[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 318, H.R. 4029, H.R. 4049, H.R. 4182, H.R. 4272, H.R. 4283, H.R.
4489, AND H.R. 4527
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-74
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
88-342 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Raul Ruiz, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Bill Flores, TX Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT Katherine M. Clark, MA
Kevin Cramer, ND Vacancy
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Vance M. McAllister, LA
Bradley Byrne, AL
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Louie Gohmert, TX Rush Holt, NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Paul C. Broun, GA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO Vacancy
Vance M. McAllister, LA Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 10, 2014........................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri.......................................... 49
Duffy, Hon. Sean P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin, Prepared statement of.................. 62
Fountain, Edwin, Commissioner, World War I Centennial
Commission................................................. 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Knox, Victor, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities
and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
McClure, Steve, Commissioner, Union County Board of
Commissioners.............................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Michaud, Hon. Michael H., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maine......................................... 2
Roberts, Christy, Ellington, Missouri........................ 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Ross, Hon. Robert, State Representative District 142,
Missouri House of Representatives.......................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho, Prepared statement of.................. 62
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Weber, William E., Colonel, United States Army, Retired;
Chairman, Korean War Veterans Memorial Foundation.......... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Rebuttal to testimony of Victor Knox, Department of the
Interior............................................... 57
Weldon, Leslie A.C., Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Additional Material Submitted for the Record:
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
Prepared statement on H.R. 4272............................ 66
Lecky, William P., Board of Directors for the Korean War
Veterans Memorial Foundation, Prepared statement on H.R.
318........................................................ 67
Letter submitted for the record by Rep. Grijalva on H.R. 4029
and H.R. 4182.............................................. 82
Letters submitted for the record by Rep. Duffy on H.R. 4049.. 63
Letters submitted for the record by Rep. Walden on H.R. 4272. 70
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
committee's official files................................. 83
National Parks Conservation Association, Prepared statement
on H.R. 4029, H.R. 4049, and H.R. 4182..................... 69
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 318, TO AUTHORIZE A WALL OF
REMEMBRANCE AS PART OF THE KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL AND TO
ALLOW CERTAIN PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND THAT WALL OF
REMEMBRANCE; H.R. 4029, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO TRANSFER ALL FEDERAL LAND, FACILITIES, AND ANY
OTHER ASSETS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC
RIVERWAYS TO THE STATE OF MISSOURI FOR THE PURPOSES OF
MAINTAINING A STATE PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 4049, TO
AMEND THE ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APOSTLE
ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARY OF THAT NATIONAL
LAKESHORE TO INCLUDE THE LIGHTHOUSE KNOWN AS ASHLAND HARBOR
BREAKWATER LIGHT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``ASHLAND BREAKWATER
LIGHT TRANSFER ACT''; H.R. 4182, TO PROVIDE THAT THE OZARK
NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS SHALL BE ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THAT UNIT OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 4272, TO STOP
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOREST SERVICE TRAVEL
MANAGEMENT RULE AND TO REQUIRE THE FOREST SERVICE TO
INCORPORATE THE NEEDS, USES, AND INPUT OF AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
BEFORE TAKING ANY TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ACTION AFFECTING ACCESS TO
UNITS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM DERIVED FROM THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FOREST ACCESS IN RURAL
COMMUNITIES ACT''; H.R. 4283, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC
RIVERS ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
MAINTAIN OR REPLACE CERTAIN FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES FOR
COMMERCIAL RECREATION SERVICES AT SMITH GULCH IN IDAHO, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 4489, TO DESIGNATE MEMORIALS TO THE
SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN WORLD
WAR I, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``WORLD WAR I MEMORIAL ACT OF
2014''; AND H.R. 4527, TO REMOVE A USE RESTRICTION ON LAND
FORMERLY A PART OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK THAT WAS TRANSFERRED TO
THE TOWN OF TREMONT, MAINE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Tipton,
LaMalfa, Smith; Grijalva, and Cartwright.
Mr. Bishop. All right. This hearing is going to come to
order ahead of time. Mr. Grijalva is on his way, but we will do
some audibles as time goes on here.
The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
Regulations is meeting to hear testimony on a wide variety of
bills. Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to
the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, we ask unanimous
consent to include any other Member's opening statement in the
record. I also ask unanimous consent that Members who are not
of the full committee or the subcommittee be allowed to sit on
the dais and take part in the proceedings.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. And, hearing no objections, we are going to do
that.
Today's hearing is going to deal with several different
panels, and we are doing it in a different order to try and
actually make hearings meaningful. Stupid idea.
So we are going to do bill by bill, in which case we will
hear the testimony of a bill and ask the questions before we
move on to the next piece of legislation, with one caveat to
that. Mr. Michaud from Maine has another obligation from when
he was scheduled, so I am actually going to take his testimony,
his bill first. We will deal with that, and then we will move
on to the Walden bill.
So, the gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
And then, when Mr. Grijalva is here, if he has an opening
statement we will add that opening statement for the record. I
will not have an opening statement.
You are on.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank Ranking Member Grijalva, as well as members of the
subcommittee, for holding this hearing on H.R. 4527. Also
really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your taking me out of order,
as you know I have to manage a veterans bill coming up at the
same time I was supposed to be here for this bill. I also want
to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their
leadership.
H.R. 4527 would make a simple change to ensuring that a
community in my district can continue to use land formerly
owned by Acadia National Park. In 1950 Congress conveyed a
track of land from the park to the Town of Tremont,
specifically for the purpose of building and maintaining a
school. The conveying deed contained a clause requiring the
land to be transferred to the National Park Service if it was
ever used for non-school purposes.
Unfortunately, what had been best for the Park Service and
the community in 1950 might not be best for the town in 2014.
Today, as Tremont and surrounding communities are facing
declining enrollment, the town has explored merging its
elementary school with neighboring Southwest Harbor. Under the
terms of the original conveyance, should the town close the
school, the land would be transferred back to the Federal
Government. Complicating the situation is legislation passed by
Congress in 1986 establishing a permanent boundary for Acadia
National Park. The boundary established did not include the
track of land containing the school. As a result, if Tremont
were to stop using the land, it would be transferred to GSA.
My legislation simply removes current use restriction on
the land, which would allow Tremont to continue to utilize the
property it has been maintaining for 64 years. Acadia National
Park has expressed a strong support for the bill, and the GSA
has communicated to my office that it would not oppose the
effort to allow Tremont to keep the land.
This simply is common-sense legislation that would ensure
that my constituents can continue to use this land for
community purposes, as the local residents see fit. I ask the
committee to support this simple fix to allowing the community
of Tremont to continue to use this land that has been part of
the community for more than six decades.
And let me again express my sincere gratitude to the
Chairman and Ranking Member for bringing this bill before the
subcommittee, and for an opportunity to speak today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. I thank you for bringing the bill here. To be
honest, you have a tough row to hoe in this particular bill,
because it is logical, it makes sense, it is the right thing to
do. That is something we don't do in government. But I like the
bill, I support it fully. And thank you for being here.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let me move to--I really--nothing
personal. I would really not like to go any--because the
gentleman from Maine had another engagement, so he decided to
check that box and get it out of the way. I would like not to
do anything more until Mr. Grijalva is here.
But since he is here already, we can go forward with the
next bill.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Fine, make me look stupid, see if I care. No,
that is fine.
Before Mr. Grijalva has a chance to sit down--I don't know
if he has an opening statement he wants to make for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Just submit it for the record, if there is no
objection.
Mr. Bishop. All right, and I appreciate that.
We will then move on to the next one. Mr. Walden's bill,
H.R. 4272, Mr. Walden is here with the dais. He will be
recognized first.
We also have at the panel, I believe, Steve McClure from
Union County Board of Commissioners and Ms. Leslie Weldon from
the Forest Service. I understand, Ms. Weldon, you also have a
plane to catch. So after this testimony, and if you would like
to give quick testimony on the Simpson bill, please leave us
whenever you would like to.
So, with that, we will go to bill H.R. 4272. Mr. Walden,
you are recognized for 5 minutes to introduce the bill.
Mr. Walden. Walden and Weldon.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Grijalva, for allowing me to testify on this bill, H.R.
4272, the Forest Access in Rural Communities Act. I look
forward to working with the committee as you, hopefully, move
forward to mark this up and bring it to the full Floor.
Over half of Oregon's land--53 percent, to be exact--is
controlled by the Federal Government. And in many counties it
can be much higher, just as the national forests have
historically played a significant role in providing timber jobs
that were the pillars of rural economies. Access to these
forests now is a cultural and social mainstay, as well. It is
what we do out in the West.
Local residents accessing these forests are camping,
hunting, fishing, cutting firewood, collecting berries, doing
what we do, enjoying their families, generation after
generation. These activities are a way of life in rural
America, and certainly in the rural West.
In eastern Oregon, the Wallowa Whitman National Forest
Travel Management Plan is really what prompted this
legislation, and similar planning failures along the way that
caused me to introduce this bill. From the beginning, local
communities and volunteers dedicated countless hours of
personal time traveling, documenting the roads, communicating
their needs to agency officials. But at the end of the process
they developed comments and put forth suggestions on roads that
weren't being used, that could be closed, but also pointed out
roads that are popular, necessary, and needed to remain open.
In 2012, when agency officials rolled out the final plan,
more than 4,000 miles of roads were slated for closure--4,000
miles on a forest where a quarter of the land, some 600,000
acres, is already designated wilderness. You can't drive there.
In Wallowa County alone, over 70 percent of the national forest
is already shut off to motorized recreation--70 percent of the
national forest already shut down.
In what amounted to an assault on good process and rural
traditions on public lands, it was clear to those who
participated in the process that the Forest Service had
largely, if not entirely, ignored the thoughtful and deliberate
input that they got in this planning process. Having faced
years of declining timber harvest and the resulting
unemployment and, frankly, rural poverty created by lack of
management on our Federal lands, the agency, frankly, ignored
local citizens. And at one point, close to 1,000 citizens in a
small rural county--or three counties, in this case--turned out
to protest the arrogance of the Forest Service.
And I don't use that term lightly. And Ms. Weldon and I go
back a long ways when she was on the Deschutes Forest. This was
a travesty. I got involved, I heard from the county
commissioners, I called the Region 6 supervisor. Frankly, I
raised hell about it, because the good process that should
occur in public policy had been rejected.
At the end--and I know you will reference this in your
testimony--I would not characterize what the Forest Service did
as an example of how the public process worked. Because, in the
end, you ended up having to remove the local forest supervisor
from her position, and then you pulled back the plan--both of
which needed to happen, by the way, but that is not how good
public policy should move forward.
Hopefully, we have learned from this lesson and that, going
forward, we can have a different process, which is what led me
to introduce--write and introduce this bill. We have support
from five counties, seven forest user groups that I would like
to enter into the record without objection, Mr. Chairman. This
legislation simply puts a stop to what I see as a flawed travel
management planning rule that applies a one-size-fits-all
approach for road management on every community.
I actually chaired an oversight hearing on this issue back
in about 2005 or 2006, when young Mr. Crandell had hair, and
was the counsel on this committee. And we looked at these
issues, because we wanted to maintain this access to what is
left of the forest we can access. And I am just telling you I
know it has worked out in some areas. In a lot of my district
people are furious that their whole lifestyle is being shut
down. County commissioners--and you will hear from Mr.
McClure--say, ``Look, we've got to be able to access these
forests for rescue, for fire fighting, and for our people.''
And it has been a real fight that didn't need to exist.
President Theodore Roosevelt said--and I quote--``We shall
succeed, not by preventing the use, but by making the forests
of use to the settler, the rancher, the miner, the man who
lives in the neighborhood.'' It seems that we have lost our way
from that multiple use vision for the great forest reserves,
and have lost sight of the important role local communities
need to be able to play in this process.
H.R. 4272 provides an opportunity to move back to that idea
by putting our local communities in an important driver's seat
when it comes to accessing and managing our public forests. I
look forward to working with the Administration to find
something that gets a better balance than we see today in many
parts of rural America.
Mr. Chairman, representing these local communities and
speaking specifically on the need for this legislation, I am
really pleased to have the opportunity to introduce Union
County Commissioner Steve McClure. Steve and the residents of
Union County that he represents so effectively, so ably, so
capably, were at the heart of the Wallowa Whitman travel
management planning process in a responsible, thoughtful way,
where they actively engaged in the process only to have their
input then ignored by the decision the Forest Service made.
So, I think you will find his testimony quite helpful in
this debate so we get back to a better balance of having local
input really matter in the process, and a western way of life
of accessing America's public lands restored.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and
your indulgence.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon on H.R. 4272
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of
the committee, for the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R.
4272, the Forest Access in Rural Communities Act.
I look forward to working with the committee to mark up this bill
and move it promptly to the Floor for final consideration.
Over half of Oregon's land, 53 percent to be exact, is controlled
by the Federal Government, and in many counties this number can be much
higher. Just as the National Forests have historically played a
significant role in providing timber jobs that were the pillars of
rural economies, access to these forests is a cultural and social
mainstay as well.
Local residents accessing these forests are camping, hunting,
fishing, cutting firewood or collecting berries in the same places
their families have visited for several generations, and often depend
on these public lands for their livelihood. These activities are a way
of life in rural Oregon; yet with the onslaught of national monuments,
roadless areas, wilderness, and the Forest Services' travel management
rule, it seems access constantly is being restricted. And far too often
restrictions are put in place while overlooking the uses and needs of
the local community.
In eastern Oregon, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest's travel
management plan is one of the best examples of how these processes have
pushed forward while ignoring local communities along the way.
From the beginning, local counties and volunteers dedicated
countless hours of personal time traveling, documenting roads, and
communicating their needs to agency officials. At the end of the
process, they developed comments and put forth suggestions on roads
that weren't being used and could be closed, but also pointed out roads
that are popular, necessary, and needed to remain open.
In 2012, when agency officials rolled out the final plan, over
4,000 miles of road were slated for closure, on a forest where a
quarter of the land, 600,000 acres, is already designated wilderness.
In Wallowa County alone, well over 70 percent of the National Forest is
already shut off to motorized recreation. In what amounted to an
assault on good process and rural traditions on public lands, it was
clear to those who participated in the process that the Forest Service
had largely, if not entirely, ignored their thoughtful and deliberate
input.
Having faced years of declining timber harvest and the resulting
unemployment and poverty at the hand of the Federal Government and
agency bureaucrats, the local communities didn't take this lying down.
They pulled together and organized. At one point close to 1,000 people
attended a meeting to learn how to effectively appeal the plan.
The Forest Service has since pulled their plan back, but will
approach this again. Hopefully they have learned from the past, but
issues with travel management planning on other forests in Oregon and
across the country suggest otherwise.
Since the plan was pulled backed, I have worked with county
commissioners and the local residents who enjoy driving, riding,
camping, cutting firewood and picking berries on their National Forest
to craft this legislation to ensure local communities have a say in
forest access decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letters of support for this
legislation from five counties and seven forest user groups be entered
into the record. I appreciate their support and their time, effort and
feedback in helping craft legislation that meets the local communities'
needs.
This legislation simply puts a stop to the flawed travel management
planning rule that applied a one-size-fits-all approach for road
management on every community. For future proposals that result in a
road closure or access restriction, it requires the Forest Service to
consult during the planning process, and seek concurrence from the
counties within which the road closure occurs, and the neighboring
counties, before the project can be implemented.
Doing so levels the playing field and ensures that the local
residents and communities, those most affected by these management
decisions, have a strong say and aren't ignored in the process.
President Theodore Roosevelt said ``We shall succeed, not by
preventing the use, but by making the forests of use to the settler,
the rancher, the miner, the man who lives in the neighborhood . . .''
It seems we have lost our way from that multiple use vision for the
great forest reserves and some have lost sight of the important role of
local communities in this process. H.R. 4272 provides an opportunity to
move back to that idea by putting our local communities back in the
driver's seat when it comes to accessing and managing our public
forests.
Representing these local communities and speaking specifically on
the need for this legislation, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity
to introduce Union County Commissioner Steve McClure. Steve and the
residents of Union County that he represents were at the heart of the
Wallowa-Whitman travel management planning process, where they actively
engaged in the process only to have their input ignored. I look forward
to hearing Commissioner McClure's testimony and thank him for making
the trip here to testify.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Weldon, we will turn to you next for the Forest Service
recommendation. And, once again, you are testifying on a couple
of bills. You don't need to take 5 minutes on each of them. Be
judicious. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE A.C. WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, Congressman Walden, for inviting me here today to
testify regarding two bills affecting the national forests.
Many visitors to America's national forests--for many of
them, motorized access represents an integral part of their
recreation experience. People come to the national forests to
ride on roads and trails in pick-up trucks, ATVs, motorcycles,
and a variety of other conveyances. We see something new every
day. Motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate way for
people to access and enjoy the national forests in the right
places, and with proper management.
The Travel Management Rule of 2005 was developed to address
the growing popularity and capability of off-highway vehicles,
and to continue to provide these opportunities while sustaining
the health of National Forest System lands and resources.
On a national scale, it is critical that we continue to
manage the National Forest System for multiple uses, including
responsible recreation, while conserving these great resources
for future generations. The Administration opposes H.R. 4272
because it would impair the agency's ability to manage National
Forest System lands and resources in a safe, effective, and
efficient way.
Under the Travel Management Rule, travel management
decisions are made by the local forest supervisor or district
ranger, and the rule requires a broad spectrum of interested
and affected citizens to be able to provide their input and to
be involved, as well as tribal governments, in making these
management decisions. This approach has seen great success in
the vast majority of our national forests.
And, Congressman Walden, I acknowledge that this has not
been the case for the Wallowa Whitman National Forest in your
district. The Forest Service should have fostered much better
collaboration in developing our Travel Management Plan in
Eastern Oregon and, by extension, listened to you, respected,
and really done a deep level engagement on the great input that
was developed and received by the community. And I wanted to
stress that our agency has heard your concerns loud and clear.
The current forest supervisor on the Wallowa Whitman Forest
is re-assessing the travel management decision in response to
public input, and we are committed to working with your office
and with the local communities to improve how we cooperate with
local groups and governments to manage the forests in your
district.
Across the System we have engaged with our stakeholders to
incorporate their comments into implementation of the travel
management rule. On the Dixie National Forest in Southern Utah,
for example, each road section was reviewed by employees, a
citizen's working group, interested public and cooperating
government agencies, as they established their road system
under the Travel Management Rule.
On the Deschutes and Ochoco Forests, the agency worked with
a chartered Federal advisory committee, as well as interested
public, to develop a strategy for implementing the rule. And
the advisory committee, you know, in and of itself represented
a broad spectrum of interests, including local government
officials, tribes, business owners, interested public groups,
Federal agencies. And they provided recommendations that were
used to lay a framework for how the proposed action would be
developed in a subsequent analysis.
H.R. 4272 would undercut the significant work already
completed during the process of obtaining public input and
coordinating with all of these entities for making travel
management decisions. About 90 percent of our administrative
units across the system have completed implementation of
Subpart B of the travel rule, which provides a national
framework for local Forest Service units to use in designating
a system of roads, trails, and other areas for motorized use.
And we are on track for, hopefully, achieving completion of
Subpart B on all units by the end of next fiscal year.
Additionally, about 35 percent of the units have completed
or nearly completed the requisite travel analysis that will
support implementation of Subpart A of the rule.
I would like to express that we are committed to working
with Representative Walden and Congress to ensure the best
possible management of the forest lands, in conjunction with
the interests of the local community.
And briefly on the Administration's position on H.R. 4283,
to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we are looking forward
to work with Congressman Simpson on the new proposed language,
and I am available now to answer any questions you have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie A.C. Weldon, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture on H.R. 4272 and H.R. 4283
h.r. 4272--forest access in rural communities act
Many National Forest visitors use motor vehicles to access the
National Forests, whether for recreation, commercial purposes, or the
other multiple uses of National Forest System (NFS) lands. For many
visitors, motor vehicles represent an integral part of their
recreational experience. People come to National Forests to ride on
roads and trails in pickup trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, and a variety of
other conveyances. Motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate way
for people to enjoy their National Forests--in the right places, and
with proper management. The Travel Management Rule of 2005 was
developed to meet the growing popularity and capabilities of Off
Highway Vehicles (OHVs), and continue to provide these opportunities
while sustaining the health of NFS lands and resources.
The Travel Management Rule has three subparts, dealing with overall
roads analysis, management of the road system, and management of over-
snow vehicles. Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule requires
identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient
travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS
lands. Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule of 2005 provides a
national framework for local Forest Service units to use in designating
a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use as the
Agency moves toward a road system that can be sustainably maintained
and that minimizes environmental impacts. The goal of Subpart B is to
secure a wide range of recreation opportunities while ensuring the best
possible care of the land. Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule
provides for designation of routes and areas for over-snow vehicle use.
Under the Travel Management Rule, travel management decisions are
made by the forest supervisor or district ranger, and the rule provides
for involving a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens,
other State and Federal agencies, and tribal governments in making
travel management decisions.
H.R. 4272 would prohibit implementation and enforcement of all
subparts of the Travel Management Rule on all NFS lands derived from
the public domain; it would require consultation with affected county
governments in making travel management decisions under all subparts of
the Travel Management Rule and decisions affecting non-motorized access
on public domain NFS lands; and it would require concurrence of each
affected county for implementation of travel management decisions and
decisions affecting non-motorized access on public domain NFS lands.
The Administration opposes H.R. 4272 because it would impair the
agency's ability to manage NFS lands and resources safely, effectively,
and efficiently.
Specifically, the bill would undercut the significant work already
completed during the process of obtaining public input and coordinating
with Federal, State, county, and tribal governments in making travel
management decisions. Approximately 90 percent of administrative units
have already completed implementation of Subpart B of the Travel
Management Rule. Designations are displayed on motor vehicle use maps,
which show the public where and when they may operate motor vehicles on
NFS lands. The agency is on track to achieve implementation on all
units by the end of this fiscal year.
Additionally, approximately 35 percent of units have completed or
nearly completed the requisite travel analysis that will support
implementation of Subpart A. The travel analysis does not effect any
changes on the ground, including road closures. Travel analysis for
Subpart A is expected to be completed on all units by the close of
Fiscal Year 2015.
In the specific case identified by Representative Walden--
designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use in the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest--the Forest Supervisor has agreed to reassess
the travel management decision in response to public input, thus
illustrating the agency's response to public involvement and the impact
of public involvement on the designation process.
The bill could preclude the Forest Service from enforcing public
safety prohibitions and restrictions on NFS roads, such as speed, load
and weight limits, closures during forest fires, and prohibitions on
operating a motor vehicle carelessly and recklessly. Additionally, some
travel management decisions involve other programs. Curtailing
implementation and enforcement of travel management decisions could
therefore affect ongoing programs in other disciplines because of
interdependent NEPA decisions and Endangered Species Act consultation.
The consultation requirements in the bill are duplicative. All
subparts of the Travel Management Rule provide for involvement of a
broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other State and
Federal agencies, and tribal governments in making travel management
decisions.
Moreover, the bill's concurrence requirements would significantly
delay or prevent implementation of future individual travel management
decisions needed to protect NFS lands and resources, address use
conflicts, and provide for public safety. It would be difficult to
obtain concurrence from even one county, but ``affected county'' as
defined in the bill includes a county that contains NFS lands affected
by a travel management decision, as well as a county adjacent to that
county. To illustrate the scope of the concurrence requirement, there
are six counties adjacent to Representative Walden's Umatilla County.
Four of those are in Oregon, and two are in Washington. Therefore, to
implement travel management decisions affecting Umatilla County, it
would be necessary to get concurrence from seven counties.
To the extent H.R. 4272 would apply only to public domain NFS lands
and not to acquired NFS lands, the bill would result in inconsistent
management of NFS lands.
This bill is not needed because the 2005 Travel Management Rule
provides for dynamic management of the forest transportation system.
Access can be changed or otherwise managed as needed to address issues
that are important to the public and the ecosystem, including issues
raised by affected counties.
h.r. 4283--to amend the wild and scenic rivers act
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 4283, to amend the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act.
The Administration opposes H.R. 4283 because it discriminates
between the businesses operating within the Main Salmon Wild River
Corridor and would place an undue financial burden on the public for
the operation of a private enterprise. We hope to work with
Representative Simpson to find a solution that is mutually beneficial
to his constituents and the Forest Service.
More than 160 rivers in 38 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico comprise the National Wild and Scenic River System. More than
11,000 river miles are protected reflecting tremendous geographic
diversity, from the remote rivers of Alaska, Idaho and Oregon to rivers
threading through the rural countryside of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Ohio.
Smith Gulch is located within the Main Salmon Wild River corridor,
located within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho.
Both the Wild River and Wilderness were designated as such by the
Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 1132). The Act mandates
that the Main Salmon River corridor be managed according to the
requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Public Law 108-447, enacted in 2004, amended the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1274(a)(24)(D), and directed that the Forest
Service continue to authorize the established use and occupancy of
three commercial recreation services within the Main Salmon River
Corridor, including the services at Smith Gulch. Such continued
authorization is to be subject to such reasonable regulation as the
Secretary deems appropriate, including rules that would provide for
termination for noncompliance, and if terminated, reoffering the site
through a competitive process.
The facilities and structures for commercial recreation services at
Smith Gulch in Idaho are authorized and operated under a Term Special
Use permit to River of No Return Lodge, Inc. (Permit #NFK249). The
permit is authorized under the authority of the Act of March 4, 1915,
as amended July 28, 1956, (16 U.S.C. 497). This permit is issued with
provisions and terms similar to those of recreation facilities
throughout the National Forest System. The permit takes into account
the location and surroundings of facilities and improvements, the
public values affected by such an operation, and any specific public
health and safety concerns. Through such authorizations, the
responsibility for a fairly offered, high quality outdoor recreation
service is shared by the Forest Service, which represents the public at
large, and the private business enterprise.
H.R. 4283 would require the public to bear more of the cost of
providing recreation services in the operation of a private business,
with the Forest Service bearing the cost of environmental analysis.
Under the existing approach, regulations directing the assignment of
costs are found in 36 CFR 251.58, with Forest Service policy in FSH
2709.11 Chapter 20. These regulations direct the assessment and
collection of fees to recover agency processing and monitoring costs
for new and existing authorizations. This legislation as written does
not explain why the agency should bear the costs of a privately
provided recreation service in this location.
The Forest Service has in place appropriate policies to accommodate
the needs of a recreation service business operating at this location.
Consistent with statutory guidance, the policies allow for such
facilities and structures needed to provide the authorized recreation
services. Smith Gulch operates under these policies and requirements;
just as other similarly authorized businesses within the Main Salmon
Wild River Corridor.
As evidenced by the proclamation of June 2014 as Great Outdoors
Month, the Forest Service recognizes and fully embraces its mission to
provide high quality outdoor recreation services to the public. I
encourage the operators of the recreation service business at Smith
Gulch to work with the appropriate local Forest Service officials to
resolve any issues related to their utilizing existing agency
regulations, policies and authorities.
I would like to thank the Chairman and committee members for
inviting me to testify on this issue, and I welcome any questions you
may have for me at this time.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Commissioner McClure, we are happy
to have you here.
Mr. McClure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. You are now recognized on the Walden bill.
STATEMENT OF STEVE McCLURE, COMMISSIONER, UNION COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Mr. McClure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the
committee. My name is Steve McClure--oh, excuse me.
Mr. Bishop. Let me interrupt, Commissioner. I appreciate
that.
Ms. Weldon, whenever you need to go, you are free to go.
Mr. McClure. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Commissioner, go ahead.
Mr. McClure. All right, thank you. I have been a
commissioner in Union County for 24 years. I am the second-
longest-sitting commissioner in the State of Oregon. I have
been through the wars.
I guess for me to describe the process that occurred in the
Wallowa Whitman Forest would probably be a wonderful war story,
it would probably take 2 hours to tell. I have 5 minutes, so I
can't tell the war story. But I guess the best way for me to
characterize it, it would be a study in the wrong way to do it.
OK? If you want to know how to do it wrong, you need to come
and look at how it was done in the Wallowa Whitman.
