had a very elevated ability to
cooperate and interact with the agencies, more so than the
person living in Hoboken, New Jersey or somewhere else. And
Yellowstone may be as important to that person as it was to me,
maybe for a different reason.
So I never did feel like we needed any--or I still don't
feel like we needed any more help with that, because we already
had it. I never thought Grant Teton or Yellowstone was a county
park. I thought the key operative word is ``national'' park. So
national interest, I always felt, should prevail over local
interest, even though I made my living there, because I felt
like if the national interest prevailed, my interest would
ultimately prevail, because I would still be able to make a
living if that park was taken care of.
And my fear is if you elevate elected officials to
cooperating agencies, like what happened with the snow machines
in Yellowstone, the five counties and the three States
surrounding Yellowstone were elevated to cooperating agency
status, that economic interest prevailed. Many of these elected
officials, myself included, had an economic interest in the
park. And so many of them protect the economic interest at the
expense of other park values, or that is how they view things.
The perfect example is snow machines. Everybody admits they
pollute the park. EPA and the Park Service want them banned,
and yet the five States and the three counties are still out
there lobbying, trying to keep them from being prohibited.
I also submitted to you all four resolutions adopted by
Fremont County, which is a gateway community to Shoshone
National Forest. The two of them outlawed grizzly bears and
other species deemed undesirable by the county commissioners
within the boundaries of the county, even though about 40
percent of the recovery area for grizzly bears lies within
Fremont County's boundaries and the grizzly bears have been
there since the last glaciation.
So the point is that local governments do not always
demonstrate the greatest regard for natural resources and
natural wonders. It is many times too highly influenced by
economic considerations.
Incidentally, those resolutions were adopted without any
public input. The public was not notified of those. They were
adopted in a secret meeting in Fremont County. So that is
another one of my concerns.
So, as for the provision in the legislation requiring or
allowing or maybe requiring--I am not sure I understand it--
that the gateway communities and all the incorporated cities
can be elevated to cooperating status; in Yellowstone, for
instance, there are five counties, three states, and at least
10 incorporated cities. That would create a hell of a
bureaucratic mess, I would think, in terms of trying to
administer any kind of management plan if everyone was elevated
to the same level.
Again, I guess I see my time is up, I would like to
emphasize that I think local officials already enjoy a very
much increased influence in decisionmaking processes of the
agencies in which they are fortunate to live in. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas, for being
here, as well as the testimony from everybody else.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]
Statement of Steve Thomas, Northern Plains Regional Field Director,
Sierra Club
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today. This is certainly a topic worth
discussing. I will try to establish by my testimony that the result of
this legislation will be the ``control'' of National Parks rather than
``cooperation''. My name is Steve Thomas, and I live in Sheridan,
Wyoming. I served 2 terms as a Teton County Commissioner in Jackson
Hole, Wyoming, where I owned and operated a grocery store for many
years. I also served, at the request of Wyoming's governor, on the
``Tri-State Grizzly Conservation Committee'' and the ``State of Wyoming
Grizzly Bear Management Committee''. I presently serve on the Board of
Directors of the ``University of Wyoming Institute for the Environment
and Natural Resources''. For the past year, I have been employed as the
Northern Plains Director of the Sierra Club. I offer this background to
you to illustrate my extensive past and current involvement with issues
involving the National Parks and Forests.
During the years that I operated my store in Jackson, Wyoming, I
was dependent on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks for my
livelihood. Many people in gateway communities surrounding National
Parks are in a similar situation. I must say, however, that I always
felt I was very fortunate to be in business in such a situation. With
some 3 million people blowing through Yellowstone every year, it would
be darn hard not to make it in the tourist business. I also always felt
that we adjacent to the Parks had much greater impacts on the Parks
than they did on us. As long as the Park Service protects the natural
wonders and wildlife, people will always come to Yellowstone. You see,
it is not the towns on the borders of the Park that people come to
visit but rather the Parks themselves. Yes, we were indeed fortunate to
live in a gateway community and to be able to benefit from the cash
cows that National Parks are for surrounding communities and states.
Now, I agree that citizens in these communities should be able to
access the Parks' planning process just like other Americans. But you
know something, those of us that live in these communities already have
superior access than the citizens of the rest of the Country. When I
lived in Jackson and was a County Commissioner, I could walk down the
street and visit with the Supervisor of the Bridger Teton National
Forest. On the way there, I could stop off and visit the Superintendent
of the National Elk Refuge. Then I could get in my car and drive 14
miles to visit with the Superintendent of Grand Teton National Park.
