[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2802, COMMEMORATIVE WORK TO HONOR FORMER PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS;
H.R. 2806, ADJUST BOUNDARY OF THE STEPHEN MATHER WILDERNESS AND NORTH
CASCADES NATIONAL PARK; AND H.R. 3113, UPPER ELK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC
STUDY ACT.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 30, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-571PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Elton Gallegly, California
Grace F. Napolitano, California John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Carolina
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Louie Gohmert, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Islands Mike Coffman, Colorado
Diana DeGette, Colorado Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom McClintock, California
Lois Capps, California Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 30, 2009.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, Prepared statement of............................. 4
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Adams, Benjamin C., President, Adams Memorial Foundation,
Inc., New York, New York................................... 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 2802.......................... 19
England, Doug, Chelan County Commissioner, Wenatchee,
Washington................................................. 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 2806.......................... 30
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 3113.......................... 8
Parlette, Hon. Linda Evans, Washington State Senator, 12th
District, Wenatchee, Washington............................ 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 2806.......................... 23
Saffer, Martin V., President, Pocahontas County Commission,
Marlinton, West Virginia................................... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 3113.......................... 33
Shipley, Thomas A., The Sharp Farm, Slatyfork, West Virginia. 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 3113.......................... 35
Wenk, Daniel N., Acting Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 2802.......................... 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 2806.......................... 6
Willis, Gil, Elk River Touring Center, Slatyfork, West
Virginia................................................... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 3113.......................... 37
Additional materials supplied:
Evans, Hon. Daniel J., U.S. Senator 1983-1989, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 3
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2802, TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE ADAMS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A
COMMEMORATIVE WORK IN HONOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS AND HIS
LEGACY; H.R. 2806, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ADJUST
THE BOUNDARY OF THE STEPHEN MATHER WILDERNESS AND THE NORTH CASCADES
NATIONAL PARK IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE REBUILDING OF A ROAD OUTSIDE OF THE
FLOODPLAIN WHILE ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF ACREAGE TO THE
PARK OR THE WILDERNESS; AND H.R. 3113, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC
RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE A SEGMENT OF THE ELK RIVER IN THE STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL WILD AND
SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM. UPPER ELK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC STUDY ACT.
----------
Thursday, July 30, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Napolitano,
Rahall, Duncan, Lummis, Hastings and McMorris Rodgers.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests
and Public Lands will come to order. Today we will be
conducting a hearing on three pieces of legislation: H.R. 2802
by Congressman Delahunt; H.R. 2806 by the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, Mr. Hastings; and H.R. 3113 by the Chairman of
the full Committee, Mr. Rahall.
To save some time, let me request that all witnesses keep
your comments to five minutes. Your full written testimony and
any extraneous material you might want to submit will be
included in the record. With that, let me turn to the Ranking
Member, Mr. Bishop, for any opening comments he may have.
Mr. Bishop. To move this forward, I will waive my opening
comments.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask the full Committee Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, any comments?
Mr. Rahall. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this
hearing today.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hastings, any comments
specific to the legislation that you have before us, sir?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and let me,
once again, thank you for your courtesy because, as you know,
this was scheduled earlier, and you postponed it until this
date to accommodate so that we could have witnesses here, so I
thank you for that courtesy, and we do have two witnesses from
home.
So I appreciate the opportunity to hear my bill, H.R. 2806,
which allows for continued public access to the North Cascades
National Park from the community of Stehekin, Washington.
I am pleased to welcome State Senator Linda Evans Parlette,
who will be testifying later. She has long family ties to the
Stehekin community and has been tireless in her efforts to
ensure access to the National Park.
I am also pleased to welcome newly elected Chelan County
Commissioner Doug England, who also will testify later on, and
he was elected just last November to the county government.
For those of you who have not had an opportunity to visit
Stehekin, the gateway to the North Cascades National Park, this
community is located at the western end of Lake Chelan, and
listen to this: It is accessible only by boat, float-tank
plane, or a multi-day hike. In other words, it is relatively
isolated.
From the Town of Stehekin, the Stehekin Valley Road has
long allowed residents and visitors access to some of the most
beautiful scenery in the North Cascades. Recognizing this value
to local residents and tourists, the road was specifically
protected when the park and wilderness areas were created. The
Stehekin Road has, for many years, been maintained and run by
park officials, but following extreme flooding and subsequent
changes in the course of the river, much of the road now is
underwater. Because the road occupies a narrow corridor within
the borders of the Stephen Mather Wilderness Area,
congressional approval is required to modify the corridor prior
to the Park Service rebuilding the road.
During legislative consideration of the park's creation in
1988, Congress determined that the Stehekin Road would remain
exempt from the restrictions of other wilderness areas;
otherwise, no cars, mountain bikes, or other mechanized
vehicles would have been allowed to transport area residents or
park visitors to the wilderness areas north of the community of
Stehekin.
Former U.S. Senator and Washington State Governor Dan
Evans, the author of the 1988 Act creating the park, has
written to emphasize that it was Congress' intent to allow for
continued road access to the park and, Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that his letter be made part of the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[The Evans letter submitted for the record by Mr. Hastings
follows:]
Daniel J. Evans
5215 North East 45th
Seattle, WA 98105
July 7, 2009
The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva
Chairman
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Land
Committee on Natural Resources 1440 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to write in favor of H.R. 2806 sponsored by
Representative Doc Hastings of the state of Washington. I believe his
proposal for reconstruction of the Upper Stehekin road is both
desirable and vital for appropriate access to portions of the North
Cascade National Park.
Before speaking on the particulars of the road reconstruction let
me establish my credentials for testifying on this measure. I served as
United States Senator for the state of Washington from 1983 to 1989.
During that time I served as a member of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee ofthe Senate, which has jurisdiction over our
National Park system. While on the committee I initiated and became
prime sponsor of a bill to create wilderness areas within the three
national parks of Washington state, Olympic, Rainier, and North
Cascades. It was my intent to ensure that unpue development would not
occur within those national parks. I also recognized that access to
trails and vistas within those parks was vital and carefully excluded
those road rights-of-way from wilderness boundaries. Normally, road
reconstruction and minor relocation would be accommodated within these
100 foot right of ways but on rare occasions natural catastrophes could
require modification of wilderness boundaries to allow road
relocations.
For almost 70 years I have hiked and climbed in the National Parks
of Washington state and have a strong and continuing desire to maintain
their integrity. I am very familiar with the area in question and have
ridden the road from Stehekin to trailheads where I have embarked on
extensive hiking and climbing trips. If this road is not rebuilt,
access to extraordinary wilderness experiences will be substantially
more difficult. Almost a full days hike will be necessary to reach what
once were trailheads giving mountain access.
I believe very strongly that continued protection of our wilderness
National Parks depends on the active support of visitors, hikers, and
climbers who act as champions for our National Parks. If we make access
substantially more difficult we reduce the number of visitors and
ultimately the numbers of citizens and taxpayers who know enough about
these parks to want to protect them.
It was my intent when I sponsored the Park Wilderness Bill of 1988
to protect the unique features of these splendid Parks but not to make
access more difficult for those seeking the unusual experience of a
wilderness Park. I believe that in this instance an alternative route
along the Old Wagon Road would maintain the appropriate access and that
portions of the current road could revert to wilderness category with
no net loss of wilderness area. I strongly urge the passage of H.R.
2806 and believe it is compatible with the original bill I sponsored in
1988.
I thank you for your attention to this matter and hope that it can
be resolved promptly and successfully.
Sincerely
Daniel J. Evans
U.S. Senator 1983-1989
______
Mr. Hastings. Failure to fix the road will keep many
visitors from entering the park and will reduce the number of
visitors to the region and to this tourism-dependent community.
My bill would authorize the National Park Service to adjust
the wilderness boundary for the sole purpose of rebuilding the
closed section of the roadway from the Stehekin River, provided
that there is no net loss of wilderness acreage. All Federal
environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy
Act and the Endangered Species Act, would have to be complied
with for the road to be moved.
Now, at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out
what we are going to hear, as far as testimony, from other
witnesses.
Three weeks ago, this Committee approved a bill, H.R. 1061,
that was authored by my good friend from Washington, Mr. Dicks,
which gave away 36 acres of the Olympic National Park, without
compensation, for the purpose of building a road.
In a July 9th letter to Mr. Bishop, the Ranking Member of
this Subcommittee, Mr. Wenk and the Park Service endorsed the
road and land giveaway in H.R. 1061, so they endorsed the
giveaway of this land just three weeks ago, but, today, the
Park Service opposes a road that will result in no net loss of
wilderness area for the residents of Stehekin.
So I look forward to hearing an explanation from Mr. Wenk
on this obvious double standard.
I also understand that the Park Service will oppose this
bill, citing ``higher priorities.'' If keeping our nation's
promises to local residents affected by Federal policies is not
a high priority, and if ensuring the public's access to their
National Parks and other Federal lands is not a high priority,
then I would like to know what the priorities are of the
National Park Service.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the
Subcommittee will have this opportunity to hear from the two
representatives from home, Senator Parlette and Commissioner
England, on the importance of these issues to this local
community and to all visitors that visit the wilderness areas
in the northern part of Washington.
With that, thank you again for your courtesy, and I yield
back my time.
Mr. Grijalva. As I invite the first panel to come forward,
let me extend the courtesy to any Member that has an opening
comment on any of the legislation.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Could I ask unanimous consent to have the
statement on H.R. 2806 added into the record?
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
To ensure that a wilderness designation would not block public
access to historic recreations sites, the 1988 law that established the
Stephen Mather Wilderness areas in the North Cascades National Park
provided for a 100 foot-wide non-wilderness corridor to -the upper
Stehekin Valley.
Unfortunately, in 1995 the naturally meandering Stehekin River
washed away parts of the road and it remains impassable today.
Doc Hastings's bill, H.R. 2806, restores the intent of Congress by
allowing relocation of the road to a less flood prone site.
This bill does not reduce the amount of wilderness in the park. It
is strongly supported by local officials and by former Senator Dan
Evans who sponsored the 1988 law. When the National Park Service
solicited public comments on alternatives for management of the area,
over 90% of the comments favored keeping the road open.
I want to thank the witnesses for travelling across the country to
testify and I 109k forward to hearing what have to say.
______
Mr. Grijalva.Thank you very much, gentlemen. Let me begin
with Mr. Daniel Wenk, Acting Director, National Park Service,
who will speak to H.R. 2802 and H.R. 2806. Sir?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL WENK, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear before this Subcommittee to present the Department of
the Interior's views on two of the bills on today's agenda. I
would like to submit our full statements for each of these
subjects for the record and summarize the Department's
positions on these bills.
H.R. 2802 would amend Public Law 107-62 to extend by seven
years the authorization for establishing a memorial in the
District of Columbia or its environs to honor President John
Adams and his legacy. The Department supports and extension of
the authority to construct a memorial to President John Adams
but recommends that the bill be amended to extend the authority
for a period of four years in order to create a greater sense
of urgency on the part of the memorial sponsors.
Based upon the foundation's relatively slow progress to
date, even with the additional year afforded them to the
approval of the Area One designation by Public Law 107-62, we
are reluctant to extend the authority for a full seven
additional years.
H.R. 2806 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
adjust the boundary of the Stephen P. Mather Wilderness within
the North Cascades National Park complex to allow the
rebuilding of a road outside of the floodplain.
The Department opposes enactment of H.R. 2806 because of
our concerns about potential impacts to the park's natural
resources, inconsistency with the intention of the Wilderness
Act, and our position of not rebuilding roads in parks after
natural disasters where no visitor facilities are found along
or at the end of the road.
In addition, with limited financial resources, the
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a new road
are a lower priority than other needs of the National Park
Service.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Wenk on H.R. 2802 and H.R.
2806 follow:]
Statement of Daniel N. Wenk, Acting Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2802
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 2802, a bill to provide for an extension of
the legislative authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish
a commemorative work in honor of former President John Adams and his
legacy.
While the Department supports an extension of the authority to
construct a memorial to President John Adams, we recommend that H.R.
2802 be amended as discussed later in this statement.
H.R. 2802 would amend Public Law 107-62 to extend by seven years
the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of
Columbia or its environs to honor President John Adams and his Legacy.
In addition to providing an extension of authority, H.R. 2802 also
contains technical amendments to the original authorizing legislation,
Public Law 107-62, enacted in 2001, which contains outdated references
to the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). The references currently cited in
Public Law 107-62 refer to the CWA as codified under 40 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq. The CWA, however, was recodified under 40 U.S.C. 8901 et. seq. on
August 21, 2002 (Public Law 107-217). The proposed amendments in H.R.
2802 would update and correct the references to the CWA.
The authority to establish the John Adams memorial was originally
approved by Congress on November 5, 2001. The Adams Memorial Foundation
(Foundation) requested that the subject of the commemoration be
determined to be of preeminent and lasting significance to the Nation
so that the proposed memorial could be placed in Area I, a request that
was considered favorably by the National Capital Memorial Advisory
Commission in 2002 and recommended to Congress. P.L. 107-62, enacted on
December 2, 2002, granted the Foundation that additional authority to
seek a site for their memorial within Area I. Authorizations under the
CWA have a seven-year sunset period which extends from the date on
which the Area I authority was granted to allow for time to obtain a
building permit and begin construction of a memorial. As the Foundation
has not yet been able to select a site, design the memorial, receive
the requisite approvals, or raise sufficient funds for the construction
of the memorial, a permit could not be granted. Therefore, the
authority to establish a memorial to President John Adams will expire
on December 2, 2009.
Congress appropriated $1,000,000 to the National Park Service in
2002 for planning and design of the memorial in cooperation with the
non-Federal partnering Adams Memorial Foundation. Of that amount,
$479,811 remains available. The Foundation has spent an extensive
amount of time in organizing a board during the past seven years but
has not yet concluded the first major step of the process which is
evaluating sites for the memorial.
Based upon the Foundation's relatively slow progress to date, even
with the additional year afforded them through the approval of Area I
designation by P.L. 107-62, we are reluctant to extend authority for a
full seven additional years. Rather, the Department recommends that
H.R. 2802 be amended to extend the authority for a period of four years
in order to create a greater sense of urgency on the part of the
memorial sponsors. The Department has generally supported
congressionally proposed extensions to memorial sponsors for periods of
two to three years in the past.
With an additional four years of legislative authority, the
Foundation should be in a viable position to achieve site and design
approvals as well as to raise the minimum 75 percent of the funds
sufficient to build the memorial. Should they meet these thresholds,
the Secretary of the Interior may exercise his authority under the CWA
to grant an additional three-year administrative extension to allow the
Foundation to finalize construction documents and raise the balance of
necessary funding.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members may have.
______
Statement of Daniel N. Wenk, Acting Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2806
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to offer testimony on H.R. 2806,
a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary
of the Stephen Mather Wilderness and North Cascades National Park in
order to allow the rebuilding of a road outside of the floodplain while
ensuring that there is no net loss of acreage to the park and
wilderness, and for other purposes.