Essentially, if you look at what the Wallowa Whitman
situation was, when the Umatilla National Forest did their
plan, they implemented travel management. The Wallowa Whitman
did not. And that created a situation where you had two
forests, side by side on Interstate 84, and if you were coming
from Walla Walla or any place that has to do with recreation,
you went to the forest that allowed you to do whatever you
wanted to do, essentially. So there was a huge emphasis on the
Wallowa Whitman for this kind of recreation, not only from the
community, but from outside the community.
It was very clear that Steve Ellis was sent to do travel
management. The chief had talked to Steve and said, ``That is
one of the jobs that we expect you to do. We know it is going
to be difficult, but we have faith in you to do it.'' So they
initiated the process. The first step in the process was to
close all management level one roads across the board, just all
of them.
The problem was the Forest Service really didn't know the
status of those roads. And they went to the counties and said,
``Look, you know, this is our initial proposal, but we also
understand that this is an important issue to your communities,
and we invite you to take a look at these roads and then come
back to us with suggestions of where we need to make changes,
and we would certainly consider them. This is our process, this
is the normal Forest Service process, don't be afraid of it, go
do it.''
So, that is what we did. Wallowa County had 30 volunteers
that spent two summers with their own vehicles, their own gas,
and went out and looked at over 1,000 roads. They had a 17-
question questionnaire that they answered on every one of those
roads, all right? And they made a determination that almost 47
percent of those roads were already closed, had been closed
naturally. They were gone. So they came up with the proposal--
they said, ``Well, the roads that aren't there, we will give
those up, but we really think we need to maintain the level of
the roads that we have now.''
Union County actually concurred with that, that was the
position that we took. To be honest with you, we did not start
as soon as Wallowa County did. We kind of dug in our heels and
said not only no, but hell no. But we were informed that if we
didn't participate, we weren't going to get anything. So we, in
the second year, did participate. And we found about the same
results. I didn't provide those as attachments, but I have
them. If you want to read them, you can see road after road
that was closed, barricaded, so on and so forth.
So, I can go through all the details, but, actually, what
happened was, when the decision was made, a good friend of mine
who was the ranger--no longer works for the Forest Service, but
was the La Grande ranger--called me 2 weeks before the decision
came out and said, ``Steve, County didn't get a damn thing out
of this.'' He said, ``I argued for 2 weeks,'' and he said,
``You got nothing.''
OK. We asked for four specific things that we wanted that
we had identified that we needed, very simple things. And they
are in my testimony. I mean they were loop roads, they were
roads that were very simple. We got none of them. So the outcry
that you got from the public--the congressman mentioned it--I
have never seen in my 24 years the size of the outcry that that
community had. It wasn't what the commissioners did that
changed this; it was the people in the community, OK? Their
values, their belief, their use.
You need to understand what has happened to a lot of these
forests. The economic piece has gone away. Now we are taking
away the recreational piece. And those people absolutely resent
it.
Now, I want to spend just a few minutes to the bill. You
know, it appears, if you first look at the bill, this gives
county commissioners a free pass. All right? Gives them a veto.
This bill does not give us a veto. We have to have travel
management. We are working on a timber sale right now in the
Wallowa Whitman, and the issue of travel management has come
up, and we are being challenged because we don't have a rule.
OK? But it makes commissioners step up to the plate and raise
their hand and do it in concurrence.
Right now it is easy for me if the Forest Service--I just
say, ``Hey, they made the mistake. I didn't.'' But we have
asked for years for that participation, and we are willing to
do that participation, and that is what this bill provides for.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve McClure, Union County Commissioner on H.R.
4272
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the subcommittee for the
invitation to testify on H.R. 4272. My name is Steve McClure. I have
had the honor of serving the citizens of Union County, Oregon for
nearly 24 years as a County Commissioner. During that time I have had
the opportunity to observe and participate in the changes that have
occurred in the management of Natural Resources.
Today I would like to relate to you the experiences of not only
Union County, but also of Baker and Wallowa counties as it relates to
the process the Forest Service went through to develop the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan.
When the Wallowa-Whitman did their last Forest Management Plan,
travel management was not included in the plan. At the same time the
Umatilla National Forest did their plan and they did include Travel
Management except for the Heppner Ranger District. The outcome of those
resulted in a situation where two National Forests side by side on
Interstate 84 had two entirely different travel restrictions--one that
was extremely limited in access and the other that had no restriction
at all as it related to ORV use. As you can well imagine the Forest
with no restriction became the preferred recreation site for ORV
recreation.
Even though the three National Forests in eastern Oregon, together
with the 10 counties in Oregon and Washington, were in the process of
developing a new Forest Plan notice came that the Wallowa-Whitman would
also do a Travel Management Plan at the same time rather than including
it in the ongoing plan process.
The Forest Supervisor of the Wallowa-Whitman made public his
proposed conditions which was to close all ML 1 and reduce some ML 2 to
ML 1 and at the same time assured the counties and the local
communities that it was not going to be the final outcome and invited
each of the three counties to examine the proposals and submit changes
that the counties wanted.
All three counties then submitted to the Forest Service the changes
they wanted to see in the ROD and they were all rejected but a few
minor changes in Baker County. (I have included Union County's request
and rationale that we submitted as part of the record).
I could spend an hour in telling all the details of what happened
but rather than that I would just like to finish by summarizing what I
consider to be the major problems and issues with the Travel Management
Plan for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
First, this was a top down decision. The decision had already been
made with the initial proposal and the counties were involved because
of public governmental requirements, but that input was never seriously
considered by the decisionmakers. At least some part of the counties'
requests could and should have been acceptable.
Second, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest did not know or
represent current conditions as they existed when they made their
initial proposal. The counties discovered that almost half of the roads
that were proposed for closure were no longer useable because they had
naturally grown over.
Finally, the Forest Service clearly exceeded the boundaries of what
was acceptable to the Local Communities as demonstrated by the largest
rally of opposition to any governmental decision in my 24 years as a
County Commissioner.
Our experience with the Wallowa-Whitman Travel Management Plan
clearly shows the need for H.R. 4272 which provides a chance to restore
local control over these planning processes and ensure that local
communities, and their needs and uses are not ignored. It is important
that the counties not only participate but that there is an agreement
between the Forest Service and the communities.
The following document is part of my testimony and not to be
considered an attachment.
UNION COUNTY TRAVEL MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
Union County affords unparalleled recreation opportunities in the
vast forests and mountains surrounding the Grande Ronde and Indian
Valleys. Thousands of visitors annually hike, explore, photograph,
four-wheel, cross-country ski, snowmobile, cut firewood, pick berries
and mushrooms, hunt, mountain bike, or just enjoy the panoramic views,
peace, quiet, and clean air. Nearly half (45 percent-49 percent) of
Union County land area is administered by the Forest Service consisting
of Umatilla National Forest but primarily Wallowa Whitman National
Forest. Most of these many recreational opportunities take place on
Forest Service land and are an intricate part of what makes Union
County a great place to live.
The economic benefits of these activities are obvious and
substantial; from the hunters and fishermen that stay in our motels and
eat in our restaurants, to the mushroom and berry pickers that purchase
fuel in our gas stations and supplies in our stores. These activities
depend greatly on the ability to easily access our forestland. The true
value of access reaches far beyond the economic benefits. To the many
individuals that choose to live and work in Union County, the ability
to access a favorite spot is part of a heritage handed down from
generation to generation. During our committee's work to quantify and
qualify the use of our forestland, many stories were related speaking
directly to this heritage. Countless citizens recounted stories of how
their father took them to this place and their father before them. Rich
traditions are developed around simple camps on dead end roads or jeep
and OHV trails that take you farther ``off the beaten path''. Secret
berry and mushroom patches are passed down from generation to
generation. These experiences are the foundation of what defines us as
a people in northeast Oregon and an intricate part of our heritage. An
act as simple as closing a single road may lose these traditions
forever. The first conclusion the County's travel management committee
would put forth is that it is impossible to capture and quantify the
social value of these traditions and document specific access to them.
The approximate 25,000 citizens of Union County utilize many different
areas for many different uses. How is it possible to capture and
quantify each citizen's use, and accurately represent the social value
to that individual? Social values will absolutely be impacted by
reducing the level of motorized access. Reducing access in any given
area will impact those that have grown up recreating in that area.
Instead what would greatly benefit the many precious resources in
our forests would be to enforce those closures that have already been
made. The inability of existing closures to be maintained and enforced
calls into question the ability of the Forest Service to enforce the
many additional closures proposed. During conversation with the Forest
Service Law Enforcement Officers it has become clear that little to no
additional staffing will be added as a result of this process. It was
also stated that if additional staff is added, they will not be
assigned to this area. It has also been made clear that the proposed
closures will not be physical closures, but merely a road will be
indicated closed by a chart on the back of a map. Given the limited
number of law enforcement currently available, the lack of additional
law enforcement foreseen in the future, and the fact that roads will
not be physically closed, Union County views the implementation of more
restrictive options as unsustainable and unrealistic.
Permitted access, especially collecting firewood, will be greatly
impacted by reducing access. Reducing the number of access roads will
largely serve to concentrate those that take part in this activity. The
same could be said of many other activities including but not limited
to hunting, berry picking and mushrooming. The ability to have a
positive and productive experience while taking part in these
activities will be greatly impacted by reduced access. The more users
that are concentrated along limited access routes, the more difficult
the activity will become resulting in both the degradation of social
values as well as a reduced ability to harvest fuel wood as well as
berries, mushroom or game.
It is certainly true that not all Union County citizens value
motorized access as the priority recreational experience. Although,
many of these users utilize various forest roads to access the roadless
areas. For those that value what has been termed ``quiet recreation''
there are currently large roadless areas and areas of regulated vehicle
use. In Union County these areas include the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area,
the La Grande Watershed and the Dry Beaver-Ladd Canyon Travel
Management Area. In adjacent counties additional roadless areas include
the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, the Wenaha Tucannon Wilderness, The
Baker Watershed, The North Fork John Day Wilderness, and the Hells
Canyon Recreation Area. In the Wallowa Whitman alone approximately one-
fourth of the management area is currently wilderness (586,729 acres)
and over 110,000 acres of wilderness lie in Union County.
The threat of catastrophic wild fire is very real in Union County.
Although the draft EIS allows for access to all roads for emergency
response, the reality is that upon discontinuing active use many roads
will be reclaimed by nature. As these roads currently provide access to
fire apparatus, fewer roads will certainly result in less access by
engines crews. Roads can certainly be reopened however this will cost
valuable time during initial attack while crews wait for the proper
equipment to respond and open a road. The county believes it is
unrealistic to expect roads will be reopened anytime a fire breaks out
near closed roads. More realistically these fires will be dealt with
using less effective crews rather than engine crews or roads will not
be opened until fires become large enough to warrant the cost and
allocation of resources.
For the reasons detailed above as well as the many reasons
submitted independently by the local forests users, Union County
supports Draft Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative.
Since the release of the draft EIS it has been made clear to Union
County that Alternative 3 will not meet the many stringent requirements
applied by the various resource agencies and planning guidelines. As a
result the County has spent hundreds of volunteer hours attempting to
evaluate the current Forest Service road system. These evaluations were
completed by one group during one season. Through no lack of effort on
the part of these volunteers, the data is limited and incomplete. For
example, by only surveying through one time of year it is difficult to
document the changes in use during other seasons. Additionally, we were
unable to complete all road systems, however we believe a good sample
has been established from which a precedent can be created and applied
forest wide. Union County completed a road survey in which 283 roads
totaling 236 miles were identified as physically closed, inaccessible
or unable to locate (see attachment 1). It is the County's assertion
that prior to closing additional open roads the Forest Service should
first remove all the closed and inaccessible roads from the inventory.
A substantial number of roads could be removed to meet the many
management requirements without impacting the current access. It is
only after these roads have been removed from consideration that a true
and accurate picture of the existing road system can be gained.
During this survey many current uses were identified (see
attachment 2). As stated above, one result that was made clear during
the survey is that it is impossible to document the social value of
each individual road to all the citizens of Union County. Attachment 2
should be considered an example of the myriad of uses that take place
on all the road systems in the forest.
There are a few areas the County would like to specifically callout
as priority areas to maintain access. The first is the Five Points
Creek OHV area (see attachment 3). As the Forest Service is aware the
County is currently developing the Mount Emily Recreation Area (MERA).
Discussions have been underway to link MERA in to the existing
Forest Service OHV trail system. The attached map and data details an
existing OHV route that crosses the Five Points Creek at the Camp One
Crossing. It is the County's opinion that this crossing and the
connecting trails are critical to access all the open and available
trails on the west side of Five Points Creek. This crossing and
associated trails will allow a substantial expansion of the current
Forest Service OHV <= 50" trail system eventually benefiting both the
Forest Service and MERA.
The second priority area is the South Fork Catherine Creek Trail
(see attachment 4). Union County considers this a vital link between
the 7787 and 7700 roads. Currently the trail is utilized extensively by
OHVs during all times of the year. The Buck Creek area is also used by
hunters, berry and mushroom pickers, wood cutters as well as an access
point to the Eagle Cap Wilderness. The South Fork Catherine Creek Trail
as detailed on the map and the road system in the Buck Creek area are
of major social value to the citizens of Union County. The county would
propose that the trails system be open year round to OHVs <= 50".
The third priority area is the Dry Beaver-Ladd Canyon and Clear
Creek Travel Management Areas. These areas are currently under travel
management. It is the opinion of the County that these areas should
maintain the current level of access and closures. Since the existing
conditions are regulating both off road travel and overall motorized
access, the County sees no reason to further limit access. It has been
represented to the County that some options allow for this request,
i.e. Option 5. However upon close inspection of Option 5 some current
green dot roads do not appear on the map such as the 4300500 and
4300300. As we have been led to believe Option 5 maintains the green
dot roads as open, all green dot roads should be open under this
option.
The fourth priority area is the Breshears OHV Trail system. Since
this area is an identified OHV trail area, the County wishes to
maintain that area as built, including those Forest Service roads used
to access what is currently Forest Capital property. The Breshears
system is primarily maintained by the users and is utilized extensively
by Union County citizens. Under Option 5 there are loop roads and
connectors such as the 6205, 6210090 that are proposed to be closed or
the connection is to be severed that will reduce the functionality of
the trail system. As this is already a designated OHV area, it should
be maintained as such.
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement the Travel
Management process includes an annual review. It is the hope of Union
County that this review be a collaborative process allowing for the
reopening of roads found to be of substantial social and economic
value. As a part of the annual review process Union County requests
that the number and total mileage of roads currently closed and
inaccessible be identified as well as those that are closed as a result
of the travel management plan. Union County does not believe an
accurate current condition has been represented. The County views the
review process as vital to rectify the closing of roads that the
community finds to be necessary and important for the many reasons
listed above.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will now have
questions to our witnesses on this particular bill.
I am going to yield my time to Mr. Walden, if you have some
particular questions of the other two witnesses.
Mr. Walden. No, I--thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that, and--allowing me to say a few words.
I think Mr. McClure--Commissioner McClure really summed it
up well. And he is not alone. As you go across eastern Oregon,
commissioners really want a better relationship with the Forest
Service when it comes to these roads. In some cases I have
heard from commissioners that have that. But it is so dependent
upon who is in that local forest. And it shouldn't be that way.
And that is why we wrote this bill to try and make the point
and move forward to build better collaboration at the local
level.
Because I have to tell you. Steve really stepped up. And
his colleagues. And there were other counties around that
weren't quite sure they should go down this path, and their
local voters and residents weren't sure they should even
participate. And so you can imagine what happened when they
finally convinced everybody, as did I, ``You better participate
so you are doing the public process, so you have your input, or
else the Forest Service won't be able to evaluate what you
suggest,'' only to find out all that gets thrown out. Now there
is no confidence in the system. Now 1,000 people turn out. This
isn't downtown Portland, where turning out 1,000 people is no
big deal. How many people live in Union County, Steve?
Mr. McClure. Twenty-five thousand.
Mr. Walden. Twenty-five thousand. So 1 out of every 25
showing up for a meeting.
Mr. McClure. Yes.
Mr. Walden. If that doesn't get your attention--and I had
to make calls, and all of that, as well.
And we had to do it, frankly, on the Malheur, when the new
forest supervisor or Region 6 supervisor--first place I took
him was the Malheur, because the same issues were bubbling up
there.
So, it is not just this isolated case. Other places, yes, I
would admit it has worked out. And certainly probably in other
regions of the country it has worked out. But the feeling that
folks I represent have, and that I have deeply is you already
locked off X percent per forest on wilderness, roadless,
whatever. Now it feels like you are coming back for the rest.
And that is what I think has people really upset and concerned.
I don't know anybody who thinks you ought to be able to
take an off-road vehicle and just run it across the range and
destroy the habitat. There is probably somebody in every case.
But that is not what we are about here at all. We want good
management. But you also want to be able to access these roads.
And it just feels like a few people in an office make the
decisions.
So, maybe I could go to Steve for a question, Mr. Chairman,
just in terms of this collaboration with the counties, because
I know the Administration opposes that piece of this bill.
How do you see--foresee that working? Before they could
close a road, they would have to reach out to you. And I know
Ms. Weldon, in her testimony, references northeast Oregon. And
maybe the way we have worded it would require six counties and
two States to sign off. Is that something you think we could
work through, Steve?
Mr. McClure. Congressman, Mr. Chair, Congressman, we have
been doing that for years in eastern Oregon. You need to
understand the relationship that counties have out there. We do
not have a bad relationship. I really need to tell you that. We
have been in the process for almost 10 years now, developing a
new plan for the three forests in eastern Oregon: the Malheur,
the Wallowa Whitman, and the Umatilla. OK? We have planned for
10 years. And we finally have a plan on the street for public
comment. And I will be honest with you. The counties were at
the table, we were--the 10 counties, 3 in Washington, 7 in
Oregon--we were co-conveners. So it is in our culture to do
this kind of work.
Now, I will be honest with you. We don't always agree with
the Forest Service, but we sit down with the Forest Service at
the table. We do it all the time. And my community, we provide
a tanker base, we have a relationship constantly with the
Forest Service. We work with the Forest Service. We have always
worked with the Forest Service. And we worked with the Forest
Service on this particular circumstance, we honestly did. We
went out and did the survey. My opinion is the Forest Service
should never have put the proposal on the table without knowing
the condition of those roads to begin with. It shouldn't have
been the community's job to go out there and determine which
ones were closed and which ones weren't. But that--being that
what it may, we did.
So, when you talk about cooperation, yes, we know how to
cooperate. We have done it. And it doesn't change what we are
doing. I think the important thing to this bill, it honestly
brings the commissioners to the table, where they have to make
a decision. OK? That is the important piece, all right? We can
no longer sit on the sidelines and complain and complain. We
now are going to have to have travel management. It is going to
go into the courts when we try to do activities. If you don't
have travel management, it is going to be required. It is going
to require us to negotiate and come up with concurrence with
the Forest Service, so that we have buy-in. And that is
something that we, as local county commissioners, have wanted
for years out there, is that responsibility. And I honestly
tell you there are people that don't want that. But that is the
position that I think. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Grijalva, do
you have questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Chief Weldon, If this bill were to
become law, would the Forest Service have to restart the entire
travel management process that was required since 2005 under
President Bush's administration?
And even though approximately 90 percent of the national
forests in the country are now managed under the finalized
decision on the rule, any idea, if that process were to start
over, what are the costs that would be incurred by the
taxpayers at this point?
Ms. Weldon. Thanks, Chairman Grijalva. You know, I am not
totally sure what the implications would be, as we would move
forward under the Act. The need for the concurrence is the
piece that would need to be evaluated. You know, we have
decisions that have been made. But without those having been
made with concurrence from the commissioners, then we would
have to figure out how to go back and open those decisions up
to enable that to occur.
So, potentially, it could open the planning process again,
because there may be enough difference in conditions and such
that would require really digging into those analyses again.
So----
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. The issue of concurrence that is in the
legislation?
Ms. Weldon. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Essentially, giving veto power to the
counties over Federal decisions. And what does that mean for
tribes or other stakeholders that might be involved in that?
Ms. Weldon. Again, I think there is much to be worked out,
and we look forward to working with Congressman Walden on that
as it relates to the nature of concurrence, and whether that is
something that--what weight does that carry in the context of
the other involvement of citizens for decisionmaking. So those
things are just things that need to be developed further with
the bill.
But our real intent is to ensure that we move forward with
as strong and close understanding of what the context of this
decision means to the local citizens. And that is something
that we can do much better at than we have done in this
instance.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. The point of the legislation is to halt
the implementation, as part of it. And then, the consequence
after that is the concurrence. And----
Ms. Weldon. Correct.
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. Where that all----
Ms. Weldon. Yes. The part about halting is of great
concern, because that is something that throws off the work
that is in play and being implemented, and could have the
potential of stopping us from following through on the portions
of the rule that are in play and working well to allow access
and to protect the resource.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, even the 90 percent, the decisions that
have been made, I would suggest under that language is--they
are all under question.
Ms. Weldon. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Commissioner, going back to that roughly 90
percent of the national forest lands in the country are now
being managed under the finalized decisions of the rule, see,
if the legislation that you are supporting were to become law,
all of these plans would be scrapped. And that is a concern.
I understand the difficulties you faced in your community
with the Forest Service. But as a taxpayer yourself, would you
want to see the rest of the country start over in all those
travel management plans that have cost millions of dollars to
get to that point, if the language of this legislation is the
way it is?
Mr. McClure. Congressman--Mr. Chair, Congressman----
Mr. Grijalva. Sure.
Mr. McClure. I would agree with you. It doesn't make sense
to go back and start all over. I am not a lawyer. I am not one
that can give you a legal opinion. But my opinion is that it is
not unreasonable to pass this bill with the understanding, as
we go forward, this will be the process. I mean put language in
the bill that says, ``If you have a travel management in place,
you don't have to go back and do it over because of this
bill.'' I have no problem with that. Communities have made it
work.
I mean we look at individual communities, and the way they
have made it work is fine. We made an honest, good-faith
attempt to work with the Forest Service, and it did not work in
our community, OK, for a number of reasons. So, to ask
concurrence----
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. McClure [continuing]. I don't think is unreasonable,
but I agree with you, I don't think it makes any sense to go
back and spend the money to do it all over again all over the
country.
Mr. Grijalva. Commissioner, I think the Deputy Chief said
that that process didn't go, in your particular instance, the
way it should have gone, and that they look forward to working
on a--even a potential restart on some of the issues that you
are bringing up. I just think this legislation is so
encompassing that the rest of the country, then, has to follow
the dictates, based on the situation in your area. And I don't
think that is fair. Yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Tipton, you beat me here. Do you have
questions for these witnesses?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. McClure,
thanks for taking the time to be here. You could be a county
commissioner in Colorado. We are hearing the same complaints
throughout our district. We have 54,000 square miles of
Colorado, and many of the same challenges and concerns that you
are expressing here today we have certainly heard out of our
district.
In your opinion, after listening to your testimony and
reading through it, was the Forest Travel Management Plan
already pre-determined before the counties were able to weigh
in? Was the decision already made?
Mr. McClure. Mr. Chair, Congressman, I think that is one of
the criticisms, that it--maybe it wasn't, but the outcome
appeared that it was. OK?
I mean when you go through the process that we went
through, and none of what we had put on the table was
considered, you have to believe that it was a top-down decision
that came from DC that the Wallowa Whitman would have the
management, and this is what it would be. I mean that is the
feeling that the community has out there, that this was totally
a top-down decision.
Now, can I say that unequivocally? No. But that is the
feeling that we had in the community----
Mr. Tipton. Could you maybe give us a couple of----
Mr. McClure. We were not considered in the process.
Mr. Tipton. You made some requests, some suggestions for
the management plan. Could you just give us a couple of
examples of what those requests were to be included?
Mr. McClure. Well, we went with option three, which was
considered the Wallowa County option. Wallowa County did a
fantastic job of identifying roads. And their position was
simply, ``OK, the roads that are no longer serviceable, we take
them off the list. But we keep the rest of them on the list.''
All right? ``We allow people to use the roads,'' you know?
These are last-mile roads, they are the ones that get you
to your Elk camp, they are the ones that get you to the
huckleberry patch, they are the ones that get you to the last
mile. And if they are still functioning, we allow them. OK?
There is not a lot of cost to them. They are dirt roads. But
they are the piece that brings the public into the recreation
area. We accepted that.
But we asked for things as simple as to maintain
connectivity between private lands and Forest Service lands,
you know? Routes that we had----
Mr. Tipton. That sounds reasonable to me, yes.
Mr. McClure. If you took the Forest Service piece out, the
loop route went away.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. McClure. I mean what we were asking for was extremely
simple, and there were only four specific things that we asked
for.
Mr. Tipton. So you asked for----
Mr. McClure. We got none of the four.
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. Four specific things. Sounds
reasonable to me. What was the response from the Forest
Service?
Mr. McClure. From the Forest Service? You know----
Mr. Tipton. Did they give you an explanation as to why they
disregarded the request that you made?
Mr. McClure. I think part of the problem that happened was
there was a change in leadership at a crucial time when this
happened. The forest supervisor that went through the process
went back to work for the BLM in Idaho. We got a new supervisor
who I really don't think understood it, and made a decision in
total disregard from what the community had made. OK?
If you really want to look at it, that was a huge mistake.
OK? It was a personnel change.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. McClure. And essentially, the input from the community
was totally disregarded.
Mr. Tipton. Input from the community was totally
disregarded.
You know, I am a big believer in having that collaborative
process. And Colorado, where we have a lot of public lands, it
has worked well, to try to be able to work out some of these
issues. But, Ms. Weldon, maybe you could answer for me. We have
had Chief Tidwell before us, talking about closing public
lands.
We had forest fires out in Colorado in my district, West
Fork Complex fire that went through. When I went to the
incident command centers, they said that the model that the
Forest Service had was completely out the window. This was
impacting public safety, not to mention just access into these
public lands.
So, can you assure us that, when you are holding these
hearings, that you are actually listening? Or is this just
eyewash?
Ms. Weldon. I can assure you we are listening. I am
listening, and I really appreciate hearing the county
commissioner describe what we hold to be very important, that
we make better decisions when we make them with the interests
of a local community in mind. They are better, but that doesn't
mean they are easy.
So, I just want to emphasize to you that what we are
talking about here, by way of effective collaboration, is
extremely important.
Mr. Tipton. Well, when we are talking about effective
collaboration, four simple requests.
Ms. Weldon. Right, and what I would commit to----
Mr. Tipton. Simply--and they were disregarded.
Ms. Weldon. Yes, and that----
Mr. Tipton. Is that listening?
Ms. Weldon. Not in this instance. It was not listening.
Mr. Tipton. It was not.
Ms. Weldon. And what I----
Mr. Tipton. But the policy is in place.
Ms. Weldon. Correct. And our policy wasn't followed in that
instance. So what I would say is that as we move forward, we
need to hear and listen and take into consideration the hard
work that the local community did to help us make a decision.
Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you. Mr. Garcia, you just joined us.
Are you up to speed here? Did you want more time before you ask
questions?
Mr. Garcia. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. McClintock, do you have
questions?
Mr. McClintock. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have
heard from Oregon, you have heard from Colorado. I represent
the lion's share of the Sierra Nevada, and my district runs
from Truckee, north of Lake Tahoe, through Yosemite Valley, all
the way down to Kings Canyon in Fresno County. And I have to
tell you, word for word, what Commissioner McClure has said
about the sentiments of local officials in his region are what
I am hearing constantly from the local officials in my region.
There is a very strong sense that local wishes are not
being considered by the Forest Service, and that the Forest
Service's maxim of Gifford Pinchot years ago, ``Greatest good
for the greatest number in the long run,'' has been radically
altered to a policy of ``Look, but don't touch.''
The widespread shutdown of access roads in our region has
severely limited public access. In many cases, local
governments have actually volunteered to maintain the roads
when the Forest Service has said, ``Oh, we just don't have the
funding for it,'' despite the fact they are sitting on one of
the most valuable assets the U.S. Government owns, the national
forests. Local governments have stepped forward and said,
``Fine. We will pay to maintain those roads,'' and they have
been turned down by the Forest Service. It is inexplicable.
