[Senate Hearing 112-214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-214
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 264 S. 888 S. 265 S. 925 S. 324 S. 970 S. 764 S. 1063 S. 864 S. 1134 S. 883
__________
JULY 28, 2011
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-460 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia DEAN HELLER, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware BOB CORKER, Tennessee
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Coons, Hon. Christopher A., U.S. Senator From Delaware........... 33
Franken, Hon. Al, U.S. Senator From Minnesota.................... 8
Harycki, Ken, Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN...................... 35
Hession, Jack, Member, Executive Committee, Alaska Chapter,
Sierra Club.................................................... 42
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 27
Johnson, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin................... 13
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator From Minnesota................. 9
O'Dell, Peggy, Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior................................................ 16
Paul, Hon. Rand, U.S. Senator From Kentucky...................... 8
Tomten, Roger L., Resident and Business Owner, Stillwater, MN39..
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 63
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m.in Room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. We'll come to order. Good afternoon to
everyone.
The Subcommittee on National Parks is holding a hearing to
consider eleven pending bills. I believe most of the bills are
non-controversial. Three of the bills on today's agenda were
considered and favorably reported by the committee last
Congress.
Because of the number of bills on the agenda, I won't read
through the list, but at this time I'll include the complete
list of bills in the hearing record.
A few of the bills, such as the St. Croix River Crossing
bill, are more controversial, and this afternoon the
subcommittee will receive testimony from several of the bills'
sponsors, and also hear from witnesses on both sides of the
issue so that we can establish a complete legislative record on
the bill. I know this is an important issue to the Minnesota
and Wisconsin senators, and I will continue to work with them
as we consider the policy issues raised at this hearing.
I know several of our colleagues have statements they would
like to make, and we will turn to them in a few minutes.
But before that, I would like to congratulate my colleague,
Senator Paul, who was ratified last week by the committee as
the new ranking member of the National Parks Subcommittee.
The subcommittee has one of the busier legislative agendas
in the Senate, and the key to working through the large number
of bills that are referred to the subcommittee is a strong
working relationship with the ranking member. I'd like to take
this opportunity to welcome Senator Paul as the new ranking
member, and I very much look forward to working with him.
At this point I'd like to recognize Senator Paul for any
remarks he would care to make.
[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Senator From Colorado
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks is holding a
hearing to consider 11 pending bills. I believe most of the bills are
non-controversial; and three of the bills on today's agenda were
considered and favorably reported by the committee last Congress.
Because of the number of bills on the agenda, I won't read through
the list, but at this time I'll include the complete list of bills in
the hearing record.
A few of the bills, such as the St. Croix river crossing bill, are
more controversial, and this afternoon the subcommittee will receive
testimony from several of the bill's sponsors and also hear from
witnesses on both sides of the issue so that we can establish a
complete legislative record on this bill. I know this is an important
issue to the Minnesota and Wisconsin Senators and I will continue to
work with them as we consider the policy issues raised at this hearing.
I know several of our colleagues have statements they would like to
make and we will turn to them in a few minutes. Before that, I would
like to congratulate Senator Paul, who was ratified last week by the
Committee as the new Ranking Member of the National Parks Subcommittee.
The subcommittee has one of the busier legislative agendas in the
Senate, and the key to working through the large number of bills that
are referred to the subcommittee is a strong working relationship with
the Ranking Member. I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome
Senator Paul as the new Ranking Member and I look forward to working
with him. At this point, I'd like to recognize Senator Paul for any
remarks he would care to make.
We have received written statements from several of the sponsors of
bills on today's agenda. Without objection, statements from Senator
Boxer, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Cardin will be included in the
hearing record. We have received several statements with respect to S.