The Department opposes H.R. 2806, because of our concerns about
potential impacts to the environment, inconsistency with the intention
of the Wilderness Act, and our position of not rebuilding roads in
parks in the Cascades after natural disasters where no visitor
facilities are found along or at the end of the road. In addition, with
limited financial resources, the planning, design, construction and
maintenance of a new road are lower in priority than other needs of the
National Park Service (NPS).
Stehekin, Washington is a small community within the Lake Chelan
National Recreation Area, which is part of the North Cascades National
Park Complex. The Stehekin Valley is only accessible by boat, float
plane or hiking. Visitors arrive to Stehekin by means of one of these
conveyances and do not typically bring cars. Cars generally are limited
to those who live in or own property in Stehekin. There are
approximately 85-95 year-round residents and about one-third are NPS
employees or their dependents.
The Stehekin Valley Road had run from the Stehekin Landing, the
location of the ferry and public docks, twenty-three miles north and
had ended at Cottonwood Camp in North Cascades National Park. The first
eleven miles traveled through the Lake Chelan NRA, and in addition to
providing access to NPS trailheads, campgrounds and administrative
facilities, also provided access to private property and businesses.
However, the next twelve miles traveled through North Cascades National
Park and only accessed NPS trails and campgrounds and were maintained
at a more primitive level. No private property was accessed by this
road. In addition, this section of road was in a narrow corridor
between the Stephen Mather Wilderness. The majority of visitors to the
Upper Stehekin Valley used an NPS shuttle. The average ridership of the
shuttle to the Upper Valley was 2,500 people per year. In addition, the
NPS estimates that an additional 500 to 800 individuals would use
private vehicles to drive the road to the Upper Valley, for an
estimated total visitation of approximately 3,000 to 3,300 people per
year.
The Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1998 designated the Stephen
Mather Wilderness within the North Cascades National Park Complex as
part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Upper Stehekin
Valley Road, identified as a narrow corridor, fifty feet to each side
of the center line of the Upper Stehekin Valley Road, was excluded from
the boundary of this wilderness area.
In 1995, the first of several major floods occurred in the Stehekin
Valley, with many sections of the entire Stehekin Valley Road being
damaged or destroyed. While much of the road was repaired or rebuilt,
the damage to the last 2 1/2 miles of the Upper Stehekin Valley Road
was too great and a new terminus was established. In 2003, another
flood destroyed substantial portions of the entire Stehekin Valley
Road. Over $1 million was spent to repair or rebuild the Lower Stehekin
Valley Road to keep it open to the park boundary and to access private
property. This road remains open today.
The Upper Stehekin Road was obliterated at Mile 12.9, a place known
as Car Wash Falls, and substantial portions of the road were damaged or
destroyed further up the valley, leaving the remaining eight miles of
road unusable to vehicles. The NPS undertook an extensive public review
process to analyze alternatives for continuing the public access to the
Upper Stehekin Valley. Those alternatives included rebuilding the road
within the existing 100-foot non-wilderness corridor, relocating the
road through a wilderness area on the present alignment of the Pacific
Crest National Scenic Trail, or taking no action on the road and
relying on the existing trails to provide access to the upper valley.
The analysis found that rebuilding the road along the existing
corridor was an infeasible and unsustainable option given the impacts
to the Stehekin River and other natural resources, the difficulty of
crossing at least one large continually rapidly eroding slope, and the
likelihood the road would again be destroyed by flooding or slope
failure in the near future. The analysis also found that relocating and
constructing the road in the Stephen Mather Wilderness could have
significant impacts on active Northern Spotted Owl habitat, old-growth
forests and wetlands. In addition, road construction is prohibited
within wilderness areas. Both the rebuilding and the relocation
alternatives also raised concerns about obtaining the funding needed to
maintain the road in such a demanding environment. As a result of these
findings, the NPS made the decision to formally close the road and rely
on access by trail to the Upper Stehekin Valley.
If H.R. 2806 passes, the NPS would be required to complete an EIS
for the wilderness boundary change and the road construction. This
process would take between three and five years and cost more than
$500,000. Funding would be needed to construct the road reroute and the
estimated cost in 2004 dollars was $1.3 million. Additional funds would
be needed to restore the remaining road bed to service, since it has
been maintained as a trail for the last five years. No estimate exists
for this work.
We remain concerned about maintaining access along the road in the
Lower Stehekin Valley. Over the last fifteen years, sections of the
road in the Lower Stehekin Valley have been damaged and destroyed by
repeated floods and several emergency reroutes have had to be
constructed. Maintaining this road access is a priority for the NPS and
as a result we are in the process of doing an EIS to evaluate
alternative solutions, which according to the Federal Highway
Administration, range in cost from $6 million to almost $9 million.
We know our decision involving the Upper Stehekin Valley Road is
controversial to those that have fond memories of visiting the Upper
Valley. We want people to visit the park and Stehekin. To this end we
have worked with a local business to provide stock-supported tent-to-
tent camping in the Upper Stehekin Valley. This allows those who cannot
or choose not to carry a backpack to camp in the Upper Valley. We have
completed over $1.2 million worth of repairs from storm damage to roads
and trails in the Stehekin Valley and have made over $2.5 million in
improvements to the concession in Stehekin, which is also operated by
local residents. We are evaluating alternatives that would result in an
additional $6 million to $9 million to create a sustainable road in the
Lower Stehekin Valley. And we will continue to make other improvements
to visitor facilities to ensure people are welcome to the park and the
Stehekin Valley.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and this concludes my
testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions.
______
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEMS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on the
Upper Elk River Wild and Scenic River Study.
H.R. 3113 amends the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
study the suitability of the Upper Elk River in West Virginia
for an addition to the Wild and Scenic River System. The bill
provides that the study determine if the river is qualified for
designation and, if so determined, evaluate the potential
benefits and consequences of its designation.
Of the land contained within a quarter mile of each side of
the river segment, two-thirds is in Federal ownership. This
section of the Elk River flows through a small canyon with a
parallel, nonoperational railroad, the only sign of human
activity. The overall appearance of the river corridor from the
stream is one of hardwood forests and large boulders with
occasional views of the railroad. The stream is popular with
anglers and supports populations of brown and rainbow trout,
along with brook trout in the tributaries.
The Department supports this legislation, as it provides an
opportunity to work with interested parties, including state
and local governments and landowners, to identify river values
and how these values should be protected. The study would also
provide the public with an opportunity to look at landscape
conservation across all ownerships and government jurisdictions
with a holistic management approach.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3113
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on
H.R. 3113.
This bill amends section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
Public Law 90-542 (16 U.S.C. 1271--1287) to designate a segment of Elk
River in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, for study as a potential
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The segment
that would be authorized for study lies entirely within the Monongahela
National Forest, and is an approximate five-mile segment of the Elk
River from the confluence of the Old Field Fork and the Big Spring Fork
in Pocahontas County to the Pocahontas and Randolph County line.
The bill provides that the study determine if the river is
qualified for designation and, if so determined, evaluate the potential
benefits and consequences of its designation, including an assessment
of whether its addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
is the best method to protect river values.
This section of the Elk River flows through a small canyon with a
parallel, non-operational railroad the only sign of human activity. The
overall appearance of the river corridor from the stream is one of
hardwood forests and large boulders with occasional views of the
railroad. The river is dominated by many pools, separated by stretches
of riffles. The stream is popular with anglers and supports populations
of wild brown and rainbow trout; populations of native brook trout
occur in the tributaries within one-quarter mile of the main channel.
Karst limestone outcrops along the river bed create the conditions that
cause the river to ``sink'', or go underground, during low flows.
Of the land contained within a quarter mile of each side of the
river segment, two-thirds is in federal ownership, with the remaining
acreage in private ownership for a total of approximately 1500 acres.
The bill provides that the study address both Federal and non-Federal
lands.
The Department supports this legislation as it provides an
opportunity to work with interested parties including state and local
governments and landowners to identify river values and thoughtfully
evaluate whether and, if desirable, how these values should be
protected.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Mr. Wenk, let me use the
opportunity here to ask you some questions.
First, on the issue of buffer zones that my good friend,
Mr. Bishop, brought up at our markup, the assumption of the
fact--that is why I am asking you the question--that the
National Park Service can establish, and seeks to establish, a
buffer zone outside the boundary of park units and then, with
that, having the ability to exert control over land use
decisions in that buffer zone.
The suggestion is that we need at least language in every
piece of legislation prohibiting a buffer zone, and that should
be a standard. Just for the record, to your knowledge, does the
National Park Service have the legal authority to control land
use on land outside the boundaries of a National Park?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, we have no legal authority, except
as provided by law, outside of a park boundary.
Mr. Grijalva. And the point about seeking to establish a
buffer zone outside these parks.
Mr. Wenk. I am not aware of anyplace where the National
Park Service is seeking to establish a buffer zone around a
National Park.
Mr. Grijalva. And here is the other part of it: Do NPS
employees have the right, or perhaps even the duty, to develop
opinions regarding land uses that might impact park resources,
number one; and, two, do those employees have the right, or
even the duty, to express those opinions publicly and work as
neighboring land managers to prevent an activity that might be
harmful to that resource?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, the Organic Act of the National
Park Service holds us responsible to ensure that the resources
of our National Parks are protected unimpaired. When a manager
of a National Park unit, whether as part of a cooperating
agency with another Federal agency or working with state
organizations that may adjoin National Park areas, or working
with local communities, I believe we absolutely have a
responsibility, as part of the public, or as a cooperating
agency, to comment on any activities outside of park boundaries
that may affect the resources of a National Park area.
We do that as part of public process, we do that as an
adjacent landowner, and we do it in a very transparent and open
manner.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you. If Congress were to pass a
law, or part of any legislation, prohibiting buffer zones, how
would you interpret that prohibition, number one, the
Department; and would that prohibition prevent, my last part of
the question, an employee from expressing their professional
opinions regarding outside activities outside the park
boundaries, and what impact would that have on resources at
all?
Mr. Wenk. To answer your last question first, I do not know
the impact on resources because these are looked at on an
individual basis as proposals for development may occur outside
of park boundaries. If there was a prohibition on establishing
buffer zones, I think that would have little impact because we
are not pursuing established buffer zones.
I would say that a buffer zone would seem to me to still
have the same requirement, if one was created by some act or
some other purpose. If there was a prohibition against buffer
zones, I think the responsibility of the National Park Service
and its employees to review and look at development outside of
National Park areas to see if that development has potential
impacts, or may cause impairment, to park resources is still
inherent in our mission, and we would, I believe, have a
responsibility to comment on development that would impair park
resources outside of park boundaries.
Mr. Grijalva. So, short of a gag rule, the opinion would
continue to be expressed.
Mr. Wenk. I believe we have an absolute responsibility,
under their Organic Act, to protect park resources from
impairment, and as part of any public process, we would desire
to express that opinion and view that would be considered in
the public process.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Wenk, I will give you one guess
on what I am going to ask you.
Mr. Wenk. Do you want me to guess?
Mr. Bishop. Sure.
Mr. Wenk. I was going to guess that you were going to ask
when your latest request will be responded to.
Mr. Bishop. A little bit more than that this time, Mr.
Wenk. I appreciate the last few times we have talked, as well
as your phone call. I do appreciate you calling me back that
day.
I am asking specifically--write this down, and we will give
it to you in writing--for all public lands-related threat
assessments for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005 developed by the
Department, a complete accounting for how the Department is
planning to use, or has used, the $50 million it received from
the January 15th memorandum of agreement with the Department of
Homeland Security.
I will give this to you. All memoranda of understanding
between the Department and DHS from 2006 to the present also
included all environmental assessments associated with these
memoranda of understanding; a list of the mitigation funds
transferred from DHS to DOI from 2006 to the present; and all
communications and materials, such as notes, e-mails, or
appointments related to the placement of DHS equipment and
infrastructure on Department lands from 2006 to the present
between the superintendent of Big Bend National Park and the
superintendent of Oregon Pipe National Monument and their
respective regional directors; and also all documents and
communications related to issues of DHS access onto Department
lands from 2006 to the present between the superintendent of
Big Bend National Park and the superintendent of Oregon Pipe
National Monument and their respective regional directors.
Those are the essential elements that we need to know to
move forward. I appreciate that. I recognize--I had a birthday
a few weeks ago, I know your office would have sent a birthday
greeting, but it was held up by OMB.
Let me do a couple of other questions I simply have. First
of all, specifically to the Hastings bill, has the National
Park Service conducted any inventory of public comments dealing
with the management of this particular area?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Bishop, I guess I cannot tell you the
specific timeframe, but I believe that the decision not to
reopen this was part of a plan. I will have to find that out
specifically for you. I am sorry. I do not know the specifics.
Mr. Bishop. The information I have received is that public
comments were taken, and I think I will allow Mr. Hastings to
refresh me or correct me, and over 90 percent of the public
comments were not in favor of keeping this road open.
Do you happen to know who built the original road that was
washed out?
Mr. Wenk. I do not know who constructed it.
Mr. Bishop. Did the pioneers who went to that area, being
smarter than the CCC during the New Deal era who built the road
that was washed out, did they have an alternative route in that
particular area that was replaced by the CCC when they rebuilt
that stupid road that was washed out?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Bishop, I cannot answer that question
specifically.
Mr. Bishop. I will allow Mr. Hastings to correct me if I am
wrong, but I understand that there was a pioneer path that was
the road before the CCC rebuilt the road in the wrong place and
that his proposal is to take the original pioneer route to
replace that particular road.
Will there be a loss of wilderness area if you do what the
pioneers did and make the route to allow access into this area
in the place it was originally designed?
Mr. Wenk. Not according to the bill, as introduced. There
would be no net loss.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that, and I would assume that you
would say that if a road was grandfathered in by an act of
Congress, that was the intent of Congress to do so.
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I like that. Did Superintendent Steve Martin
represent establishing a buffer zone around the Grand Canyon
National Park at any point during this year?
Mr. Wenk. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Bishop. Then we will refresh you on that one, too, at a
later date as well.
What is the policy toward viewsheds and viewscapes?
Mr. Wenk. The policy is that if there is a development
outside of a National Park Service area that would affect the
viewshed or viewscape from within the National Park area, we
would consult with the individual, or if it is before a
planning commission, with a community, with a state, or with
another Federal agency to assess the impact of that development
and ask for their consideration.
Mr. Bishop. In the terminology of Washington, do you
consider that different than a buffer zone?
Mr. Wenk. I consider it vastly different from a buffer
zone.
Mr. Bishop. That may be one of the terminology differences
we have.
The Chairman from Arizona suggested that maybe a gag order
could potentially be used, and I would suggest, Secretary Gates
and the Department of Defense has established that kind of
precedent for you. You might consider what he did as what you
can do as well.
With that, Mr. Wenk, I will present once again the
questions that I had and would ask you once again also to
review the road concept because what you are trying to do, what
Representative Hastings and the people in Washington are trying
to do, is reestablish the road the pioneers had instead of the
road that the New Deal era created and put it back there so
access is available to all citizens, and that is a worthy
cause.