Mr. McClure's point is spot on. You have already shut down
economic activity on our public lands, which has severely
impacted the economies of these local mountain communities. But
you have always said, ``Well, don't worry about the fact we are
shutting down timber, don't worry about the fact we are
shutting down minerals. Don't worry, because you will always
have recreation.'' And now you are shutting down the
recreational opportunities. The public resents it, it resents
it intensely.
You know, 42 percent of California is owned by the Federal
Government. In my district I have Alpine County; 96 percent of
Alpine County is owned by the U.S. Forest Service. When the
Norman and Plantagenet kings declared one-third of the land
area of Southern England off limits to commoners, they declared
it the Royal Forest, the exclusive preserve of the king, the
king's foresters, and the king's favorites, the public
resentment was so strong that no fewer than five clauses of
Magna Carta were specifically devoted to redressing these
grievances. And I have to warn you, as I have been for years
now, that that public resentment is building and building in
California, obviously also in Colorado, obviously also in
Oregon.
The preservation of the public lands for future generations
doesn't mean closing them to the current generation. And yet,
that appears to be the overriding policy of the U.S. Forest
Service today. And that is not going to be allowed to stand.
This is increasingly the attitude of the U.S. Forest Service
under this administration. You have been warned and warned and
warned of the public resentment that is building. And yet the
Forest Service has obstinately proceeded in this exclusionary
policy. And I will warn you again. It is not going to be
tolerated by the public.
You know, 30 years ago we harvested the excess timber out
of the national forests before it could burn. And as one
forester said long ago, ``The''--sorry, I don't know what--
sorry, at least I am not alone.
Mr. Bishop. We are on the third floor. I don't think the
flash flood will hit us.
Mr. McClintock. Anyway, the point I was going to make was
that the--when we harvested that--the forester says, you know,
all of that excess timber comes out of the forest one way or
another. It is either burned out, or it is carried out, but it
comes out. When it was carried out we had healthier forests and
a thriving economy.
And we had one other thing: a well-maintained timber road
system throughout the forests, small groups of foresters spread
throughout those forests. When they saw a fire starting on a
neighboring ridge, they had the equipment and they had the good
fire access roads to get over there and put out that fire
before it could spread. That is all gone now, and we are seeing
massive forest fires. In my district the rim fire destroying
400 square miles of forest land, and one of the contributing
factors is this policy of shutting down the timber roads.
I couldn't agree more with the bill. And I thank you for
the time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And, once again, after this hearing
is over, I want to find out how the Forest Service was able to
interrupt his questions.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. It is the government. You manipulate us
somewhere. There was a black helicopter around, and you did it
some way. I don't know how you did it, but you did it.
Mr. LaMalfa, do you have any questions?
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you could only
arrange for that to be in northern California, where we need
the water supply, instead of here, for the flood.
Thank you to the panel here. Again, I can echo a lot of the
same frustrations and complaints that Mr. McClintock did, Mr.
Tipton did, and the reason for Mr. Walden coming forward. I
represent the area basically north of Mr. McClintock's
district, and we have many county supervisors that express--and
the people that have, in the past, until recent years, used the
forests and used them wisely but, nonetheless, had the access.
And now what you find--and I get probably more complaints
about this--well, except maybe the VA--than anything else, is
that the access to the public's land has been denied. A recent
policy of travel management or non-travel management has found
people with more and more closed gates, very arbitrary. And
that is a part of the problem.
Ms. Weldon, when you have a new person that comes in, you
have a new attitude. You have a new subjective way of looking
at how this particular unit be managed. And so there is no set
rule. So I don't see a thing wrong with this law that Mr.
Walden has put forward, this proposal, H.R. 4272, simply
requiring that if something--like part of the language, ``If it
will or can reasonably be expected to alter public assets in
the National Forest System lands of the unit, including any
change or access,'' then it will be subject to a little more
closer scrutiny by the local folks, local government. What
could possibly be wrong with that, Ms. Weldon?
Ms. Weldon. I think that the law itself is affirming the
value and importance of the level of collaboration and
connection and engagement we need to have with the local
citizens, and that the counties, as a representative, can be of
assistance to that.
The complexities come in with whether or not there is a
suspension of our ability to implement the current decisions we
have in place, and how do we work through or work out the other
primary entities affected when it comes to the role that the
counties play. And so----
Mr. LaMalfa. What other entities would that be?
Ms. Weldon. There are tribes, there are other stakeholders
that may not be associated with the decisions that the counties
would make. So I am just saying those are things that we would
like to keep working with the committee to be able to resolve,
so that----
Mr. LaMalfa. I am sure the tribes can be very effectively
worked with on that, similar to the local government. It is
another form of government, and I am sure they can be heard
very well, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse. The reason
that, again, we are so frustrated is that you might get a new
forest manager in there, or a current one, that decides, ``Hey,
this is my forest, and we are going to do it this way.''
Ms. Weldon. And if I could please address that, you know--
--
Mr. LaMalfa. We have had that attitude. Very, very
frustrating in the north.
Ms. Weldon. Yes, and----
Mr. LaMalfa. And it has----
Ms. Weldon. It is a--you know, when we bring leadership in
for the national forests, we all need to have the same intent,
and that is a core value of working very closely with local
communities, and being able to stay consistent with our policy.
And we owe that to the communities not to have very distinct
swings in intent, because of the--I would say the inherent
connection and contract that we have with that local community
on how----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, we certainly owe that in a collaborative
process, and we haven't been getting that. It has been very
closed off in many cases here. So, I would have to strongly
disagree that just because it is already in place doesn't mean
we can't go back. Because, you know, Mr. McClure--their group
has been very active in the process. Maybe some of the other
group supervisors, commissioners, kind of got caught before
they really understood what was going on, and the initial
decisions were made.
So, I think we would have to have the ability to go back
and redo or adjust or modify or slightly tweak--however you
want to look at it--the management plan that is in place.
Because if you still ask those people in those districts, they
are probably still very dissatisfied with their lack of access
by the whim of a new administration or a new manager in that
district. So we shouldn't alter this legislation at all. Just
because those units have been done or finished--this plan is in
place doesn't mean, hey, it is over with.
They need to have that ability to alter a decision that was
made. What would you say to that, Mr. McClure?
Mr. McClure. I certainly appreciate what you are saying,
Congressman. You know, I am looking at it from my perspective,
going forward. I was not involved in the decisions that were
made. You make a lot of sense when you make that discussion.
But I would like to comment on the comment about how we get
representation from other parts of our community. I need to
tell you. Just like you, Congressman, I am elected. OK? I have
stood seven times for election in Union County. I lost the
first time, all right? I just finished going through my last
election here in May. I have a job evaluation every 4 years. If
I am not representing that community, I don't continue to do
that.
So, to imply that I am a county commissioner--am not--or a
county commissioner is not qualified to make those decisions, I
dispute that. We are just like anybody else, as an elected
official. You know, we represent our communities. So----
Mr. LaMalfa. We are over time, and I will come back to you
in the second round here. But I appreciate that, because you
probably make a decision closer to your people than anybody can
3,000 miles away in Washington, DC. I will yield back and come
to you in the second round. Thank you.
Mr. Smith [presiding]. Does any Member have any further
questions for a second round?
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, let's keep going, then.
Mr. Smith. Mr. LaMalfa?
Mr. LaMalfa. Are we OK, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Smith. Proceed.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. McClure, please continue that thought.
Mr. McClure. Yes. So I am sensitive to that argument. Now,
don't get me wrong. Everybody in Union County doesn't agree
with me, and I understand that, I don't expect that. But I
guess, from my perspective, when I stand for election, I get my
ticket punched, so to speak, just like you do, Congressman. You
stand for election. And we know what that means. You have to
put yourself on the line. So that does mean something. And we
are the elected representatives of that county.
I don't think there is any idea that we are going to ignore
other functions. You are not going to get complete agreement
anyway. But I will guarantee you that I represent the interests
of Union County, what the people of Union County believe.
And I think the important point to consider is there is a
saying in politics, ``You can mess with someone's vocation, but
don't touch their avocation.'' And that is what you have done
here. OK? We have taken away the timber supplies, we are
closing the mills down. But now we have gone the second step.
OK? We have gone to the point where we are impacting what
people do out of pleasure, out of their hearts, and everything
else. And it is not acceptable in these communities. It is
becoming less and less acceptable. And that is exactly my
concern.
Now, if we look at the issue of cross-road travel and all
those other issues, I will tell you that Union County obtained
3,800 acres that we made into an ATV park. OK? We got the money
from the State of Oregon, the Parks Department. One of the
first questions that we had to answer was how were we going to
deal with off-road travel with ATVs. And you know what we did?
We decided we were not going to allow it. All right? And the
community accepted that. And the community understands that.
They will accept those kinds of things that make sense.
And we are not the only ones that have done that. Morrow
County has one that is 9,000, almost 10,000 acres, and they
have done the same thing. So you can do this responsibly,
listening to----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, you need to give people an outlet, and
they find that there is no outlet. State of California, they
had their--what is called the Green Sticker Fee doubled with
the consent of the off-road community some years ago to put
more money into the fund to open off-road and maintain off-road
facilities. That money was swiped by the State legislature and
moved into other areas. And so, here we are, off-roaders,
holding the bag once again for a lie.
And so, this Walden legislation, I think, is perfectly in
line with having a better say by your local government to
determine does it make sense for your community, is it right
that we can get together and discern where it is appropriate
and where it isn't. We are finding just locked gates. We are
finding people that approach those gates, they park their
vehicle, heck, you've got people over-zealously fining them for
the way they are parking their vehicles in front of the locked
gate. So, it is making people very angry in these districts
like mine, Mr. McClintock's, and probably the others, as well.
And, Ms. Weldon, there needs to be a heck of a lot more
connectivity. So you coming in here and saying you are opposed
to this legislation, I don't have a lot of sympathy, because it
hasn't been very collaborative up to this point.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two quick questions.
Deputy Chief, going back to the point I think you started
to discuss, could this legislation put the Federal Government
in a potential violation of its trust and treaty responsibility
to tribes? Say, hypothetically, if a proposed action is needed
to meet treaty obligations such as off-reservation hunting,
fishing, or the protection of a sacred site.
Ms. Weldon. If the legislation requires a cessation of
implementation of the decisions that have already been made,
then I would say it does create a concern for those tribal
entities who have entered into the government-to-government
consultation, as part of how the decisions were made.
So, it opens that up again and again. That is something we
would like to work with the committee on, to get clarity on how
we would move forward. But it does open up the need for us to
revisit those decisions, and to make sure we are on track with
the outcomes that were agreed upon with the tribes.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Commissioner, just a question about how
far does one extend the input. Because this legislation
elevates counties, to some extent, above all other
stakeholders. That is why I asked the question about tribes.
Let's say, hypothetically, vacationing families from
Portland, they want to weigh in on the planning process for the
national forest in eastern Oregon. So these people from
Portland are coming there to the area to hike, bike, hunt, fish
in your local--and helping the local economy. Would they get
equal input? What level of input would they have, since they
are not from that immediate county region?
Mr. McClure. Would they get input? Yes, they would get
input, certainly. I mean if they are using public lands, we
would listen to input from people outside the community. We
have a relationship with the tribes. We deal with two tribes on
a constant basis. We would take input. We understand that
concept.
I do represent specifically the citizens of Union County. I
do represent what their concerns are. But to suggest that we
wouldn't listen to outside input, no, we would listen to
outside input.
Mr. Grijalva. What I am asking, since they are not
constituents in the sense of the word, what would be their
level of input? Equal? And what role would they play in that
process that the counties would be involved in, in terms of
validating whatever plan comes out from Forest Service?
Mr. McClure. Someone outside the county?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. McClure. Like I said, we would consider their input,
like we would consider any other input. OK? They would be
invited to testify. I am not going to say that they would be
the driving force, but we would not exclude input from anybody.
We don't, in our processes.
Mr. Grijalva. I think that covers--I think that kind of--
yes, that answers it. Thank you.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank
you very much for your testimony, and we will move on to panel
two.
On our second panel we will hear from witnesses on two of
my bills: H.R. 4029, it transfers land and facilities
associated with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the
State of Missouri; and H.R. 4182, that requires the Park
Service to administer the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and
it coordinates with its current management proposal.
Our first witness is Ms. Christy Roberts. Christy Roberts
is from Ellington, Missouri. Our second witness will be Robert
Ross. Robert is a State Representative from District 142 in the
Missouri House of Representatives. And our third witness is Mr.
Victor Knox. He is the Associate Director of Park Planning,
Facilities and Lands with the National Park Service.
Witnesses all have 5 minutes to present their oral
testimony. There are lights in front of you. When they turn
from green to yellow you have one minute to finish. And when
they turn red you must end your statement.
First let me thank the committee for taking their time to
consider my two pieces of legislation, H.R. 4029 and H.R. 4182,
regarding the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, a national park
contained wholly within the eight congressional district. If
you all will recall, in this committee last July, I spoke with
Secretary Sally Jewell about my opposition and my constituents'
opposition to the National Park Service's planning process for
the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and specifically, any plan
that would close horse trails, limit boat motors on the river,
close access points to the river, or propose new congressional
wilderness designations in the Park.
That November the Park Service released a draft general
management plan that would do all four of these things, despite
my public and frequent opposition to all four. In the meantime,
I have sent numerous letters to or spoken up in this committee
or in my office with everyone who will listen from the Park
Service, including the witness today, Mr. Knox, asking that my
concerns be taken into account.
Every indication that I have received leads me to think
that a plan will be finalized for the Park this fall or late
summer that closes horse trails, it limits boat motors on the
river, closes access points, and advances the process of
designating new congressional wilderness areas. If Mr. Knox
knows otherwise, I would be interested in hearing differently
today.
Having exhausted other remedies, I propose two different
approaches to dealing with the management issues on the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways. H.R. 4029 would give the Park back
to the State of Missouri, and H.R. 4182 would amend the statute
that created the Park to ensure that the general management
plan for the Park stays the same way as it is currently, while
providing the additional protections for public use.
The State of Missouri has shown a willingness to receive
the Park lands, including funds for the Park in this year's
budget, and also sending two concurrent resolutions from each
body of the legislature, asking Congress to consider turning
the Park back over to the State of Missouri. State
Representative Robert Ross led the charge in Missouri to secure
funding for the Park, and he is here to testify today.
In addition to asking Congress to consider turning the Park
back over to Missouri, these resolutions also supported a no-
action alternative to the draft general management plan. This
alternative would leave the Park as it is now, under a general
management plan that has existed for over 30 years, and would
not close horse trails or remove motorized vessels from areas
of the Park where they are currently allowed, close public
access points, or prepare new areas to be designated as
congressional wilderness areas.
While there are certainly problems with the current
management plan, it does not include these sweeping changes in
the draft plan that threaten to undermine public access to the
Park, threatening the entire area's tourism industry.
Ms. Christy Roberts is also here to testify today. And, as
a lifelong resident of the area whose family has lived around
and used the Park before it was Federal property, she can give
you specific examples of how important the Park is to the
region, how the local folks take care of it, and how the Park
Service has abandoned its duties to the Park and to the region.
It is my hope that, with this hearing, we will highlight the
importance of the lands that comprise the Ozark National Scenic
Riverways in my district.
I look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses here
today, and working together going forward to find an adequate
solution to this problem.
Ms. Roberts.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTY ROBERTS, ELLINGTON, MISSOURI
Ms. Roberts. One half-century of management by neglect.
That is the current legacy of the National Park Service in the
Ozark Riverways, as seen by the locals. Fifty years of lost
cultural and economic opportunity in a region ripe with both,
and certainly in great need of the latter.
From the Park's almost immediate demolition of the lodge at
Round Springs, which destroyed both an iconic landmark and a
thriving business, to the more recently announced closing of
the Big Spring Lodge and the cabins for a proposed 3 years.
Good morning. I am Christy Roberts, President of a local
Chamber and a business owner in the region. I am honored to
speak on behalf of the proposal to return these parks and
riverways to the State of Missouri, and I am saddened by the
necessity.
Much like the recent debacle in the VA, what is on paper
and what is actually taking place are far from in agreement.
The ONSR can produce records of federally supported river
clean-ups, as the general management plan calls for, yet no one
working in the canoe rentals or floating the river has seen
such an effort for years. Organizations such as the Missouri
Stream Teams and the Ozark Heritage Project are conducting the
clean-ups, along with local boaters and conservation-minded
tourists. National Park Service personnel are nowhere to be
found.
If you review the 1984 general management plan, you will
see impressive proposed projects and reasonable policy, much of
which has not been implemented in the 30 years.
The ONSR will allow you to believe that the historical
traditions of the local people are of great importance.
However, their actions speak quite loud when they cancel local
festivals created to highlight a way of life of the days gone
by. This was prevalent when the Haunting of the Hills, a local
favorite October event, and the Ozark Riverways Heritage Days
were canceled in 2013. Thanks to a local organization, the
Ozark Heritage Project, the above events will continue with
very little assistance from the Park Service.
The ONSR promised to be a good steward of the Missouri
lands granted them and, as Missourians, we doubt that promise
and offer the following as proof.
Cemeteries, graveyards, and grave sites are now closed and
inaccessible to the general public. They are overgrown, they
are uncared for, and access is denied. Roads deemed illegal are
closed or are proposed to be closed. This committee should be
made aware that there are no illegal roads located in the ONSR.
All roads, however remote, went somewhere at one point in
history, of which may have been a church, a school, a cemetery,
or a settler's homestead. It is necessary for locals and
visitors to be allowed to experience these locations.
Historic structures were destroyed. They are allowed to
deteriorate, those that are left, losing forever the historical
value of the area and the former residents. River accesses are
closed, and proposed closures are a major issue. River accesses
are natural, and nearly all accesses are created by the natural
occurrences of the rise and the fall of the river. Boat
restrictions have been applied, with more restrictions yet to
come.
It needs to be said that Secretary Udall, the first
director of the ONSR, realized the necessity to have the word
``recreation'' included in the original legislation, and he
intended for the main reasons--for the creation of the Park,
all of them to have equal value: conservation, preservation,
and recreation for all. The words ``for all'' do not limit the
use of a boat to only canoes. The intention of the Park was for
all to enjoy.
Primitive campsite closures and proposed closures.
Primitive camping is a favorite pastime of visitors, and is a
local and regional resident tradition. It is integral to the
economy of the area that access is kept for the canoe
outfitters, horse riders, and outboard motor visitors to enjoy
in unity. The combined experiences of these groups should be
enhanced and improved, not subject to yet further restrictions
and limitations. My husband and his brothers are a fourth-
generation family who still visit and utilize the river on a
weekly basis. Their grandfather, Frank Roberts, and great-
grandfather, John Richmond Roberts, both owned farms on the
bank of the current river. They watched their family heritage
torn apart, burned down, and destroyed at the hands of the very
people that promised to preserve it. And I can express the
grief that they still feel when they visit those areas.
This is only the story of our family. And I want to express
that there are hundreds of families whose heritage was
destroyed. And I am here today to speak for them. We have seen
our rights deteriorate and stripped from us without reason, and
we fear more is about to come. Our hope is that our children,
our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren will be afforded
the same pleasures we enjoy, the same rights we have had,
giving them the same opportunity for the next generation of
families to experience.
We live here. And no one considers it more critical to be
good stewards of the land than the residents who call this
pristine location in the Ozarks home. I believe the State of
Missouri would be a better steward of the lands located within
the boundaries of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and have
proven by the current outstanding Park System within the State
that they are capable of this undertaking. I am proud to be
here today in support of Representative Jason Smith's proposed
bills to either transfer the Ozark National Scenic Riverways
back to the State of Missouri, or to require the National Park
Service personnel to administer the Park under the current 1984
general management plan.
I invite you to visit with us and get to know the people
who truly can serve, preserve, and enjoy the recreation that
our area provides. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christy Roberts, Ellington, MO
on H.R. 4029 and H.R. 4182
H.R. 4029
One half century of management by neglect. Fifty years of lost
cultural and economic opportunity in a region ripe with both and
certainly in great need of the latter. From the Park's almost immediate
demolition of the Lodge at Round Springs which destroyed both an iconic
landmark and a thriving business to the more recently announced closing
of the Big Spring Lodge and Cabins for a proposed minimum of 3 years
beginning at the end of this summer. These are just a few of the
reasons why the residents in the region I live in applaud
Representative Smith for the proposal of H.R. 4029.
I am Christy Roberts, President of the Ellington Chamber of
Commerce and business owner in the region. I have witnessed firsthand
much of this neglect in the past several decades--trash dumps created
on the very sites that were once tourist attractions, access denied to
family graveyards as well as gravel bars, timber allowed to rot and
waste because of administrative inaction. My family and friends, many
of which are business people and all of whom grew up for generations
calling Current River home, have seen it all. I am honored to speak on
behalf of the proposal to return these parks and riverway to the State
of Missouri; and I am saddened by its necessity.
Much like the recent debacle in the VA, what they have on paper and
what is actually taking place are far from in agreement. The ONSR can
produce records of federally supported river clean-ups, as the present
General Management Plan calls for--yet no one working at the canoe
rentals or floating the river has seen such an effort for years.
Organizations such as Missouri Stream Teams and the Ozark Heritage
Project are conducting the clean-ups, along with the local boaters and
conservation minded tourists. NPS personnel are nowhere to be found.
The ONSR will also allow you to believe that the historical
traditions of the local people are of great importance; however their
actions speak quite loud when they cancel local festivals created to
highlight a way of life of days gone by. This was prevalent when the
Haunting of the Hills, a local favorite October event and the Ozark
Riverway Heritage Days were canceled in 2013. Both of these events
highlighted important historical demonstrations such as Lye Soap
Making, Rope Making, Quilting, Dutch Oven Cooking, Ozark Story Telling,
I could go on. Thanks to a local organization, the Ozark Heritage
Project, which in part was created just to re-establish these events
and make sure the traditions of days gone by does not disappear, the
above events will continue with very little assistance by the ONSR and
without any funding.
The ONSR promised to be good stewards of the Missouri lands granted
them and as Missourians we doubt that promise and offer the following
proof:
1. Many cemeteries, graveyards and gravesites are now closed and
inaccessible to the general public, they are overgrown,
uncared for and access is denied.
2. Roads deemed ``illegal'' are closed or are proposed to be closed.
This committee should be made aware that there are no
``illegal'' roads located in the ONSR, all roads, however
remote went somewhere at one point in history, of which may
have been a church, school, cemetery or settler's
homestead. It is necessary for locals and visitors to be
allowed to experience these locations.
3. Historic structures destroyed, allowed to deteriorate, losing
forever the historic value to the area and former
residents.
4. River access closed or proposed closures; river accesses are
natural and nearly all accesses are created by the natural
occurrences of the rise and fall of the river.
5. Boat restrictions applied; Secretary Udall, the first director of
the ONSR realized the necessity to have the word
``recreation'' included in the original legislation and
intended the main reasons for creation of the park to each
have equal value; Conservation, preservation and recreation
for all. The words ``for all'' do not limit use of a boat
to only canoes, kayaks and rafts. The intention of the park
was for all to enjoy. No one group should be singled out
for exclusion.
6. Primitive camp site closures and proposed closures; primitive
camping is a favorite past time of visitors and is a local
and regional resident tradition. Campers at these sites are
afforded no services for these camping locales even though
they are required to pay a fee. Canoeists and guests who
arrive by water are welcome to these same locations without
having to pay a camp fee. I believe this to be an unjust
discrimination to visitors who drive in while the NPS shows
preference to preferred groups who float in.
7. Resistance to economic growth in the poorest counties in the
State. It is integral to the economy of the area that
access is kept for the canoe outfitters, horse riders and
outboard motor visitors to enjoy in unity. The combined
experiences of these groups should be enhanced and
improved, not subjected to yet further restrictions and
limitations.
My husband and his brothers are a 4th generation family who still
visit and utilize the river on a weekly basis. Their grandfather Frank
Roberts and great-grandfather John Richman Roberts both owned farms on
the banks of the Current River. They watched their family heritage torn
apart, burned down and destroyed at the hands of the very people that
promised to preserve it and I can express the grief they still feel
when we visit those areas. This is only the story of our family and I
want to express there are hundreds of families who's heritage was
destroyed and I am here today to speak for them as well. We have seen
our rights deteriorate and stripped from us without reason and we fear
more is about to come. Our hope is that our children, our grandchildren
and our great grandchildren will be afforded the same pleasures we
enjoy and the same rights we have had, giving the same opportunities to
the next generation of the Roberts family. We live here and no one
considers it more critical to be good stewards of the land than the
residents who call this pristine location in the Ozarks home.
I believe the State of Missouri would be a better steward of the
lands located within the boundaries of the Ozark National Scenic
Riverway and have proven by the current outstanding park system within
the State they we are capable of this undertaking.
I am proud to be here today in support of Representative Jason
Smith's proposed bill to support the transfer of the Ozark National
Scenic Riverway to the State of Missouri and I invite you to visit with
us, get to know the people who truly intend to conserve, preserve and
enjoy the recreation our area provides.
H.R. 4182
In lieu of the passage of H.R. 4029, H.R. 4182 would be very
favorably received by the local communities and would allow the current
economies to endure, visitors to remain constant, historical structures
and locations to remain accessible and local resident traditions to
carry on.
As noted in my testimony on H.R. 4029, the historical prevalence of
the river and land is what locals believe has been typically forgotten
since the creation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverway.. Briefly
allow me to highlight:
Historical structures allowed to decline or be demolished
Historical farm fields grown up and not remain as
``pastoral settings''
Historic roads, trails and river accesses closed
Folk lore presentations discontinued
Primitive camp sites closed
Cemeteries not maintained
Then, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and the original
authors who wrote the 1964 legislation to establish the park used the
words conservation, preservation and recreation for all. The intention
of the word preservation was to preserve the history of the original
inhabitants and their activities, as well as preservation of the river
and wildlife.
The addition of the wording ``preservation of historical
activities'' to current policy and giving it the same weight in
determining management decisions would improve the current policy.
H.R. 4182 requires the National Park Service personnel to manage
the Ozark National Scenic Riverway as it is currently being managed and
to abide by the 1984 General Management Plan. The 1984 plan would
continue to allow the horseback riders to continue the tradition of
riding in the Ozarks, river accesses would remain open for all to
enjoy, traditional recreation activities such as fishing, gigging,
boating, canoeing, kayaking and swimming would all continue. River
baptisms would be allowed to continue without restriction.
The inclusion that the National Park Service prohibit the addition
of any land within the Ozark National Scenic Riverway boundary from
being included in such initiatives as the recent ``National Blueway''
or past ``Biosphere'', and the requirement that National Park Service
personnel not allowed to designate a ``wilderness area'' without the
proper legislation from Congress is appreciated.
If the Ozark National Scenic Riverway and the National Park
personnel would abide by the 1984 General Management Plan, implement
and move forward with the proposed improvements to the park and allow
for the current policy to remain the rule, the Ozark National Scenic
Riverway would continue to provide traditional river experiences to the
visitors and local residents.
These rivers have truly been the lifeblood of the communities that
grew up around them. These people developed a spirit along with a
compassionate belief in assisting our neighbors and welcoming visitors.
Personally and professionally Ozark people have attended to the needs
of visitors for generations and this return to the original purpose of
the creation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverway would free local
businesses and organizations to better do so again.
Lack of 1984 GMP Implementation
In the 1984 General Management Plan the NPS included commitments
and policy to improvements to the park many of which have yet to be
seen proving yet again the NPS is not a friend to the region but is
directed by people who do not live in nor care about the communities
that it is encompassed by.
1. The farms along the rivers had been allowed to grow up and become
brush thickets. The 1984 plan promised to maintain many of
the open fields in various stages of succession--for
aesthetic benefit and to provide diversification favorable
to wildlife; this was promised in the original plan as
well, siting ``pastoral settings'' of the way the land was
farmed before it became a park as an important visitor
experience, however not until the lower river area was
recently developed for the new elk being restored by the
Missouri Dept of Conservation were the proposed fields
manicured and revitalized. This was done at the expense of
the Missouri tax payer.