1134, the St. Croix river bill, representing views both for and against
the bill, including statements from Governor Dayton of Minnesota,
Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Representative Betty McCollum of
Minnesota, and former Vice President Walter Mondale, and their
statements will be included in the record as well. We are joined this
afternoon by Senators Klobuchar and Johnson, who are here to speak on
S. 1134.
[The prepared statements of former Vice President Mondale
and Senators Boxer, Cardin, Lieberman, and Barrasso follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Walter F. Mondale, Former Vice President of
the United States
Chairman Udall, members of the National Parks Subcommittee of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee including our great
Minnesota Senator, Al Franken. I also wish to recognize Minnesota's
wonderful Senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar. While we do disagree on this
issue, I am honored to be one of her earliest and strongest supporters.
I thank the committee for permitting me to submit my testimony in
writing to be made part of the Record.
I make this statement in opposition to the S1134 because I believe
that the huge bridge that would be authorized by this measure is a
brutal assault on one of the most magnificent rivers in America. After
careful study required by the Federal Court, the National Park Service
determined that the huge bridge authorized by the pending legislation
would have a `direct and adverse effect' on the St. Croix National
Scenic Riverway, one of eight original Wild and Scenic rivers
designated for protection in that legislation.
In 1968, I joined my colleague and friend, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, so
well known to you and this committee, to sponsor the Wild and Scenic
Rivers legislation. Gaylord considered the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
and the protection of the Namekagon and St. Croix Rivers, one of his
proudest accomplishments, a major part of his brilliant legacy to our
country including Earth Day.
I am testifying today not only on my own behalf but I believe, also
for Gaylord Nelson who would have certainly opposed this mega bridge
proposal.
This bill if enacted would, for the first time in the nearly 43
year history of the Wild and Scenic Rivers program, permit the
construction of a new bridge or infrastructure project of this
magnitude in our glorious national system of protection for 166 rivers
in 38 states. It would be a potent precedent, not only for the
magnificent but fragile St Croix river that forms the border between
Minnesota and Wisconsin, but for all of these treasured rivers.
In fact, the very reason for the adoption of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers legislation was to protect these cherished and magnificent
rivers from the very kind of massive development approved under this
proposal. As Gaylord then predicted, these rivers will be exposed to
tremendous developmental pressure that, if permitted, will convert
these national treasures into the typical industrial rivers. If this
mega bridge is built across the St Croix River, this will be not the
end of such abusive encroachments but the beginning. I can guarantee
the Committee that there are a multitude of developers that will soon
seek authorization for development on and across our protected rivers.
They will surely cite this bridge as evidence that our national river
system is open for sale.
In the preamble to the proposed authorizing legislation it states
that the mega bridge would contain ``appropriate mitigation measures to
promote river values.'' But, as the Park Service report concludes,
there is no way this huge bridge can be built consistent with the
values of the national rivers system. It is an enormous $700 million
four lane massive bluff top bridge that accommodates noisy high-speed
commercial traffic of all kinds. This new structure will be nearly 200
feet tall, visible for many miles along this stretch of the St. Croix.
Moreover, it would be by far the most expensive bridge ever built
in Minnesota and Wisconsin, while both states have hundreds of failing
bridges in need or repair or replacement.
The preamble of P.L. 90-452 states that, ``It is hereby declared to
be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the
Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly
remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing
condition.'' Those words ring as true today as in 1968.
A bit of history is in order here about the St. Croix River and its
inclusion in 1968 in the list of original rivers. In the early 1960's
Minnesota permitted the construction of a coal-fired power plant on the
St. Croix River in Bayport, south of Stillwater, despite citizen
efforts to stop it. It was precisely because of this plant siting and
the potential for additional incompatible projects that Gaylord and I
insisted this stretch of the St. Croix be included in the Wild and
Scenic Rivers system.
Proponents of the St. Croix Crossing Project point to this power
plant and an adjacent wastewater treatment facility as evidence that
some sort of industrial zone exists on this river. They argue adding a
massive bridge that will attract large and loud trucks around the clock
is somehow compatible with this section of the river. This argument
turns the reason for the inclusion of the St. Croix in the system on
its head. Our magnificent Park Service, which administers this river,
has clearly ruled against a bridge of this type.