As to the other two bills, I like them.
Mr. Grijalva. On that note, Chairman Rahall.
Mr. Bishop. Do I yield back?
Mr. Rahall. I propose to put a gag order on the gentleman
from Utah.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rahall. And remind me the next time your birthday comes
up. I will send you a birthday card.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. By a vote of three-to-five, but yes.
Mr. Rahall. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, except to
thank, of course, the Forest Service for supporting our study
on the Elk River. I appreciate it, and I also appreciate the
work that both of you gentlemen do in the Department of the
Interior. You are responsible stewards of our public lands, and
you do a very valuable public service for our people. We thank
you.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Hastings, please. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wenk, why did, three weeks ago, you sent a letter to
Mr. Bishop saying that you are in favor of a land exchange, not
even a land exchange, just giving up 36 acres of land where the
reason why that happened is because Mother Nature, i.e., a
river, washed out the road, and then you are opposed to this
one where Mother Nature has washed out a road, and there's no
net losses, Mr. Bishop just asked you?
Mr. Wenk. The proposed conveyance, Mr. Hastings, to the Hoh
Tribe involved, we believe, a different set of circumstances.
We would support the legislation to convey that 37 acres to the
Hoh Tribe to help them address their life-health-safety
concerns arising from the current----
Mr. Hastings. OK. Let me hear, so you are doing this
because you are worried about the people and, in this specific
case, the whole tribe. I supported that bill. I thought it was
good.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. What about the citizens of Stehekin, who
depend on tourism and trade and getting people to go up in the
North Cascade Wilderness Areas, and they have to get up there
by going through this road? Aren't the reasons that you just
suggested exactly the same for the citizens that live in
Stehekin?
Mr. Wenk. The access is the same issue in both cases, yes,
Mr. Hastings. The difference, I would tell you, is the fact
that we would still be providing access, however, not motorized
or mechanized access on that section of the road.
Mr. Hastings. If the intent, however, as Senator Evans
said, and he was the author of the bill, was to allow as much
access to these areas, including motorized, because that was
the way it was at the time the bill passed, what has changed
other than Mother Nature washing out the road? The intention
was exactly the same: access to wilderness areas.
Mr. Wenk. The changes, that Mother Nature has washed out
the road, the difficulty of keeping the road built----
Mr. Hastings. OK. What was the intent of Congress, though?
Mr. Wenk. I believe the intent of Congress was to provide
automobile access on that road.
Mr. Hastings. OK. So under what authority, then, has your
position changed?
Mr. Wenk. We are providing testimony with our opinion. If
Congress chooses to pass this bill, we will, in fact, do----
Mr. Hastings. In other words, you do not have an opinion,
based on statutory law or based on the intent of Congress.
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Hastings, our intent is to follow the intent
of Congress whenever we can.
Mr. Hastings. In that case, then you should be supporting
the bill, pretty simple.
You have a phrase in here on why you oppose H.R. 2806, and
I would like you to elaborate on that. It is in your second
paragraph, and it says: ``I oppose H.R. 2806,'' and you have a
few other reasons, then it says, ``and our position of not
rebuilding roads in parks in the Cascades after natural
disasters where no visitor facilities are found along or at the
end of the road.''
So that policy is specifically for the Cascades. Is that
correct?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Hastings, I saw that. When I reviewed the
testimony again yesterday, I saw that statement. I believe it
to say ``in Cascades'' was an inappropriate and incorrect
statement.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Let us take the Cascades out. Tell us
where the other authority comes from where it is because there
are not any facilities beyond or on the road. Where does that
come from?
Mr. Wenk. That would be not an authority; it would be a
policy of the National Park Service.
Mr. Hastings. Where is that policy found? Where is it
written down?
Mr. Wenk. I would have to get to the specific cite.
Mr. Hastings. It would seem to me that, OK, if somebody
writes this statement, and they inadvertently put in
``Cascades,'' then you at least know where the original
statement comes from. Now you are telling me that you do not
know exactly where that policy comes from.
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Hastings, I would say it comes from the
National Park Service management policies. The specific cite, I
would have to get you.
Mr. Hastings. When could you get that for us?
Mr. Wenk. I will get it to you by the end of this week.
Mr. Hastings. OK. I appreciate that. Mr. Bishop advised me
that he would like to have his by the end of the week, too.
That would satisfy both of us. So we would look forward to that
as we go on our August district work period.
OK, Mr. Wenk. I have to say I am not satisfied with the
distinction that you are saying between what happened three
weeks ago and now because the arguments that you used were the
same. You acknowledged that the intention of Congress, when
they passed the North Cascade Wilderness, was to have access,
however it was. So I am disappointed that your agency has taken
this position. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Hastings, I appreciate your comment and
understand your comment.
There is one other distinction just to bring to your
attention, and that is that the Olympic National Park Area, I
am told, is not an area that was wilderness designation.
Mr. Hastings. No, but the point is, you are administered by
the Park Service in both cases. By the way, the distinction is
access to a wilderness area in this case.
Mr. Wenk. OK.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For Mr. Wenk, did the Park Service conclude that the new
area of the new road would protect from any future and
destruction? Has there been an assessment, and what is the road
plan to prevent any flooding from damaging the road?
Mr. Wenk. The environmental work has not yet been done on
the new section, as it would be allowed by the bill. The
environmental assessments would need to be done, as well as
specific designs would need to be done, if this is enacted.
Mrs. Napolitano. Now, this is a road that is only utilized
by vehicles, by foot traffic, by visitors.
Mr. Wenk. Currently, because it has been washed out and not
rebuilt, it is only by nonmechanized travel. It could be horse.
It could be foot traffic. If rebuilt, it would be open to
vehicle traffic as well.
Mrs. Napolitano. Now, the flooding; how often does that
occur? Is it only seasonal?
Mr. Wenk. How often it occurs? There were significant
floods that closed the first portion in 1995, and that closed
the last three miles of the trail. In the past few years, we
have had flooding up to the area of Car Wash Falls that have
actually closed about 12 miles of the road. It is a seasonal,
periodic basis just based on the weather and the snowfall, et
cetera, at any given time. It is unpredictable.
Mrs. Napolitano. So knowing that, the assessment would then
provide you with information to build some kind of protection
for that future road.
Mr. Wenk. I think the intent is to relocate the road in
areas that would not be susceptible to flooding and to washout
and to do it in, I would say, as an environmentally sustainable
manner as possible in a new location on a new route.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Wenk. I was done. I am sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there currently signage to warn
pedestrians or visitors of the dangers of flooding?
Mr. Wenk. I cannot speak specifically to what signs exist.
My belief would be that these would not be unanticipated
circumstances, that it would not be from a sudden rainstorm
that would cause this kind of damage. It would be sustained
flooding based on snowpack and rainfall in the spring.
Mrs. Napolitano. But during those minor events, it is not
something that would endanger a human being or a horse.
Mr. Wenk. I do not believe that is the case, no.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. What does it cost to reroute that new,
100-foot corridor in that North Cascades Park outside of the
wilderness and flooding areas?
Mr. Wenk. In the estimate that was done in 2004, the cost
was approximately between 1.3 and $1.5 million. That is a cost
estimate that is not based on the environmental work that would
need to be done, which we would estimate at about another half-
million dollars and would take approximately three years.
Mrs. Napolitano. And that is 2005 figures.
Mr. Wenk. Those were 2004 figures.
Mrs. Napolitano. 2004, five years.
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. What would be the guesstimate?
Mr. Wenk. My guess would be it would be between two and two
and a half million in today's costs.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does that new, 100-foot corridor include
any of the upper section of the road in the upper valley, or
would the entire area be environmentally damaged if it was
built upon that area?
Mr. Wenk. The new section of road that I just discussed was
just the upper valley. We are looking at improvements to the
lower valley road, which is an additional approximately $6
million of improvements to that road.
Mrs. Napolitano. So that is not included, then, in your
estimate of that 100-foot corridor.
Mr. Wenk. No, it is not.
Mrs. Napolitano. What plans are being made to assure that
this is addressed in the future, or if any?
Mr. Wenk. Absent this legislation, the National Park
Service would maintain and operate that corridor as a
pedestrian or horse access only on that upper section. So if
and when this legislation is enacted, we would immediately
begin the environmental review and the planning and then the
construction of the road.
Mrs. Napolitano. How much does this mean to that area
economically?
Mr. Wenk. I do not have that figure. Obviously, it is, if
you will, a longstanding use that had occurred within the
Stehekin area of the park, and I think others may be able to
better answer your question in terms of what the economic and
social impact of not having that is.
Mrs. Napolitano. And, of course, the impact to the
environment, the ecology.
Mr. Wenk. Yes. Well, our concern was being able to sustain
the road and that the environmental impact is something that
will continue for years, if and when we would ever have to
relocate the road again.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Grijalva. Before I ask Mr. Hastings, Mr. Wenk, let me
just follow up a little bit on the precedent question that Mr.
Hastings brought up and others have brought up. When we did Mr.
Dicks's bill, about three weeks ago, the conveyance to the
whole nation of those 37 acres; how is the situation we are
talking about today different from that situation? That issue
was health and safety, to a great extent, but is there a
precedent, and I think that is the point that Mr. Hastings has
repeated over and over again?
Mr. Wenk. The legislation that you marked up three weeks
ago would allow the tribe to manage the connection between
their existing land and land they are acquiring, not from the
National Park Service but from other private sources, on higher
ground as they relocate their community.
Two other important points: The land being conveyed would
be protected from new development in the Hoh area, and there
would be no cost involved to the National Park Service. The
Department's support for the conveyance to the Hoh Tribe; we do
not believe it should be viewed as a precedent for moving land
from a protected status in order to facilitate the building of
a road. One was wilderness; one was not. Development of two
areas for the Hoh, I think, are the precedents that we are
citing.
Mr. Hastings. Real briefly, and I appreciate my friend from
California's line of questioning and, again, the courtesy that
the Subcommittee has given us to get our witnesses to perhaps
answer those questions as to the economic consequences of not
having that road. So your line of questioning, I hope, will be
answered more directly by Commissioner England and Senator
Parlette in the next panel.
So I appreciate your line of questioning on that because
this is an important part. Tourism, in fact, is what drives the
economy in Stehekin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me thank the gentlemen. I know, Mr.
Holtrop, you are exhausted from having to answer all of those
questions, but thank you, gentlemen, and let me invite the next
panel up.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, I would just like to mention
that the Forest Service does an excellent job. I have met some
of the men and women at the different parks, and I salute them
and their service.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. As the next panel comes up, let me ask the
Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Rahall, for any
introductions of the panel, as they are here to speak to H.R.
3113.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to
especially welcome today, as they take their place at the
table, first, the Pocahontas County Commission president, Marty
Saffer. He is approaching the table now. I want to thank Gil
Willis, who, I understand, is not here yet but still in traffic
trying to get here; and Tom Shipley for traveling today to our
nation's capital to present testimony on this bill.
Commissioner Saffer is part of what I view as the new breed
of politicians in his home county, Pocahontas County. He
understands that the economic well-being of the residents and
the conservation of the area's most significant natural
resources are intertwined. He also understands that, as more
and more people discover Pocahontas County, there will be
increased demands on these resources.
Gil Willis, who is not here yet, owns and operates the Elk
River Touring Center, including the Elk River Inn and
Restaurant. I have been there, I have seen the services he
provides, and I would recommend it to anyone who is visiting
the area. The menu is currently featuring a Pendleton County-
raised, West Virginia rainbow trout, seasoned in bacon. The
gentlelady from California would know what the cooking is
like--filleted at the tableside, accompanied by a risotto cake
and rosemary-sweetened succotash. Well, why don't we just
adjourn right now and move the Subcommittee out to have our
hearing in Pocahontas County?
Tom Shipley, who is approaching the witness table now, owns
Sharp's Country Store near Slatyfork. Tom's great-grandfather,
L.D. Sharp, first opened the store in 1884, and his great-
great-grandfather was taken prisoner of war in a log cabin that
still stands behind the country store. I want to make it very
clear that the initiative behind H.R. 3113 came from these
gentlemen and the many other residents of the county. It is
their initiative and their determination on this matter that
shows, once again, that the grassroots are still very much
alive and well in this country.
I also want to welcome, in the audience is Clyde Thompson,
the supervisor of the Mon. National Forest and Kate Goodrich-
Arling, who is also with the Mon. National Forest staff. So I
recognize them for their attendance, as well as Marty's wife,
Sheila, who, I understand, is in the audience as well. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chairman. Let me begin with Mr.
Benjamin Adams, President, Adams Memorial Foundation, H.R.
2802, sir.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN C. ADAMS, PRESIDENT,
ADAMS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Adams. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me to speak on behalf of the Adams Memorial
Foundation. I am here to testify in support of H.R. 2802, which
would extend the authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation to
establish a memorial to John Adams and his legacy in
Washington, D.C.
You have my formal testimony, so I am going to hit on a
couple of high points here and then reserve my time primarily
for questions.
Just to give you an overview, quickly, of H.R. 2802, a
couple of points, I think, are worth noting. While memorials
have been established in Washington for Presidents George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams and
his legacy are notably underrepresented in our nation's
capital.
In 2001, Congress authorized the formation of the Adams
Memorial Foundation to address this oversight. Since that time,
the foundation has made some very significant progress in the
process of creating a memorial, including establishing a board
of trustees, hiring outside legal experts, urban planning and
environmental experts, conducting a preliminary site assessment
of over 20 sites, developing a conceptual design for the
project, and otherwise moving forward relatively quickly.
We are poised to enter, at this point, into the formal
site-selection and environmental-assessment process that will
take place over the next 12 to 18 months. This will be followed
by a design competition, a capital campaign and, ultimately,
construction of the memorial.
We anticipate that it will take seven years for us to
complete this and that, hopefully, at the end of seven years,
we will have a first-class memorial that is open and available
to the American public.
The conceptual design that we are working on right now is a
library and a garden, and we have a working title of ``The
Adams Library of American Letters.'' It will be located in Area
One outside of the reserve within Washington, D.C.
However, under the Commemorative Works Act, the
foundation's authority to build the memorial is set to expire
on December 2nd of this year. H.R. 2802 will extend our
legislation for another seven years, which, we think, is
coincident with the timeline we talked about just a second ago
and, with Congress' help, in seven years we will have a
memorial that is up and running and open to the public.
So, in conclusion, on behalf of the Adams Memorial
Foundation, I formally request your support for H.R. 2802, to
extend the foundation's legislative authority to establish a
well-deserved memorial to honor the Adams legacy. Much of the
ground work has been completed. Now is the time to start making
the real strides to bring the foundation and the memorial to
fruition.
So thank you for the opportunity to testify here in front
of the Committee on the important work of our foundation and to
express our support for H.R. 2802. I look forward to answering
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
Statement of Benjamin C. Adams, President,
Adams Memorial Foundation, Inc., on H.R. 2802
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop
and Members of the Committee for inviting me to speak today on behalf
of the Adams Memorial Foundation. I am here to testify in support of
H.R. 2802 which would extend the authority of the Adams Memorial
Foundation to establish a memorial to John Adams and his legacy in
Washington, DC.