2. The plan states that cultural resources will be vigilantly
maintained and protected, however sites like the Lower
Parker School, one of the last one-room school houses in
Dent County is allowed to deteriorate. Cardareva School
House is demolished and native rock removed, cemeteries are
left in disarray, Button Rock School House continues to
decline. I would also like to note that cultural
experiences refers to camp locations, which often are
located on an old family farm, visited by descendants and
many of these have been closed off with large boulders
prohibiting use. The NPS also attempted to halt river
baptisms last year, a 200-year tradition in the Ozarks and
I hardly believe that could be considered protecting the
cultural resources of the area.
3. The plan encourages and supports efforts to stimulate study of
regional folk life. We do not believe this has been done
and is proven by the fact that park personnel were willing
to allow several events that promote the introduction and
exposure of local folk life to expire.
4. Litter was addressed in the plan and noted that existing cleanup
program continues to include summer cleaning crews and an
annual NPS/Canoe Concessioner cleanup day in March. To our
knowledge this does not exist or is not publicized to allow
for assistance by the locals. The only cleanup day events
currently noted are done by the Missouri Stream Team and
the Ozark Heritage Project, without the assistance of NPS
personnel. As for summer cleaning crews, trash pickup was
discontinued for many camping areas and providing trash
bags was eliminated.
5. Campground to be built along with a 200-person amphitheater to be
built at Aker's was never built, nor the improvements at
Powder Mill and the living demonstrations Blacksmithing,
Horseshoeing and Sorghum Making have ceased; widening of
the road to lower access at Log Yard and install concrete
boat ramp, were never done. The plan also speaks of
improvements at Jerk Tail and now that access is being
threatened with closure and a 200-seat amphitheater to be
constructed at Big Spring, also not completed.
These are all projects and improvements put forth in the 1984 GMP
but have yet to be implemented. These need to be addressed as to why
the commitments were not followed through on and the point needs to be
made of their negative impact on the economies in the area and the
level of accountability the leadership of the NPS has shown.
______
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Roberts.
Representative Robert Ross.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT ROSS, STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICT 142, MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Ross. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
Robert Ross, State Representative from the 142nd District in
south-central Missouri. I am here today to talk about the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways, and the management of the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways.
But first, really, we should discuss the families, and from
a number of perspectives. Number one, as Ms. Roberts mentioned,
there are a number of families that, during the creation of
this riverway, that either sold their land or had it taken from
them in the process of eminent domain. And you have canoe
rentals, you know. Those are ran by individuals that have
families. The trail rides, the gas station owners, restaurants.
I mean this is vital to our local economies.
And then there are also families like mine that use this
breath-taking area to enjoy, to relax, to get away. Make no
mistake, this is an area where memories are actually made,
whether you are riding a horse for the first time, catching
your first bass, seeing a bald eagle for the first time,
which--all of these add to the passion of the issue.
The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is a conglomerate of a
number of things, of caves, springs, scenery, recreation, and
wildlife centered around the Current and Jack's Fork Rivers.
When Congress saw the need to designate this as a national
scenic riverway in 1964, there was a commitment and the intent
to protect the area, while also protecting the individuals'
access and ability, both near and far, to come and enjoy the
natural beauty that we have there. Under the management of the
National Park Service, this has been steadily and almost
incrementally changing, and it is no longer the case at the
present date.
The recent mode of operation includes harassing family
campers whether their tent is 2 inches out of the correct
position, or placing boulders and gates across the rivers and
the access, along with this new proposed general management
plan that they mention they prefer Alternative B, which--that
alone would close two-thirds of the current horse trails which
exist in the area.
It would make the upper 40 miles of both the Current and
Jack's Fork non-motorized. You would not be allowed to camp on
a gravel bar if it were not a designated camping area. And it
would close 150 miles of roads which, despite their terminology
as ``illegal,'' those roads were there prior to that
designation as the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Those roads
were made by the local individuals and part of the logging
operations.
In this whole process of the comment period and, you know,
relative to the general management plan, I heard it mentioned
earlier in the hearing about eyewash. That is exactly what
these hearings have been. They have not been held from a way of
actually receiving public input and listening to what is being
requested by the public.
At this point the National Park Service is failing their
original commitment to balance the protection and preservation
of the area and of individuals' access to the area, and now
seems bent on keeping people away. If the National Park Service
is to continue managing the Ozark National Scenic Riverways,
they should remember and re-read the language enacted in 1964,
as previously mentioned, which balances the protection of the
area with the protection of the people's ability to enjoy it,
without proposing further restrictions and closing accesses, as
contained within Congressman Smith's House Bill 4182.
This past year in Missouri, through a bipartisan effort on
a House Concurrent Resolution Number 9, Senate Concurrent
Resolution Number 22, we discussed being able to take this part
back. In fact, as was mentioned earlier, I was able to add
funding for that. In Missouri we understand the balance of
protecting our land and allowing the people to enjoy it, which
is evident in our State Park and Conservation System.
As Ms. Roberts previously mentioned, the people are the
ones--the local people, not Park Service personnel, the local
people are the ones that actually pick up the trash along the
river and keep this area clean. Bringing the Current and Jack's
Fork Rivers back under Missouri's management would be, by far
and away, the best option to capture the original intent of the
riverways creation, as outlined in Resolution 4029.
And at that point I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Robert Ross, State Representative,
District 142, Missouri House of Representatives
H.R. 4029
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as we continue our
discussion of Missouri's Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) and the
best way to manage this treasure moving forward, I would like to
advocate for what we Missourians believe to be the best option in
balancing the preservation of the area and the recreational
opportunities that it affords.
When Congress acted in 1964 to designate large portions of the
Current and Jack's Fork Rivers as a ``Scenic Riverway,'' it did so with
the intent and commitment of maintaining and protecting public access
to an area that today receives more than 1.3 million visitors annually.
In my conversations with some of the families who gave up their
property (some land was purchased, while much was taken through Eminent
Domain) those many years ago to allow for the creation of the ONSR, the
recurring theme is that they did so because the Park Service assured
them it would protect the riverways without limiting or restricting
their access; and that future generations would be able to utilize and
enjoy the area in the same manner that these local families had been
able to. While that was the case for a number of years, the latest
efforts by the National Park Service to restrict access and curtail
recreational opportunity (which is a central theme in the proposed
General Management Plan ``GMP'') threaten the integrity of the accord
that was originally struck between the people of Missouri and the
Federal Government.
As discussed in my previous testimony, our State has came together
in supporting the ``No Action Alternative'' which would not further
limit access or increase restrictions. And while we believe this would
be the ideal plan for the National Park Service to utilize going
forward, the most favorable option to ensure proper management of the
park would involve the Federal Government relinquishing control of the
ONSR and returning it to the State of Missouri. For that reason I am
fully supportive of Congressman Smith's H.R. 4029 that would empower
our State to manage and protect the ONSR as a State park.
These are Missouri lands and Missouri rivers, and I can confidently
say that Missourians (as we have for generations) know best how to
preserve and protect these resources both today and moving forward. We
understand that this park is one of the greatest destinations in our
Nation for floating, boating, hiking, camping, hunting, fishing and
horseback riding, and we want to ensure visitors are able to enjoy
these activities just as they have for decades. At the same time we are
committed to protecting the ONSR as it represents a vital part of our
local economies and an integral part of our way of life, and we are
dedicated to ensuring it continues to be the natural treasure we all
know it to be today.
As previously mentioned in my testimony on H.R. 4182, the
resolutions passed in the Missouri House and Senate express that we
believe ``Missouri citizens most impacted in their daily lives are in
the best position to formulate policy and regulations to manage and
protect Missouri's natural resources as opposed to a Federal agency
headquartered in Washington, DC''. We emphasized that statement again
this session when my colleagues supported my efforts to secure funding
for the operation and maintenance of the ONSR by the State of Missouri,
within our operating budget. It should be mentioned that our State
constitution requires a balanced budget and that we have continued to
walk a very fine line in finding funding for many of our most critical
needs. To authorize funding for this purpose despite the difficult
budget situation we face is a testimony itself to the high level of
importance we place on Missouri regaining control of the Ozark National
Scenic Riverways.
In conclusion, we urge you to take action to help us preserve
access to this undeniably beautiful part of our State and Nation. It is
possible to allow visitors to responsibly use and enjoy these waterways
while also preserving and protecting their natural beauty so that they
can be enjoyed by future generations as well. We believe it is not the
National Park Service that is most capable of carrying out this
mission, but instead our own State and people; which is evident in our
conscientious management of the other thousands of acres we currently
manage and protect. We hope that you will join us in supporting this
effort to allow Missouri to serve as a responsible and proud steward of
the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.
Thank you for your consideration. I will do my best to answer any
questions you may have.
H.R. 4182
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to voice some of my thoughts and
concerns regarding the management of Missouri's Ozark National Scenic
Riverways.
As the State representative for the 142nd legislative district, I
represent approximately 37,000 Missourians, many of whom have their
lives and livelihoods directly dependent on the continued success and
accessibility of the natural treasures that are the Current and Jacks
Fork Rivers. It should go without saying that these waterways are an
integral part of our culture and a vital part of our economy, and that
the people I am blessed to serve feel very strongly about protecting
and preserving this important part of our history and our future.
It is my contention that our scenic riverways must be protected but
also managed in a way that will allow for proper stewardship that does
not infringe on the rights of Missourians and visitors who wish to
enjoy them. For decades now this has not been an issue as my
constituents, as well as visitors from all around the State and the
world, have camped, boated, hunted, fished and, in general, enjoyed the
abundance of activities that are available along these waterways. It is
this responsible use of the land that we want to continue.
However, given the latest actions of the National Park Service, it
has become quite clear that the goal is to limit access to these
natural treasures, which is a decision that will have catastrophic
effects on the lives of my constituents, as well as on our local
economies. In particular, we have grave concerns with the National Park
Service's preferred ``Alternative B''. This particular plan will lead
to increased restrictions on access and the outright elimination of
recreational activities in vast portions along the riverways.
The people of Missouri are far more supportive of what is commonly
referred to as the ``No Action Alternative''. We believe this
management plan will allow users to responsibly experience this area
that we agree is special, which was the central idea shared by property
owners, the State of Missouri, and the NPS when the ONSR was created.
It is this option that we believe is consistent with the way the park
has been successfully managed for decades, and that will give us the
best opportunity moving forward to protect and preserve this natural
treasure without disrupting the way of life for thousands of
Missourians.
I feel it is important to note at this time that my colleagues in
the Missouri General Assembly moved in overwhelming numbers this year
to support this ``No Action Alternative''. We approved both SCR 22 and
HCR 9 in both the House and Senate this year. These resolutions not
only encourage the adoption of the ``No Action Alternative'', but also
encourage Congress to explore the option of returning control of the
park to the State of Missouri. As the resolutions read, we believe
``Missouri citizens most impacted in their daily lives are in the best
position to formulate policy and regulations to manage and protect
Missouri's natural resources as opposed to a Federal agency
headquartered in Washington, DC.''
Furthermore, H.R. 4182 goes beyond simply ensuring that the current
general management plan does not become more restrictive, it provides
specific protections for recreational activities that have historically
been performed within the park, including riding horses and using boats
with motors. It seems beyond reason, but the Park Service's proposed
alternative for management would close 65 miles of horse trails that
are currently in use, and ban motorized vessels from areas of the river
where they are currently allowed.
In conclusion, we urge you to honor the original spirit of the
agreement that was made when the Ozark National Scenic Riverways were
first created. That means allowing Missourians to responsibly use and
enjoy these waterways while also preserving and protecting their
natural beauty so that they can be enjoyed by future generations as
well. For decades we have been successful in this endeavor and we
believe we can continue this success in the years to come without the
need for overly burdensome regulations handed down by the National Park
Service.
Thank you for your consideration. I will do my best to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Representative.
Mr. Knox, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING,
FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 4029 and
H.R. 4182. I would like to submit our full statements on both
of these bills for the record, and summarize the Department's
views in my testimony.
H.R. 4029 would require the Secretary of the Interior to
transfer all Federal land, facilities, and any other assets
within Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the State of Missouri
for the purpose of maintaining a State Park. The Department
strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 4029.
Our fundamental concern is that the bill would erode the
idea of a Federal system of public lands, and the system of
laws, regulations, and policy that govern the management of
those lands. State governments have very different
responsibilities for the management of State lands than the
Federal Government, and are accountable only to residents
within their particular States, rather than managing for the
benefit of all Americans.
H.R. 4182 would require the Secretary of the Interior to
administer Ozark National Scenic Riverways in accordance with
the general management for that unit of the National Park
System that was adopted in 1984. The Department strongly
opposes the enactment of H.R. 4182.
This bill would undermine a public planning process that
has been underway since 2005, and would deny the opportunity
for all Americans, including Missourians, to have a voice in
the future management of their national park.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad
to answer any questions that you or members of the committee
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior on H.R. 4029, H.R. 4182, H.R. 318, H.R. 4489, H.R. 4049, and
H.R. 4527
H.R. 4029
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 4029, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to transfer
all Federal land, facilities and any other assets associated with the
Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the State of Missouri for the
purpose of maintaining a State park, and for other purposes.
The Department strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 4029.
H.R. 4029 would transfer all lands, facilities, and assets
associated with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the State of
Missouri to be operated as a State park in substantially the same
fashion as it was operated as a unit of the National Park System. If
the State of Missouri attempted to sell any portion of these lands,
assets, or facilities, or did not operate them in the same fashion as
the National Park Service, they would revert to the ownership of the
Federal Government. The bill would also require the Federal Government
to pay all of the costs of the transfer.
The Department has a number of concerns with H.R. 4029. Our
fundamental concern is that the bill would erode the idea of a Federal
system of public lands, and the system of laws, regulations, and
policies that govern the management of those lands. The management of
Federal lands involves the exercise of inherently Federal functions and
decisionmaking by land managers for the long-term benefit of all
Americans. State governments have very different responsibilities for
the management of State lands than the Federal Government, and are
accountable only to residents within their particular States.
Accordingly, each State would be under strong pressure to manage
according to local rather than national interests.
2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the designation of the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways as a unit of the National Park Service. In
1964, Missouri's Congressional delegation united in support of a bill
to set aside 134 miles of crystal clear spring-fed rivers in
recognition of the inherent value of the unique scenic, natural and
historic values of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers in the Ozark
Highlands as a crucial part of our national heritage. Public Law 88-492
was the culmination of 40 years of efforts by local businessmen, State
officials and conservationists and became the model for the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a landmark conservation act, signed into
law by President Nixon.
The enabling legislation charged the National Park Service with
conserving and interpreting unique scenic and other natural values and
objects of historic interest, preserving portions of the Current River
and the Jacks Fork River in Missouri as free-flowing streams, caring
for a world class spring system unparalleled in North America,
including the largest spring protected in the national park system, and
over 400 caves situated in the valleys and narrow hollows that meander
between steep ridges, and for providing for the use and enjoyment of
these outstanding outdoor recreation resource for the people of the
United States.
This mandate to conserve the park's resources while providing for
access and recreational opportunities mirrors the mandate contained in
the National Park Service Organic Act. The Riverways' 80,785 acres
protect an important center of biodiversity, including three listed
threatened and endangered species and numerous endemic species not
found elsewhere in the world. The Riverways also contain many
archeological sites and historic structures and landscapes that reflect
more than 12,000 years of human habitation in the Ozark Highlands.
Interpretation and education programs focus on the rich cultural
heritage of the region. Tourism and recreation opportunities, such as
boating, fishing, and horseback riding, are encouraged by the park and
managed in balance with these resources and the diverse interests and
desires of multiple user groups from across the Nation.
In 2012, Ozarks National Scenic Riverways welcomed 1.4 million
visitors and generated approximately $56 million in economic benefits
for the surrounding community. Enactment of H.R. 4029 would not only
contravene the intent of the Missouri delegation when it initially
established the Riverways as a unit of the National Park System, it
would also diminish the stature of these nationally significant
resources and could reduce the economic benefits that accrue to
national park sites by alienating certain user groups.
The park is currently engaged in a planning process to update its
1984 General Management Plan. This public process ensures that all
Americans, including all Missourians, have a voice in the management of
their park. Over 2,800 people from across the Nation have provided more
than 16,000 comments and participated in public meetings, open houses,
and stakeholder workshops since the planning process began in 2005.
Ozark National Scenic Riverways has published a draft General
Management Plan and collected public comments on this draft. The
National Park Service is currently considering changes to the plan
based on public comments, and anticipates releasing the final plan by
early 2015.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 4029. I am
prepared to answer any questions from members of the committee.
H.R. 4182
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 4182, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to
administer the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in accordance with the
General Management Plan for that unit of the National Park System and
for other purposes.
The Department strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 4182.
H.R. 4182 would amend the purpose of the Ozark National Scenic
Riverways to include the preservation of historical recreational
activities. The bill would prohibit the park from designating
management zones and would require the National Park Service to manage
the park, including the use of motorized vessels within the park, in a
manner that is not more restrictive than the policies detailed in the
park's 1984 General Management Plan. The bill would also require the
park to allow horseback riding in areas where that activity has
traditionally been conducted and to maximize public access points for
traditional recreational activities on the Riverways. It would prohibit
the park from requiring a permit for a baptism in the river, or
including the Riverways as part of a National Blueway, or managing park
lands as wilderness without specific designation. The bill would
exclude all lands within the park from eligibility for Congressional
wilderness designation.
H.R. 4182 would undermine a public planning process that has been
underway since 2005, and deny the opportunity for all Americans,
including Missourians, to have a voice in the future management of
their national park. The park is concluding the planning process to
update its 1984 General Management Plan. Over 2,800 people from across
the Nation have provided more than 16,000 comments and participated in
public meetings, open houses, and stakeholder workshops since the
planning process began in 2005. Ozark National Scenic Riverways has
published a draft General Management Plan and collected public comments
on this draft. The National Park Service is currently considering
changes to the plan based on public comments, and anticipates releasing
the final plan by early 2015. Enactment of H.R. 4182 would force the
park to disregard the input that it has received from park users.
Public participation is at the core of the National Park Service
planning process--it ensures that the NPS fully understands and
considers the public's interest in the parks. It is NPS policy to
actively seek out and consult with existing and potential visitors,
neighbors, federally recognized tribes, and other people with
traditional cultural ties to park lands, scientists and scholars,
concessioners, cooperating associations, and gateway communities. The
Department cannot support any bill that would deny the public's
opportunity to engage in the planning process and voice their opinions
on the future management of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.
H.R. 4182 includes a number of provisions related to the
administration of the Ozarks National Scenic Riverways.
Zones: Management zoning is a standard practice of local
and regional planning as well as planning for national
parks. Management zones provide direction to managers on
the nature and scope of allowable activities within
specific areas. Management zones are written broadly enough
to allow the flexibility to adapt management strategies
according to current and desired conditions.
Horseback Riding: Horseback riding is currently allowed in
the park and the NPS is looking to sustain the activity in
such a way as to not harm resources, specifically the
exceptional waters of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.
Access to the River: The National Park Service is
committed to providing access to the rivers in a
responsible manner. Baptisms do not require a permit. We
have reviewed our management policies and determined that
the superintendent has the flexibility to continue to allow
baptisms without a special use permit. Also, the Secretary
of the Interior issued an order ending the Blueways program
last year.
Use of Motorized Vessels: The National Park Service is
currently undertaking a comprehensive review of motorized
vessel use within the Riverways as part of the ongoing
planning process. H.R. 4182 would deny the public the
opportunity to share their views on appropriate horsepower
levels and areas of use and would limit the park manager's
ability to make necessary modifications for public safety
which could negatively affect tourism.
Congressional Wilderness Designation: The Wilderness Act
directs Federal agencies to assess if wilderness
characteristics are present and then provides a process for
public involvement. This issue is being considered in the
ongoing General Management Planning process and we cannot
support limiting the public's input during this process. We
recognize that only Congress has the authority to designate
wilderness.
Additionally, H.R. 4182 effectively eliminates the National Park
Service Organic Act as the fundamental law by which the Riverways would
be administered. This law is the basis by which all of the other 400
units of the National Park System are managed and eliminating its
applicability to the Riverways is a precedent we strongly oppose.
The Ozarks National Scenic Riverways is a powerful economic driver
in southeast Missouri. In 2012, Ozarks National Scenic Riverways
welcomed 1.4 million visitors and generated approximately $56 million
in economic benefits for the surrounding community. The National Park
Service encourages tourism and recreation opportunities, such as
canoeing, kayaking, floating, horseback riding, camping, boating,
fishing, trapping, hiking, gigging, swimming, and hunting. By
supporting these activities, while conserving the unique natural and
cultural resources that inspired Congress to protect these lands as
part of the national park system, and with the input of diverse user
groups from across the Nation, the National Park Service is helping to
ensure that the park is responsive to users across America and remains
an economic driver for future generations of Missourians and others.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 4182. I am
prepared to answer any questions from members of the committee.
H.R. 318
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 318, to authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of the Korean War
Veterans Memorial and to allow certain private contributions to fund
that Wall of Remembrance.
The Department opposes H.R. 318 because it would significantly
alter the character of the existing Korean War Veterans Memorial, and
it is inconsistent with the Commemorative Works Act.
H.R. 318 would amend Public Law 99-572 to expand upon the original
purpose and design of the Korean War Veterans Memorial. The bill adds
new subjects for commemoration and would require the display of certain
information at the memorial about members of the U.S. Armed Forces who
served in the Korean Conflict. Also, the bill would require the display
of information at the memorial about members of the Korean armed forces
and other Korean military personnel as well as the 20 other non-U.S.
forces that were part of the United Nations Command who served in the
Korean Conflict.
The Korean War Veterans Memorial commemorates the sacrifices of the
5.8 million Americans who served in the U.S. armed services during the
3-year period of the Korean War. The Memorial also recognizes the
participation of the 22 nations who served as United Nations
contributors. During the Korean War's relatively short duration from
June 25, 1950, to July 27, 1953, 54,246 Americans died. Of these, 8,200
are listed as missing in action, lost, or buried at sea. In addition,
103,284 were wounded during the conflict.
The Memorial was designed, constructed and completed by its
legislatively designated sponsor, the American Battle Monuments
Commission (ABMC) and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board,
with public involvement throughout. It was dedicated on July 27, 1995.
The Memorial's design, and each of its features down to its
plantings, is symbolic. The Memorial is the culmination of years of
work by the ABMC, and careful reviews, followed by revisions, and
ultimately approvals reached by the National Park Service and other
Federal entities including the National Capital Planning Commission and
the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. This painstaking and public process
began with the competition design, and resulted in the completed
Memorial we know today. The Memorial should not now be changed to
include the engraving of names of Americans who served in that
conflict. The opportunity to mimic the design characteristics present
at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was purposefully avoided when the
design was requested during an open, international design competition.
The concept of engraving names at this Memorial was considered
extensively when the Memorial was being designed. The ABMC and the
Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board with the Department's
concurrence, advised against the incorporation of engraved names at the
Memorial. Both agencies arrived at this decision upon reflection of
years of experience with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Inscribing
names is a lengthy and painstaking process even when it goes smoothly.
But more important, as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial experience showed,
there is not always agreement on those names to be included and those
names that are not, and this has led to public contention and
controversy. Choosing some names and omitting others causes a place of
solace to become a source of hurt. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial honors
all who served in that conflict, but only the names of the 58,272
killed within the combat zone are engraved on the Wall. This meant that
those killed by a fire on a Navy ship just outside the zone were not
eligible to have their names engraved on the wall--a difficult message
for their survivors to accept.
The ABMC and the Department felt the lessons learned at the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial must not be ignored, that a different type of
commemoration must occur at the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and that
the Memorial should be representative in design and not include
individual names. As a compromise to the Korean War veterans who wanted
the names engraved, ABMC created the Korean War Honor Roll, which is an
electronic registry of names. Visitors have access to this registry
from the Internet or at the kiosks at the Memorial. A kiosk containing
the Korean War Honor Roll stands at the west entrance of the Memorial.
It is serviced by a National Park Service ranger, who provides
assistance to visitors. The Honor Roll computer contains the names of
all military personnel who lost their lives during the Korean War,
including the individual's name, service, rank, service number, date of
birth, hometown or county of entry into the service, cause of death,
and date of death. If the information is furnished to ABMC, the Honor
Roll includes the serviceman's unit, his awards, the circumstances
surrounding his death or his going missing in action and a photograph.
The ABMC also has the names of those missing engraved at the Courts of
the Missing at the Honolulu Memorial.
The Korean War Veterans Memorial is located near the Lincoln
Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC, in an area designated
by Congress in the Commemorative Works Act as the Reserve--an area in
which no new commemorative works shall be located. As Congress noted in
the law creating the Reserve, ``. . . the great cross-axis of the Mall
in the District of Columbia . . . is a substantially completed work of
civic art; and . . . to preserve the integrity of the Mall, a reserve
area should be designated . . . where the siting of new commemorative
works is prohibited.'' The Korean War Veterans Memorial is a completed
work of civic art in this special landscape of the Reserve. Moreover,
we cannot ignore the practical effect of this legislation. Essentially,
the Memorial wall would be a second Korean War Veterans Memorial,
effectively thwarting the intent of the Commemorative Works Act to
prohibit new memorials within the Reserve and would be an addition that
would significantly alter the character of the existing Memorial. And
this second memorial would have the effect of violating the
Commemorative Works Act prohibition on interfering or encroaching on an
existing memorial.
We feel very strongly that the Korean War Veterans Memorial, like
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, exists to recall the exemplary service
and sacrifice of outstanding Americans, and this memorial has already
been completed as it stands today. The Korean War Veterans Memorial is
a place of honor and dignity and we should avoid any intrusions that
will become a source of contention or controversy.
That concludes my prepared testimony on H.R. 318, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
H.R. 4489
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 4489, a bill to designate memorials to the service of members of
the U.S. Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 4489 with two amendments.
H.R. 4489 would redesignate Pershing Park in the District of
Columbia as the National World War I Memorial and allow for the
enhancement of the park through the construction of appropriate
sculptural and other commemorative elements, including landscaping, to
further honor the service of members of the U.S. Armed Forces in World
War I. The bill also designates the Liberty Memorial of Kansas City at
America's National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the
National World War I Museum and Memorial. Finally, the bill makes
amendments to the World War I Centennial Commission Act.
The Department has testified previously on other bills which sought
to designate a National World War I Memorial in either the District of
Columbia or at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri. In the
111th Congress, S. 760 and H.R. 1849 proposed designating the Liberty
Memorial as the National World War I Memorial, while S. 2097 would have
rededicated the District of Columbia War Memorial as a National and
District of Columbia World War I Memorial. In the 112th Congress, H.R.
938 proposed to designate the Liberty Memorial as the National World
War I Museum and Memorial, and the District of Columbia War Memorial as
the District of Columbia and National World War I Memorial. In each
case, the Department testified that it was premature to establish a
National World War I Memorial without studying existing sites that may
already serve that role. The Department also testified that a national
memorial to World War I already exists in the District of Columbia.
General John J. Pershing Park, located in the along Pennsylvania
Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets NW, was built by the Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation and is now under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service. The park includes a statue of General Pershing
and artwork detailing the major battles in World War I that involved
U.S. troops. Quotations on the existing World War I Veterans Memorial
at Pershing Park include General Pershing's tribute to the officers and
men of the American Expeditionary Forces of World War I and a
commemoration of those who served in the United States Navy in World
War I. The Department believes that this is the appropriate site to
commemorate World War I.
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) has
concluded that the existing World War I Memorial at Pershing Park
serves today as a national memorial to the veterans who served in World
War I. On July 23, 2013, NCMAC considered H.R. 222, which would have
established a new and separate memorial to the veterans of World War I
within the District of Columbia. The Commission unanimously recommended
enhancing the existing World War I Memorial in Pershing Park rather
than establishing a second memorial. More recently, on May 6, 2014,
NCMAC considered H.R. 4489 and its companion bill, S. 2264. The intent
of the bill to enhance the existing commemoration at Pershing Park was
met with unanimous approval.
H.R. 4489 directs that there will be no infringement upon the
existing District of Columbia War Memorial, and provides for compliance
with the Commemorative Works Act (CWA), with two exceptions. The bill
waives section 8905 with regard to site selection, as Pershing Park is
an existing memorial site and the bill only calls for its re-
designation. The bill, also, waives section 8908(b) of the CWA, as the
Area I designation process is precluded by re-designation of Pershing
Park. The Department agrees with these waivers. It further prohibits
Federal funds from being used for the design, establishment, or
enhancement of a memorial or commemorative work by the WWI Centennial
Commission.