The proponents of this mega-bridge will tell the Committee about
the long history of efforts to build a new bridge in Stillwater to
replace an aging Lift Bridge, despite the fact that the rarely
congested Interstate 94 bridge is just 7 miles south.
The Committee will also hear about a so-called Stakeholders group
established during the Bush and Pawlenty Administrations to seek a
consensus on a bridge alignment and design. You should know this was
not a fair process, as only designs that could accommodate vehicles
traveling at 70 MPH were analyzed. Alternative, less impactful designs
were simply not considered.
I do acknowledge there is considerable history of plans to replace
the Stillwater Lift Bridge. And there have been several NPS reviews of
proposed bridge designs to assess the impacts on a river landscape the
U.S. Congress designated for special protection for future generations.
I appreciate that many in the region are weary of this issue,
including elected officials. Some are ready to build the proposed
bridge believing this process has gone on too long.
But neither a long process nor bridge issue fatigue justifies this
particular bridge. This design and location does not makes sense for
this river today anymore than it did when first proposed more than a
decade ago. In fact, there are many in Stillwater and the river valley
that prefer the Lift Bridge simply be rebuilt. I count myself in that
group.
However, I understand the argument that a new bridge is necessary
to deal with rush hour congestion in this historic river town and
accommodate western Wisconsin commuters into the Twin Cities. But those
goals can be achieved without spending close to $700M of public funds
in a era of fiscal stress on a bridge that is essentially another
freeway crossing over this segment of the St. Croix River.
Consequently, I hope the Committee will not act on this bill in
this session.
Rather, I believe the Governor of Minnesota and Minnesota
Department of Transportation should evaluate a recent and new
alternative put forward by the Sensible Stillwater Bridge Partnership
that would result in a much less expensive and impactful bridge, just
downstream from the current Lift Bridge, costing less than half the
projected budget of the proposed bridge.
I urge the Committee to direct the National Park Service to review
this recent proposal under its section 7a responsibilities based on a
request from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I am confident
following a good faith review, the NPS will conclude the Sensible
alternative is preferable to the massive bridge S. 1134 would
authorize.
Based on the dramatically lower cost of the `Sensible' alternative,
there is no longer pressure to pass this legislation by the date
certain established by the Governor of Minnesota to allocate federal
highway funds. Both states' share of the construction costs of this
bill is dramatically reduced, as is the impact on the St. Croix River.
In conclusion, let us remember the words of a beloved colleague who
served with distinction on this Committee for much of his public life.
Gaylord Nelson said of the St. Croix River, ``If we don't take care of
this great resource, it will end up as `just another urban river' whose
values have been squandered.''
I plead with you not to let this happen.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California,
on S. 864 and S. 925
Thank you, Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Paul, for considering
S. 864, the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial Act and S.
925, the Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2011 in today's
hearing. Each of these bills would honor people who have made unique
and important contributions to our nation's history.
S. 864, the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial Act, would
designate the recently constructed Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial
at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California, as a national
memorial to recognize members of our Armed Forces who have
distinguished themselves by heroism in aerial flight. I am pleased that
Congressman Ken Calvert has sponsored this legislation in the House of
Representatives, where it passed in the last Congress by a vote of 410-
0.
The Distinguished Flying Cross recognizes members of the U.S. Armed
Forces and a few select civilian aviators who perform acts of ``heroism
or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.''
It is America's oldest military award for aviation, with recipients
including Wilbur and Orville Wright, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart,
former President George H. W. Bush, Senator John McCain, former Senator
John Glenn, Chuck Yeager, General Jimmy Doolittle and Admiral James
Stockdale.
The most reliable statistics indicate that 126,318 members of our
Armed Forces received the medal during World War II, approximately
21,000 members received the medal during the Korean conflict, and
21,647 members received the medal during the Vietnam War. Since the end
of the Vietnam War, more than 203 members of the Armed Forces have
received the medal in times of conflict.