All of these people I knew on a first name basis. In fact, I found them
to be very open to my concerns and ideas. I had great influence in
decisions--much more than other citizens across the Country. This is
not to say that I always agreed with their decisions, but I did not
need special statutory authority to be involved with the Parks'
planning process. I think it would be a shame to elevate local
officials in gateway communities even further than they already are
above the average citizen who also has a great stake in what happens in
our National Parks.
When I was a County Commissioner, I never thought that Grand Teton
or Yellowstone was a County Park. These Parks exist to protect natural
wonders and for the enjoyment of all citizens of this Nation, not just
those of us who are fortunate enough to live nearby. The key word here
is NATIONAL. These spectacular places are a source of pride and wonder
for the people of this Country. The Parks primary purpose is not for
people like me to make money. That is one of the points I would like to
make regarding elevating local elected officials to a higher level than
average citizens: if you elevate local officials of gateway
communities, many of whom have an indirect commercial interest in these
Parks, you will heighten an already extensive and powerful local
economic influence in Park decisions.
Let me cite a glaring example of this local economic influence.
Snow machines. Nearly everyone admits that snow machines are polluting
Yellowstone and Grand Teton Parks, causing severe problems with
wildlife and other Park values. The Park Service, as well as the EPA,
has conducted exhaustive studies regarding these machines and their
impacts. All conclude that these machines should be banned from the
Parks. Yet, the surrounding five Counties and three states have mounted
a campaign for purely economic reasons to keep these machines in the
Parks. Even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that these
machines harm the Parks and despite overwhelming public support for
banning snow machines, local officials have exercised their substantial
influence to keep these machines in the Parks.
The four County resolutions I have submitted to the Committee
provide you with another example of what can happen when local control
is increased. Keep in mind that Counties in Wyoming adopt law by
resolution, so the four resolutions submitted to you have the force of
law in Wyoming and, also, that these Commissioners maintain that their
county governments have jurisdiction over all public/federal lands in
their County, including the Wind River Indian Reservation. Three of
these resolutions were adopted by the Fremont County, Wyoming,
Commissioners purportedly to outlaw grizzly bears, wolves, and any
other wildlife species that the Fremont County Commissioners deem
``undesirable''. The 4th resolution prohibits the Forest Service from
adopting food storage rules which help protect forest users from bears
and other wildlife. The Commissioners instructed the Sheriff to enforce
these resolutions by ``any means necessary'' and instructed citizens to
ignore the Forest Service's food storage rules. Oh, incidentally these
resolutions where adopted without prior notification to the public, so
county residents had no opportunity to have input. Similar resolutions
have been adopted by other gateway local governments in Wyoming.
I cite these resolutions to illustrate the real world in western
Wyoming regarding natural wonders and how certain local elected
officials regard them. Enforcement of these local laws would extirpate
endangered species from the entire County just at a time when the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is thinking of removing these animals from
the Endangered Species List and after the Federal Government has spent
millions of dollars on the protection and recovery of these animals.
Also, killing or removing grizzly bears or wolves would be in stark
contrast to the wishes of the people of the United States who have
largely supported recovery and protection of these animals in the
Yellowstone area. Now, I know that these local officials claim they did
not have enough input into the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and, thus,
they need the bill before you today to protect their interests. But I
am here to tell you that we invited them to participate with the
Governor-appointed ``Citizens Bear Management Committee'', and they
chose not to show up. We even held all the meetings in Fremont County,
Wyoming, and still they chose not to participate. The point is that
local officials in certain gateway communities are not interested so
much in cooperation as they are in increasing their already substantial
influence in Park decisions and taking control of the National Parks.
As for the provision in the legislation being considered by this
Committee to provide funding for gateway communities to participate in
a Park's planning process, the Counties in the West with large tracts
of federal lands already get huge federal subsidies in the form of
Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) and other sources of federal government
funding. In Teton County, Wyoming, we split all sales taxes collected
inside Yellowstone with a 2nd gateway County, and we kept all the sales
taxes from Grand Teton National Park. This resulted in hundreds of
thousands of dollars in income per year for our County. We did not have
to provide any services for the Parks except a couple of ballot boxes
for Park employees to vote. They even paid us for trash disposal. I
used to call it ``manna from heaven''. Just think, there is only 3% of
Teton County that is privately owned, and the rest is public lands
including Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks; yet, we collected
taxes from all those lands for doing nothing. For example, we did not
maintain roads, we did not provide law enforcement, we did not provide
fire protection, and we did not have to do any of the administrative
activities we did for the rest of the County. Such a deal!