Because of the importance of World War I to the history of the
United States and consistent with the treatment of memorials to other
significant wars fought by our country, the Department believes that
this bill would designate the National World War I Memorial as a new
unit of the National Park Service, which would in turn be managed by
the National Mall and Memorial Parks. We recommend that language be
included in the text of the legislation establishing the memorial as a
separate unit of the National Park System.
The Department also recommends striking ``national'' from the name
of the title of the memorial to redesignate Pershing Park in the
District of Columbia as the World War I Memorial. No other memorials to
our country's wars sited in the District of Columbia have ``national''
in their title, including the World War II Memorial, the Korean War
Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. We believe siting
the World War I Memorial in our Nation's capital will allow the
memorial to stand on its own and provide appropriate recognition to
honor the service and sacrifice of all those who fought in this war.
The proposed amendments are attached. In addition, the Department
of Justice advises that it has constitutional concerns with H.R. 4489,
which it intends to convey to the committee by separate transmission.
This concludes my testimony on H.R. 4489, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Proposed Amendment to H.R. 4489
On page 2, strike lines 17-19 and insert:
``(a) REDESIGNATION.--Pershing Park in the District of Columbia
is hereby redesignated as the `World War I Memorial', a
separate unit of the National Park System.''
H.R. 4049
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 4049, a bill to amend the act to provide for the establishment of
the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in the State of Wisconsin, and
for other purposes, to adjust the boundary of that National Lakeshore
to include the lighthouse known as Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light, and
for other purposes.
The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 4049 with the
amendments discussed below.
H.R. 4049 would adjust the boundary of the Apostle Island National
Lakeshore (Lakeshore) to include the Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light,
thereby transferring ownership of the historic 1915 lighthouse to the
National Park Service (NPS) from the U.S. Coast Guard in accordance
with previously enacted legislation which mandates that any Federal
property located within the boundaries of the Lakeshore be transferred
to the Secretary of the Interior without further administrative action.
H.R. 4049 ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can maintain
the breakwater upon which the lighthouse stands, and, in accordance
with the terms of the previously enacted legislation, the U.S. Coast
Guard can continue to maintain a Federal aid to navigation in the
lighthouse. All three agencies would be required to cooperate in their
operations so that each of their agency missions is served.
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, located on the south shore of
Lake Superior, is responsible for the care of what renowned lighthouse
historian F. Ross Holland, Jr., has described as ``the largest and
finest single collection of lighthouses in the country.'' The park
manages six historic light stations, and a total of eight standing
light towers--more than in any other unit in the National Park System.
All of the lighthouses currently located within the boundary of the
Lakeshore, as well as the Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light, are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Lakeshore has developed into one of the premier locations in
the National Park System for historic preservation and education
centered on lighthouses, including interpretive programs highlighting
the stories of light keepers and the expansion of the United Sates in
the late 19th century through maritime commerce. In 2006, Apostle
Islands rehabilitated the 1863 Raspberry Island Lighthouse, which is a
very popular visitor attraction. This year, the Lakeshore is concluding
a major historic preservation project that will rehabilitate the 1856
Old Michigan Island Light, the oldest in the park, and significantly
improve conditions at four other light stations.
All of the lighthouses currently managed by Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore were transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the
National Park Service as part of a Congressionally authorized boundary
adjustment and land transfer in 1986 that mandated that any Federal
property located within the boundaries of the Lakeshore be transferred
to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. At
the time of the 1986 transfer, the future of the Ashland Light was not
in question.
In May 2012, the Coast Guard announced its intent to dispose of the
Ashland Light under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act
(NHLPA). The NHLPA, enacted in 2000 as an amendment to the National
Historic Preservation Act, provides a public process for the disposal
of federally owned historic light stations by allowing them to be
transferred at no cost to Federal agencies, State and local
governments, nonprofit corporations, educational agencies, and
community development organizations. The first step is the
determination of the property as ``excess to service requirements'' by
the U.S. Coast Guard and its identification as a historic structure.
This determination is reported to the General Services Administration
and notice is given that applications may be made for the structure. If
an application is accepted, the lighthouse is simply transferred to the
applicant subject to compliance with requirements to maintain the light
and make it available to the public.
No public or private entity, aside from the NPS, expressed interest
in obtaining and maintaining the Ashland Light through the NHLPA
process. However, as the Ashland Light is not within the existing park
boundary, a boundary adjustment is needed to clarify that the property
will be administered as part of the park.
The Ashland Light sits in Lake Superior's Chequamegon Bay, less
than 2 miles offshore of the small city of Ashland, Wisconsin. The
tower is visible from most of the city's waterfront, and the light
shines brightly at night. Images of the Ashland Light are everywhere in
the city; they adorn the logos of the local newspaper, the Chamber of
Commerce, and many local businesses. Few residents, however, have
actually visited the Ashland Light or understand the vital role it
played in one of the busiest ports on Lake Superior a century ago.
The Ashland Light is currently in fair condition, but its long-term
survival as part of the Nation's maritime heritage is not assured. The
NPS and the local community are optimistic that the condition could be
improved and appropriate visitor educational opportunities could be
provided in the future if the Ashland Light were managed as part of
Apostle Island National Lakeshore. With the addition of the Ashland
Light, the NPS would manage all of the nationally significant historic
lights in the region, further enhancing the park's role in historic
lighthouse preservation and education.
The Department would recommend three amendments:
The Department recommends deleting the portion of the amendment
made in Section 2 that provides buffer zone language. The park boundary
adjustment in H.R. 4049 includes only the lighthouse itself, not any of
the waters of the Bay. The NPS has no authority to manage or permit
activities outside of park boundaries. Fishing, boating, snowmobiling,
and all other existing uses of the Bay's waters are not affected by
this bill. The buffer zone language is unnecessary.
The Department recommends that the portion of Section 2 of the bill
directing the Federal agencies to cooperate in their operations be
amended to clarify congressional intent. The bill does not otherwise
alter the statutory standards or other mandates of the three agencies,
nor does it affect the ongoing need for them to work cooperatively to
carry out those mandates in the area, as they currently do with respect
to other lighthouses within the boundary. We would be glad to work with
the subcommittee to amend the existing language to ensure that the bill
does not affect the missions of these agencies.
Finally, the Department recommends deleting Section 3, which
directs that no additional appropriations are to be authorized for the
Lakeshore as a result of this boundary adjustment. The enabling
legislation of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore makes no reference to
the authorization of appropriations. In the absence of such authorizing
language, adding language that specifically restricts the increase of
appropriations for this particular boundary adjustment could be
construed as prohibiting any future increase in appropriations for the
park even if that increase was unrelated to the addition of the Ashland
Light.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 4049. I am
prepared to answer any questions from members of the committee.
H.R. 4527
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 4527, a bill that would remove a use restriction on land formerly
a part of Acadia National Park that was transferred to the Town of
Tremont, Maine.
The Department could support H.R. 4527 if amended.
H.R. 4527 declares that specified lands in Acadia National Park in
Maine, which were conveyed by the National Park Service to the town of
Tremont, Maine, for school purposes, shall no longer be required to be
used exclusively and perpetually for such purposes, and upon their
discontinuance of such a use, shall no longer be required to revert to
the United States.
The town of Tremont has contacted Acadia National Park concerning
land currently used for the town's school. This parcel of land was
owned by the National Park Service (NPS) and is known as NPS Tract 06-
126. In 1950, Public Law 81-629 permitted the NPS to convey the land to
the town to locate the new school. The conveyance was completed in
1951, with a reverter clause included in the deed specifying that the
land would revert back to the United States of America if no longer
used exclusively for school purposes.
The town is now consolidating schools with a neighboring town and
thus this property will no longer be used exclusively for school
purposes. The town of Tremont would like to retain ownership and
continue to use the developed property for community purposes. This
legislation would allow it to do so.
Acadia National Park has no intended uses for the property, and the
NPS is agreeable to allowing the town to use the property for broader
public purposes, so long as the use of the property will not degrade or
adversely impact park resources and values. However, H.R. 4527 would
eliminate entirely the requirement that the property revert to the
Federal Government if it is not used for school purposes. Because the
original 1951 conveyance was made without consideration, the bill as
introduced would effectively convey Federal property to the town free
of cost and with no requirement that it be used for a specific purpose.
For this reason, the Department could support this bill only if it
is amended to require that the property revert to the Federal
Government if does not remain in public ownership for recreational,
educational or similar public purposes, or if it degrades or adversely
impacts park resources and values as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior. The Department recommends an amendment to H.R. 4527 for this
purpose and we would be glad to work with the committee on appropriate
language.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 4527. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have regarding the proposed action.
______
Mr. Smith. Any questions from Members? Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Knox, the controversy around
the draft general management plan stems from the perception
that the Park Service is trying to limit or alter access for
motorized watercraft. Is that the case?
Mr. Knox. The general management plan looks at a range of
alternatives that would change access by motorized watercraft.
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And one of the other questions that I had had
to do with--are the changes made between the publishing of the
draft plan and the publication of the final plan?
Mr. Knox. Yes. We are estimating that a final plan will be
issued some time in early 2015. And because of the significant
comment by Congressman Smith and local citizens and many others
on this plan, we are taking some time to think through,
listening carefully to those comments, continue to engage with
stakeholders and make the hard decisions about what is the
right balance between access and enjoyment and preservation of
the wonderful place that is Ozark Scenic National Riverways.
So, there will be--we anticipate changes between the
preferred alternative and the final plan.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just, if there is no
objection, enter into the record communication from the
Conservation Federation of Missouri in opposition to both
pieces of legislation; another communication from Friends of
the Ozark Riverway, 24 organizations, the same, in opposition
to the legislations before us, both of them. With that, I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Without objection. Thank you.
Further questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Smith. I have questions. First off, Mr. Ross, did you
attend the different--I mean Ms. Roberts. Did you attend the
comment period during the general management plan hearings?
Ms. Roberts. Yes, I attended both during different times.
We have actually had two different comment periods. And I
attended several meetings on the first comment period and
submitted comments, attended three of the four meetings on the
second comment period, and sent in my comments according to
what was told to me by the National Park Service to do.
In the first comment period, we were allowed to choose no
comment--or no action. And that was one of the plans. There
were four plans that were presented to the public. And there
were well over 5,000, possibly 6,000 comments that went in to
the National Park Service requesting no action be taken. That
was a comment period that happened a couple of years ago.
Then, this past December and January, early February,
during the second comment period, whenever the public attended
the meetings, people were told--even though the no action was
listed as an option, people were told, ``Don't choose no
action. We are not going to listen to you.'' And this was told
to us by Park Service personnel.
Mr. Smith. And, with that statement, since you attended
these meetings, and no action wasn't even an option, what was
the sentiment of the folks that were at these hearings? I mean
do they want the general management to stay the same that it
has for the last 30 years, or did they want any of those other
alternatives?
Ms. Roberts. Most of the people that were in attendance at
the meetings would prefer that everything stay the way it is
now.
Mr. Smith. So you would say the majority.
Ms. Roberts. The majority.
Mr. Smith. OK.
Ms. Roberts. Absolutely the majority.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Roberts. And I believe those comment cards from the
first comment period prove overwhelmingly that that is what the
people want.
Now, I do want to make note that at these meetings people
of the Ozarks are simple people. We are very simple. And you
have elderly people, some people that lived on those rivers 50
years ago when it was taken from them, that showed up. And they
were told, right off the bat, ``Don't even bother putting down
no action. Take Plan B, which is the least of the three other
alternatives. Take that, and pick it apart. Take the policy in
there that you don't like.'' Well, have you read that? It is a
lot of pages. The people in the area just know what they want,
and they want everything to stay the same that it was.
Mr. Smith. OK. Representative Ross, you attended a lot of
these hearings, as well.
Mr. Ross. I did.
Mr. Smith. Do you believe that we need statutory
protections for public access in the Ozark National Scenic
Riverways, or has the Park Service done a good job using its
discretion to promote the balance of preservation, preserving
our resources and allowing recreational activity?
Mr. Ross. Well, I think, clearly, that is one of the things
that is needed in this case. I mean in recent years the Park
Service has clearly shown the direction they are heading, and
that is to curtail access, whether that is to place boulders
across the road, put up gates, say that you can't use a boat
within--a motorized boat within this certain section of the
river. As I mention in my testimony, closing off two-thirds of
the horse trails that are in the area.
And, this affects a number of businesses, regardless of
whether they are directly in that area or not. There are a
number of people that come through that buy gas, that eat at
the restaurants, that use other services. And without some sort
of a protection, this is going to be absolutely detrimental to
our economy.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Knox, in your written testimony
you raise concerns about changing the management of the ONSR as
it relates to the NPS Organic Act. Can you tell me what year
did the Organic Act pass?
Mr. Knox. 1916.
Mr. Smith. 1916? Well, Mr. Knox, if there is value in
continuing to manage the ONSR under the Organic Act from 1916,
isn't there also value in keeping the current general
management plan since 1984, which has worked for over 30 years?
Mr. Knox. The National Park Service Organic Act that was
passed in 1916--and we will be celebrating the centennial of
the National Park System in 2 years--is----
Mr. Smith. And that has worked for 98 years.
Mr. Knox. It has worked well for 98 years. It applies to
all 401 units of the National Park System, and it is really
what unifies us as a National Park System, the parks and
recreation areas within the system.
Mr. Smith. All right. Looks like time has expired. Let's do
another round of questions. Are there other Members that would
like to ask some questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Smith. OK. Well, then, I am going to ask some
questions. Thank you.
Mr. Knox, what is the Park Service doing with the comments
that were created earlier in 2008 under the general management
provisions?
Mr. Knox. I believe you are talking about the comments on
the alternatives document that came out originally?
Mr. Smith. During what Ms. Roberts spoke of, of the
comments that were taken in the late 2000s, there were
thousands of comments in regards to the no-action plan. What
are you all doing with those comments?
Mr. Knox. Those--if I understand the question, those
comments were used to develop the draft GMP. So we issued an
alternatives document to look at, you know, potential
alternatives for the draft GMP, solicited comments on that.
Those were used to design the range of alternatives in the
general management plan.
Mr. Smith. And were those comments ever public?
Mr. Knox. As far as I know, there are public comments, yes.
Mr. Smith. And, from my understanding, those comments
showed overwhelmingly for a no-action alternative. But in all
of the alternatives that you listed in the current general
management plan, no action was not even an option. Is that
correct?
Mr. Knox. No. No action is one of the alternatives in the
current draft general management plan. It is required to be
analyzed under NEPA.
Mr. Smith. From my understanding, option A, B, and C. But
from the hearing, you didn't--couldn't even really do no
action, the public comments. So it is your understanding that
no action was one of the issues that people could have as an
alternative during the current general management plan comment
period?
Mr. Knox. It is one of the alternatives being considered in
the draft general management plan, yes.
Mr. Smith. All right. Ms. Roberts, is that your impression
from that?
Ms. Roberts. Absolutely not. We were told at the meetings
that we could not choose--if we chose to put no action, that
our comments would be thrown out.
Mr. Smith. Representative Ross, is that your response? Is
that your understanding?
Mr. Ross. In looking back through this whole process--and
this has been an ongoing process since 2003, 2004. And I am not
sure if those comments are still available. At one time they
were. And the statement that the current draft general
management plan, the different alternatives that are now
listed, are a derivative of the original comments, I find
hilarious. Because I read through those original comments, a
lot of those comments, and in no way--you know, it was a very
small minority, would reflect anything close to what is now
contained within the draft plan alternative A, B, or C. The
overwhelming majority of those early comments substantively
said no--no-action alternative.
Mr. Smith. So, Representative Ross, in the current general
management plan draft that has just went through public
comment, was there a no-action option? There was plan A, plan
B, plan C, but was there a no-action alternative?
Mr. Ross. Well, I think there was an option, but then you
have the Park Service itself coming out and saying that this
is--alternative B is what they prefer, this is basically what
they are going to choose, regardless of the input that they
receive. What sort of a message is that sending to the public,
when ``You don't have the choice to choose this alternative,
because we are not going to hear your concerns'' ?
Mr. Smith. From the concurrent resolutions that you all
passed out of the State House and State Senate, in the
resolution it said that in 1959 the State of Missouri
encouraged Congress to pass the Ozark National Scenic
Riverways, which they did----
Mr. Ross. Right.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. In 1964. It said that the reason
for doing so, and why the State would relinquish their State
parks, is because they wanted to make sure that there was a
true preservation of the natural resources and allowing the
abundant recreational resource for generations to come. Is that
true?
Mr. Ross. Yes. Yes, it is. And, one of the things that I
strongly disagree with Mr. Knox in his testimony in talking
about the lack of management of our State parks or our
conservation land for all Americans, rather than just a strict
focus on managing those lands for Missourians, contradictory to
his testimony, the restrictions that the Park Service is
attempting to implement here are the restrictions that would
keep away more individuals from being able to come and enjoy
and access the treasures that we have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Representative Ross. Further
questions?
Mr. Grijalva. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a clarification.
Mr. Smith. Proceed.
Mr. Grijalva. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, just a
clarification.
Ms. Roberts?
Ms. Roberts. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. You said that the no option was the preferred
by 5,000--the vast majority of the people that attended these
hearings.
Ms. Roberts. Correct.
Mr. Grijalva. You also said that the Forest Service, during
those, was saying to don't count those, they are not going to
count because we want preferred option B.
Ms. Roberts. Correct. Let me----
Mr. Grijalva. So----
Ms. Roberts. Let me clarify.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Ms. Roberts. There were two comment periods. During the
first comment period, everybody did basically as they were--as
they felt. Many people sent in comment cards, and we had
postcards made up so that it was easy for the local people to
send in what plan they preferred. And there were well over
5,000--could have been 6,000--no-action comments. And we know
of those.
During the second comment period, whenever you attended the
meetings, there were Park rangers set up at each station. And
at each station there were different alternatives. There was a
person, a Park Service personnel sitting there with a computer.
So if you didn't have a way to be able to send in your
comments, you could sit down with a Park personnel, and they
would fill out that comment for you. However, everyone was
encouraged not to choose no action. And we were told by the
Park Service personnel to take plan B, because that was the
least invasive, and to tear it apart.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Ms. Roberts. To take the policy and to put in how we would
like to see it. And, in my opinion, that is a lot to ask of the
people. It was very simple for the people to say that they
wanted no action. And they were told during the second round
that no action was not an option.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much for the clarification.
Mr. Knox, on that same point, personnel from the Forest
Service, Park Service, indicating to people that they had to
take an option from the range of choices that they had, any
reaction to the point that Ms. Roberts just made?
Mr. Knox. I am not aware of what was said at those public
meetings by Park Service personnel, and so whether that is
accurate, that people were told not to choose a no option or a
no-action alternative. So I really can't comment on that
specifically.
What I can tell you is that we do have a no-action
alternative that is being evaluated within the draft general
management plan, and there is a preferred alternative. And the
reason to have a preferred alternative is to let everyone know
that comes to the meetings and that cares about the plan----
Mr. Grijalva. No, I understand that part. I understand that
part.
Mr. Knox. No, but what we are thinking about, so they can
comment on----
Mr. Grijalva. But the no-action indication by the public
that is--because I have experienced that in public lands in my
district, as well--is an indicator that the preferred option,
to say the least, needs some work. And so I appreciate the
clarification and your response, and I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Knox, is it appropriate for the
Park Service to advocate that you should not use a no-action
alternative?
Mr. Knox. No. We are open to considering all alternatives
that are proposed in the plan. That is the reason to propose a
range of alternatives. We want to hear thoughts on each of
those, those different ideas, for the future of the riverways.
Mr. Smith. So, what if that did occur, that the National
Park Service was saying, ``Don't advocate a no-action
alternative,'' like what Ms. Roberts just suggested?
Mr. Knox. My best guess is that the National Park Service
people at those meetings were trying to help the public present
ideas. I think we have heard loud and clear that there are many
people that favor the no-action alternative, including
yourself, Congressman. And so we are listening to that comment.
Mr. Smith. That was not my question. My question is--what
is the result, if the National Park Service is doing that? I
mean are there any consequences to that, or do you think it is
appropriate, or----
Mr. Knox. Well, we certainly want to hear the thoughts of
all citizens. And it is not appropriate to try and direct those
thoughts. We want to hear those thoughts from everyone's mouths
directly. And there are concerns and hopes and fears for the
future of the riverways.
Mr. Smith. I would agree. And I do want to note once
again--I have noted this before when you testified--the
Missouri Department of Conservation in fact submitted comments
in regards to the general management plan. And they are the
agency that has the responsibility for preserving our natural
resources. And they recommended a no-action alternative, and
enforced the current general management plan that has worked
for 30 years. And I hope, once again, you will pass this on to
the National Park Service, and that they will actually listen
to the will of the people of Missouri and the people of this
country. Thank you.
Further questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Smith. Seeing none, thank you, witnesses. We will go to
the next panel.
We have Representative Emanuel Cleaver from Missouri, and
we also have Representative Edwin Fountain, the Commissioner of
World War I Centennial Commission, and Mr. Victor Knox, the
Associate Director of Park Planning Facilities and Lands.
Representative Cleaver, great to have you, you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you and Ranking Member Grijalva. I
especially want to thank during my short talk here Judge Ted
Poe of Houston; Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is the delegate here
from the District of Columbia; the National Park Service; and
the World War I Centennial Commission; and the entire Missouri
Delegation, for its work on this issue. Commemorating the
centennial of World War I has been, in many ways, a labor of
love for me since I entered Congress almost 10 years ago. The
World War I Memorial Act is the product of both sides of the
aisle working together over the course of many years to do what
is right to honor the memory of veterans who served so long
ago.
As you may know, this summer marks the 100th anniversary of
the start of World War I. The United States formally joined the
war in April of 1917. During that time, more than 4.7 million
Americans served. And, of those brave men and women, more than
116,000 soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice.
During the war, Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri,
became a focal point, where train traffic peaked during World
War I with 79,368 trains passing through Kansas City's Union
Station, including 271 trains in 1 day. Perhaps it was the
witnessing of Americans traveling the East Coast to be deployed
to the war effort that prompted the citizens of the Greater
Kansas City Metropolitan Area to build a memorial. And on that
memorial, these are the words that are encarved: ``Lest the
ages forget.''
The site dedication for the Liberty Memorial became a world
event, as the five allied military leaders of World War I
joined the Vice President of the United States, Calvin
Coolidge, at the dedication in 1921. This is the only time in
history that the allied leaders publicly joined together and
honored those who had served and died in World War I. It is
important to note that no other World War I memorial site was
attended by such an impressive ensemble of dignitaries. And we
have a picture of the 100,000 people--just think about this--
100,000 people in 1921 gathering in one spot to listen to
people without the benefit of the kind of microphones we have
today. No one knew at the time that future President of the
United States, Harry Truman, was in attendance.
At the official Liberty Memorial dedication in 1926,
President Calvin Coolidge stated in his speech, ``It has not
been raised to commemorate war and victory, but, rather, the
results of war and victory, which are embodied in peace and
liberty.'' President Coolidge further stated that, ``I may
place the official sanction of the national government upon the
most elaborate and impressive memorials that adorn our
country.''
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come
here. I think that we have worked across the aisles, we have
worked with everybody who is interested in this issue. And,
although we don't have a single person who fought in World War
I who can come here today to be involved, I think it is our
responsibility, as the benefiting generation, to do something
in memory of what they did for us. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Representative.
Mr. Fountain.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN L. FOUNTAIN, COMMISSIONER, WORLD WAR I
CENTENNIAL COMMISSION
Mr. Fountain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva. I am a member of the U.S. World War I Centennial
Commission, which was chartered by this Congress last year to
ensure a suitable observance in this country of the centennial
of the war, and also to make recommendations to the Congress
related to the centennial. I am here to make one of those
recommendations, which is that Congress pass H.R. 4489.
This bill relates directly to one of the primary projects
that the Commission has undertaken, which is not only to
designate the Liberty Tower in Kansas City as a national World
War I memorial, but also to designate and improve and enhance
Pershing Park, here on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, also
as a national World War I memorial.
Thirty-five years ago, this country didn't think in terms
of national war memorials. Most towns around the country had
local memorials to Civil War or World War I and World War II
veterans. To their credit, Kansas City did erect a memorial
that was to all the Nation's veterans, not just the local
veterans, and we commend them for it.
But then the Vietnam Veterans memorial came along, then
Korea, then World War II. We now have in the Nation's Capital
national memorials to the three other great wars of the 20th
century, but not to World War I. This is a grave omission.
The story of the 20th century and even the 21st can't be
told without telling the history of World War I and America's
involvement in that war. World War I introduced America as a
world power, and began what became called the American century.
It was the first time that such a power went to war not for
conquest, or even defense, but for the ideals of democracy and
self-determination that have guided American foreign policy for
the last 100 years.
Too few Americans know that more Americans died in 6 months
of fighting in World War I than died in Korea or in Vietnam all
together, and that during those 6 months the combat fatality
rate in World War I was almost twice that of World War II. The
war led directly to the second world war, and its consequences
are still felt today in ongoing conflicts in places such as the
former Yugoslavia, Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.
More importantly--it is important to understand not just
the consequences of the war, but the causes, because without
understanding how an assassin's bullet in Sarajevo in July 1914
sparked a war that all but destroyed Europe, we cannot
understand how regional conflicts today in Syria, Ukraine, or
elsewhere might spark another war, much less prevent that from
happening.
In short, it was a horrific, world-changing war. The
Centennial Commission has undertaken to educate the American
people about that war, and to commemorate the service and
sacrifice of our armed forces in it. A national memorial is
essential to that mission.
We believe that a memorial in Washington would be most
appropriately located on the Mall, but we recognize that the
Commemorate Works Act prohibits any new memorials on the Mall,
and we have chosen not to fight that fight. Instead, we have
chosen to pursue a new memorial design at Pershing Park in
front of the Willard Hotel, one block from the Capitol.
Why Pershing Park? First, because there is already a World
War I commemorative element there, in the form of a statue to
General John Pershing, who commanded the American expeditionary
forces of World War I. Second, because, after the Mall,
Pennsylvania Avenue is the most significant and symbolically
important concourse in the Nation's Capital. Pershing Park has
the pride of place of anchoring the end of that avenue,
opposite the Capitol, closest to the White House. If our World
War I veterans are not to be honored on the Mall, then Pershing
Park is the next most suitable location.
For those reasons, the Commission supports passage of H.R.
4489. I would like to urge the committee that time is of the
essence here. Ideally, there would be a Presidential signing
ceremony of this bill on July 28 of this year, a symbolically
important date, as it marks the centennial of the start of the
war.
We appreciate that this bill has been attached as an
amendment to the House version of the Defense appropriations
bill. We hope that might speed its passage, but we are
concerned that it will get bogged down on the Senate side and
then later in conference, and we would urge the committee to
move the bill forward independently. A companion bill has
already been introduced in the Senate, and we would very much
like to see this passed and signed by the end of July.
There is the more practical reason that new memorials take
time. The Commission would like to dedicate this memorial in
Washington on Armistice Day 2018. That is a little more than 4
years from now. That is a very short period of time to design a
memorial, to raise funds, to go through the review and
permitting process, and what not. Every month we lose now
hampers our cause.
I would like to emphasize that this bill imposes no cost on
the Federal Government. It does not expand Park Service
jurisdiction; Park Service already owns and maintains Pershing
Park in Washington. This will be undertaken by the Commission
with private funds. I would be happy to answer any questions
that the committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fountain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edwin L. Fountain, Member, World War I Centennial
Commission on H.R. 4489
My name is Edwin Fountain. I am a member of the World War I
Centennial Commission, which was chartered by Congress in 2013.
Commission members are appointed by the President, the majority and
minority leaders of the House and Senate, the American Legion, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the World War I Museum in Kansas City.
The WWI Centennial Commission's statutory mission is, among other
things, to ``plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and
activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I,'' and to
``develop recommendations for Congress and the President for
commemorating the centennial of World War I.'' Pub. L. 112-272,
Sec. 5(a).