On November 5, 2001, Congress passed legislation authorizing the
Adams Memorial Foundation, a subsequently formed 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation, to establish a memorial commemorating the Adams family in
Public Law 107-62. On December 2, 2002, Congress further authorized the
Foundation to place the memorial in Area I of Washington, D.C. outside
of the Reserve in Public Law 107-315. Since that time, the Foundation
has made significant progress towards this goal and has, among other
activities, (i) established a board of trustees and supporting
committees consisting of notable historians, business leaders and fine
arts professionals; (ii) developed an initial design concept for the
memorial; (iii) researched and conducted a preliminary review of more
than twenty potential site locations; (iv) engaged a leading provider
of commemorative planning and design services to complete both an
alternate site study and environmental assessment study of potential
sites; and (v) coordinated with the U.S. Congress, National Park
Service and other important stakeholders.
However, under the terms of the Commemorative Works Act, the
authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation is scheduled to expire on
December 2, 2009. H.R. 2802 would create a seven-year reauthorization
of the Adams Memorial Foundation. This extension would provide the
Foundation with necessary time to complete a formal alternative site
study and an environmental assessment of potential sites. Once a site
has been secured, the Foundation will then hold a design competition to
select a final design for the memorial. Following site and design
approval, ground breaking and construction will begin. The Foundation
intends to complete the Adams memorial within the next seven years and
open its doors to the public to allow the U.S. and the world to learn
more about the important contributions of the Adams family.
History of the Adams Family
It is important to keep in mind the extraordinary legacy of service
by generations of Adamses and their impact on the establishment of our
country.
John Adams was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the
United States. Born in 1735 in Braintree, later known as Quincy,
Massachusetts, John Adams was educated at Harvard and spent his early
career as a lawyer. As a lawyer, he is best remembered for his
successful defense of the British soldiers accused of the Boston
Massacre, a role that did not sit well with his fellow countrymen, but
reflected a stubbornly principled personality and a passionate belief
that all men deserved equal protection under the law.
As a leader of the American Revolution, John Adams served as a
delegate to both the First and Second Continental Congresses, and was
regarded as the leading voice championing independence from Great
Britain. John Adams not only helped draft the Declaration of
Independence, but also authored the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, which is the oldest written constitution still in force
today.
During the Revolutionary War, John Adams served as a U.S.
representative to France and the Netherlands, both assisting to finance
the war and bring it to a close with the Treaty of Paris. He
subsequently served as our first Minister to the Court of St. James's
before returning to the United States to become our first Vice
President under President George Washington. In 1796, John Adams was
elected the second President of the United States, and in 1800 became
the first occupant of the newly constructed White House.
Abigail Smith Adams, wife of John Adams and mother of John Quincy
Adams, was an early advocate for women's rights. She was a notable
abolitionist and fought for liberty through her writing. John Adams and
Abigail Adams were prolific writers and many of their letters have been
preserved and were highlighted in David McCullough's book and recent
HBO mini-series on the Adams family.
Like his father, John Quincy Adams was a distinguished lawyer and
legislator. Before becoming the sixth President of the United States,
he served as U.S. Senator and Secretary of State under President James
Monroe. John Quincy Adams, conversant in seven languages, also served
as Minister to the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain. In
addition, John Quincy Adams was the chief negotiator of the Treaty of
Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. John Quincy Adams also authored the
famous Monroe Doctrine. Unlike any President before or since, John
Quincy Adams returned to public service after his presidency as a
member of the House of Representatives where he served until his death.
There, he fought tirelessly against slavery, successfully defended the
Mendi people in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Amistad Affair recently
popularized in a movie by Steven Spielberg, and became known as ``Old
Man Eloquent.''
Louisa Catherine Adams was the wife of President John Quincy Adams.
Louisa Catherine Adams was the only First Lady to be born outside of
the United States. She was an educated and distinguished woman who
wrote on behalf of women's rights and in opposition to slavery. So
respected for her role as a diplomatic wife and First Lady that upon
her death both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives
adjourned in her honor.
Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy and Louisa Catherine
Adams, served six years in the Massachusetts legislature before
receiving the Free Soil Party's vice-presidential nomination in 1848.
Known as a staunch abolitionist, Charles Francis Adams was elected to
his father's seat in the House of Representatives in 1856. Like his
father and grandfather before him, Charles Francis Adams served as
Minister to Great Britain, and worked to prevent the British Government
from recognizing the confederacy's independence during the Civil War.
Henry Adams, the son of Charles Francis Adams, was also an avid
writer, scholar and historian, penning such important works as
Democracy, The Education of Henry Adams, and the nine-volume History of
the United States during the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison.
While commemorative works have been established for former
Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln in
Washington, DC, John Adams and his legacy are notably unrepresented in
our nation's capital. Congress acted in 2001 to remedy this oversight
and the Adams Memorial Foundation intends to ensure that an appropriate
memorial is established to honor legacy of the Adams family.
The Adams Memorial Foundation
The Foundation, along with the financial support of private donors,
has been diligently working to plan and construct a memorial to
recognize John Adams and his legacy. Since the creation of the
Foundation, we have assembled an impressive board of trustees, advisors
and experts that will help facilitate the creation of an appropriate
memorial.
The Foundation's Board includes: Donald B. Myer, FAIA, Former
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts; John A.
Morgan, Chairman, Morgan, Joseph & Co.; Mark E. Denneen, Chief
Executive Officer, Denneen & Co.; E. Franklin Harris, Managing Director
of the Lincoln International LLC; and Peter F. O'Connell, President of
the Marina Bay Corporation. The Hon. Timothy J. Roemer, former
Representative of Indiana's Third Congressional District and co-sponsor
of our original enabling legislation, stepped down from our board just
last week to assume the post of U.S. Ambassador to India.
The Honorary Committee includes: David G. McCullough, Author and
Historian; Dennis A. Fiori, Director of Massachusetts Historical
Society; Daniel P. Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation; Cokie Roberts, Journalist and Author; Richard H. Driehaus,
Chairman of Driehaus Capital Management; and Edward J. Keohane,
President of the Quincy Partnership.
The Architectural Committee includes: Harold L. Adams, FAIA, RIBA,
JIA, Chairman Emeritus of RTKL Associates Inc.; John Belle, FAIA, RIBA,
Beyer Blinder Belle Architects and Planners, LLP; Heather Wilson Cass,
FAIA, Cass & Associates Architects, PC; Edward Dunson, AIA, Howard
University College of Engineering, Architecture, & Computer Science;
Gregory K. Hunt, FAIA, Leo Daly Architects; and F. Douglas Adams, AIA,
F. Douglas Adams and Associates Architects, Inc.
The Foundation also relies on its independent Audit Committee
Chairman, Steven Elek of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and on Special Advisor
Rodney M. Cook, President of the National Monuments Foundation.
Conceptual Design of the Adams Memorial
Among John Adams's heroes was Cicero, the great Roman philosopher
and politician, whose idea of heaven was represented by a library in a
garden. Visitors today to the Adams National Historical Park in Quincy,
Massachusetts will find just that: a handsome stone library constructed
by Charles Francis Adams in 1873, nestled in an nineteenth century
garden where Abigail Adams's roses still bloom. The Adams Memorial
Foundation's vision for a memorial in Washington, D.C. is to create
something similar, the Adams Library of American Letters, a library of
eighteenth century design and scale, set in a peaceful garden in the
heart of our nation's capital. Drawing upon the extensive writings of
four generations of Adams politicians and scholars, the Adams Library
will provide a gateway for generations of Americans to explore our
nation's history through the lens of a great American family. From the
colonial era to the Revolutionary War and the early days of American
independence, and from the early abolitionist movement through the
civil war and the emancipation of the slaves, the writings of multiple
generations of Adamses provide a critical narrative thread to
understanding the history of the United States.
Next Steps to Establish the Adams Memorial
Over the next seven years, the Foundation will: (i) conduct a site
selection and environmental assessment (approximately 12-18 months);
(ii) hold a design competition (approximately 9-12 months); (iii)
secure final design approval and raise significant private capital to
fund the construction of the memorial (approximately 2-3 years); and
(iv) break ground and construct the memorial (approximately 2 years).
To this end, the Foundation has engaged engineering and legal experts
to assist in the process. The Foundation plans a significant capital
campaign as required by the original authorization, which states that
the memorial must be built with private funds. The Foundation has been
closely coordinating its activities with the National Park Service.
However, unless Congress acts, the authority of the Adams Memorial
Foundation will expire under the terms of the Commemorative Works Act
(40 USC Sec. 8903) on December 2, 2009. In order for the next phase to
commence, we request that Congress enact H.R. 2802. This legislation
would extend the authority of the Adams Memorial Foundation for another
seven years. This extension would provide the Foundation with the
necessary time to complete all the required steps to create a
presidential memorial.
On behalf of the Adams Memorial Foundation, I formally request your
support for H.R. 2802 to extend the Foundation's legislative authority
to establish a well deserved memorial to honor the Adams legacy. Much
of the groundwork has been completed, and now is the time to start
making strides to bring Adams memorial to fruition.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee on
the important work of the Adams Memorial Foundation and to express our
ultimate support for H.R. 2802. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Linda Evans Parlette, Washington State Senator, 12th
District. Madam Senator?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA EVANS PARLETTE, WASHINGTON STATE
SENATOR, 12TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Ms. Parlette. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Congressman
Bishop and Members of the Committee, for hearing the bill which
I am supporting, H.R. 2806.
For the record, my name is Linda Evans Parlette. I am the
Washington State Senator for the 12th Legislative District in
North Central Washington. My district includes the community of
Stehekin, the Lake Chelan Recreation Area, and the North
Cascades National Park. I have submitted 12 pages of detailed
written testimony for the record. On page 3 of that written
testimony, you will learn about the visitors' centers that are
in the North Cascades National Park.
Let me quickly define the issue. Part of an historic,
primitive road which provided the only vehicular access into
the North Cascades National Park from Stehekin, a road that is
approximately 12 miles long, washed out due to an historic
flood in 2003.
This road, Mr. Chair, was there prior to the North Cascades
National Park being created in 1968. This road was there before
the 1988 Washington Parks Wilderness Act. As a matter of fact,
this road was there in 1899, when my grandfather, Ray O'Neal,
worked on one of the original small ferries that traveled from
Chelan to Stehekin.
Bottom line: This road to Cottonwood Camp, also known as
the ``Upper Stehekin Valley Road,'' has existed since the 19th
century.
As a result of the 2003 flood, the National Park Service
did an environmental assessment on the Upper Stehekin Valley
Road in 2006. Ninety percent of those who gave comments
supported the road to Cottonwood Camp staying open.
The most viable option was Alternative D. Alternative D
would move the small portion of the 12-mile road that
continually washes out to where the pioneers built the road in
the 19th century, away from the meandering Stehekin River, a
common-sense solution to move that section to the ``old wagon
road.''
The National Park Service, however, concluded that they did
not have the authority to move the section of the road, as
proposed in Alternative D of the 2006 environmental assessment,
due to the constraints of the Washington Parks Wilderness Act.
With all due respect to the National Park Service, Mr.
Chair, I am shocked and quite disappointed at the National Park
Service's testimony against this bill. As recent as August 8,
2008, the Olympic National Park General Management Plan was
approved by a record of decision signed by Regional Director
John Jarvis and subsequently published in the Federal Register
on November 12, 2008.
My written testimony states the exact language used for
Olympic National Park and, due to the previous comments, I will
read it: ``If the road relocation away from the river meander
areas is feasible, wilderness boundary modifications would be
sought as necessary with no net loss of total Olympic National
Park wilderness acreage.''
I ask you, Mr. Chair, and Members of the Committee, why,
when wilderness areas, by law, were added from Mount Rainier,
Olympic, and the North Cascades Parks all at the same time, are
different management standards allowed? This is nothing short
of disparate treatment and unequal application of the law.
I support H.R. 2806 because it would restore access to
rustic park facilities and scenic wilderness areas within the
North Cascades National Park. A visitor to Stehekin could once
again access the wilderness trails in a weekend.
I support H.R. 2806 because it enables the intent of the
original co-sponsors of the bill, former three-term Washington
State Governor and United States Senator Daniel J. Evans and
the late U.S. Senator Brock Adams; that is to say, it was their
intent to maintain a recreational-access corridor in the
designated wilderness area within the North Cascades National
Park. Former Senator Dan Evans has provided written testimony.
I also support H.R. 2806 because it would allow the
National Park Service to remain in compliance with the 1995
general management plan for the Lake Chelan National Recreation
Area, which calls for the road to Cottonwood Camp to remain
open.
I also would be supportive of a narrower version of H.R.
2806, which could clearly state that, notwithstanding any other
provision of the law, the National Park Service shall build the
road consistent with Alternative D of the Upper Stehekin Valley
Road environmental assessment of 2006.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, Senator Evans stated, when he
introduced the legislation in 1988, and I quote, ``What the
bill would not do is keep the park visitors shut out of the
park. All of the existing transportation and development
corridors would be excluded from wilderness designation.''
``Stehekin'' means ``the way through.'' It is time to
reopen the way through. Congress should recognize this
historic, grandfathered access to the Upper Stehekin Valley,
just as Senator Evans envisioned, so that we can maintain, and
even increase, the number of citizens and taxpayers who will
appreciate and protect this magnificent park. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I welcome questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Parlette follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Linda Evans Parlette,
Washington State Senator, 12th Legislative District, on H.R. 2806
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to offer testimony on H.R. 2806,
a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary
of the Stephen Mather Wilderness and North Cascades National Park in
order to allow the rebuilding of a road outside of the Stehekin River
floodplain. This adjustment would ensure that there would be no net
loss of acreage to the park and wilderness.
For the record, my name is Linda Evans Parlette. I am the
Washington State Senator for the 12th Legislative District in North
Central Washington. I represent all of Chelan and Douglas counties, as
well as a portion of both Grant and Okanogan counties. My district
includes the community of Stehekin, the Lake Chelan Recreation Area and
the North Cascade National Park. My legislative district is part of the
4th and 5th Washington State Congressional Districts.
Stehekin is a tiny community located at the West end of Lake
Chelan, a glacier fed natural lake--the largest in Washington state,
and the 7th largest in the United States. The Stehekin landing can be
reached only by boat, float plane, or spending two or three days hiking
in.
My grandfather, Ray O'Neal's first job when he came to Chelan in
1899 was working on the small ferry from Chelan to Stehekin. My family
still has the small, original rustic cabin my grandfather built in
Stehekin beyond Company Creek; we have long enjoyed our unique Stehekin
heritage.
The primitive road to Cottonwood Camp existed prior to the creation
of the North Cascades National Park in 1968 and the Washington Parks
Wilderness Act of 1988(PL 100-668). The Cottonwood Camp Road was built
over 100 years ago in the late 1800s.