However, the United States currently lacks a national memorial
dedicated to recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross. Designating
the Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial at March Field Air Museum in
Riverside, California, as a national memorial would honor the bravery
and sacrifice of the thousands of men and women who have received this
prestigious award.
This bill was developed in collaboration with the Distinguished
Flying Cross Society--a nonprofit organization dedicated to honoring
recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross. The legislation is also
supported by the Military Officers Association of America, the Air
Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Association
of Naval Aviation, the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association and the
China Burma India Veterans Association.
The Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial Act is a fitting
tribute to the incredible men and women who have served our nation with
honor and distinction in flight. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to see this legislation enacted into law.
S. 925, the Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2011, would
designate a peak on the border of Mono and Tuolumne Counties in
California as ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence'' in memory of the late Andrea
Lawrence--a three-time Olympian and former member of the Mono County
Board of Supervisors who dedicated her life to conserving the
breathtaking landscapes of the Eastern Sierra. I am pleased to have
worked with Congressman Buck McKeon in crafting this bipartisan
legislation, which previously passed the House of Representatives by
voice vote in the last Congress.
Andrea Mead Lawrence was a three-time Olympian who remains the only
American double Olympic gold medalist in alpine skiing. She was
inducted into the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame in 1958 at the age of
25. In 2002, sports documentarian Bud Greenspan called her ``the
greatest Winter Olympian of all time,'' basing his choice not only on
her accomplishments as an athlete, but also on how she later translated
her love of mountains into a lifetime of civic service.
After retiring from competitive skiing, Andrea Lawrence spent the
rest of her life working to protect the natural landscapes that she had
so loved and enjoyed as a skier. She moved to Mono County, California,
where she worked to protect and restore Mammoth Lakes, Mono Lake, Bodie
State Historic Park, and other important natural and cultural resources
of the Eastern Sierra. She served for 16 years on the Mono County Board
of Supervisors, served on the Great Basin Air Pollution Control
District, and in 2003 founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for
Mountains and Rivers to promote environmental protection and economic
vitality in the region.
Andrea passed away on March 31, 2009 at 76 years of age, leaving
five children--Cortlandt, Matthew, Deirdre, Leslie, and Quentin--and
four grandchildren. The day before she died, President Obama signed
into law a bill that I authored with Representative McKeon, the Eastern
Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, which Andrea had
strongly supported. Her family told me that they celebrated the bill's
enactment with her in her hospital room. It touches me deeply to know
how much this bill meant to her, and I am so grateful that she lived to
see it become law.
The peak we are naming after Andrea is currently identified only by
its elevation as ``Peak 12,240,'' and is located on the border of Mono
and Tuolumne Counties between the Ansel Adams Wilderness and Yosemite
National Park. The John Muir trail passes close to the peak, providing
an unobstructed view of the future Mt. Andrea Lawrence.
Supporters of my bill include Andrea Lawrence's family, the Mono
County Board of Supervisors, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors,
the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Mono County Democratic
Central Committee, the Mammoth Town Council, the Mono Lake Committee,
the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers, the Sierra
Nevada Alliance, the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Town of Mammoth Lakes
Council Member Wendy Sugimura and former Mono County Supervisor Tim
Alpers.
Like the mountains she once tackled with such skill and grace,
Andrea Lawrence's spirit and accomplishments were both larger than
life. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this
legislation and grant this iconic woman such a fitting tribute.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator From
Maryland, on S. 324
I would like to thank Chairmen Bingaman and Udall and Ranking
Members Murkowski and Barrasso for allowing me to submit the following
testimony on my bill, The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical
Park Advisory Commission Act (S. 324), this afternoon. The sole purpose
of my bill, and the commission it supports is to support greater public
involvement in the administration of one of Maryland's most treasured
and most popular National Parks, The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National
Historical Park. My bill ensures that the communities located along the
184-and-a-half mile-long C&O Canal National Historical Park have a
voice with the National Park Service regarding decisions affecting the
administration of the Park. The Commission keeps the people and small
businesses most affected by the operation of the C&O Canal National
Historical Park informed and involved in the decisions surrounding the
Park. Citizen involvement in the governmental process is a hallmark of
our democracy and the C&O Canal National Historical Park Advisory
Commission Act exemplifies the goal of ensuring the public's role in
government decision making.