In fulfillment of its statutory duty to make recommendations to
Congress, the Commission is pleased to recommend that Congress pass
H.R. 4489, the World War I Memorial Act of 2014. H.R. 4489 would in
part authorize the Commission to proceed with one of its primary
projects to commemorate the war, which is the establishment of a
national World War I memorial at Pershing Park in the Nation's capital.
Throughout our country's history, towns and cities have erected
their own local war memorials, be they to local veterans of the Civil
War, or of World War I, or of all the Nation's wars collectively. In
Washington, there are of course numerous memorials to generals and
statesmen of the Revolution and the Civil War. But until the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial was dedicated 30 years ago, there were no national
war memorials.
Today we have on the Mall national memorials to three of the four
great wars of the 20th century. There is, however, no national memorial
to World War I. This is a significant omission, given the profound
nature of the causes, courses, and consequences of ``the Great War.''
Understanding how a conflict between Austria and Serbia in July
1914 caused a war that all but destroyed Europe can help us understand
today how a regional conflict in Syria, Ukraine or elsewhere might
spark another world war--and thereby prevent it from doing so.
Although the United States entered the war late, the appearance of
American soldiers and Marines on the Western Front tipped the balance
of the war, and American troops demonstrated the courage, sacrifice,
and feats of arms that have been the hallmark of our armed forces for
over two centuries. Over 4.7 million Americans served in uniform, and
116,516 gave their lives--more than in Korea and Vietnam combined. The
combat fatality rate during World War I was almost twice that of World
War II. It was a horrific, world-changing war, in which our Nation
played a decisive role.
World War I profoundly transformed America and the world, and
America's role in the world. It was the first great conflict of what
has come to be known as ``the American century.'' It led directly to
the Second World War, and its consequences are still felt today in
ongoing conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Israel and Palestine, and
Iraq.
Few Americans today know this history, nor do they appreciate the
impact World War I has on the world we live in today. Without a
national memorial to World War I, we fail to properly commemorate the
service of our armed forces, and we lose an opportunity to educate the
American people about the war. The centennial of the war, which is now
upon us, provides a timely and essential opportunity to fill that void.
H.R. 4489 would do so by dedicating two national memorials to World
War I. Soon after the war the good citizens of Kansas City took it upon
themselves to erect a majestic memorial, not just to their local
residents who served and died in the war, but to all the Nation's
soldiers and sailors. H.R. 4489 would properly elevate the Liberty
Tower, co-located with the World War I Museum in Kansas City, to
national status.
H.R. 4489 would also establish a national memorial in the Nation's
capital. It would designate Pershing Park, at the far end of
Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol, as a national World War I
memorial, and would authorize the Commission to re-develop the site
into a true national memorial, worthy of that status.
The bill is consistent with the recommendation made by the National
Capital Memorial Advisory Commission to Congress last October. That
commission recommended that ``efforts to promote commemoration of World
War I . . . should be undertaken through enhancements and improvements
at the existing World War I Memorial in Pershing Park and better
interpretation of that site so that people's understanding of the
purpose of that memorial is increased.'' (Letter of Oct. 28, 2013, from
Peter May, Chairman, National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, to
Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources.)
By establishing these memorials, the bill would thereby honor and
commemorate the veterans of World War I in a way that is commensurate
with the honor we have bestowed on the veterans of other major wars,
while helping future generations of Americans to know the complete
history of American's 20th-century struggle against aggression and
totalitarianism.
While it may be unconventional to have two national memorials,
there is no reason not to do so, and there is every reason to
commemorate a profound national event such as World War I more widely,
rather than less.
We also point out that H.R. 4489 does not expand the jurisdiction
of the National Park Service, nor should it add to the Park Service's
budget. The existing Pershing Park already belongs to the Park Service
which has responsibility for its maintenance. Improvements to the site
would be paid for by private funds raised by the Commission, which
would include a separate fund for ongoing costs of maintenance.
Congress would be minimizing the sacrifice of almost five million
Americans who served in World War I, including 116,000 dead, if it did
not honor them in the Nation's capital, as well as in Kansas City, in
the same manner as the veterans of the wars that followed.
Finally, we ask that Congress move promptly to pass this bill. July
28, 2014 will mark the 100th anniversary of the start of the war. The
Commission hopes that the President would sign this bill on that
symbolically important date. More to the point, designing and
constructing memorials takes time. In order to dedicate a new memorial
by Veterans Day in November 2018, which will mark the centennial of the
armistice that ended the war, the process needs to begin now. We as a
Nation cannot delay any longer.
______
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Representative Cleaver, you are free
to go, or you can join us on the dais, whichever you would
like.
We still have Mr. Knox to testify on this bill, H.R. 4489.
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's view on H.R. 4489. I
would like to submit our full statement for the record, and
summarize our views quickly.
H.R. 4489 would designate memorials to the service of
members of the United States armed forces in World War I. This
bill would redesignate Pershing Park in the District of
Columbia as the National World War I Memorial, and allow for
the enhancement of that park to further honor the service of
members of the United States Army in World War I.
The bill would also designate Liberty Memorial of Kansas
City at America's National World War I Museum in Kansas City,
Missouri, as the National World War I Museum and Memorial. The
Department supports H.R. 4489, with amendments that are
described in our written statement.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad
to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. No questions. Thank you.
Next we will have Colonel William E. Weber, Chairman of the
Korean War Veterans Memorial Foundation, to testify on H.R.
318.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WEBER, COLONEL, UNITED STATES ARMY,
RETIRED; CHAIRMAN, KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
Colonel Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to extend my previously submitted written
testimony.
The light blue blazers that you see in front of you
represent the Korean War Veterans Association, of which there
are 2.1 million left who served in Korea. And many of them,
like myself, are also veterans of World War II and Vietnam.
Therefore, we represent a unique block of American veterans.
For us, though, the Korean War becomes a key point, because
it is the first time in the history of our Nation that a war
was fought that wasn't declared, and that the United States led
a coalition of nations against aggression. That has become the
pattern for U.S. participation in world conflicts since that
time. Therefore, it occupies a very unique place in history.
I would like to call your attention to the fact that if
Public Law 99-572 had been complied with, as was written, I
wouldn't be here today. The law stated specifically that the
Memorial was intended to honor those members of the armed
forces who served in Korea, particularly those who were killed
in action, missing in action, or prisoners of war.
During the negotiations for designing the Memorial, I
served as a member of the group appointed by President Reagan,
the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board, in negotiating
with the various elements and agencies of the Federal
Government that have control over what goes on the Mall. At
that point in time, there was a great deal of controversy
because of the Vietnam Wall. The veterans of Vietnam felt that
their wall appropriately honored those who sacrificed their
lives, but didn't honor those who served. As a result, the wall
was changed, the Memorial was changed. In our case for the
Korean memorial, we were unable to successfully include a means
of identifying our killed in action because of the
controversy--and, more specifically, because of the reasoning
that they just didn't want another wall on the Mall.
Today, at this point in time, there are 36,574 American
dead from Korea whose names do not appear anywhere. Yes, you
may find them on a Web site, but it is not correct, it is
incomplete. There are names of the missing in action in the
Punchbowl in Hawaii. There are also 6,000 American dead buried
in Hawaii. The rest of the American dead from the Korean War
are buried all over the United States. There is not one central
point where Americans and foreigners visiting our memorial can
visualize the extent of the cost of the war in Korea: more
specifically, on an average, every month for 36 months, 1,000
dead and 3,000 wounded.
H.R. 318 will correct that discrepancy. It will not cost
the U.S. Government one cent. The money will be coming from
private sources. The plan is unique. It envisions a glass wall
of remembrance that would encircle the rear area of the Korean
Memorial. It would give closure to the Memorial, but it would
also continue to fully integrate it into the Mall, as a whole.
It would not bar vision from the Memorial to the rest of the
Mall.
We feel that a precedent exists for this. There have been
changes to memorials on the Mall. No law is immutable. It is in
the power of Congress to correct an error. That is what H.R.
318 will do, it will correct an error of failure to comply with
the original law that authorized a memorial.
Please don't let this bill die here. Let it go to the full
Congress, and let the people, through their Congress, express
their wishes. And you will find that their wishes are they want
the names of the dead in Korea to be recorded for the people
who visit the Mall and the Memorial to see and visualize the
cost of that war. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Weber follows:]
Prepared Statement of William E. Weber, Colonel--USA (Ret.); Chairman,
Korean War Veterans Memorial Foundation on H.R. 318
I am Colonel William E. Weber, USA-Ret, Chairman of the Korean War
Veterans Memorial Foundation, Inc. (KWVMFnd). I am here today to
testify in support of H.R. 318. The KWVMFnd is a 501(C)(3) non-profit,
tax exempt organization with the dual mission of ensuring there will
always be the means available to guarantee appropriate maintenance of
the Memorial and to ensure that a benchmark of the 20th Century, that
is the Korean War and America's role, become a permanent part of our
national consciousness. Our Board, chartered in December 1995, is
composed in the main by those who were members of the presidentially
appointed Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board whose mission is
as covered below.
H.R. 318, 113th Congress, was initiated by Congressman Ralph Hall,
4-TX, at our behest in an attempt to complete the Memorial's message as
was intended by P.L. 99-572 which authorized the Memorial. As of June
5, 2014, it had 53 co-sponsors. Further, it has the full support of the
Korean War Veterans Association, Inc., a Congressional Chartered
Veterans Organization of Korean War Veterans. In addition, it has the
support of many of the Fraternal Unit Veterans Associations that have
Korean War battle honors and, as well, family members of those Killed
in Action.
P.L. 99-572, specifically details the original intent of the
Congress. Such is not fulfilled by the current Korean War Veterans
Memorial which, though a magnificent work of art, lacks both the
specific and subliminal message the Congress specified. Controversy
generated by reaction to the Vietnam Memorial and the resultant
philosophy generated thereby, precluded the Korean War Veterans
Memorial Advisory Board from prevailing in the inclusion of naming of
the Killed in Action in final design negotiations.
P.L. 99-572 called for the President to appoint a Korean War
Veterans Memorial Advisory Board (KWVMAB), whose mission, in part, was
to, ``(1)--recommending the site and selecting the design with the
approval of the American Battle Monuments Commission--.'' In effect
this required selecting a design that would also be accepted and
approved by the then National Capital Memorial Commission (NCMC), the
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Fine Arts
Commission (FAC).
When the specific language of P.L. 99-572 was being negotiated in
order to ensure the Korean War Veterans Memorial gave appropriate
recognition to the sacrifices of American Soldiery the phrase, ``--to
honor members of the United States Armed Forces who served in the
Korean War, particularly those who were killed in action, are still
missing in action, or were held as prisoners of war.'', became a
dominant element of the law and a major element to the intended theme
of the Memorial.
As part of a nationwide competition the KWVMAB reviewed over 500
submitted designs none of which fully met the requirements of P.L. 99-
572, and thus, selected one that held the promise of appropriate
modification. In keeping with P.L. 99-572 and the overwhelming wishes
of the Nation's Korean War Veterans population, the KWVMAB studied
means to meet the specific requirements of P.L. 99-572 (as underlined
in the above), and satisfy the above named Commissions which held veto
rights over any design. The KWVMAB was not able to resolve the primary
requirement of P.L. 99-572 due to a seeming atmosphere of not wanting
another `Wall on the Mall'!
As a result, though a truly magnificent Memorial which clearly
honors those who served in the Korean War, it does not appropriately
honor those who sacrificed so much in the war! The visitor leaves with
a sense of wonder at the magnificent artistry of the Memorial--but
absent any sense of the full message it was intended to convey.
Recording the KIA names and WIA and POW by number for posterity on
a glass Wall of Remembrance, will thereby personalize the numbers and
focus on the enormity of their sacrifice (over 36,574 KIA (which
includes the MIA)), 103,134 WIA and 7,245 POW. In terms of percentage
of casualties, the Korean War was the bloodiest major foreign war in
U.S. history--1 in 9 for Korea versus 1 in 12 in WWII and 1 in 17 in
Vietnam.
As well, Korean soldiers known as KATUSA (Korean Augmentation to
United States Army), who served alongside their U.S. comrades in U.S.
units, and gave their lives deserve recognition. Over 9000+ KATUSA were
KIA. Their sacrifice would have otherwise been American Soldiery whom
they replaced. Their names are lost to history but their numbers
deserve recognition for their sacrifice would otherwise have been
American lives.
Given the state-of-the-art at the time the Memorial design was
finalized a Wall of Remembrance may have been an architectural barrier
isolating the Memorial from the Mall and may have been incorrectly
interpreted as copying or detracting from the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial. Such thinking was specious given the totality of the theme of
the Korean War Veterans Memorial.
Today an architectural `barrier' is not a bar to a Wall, for a
Glass Wall allows the Memorial to be integral to the Mall while still
giving it a sense of closure and giving full meaning to the intended
purpose of the Memorial. Contrary to the present pattern of visitation,
the Wall will induce visitors to encircle the entire Memorial as
opposed to current visitation habits which encourage encircling only
the line of sculptures.
As to why the language in H.R. 318 is so specific, it is necessary
to ensure that the Wall presents the absolute versus just the
subliminal message that now exists and is too subtle to be understood.
This is the purpose of any War Memorial! If visitation to a Memorial
requires that visitors must have a brochure to gain full appreciation
for the `why' and `what' of the Memorial, it fails in its purpose!
The Korean Was remains ``The Forgotten War'' in the history of our
Nation. Mindful that this war was a benchmark of the 20th Century and
notwithstanding the magnificence of the Memorial, it is inappropriate
that the extent of our Soldiery's sacrifice remains unknown and that
their sacrifice gave birth to the catalyst that generated the downfall
of the USSR's goal to dominate the world.
Enactment of H.R. 318 will give remedy to the missing link in the
Memorial and give honored and deserved recognition to a generation of
American Soldiery who have been Forgotten! Just as surely as we fought
WWII to save the world FOR DEMOCRACY so too, did we fight the Korean
War to save the world FROM communism! The cost of that battle in terms
of the sacrifice by American soldiery is a relative unknown in the
American psyche and history!
Bureaucratic objection to adding the Wall of Remembrance to the
Memorial seems fixated on the premise that once a Memorial is dedicated
it is exempt from any modification or addition. Clearly, precedents
exist which negate that premise!
The theme of the Korean War Veterans Memorial is that `FREEDOM IS
NOT FREE'! Adding the Wall of Remembrance will finally give meaning to
that theme! The Memorial is the only means remaining to ensure future
generations of Americans and foreign visitors will understand that the
Korean War is a Benchmark of the 20th Century--the human cost of which
should not be unknown!
______
Rebuttal by Chairman (Col [Ret] William E. Weber), Korean War Veterans
Memorial Foundation, Inc., to testimony of Mr. Victor Knox, Associate
Director, Park Planning, Facilities and Lands, NPS, U.S. DOI on H.R.
318
(Note: Rebuttal remarks in bold follow disputed DOI testimony.)
STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES
AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
CONCERNING H.R. 318, TO AUTHORIZE A WALL OF REMEMBRANCE AS PART OF THE
KOREAN WAR VETERANS MEMORIAL AND TO ALLOW CERTAIN PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO FUND THAT WALL OF REMEMBRANCE
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 318, to authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of the Korean War
Veterans Memorial and to allow certain private contributions to fund
that Wall of Remembrance.
The Department opposes H.R. 318 because it would significantly
alter the character of the existing Korean War Veterans Memorial, and
it is inconsistent with the Commemorative Works Act.
(Enactment of H.R. 318 would enhance, not alter, the character of
the existing Memorial. To the visitor, the Memorial presents a stirring
work of art, but as such it is incomplete, ignores the intent of law
and fails to adequately present the intended theme of the Memorial that
`Freedom Is Not Free'!)
H.R. 318 would amend Public Law 99-572 to expand upon the original
purpose and design of the Korean War Veterans Memorial. The bill adds
new subjects for commemoration and would require the display of certain
information at the memorial about members of the U.S. Armed Forces who
served in the Korean Conflict. Also, the bill would require the display
of information at the memorial about members of the Korean armed forces
and other Korean military personnel as well as the 20 other non-U.S.
forces that were part of the United Nations Command who served in the
Korean Conflict.
(H.R. 318 does not amend P.L. 99-572! It would ensure that the
basic requirement of P.L. 99-572, as directed by Congress, would be
honored. The Congress stipulated that the Memorial was to honor those
who served in Korea `particularly those killed in action, missing in
action or prisoners of war'.)
The Korean War Veterans Memorial commemorates the sacrifices of the
5.8 million Americans who served in the U.S. armed services during the
3-year period of the Korean War. The Memorial also recognizes the
participation of the 22 nations who served as United Nations
contributors. During the Korean War's relatively short duration from
June 25, 1950, to July 27, 1953, 54,246 Americans died. Of these, 8,200
are listed as missing in action, lost, or buried at sea. In addition,
103,284 were wounded during the conflict.
(The current means of recognizing U.N. contributors to the war
fails to do so! Visitation patterns miss or ignore the U.N. Stones. The
54,246 U.S. dead are worldwide deaths during 25 Jun 50-27 Jul 53. KIA
in Korea is 36,547! In brief, war zone casualties averaged 1,000 KIA/
Month and 3,000 WIA per month!)
The Memorial was designed, constructed and completed by its
legislatively designated sponsor, the American Battle Monuments
Commission (ABMC) and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board,
with public involvement throughout. It was dedicated on July 27, 1995.
The Memorial's design, and each of its features down to its
plantings, is symbolic. The Memorial is the culmination of years of
work by the ABMC, and careful reviews, followed by revisions, and
ultimately approvals reached by the National Park Service and other
Federal entities including the National Capital Planning Commission and
the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. This painstaking and public process
began with the competition design, and resulted in the completed
Memorial we know today. The Memorial should not now be changed to
include the engraving of names of Americans who served in that
conflict. The opportunity to mimic the design characteristics present
at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was purposefully avoided when the
design was requested during an open, international design competition.
(It was the controversy of the Vietnam Memorial that inhibited [but
did not prevent], considering names at the Korean War Memorial! The
issue that the Vietnam Memorial honored only sacrifice and not service,
the public controversy that resulted and the need to modify the
Memorial by adding the three sculptures, produced an aura of wanting to
avoid a similar controversy. Ergo, though there was popular and public
demand for naming the fallen, it was impossible to overcome the
resistance to such from NCPC and FAC, even though attempts were made.
It is not factual to claim that no effort was made by the KWVMABrd to
include naming the fallen!)
The concept of engraving names at this Memorial was considered
extensively when the Memorial was being designed. The ABMC and the
Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board with the Department's
concurrence, advised against the incorporation of engraved names at the
Memorial. Both agencies arrived at this decision upon reflection of
years of experience with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Inscribing
names is a lengthy and painstaking process even when it goes smoothly.
But more important, as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial experience showed,
there is not always agreement on those names to be included and those
names that are not, and this has led to public contention and
controversy. Choosing some names and omitting others causes a place of
solace to become a source of hurt. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial honors
all who served in that conflict, but only the names of the 58,272
killed within the combat zone are engraved on the Wall. This meant that
those killed by a fire on a Navy ship just outside the zone were not
eligible to have their names engraved on the wall--a difficult message
for their survivors to accept.
(This argument simply affirms that the `exception proves the rule'!
Killed in Action means just what it implies! It does not infer that an
auto accident in Japan can be a direct result of enemy action! The
point at which the KWVMABrd consented--not unanimously--to exclude a
`name' wall was when it was presented with having to choose between
such and the Mural Wall. Having both was aggressively opposed by FAC,
due in part to the then controversy pertaining to the Vietnam War
Memorial.)
The ABMC and the Department felt the lessons learned at the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial must not be ignored, that a different type of
commemoration must occur at the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and that
the Memorial should be representative in design and not include
individual names. As a compromise to the Korean War veterans who wanted
the names engraved, ABMC created the Korean War Honor Roll, which is an
electronic registry of names. Visitors have access to this registry
from the Internet or at the kiosks at the Memorial. A kiosk containing
the Korean War Honor Roll stands at the west entrance of the Memorial.
It is serviced by a National Park Service ranger, who provides
assistance to visitors. The Honor Roll computer contains the names of
all military personnel who lost their lives during the Korean War,
including the individual's name, service, rank, service number, date of
birth, hometown or county of entry into the service, cause of death,
and date of death. If the information is furnished to ABMC, the Honor
Roll includes the serviceman's unit, his awards, the circumstances
surrounding his death or his going missing in action and a photograph.
The ABMC also has the names of those missing engraved at the Courts of
the Missing at the Honolulu Memorial.
(The Korean War Honor Roll at the Kiosk is useless to all visitors
except those who know a name of a KIA to be entered for a printout of
the data on that individual. It is a given that the almost 4 million
annual visitors to the Memorial neither have the time nor information
to utilize the Kiosk. The only beneficiaries are family members! Ergo,
visitation to the Memorial DOES NOT adequately portray the sacrifice
inherent in FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!)
The Korean War Veterans Memorial is located near the Lincoln
Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC, in an area designated
by Congress in the Commemorative Works Act as the Reserve--an area in
which no new commemorative works shall be located. As Congress noted in
the law creating the Reserve, ``. . . the great cross-axis of the Mall
in the District of Columbia . . . is a substantially completed work of
civic art; and . . . to preserve the integrity of the Mall, a reserve
area should be designated . . . where the siting of new commemorative
works is prohibited.'' The Korean War Veterans Memorial is a completed
work of civic art in this special landscape of the Reserve. Moreover,
we cannot ignore the practical effect of this legislation. Essentially,
the Memorial wall would be a second Korean War Veterans Memorial,
effectively thwarting the intent of the Commemorative Works Act to
prohibit new memorials within the Reserve and would be an addition that
would significantly alter the character of the existing Memorial. And
this second memorial would have the effect of violating the
Commemorative Works Act prohibition on interfering or encroaching on an
existing memorial.
(Another specious argument! Adding the Wall of Remembrance to the
Korean War Veterans Memorial does not CREATE a new Memorial--it
COMPLETES an existing Memorial! Further, to suggest that the Wall of
Remembrance would alter the character of the existing Memorial ignores
that the existing Memorial fails to convey the level of sacrifice which
the Congress directed it so do! In truth adding the Wall of Remembrance
will ensure that visitation to the Memorial will ensure that the
subliminal message of both service and sacrifice is conveyed!)
We feel very strongly that the Korean War Veterans Memorial, like
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, exists to recall the exemplary service
and sacrifice of outstanding Americans, and this memorial has already
been completed as it stands today. The Korean War Veterans Memorial is
a place of honor and dignity and we should avoid any intrusions that
will become a source of contention or controversy.
(The Vietnam Veterans Memorial required an addition to complete the
intended actual and subliminal message. As originally dedicated the
Vietnam War Memorial acknowledged and honored ONLY those who
SACRIFICED, not those who SERVED! Clearly, such ignored the totality of
the impact of the war on our Nation and people! A similar, though
converse situation pertains for the Korean War Veterans Memorial! It
honors only those who SERVED, not those who SACRIFICED! Adding the Wall
of Remembrance will finally complete the Korean War Veterans Memorial
as was originally intended by P.L. 99-572! Adding the Wall will mute
the controversy that still pertains amongst veterans of the Korean War
and their families!)
That concludes my prepared testimony on H.R. 318, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Colonel Weber.
Mr. Knox, would you testify on H.R. 318 and H.R. 4489?
Mr. Knox. I spoke to 4489 previously.
Mr. Smith. 4049. Representative Duffy's bill and also
Representative Hall's bill. We haven't received comments on
those two.
Mr. Knox. OK, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 318
and H.R. 4049.
H.R. 318 would authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of
the Korean War Veterans Memorial. The Department opposes H.R.
318 because it would significantly alter the character of the
existing Korean War Veterans Memorial in a manner inconsistent
with the Commemorative Works Act.
We feel very strongly that the Korean War Veterans
Memorial, like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, exist to recall
the exemplary service and sacrifice of outstanding Americans.
And this memorial has already been completed as it stands
today. The Memorial's design and each of its features, down to
its plantings, is symbolic. The Memorial is the culmination of
years of work by the American Battlefield Monuments Commission
and careful reviews followed by revisions and ultimate
approvals by the National Park Service, National Capital
Planning Commission, and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
This painstaking and public process began with competition
design, and resulted in the completed memorial we know today.
The Memorial should not now be changed to include engraving of
names of Americans who served in that conflict.
The opportunity to mimic the design characteristics present
at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was purposely avoided when the
design was requested during an open international design
competition. The concept of engraving names at this memorial
was considered extensively when the Memorial was being
designed. The American Battlefield Monuments Commission and the
Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board advised against the
incorporation of engraved names at the Memorial. Both agencies
arrived at this decision upon reflection of years of experience
with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
Inscribing names is a lengthy and painstaking process, even
when it goes smoothly. But, more important, as the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial experience showed, there is not always
agreement on those names to be included and those names that
are not. And this has led to public contention and controversy.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial honors all who served in that
conflict, but only the names of 58,272 killed within the combat
are engraved on the wall. This meant that those killed by a
fire on a Navy ship just outside the zone were not eligible to
have their names engraved on the wall: a difficult message for
those survivors to accept.
And I need to find 4049. H.R. 4049 would adjust the
boundary of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to include the
lighthouse known as Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light.
The Park manages six historic light stations and a total of
eight standing light towers, more than any other unit of the
National Park System. The Department supports the enactment of
H.R. 4049, with amendments that are described in my written
statement.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I appreciate any
questions you might have. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Knox, could you also testify on 4527, as
well?
Mr. Knox. Yes, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 4527 would remove use
restriction on land formerly part of Acadia National Park that
was transferred to the town of Tremont, Maine. The property was
conveyed in 1951 for school purposes. If the property is no
longer used for a school in the future, the town would like to
retain ownership, and continue to use the property for other
community purposes. The legislation would allow them to do so.
The Department could support H.R. 4527, if it is amended to
provide for a reversion of the property to the Federal
Government if it is not used for a public recreation,
education, or similar purposes, or if it degrades or adversely
affects Park values. We would be happy to work with the
committee on language for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate any
questions you might have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Colonel Weber, I just have a quick
question. The Korean War Memorial is one of the most popular
and beloved memorials that we have out there. Why do you think
it is appropriate to open it back up to make these changes?
Colonel Weber. I think, sir, that the people who visit the
Korean War Veterans Memorial are inspired by a magnificent work
of art. They are not moved by the theme ``Freedom is Not
Free.'' They don't understand what that means when they visit
that memorial. What did it cost to have freedom? And the answer
is it cost 36,574 American lives. The blood that was shed is
what makes the Korean War Veterans Memorial missing an
important part. And the law itself demanded that part be
included. It specifically stated acknowledgment of those killed
in action.
When a visitor comes to the Memorial, there is a subliminal
message there. There definitely is. But it is so subtle that
the average visitor doesn't get the intent of the message. They
were supposed to encircle the Pool of Remembrance and reflect,
while encircling the Pool of Remembrance, on what it cost for
that memorial to exist. The problem is the visitation of the
Memorial, less than 1 out of 200 visitors even encircle the
pool, because there is nothing to attract them there. And if
placid water is supposed to cause reflection, then why is the
pool drained in the winter time? It obviously doesn't serve its
function if it is drained.
The problem that we have is the traffic pattern in the
Memorial is such that when visitors enter the Memorial, they
are immediately awed by the line of 19 sculptures, and
justifiably so, because they are magnificent. They go up to the
apex of that triangle, they read the homily at the foot of it,
they see the panel that says, ``Freedom is Not Free,'' and they
turn back and go down the other wall along the mural wall. And
then they depart the Memorial.
Now, the Park Service will tell you that there is a kiosk
at which the names of the dead can be found. Not completely
correct. The only names in the kiosk are those that the family
has specifically asked be entered there. And it is demonstrably
evident that the almost four million visitors to the Memorial
every year could not possibly, one at a time, make use of the
kiosk, even to look up a name, if you even knew a name to look
up.
The simple truth is, as magnificent as the Memorial is, it
lacks the subliminal message being heard by the visitor. Adding
the Wall of Remembrance will provide that message. It will not
change the complex of the Memorial, it will enhance it. It will
make the Memorial what it was supposed to be: something to
honor not only those who served, but those who sacrificed. And
that is what is lacking.