I support H.R. 2806 because it would restore access to rustic park
facilities and scenic wilderness areas within the North Cascade
National Park. It would also provide legislative clarity to the intent
of the Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL 100-668); and assure
the National Park Service (NPS) is consistent in their road management
practices within the wilderness areas in the Olympic, Mount Rainer, and
North Cascade National Parks.
I am also supportive of H.R. 2806 because it enables the intent of
the original co-sponsors, former U.S. Senator Daniel J. Evans and the
late U.S. Senator of the 1988 Washington Parks Wilderness Act that
designated wilderness within this magnificent National Park. That is to
say, it was their intent to maintain a recreational access corridor in
the designated wilderness area within the North Cascades National Park.
H.R. 2806 would also allow the National Park Service (NPS) to remain in
compliance with the 1995 General Management Plan for the Lake Chelan
National Recreation Area, which calls for the road to Cottonwood Camp
to remain open.
I would also be supportive of a narrower version of H.R. 2806 which
could clearly state that notwithstanding any other provision of law;
the National Park Service shall build the road consistent with
Alternative D of the Upper Stehekin Valley Road Environmental
Assessment of 2006. I will elaborate on this possibility later in this
testimony.
Restoring Access to Park Facilities and Wilderness Areas:
In the 1995 General Management Plan for the Lake Chelan Recreation
Area, the National Park Service (NPS) ``Proposed Action'' calls for
maintaining vehicular access to Cottonwood Camp. Shortly after adoption
of this plan in 1995, the Stehekin River flooded causing a half mile
section of the road to washout between Glory and Cottonwood Camp.
1995 Flood
Since the Stehekin River is glacial fed, the main channel meanders
from one side of the canyon to the other, and then back again, over
time. In 1995, the river was literally flowing right down the road for
about a half mile. The NPS could not repair it within the ``Non
Wilderness Corridor'', but knew that, over time, the river would
eventually move out of the corridor once again. The NPS made the
commitment to have their geomorphologist monitor the river at this
location every year and, as soon as it showed signs of moving away from
the ``Non Wilderness Corridor'' re-establish the road again.
The NPS felt this decision was appropriate in that: 1) the NPS
committed to rebuild the road within the ``Non Wilderness Corridor''
when it was physically possible; 2) the NPS only shortened the road by
2.5 miles; 3) this ``shortening'' only added about two hours to what
had been a day hike from Cottonwood Camp or one hour to a trip over
Cascade Pass; and 4) vehicular traffic to the Bridge Creek/Flat Creek
Trailheads were still viable.
2003 Flood
In 2003 a five hundred year flooding event struck the Stehekin
River. This resulted in extensive damage to private property within the
community of Stehekin, severe damage to roads and other National Park
Service infrastructure within Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, and
unprecedented damage to the Upper Stehekin Valley Road within the North
Cascades National Park.
The Stehekin community, with the assistance from Chelan County, the
Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Parks Service repaired
virtually all damage to infrastructure within the Lake Chelan National
Recreation Area and the Lower Stehekin Road; however, the Upper
Stehekin Valley Road remained impassable above Car Wash Falls.
The Cottonwood Camp Road, also referred to as the Upper Stehekin
Valley Road, runs approximately 12.8 Miles from the National Park-
National Recreation Area boundary at High Bridge to the Cottonwood
Camp. The road remains impassable above Car Wash Falls; which is
located approximately 12.9 miles from the Stehekin Landing and just 1.7
miles above High Bridge.
The Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL 100-668), which
establishes the Stephen Mather Wilderness Area, provides for a 100 foot
wide (50 feet from either side of the centerline of the Road as it
existed at the time of the Act) non-wilderness corridor to accommodate
this Cottonwood Camp Road. This was done in recognition of the
traditional and vital role that this road plays in providing access to
exceptional day hikes and fishing opportunities in the Upper Stehekin
Valley.
The Wilderness area overlays 93 % of the North Cascades National
Park complex. The Park complex is comprised of three park units: the
North Cascade National Park, the Ross Lake National Recreation Area and
the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. The Road falls within the
North Cascade National Park unit.
The Act also created non-wilderness enclaves designated around the
facilities at Bridge Creek and Cottonwood Camp. These enclaves were
designated in recognition of the existing development and the potential
for future expanded primitive development in these areas.
To facilitate visitor access to the Upper Valley, the National Park
Service developed a shuttle system utilizing the primitive road
corridor in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and the North
Cascade National Park to allow more day hikes, rather than overnight
stays, into areas like Horseshoe Basin, Trapper Lake, Flat Creek, Goode
Ridge and many others. The shuttle use in the Upper Stehekin Valley
(above High Bridge) was approximately 2,500 people per year, based upon
National Park Service ridership figures. This ridership included day
visitors, people that used the campgrounds along the road, and hikers
going and coming from trailheads. It is estimated that an addition 500
to 800 people also utilized private vehicles on this road to access
facilities in the park. Without vehicular access, it now takes three to
four days to access trailheads in the Upper Stehekin Valley. This, of
course, excludes access by those who are not physically capable of such
long treks or do not have that much time.
As a result of the 2003 flood, the National Park Service undertook
an Environmental Assessment on the Upper Stehekin Valley Road. As
required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the NPS looked at
all ``reasonable alternatives'' to mitigate the damage caused to the
road. They came up with four alternatives: Alternative A--No Action;
Alternative B--Permanently close Stehekin Valley Road Above Car Wash
Falls; Alternative C--Reconstruct the Stehekin Valley Road from Car
Wash Falls to Glory and, Alternative D--Reroute the Stehekin Valley
Road from Car Wash Falls to Bridge Creek and from Glory to Cottonwood
Camp.
The National Park Service solicited public comment on all purposed
``reasonable alternatives'' for the Upper Stehekin Valley road and out
of the 251 people who provided input: 37 supported Alternative D, and
178 supported a ``new'' alternative--a variation of Alternative C of
rebuilding the road within the non-wilderness corridor not considered
in the EA. Here is the point: Nearly ninety percent of those commenting
wanted the road to Cottonwood Camp to remain open.
The closure of the Upper Valley Stehekin Road has had a negative
effect on the economic viability of the Stehekin Community by limiting
access to trailheads and rustic park facilities. It has also created a
safety concern for valley residents and visitors.
With an impassible road above Car Wash Falls, vehicular access to
multiple trailheads for recreational purposes, as well as fire and
safety purposes, is impossible. In addition to trail access being
diminished, there are a significant number of visitor facilities at
Bridge Creek that used to be accessible by vehicle. These facilities
include: a campground, corral, Ranger Patrol Cabin, National Register
listed historic public shelter, pit toilets, and an emergency cabin
maintained by Chelan County Public Utility District. There is also a
six site campground and pit toilets at Cottonwood Camp that use to be
accessible by vehicle.
Although Alternative ``D'' was considered a reasonable alternative
and received a great deal of support, it was not selected as the
``preferred'' alternative due to the interpretation of the Washington
Park Wilderness Act of 1988. If adopted, it would have relocated the
current road corridor in two locations and utilize what is called the
old ``Wagon Road''. This is the location that the pioneers created in
the first place as it is on higher and safer ground, away from the
meandering Stehekin River. This ``Old Wagon Road'' should enjoy
grandfathered status. The ``Old Wagon Road'' is located from MP 12.7 to
MP 15.3 (0.6 miles south of Bridge Creek) and from MP 20.8 to MP 22.8.
Ultimately, the NPS chose Alternative B: permanently close Stehekin
Valley Road above Car Wash Falls, as their ``preferred'' alternative
stating, ``the constraints of the Washington Parks Wilderness Act
(Public Law 100-668) compound the problem of retaining motorized
access.''
Clarification of Legislative Intent and Authority:
The Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL 100-668) did not
include any additional provisions about maintaining roads in the event
of a severe flood or natural catastrophe. Therefore, the NPS stated it
believed there is nothing in the law that would indicate Congress
intended for the NPS to maintain the Upper Stehekin Road when
confronted with substantial damages caused by flood.
I am privileged to know one of the original co-sponsors of the
Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL 100-668), former United
States Senator and three-term Washington State Governor, Daniel J.
Evans. We have spoken often about the ``Road to Cottonwood'' issue and
the intent of this legislation.
When introducing the Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL
100-668), former Senator Daniel J. Evans stated in the Congressional
record, ``What the bill would not do is to keep the park visitors shut
out of the park. All of the existing transportation and development
corridors would be excluded from wilderness designation.'' The
legislative history of the Wilderness Act speaks specifically to
maintaining the essential recreational corridors (the roads) when
designating wilderness in Mount Rainer, Olympic and the North Cascades
National Park.
In his July 8th, 2009 written testimony to you, Senator Evans
reiterates the importance of these transportation corridors and the
need to clarify the intent of the Washington Park Wilderness Act of
1988 (PL 100-668) to keep these corridors open to vehicle
transportation as a means to insure access to recreational areas in our
wilderness National Parks. He states:
``I believe very strongly that continued protection of our
wilderness National Parks depends on the active support of
visitors, hikers, and climbers who act as champions of our
National Parks. If we make access substantially more difficult
we reduce the number of visitors and ultimately the number of
citizens and taxpayers who know enough about these parks to
want to protect them.''
I believe direction is needed to provide consistent management
standards to the National Park Service for the recreational corridors
that provide access to facilities and pristine wilderness areas. H.R.
2806 is a reasonable step in this process. This is especially true
since the NPS road management policies are inconsistent in their
application to wilderness created under the Washington Park Wilderness
Act of 1988 (PL 100-668).
Road Management Practices:
As recently as August 8th, 2008, the Olympic National Park General
Management Plan was approved through a Record of Decision (ROD) signed
by Regional Director Jon Jarvis and subsequently published in the
federal register on November 12, 2008. With respect to roads, the ROD
states: ``Road access will be maintained to existing front county areas
for resource protection, river restoration, and/or maintain vehicular
access. Wilderness boundaries may be adjusted along roads to allow
continued road access into the park; however, there will be no net loss
of wilderness acreage.''
This Record of Decision implies the National Park Service has
already made a commitment to pursue options within wilderness
designated under the Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL 100-
668) to maintain road corridors with a no net loss of wilderness
approach! The current NPS opposition to H.R. 2806 is inconsistent and
arbitrary when compared to the General Management Plan for the Olympic
National Park that calls for adjusting wilderness boundaries to allow
continued road access within the Park.
Additionally, their choice of wording in the reference to ``front
country areas'' is confusing as, in many cases, these roads, run as a
corridor through wilderness before reaching a trailhead facility and/or
camping area, such as the Hoh road in the Olympic National Park and the
Upper Stehekin Road in the North Cascade National Park.
The Record of Decision for Olympic National Park and its suggested
``no net loss of wilderness'' approach to the adjustment of wilderness
boundaries along roads that provide access to facilities and trailheads
creates a philosophical and management conflict with respect to these
essential recreational corridors when compared to the current NPS
position on the Stehekin Valley Road.
Specifically this conflict is highlighted by the following language
found in the Olympic National Park General Management Plan:
``If road relocation away from river meander areas is feasible,
wilderness boundary modifications would be sought as necessary,
with no net loss of total Olympic National Park wilderness
acreage.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask this simple question: how can the National Park
Service adopt a Record of Decision supporting boundary adjustments
along roads which wash out due to river meandering in the Olympic
National Park yet so strongly oppose adoption of the identical approach
with respect to the Stehekin Valley Road within the North Cascades
National Park?
This inconsistency is amplified when one considers The General
Management Plan for Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, produced by
the National Park Service in 1995, which reconfirmed the importance of
maintaining road access to Cottonwood Camp. After several years of
dialogue, debate, and threatened law suits, the General Management Plan
(GMP) ``Proposed Action'' specifically called for maintaining vehicular
access to Cottonwood Camp:
``The Stehekin Valley road between the Landing and Harlequin
Bridge would remain a two-lane paved road; from Harlequin
Bridge to 9-Mile, it would become a single-lane, paved road
with pullouts; from 9-Mile to High Bridge, a single-lane,
gravel road; and from High Bridge to Cottonwood, a heavy-duty,
high-clearance shuttle vehicle road.
Unconstrained private vehicle use would end at High Bridge.
Private vehicle use from High Bridge to Bridge Creek would be
allowed, but traffic flow would be regulated by season of year
and/or hour of day. Public shuttle service would be provided
from the Landing to Cottonwood. Only the public shuttle
service, hikers, horses, and bicycles would be allowed to use
the road from Bridge Creek to Cottonwood. The National Park
Service would seek a concessioner to replace the NPS-operated
public shuttle service. Frequency of shuttle service would
increase over the current rate. Fare structure would provide
discounts for frequent and local public shuttle users.''
Given the reasonable, no net loss of wilderness, approach used in
H.R. 2806, I simply cannot understand why the National Park Service
opposes legislation that would allow it to conform to the lengthy and
expensive planning process they undertook in 2006.
The standard for wilderness management within National Parks should
be the same. Allowing for different interpretations is a travesty with
respect to maintaining access corridors in wilderness areas within
National Parks which invites ridicule of the National Park Service and
fosters disrespect for government. After all, citizens are entitled to
``equal protection'' under the law.
The language in the 2006 Upper Stehekin Valley Road Environmental
Impact Statement itself more accurately describes that the National
Park Service would seek legislative authority to move the wilderness
boundaries consistent with a ``no net loss'' approach. Bottom line, the
NPS should have clear Congressional direction on how damage to
recreational corridors within designated wilderness should be mitigated
when caused by natural disaster. This will assure the same standards
are applied to all designated wilderness.
Conclusion:
Congress should clarify the Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988
(PL 100-668) to provide the National Park Service with clear direction
as to their authority when faced with the need to repair recreational
corridors or roads which are altered by natural disasters. I believe
H.R. 2806 is a reasonable approach to providing the clarity needed for
the Upper Stehekin Valley Road. I would also be supportive of a policy
that would provide clarification for all wilderness dedicated under the
Washington Parks Wilderness Act of 1988 (PL 100-668), which calls for a
no net loss acreage to the parks and wilderness.
Alternative Approach
I would also be supportive of a narrower version of H.R. 2806,
which could clearly state that notwithstanding any other provision of
law; the National Park Service shall build the road consistent with
Alternative D of the Upper Stehekin Valley Road Environmental
Assessment.
You are not being asked to ``guess'' at the costs or the
environmental impacts of adopting H.R. 2806. The work has been done.
If Congress were to direct the National Park Service to implement
Alternative ``D'', the estimated implementation costs have been laid
out in the Findings of No Significant Impact for the Upper Stehekin
Valley Road Car Wash Falls (MP 12.9) to Cottonwood Camp (MP 22.8) North
Cascades NPS Complex:
``This alternative [Alternative D] would take two to three
years to implement, and the estimated cost of implementation is
$1,339,075. Under this alternative, the estimated cost of
routine, annual road and trail maintenance is $13,968.''