The importance of the Commission is intrinsically tied to the
uniqueness of the C&O Canal National Historical Park. The Park covers
an area of 20,000 acres winding North and West along the Potomac River
from the heart of Georgetown's old industrial district in Washington
D.C. to Cumberland, MD nestled in the valleys and mountains of Western
Maryland. The Park's watered canal, contiguous towpath (popular among
cyclists, backpackers, day hikers, runners and families), hundreds of
historic structures and towns like Hancock, Hagerstown, Harpers Ferry,
Williamsport and Sharpsburg that grew during the Canal's heyday, all
tell the story of how the C&O Canal once served as a crucial East/West
commercial link. The Park also preserves pristine views of the Potomac
River, evocative of the C&O Canal's working days. At its widest points,
the C&O Canal National Historical Park spans less than two tenths of a
mile across and in many areas directly abuts neighboring commercial and
residential properties bordering the Park.
During the commercial operation of the C&O Canal, these towns were
local commercial centers where area farmers and tradesman utilized the
canal boats to deliver their goods to market. Today, the hospitality
and tourism industries of these communities thrive upon the C&O Canal
National Historical Park's popularity and are integral to enhancing the
park user experience. Whether it is a hotel or Bed and Breakfast to
spend the night in, a restaurant or diner to grab a meal, stores to
shop in or to stock up on camping provisions, boathouses to rent a
canoe for the afternoon, bike shops to service a flat tire or make
repairs to your bicycle or any of the myriad of goods and services park
visitors may need while visiting the Park, the communities along the
C&O Canal are as important to the Park user experience as the Park's
users are to maintaining their businesses.
In 2009, more than 3.75 million people visited the C&O Canal
National Historical Park. To put it in perspective, in 2009, more
people visited this historic treasure than the number of people who
visited Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades or Shenandoah National
Park. Much of the C&O Canal National Historical Park's success is
attributable to the positive relationship that has developed over time
between the National Park Service and the local community leaders that
span the length of the Park. The Park's Commission has greatly
facilitated this relationship. As a sign of that I support, I have
included letters of support for my bill from local county commissioners
and other community leaders with my written statement for the hearing
record.
The Commission provides the vital link between the affected
committee that the Park runs through and the National Park Service. The
Commission ensures that the public is engaged in the numerous processes
surrounding operational policy, infrastructure maintenance and
restoration projects on the C&O Canal National Historic Park. The
Commission plays a vital consultation and planning role for park
activities and operations. The cooperation that has developed between
the Commission and the National Park Service helps ties to the Park to
its communities. The Commission serves a purely advisory function and
does not have the authority to make binding park policy.
The Commission was first established as part of the 1971 Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Development Act sponsored by Rep. Gilbert Gude (R-MD).
Every ten years, a bill like mine comes before Congress, when the 10-
year extension of the Commission's authorization expires. Three times
over a 40-year period extension bills have passed by Unanimous Consent
and without controversy. My bill is another 10-year extension of the
Advisory Commission's authorization and makes no changes to the
Commission's authority. Legislative precedent has never set an
authorization amount for the Commission, but the Commission has always
functioned at a nominal cost.
The General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Commissions
Act database determined that the C&O Canal Advisory Commission's
expenses totaled $33,199 for fiscal year 2010. All expenses came out of
the National Park Service's general operating budget. Expenses covered
the cost of travel for commission members ($295), federal staff time
($28,074) and miscellaneous expenses ($4,830) like meeting space,
printing, supplies and website maintenance. Reauthorizing this program
would not establish a new authorization but would rather extend a
current and long-standing authorization that exists in the U.S. Code.