Finally, exactly how would the Park Service implement this proposed
legislation? If all incorporated gateway cities and all gateway
counties are elevated to Cooperating Agency status, Parks such as
Yellowstone with 5 gateway Counties and at least 10 gateway
incorporated cities would have 15 people that would be ``cooperators''.
This would mean that, as a group, local officials' influence would be
even more disproportionate to that of other citizens of the Country.
In summary, this legislation is not about cooperation but rather
about control. The cooperation that the agency presently demonstrates
with local officials already goes above and beyond the call of duty.
What certain Counties are angry about is that they do not get their way
all of the time. While I may have disagreed with certain Park
decisions, I respected their professional ability to manage the Park,
and I knew that I did not have the expertise to do that. As a former
gateway County Commissioner, I recognize gateway government officials
already have more influence over Park decisions than all other citizens
of this Country. It is important for you to recognize that many times
the interests these local officials represent conflict with Park values
as demonstrated by the snowmobile and the endangered species issues I
cited previously. Management authority over the Parks is properly
vested with the Park Service in cooperation with other federal
agencies, all of whom are required to protect national interests.
Certain County officials who seek to pollute a Park's resources and
kill every species of wildlife they dislike obviously should not be
given increased influence and control over Park decisions.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I am the lucky guy. I get to ask all the
questions here. If you will indulge me, I do have, I think,
good questions for just about everybody here.
But, Mr. Thomas, I would say to you, if you had mentioned
living near a National Park Service when you were in business,
and being an active member in what would be probably termed a
gateway community, and citing all those examples of whether
cooperation did exist, if you were not--say that the parks that
surrounded you were not all that willing to participate, would
your view of this legislation change, do you think?
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I don't think so. And I will tell
you why. You know, I may not have always agreed with what the
parks decided, but I can't imagine and I don't think anyone has
ever cited any place where they will not talk to you. If you
are a county commissioner, you pick up the phone, I think they
are going to talk to you. Like I say, the complaint here more
is that they didn't decide to do what we wanted them to do.
Mr. Radanovich. That is clearly a difference.
Mr. Thomas. And so, you know, it has just not been my
experience. And also my experience in other parts of the State
where I have lived, in Park County, Wyoming, and in Sheridan
County, Wyoming where, you know, I could pick up the phone and
talk to these guys or I could take a walk down the street, I
never had a problem with any of the agencies in that regard.
Mr. Radanovich. I view this legislation sometimes as the
possibilities of the local communities providing reality checks
to some of the things that the parks do in the formulation of
their plans and such, and in some ways providing maybe a
balance of influence over various agencies, which I would say
Sierra Club or Parks Conservation Association might be a part
of, that might need checking sometimes. For example, just some
of the things that the Park Service, because the lands clearly
belong to the public--I don't think there is any dispute in
that whatsoever--but I guess the way I view the legislation is
that the input that the local communities do bring into the
process is a sense of reality, when sometimes influences from
your organizations can come to some pretty far-fetched--not all
the time, but in your extreme--some conclusions that may not
have a foot in reality. Care to comment?
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I have been in both places. I was
a business owner in Jackson, Wyoming for 15 years, which is a
true gateway community with 3 million people going through
there every year. And I tell you, I always felt like that I
influenced the decisions more than any environmental group
could even dream about because of my daily access to these
folks and to the agency people. And the agency people, not like
they have been portrayed here today, come blowing into town not
knowing anything about anything--the agency people were members
of our community and participated in the Chamber of Commerce
and Rotary and all the different service clubs, so us business
folks had a lot of access to them. And we had the wherewithal
and the money to pressure them and to get our ideas
incorporated. So I say I would take a little different tact on
that from being on that other side for so long.
Mr. Radanovich. If I may ask you one question, and one of
you, Ms. Loomis, as well: Do you feel this legislation is a
threat to the influence that you have on the national parks?
Mr. Thomas. No, I don't think so. But I think it does
threaten the average citizen in that it elevates a certain
special economic interest to a higher level. That is my fear.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Loomis.
Ms. Loomis. I would agree with that, and also I would--
Mr. Radanovich. You would agree?
Ms. Loomis. With what he had said as well, and I believe it
creates an additional burden on an already overstrapped agency.