The NPS hired the Wenatchee National Forest Road Engineering
Department to flag the new road route to complete this estimate and
provide the exact location of the re-route. The Environmental
Assessment was done in a manor to allow direct implementation of
Alternative ``D'', should Congress provide the legislative authority
without further study.
There are two advantages in directing the National Park Service to
reopen the road to Cottonwood Camp in a manor congruent to Alternative
``D.'' First of all, the road between Car Wash Falls and Bridge Creek
would actually be approximately 0.2 miles shorter than the segment it
would replace (2.2 vs. 2.4 miles; 3.2 vs. 3.5 acres), which would
result in a gain in wilderness.
The second advantage is that by moving this portion of the road
back to its original location, it would eliminate the potential for
future damage and associated repair costs. It is ironic that the 19th
Century Pioneers were truly wiser when they built the historic ``Mine-
to Market Road'' on higher ground to avoid conflicts with floods, a
road that also allowed visitors of the Field's Hotel to access the
majestic cirque of cascading waterfalls at Horseshoe Basin. This road
needs to return to being the ``gateway to wilderness'' in the North
Cascades National Park.
Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my testimony I mentioned my
grandfather. I am so lucky to have parents who will celebrate 65 years
of marriage on September 3rd. My Dad, an 86-year-old World War II
Marine, continues to fish in the Stehekin River with my Sons every
summer. He no longer can access the fishing holes in the Upper Stehekin
Valley as walking that many miles in a day is no longer possible. He
hopes to live long enough to see the road reopened.
The word Stehekin means ``the way through.'' It is time--To Reopen
``The Way Through.'' Congress should recognize this historic,
grandfathered access to the Upper Stehekin Valley just as Senator Evans
envisioned, so that we can maintain and even increase the number of
citizens and taxpayers who will appreciate and protect this magnificent
park.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and this concludes my
testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions.
Appendix
Figure A1. Project Area-Upper Stehekin Valley Road FONSI 8/17/2006
Figure A2. Upper Stehekin Valley Road EA Pg. 204, A1--Slide Damage at
Car Wash Falls
Figure A3. Upper Stehekin Valley Road EA Pg. 205, A2--Landslide at MP
15 in 2003
Figure A4. Upper Stehekin Valley Road EA Pg. 206, A3--Road Reroute
(Alternative D)
Figure A5. Upper Stehekin Valley Road EA Pg. 207, A4--Road Reroute
(Alternative D)
Figure A6. National Park Service Shuttle Bus on the Stehekin Valley
Road, Stehekin School Children Hiking in North Cascades
National Park
Figure A7. Horseshoe Basin, North Cascades National Park
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Commissioner Doug England, Chelan County
Commissioner, on H.R. 2806. Mr. Commissioner.
STATEMENT OF DOUG ENGLAND, CHELAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON
Mr. England. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Doug England, Commissioner, Chelan County,
Washington. Thank you for making this hearing possible and to
Congressman Hastings for introducing this important legislation
for the people of our county.
Fully 80 percent of our county is owned and controlled by
the Federal government. With a population of just over 70,000
the county's residents are joined by visitors from all over the
world to ensure that it is unique and see its unique beauty.
Historically, one of the most special places of all is the
Stehekin Valley in the North Cascades National Park.
Since it became known that this Committee would hold this
hearing, I have received a surge of calls reflecting
frustration that no one is listening to our plea for common
sense. Thank you, Congressman Hastings, for listening.
The comments that I hear are all strikingly similar. Please
allow my children and those not blessed with the time or the
ability to share my experience of this beautiful valley.
Let me draw heavily upon an editorial in the Yakima Herald
Republic written by Scott Sandberry to tell their story. It
tells of a huge photograph of Horseshoe Basin that hung for
years in the Stehekin Valley. Visitors marveled at the picture
and then would ask for directions to see for themselves the
area once described in a 1960 Sierra Club documentary film as a
``crown jewel of America's scenic grandeur.''
They do not ask that now. The photograph has been taken
down. Locals got tired of having to tell visitors that unless
they could don a backpack for a 30-mile round trip, they could
no longer get to Horseshoe Basin or, for that matter, to a
myriad of other back-country destinations.
In the language of the native Indians, ``Stehekin'' meant
``the way through,'' but, in October of 2003, a 500-year flood
washed out the Stehekin Valley Road, which, a century earlier,
had gone nearly to Horseshoe Basin, ``dead-ending,'' to quote
that same 1960 film, ``in paradise.'' Now, it ends at a rather
nondescript stop sign just 13 miles up the river.
Now, the National Park Service has opted to abandon the
road upriver from that point, less than two miles into the park
and the Stephen Mather Wilderness. Without that road, this
doorway to heaven is already experiencing a dramatic drop in
visitors using local transportation and the few struggling
businesses that have found a home here. The firefighting crews
have also lost access to fight the catastrophic wildfire they
fear will be given birth within the park and roar into their
world as a full-grown monster.
Maintaining the way through requires only common sense.
Parallel to the washed-out section runs the road's original
route, safely up slope from the river. Called the ``old wagon
road,'' it became part of the Pacific Crest Trail when the
Civilian Conservation Corps replaced it with the road along the
river.
The solution if obvious: For those two and a half miles,
simply reroute the main corridor to the old wagon trail and
trade the Pacific Crest Trail back to the river, where a trail
would be far easier to maintain.
Mr. Chairman, what is the National Park's response to our
plea? It is a flat-out no. The Stehekin Valley Road is bounded
on both sides by the Mather Wilderness that, according to the
National Park, cannot, and will not, be moved.
Again, the answer is simple: Change the law. There would be
no net loss of wilderness, the Pacific Crest Trail users get a
more beautiful route, and the 100-year-old, one-lane,
primitive, summer-only road that starts and stops in Stehekin
would be open. It is just common sense.
Most environmental experts agree that the old wagon trail
is where the corridor should have been in the first place. It
has been said that, throughout the world, there may be no place
else quite like Stehekin, but who will know? As one resident
puts it, ``It is like going to Disneyland and only getting to
ride the cup and saucer.''
Representative Hastings's bill reflects the common-sense
desire of the people of Washington State. It provides for
replacement of the washed-out road and nothing more. It does
not take away from the wilderness experience; it only enhances
it.
Mr. Chairman, as you listen to environmental groups asking
you to oppose this bill because replacing the Stehekin Road
``breaks precedent,'' ask yourself whether opposition to
common-sense solutions is not denying the next generation of
our children the same blessings that we enjoyed? They, too,
will be asked to defend the wilderness that today's
environmental groups claim to love, but if they never
experience that same wilderness, how can they be expected to
defend it?
It should be noted that this wilderness was named after the
first director of the National Park Service, who, and I quote,
``encouraged visitation to normally remote units of the system
to thereby create a base of public support with those who had
seen and gained a personal appreciation for them.'' It has been
proposed that this wilderness be enlarged. How can your
Committee ask for our support after this insult to Stehekin?
Mr. Chairman, as the people of my county ask for this
legislation to be passed, please remember the goodwill that
such an obvious, common-sense solution will provide to future
wilderness defenders. Thank you and thank you again,
Congressman Hastings and Members of the Subcommittee, for your
willingness to listen to our please for reason.
[The prepared statement of Mr. England follows:]
Statement of Doug England, Chelan County, Washington, on H.R. 2806
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Doug
England, Chelan County, Washington Commissioner. Thank you for making
this hearing possible and to Congressman Hastings for introducing
important legislation for the people of our county. By way of
background, Chelan County is nearly 3,000 sq. miles in size and
includes 126,140 acres of National Park, 1,284,374 million acres of
National Forest, and 20,891 acres of BLM lands. Fully 80% of our county
is owned and controlled by the federal government. After adding other
State and other Public Lands, only 13% of our land is privately owned.
Economically, Chelan County is largely dependent on agriculture and
tourism, providing the nation and world with over $2.6 Billion worth of
apples, pears, cherries and other tree fruit annually. With a
population of just over 70,000, the county's residents share vacation
destinations with a dramatic influx of our state's residents who live
west of the Cascade Mountains, joined by visitors from all over the
world to experience its unique culture and see its beauty.
Historically, one of the most special places of all is the Stehekin
Valley, in the North Cascades National Park.
Since it became known that this committee would hold this hearing,
I have received a surge of calls reflecting frustration about a ``deaf-
ear'' to local resident's pleas for action. Thank you, Congressman
Hastings, for listening. The comments my county and I hear are all
strikingly similar; ``...please restore my memories of the Upper
Stehekin Valley, and please allow my children and those not blessed
with the time or ability, to share my experience of this beautiful
valley...''
Let me draw heavily upon an editorial from the Yakima Herald
Republic, written by Scott Sandberry, to tell their story. It tells of
a huge photograph of Horseshoe Basin, a breath taking amphitheater of
North Cascade peaks, that hung for years in Stehekin. Visitors marveled
at the picture then would ask for directions to see for themselves the
area once described in a 1960 Sierra Club documentary film as ``a crown
jewel of America's scenic grandeur.''
They don't ask that now. The photograph has been taken down. Locals
got tired of having to tell visitors that, unless they were willing to
don a backpack for a 30 mile round trip, they could no longer get to
Horseshoe Basin. Or, for that matter, to a myriad of other back country
destinations, that Stehekin, itself--accessible only by plane, foot or
a 51 mile boat ride--had long been a portal.
In the language of the native Indians, Stehekin meant ``the way
through.'' But in October 2003, a 500-year flood washed out the
Stehekin Valley Road, which a century earlier had gone nearly to
Horseshoe Basin, dead-ending to quote that 1960 film, ``in paradise.''
Now it ends at a rather non-descript stop sign just 13 miles up river
at Car Wash Falls.
Now the National Park Service has opted to abandon the road up
river from that point, less than 2 miles into the Park and the Steven
Mather Wilderness. Without that road, this doorway to heaven is already
experiencing a dramatic drop in visitors using local transportation and
the few struggling businesses that have found a home here. The
firefighting crews have also lost access to fight the catastrophic
wildfire they fear will be given birth within the park and roar into
their world as a full grown monster.
Maintaining ``the way through'' requires only common sense.
Parallel to the washed out sections, runs the road's original route,
safely upslope from the river. Called the ``old wagon road'', it became
part of the Pacific Crest Trail when the Civilian Conservation Corp
crews replaced it with the road along the river.
The solution is obvious. For those 2 1/2 miles, simply reroute the
main corridor to the ``old wagon trail'' and trade the Pacific Crest
Trail back to the river, where a trail would be far easier to maintain.
Mr. Chairman, What is the National Park's response to our plea? It
is a flat out--``No.'' The Stehekin Valley Road, essentially a 100 foot
right of way, is bounded on both sides by the Mather Wilderness, that,
according to the National Park, cannot be moved.
Again, the answer is simple--change the law. There would be no net
loss of Wilderness, the Pacific Crest Trail users get a more beautiful
route; and the one-lane, primitive, summer road is open. It's just
common sense. Other National Parks have similar issues and were formed
with far less restrictive language. Most environmental protection
experts agree that the ``old wagon trail'' was where the corridor
should have been in the first place.
As one 83-year-old gentleman put it, ``the old road encouraged and
enabled visiting and hiking, even by people limited by time or without
well-honed physical abilities. It permitted one day access even by the
elderly and families. Being there has touched my soul deeply. I yearn
for the day when I can access it again.''
It has been said that throughout the world there may be no place
else quite like Stehekin, but who will know? As one resident put it,
``It's like going to Disneyland and only getting to ride the cup and
saucer.'' Stehekin deserves better than that.''
Representative Hastings' bill reflects the common sense desires of
the people of Washington State. It provides for replacement of the
washed-out road and nothing more. It does not take away from the
Wilderness experience, it enhances it for thousands who otherwise will
never see these lands.
Mr. Chairman, as you listen to environmental groups asking you to
oppose this bill because replacing the Stehekin road ``breaks
precedent'', ask yourself whether bull-headed opposition to common
sense solutions isn't denying the next generation of our children and
grand children the same blessings we enjoyed. They too will be asked to
defend the Wilderness and wilderness values that today's environmental
groups claim to love. But if they never experience that same
wilderness, how can they be expected to defend it.
It should be noted that this wilderness was named after the first
Director of the National Park Service, who, and I quote, ``encouraged
visitation to normally remote units of the system and thereby create a
base of public support...with those who had seen...and gained a
personal appreciation for them.'' It has been proposed that this
wilderness be enlarged. How can your committee ask for our support
after this insult to Stehekin?
Mr. Chairman, as the people of my county ask for this legislation
to be passed, please remember the good-will that such an obvious common
sense solution will provide to future would-be wilderness defenders.
Thank you and thank you again Congressman Hastings and members of
the Subcommittee for your willingness to listen to our plea for reason.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Martin Saffer, President, Pocahontas County Commission, on
H.R. 3113. Mr. Commissioner?
STATEMENT OF MARTIN V. SAFFER, PRESIDENT, POCAHONTAS COUNTY
COMMISSION, MARLINTON, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Saffer. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 3113, a bill to study a portion of the Elk River in
Pocahontas County, West Virginia, for potential inclusion in
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
At the outset, I want to recognize the important leadership
of Congressman Rahall in sponsoring this and many other
environmental measures which will have lasting value, enriching
and protecting the quality of American life and that of West
Virginians for decades to come.
As president of the Pocahontas County Commission, I am in a
unique position to speak to the importance of this legislation.
Our beautiful, rural county has been discovered and, as other
parts of this great United States, we are at a crossroads of
decision in arriving at a balanced use of our natural resources
which will best serve us into the future.
My first observation to you is that this portion of the Elk
River, having its birth in our yet-pristine county, is truly a
unique environmental resource. Its waters are cold and pure. It
is a trout fisherman's dream. Its banks are free of
development, and its waters lap a shoreline where beaver and
wilderness yet thrive. The Elk is an important part of our
beautiful landscape which draws many visitors and tourists who
walk in rich forests and wilderness and canoe and fish
unsullied streams and rivers.
Our county has developed a strong tourist industry which
weaves together many unparalleled elements unique to Pocahontas
County. The Cranberry Wilderness, together with recent
additions of Spice Run Wilderness, the Greenbrier River,
spectacular and tranquil state parks and forests, rolling
farms, serve as a panoramic backdrop to the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory, the Cass Railroad, and the Snowshoe Ski
Resort. This wealth of resources promises us a healthy and
growing economy into the future. However, the one caveat I see
is that, as a county, we must be true stewards to this abundant
gift.
This leading legislation by Chairman Rahall recognizes the
importance of stewardship of unique natural resources to ensure
a prosperous future. Frank Jezioro, the director of the West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources, has expressed his
support of a detailed study of the Upper Elk River. He hopes
that such a study will answer often-raised questions and
concerns about how any change in designation would impact
present landowners and the use of their land, as well as the
State of West Virginia, to manage, control, and regulate fish
and wildlife.
As Mr. Jezioro rightly pointed out to me in our recent
conversation concerning this bill, ``There is no way to put a
value on good, clean water,'' which, as he further stated, ``is
a resource central to sustain life.''