The National Park System is a showcase of America's natural and
historical treasures. So much of the National Park System's success is
rooted in the citizen stewardship projects and the involvement of
caring citizens and community leaders. Like so many of our National
Parks the C&O Canal National Historical Park has an extensive backlog
of maintenance and repair projects. The Commission plays a critical
role in helping keep these projects moving forward and assisting the
National Park Service with their completion because there is
recognition of the shared responsibility between the Park Service and
the Commission about the importance of continuing to make the Park a
desirable tourism and outdoor recreation destination. The Commission
provides that bridge between the government and public. I urge the
committee to support this bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator From
Connecticut, on S. 883
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul, and members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for taking the time to examine S.
883. I was honored to introduce this legislation, along with Senator
Grassley, to authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund, DC, to establish
a memorial in Washington, DC, to recognize African American patriots
who fought during the Revolutionary War. I am further proud that
Senator Landrieu, a member of your esteemed subcommittee, is also a
cosponsor. As you may be aware, the full Energy and Natural Resources
Committee unanimously reported identical legislation, then sponsored by
Senator Dodd, last congress.
In my view, the memorial authorized by S. 883 would not only be of
great historical significance, but would also serve to remind Americans
of the enduring values that unite us as a nation.
This bill was inspired by the tireless work of Maurice Barboza, a
native of Plainville, Connecticut. When Maurice was a young boy, he
discovered that he was a distant relative of two patriots, Jonah Gay
and Samuel Stinson, who fought for the colonists during the
Revolutionary War. Naturally, Maurice was very proud to learn of this
connection, and was accepted into the Sons of the American Revolution.
He then encouraged his Aunt, Lena Ferguson, to join the prestigious
Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).
Despite the fact that Maurice was able to prove that his Aunt could
trace her lineage back to Gay and Stinson, DAR still refused her
membership. It was only after years of struggle that Mrs. Ferguson was
admitted. During this protracted dispute, Maurice came to realize that
there were many African Americans who had fought bravely during the
American Revolution but had not received the recognition they deserve.
As a result of his and his aunt's efforts, the DAR launched a project
to identify and honor these overlooked heroes, which the organization
completed several years ago.
According to the DAR, over 5,000 African Americans served as
sailors and soldiers for the colonial forces during the Revolutionary
War, and there may have been many more. Some of those who fought for
the colonial forces were slaves motivated by the fight for liberty or
the promise of freedom from bondage. Many others were free African
Americans who, despite suffering pervasive discrimination in their own
lives, bravely took up arms against the British to defend the rights of
their fellow countrymen. For a great number of these patriots, America
was the only country they had known. All of them were true American
heroes.
Throughout our history the sacrifices of these remarkable patriots
have often been relegated to a mere footnote. This is unfortunate not
only because it overlooks their service, but also because it prevents
us from taking an honest, nuanced view of our nation's history. By
establishing a memorial to honor African Americans' contributions to
our nation's founding, we will broaden all Americans' understanding of
the diversity of the patriots who helped to secure our independence. As
The Worcester Telegram put it in a recent editorial supporting the
memorial: ``. . .we imagine visitors [to the memorial] wanting to know
much more about the lives and the circumstances that came together for
the cause. That's how history leads us to honesty: by fleshing out the
facts, and inviting us to dig deeper.''
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of the subcommittee, S. 883
would not only provide a fitting a tribute to the role many African
Americans played during the Revolutionary War, but would also serve as
an enduring reminder that what defines the United States as a nation is
not membership in a particular race, creed or class, but rather a
strong belief in individual liberty and freedom. This ultimately was
what colonial soldiers and sailors, black and white alike, were
fighting for, and what our nation has strived to realize throughout its
history.
Thank you for considering my testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Barrasso, U.S. Senator From Wyoming,
on S. 1134
I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today.
It has been an interesting discussion.
As a general rule for parks and lands bills, I respect the wishes
of the home state delegation.