I think the point that Mrs. Christensen was making through her
questions was that the authority already exists for many of
these Federal agencies to offer the kind of involvement and
cooperation that you are seeking with your legislation. It
hasn't been evenly applied, and we can agree with that.
And I think partially that, frankly, as these parks don't
have the people, the resources, to do the kind of outreach,
that is necessary. And if your legislation can provide through
funds other than base funding, important grant programs and
resources for the parks to be able to do a better job of
outreach, then I think it could be a very good thing.
Mr. Radanovich. Interesting. One of the things that has
occurred in Yosemite over time is that they are beginning to
look at the satellite communities to locate some of the
administrative functions of the Park Service and some other
things. And this has been done, I think, by a conscious effort
of the National Park Service to do outreach to those
communities. It was not the case. Actually, it is just
basically dependent on the person that is in the position as
Superintendent of the Park Service that this outreach is
occurring, because for many, many years the reaction was
different; that the park would solve all their problems within
their own borders, and not doing any of the collaborative stuff
that would end up costing the Park Service far less money and
far less damage to the environment in the long run.
Ms. Loomis. One of the things--I don't know if you have
become aware of it, but the Park Service is reevaluating its
vision statement. One of the things it is looking at is
focusing on the whole concept of partnership and elevating its
importance within the agency. And I think that the agency
itself is trying to take a more aggressive approach to that
kind of outreach.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Davidson, how do
you think that under this bill that the State Department of
Tourism might design or designate a gateway community?
Mr. Davidson. As it is written in H.R. 4622, both the State
tourism office or the Federal land management agency would have
the opportunity to designate gateway communities. There are a
number of different ways. None of them necessarily stand
independent. It could be based on visitation to the national
park or the forest. It could be based on the dependency of that
gateway community on visitor expenditures and how that relates
to the overall balance of the economy. Is this a community that
is more than 50 percent dependent, if you look at the total
economic structure of that economy, on visitor expenditures? Is
it a sizable portion thereof? The size of the community, their
distance from the public lands.
The thing is that each of these could be important and
could be a very important part of the formula. But what I find
most important as it is laid out in H.R. 4622 is that each
State has that ability to define, based on the specific makeup
of their State and what the current economic needs are as well
as those environmental and social needs that have been touched
on today by the Committee.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Warren, how do you
respond to the complaint that the gateways actually profit from
their proximity to Federal lands and therefore should be happy
with whatever they might be able to get out of it?
Mr. Warren. Well, certainly in a case where there are 3
million people blowing through town, I am sure that does
benefit that particular community. But not every gateway has
the benefit of that sort of visitation. Some of the least-
visited park units out there have sometimes less than 10- to
20,000 people going through their communities, and yet often
they are required to provide those Services such as rescue, you
know, ambulance services, and all sorts of other services,
sheriff services, that they are not compensated for.
So there are instances where there is a great benefit to
being next to a national park or other public lands management
unit, but there are many, many more instances where they are
not benefiting because there aren't enough people to pay for
that sort of impact. Many communities only have a small window
of time each year when they get a little bit of business, and
often they are kind of hanging on by their fingernails to be in
business.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Warren.
Ms. Hale, how do the Forest Service, the Park Service, and
the BLM, which you mentioned in your testimony and various--I
mean multiples of those agencies that you are dealing with in
Montrose--how do they differ in their ability and inclination
to collaborate with you and Montrose County? Do you feel that
one is better than the other, or do you get equal treatment?
Ms. Hale. That changes on a daily basis. And at any given
time and day, how our citizens and how we as elected officials
feel about a different agency depends on where they are
standing on different issues. And the National Park Service at
the present time happens to be at the bottom on the list
because of the Black Canyon in Gunnison water filing.
I wish that Mrs. Christensen was here, because I can cite a
specific example of a bad experience, and that happens to be
the Black Canyon, Gunnison, with the water filing. The National
Park Service last year, without any notice to local residents
or local officials, filed on a 12,000 cfs water right. And,
unfortunately, when you take our water, you take our land. So
not only does this have extreme ramifications from the
standpoint of economics, but just on the heart and soul of our
community. And we found out through the Justice Department. And
thankfully there were over 380 letters of opposition and, also
thankfully, the Federal agencies outside of the Park Service
were all opposed to the water filing. So now have you the
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife, opposing the National
Park Service water filing action.