I believe that, as time goes on and as our world and
country and state become more crowded and congested, water will
become more valuable than oil.
Additionally, I want to express the support of the
Pocahontas County Convention and Visitors Bureau for this
legislation. Our county has over one million visitors a year,
an extraordinary economic stream for a county of just 9,000
residents. Tourism is a lasting and powerful economic engine,
and unique resources like the Elk River must not be taken for
granted. Our CVB president, Abbey Withrow, has said in a letter
of support to this legislation, ``With most of our attractions
being natural resources, it is imperative that we work to
protect them.'' The CVB sees this study as a ``step toward
protecting what is so important in our area.''
The simple truth in life is that one cannot have his cake
and eat it too. There are choices to be made, and the best
choices result from careful study of the facts before action is
taken. On behalf of Pocahontas County Commission, I urge this
Committee to confirm this wise legislative initiative of
Chairman Rahall and hope that the U.S. Congress enacts this
legislation which will begin the needed study of this unique
national and state resource.
For a healthy and strong America, there are certain basic
elements which must be preserved into the future. No
civilization can withstand the destruction of its forests or
pollution of its rivers and still survive intact. The Elk River
is a small but significant link in a chain of strength of
America. I urge this study of the Elk River, and I thank you
for allowing me to be here today, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saffer follows:]
Statement of Martin V. Saffer, President,
Pocahontas County Commission, on H.R. 3113
Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Subcommittee, for
this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3113, a Bill to study a
portion of the Elk River in Pocahontas County, West Virginia for
potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
At the outset, I want to recognize the important leadership of
Congressman Rahall in sponsoring this and many other environmental
measures which will have lasting value enriching and protecting the
quality of American life and that of West Virginians for decades to
come.
As President of the Pocahontas County Commission, I am in a unique
position to speak to the importance of this legislation. Our beautiful
rural County has been discovered and we are at a cross roads of
decision, as other parts of this great United States also find
themselves, in arriving at a balanced use of our natural resources
which will best serve us into the future.
My first observation to you is that this portion of the Elk River,
having its birth in our yet pristine County, is truly a unique
environmental resource. Its waters are cold and pure and it is a trout-
fisherman's dream. Its banks are free of development and its waters lap
a shoreline where beaver and wildlife yet thrive. The Elk is an
important part of our beautiful landscape which draws many visitors and
tourists who walk in rich forests and wilderness, and canoe and fish
unsullied streams and rivers.
Our County has developed a strong tourist industry which weaves
together many unparalleled elements unique to our County. The Cranberry
Wilderness together with the recent addition of Spice Run Wilderness,
the Greenbrier River, spectacular and tranquil State Parks and forests,
rolling farms, serve as panoramic backdrops to the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory, the Cass Railroad, and Snowshoe Ski Resort. This
wealth of resources promises us a healthy and growing economy into the
future. However, the one caveat I see is that as a County we must be
true stewards to these abundant gifts.
This leading legislation by Chairman Rahall recognizes the
importance of stewardship of unique natural resources to insure a
prosperous future. Frank Jezioro, the Director of the West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, has expressed his support of a
detailed study of the Upper Elk River. He hopes that such a study will
answer often raised questions and concerns about how any change in
designation would impact present landowners and use of their land as
well as the role of the State of West Virginia to manage, control and
regulate fish and wildlife. As Mr. Jezioro rightly pointed out to me in
our recent conversation concerning this bill, ``There is no way to put
a value on good clean water'' which, as he further stated ``is a
resource central to sustain life''. I believe that as time goes on and
as our world and country and state becomes more crowded and congested,
water will be more valuable that oil.
Additionally, I want to express the support of the Pocahontas
County Convention and Visitors Bureau for this legislation. Our County
has over one million visitors a year; an extraordinary economic stream
for a county of just 9,000 residents. Tourism is a lasting and powerful
economic engine and unique resources like the Elk River must not be
taken for granted. Our CVB President, Abbey Withrow, has said in a
letter of support of this legislation: ``With most of our attractions
being natural resources it is imperative that we work to protect
them.'' The CVB sees this study as ``step towards protecting what is so
important in our area.''
The simple truth in life is that one cannot have his cake and eat
it too. There are choices to be made and the best choices result from
careful study of the facts before action is taken. On behalf of the
Pocahontas County Commission, I urge this Committee to confirm this
wise legislative initiative of Chairman Rahall and hope that the United
States Congress enacts this legislation which will begin the needed
study of this unique national and state resource.
For a healthy and strong America, there are certain basic elements
which must be preserved into the future. No civilization can withstand
the destruction of its forests or pollution of its rivers and survive
intact. The Elk River is a small but significant link in a chain of
strength for America. I urge this study of the Elk. Thank you.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Thomas Shipley, the Sharp Farm. Sir?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS S. SHIPLEY, THE SHARP FARM, SLATYFORK, WEST
VIRGINIA
Mr. Shipley. Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share with
you the deep-rooted connection of our family with the Upper Elk
River. Her waters played a significant role in shaping our
pioneer past. They sustain us still in this present day and are
the foundation of our hopes and dreams for the future.
I am here to represent the descendants of the 1700's
pioneer settler, William Sharp. I am the eighth generation to
reside in Pocahontas County. My forefathers owned much of the
land on and around the proposed study area. Our holdings, over
time, have been reduced to somewhere around 1,800 acres, all in
the proximity of the Upper Elk River.
Our early log home was constructed along the bank at the
river's birth. The confluence of the spring-fed rapids of Old
Field Fork and Big Spring Fork forms a dramatic gateway that is
well described as ``a gift from God.''
A later log home was situated upstream near one of West
Virginia's largest cold-water springs. This 1800's structure
still stands. It was the host to Robert E. Lee on two occasions
during the Civil War. His first campaign as general of the
Confederate Army was through our valley.
My great, great-grandfather, Silas Sharp, was arrested in
this home as a spy by the Confederate Army. His little brother,
Luther, was killed in that skirmish. Silas spent two years in a
prison camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. A prisoner exchange
freed him. He walked home and appeared at the doorstep of his
fiancee, who did not recognize him.
Silas recovered, married, and had a family. His son, my
great-grandfather, L.D. Sharp, established Sharp's Country
Store in 1884. I own and operate the store today, a 125-year
example of living history.
The introduction of timbering in the early 1900's resulted
in the establishment of a small village, Slatyfork. The village
is mostly gone, but many folks still reside nearby and tell
intriguing stories of life on the river. Timbering remains a
tradition.
In 1926, the old Seneca Indian Trail was paved, and the
Seneca Highway brought many new people to the area. My great-
grandfather found that folks traveling had no place to stay. He
constructed numerous tourist cabins along the river. We have
family letters from the early 1900's documenting the fact that,
even in that day, folks were out touring the countryside in
appreciation of the natural beauty in those newfangled
contraptions called ``automobiles.''
Eco-tourism remains a strong and growing factor in the
Upper Elk River watershed. A well-kept secret, the Upper Elk is
known worldwide by a select group of anglers. From as far away
as Scotland, they make an annual pilgrimage to fish her waters.
The Upper Elk carries the unfortunate, but crucially important,
designation as one of the last places on the East Coast with
all three naturally reproducing [nonstocked] species of trout;
native brook, our state fish; rainbow, and brown.
The unique karst geology of fissured limestone acts as a
stage for a remarkable, dynamic system of springs and caves
that play an important role in the enjoyment of anglers,
spelunkers, and naturalists from all over the world. Our
pioneer family discovered many of these wonders, including
Sharp's Cave, a four-mile, two-story spectacle that hosts the
underground passage of the Big Spring Fork, including a
magnificent, underground waterfall.
Many of these natural gifts remain largely unexplored; in
the proposed study area, for example, an extraordinary cascade
of water from the surface of the Upper Elk River falling into
an abyss. This cave, which pirates away a portion of the above-
ground flow, is as dangerous as it is beautiful; thus,
unexplored as to its configuration and contribution to the
natural world.
A ``new'' species of crayfish was discovered on our farm.
It is one of only two crayfish known to be endemic to West
Virginia. It is not a burrower. It seeks shelter and breeds in
between the river rock. The Cambarus elkensis depends upon the
free flow of clean, cold water for its existence.
The river is largely now as it was. We thank Representative
Rahall for the introduction of this important legislation, as
it represents the will of the people of Pocahontas County to
preserve the river and the historic uses of her immediate
surroundings. Doing so will ensure its viability for the
benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
We offer our support and look forward to participating in
the creation of an Upper Elk River Management Plan that will
allow us to see designation of the Upper Elk River as ``wild
and scenic'' through to fruition. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shipley follows:]
Statement of Thomas A. Shipley, Sharp Farm,
Slatyfork, West Virginia, on H.R. 3113
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to share with you the deep-rooted connection of our family
with the Upper Elk River. Her waters played a significant role in
shaping our pioneer past. They sustain us still in this present day and
are the foundation of our hopes and dreams for the future.
I am here to represent the descendents of the 1700's pioneer
settler, William Sharp. I am the eighth generation to reside in
Pocahontas County. My forefathers owned much of the land on and around
the proposed area of study. Our holdings, over time, have been reduced
to somewhere around 1800 acres--all in the proximity of the Upper Elk
River.
Our early log home was constructed along the bank at the river's
birth. The confluence of the spring fed rapids of Old Field Fork and
Big Spring Fork forms a dramatic gateway that is well described as a
gift from God.
A later log home was situated, upstream, near one of West
Virginia's largest cold-water springs. This 1800's structure still
stands. It was the host to Robert E. Lee on two occasions during the
Civil War. His first campaign as general of the Confederate Army was
through our valley. My great, great grandfather, Silas Sharp, was
arrested in this home, as a spy, by the Confederate Army. His little
brother, Luther, was killed in that skirmish. Silas spent 2 years in a
prison camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. A prisoner exchange freed
him. He walked home and appeared at the doorstep of his fiance, who did
not recognize him.
Silas recovered, married and had a family. His son, (my great
grandfather) L.D. Sharp, established Sharp's Country Store in 1884. I
own and operate this store today, a 125-year example of Living History.
The introduction of timbering in the early 1900's resulted in the
establishment of a small village, Slatyfork. The village is mostly
gone, but many folk still reside nearby and tell intriguing stories of
life on the river. Timbering remains a tradition.
In 1926, the old Seneca Indian trail was paved and the Seneca
Highway brought many new people to the area. My great grandfather found
that folks traveling had no place to stay. He constructed numerous
tourist cabins along the river. We have family letters from the early
1900's documenting the fact that, even in that day, folks were out
touring the countryside in appreciation of the natural beauty in those
newfangled contraptions called automobiles.
Eco-tourism remains a strong and growing factor in the Upper Elk
River watershed. A well-kept secret, the Upper Elk is known worldwide
by a select group of anglers. From as far away as Scotland they make an
annual pilgrimage to fish her waters. The Upper Elk carries the
unfortunate, but crucially important designation as one of the last
places on the East Coast with all three naturally reproducing (non-
stocked) species of trout; Native Brook (our state fish), Rainbow and
Brown.
The unique karst geology (fissured limestone) acts as a stage for a
remarkable, dynamic system of springs and caves that play an important
role in the enjoyment of anglers, spelunkers and naturalists from
around the world. Our pioneer family discovered many of these wonders,
including Sharp's Cave--a four mile, two-story spectacle that hosts the
underground passage of Big Spring Fork, including a magnificent
underground waterfall. Many of these natural gifts remain largely
unexplored. In the proposed study area, for example, an extraordinary
cascade of water from the surface of the Upper Elk River falling into
an abyss. This cave, which pirates away a portion of the aboveground
flow, is as dangerous as it is beautiful; thus, unexplored as to its
configuration and contribution to the natural world.
A ``new'' species of crayfish was discovered on our farm. It is one
of only two crayfish known to be endemic to West Virginia. It is not a
burrower. It seeks shelter and breeds in-between the river rock. The
Cambarus Elkensis depends upon the free flow of clean, cold water for
its existence.
The river is largely, now, as it was. We thank Representative
Rahall for the introduction of this important legislation as it
represents the will of the people of Pocahontas County to preserve the
river and the historic uses of her immediate surroundings. Doing so
will ensure its viability for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations.
We offer our support and look forward to participating in the
creation of an Upper Elk River Management Plan that will allow us to
see designation of the Upper Elk River as ``Wild & Scenic'' through to
fruition.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gil Willis, H.R. 3113, welcome, sir. Your comments?
STATEMENT OF GIL WILLIS, SLATYFORK, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Willis. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Gil Willis,
and I am a business owner in Pocahontas County, West Virginia.
I would like to thank Congressman Rahall and the Subcommittee
Members for considering this study and providing the time to
hear our comments.
My wife and I have been in business in rural West Virginia
for 29 years. We currently provide 15 full- and part-time jobs
related to the outdoor-hospitality industry. In the winter,
this number doubles. This business is located on a 150-acre
family farm on the headwaters of the Elk River in Slatyfork. My
home and business is directly above the proposed study area.
Several of the springs that feed the upper section of the river
resurface in our yard and flow into the proposed study area.
I am here to express my support for the wild and scenic
study on the five miles of the upper section of the Elk River,
commonly referred to in today's hearing as the ``Slatyfork
section of the Elk.''
The Elk River is over 75 miles in length. It begins in our
remote mountain valley, then flows eventually into the Kanawha
River in Charleston, our state capital. Many small towns,
farms, and individual property owners rely on its clean water
for everyday use, not to mention the thousands of recreation
users who fish, hunt, camp, swim, hike, and float in the river
and along its banks.
This is only one of eight rivers which begins in Pocahontas
County, West Virginia. This region receives large amounts of
rain and snow which provides a large amount of pure drinking
water for this section of the Mid-Atlantic Region. Our upper
headwaters begin in thick, red spruce forests, reaching almost
5,000 feet. These waters then start a journey that takes them
into some of the most prized hardwood forests, home to hard
cherry, red oak, sugar maple, and many other species.
As the waters get closer to the valley floor, they become
small feeder streams which still provide a safe haven for
native brook trout. The valley floor is limestone. Over the
last several thousand years, it has carved large caves which
the river and its springs use to travel the upper reaches of
the watershed. This process, over time, has graced us with some
of the cleanest drinking water in the eastern U.S.
I like to think of this whole headwaters as a huge system,
both underground and on the surface. This system is connected
by surface water runoff and our unique underground springs and
caves. The water levels ebb and flow, depending on rainfall
amounts, snow, and the time of year.