And I say again I spent 9 years of my life on the board
that helped design the Memorial, and it is not true that we
didn't ask for a name wall. Ultimately, we had to choose
between one of two walls: a mural wall or a name wall. We chose
the mural wall because that became America's mantlepiece.
The solution for the dead doesn't work. That message is not
transmitted to the visitor. And it will not be transmitted to
future generations. And the whole reason for freedom not being
free will be lost.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Colonel.
Colonel Weber. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smith. I have no further questions. I do want to thank
each and every one for their testimony. Definitely appreciate
the testimony of the folks that served in our armed forces. And
we thank you very much.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to these in
writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive
these responses. If there is no further business, without
objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael K. Simpson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho on H.R. 4283
First, I'd like to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva for allowing me to testify today in support of H.R. 4283.
Also, thank you to members of the subcommittee for your attendance.
H.R. 4283 is intended to authorize the use of maintenance equipment
and the replacement of some outdated and potentially hazardous energy
facilities at the River of No Return Lodge in Smith Gulch on the Salmon
River in Idaho. As it currently sits, the River of No Return Lodge is a
small outfitter on the Salmon River that provides a unique recreational
experience operating under a Forest Service permit. Unfortunately, the
Forest Service does not believe it has clear authorization to permit
the use of necessary maintenance or replacement of facilities. This
proposed bill is an effort to clarify Congress' intent in legislation
passed in 2004 to retain the basic characteristics of the Lodge without
substantially altering the existing use.
This legislation makes it clear that the owners of the Lodge are
authorized to use weed trimmers, chainsaws, and other maintenance
equipment needed for the general upkeep of the lodge. It also will
allow the outfitter to reduce or eliminate his reliance on propane fuel
and replace it with modest renewable energy sources. I believe H.R.
4283 is consistent with the goals set forth by this subcommittee to
make recreational opportunities available, as well as leaving our lands
in even better shape for future generations of Americans.
It should be noted that a few small changes will need to be made
during markup of H.R. 4283 to address both technical corrections and
concerns raised by interested parties. The bill, once amended, will
have been crafted with the sentiments of both the Idaho Conservation
League and the Wilderness Society in mind. We trust that the Forest
Service will faithfully grant authorization for the maintenance and
replacement activities without the burden of unreasonable environmental
review costs.
I look forward to amending H.R. 4283 with these changes at a future
mark up.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding this common sense
legislation that has been carefully crafted with the stakeholder's
views in mind, so the operator of the River of No Return Lodge can
perform the fundamental maintenance and replace outdated energy sources
needed to carry out his small business with respect to the existing
law. Again, thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for
the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R. 4283.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Sean P. Duffy, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin on H.R. 4049
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva
for holding this hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
on behalf of H.R. 4049, the Ashland Breakwater Light Transfer Act,
which will facilitate the transfer of a lighthouse in Ashland,
Wisconsin from the Coast Guard to the National Park Service.
Next year will mark the 100th Anniversary of the Ashland Breakwater
Light, a lighthouse that has stood strong on Lake Superior's shores,
guiding ships through dark nights and storms and welcoming travelers
back home. I was blessed to be able to raise my family, with my
beautiful wife Rachel, in Ashland. Having spent years in the community,
I know the importance of this light not only as a symbol of Ashland but
as a major part of the local economy. The Ashland Light is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places since 2007 and is an important
part of Ashland area tourism, recreation, and education.
This historic site faces an uncertain future, however, with the
Coast Guard looking to give up management. The Coast Guard announced
its intent to give up ownership of the Ashland Light in May of 2012. No
public or private entity aside from the National Park Service's Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore has expressed credible interest in obtaining
and maintaining the Ashland Light. In the absence of legislation,
however, there is no guarantee it would be maintained as a historic
property or that it would be available for public education or access.
H.R. 4049, the Ashland Breakwater Light Transfer Act, will allow
the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to maintain this lighthouse--
alongside the other eight lights it already manages. It does this by
simply adjusting the boundary of the Apostle Island National Lakeshore
(APIS) to include the Ashland Light itself.
All of the other light stations within the boundaries of the
Apostle Islands were transferred to the National Park Service from the
Coast Guard in 1986. The Ashland Light was not included in the 1986
transfer, however, because it was not inside the park boundary, the
USCG was actively maintaining it, and its future was not at issue at
the time.
I have worked closely with National Park Service staff, as well as
the local recreational community, to strike a balance that allows for
the transfer of the lighthouse itself while preventing additional
Federal rules and regulations from affecting any recreation on the
waters surrounding the Ashland Light. Additionally, the Coast Guard
will maintain access to the Ashland Light to maintain it as an aid to
navigation and the Army Corps of Engineers will still maintain the
breakwater on which the light stands.
We know all too well that disagreements between agencies can often
get in the way of the best interest of the community. For this reason,
I specifically included language to ensure all the agencies involved--
the Park Service, the Coast Guard, and the Army Corps--cooperate in
their operations to ensure that all of their needs surrounding the
lighthouse are met.
This legislation is the result of close collaboration with the
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore--particularly Superintendent Bob
Krumenaker, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the
Wisconsin Historical Society, the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and
Economic Development groups, the City and County of Ashland, and the
local outdoor recreational community. And this legislation has received
near unanimous, bipartisan support from the Wisconsin House delegation
and Senator Baldwin and Senator Johnson have introduced companion
legislation in the Senate.
Additionally, I want to pay special recognition to a group of
students who are in Washington, DC today--all the way from Ashland
Middle School on a school field trip. I'm really glad that the timing
of their visit coincided with this hearing, and I'm glad they will be
seeing the democratic process first-hand this week, especially on an
issue that is important to them in their hometown.
Finally, I have several letters of support for H.R. 4049 that I
would like to submit for the record.
I look forward to advancing Ashland Breakwater Light Transfer Act
and helping to preserve this piece of history for generations to come.
I urge the committee to pass this legislation quickly and appreciate
your support today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Letters Submitted for the Record by Rep. Sean Duffy on H.R. 4049
Ashland Area Chamber of Commerce,
Ashland, WI,
February 8, 2014.
Hon. Sean Duffy,
1208 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Rep. Duffy:
I would like to express the Ashland Area Chamber of Commerce's
support for H.R. 4049, the Ashland Breakwater Light Transfer Act. We
particularly appreciate your listening to our important concerns
regarding the \1/4\ mile boundary surrounding the lighthouse and
preventing any additional Federal rules and regulations from affecting
any recreation on the waters surrounding the Ashland Light. The
Chequamegon Bay is known for the world-class fisheries within its
33,000 acres, and the area surrounding the Ashland Harbor Breakwater
Light is one of the best and most well-known hot spots for year round
fishing. It is imperative that there be no restrictions imposed by the
National Park Service that would hinder access any time of the year to
this area. Not only is the economic impact from four-season fishing
important for our tourism industry, the freedom for our tax-paying
residents to utilize the area around the lighthouse is of the utmost
importance as well.
Again, thank you for protecting Ashland's recreational
opportunities and at the same time, allowing for the protection of the
beautiful Ashland Harbor Breakwater Lighthouse.
Sincerely,
Mary McPhetridge,
Executive Director.
______
City of Ashland,
Ashland, WI,
February 11, 2014.
Hon. Tammy Baldwin, Senator,
717 Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Sean Duffy, Representative,
1513 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Senator Baldwin & Representative Duffy:
I am in favor of transferring the Ashland Light House which is
located in the harbor of Ashland from the United States Coast Guard to
the Apostle Islands National Lake Shore National Park Service.
All of the other (six) light stations within the boundaries of the
Apostle Islands National Lake Shore (APIS) were transferred to the NPS
from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) in 1986 as a result of PL 99-497. All
six light stations, which include eight standing light towers, are
listed on the National Register.
The Ashland Light was built in 1915 and was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 2007. The Ashland Light was not included
in the 1986 transfer because it was not inside the park boundary, the
USCG was actively maintaining it, and its future was not at issue at
the time.
The Ashland Light transfer will be a gateway to the Apostle Islands
National Lake Shore right here in the city of Ashland. It will be part
of the tour that so many make as they explore the light houses in the
Park. It will give the Park another opportunity to tell the story and
importance of the APIS to many travelers who are passing through which
may extend their stay and give them a reason to return for a longer
visit.
Just recently, the city of Ashland concluded negotiations with
Canadian National Railroad to purchase the 1700 ft ore dock base
located in the Ashland Harbor. The base could be the departing point
for tours to the light and the activity created would do much to
maintain the harbor designation as a commercial harbor. The designation
is very important for the continued economic development of the harbor
as a commercial shipping point on Lake Superior. The light can be the
guide to not only the ships entering the harbor, but it will also be
the light guiding the city to future development of the Ashland Harbor
shoreline which fronts the entire city.
The Apostle Islands National Lake Shore has the largest and finest
collection of six lighthouses in the country. Let us make the Ashland
Harbor Light number seven.
Sincerely,
Bill Whalen,
Mayor.
______
Wisconsin Historical Society,
Madison, WI,
February 18, 2014.
Hon. Tammy Baldwin, Senator,
717 Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Sean Duffy, Representative,
1513 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
I write in support of the continued preservation of the Ashland
breakwater light. The breakwater light has been listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, our Nation's official Federal list of
properties worthy of preservation. As Wisconsin's State Historic
Preservation Officer, I understand the Federal Government's commitment
to historic preservation as a means to celebrate the rich heritage of
this nation.
Wisconsin has a deep and rich maritime history and our impressive
collection of historic lighthouses is a potent symbol of the historic
importance of way finding to the history of Great Lakes navigation and
commerce, and the economic development of Wisconsin.
The Ashland breakwater light joins a nationally important
collection of six historically significant lights within the boundaries
of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Together those lighthouses
tell stories of the Great Lakes that enrich the experience of Wisconsin
visitors and add to our understanding of America's culture and history.
This story knits together large swaths of the Wisconsin experience,
including transportation, recreation, commerce, maritime history and
our culture and life ways.
For those reasons, I strongly support efforts that will lead to the
continued preservation of this important historic structure.
Sincerely,
Jim Draeger,
State Historic Preservation Officer/Director of Outreach.
______
Apostle Islands Historic Preservation Conservancy,
Bayfield, WI,
May 15, 2014.
Hon. Tammy Baldwin, Senator,
717 Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Sean Duffy, Representative,
1513 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Senator Baldwin & Representative Duffy:
On behalf of the Apostle Islands Historic Preservation Conservancy,
I am pleased to write in support of S. 2031 and H.R. 4049, the bills
you have introduced to preserve the historically significant Ashland
Breakwater Lighthouse. The Conservancy promotes the preservation,
restoration and public appreciation of cultural and historic resources
of the Apostle Island Region. The Lighthouse is a very important part
of the regional history, and it is deserving of protection. Your
foresight in introducing this legislation will hopefully lead to the
long-term protection of the Ashland lighthouse and its inclusion with
the other lighthouses of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
As you pursue this legislation, we encourage you to consider the
opportunities for community and non-federal support for, and
involvement in, the preservation and maintenance of this icon. The
National Park Service greatly benefits from such assistance. There are
many management tools available to provide for non-federal assistance
with historically significant resources like the Lighthouse. In fact,
the National Trust for Historic Preservation has identified the Apostle
Islands National lakeshore as one the units within the National Park
System that is best positioned to take advantage of historic leasing
and similar tools to supplement the federal capacity for carrying out
NPS's important mission of historic preservation. The Conservancy has
been pleased to assist in that role, and we are willing to help explore
the opportunities for leasing, partnerships and cooperative management
arrangements that may be available for the Lighthouse and other
historic properties.
Thank you for your leadership in protecting the historic and
cultural heritage of the Apostles Islands, and please let us know if we
can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Dahl,
Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation on H.R. 4272
background
In 1855, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
(CTUIR) ceded 6.4 million acres of its aboriginal lands in exchange for
the Umatilla Indian Reservation and reserved a number of significant
off-reservation rights for our members, forever. Among these are the
rights to hunt, fish and gather our ``First Foods'' on lands ceded by
the CTUIR to the Federal Government, including the Umatilla National
Forest, Malheur National Forest and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
in northeastern Oregon and southwest Washington.
Our First Foods include, but are not limited to, water, anadromous
and resident fish, big game such as deer and elk, roots, and berries.
These resources can all be negatively impacted by excessive road
development and unregulated public use. We support a balance between
protection of these resources and access to them for tribal members and
non-tribal peoples alike.
The CTUIR continuously seeks to improve the quality of natural
resources and First Foods in these areas and is consulted on a
government-to-government basis in Federal environmental processes such
as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). From 2007-2012, the CTUIR actively worked with the
U.S. Forest Service, the State of Oregon and others on development of a
Travel Management Plan (TMP) for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
The CTUIR worked to ensure that the Forest Service's decision in
the TMP was consistent with its statutory obligations pursuant to NEPA,
the Travel Management Rule, and the ESA, as well as the Federal trust
responsibility. The CTUIR believed that the final TMP for the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest met these obligations while continuing to
provide reasonable public access. The proposed TMP are essential to the
protection of endangered species and their habitats as well as
providing elk security to address regional elk distribution problems
and reduce elk impacts to adjacent private lands (e.g. crop and hay
losses).
Due to pressure from those who disagreed with the final decision,
the Forest Service withdrew the Record of Decision for the TMP. No
action has taken place since.
h.r. 4272
The ``Forest Access in Rural Communities Act'' would cease all
implementation of the Travel Management Rule across the country and
require the concurrence of affected counties before individual TMP's
are implemented.
The CTUIR understands the interest in providing transparent
consultation with local governments about Federal land management
decisions. However, we believe this legislation over extends that goal
and compromises critical obligations and responsibilities held by the
Federal Government on behalf of the CTUIR and a diverse public of USFS
stakeholders who enjoy non-motorized public-lands experiences.
First, by subjecting Federal land management decisions to county
approval, this legislation would prevent the Federal Government from
fulfilling its trust responsibility to the CTUIR, particularly as it
pertains to the tribes' off-reservation treaty-reserved rights and
resources. It is important to understand that our Treaty did not
``give'' the tribal people those rights to fish, hunt, and gather foods
and medicines. They are rights that we have had and exercised since
time immemorial.
The CTUIR is a sovereign tribal government as recognized by the
United States in the Treaty of 1855. In the Treaty, our ancestors
reserved those rights to ensure that the tribe's future generations
would be able to maintain and exercise our traditions and customs. In
the withdrawn Wallowa-Whitman TMP, the Forest Service had, through
consultation with the CTUIR, made certain decisions designed to uphold
its trust responsibility to protect off-reservation treaty resources,
including, for instance, the closure of certain roads to provide elk
security and control the spread of noxious weeds.
H.R. 4272, while intended to provide a greater voice to local
forest users, would inadvertently enact a dangerous precedent striking
at the heart of the unique legal relationship between the Federal
Government and federally recognized tribes. The bill would upend
Federal law to effectively give counties a veto authority over
implementation of the Federal Government's trust responsibility in
certain cases. Counties have no established trust responsibility to
federally recognized tribes, and while we often find ourselves working
cooperatively toward mutually beneficial goals, counties simply do not
have the same duty as the Federal Government to protect treaty-reserved
rights and resources.
Further, the bill would interfere with the government-to-government
relationship between the tribes and the United States as acknowledged
in the treaty, statutes and Executive Order 13175 which recognizes the
obligation of the Forest Service to consult with the CTUIR when taking
actions impacting tribal rights and resources.
Such a significant shift in the relationship between tribes,
counties and the Federal Government is wholly disproportionate to the
underlying concern: the disagreement among off-road users and county
officials with the Forest Service over access management decisions. The
USFS has an obligation to be responsive to a diverse public--including
tribes--with interests in varied and multiple forest uses; this
legislation would provide disproportionate influence to a subset of the
public.
Existing law already provides extensive avenues for opponents to
appeal and litigate the Forest Service's decisions regarding travel
management. Rather than utilizing existing processes or guaranteeing a
more inclusive dialog with stakeholders, this legislation would
marginalize tribal and other public stakeholders in the NEPA process by
giving county government the final authority to approve a TMP.
Therefore, the legislation as proposed creates inequities and is
unnecessary because of the adequacy of existing legal avenues for
participating in travel management planning and challenging unfavorable
decisions regarding travel management.
______
Prepared Statement of William P. Lecky, FAIA, Architect of Record for
the Korean War Veterans Memorial and a Member of the Board of Directors
Korean War Veterans Memorial Foundation on H.R. 318
I am currently a member of the Korean War Veterans Memorial
Foundation, and was Managing Principal for the design of the Korean War
Veterans Memorial created by Cooper-Lecky Architects, Inc. in 1995.
Cooper-Lecky Architects, Inc. was dissolved in 2000. I am currently the
President of the Lecky Design Studio, an architectural firm in McLean,
VA, which recently developed the schematic design proposal for the
addition of the Wall of Remembrance, the focus of this hearing. As an
added point of interest, Cooper-Lecky also served as Architects of
Record for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial . . . working for several
years with Maya Lin in the early 1980s.
There are several reasons for the genesis of H.R. 318
1. The veterans of the Korean War have been pleading for years for a
more definitive representation of their fallen comrades on
the Korean War Memorial. We initially believed that request
had been satisfied by the creation of a National Park
Service pavilion, located near the entrance to the
Memorial, which allowed anyone--family member or friend--to
type in the name of a fallen soldier and receive a printout
of a personalized document that contained a photo and brief
background information on the soldier in question. Sadly,
this has not worked well in meeting its intended purpose.
The pavilion is not readily located and/or recognized.
Frequently equipment is out of service. The information on
any specific soldier is only in the system if provided by
the family of the deceased. And the enormity of the
national sacrifice is not truly realized by the visitor
when dealing with a single individual death.
2. During the original conflict, the Korean Military offered up
thousands of their soldiers, known as KATUSAs, to fight
alongside our troops. Exact numbers are unknown, but
estimates are that roughly 8,000 of these men gave their
lives in combat, side by side with our men in the field.
The Korean Government does not list the names . . . only
estimated casualty figures, but we feel it only appropriate
that some recognition be given to these KATUSA fighters, as
the number of our U.S. fallen would surely have grown
without their courageous assistance.
3. The Korean government and its people are grateful, beyond bounds,
for our help in preserving their freedom. Our memorial on
the National Mall is on every Korean tourist's must see
list. And they love this country and this memorial, but
many feel that there is little about the memorial that
speaks uniquely about Korea. Our hope is that artistic
contributions by Korean artists can be added to the Wall of
Remembrance to respond to those comments. As a designer, I
feel this will make a unique and interesting contribution
to the design of the wall.
Description of the proposed concept for the Wall of Remembrance
The current design of the Korean War Veterans Memorial consists of
two major elements . . . what we refer to as the ``Field of Service''
and the ``Pool of Remembrance''. The Field of Service consists of a
sloped triangular hill covered by 19 stainless steel ground troops
moving up a hill toward the American flag. The entrance walk to the
memorial runs along the north side of that triangle. The departing walk
runs along the south side of the triangle. Visitors overlook the ground
troops on their right and a granite wall of 2,500 etched faces of
support forces on their left.
The top of the triangular field wedges its way into the black
circular pool we call the ``Pool of Remembrance''. Our intention was to
honor the ground troops with the stainless steel figures, the support
forces with the faces on the wall, and the fallen soldiers with the
black reflecting pool. The pool is surrounded by a treed, circular
plaza with benches that were intended as a contemplative area for
reflection on all the lives lost. Because the images are so powerful in
and around the Field of Service, the circulation of visitors moves
predominantly up one side of the triangle and down the other. The Pool
of Remembrance is seen, but not fully, or evenly partially, understood
by the average visitor. The plaza around the pool is only sparingly
occupied.
Our hope, with the Wall of Remembrance, is to create a transparent
glass wall, perhaps 7 or 8 feet high, that would encircle the perimeter
of the plaza at the top of the hill. Etched into the glass would be the
names of the 36,574 Americans who gave their lives in this conflict.
But the wall would also contain a number of other potential elements,
as yet undetermined or designed. These would include a statement (and
numbers of dead) honoring the fallen KATUSA soldiers . . . perhaps
homilies, images of appropriate flags or symbols honoring the
contributing countries who gave support to our effort in Korea, and
perhaps some artwork from Korea. The glass wall would not interfere
with one's view across the Mall, and at night, the names would be
lighted from concealed, below grade, fixtures . . . allowing the names
to sparkle in the night air. Our hope is that the wall will draw people
into the plaza so they can realize the intensity of the impact and the
degree of sacrifice of one of the bloodiest conflicts in our Nation's
history. Our belief is that this will add major enrichment and a depth
of understanding to the message of this memorial without impacting the
strength and beauty of that which exists on the site today.
Justification for the addition of the Wall of Remembrance
1. I have given many tours of the Vietnam and Korean Memorials. The
typical take-away by the visitor to the Vietnam Memorial is
``My God, I had no idea so many lives were lost in that
conflict.'' The Korean War was, in fact, far more costly
than any war we have fought. 1 in 9 men on the ground were
killed. 58,000 lives were lost in Vietnam in 10 years of
fighting. 36,574 lives were lost in Korea in just 3 years.
The enormity of that loss is not perceived by the typical
visitor to the Korean War Veterans Memorial.
2. Multiple revisions were made to the Vietnam Memorial over the
years. The Three Soldiers statue was added; a new plaza was
designed to accommodate the sculpture; the walks in and out
of the memorial were widened numerous times; a flagpole was
added; the entire circulation system at the west end of the
Mall was redesigned to accommodate the changes; night
lighting was added at the foot of the Wall.
The Wall of Remembrance needs to be added to deliver on the
original intent of the legislation approving the memorial.
Precedent has been set many times over to allow changes to
memorials on the Mall.
3. There is a great dichotomy between the Vietnam and Korean
Memorials. The original design for Vietnam honored the
dead, but changes had to be made to honor the living who
returned from the war. At the Korean Memorial the living
were honored, but the dead were all but forgotten. The Wall
of Remembrance will resolve that problem.
4. Please remember that this addition to the Korean Memorial will be
funded by contributions from the public. There will be no
cost to the government. The addition will introduce both
new money and new jobs to our economy. And most importantly
we will finally honor the enormous sacrifice made by our
veterans . . . a long overdue debt.
5. Maya Lin's magnificent design for the Vietnam Memorial set a new
precedent in funereal design. Every memorial since has
borne the names of the fallen . . . The Pentagon Memorial,
the Law Enforcement Memorial, the 9/11 Memorial in New
York, the Shanksville Memorial. Yet all these were designed
in a unique way. I would suggest that the Wall of
Remembrance will not only add a meaningful element to the
Korean War Memorial, but etching the names in glass will
offer a unique presentation of the names.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
(NPCA) on H.R. 4029, H.R. 4049, and H.R. 4182
Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has
been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and
enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our more than 800,000
members and supporters nationwide, I write to urge you to consider our
positions on the following three bills when they come before the
subcommittee tomorrow, June 10th.
H.R. 4029: To require the Sec. of Interior to transfer Federal
assets associated with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the State
of Missouri for the purposes of maintaining a State park.
NPCA strongly opposes this legislation. At issue in this unit of
the National Park System is the balance between recreation and natural
resource preservation in the General Management Plan. Public recreation
and the preservation of natural resources are contained in the enabling
legislation for this park unit and both can be balanced without
degrading the rivers, sacrificing the quality of the visitor experience
or negatively impacting the local economy. The National Park Service is
currently working in partnership with the State of Missouri at this
park and should continue to do so without threat of the transferring of
assets.
H.R. 4049: Ashland Breakwater Light Transfer Act.
NPCA supports this legislation which would provide a needed
boundary adjustment to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (APIS) to
incorporate the Ashland Breakwater Light within the Park unit. APIS is
the premier place in the National Park System for lighthouse historic
preservation and education. Currently, APIS has six light stations
within the boundaries of the park, all of which are listed on the
National Register. The exteriors of all these historic lights are
publicly accessible, and many are open for public educational tours
during the visitor season. The National Park Service provides abundant
information on all aspects of the historic lights and their importance
to the Nation as part of the park's public education and visitor
enjoyment mission. The Ashland Light is also on the National Register
of Historic Places and sits just outside the park boundary. The U.S.
Coast Guard has announced plans to dispose of the Ashland Light under
the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act. Without this
legislation to bring it into APIS, the Ashland Light could be offered
for public sale, with no guarantees that a buyer would maintain its
historic integrity or provide access to the public.
H.R. 4182: To provide that the Ozark National Scenic Riverways be
administered in accordance with the General Management Plan for that
unit of the National Park System.
NPCA strongly opposes legislation that would nullify the current,
draft General Management Plan (GMP) for the Ozark National Scenic
Riverways and require the Secretary of the Interior to manage the park
unit according to the existing, 30-year-old 1984 GMP. It would also
prohibit the Secretary from changing the park's management in the
future with regard to recreation, motorized use, and preservation of
natural resources. This legislation effectively removes the rights of
the American people to comment on how a national park unit should be
managed. During the public comment period for the current GMP, more
than 16,000 unique comments were made by park visitors and others who
care about this park unit. Congress should not tie the hands of the
National Park Service or negate this public process.
Thank you for considering our views.
Craig D. Obey,
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
______
Letters Submitted for the Record on H.R. 4272
American Council of Snowmobile Associations, Inc.,
East Lansing, Michigan,
June 2, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
I am writing on behalf of the American Council of Snowmobile
Associations which represents snowmobilers across the country in
support of H.R. 4272, the Forest Access in Rural Communities Act.
We appreciate the language in H.R. 4272 which would require the
Forest Service to consult and be in agreement with affected county
government prior to altering access to the Forest Service lands--
including closures or decommissioning of any roads or trails.
The snowmobile community is concerned with the lack of local input,
access for motorized recreation being limited. Involving the local
communities is crucial and endures those rural communities that depend
on the economic impact and the residents that recreate on those lands
the opportunity for input and comments.
We wholeheartedly support H.R. 4272.
Thank you for introducing this legislation. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christine Jourdain.
______
American Motorcyclist Association,
Washington, DC,
March 26, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Rep. Walden:
The American Motorcyclist Association is writing to thank you for
introducing H.R. 4272, the Forest Access in Rural Communities Act.
Founded in 1924, the AMA is the premier advocate of the
motorcycling community. We represent the interests of millions of on-
and off-highway motorcyclists and all-terrain-vehicle riders in the
United States. Our mission is to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and
protect the future of motorcycling.
As you are aware, this bill would require the U.S. Forest Service
to consult and be in concurrence with affected county governments
before altering access to the National Forest System--including closing
or decommissioning roads and trails.
The AMA is concerned that due to a lack of local input, access for
motorized recreation is being unfairly limited on USFS lands. By
requiring concurrence from local governments, this bill would ensure
that those who use Forest Service land for recreation would be afforded
an opportunity to comment on access issues.
We would like to work with your office to ensure any future
concerns we may have are addressed, so this important legislation can
be signed into law.
Once again. thank you for introducing H.R. 4272.
If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Wayne Allard,
Vice President, Government Relations.
______
Association of Oregon Counties,
June 4, 2014.
Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio:
The Association of Oregon Counties, which represents all 36 of the
State's counties, wants the House Natural Resources Committee to know
that we support H.R. 4272, the Forest Access in Rural Communities Act,
sponsored by Congressman Greg Walden among other Members of Congress.
Eastern Oregon is dominated by National Forests. It is a way of
life for Oregonians to have access to these vast acreages. Recent U.S.
Forest Service travel management planning and inadequate forest health
management have directly and negatively affected our communities near
the National Forests. In spite of a wealth of first-hand knowledge
locally about these forests, the sense here is that policies are driven
from Washington, DC, without regard to distinct local conditions and in
a one-size-fits-all direction.
H.R. 4272 will ensure local knowledge is applied to Federal
decisionmaking on access. Governing bodies of directly affected
counties, those who represent Oregonians who live among and depend upon
the National Forests, will be able to be in direct partnership with the
Forest Service on decisions to close or decommission a road in the
National Forest.
Please give serious consideration to H.R. 4272, hear it, and pass
it to the full House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Earl Fisher,
Columbia County President.