There are sometimes exceptions to my rule.
The St. Croix River Crossing legislation is not one of those
circumstances.
The river was designated Wild and Scenic in 1972.
The Minnesota and Wisconsin delegations believe a new bridge over
the river is important.
I respect that.
Sometimes restrictive federal laws and rules do not recognize local
conditions or interest.
If Wyoming faced a similar situation, I would expect members to
afford our delegation the same consideration.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAND PAUL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM KENTUCKY
Senator Paul. Thank you, Senator Udall.
People often say in Washington nothing is ever bipartisan.
I think we're going to show a change to that today, and I'm
excited to see members on both sides of the isle testifying
before us. I think Senator Udall has a reputation for working
with both sides. Of course, my friend Senator Franken has a
reputation for working with both sides. I look forward to being
on this committee.
That sounded very sincere, didn't it?
[Laughter.]
Senator Paul. I heard a few titters, and I was wondering if
someone was questioning my sincerity.
I think I'm, you know, I think I'm on such a roll with
that, I think I'm just going to leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Paul. We hit the ground
running. I very much look forward to working with you.
With that, let me recognize a member of the committee,
Senator Franken from Minnesota. Senator Franken.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Thank you, Chairman Udall.
Congratulations, Ranking Member Paul--who is my mentee--did
you know that? In the Senatorial mentor program. My mentee. So,
congratulations, and, took my advice, and now you're the
ranking member.
Stillwater, Minnesota is beautiful city that's between a
rock and a hard place. The current lift bridge between
Minnesota and Wisconsin is 80 years old, and was not designed
to handle the traffic that it currently sees on a daily basis.
Cars and trucks idle for hours every day along the historic
main street, even when the bridge is open. When the lift bridge
is raised, the problem multiplies.
The St. Croix River is federally protected under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act, which was authored by Vice President
Walter Mondale when he represented this State in the Senate,
and also coauthored by Gaylord Nelson, who represented
Wisconsin in the Senate. Senator Klobuchar and I revere the
Vice President. I think that's safe to say.
Now, the National Park Service ruled that they can't allow
any new construction in the protected riverway. The lift bridge
cannot be replaced because it is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. While the witnesses before the
committee today may disagree on the size and the design of a
bridge, the fact remains that a new bridge is absolutely
necessary, and any bridge would need congressional approval to
move forward under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
But I want to make it clear that this is a unique situation
with unique needs, and that we are not declaring open season on
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I believe very much in
preserving Vice President Mondale's landmark legislation and
his intent.
I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today,
and I'd especially like to thank Senators Klobuchar and Johnson
for appearing before the committee to discuss this important
issue for Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Franken.
We have received a number of written statements from
several of the sponsors of bills on today's agenda, and without
objection, statements from Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman,
and Senator Cardin will be included in the hearing record.
We have received several statements with respect to S.
1134, the St. Croix River bill, representing views both for and
against the bill, including statements from Governor Dayton of
Minnesota, Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Representative Betty
McCollum of Minnesota, and former Vice President Walter
Mondale, and their statements will be included in the record as
well.
As I mentioned earlier, we've been joined by 2 of our
colleagues, Senators Klobuchar and Johnson, who are here to
speak on S. 1134.
Let me first recognize Senator Klobuchar for her statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Udall.
Congratulations, Ranking Member Paul.
Thank you, also, to my colleague, Senator Franken.
Thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 1134, the
St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act, which I
introduced with my colleagues Senators Kohl and Johnson of
Wisconsin, and Senator Franken.
Before I begin, I want to welcome to the U.S. Senate the
Minnesota witnesses who will be speaking later: Stillwater
Mayor Ken Harycki, who drove here, Chairman, with his family.
That's how badly he wanted to get here. I'm sure he went over
many bridges. Also, Roger Tomten, who will also be testifying.