Pocahontas County is over 65 percent Federal and state
owned and managed. These state and Federal lands include
wilderness, national forests, and state parks. Hopefully, a
wild and scenic study then designation in the future will
provide long-term, high-quality, outdoor experiences for our
state and county residents. It will also keep West Virginia
competitive with other outstanding natural areas in the country
while preserving our valuable resources. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willis follows:]
Statement of Gil Willis, Elk River Touring Center, Slatyfork, West
Virginia
Good Morning my name is Gil Willis I'm a business owner in
Pocahontas County West Virginia. I would like to thank Congressman
Rahall & the sub committee members for considering this study and
providing the time to hear our comments. My wife and I have been in
business 29 years. We currently provide 15 full and part time jobs
related to the outdoor hospitality industry. In the winter this number
doubles. This business is located on a 150 acre family farm on the
headwaters of the Elk River in Slatyfork. My home and business is
directly above the proposed study area. Several of the springs that
feed the upper section of the river resurface in our yard and flow into
the proposed study area. I am here to express my support for the a wild
& scenic study on 5 miles of the upper section of the Elk River
commonly referred to in today's hearing as the Slatyfork section of the
Elk.
The Elk River is over 75 miles in length. It begins in our remote
mountain valley then flows eventually into the Kanawha River in
Charleston our state capital. Many small towns, farms and individual
property owners rely on it clean water for everyday use. Not to mention
the thousands of recreation users who fish, hunt, camp, swim, hike and
float in the river and along its banks. This is only one of eight
rivers which begins in Pocahontas County West Virginia. This region
receives large amounts of rain and snow which provides a large amount
of pure drinking water for this section of the mid Atlantic region. Our
upper headwaters begin in thick red spruce forests reaching almost
5000ft. These waters then start a journey that takes them into some of
the most prized hardwood forests home to hard cherry, red oak, sugar
maple and many more species. As these waters get closer to the valley
floor they become small feeder streams which still provide a safe haven
for native brook trout. The valley floor is limestone. Over the last
several thousand years it has carved large caves which the river and
its spring use to travel the upper reaches of the watershed. This
process over time has graced us with some of the cleanest drinking
water in the eastern US.
I like to think of this whole headwaters area as a huge system both
underground and on the surface. This system is connected by surface
water runoff and our unique underground springs and caves. The water
levels ebb and flows depending on rainfall amounts, snow and the time
of year.
Pocahontas County is over 65 percent federal and state managed.
These state and federal lands include Wilderness, National Forest and
State parks. Hopefully a Wild & Scenic study then designation in the
future will provide long term high quality outdoor experiences for our
state and county residents. It will also keep West Virginia competitive
with other outstanding natural areas in the country while preserving
our valuable resources.
Thank You,
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
It is a curious situation. Here, you have Mr. Hastings, the
Ranking Member of the full Committee, and he has H.R. 2806, and
then, of course, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Rahall, has H.R. 3113, and if there is anything you learn in
Congress, it is discretion being the better part of sometimes,
so let me ask Mr. Adams some questions, if I may.
The National Park Service said that there had not been
enough progress going on with the foundation and, therefore,
your request for seven; they wanted to modify that to four.
Your reaction to that.
Mr. Adams. Sure. I think a couple of things first. We are
an entirely volunteer organization, started several years ago.
We had our original cooperative agreement signed by the
National Park Service in 2004, in April of 2004, which really
began our efforts as part of this process, and we subsequently
went through a lot of building out of board, looking at
different sites, hiring outside consultants, lawyers, urban
planners, et cetera. So we actually feel we have made
reasonably good progress.
In fact, we are now in the process of beginning our formal,
alternate-site study and our environmental assessment, which
will basically put us in a position to have a site in the 18-
to-24-months timeframe, which is functionally equivalent to
where other memorial projects have been in recent years. That
is Point No. 1.
Point No. 2: I think, as we look forward from here, it will
probably take us seven years to get it done. As I said before,
it will be 18 to 24 months to run through some of the site
studies, get a site, a couple of years for a capital campaign,
and then construction on the back end as well.
So I think that the number seven we have put out there is
because we think we can get it done in that period of time.
Certainly, a four-year process, we can get a good start, but,
frankly, we would probably come back to you looking for
additional legislation, at that point, to extend us out to
seven.
Mr. Grijalva. And significant challenges that you might
have faced during this effort that, in the legislation,
Congress could address some of those challenges in order to
make sure we are heading toward that so we can see it through
to completion because I agree with your comments that this is
something very significant that needs to be acknowledged
nationally. So if there are other challenges that you see that
the legislation could help expedite, if you have any comments
now or later.
Mr. Adams. Well, thank you very much, first of all. I think
we are in a good position right now with the processes that we
are on, as I mentioned before, the alternate site study and the
environmental assessment. That will carry us through for the
next 24 months, but we will go back and reflect upon that, and
if there are other things that we think are worthwhile to be
incorporated into the legislation, other comments, we will make
sure to work with the Committee and get them to you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Hastings? Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you. Let me thank the three gentlemen
that came from Pocahontas County, Marty, Tom and Gil. You did a
superb job, and I think you helped demonstrate what I said in
the beginning, that this legislation came from the grassroots
because your testimony today was, each of you, just superb. It
was written by you, not by my staff, the words and the
descriptions.
Tom, I have shared with the Committee your pictorial about
everything you said in your testimony and, Gil, before you came
in, while you were out fighting the traffic on I-66, I
discussed your place of business, your menu, and everybody is
just holding their breath until they can get there.
Mr. Shipley. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. It is great testimony that you all presented.
As you mentioned, Gil and all of you know, and certainly,
Marty, you, as a county commissioner in a county of which 65
percent of the land is Federally and state owned, which is
similar to many western states, of course, as we have heard and
as we know, what is your view of the local residents' position
on this? Do they view this land-ownership situation as a
benefit or as a liability?
Mr. Saffer. I think, Congressman Rahall, that many of the
county residents view it as a benefit. There is just a residue
from times past that perhaps they see it was something that
they do not like, but I would say with great confidence that
the majority of people in Pocahontas County are thankful that
we have such a vast reserve of asset in our county to sustain
us into the future because tourism has become the guiding
industry of tomorrow for us, and it will last indefinitely if
we are good stewards of it, and if we all work together to
understand its value.
It has not been the case in the past. In the past, we had
lumbering and that kind of thing, and farming, of course, we
still have farming and timber, but now we have tourism, and
that gets us to look afresh and anew at the wonderful forests
that we have and to place a renewed value and emphasis on that
great asset.
Mr. Rahall. So they are following what you have so
professionally led them to believe, that you can have the
economic development, and you can preserve our natural
resources, and they are both intertwined.
Mr. Saffer. Yes. I believe that the county is, because of
my election, an indication of the new perspective that people
are taking to this valuable industry. It is not only a valuable
industry, Congressman, but it is also a refreshing oasis for
the rest of the United States to come and understand our
connection to the natural world and to renew our spirit and to
renew the vigor of America to go forward into the future. So it
is that as well as an economic engine.
Mr. Grijalva. Tom or Gil, do either of you wish to comment?
Mr. Shipley. I would just reiterate Commissioner Saffer's
remarks. The statement that he made that he represents the new
will of the people is absolutely correct. The people of our
county are very aware of the Elk River, and they have joined
with many to become involved with the Upper Elk watershed, and
our community is forming a comprehensive watershed plan because
of certain instances that occurred in the last few years in our
county, and there has been just a swell of support for this
river, not just from some new people coming into the county who
come because of our natural beauty, but from the old-timers who
knew my great-grandfather because they cared about this river
before there was even a word coined called ``tourism.''
The people understand. They have an innate knowledge of
this river, and the support of our community is quite
overwhelming.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Gil?
Mr. Willis. I would like to add to that as time progresses,
we, as a county, are in a very unique situation there because
we are so largely managed and owned by Federal and state
forests, wilderness, parks. There are eight rivers that start
in Pocahontas County, so this one has a lot of limestone and
fluent springs, and a lot of this water goes underground, and
we really do not know where it ends up.
So we think that we are providing a percentage of the clean
water for the Mid-Atlantic. Most of our rivers flow to the
west, which is toward the western part of West Virginia and on
into Ohio, Kentucky, and points further downstream.
You know, 100 years ago, you did not think of yourself as,
or even 50 years ago, what you did in a headwaters county
affecting somebody that lives 30 or 50 or 100 miles downstream.
So I feel like because there are so many more people now and
West Virginia has grown up, and there is a lot of industry
there, we need to watch what we do for our neighbors downstream
because we are kind of in the nest of where all of this water
begins. So I think this study will help us understand better
what we have to work with on the Elk because the water quality
is very high there.
Mr. Rahall. Excellent. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That last discussion
on tourism in West Virginia was a good segue, I think, into
asking my constituents how important, because it was alluded to
several times by me and by Mrs. Napolitano from California, how
important to both of you is tourism to the economy in Chelan
County and probably, specifically, today, to Stehekin? I will
ask either Commissioner England or Senator Parlette or both.
Mr. England. Tourism is the only economy in Stehekin. It is
a small community. It is the gateway to the National Park
System. Without access to that road, they have no economy.
There has been a dramatic drop in visitors, both using the
amenities that are there and the amenities that were there
before that happened.
Chelan County itself is undergoing the same stresses that
the rest of the Nation is undergoing. It is part of a three-
legged stool, and tourism is one of the most important ones and
the only one that is holding its own now and, as we struggle to
do that, if we do things that inhibit that source of income, it
will have an even more critical effect on the county itself.
Mr. Hastings. Senator Parlette?
Ms. Parlette. Yes. I would elaborate the same thing. The
visitors who now go to Stehekin, perhaps if they stay in the
area one night, and then they are backpackers and go out of the
valley, that is a different type of a visitor than what we have
had before. We have so little time these days to recreate. The
advantage of having the road reopened is, in a weekend, you
could go to Stehekin and then get up to the end of the road and
access the wilderness, come back out, and get back home to work
on Monday morning. That is a really important thing to
remember.
I would also like to clarify for people, the road that
starts at Stehekin that goes up at High Bridge--that is about
12 miles--that is the Lake Chelan National Recreational Area.
The road that we are talking about, the remainder 12 miles,
is into the North Cascades National Park. It is only a 12-mile
road with just a small section of it being washed out.
I would like to add, as far as the tourism part, as the
commissioner said, that is the economic backbone, along with
the agricultural base, that is really changing in Chelan
County. So this is a really important piece of legislation.
Mr. Hastings. If I may, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the
ironies that come up. These are the unintended consequences of
developing something to preserve for the future, which is
exactly why the North Cascades were formed back in the sixties
and the wilderness area in 1988, the late eighties, was for
people to go up there and enjoy the public lands.
So here we have a situation. These are the unintended
consequences that I know you hear me talk about a lot of times.
We want to have that, we want to preserve it for people to
enjoy, on the one hand, which is positive. On the other hand,
then, you have the same people that are administering the land
saying, ``No, we cannot,'' for a reason that does not make
sense because it is contrary to what the intent of Congress
was, as pointed out in Senator Evans's letter.
Let me pursue, Senator Parlette, what you were alluding to,
as far as the timeframe here. Now, the issue really is getting
up to other camps above, like Cottonwood camp above. How much
longer, and you may have touched on this in your previous
remarks, but how much longer is that, if we do not repair that
road, and the consequences, from a time standpoint, of getting
into the wilderness area?
Ms. Parlette. Well, the road through the North Cascades
National Park starts at High Bridge, so from High Bridge to
Cottonwood is about 12 miles. If you go to Cottonwood, that is
the access point for multiple, multiple trails into the
wilderness, not into the Lake Chelan Recreational Area, but
into the wilderness.
My husband and I, several times, have hiked from Cottonwood
up to the North Cascade Highway and back in one day. That is 18
miles. You can do that, but you cannot start at High Bridge,
hike 12 miles, and then do an additional 18 miles in one day.
My parents, this year, will celebrate 65 years of marriage.
They live in Lake Chelan. My father is an 86-year-old, World
War II Marine. He still goes to Stehekin every summer with my
sons to fish. He no longer can access the area that he grew up
fishing in because of his age. I mean, it just does not make
sense.
Mr. Hastings. Well, again, the idea was to have access to
the area which would promote tourism, but because of, at least
in this case, testimony we are hearing from the Park Service,
they do not want to do it, for a variety of reasons that,
frankly, I do not comprehend.
Let me ask one thing. You talk about the old road. This
legislation does not specify which road, simply to do a study
and to come up with a solution to have a permanent road up
there. So I think you touched on this, Senator Parlette, but
how long has that road, just to refresh my memory, been going
through the Stehekin Valley?
Ms. Parlette. Since the 19th century, way back in the
1800's.
Mr. Hastings. Let me think. That was before there was a
National Park. Is that correct?
Ms. Parlette. Yes. It became a National Park in 1968. The
Wilderness Act passed in 1988. As I told you before, my
grandfather, in 1899, came to Chelan, and his first job was
working on the original ferry that went from Chelan to
Stehekin. That road was there before my grandfather got there
in 1899.
As far as the work to be done, sir, if you read, on my
written testimony, page 6, it talks about an alternative
approach. The study has already been done. It is not very often
that somebody comes to you, ``I am not asking for any money for
a study. It has been done.''
Alternative D, which is the option that proposes moving the
road; it is all laid out. The Park Service hired the National
Forest Service in Wenatchee to flag it. All of the work has
been done, and the $1.3 million to get this all done is 2006
figures. In this day and age, when we have a recession, we are
finding our bids, when we go out to bid in state and county
projects, turn out to be less.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, both of you, for coming
back here and, again, for the courtesy of the Committee to
allow that time period so we could get witnesses' talk.
I just want to end my remarks by contrasting two different
bills in two different parts of the country and the unintended
consequences that come when you do not have that local control
that you would like to have, and that is the issue really here
with the Stehekin Road, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rahall [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. You have
made such a compelling case, as well as your constituents and
my constituents. We will mark up both of these bills on
September 10th. Is that agreeable with the Ranking Member?
Mr. Hastings. Well, I would rather do it tomorrow, but
September 10th will be fine.
Mr. Rahall. The gentlelady from Wyoming.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no way that
a Member from Wyoming can do justice in her questions to the
issues that the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman
from Washington have with regard to their constituency, but I
might ask the folks from West Virginia, are the private
property owners aware, and the local residents aware, of the
potential designation? What steps have been taken to inform
them of the potential designation?
Mr. Saffer. I will speak briefly to that. The local people
who are in the area are very largely in favor of the study and,
as a county commissioner, I welcome the concept of the study
because, in our county, we need to have a dialogue and to build
a strong consensus for the future of our county, and the study
will enable us to speak to all of these issues.
Some concerns, I believe, exist because people do not know
enough, at this beginning point, exactly what the study will
entail, and so, as we move forward in the process, if the
Congress will enact this legislation, I believe it will be very
helpful for us to frame the issues and to deal intelligently
with this wonderful resource.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, thank you kindly, and I would just hope
that, during the course of your study, that you will consider
taking some wild horses from Wyoming into your West Virginia
watershed and, with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I thank you
kindly. I yield back.
Mr. Rahall. Doc, did you have any more questions? No?
Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you so much for taking the
time and traveling the long distances you have to be with us
and, again, we thank all of you for your testimony and the
really deep insight you have given us into your respective
areas. We appreciate it and, with that, the Subcommittee will
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]