But there have been times when the BLM, which recently--now
they are conducting their back country wilderness study, which
incorporates 19,000 acres of private ground. When our citizens
see a big black line drawn around their private grounds, around
a wilderness area or recreation area or monument of some kind
or park of some kind, they immediately say oh, my gosh, they
are going to regulate what we do on our land.
At any given day and time, the Park Service could be the
agency of choice, or the BLM, or, you know-- we actually are
getting along quite well with the Forest Service right now on
our county forest restoration partnership. I did want to thank
the Forest Service folks who are here today. We are working
with two other counties in New Mexico and Arizona on a pilot
forest, and we are very excited about that because it will
address a lot of our wildfire and economic use. So like I said,
it just depends on where you are at on any given day.
I guess the thing that I like about your bill is that
saying you are collaborating, cooperating, and communicating is
one thing, but doing is it another. And that is the key, you
know. And I do think it depends on the philosophy of the parks
director, of the local agent, whoever that may be, the local
bureau director. Because I talk over and over again--and we are
one of those small parks, you know. I tell people the Black
Canyon is a 2-wow park. The people come in, they look over,
wow; they go to the next place, wow; and they leave town. They
don't eat in our restaurants, they don't stay in our hotels. It
doesn't have the economic impact that a Yellowstone has, but it
is a national park. It is a wonderful piece of our community.
We love it and we are proud to have it as a park.
But again I don't have the benefit of 3 million visitors,
but I still have to do search and rescue, I still have to do
roads, I still have to do all the infrastructure and things
that those parks demand. And so I commend you on drafting this
legislation, and I would put my full support and that of CCI
and NACo behind it.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. One more question on the
agencies: What do you attribute to be the cause of the various
reactions that you might get from a various action from 1 day
to the next?
Ms. Hale. Well, I think--boy, is there just one cause?
Well, part of the issue is I think historically the driving
force has been from the top down. Management has been from the
top down. And where I see this going is management plans being
from the bottom up. Getting the partners--and I do prefer the
term ``partner'' for local government over stakeholder--getting
the partners in the room together. And I think the gentleman
here--Mr. Duncan, is it--spoke about how the people have lived
there forever and ever. My husband's family homesteaded on the
border to the Black Canyon National Park in the 1906. They
built the cubby, began tunnels that brought water to that
valley. They have a vested interest in being good stewards not
only of the park but the land adjacent to the park. They have
lived there, and my kids are going to live there, and their
grandchildren.
So if the land use management plan comes from the bottom
up, it make more sense because it works symbiotically with the
private landowners. If the plans come from the top down, the
locals immediately reject them because they feel like, gee, if
this came out of Washington--they have no idea what has
happened here for the last 100 years.
And in our particular case, people in the East have a
tendency to not understand water law. I can say that because I
actually grew up in Binghamton, New York. So, you know, this
has been a new thing for me, too, to represent a county that is
totally different than where I was raised for 21 years.
So I think that approach--I think what your bill does, what
it does is, it starts to get that bottom-up creativity in
management and it helps to build that communication,
cooperation, collaboration. Because the ideas aren't all coming
from the scientists. You know, we hear about everything has to
be based on sound science and everything, and that is great.
But sometimes the scientists are the stewards that have worked
that land. It doesn't do us any good to beat up the ground and
wear it out and take advantage of the wildlife and hunt them
out and over-hunt and over-graze and all those things, because
that is how we make our living. So we need to continue to
rejuvenate that.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hale.
Ms. Loomis, the Park Service management policies require
that the park superintendents monitor and participate in local
zoning and planning that takes place outside the park. In your
opinion, do you think that gateway communities should be able
to expect the reciprocal relationship? If the Park Service is
required to do that, shouldn't the gateways be able to be a
participant in that as well?
Ms. Loomis. Yes. I mean, I believe that the gateway
communities are expected--I think it is important that the Park
Service not only notify gateway communities, but the American
public as a whole when they are planning significant management
actions. Should gateway communities then be given sort of an
advance notice, ahead of the rest of the American public? I
don't know if I agree with that. Because I think that the
entire American public are owners of these parks and have
interests and are concerned about what is going on within park
boundaries. I can see where, when a park is working on a
collaborative solution to a problem that also extends into the
gateway community--and one that I am familiar with is
transportation--I see where that would require probably a
higher level of communication with the gateway community,
because it is one that the community has to be part of the
solution.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you tell me what would be the
difference between an agency that cooperates with, say, a
Yellowstone in the development of--in this planning process,
for example. That is already happening. Say in this bill it
would be--what is the difference between what is already
happening and what would be--the cooperation that would be
occurring in my bill which would be the--I mean, an agency that
is already participating in a planning process today is already
viewed as a cooperative agency, because that relationship
already exists because they were allowed in to be a cooperative
planner in the agency. So I am not sure that I understand. Is
this issue being elevated as a result of this bill?