______
Baker County Board of Commissioners,
Baker City, OR.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
The Baker County Board of Commissioners would like to go on record
as supporting H.R. 4272. Baker County has been heavily involved with
our citizens and other stakeholders in the debate over road closures
and access issues in the National Forests.
This bill will require the Forest Service to formally coordinate
their planning actions and allow the local governments to put forth the
local customs, culture and economic input to various Federal actions.
Local government is in a unique position to coordinate with the
Federal agencies and come up with common sense solutions which protect
our multiple resources while allowing for sustainable economic
activity.
Thank you for your efforts and please feel free to contact us with
any questions or clarification needs.
Sincerely,
Fred Warner Jr.,
Chairman.
Tim L. Kerns,
Commissioner.
Mark E. Bennett,
Commissioner.
______
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Walden:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input into a matter very
important to me, my family and friends.
I, my family and friends are regular users of Public Lands. We use
them in a sane and responsible manner and encourage others to do the
same, we work in cooperation with public agencies and private groups to
maintain and enhance our ability to remain in the places we love.
I am a member of several user groups and I am the Vice President of
the Eastern Oregon All-Terrain Vehicle Association and one of the
originators of the Forest Access For All organization. As a board
member of the Grand Ronde Model Watershed organization appointed by the
Union County Court I have worked extensively with Steve McClure and
Mark Davidson to bring the message of sane use and utilization to the
Watershed organization and through them to the State of Oregon.
Because of the impacts to local economies and traditional uses from
the original Travel Management Activities the Model Watershed Board
drafted, voted on and approved a policy to not support any management
activity brought to the board for approval if it included travel or
access restrictions.
On a local level over 4,500 pieces of input were received by the
USFS on their original travel management activities. The tremendous
majority of that input was in opposition to closure or restriction of
access or use. I find it interesting the USFS is now attempting to
obtain more input to ignore.
The Native American has certain uses and access and rightfully so.
For years I have asked anyone that would listen what was required to
have those same uses and access. A friend working for the USFS made me
aware of a policy the USFS and other agencies try to keep hidden and is
titled Traditional Cultural Properties. Multiple generations of my
family were born in the United States. I was born five or six blocks
north of the Oregon State Capitol building. I served abroad under the
flag of the USA, have earned a living and paid taxes for over 65 years,
and am a loyal U.S. citizen. It appears to an old, uncultured,
patriotic, independent U.S. citizen that under the Traditional Cultural
Properties language that I also qualify as a Native American and am
worthy of that same level of use and access.
My activities require much travel in the eastern half of the State
of Oregon. I observe empty store fronts, empty houses, mills closed and
stock yards reducing activities. I see fewer and fewer opportunities
for our young to enter the work force. I see increased regulation and
restrictions further eliminating any opportunities for economic
progress. In our part of the world the treasure we have to offer is our
forests, meadows, streams and mountains and the very activities and
objective of the Federal agencies is to lock our treasure away for few
if any to enjoy.
I see this legislation as a first step in putting those with a true
vested interest in control of their future. Not as a victim but as the
creator and recipient of the benefits.
Thank you for past, present and future activities and this chance
to relay my thoughts to others.
Sincerely,
Larry L. Cribbs.
______
Eastern Oregon All Terrain Vehicle Association,
La Grande, OR.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Walden:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input into a matter very
important to all of the members of our organization. We are Eastern
Oregon All Terrain Association and represent well over 100 individuals
and family members. Our members have enjoyed recreating on our Forests
and public lands for multiple generations. We are responsible users of
our lands and have always done our part to see that others use them
responsibly also. Our organization focuses on off-highway motorcycle
and ATV use, but most of our members also enjoy driving on our National
Forests roads, whether to reach a particular destination or just to
enjoy the outdoors. Our organization also has an agreement with the
Forest Service to help maintain the trails on two different trail
systems. We spend a considerable amount of time each year maintaining
these trails for our members and other users.
Over the last couple of decades our organization has given our
input on multiple ``Plans'' that the Forest Service has started, yet
never seemed to finish. These ``Plans'' have always included
restrictions on motorized recreation and access to our Forests. Even
though these plans have never been completed, our members have
gradually seen their access to our public lands reduced, usually with
no warning or reason for the closures.
The latest plan to be started, but not completed, was the Access
Travel Management Plan (ATMP) for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
This plan would have changed forest access from open unless designated
closed, to closed unless designated open. There was a great deal of
time spent by our club members and others to inventory roads and give
input on their use of the forest and its roads and trails. After all of
our efforts it seemed to us that our input (the input of the people
that live and use this Forest) was not taken seriously, or just
ignored. It seemed as though the outcome of the plan was predetermined
by someone somewhere that has never seen or even knows anything about
our Forest. There seems to be a one size/plan fits all mindset in
Federal Forest management decisions.
Even though the ATMP was ultimately withdrawn and put on hold, we
now have a different Plan to worry about. This is the Blue Mountains
Forest Plan Revision. We are going through the same process of giving
input, which we have done several times in the past, to a Forest
Service that seems to never acknowledge the fact that they run the
public through this same drill over and over again, and then ignore us
in the end. It is as if they will keep coming back with a different
plan until we get so frustrated with them or tired of doing the same
thing that we just go away.
Over the last couple of decades the local Forest Service has gone
from an organization of people who grew up and lived in the region,
that knew the forest and its users, to people who really know very
little about the forest they work on or the people that use it. They
spend far too much time behind a desk doing paper work and very little
time actually on the forest managing it. Their lack of management has
become their excuse for closing the Forest to the public. Their poor
decisions are used as an excuse to punish the public by locking them
out of the Forest. We are not the ones responsible for the Forest
Service's incompetence.
We need to return to where local input into local Forest management
decisions actually means something. Every Forest is different and
should not be managed by one all-encompassing set of orders from
somewhere in Washington DC. That is why the Forest Access in Rural
Communities (FAIR) Act--H.R. 4272 is so important to the members of
EOATVA and the citizens of northeast Oregon. This bill would return
decisions on access to our Forests back to the people that actually
use, know and love them.
Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns and thoughts.
Sincerely,
Mark Barber,
Secretary/Treasurer EOATVA.
______
Forest Access For All,
Baker City, OR.
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Honorable Committee Members:
Forest Access For All of Baker City would like to give our support
of Forest Access in Rural Communities (FAIR) Act--H.R. 4272.
Our members, the local residents of eastern Oregon, western Idaho,
southeastern Washington as well as groups of citizens across the United
States have been involved in the Travel Management Planning Process to
keep national forests open for both Subsistence and Recreational uses.
Our communities are very dependent on an Open Forest system to access
the needed resources that keep our rural communities resilient and
vibrant as we struggle through difficult socio-economic times our
Nation has been experiencing.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was created with good
intentions to make sure the ``human environment'' was considered in all
Federal actions to address how our Federal agencies decisions affected
human beings. NEPA has been amended and re-interpreted repeatedly over
the last 34 years due to ``policy by litigation''. NEPA is now a
powerful tool to eliminate the human element from all Federal lands.
The Travel Management Plan is essentially an accessory tool in
accomplishing that very goal.
Our region of the State encompasses an area roughly the size of
Virginia at 49,000 sq. miles with a population of roughly 100,000
residents. We have seen a substantial reduction in our main industrial
economic engine of the timber industry over the last 30 years that has
drastically reduced our abilities to facilitate the vibrant communities
we desire.
One of the greatest assets we have to keeping our communities as
resilient as we would like is our freedom to access the natural
resources of our regions. When decisions are spearheaded and
implemented by Federal mandates and not by local residents, Federal
Land Managers tend to protect their perceived responsibilities to the
central government in Washington DC are not as concerned with the
impact of their decision on the local residents of the areas they are
making decisions around.
FAFA's position is that County Administrations are the cornerstone
of civil governments. When rural communities are allowed to partake in
a process that allow them to not only engage, but affect a positive
outcome for their families and residents, positive stewardship can take
place that not only allows for effective landscape level management,
but also leads to the resilient communities we all strive for. Over the
last several years, our group and members have attempted tirelessly to
be engaged in Forest Service decisions that affect the local residents,
the local economy, ecology and lifestyle. The Travel Management Rule
and the current Forest Plan Revision Proposal for the Blue Mountains
are two such examples and residents have been met with stone walling,
bullying and being marginalized from the process.
The residents of eastern Oregon and rural communities across the
West must have a majority voice when it comes to how local resources
are stewarded, and how accesses to those resources are managed. Our
members are regular and responsible users of the forest, and often have
been sustaining their lives from these forests for generations.
It is troubling to see how local communities lose their voice in
the process, as access to the forests around them and they know well is
restricted--often due to decision made by bureaucrats in Washington DC
that may have never seen the roads they are closing. We have seen
firsthand how this played out with the travel management planning
process on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Members of our organization and others across eastern Oregon
dedicate hundreds of hours of time to travel and inventory roads,
corresponding with U.S. Forest Service Staff, incorporating that
information in to comments for the Forest Service, only to have that
information largely ignored and popular trails, family hunting and
camping spots are closed.
This bill would require the U.S. Forest Service to consult with,
and get approval from, affected counties before altering access to
National Forests, which we feel are strong starting points for counties
to affectively manage the Health, Safety and Welfare of the residents
they elected to represent and protect.
By requiring approval from local government, this legislation will
ensure the communities most affected by these access changes have a
fair say in their access to public land.
Forest Access For All appreciates the opportunities over the past
several years to provide input on forest access issues to the
subcommittee and on this legislation. We look forward to continuing to
work with your subcommittee to assist in getting this legislation
signed into law.
Sincerely,
John D. George,
Executive Director.
______
County Court of Grant County,
Grant County, Oregon,
June 4, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
The Grant County Court enthusiastically supports Representative
Walden's H.R. 4272 legislation, also known as ``the Forest Access in
Rural Communities Act''.
For too long the Forest Service has arbitrarily and capriciously
closed roads without public notice or consultation. We in Grant County
would argue that by doing so they, ``the agency'' have violated the
National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). Like many rural communities, we
in Grant County have an aging population, which a lack of motorized
access has a profound detrimental effect on their lives, whether it
involves hunting, camping or a leisurely drive through our beautiful
National Forest. Another activity that these proposed closures would
drastically reduce would be the ability of all our citizens to cut and
gather firewood which is a large source of heat for our citizens.
Our local community, like many others across the Nation, has an in-
depth historical knowledge of the roads in our county, noting that 64
percent of our county is managed by the Federal Government. With that
being said, the transitory nature of personnel on our National Forest
prevents a comprehensive or cohesive view of the access issues that
many of our life-long citizens have.
The court feels that H.R. 4272 would assure that the agencies would
be obligated to have local input on their actions concerning access
travel management. Grant County has made its position quite clear by
Ordinance 2013-01 adopted on 5/22/2013 (attached).
The Grant County Court would encourage the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America to adopt H.R. 4272.
Sincerely,
Scott W. Myers,
County Judge.
Boyd Britton,
County Commissioner.
Chris B. Labhart,
County Commissioner.
Attachment: Ordinance 2013-01
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT
AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC ROAD CLOSURES ) ORDINANCE
WITHIN GRANT COUNTY, OREGON ) 2013-01
THIS BEING the 22nd day of May, 2013, and a day set aside for a
regular meeting of the Grant County Court; and there being present
County Judge Scott W. Myers, and County Commissioners Chris B. Labhart
and Boyd Britton.
WHEREAS, the safety and well-being of Grant County citizens and the
custom and culture of Grant County are closely tied to the public lands
within the boundary of Grant County; and
WHEREAS, the roads, trails, stock driveways, and by-ways over and
across these public lands have customarily been utilized unrestricted
by Grant County residents for search and rescue, fire protection,
firewood gathering, access for hunting and fishing, livestock
management, logging activities, mining, recreational uses and general
welfare.
THEREFORE, be it hereby ordained that for the safety and well-being
of Grant County citizens all roads, trails, stock driveways, and by-
ways over and across public lands within the boundary of Grant County,
Oregon shall remain open as historically and customarily utilized
consistent with the Grant County plans and policies, unless otherwise
authorized for closure by the Grant County Court and the Grant County
Sheriff.
THIS ORDINANCE is adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013.
GRANT COUNTY COURT GRANT COUNTY SHERIFF
Scott W. Myers, County
Judge Glenn E. Palmer, Sheriff
Chris B. Labhart,
Commissioner ATTEST:
Boyd Britton, Commissioner Mary R. Ferrioli, Court Secretary
______
Lake County Board of Commissioners,
Lakeview, Oregon,
June 11, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
The Lake County Board of Commissioners would like to extend to you
our strong support of the Forest Access in Rural Communities (FAIR) Act
or H.R. 4272.
This Board has expressed on numerous occasions frustration with the
Travel Management Plan created for the purpose of closing of roads on
public lands utilized by our citizens. We feel that the process
followed by the Forest Service for these closures in no way took into
consideration the concerns and comments submitted by our citizens or by
this Board. Our greatest concern is the way in which this process, like
so many others, completely ignored the input of the Board of
Commissioners as the local governmental authority.
H.R. 4272, in our opinion, would provide assurance that agencies
such as the U.S. Forest Service would be obligated to consider local
input in the future before taking action on travel management plans
related to our public lands. We feel that local governments have always
been the best resources for information when addressing concerns and
feel even stronger that those resources have been vastly ignored.
We appreciate your development of H.R. 4272 and for your continued
efforts on our behalf.
Sincerely,
Dan Shoun,
Chair.
Bradley J. Winters,
Vice-Chair.
Ken Kestner,
Commissioner.
Oregon State Snowmobile Association,
LaPine, Oregon,
May 14, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
The Oregon State Snowmobile Association and its membership of
snowmobilers support H.R. 4272, the Forest in Rural Communities Act,
introduced by Congressman Greg Walden.
Local input should be a big part of the decisionmaking process,
assuring the needs, concerns and desires of the people most affected
are involved. Those living and working in these areas are in the best
position to understand the impact on their local economy and
environment.
Decisions being made during the Travel Management Rule process
involving altering public access to the forest lands, decommissioning
roads, trails and closing of roads, should be based on local input as
each area is unique. Decisions should not be made on the basis of one
size fits all, but each area looked at as the distinctive area it is
with the input of county and local leaders and those who use the area.
Policies and rules adopted without consideration or understanding
of local circumstances can have unintended consequences. Local
flexibility makes common sense.
Sincerely,
Peggy Spieger,
OSSA Executive Director.
______
Public Lands Council,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
June 9, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Livestock Industry Support for the Forest Access in Rural
Communities Act (H.R. 4272)
Dear Representative Walden:
The Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA) support the Forest Access in Rural Communities Act
(H.R. 4272). PLC is the only national organization dedicated solely to
representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers who operate on Federal lands.
NCBA is the beef industry's largest and oldest national marketing and
trade association, representing American cattlemen and women who
provide much of the Nation's supply of food and own or manage a large
portion of America's private property.
Your bill would stop the misguided travel management rule on
national forests in the West and would promote local control over
future proposals that could restrict forest access. This law would
force the Forest Service to listen to local residents input before they
make a decision to restrict access to public forests. Far too often,
Federal agencies make decisions that affect local landowners and public
land permittees and ignore the input they have received, or worse,
don't even allow the opportunity for input. H.R. 4272 would end this
abuse of agency decisionmaking.
The Travel Management rule requires designation of those roads,
trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. According to the
Forest Service, designations will be made by class of vehicle and, if
appropriate, by time of year. The final rule prohibits the use of motor
vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on
routes and in areas that are not consistent with the designations.
While the rule is supposed to address the needs for access to National
Forest System lands, far too often we see decisions to close roads made
at the agency level without the proper level of input from local
residents. This would directly impact ranchers who hold grazing permits
on Forest Service lands, as it would be impossible for them to utilize
their permits and properly manage and improve the Federal land that
they are responsible for. Your legislation would ensure that local
interests are kept at the forefront of the discussion where they
belong.
PLC and NCBA applaud your efforts, and appreciate the opportunity
to provide our input on behalf of our members--the Nation's food and
fiber producers. We encourage Members of Congress to support this
positive and proactive piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Brice Lee,
PLC President.
Bob McCan,
NCBA President.
______
Sportsmen Ride Right,
June 24, 2014.
Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio:
Sportsmen Ride Right is a coalition of hunters and anglers who
believe that motorized access is an essential use of our public lands
that must be managed in a way that ensures quality hunting and fishing
opportunities.
Travel management, the process through which we decide where we
will and will not drive on public land, is a vital process that
protects key habitat for fish and games species, reduces user conflicts
and makes sure that our multiple use forests are managed in a
sustainable and fiscally responsible way.
Efforts to stop Forest Service travel management and undo previous
planning decisions would negate the considerable efforts of sportsmen
and others from around the country. Halting travel planning would also
increase road maintenance costs and lower the overall quality of our
public lands.
Besides maintaining good fishing and hunting, travel management
seeks to reduce user conflicts and to create a better experience for
everyone. An early morning elk hunter glassing a hillside in the back
country does not want to see a pickup truck drive into the spot he's
glassing. A rancher paying to graze cows on National Forest land does
not want unregulated motorized use damaging the grass and water
resources he pays to use. And an ATV rider using an ATV-only trail does
not want to encounter a bunch of full-size vehicles plugging the trail.
As a coalition, we believe strongly that designated route planning
is a necessity. A designated system of well-maintained roads is
essential to preserve quality hunting and angling on public lands.
We oppose legislative efforts such as H.R. 4272 that would halt
travel management or overturn existing travel plans.
Sincerely,
Gifford Pinchot Off Highway Vehicle Alliance
Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen
Dona Ana County Sportsmen
Muley Fanatic Foundation
Bow Hunters of Wyoming
Montana Wildlife Federation
New Mexico Wildlife Federation
Wyoming Wildlife Federation
Idaho Wildlife Federation
New Mexico Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
California Council of Trout Unlimited
New Mexico Trout
Pennsylvania State Division of Izaak Walton League
Snake River Waterkeepers, Idaho
Emerging Rivers Guide Service, Washington
Angling Trade
Washington Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Washington Recreational and Government Coordination
Services
Gardenswartz Sporting Goods, Colorado
Washington State Council of Trout Unlimited
Roaring Fork Anglers, Colorado
Alpine Angling, Colorado
Dolores River Boating Advocates, Colorado
Rico Alpine Society, Colorado
Emerald Water Anglers, Washington
The Reel Life, New Mexico
Taos Fly Shop, New Mexico
Mesilla Valley Flyfishers, New Mexico
Caddis Fly Shop, Eugene, Oregon
Royal Treatment Fly Shop in West Linn, Oregon
Alaska Fly Fishing Goods, Juneau, Alaska
Alan Corbett Photography, Juneau, Alaska
Adventures in Alaska, Juneau, Alaska
Land of Enchantment Guide Service
Solitary Angler, New Mexico
San Juan Angler, Colorado
Intermountain Aquatics, Idaho
Victor Emporium and Fly Shop, Idaho
Dvorak Expeditions, Colorado
______
Umatilla County Board of County Commissioners,
Pendleton, OR,
June 5, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
Please add Umatilla County to the growing list of counties who
strongly support House Resolution 4272.
We agree with our colleagues in Wallowa County that the Travel
Management Plan created considerable hostility in northeast Oregon and
that the tremendous overreach incumbent in the plan addresses problems
which simply do not exist.
What is of even greater concern to us is the plan reflects yet
another effort by the Federal Government to usurp the wisdom and
authority of local government structures. Thank you for H.R. 4272 which
would prevent such overreach and for your continued representation of
rural counties and your awareness of our needs and interests.
In our estimation, the Travel Plan is simply another reflection of
the disparity that exists across the country in terms of Federal
ownership. As you are well aware, issues such as this are minor in
Eastern States where the percentage of Federal property ownership is
extremely low. In States like Oregon, where such a significant portion
of our land mass is federally owned, issues such as this are magnified
many times over. We suspect Eastern Members of Congress would take a
considerably different view in matters such as this if a significant
portion of their State were to suddenly disappear from private
ownership.
Local government has always been the most effective avenue for
addressing the unique needs of the particular region and we believe you
clearly understand this principle. Thank you for H.R. 4272 and for your
efforts on our behalf.
Sincerely,
William J. Elfering,
George L. Murdock,
W. Lawrence Givens,
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners.
______
Union County Board of Commissioners,
La Grande, OR,
June 5, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
The Union County Board of Commissioners are in full support of H.R.
4272, the ``Forest Access in Rural Communities Act''. We appreciate
your recognition of the negative impact of the current Travel
Management Rule on the employment, economy and quality of life of our
citizens. Your proposed H.R. will require the Forest Service to
incorporate the needs, uses, and input of affected communities before
taking any travel management action. There is a critical need for this
change.
Federal national forest lands comprise a large percentage of the
geographic area included in Union County and surrounding rural
counties. Access to much of this area has already been restricted
impacting employment and other economic benefits and quality of life
for citizens. County officials and our citizens have been very involved
in the existing Travel Management process and have been frustrated and
disappointed with the outcomes and lack of consideration of our input
and efforts.
We believe the requirements proposed in H.R. 4272 are a step in the
right direction of including more local involvement in decisions that
greatly impact our local citizens in so many ways. Thank you for your
efforts toward improving a flawed process.
Sincerely,
Steve McClure,
Chairman.
Mark D. Davidson,
Commissioner.
William D. Rosholt,
Commissioner.
______
Wallowa County Board of Commissioners,
Enterprise, OR,
May 28, 2014.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Walden:
We would like to take this opportunity to comment on your Travel
Management Bill, H.R. 4272. You are very aware of the anguish and
hostility that was displayed in northeast Oregon when the Forest
Service rolled out their Travel Management Plan. That plan, with its
tremendous overreach, looked for solutions for problems that don't
exist was the epitome of Federal Government agencies usurping local
government's authority and trampling on the rights of our citizens.
H.R. 4272 would prevent that draconian approach from happening in the
future.
Wallowa County's approach to the Travel Management Rule was to
complete a roads analysis on all of the National Forest roads. Thirty-
three volunteers spent days driving and analyzing the roads based on 17
criteria. That information resulted in the Wallowa County Travel
Management Plan that was adopted into our local Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. The information was also submitted to the Forest Service for
inclusion in their plan, but was largely ignored. Our citizens will not
tolerate the Forest Service heavy handiness of travel management, the
resources on the National Forest do not necessitate such an approach
and H.R. 4272 would correct this very real problem in northeast Oregon.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
legislation. We look forward to continuing the dialog on Federal land
management issues and policy decisions.
Sincerely,
Mike Hayward,
Chairman.
Paul Castilleja,
Commissioner.
Susan Roberts,
Commissioner.
______
Wallowa Valley Trail Riders Association.
Hon. Greg Walden,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Walden:
The Wallowa Valley Trail Rider Association was formed back in 1995
out of a small group of Wallowa County residents that all had the same
vision: to work with the USFS and local governments to create, maintain
and assist in the past, present, and future OHV opportunities in
Wallowa County. Since then the group has grown from a handful of
dedicated people to over 25 families that still share the same goals
that the club was founded on. One specific project that the club has
been working on since 1996, an OHV trail system, now located in the
Sled Springs area of Wallowa County, is a prime example of why the
local people need a voice on matters that affect their backyards and
why the governing agencies need to listen.
This trail system was originally started in an area mutually
decided and agreed upon by all parties after several years and hundreds
of volunteer man hours, even over $20,000 worth of State grant money
was spent mapping trails one special interest group was able to
obliterate all the work that was done and send the project packing to a
different area to start from ground zero. Ten years later the same
exact thing happened again . . . the group was unable to get the system
completely obliterated but after 2\1/2\ years in litigations the
proposal that the Local club had worked so hard on was all but gone and
in its place was a proposal that was signed and ready to implement but
clearly was not what the local club and USFS had worked on for nearly
10 years. The local voices were yet again unheard.
The members of our club are all responsible users that understand
how important it is to leave the smallest footprint possible when using
the forest. Our members are all active in volunteering their time to
implementing and maintaining our trail systems. We all have spent
countless hours inventorying roads and creating viable comments for the
forest service to use in their process. Many of our members have been
not only using our forests for generations but have had a hand in many
various partnerships with the local and federal governments with
respect to taking care of our forests. All of this work appears to be
nothing more than busy work given to the local public to only be
ignored and shoved to the side when the final decisions come about. All
will, myself included, vouch for how much the decisions being made in
our backyards today are not being made with the best intentions of the
people that call it home but for the best results for the private
agenda.
This is why we need to require that the Forest Service consult with
affected counties and gain approval from the people before any changes
are made to any access on the forest.
We appreciate the opportunities to provide input on forest access
issues and on legislation that affect us and our ways of life. We look
forward to continuing to work with you and your office so this
legislation can be wrote into law.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dustin James,
President.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Ranking Member Grijalva on H.R. 4029
and H.R. 4182
Conservation Federation of Missouri,
Jefferson City, Missouri,
June 9, 2014.
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Rauul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Comments on the proposed transfer of the ONSR to the State of
Missouri H.R. 4029 and H.R. 4182
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
We appreciate the opportunity to send you our comments on two bills
coming before your committee in the form of H.R. 4029 and H.R. 4182
that would involve the transfer of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways
(ONSR) to the State of Missouri.
The Conservation Federation of Missouri (CFM) our State's largest
citizen conservation organization is opposed to the idea of
transferring the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) to the State of
Missouri. We also encourage you to oppose any legislation that would
include such a transfer. As Missourians we should all take great pride
that we have a National Park such as the ONSR in our State.
CFM is Missouri's largest citizen conservation organization with 80
affiliated sportsmen groups (i.e. Hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers,
trappers, boaters, naturalist, etc.) and over 100,000 members
statewide. Since this idea of turning the OSNR over to the State of
Missouri first surfaced several months ago we have found no one in the
ranks of our many affiliates or members that thinks this is a good
idea.
I have enclosed a recent resolution on the OSNR passed by our
members at the 78th CFM Annual Meeting this past May held in Jefferson
City, Missouri. CFM remains firmly supportive of the National Parks
Service and its efforts to enhance and protect the Riverways. The OSNR
first designated by Congress in 1964 has been in the good hands of the
National Parks Service for the past 50 years and it should remain a
National Park.
If there are differences on how the park should be managed let it
be addressed through meaningful dialog and sound planning. A transfer
of the ONSR is not in the best interest of the resource, finances or
visitor experience. Let's not jeopardize one of our ``National
Treasures''.
We appreciate your consideration and support on this matter with
the hope that you will oppose these measures. If CFM can be of
assistance please feel free to contact us at anytime.
Respectfully Yours,
Ron Coleman,
CFM 1st Vice-President.
Enclosure
Committee: Parks
Author: Ron Coleman
``Stop OSNR Transfer to the State of Missouri''
WHEREAS, the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers are two of the state's most
outstanding waters, Flowing through the heart of the Missouri Ozarks
amid high bluffs of dolomite and limestone, vast forests of oak and
shortleaf pine, and numerous caves and springs;
AND WHEREAS, more than one million people, including visitors from
around the country, enjoy the clean water, spectacular scenery, and
fish and wildlife of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers each year;
AND WHEREAS, in 1964, Congress recognized the outstanding qualities of
these two streams by making them the first federally protected rivers
in the nation, to be managed under the auspices of the National Park
Service and encompassed within a national park known as the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways;
AND WHEREAS, it is imperative that Missourians ensure that the natural
resources of the Scenic Riverways are protected for future generations
to enjoy;
AND WHEREAS, there is a movement to transfer the management and
ownership of the Scenic Riverways from the National Park Service to the
State of Missouri;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conservation Federation of
Missouri assembled in Jefferson City, Missouri, this 22nd day of March,
2014, does hereby oppose any legislation advocating the transfer of the
OSNR to the State of Missouri.
RESOLUTION SUMMARY--Oppose Transfer of the Ozark Scenic Riverways to
the State
RESOLUTION TO: Governor Jay Nixon, Missouri Legislature, U.S.
Congressional Representatives, Mo.DNR Director and the Director of
Missouri State Parks.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
--State of Missouri--House of Representatives Resolution for
the Ozark National Scenic Riverways
--State of Missouri--Senate Substitute for Senate Concurrent
Resolution No. 22 for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways
[all]