Ms. Loomis. In your bill you are allowing any gateway
community to receive cooperator status, which under NEPA means
they get an elevated--they get a seat at the table. They have
the privilege of having more involvement in the planning
process. But cooperator status under NEPA is supposed to be
determined by whether or not that agency or entity has legal
jurisdiction over the property at hand. If it is an issue
within a park and how the resources within a park are managed,
I don't see how a gateway community has legal jurisdiction over
that and would thus warrant being granted cooperator status.
Mr. Radanovich. So you view the relationship by local
communities in the process different under this legislation
than it would be under one that is cooperating with the Park
Service voluntarily?
Ms. Loomis. I see where your legislation--right. Your
legislation allows them to have cooperator status under NEPA
which, like I said, is an elevated form of involvement, which
would be elevated above what the average American would have,
just participating and responding to scoping process or
something like that.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Thomas, a couple questions.
Do you believe that Federal agencies are giving up any
authority in this bill, if passed? And if so, could you please
explain how that might take place?
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I believe they might be in terms
of, as I understand cooperating agency status, you are involved
from the very get-go. That means when they start their internal
discussions of the NEPA process and what is going to be in the
actual scoping document, that goes out to the general public,
so you have an opportunity to shape the direction of that
before it goes out to the public. And it seems to me that if
you have a manager, a Federal land manager who is managing a
piece of Federal land, that he and his staff or she and her
staff and the other Federal cooperating agencies should have
the first crack at that before it goes out to the general
public, or the gateway communities for that matter.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. I want to ask that
question of some of the other members of the panel. Please feel
free. I want to ask you, Mr. Davidson, but if you don't have
the planning background to know the answer to this thing, you
know, please feel free to beg off. But I did want to ask you
the same question: Do you believe that Federal agencies are
giving up any authority in this bill? If you are not, feel free
to say I am not qualified to answer. But I am trying to get a
view from the other side as well.
Mr. Davidson. I appreciate that opportunity to say I am not
qualified as a planner and therefore I would not be qualified
to respond.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Warren or Ms. Hale?
Mr. Warren. Well, one thing I can say is that, from a
community perspective, when we are impacted we do have a right
to be part of that process. And I think that is the key is who
determines what impact obviously, and you have to be invited
in. You can't be invited in by yourself. You have to have the
authority to be invited in.
That is what your legislation will enable, is that
opportunity to be identified as a gateway community; for
example, when Ms. Hale indicated the impact that a small
national park might have on rescue, as an example. In their
management plan, who do they go to when there is an incident?
Those are the things that the community ought to have a say in
and be part of that process. And so I don't think it takes
away. It in essence puts an obligation on situations which are
changing and should be seen as a new obligation. So I don't
think you can say it takes away anything.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Hale.
Ms. Hale. I did speak with our Parks Director, Sheridan
Steele, and let him know that I was coming out here to testify
on this. I was very supportive of the bill. His concern, of
course, was funding; and I don't know as I agree with his
concern. But I think the spirit of the bill certainly says it
all, and that they need to work with local communities. And I
think that the Park Service is realizing they need to do that.
So I do not see this as something that would hinder or diminish
the Federal agency's authorities or anything like that. In
fact, I think this would enhance it, because they would have
community support and they would have community buy-in. So I
think it would be a benefit. And I am certain that Sheridan
Steele would agree with me on that.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Well, that ends my questioning and I
guess that ends the panel's questioning, since I am the only
one left up here. But I really want to thank everybody for
being here. I appreciate--Mr. Warren.
Mr. Warren. One last thing I would like to say. One of the
things that I think many of us love about these Federal
agencies is the decentralized process that they go through of
making decisions, but also one of the things we hate about
these agencies is the decentralized process they go through in
making these decisions. Your bill gives a level playing field
to any community, whether they are adjacent to Yellowstone or
adjacent to whatever that small national park is. Again, I
think that is the message that several of us would like to
leave with you, is that formalized process that you are
encouraging to happen with this legislation.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Again, thank you very
much for being here. I appreciate your testimony and the time
you took to be before the Committee. And with that, this
hearing is adjourned. Thank you again.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-