The St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act
would allow construction of a bridge across the St. Croix
River. The project would not only provide a new link between
the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, but also ensure that a
critical package of projects are built to mitigate impacts the
bridge may have on the scenic recreation or historical value of
the St. Croix River Valley. The project, as you mentioned, has
the support of Governor Dayton and Governor Walker, as you can
see from their strong testimony on the record.
There's broad consensus, as Senator Franken noted, that a
new bridge is necessary. The current crossing is the lift
bridge, which was built in 1931 and is designed to handle
11,000 vehicles per day. Today it handles over 18,000 vehicles
per day, and as many as 25,000 per day in the summer.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has listed the
bridge as being structurally deficient, and is also fracture-
critical, which means that if one component of the bridge
fails, the entire structure will fail.
As the bridge has aged, closures for maintenance and
repairs have increased. This spring the lift bridge was
featured on the History Channel's Inspector America program,
which showed the severe corrosion on the steel plates, and the
host's ability to remove concrete from the piers with his own
hands.
The bridge itself is a source of significant traffic
congestion, especially in the summer months when it lifts
frequently to allow water craft to pass. This backs up on both
sides of the bridge as much as an entire mile, creating
extensive gridlock and air pollution, hindering economic
activity, and threatening public safety, particularly when
emergency vehicles are unable to pass through. Simply put,
there is nearly unanimous agreement that the current bridge is
completely inadequate.
Mr. Chairman, Mayor Harycki will discuss the impact the
lift bridge has on the community, and testimony discussing the
regional impact of the lift bridge has been submitted by
Lakeview Hospital; Leo's Grill and Malt Shop, a small business
owner; and the Minnesota Building and Construction Trades
Council.
You may ask why this project has taken 30 years, if
everyone agrees that a new bridge is necessary, which is a very
good question--Why are we here today?
In October 2010 the National Park Service determined that
the proposed bridge would violate section 7(a) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. This was the third such determination issued
by the NPS which, in doing so, reversed the previous 7(a)
determination, which, in turn, was a reversal of their first
7(a) determination on this project dating back to the mid-
1990s. So, when you combine these actions with endless
litigation, it's very easy to see why we're here today, in the
U.S. Senate, considering a bill to authorize the project to
finally move forward.
The bridge that my bill would authorize has been developed
through a comprehensive stakeholder process that began 3
decades ago. Local, State and Fed officials joined with the
environmental community, historical preservationists, local
businesses, and the general public to partner on the process. I
worked closely with the NPS to ensure that the legislation
required a comprehensive package of mitigation projects which
would be implemented with the construction of the bridge. This
mitigation package was developed among a 2-member stakeholder
process in 2006, including the National Park Service, and would
make important improvements, like remove other manmade
structures from the river and protect parklands and bluffs. As
you can see from this picture right here, the bridge would be
constructed near an existing power plant, with a water
treatment facility and a marina. Also nearby, you'll see in the
background, is a prison. All of these structures already exist
in the river valley.
Now, in 2004, options were studied with the goal of
choosing the most appropriate bridge project that would not
only meet the region's current and future transportation needs,
but would also have the best design with the smallest impact on
the river valley's scenic recreational, historical and
environmental resources.
A few weeks ago--and you'll hear about this today--a
proposed lower and slower bridge design reemerged that would
have a diagonal 3-lane bridge be constructed closer to the
existing lift bridge. Now, I say it reemerged--and I'm sure it
did with all good intentions--but it reemerged because it is
similar to options that were studied during the 2004 review.
Those options were studied extensively and rejected because it
was determined that they would have greater environmental
impacts than the preferred alternative next to that treatment
plant--impacts that would affect everything from park
properties, bluff areas, historical structures, flood plains,
wetlands, and commercial properties; and they would face a
difficult time making it through this scenic river review
process.
That's not to mention the issue of costs. In 2004 the
rejected bridge proposals that--one that was similar to the
lower, slower plan--were anticipated to cost at least $500
million. That is nearly double the design estimate that's made
for this project now. So, obviously, we're concerned about the
cost with the alternative.
Finally, as we know, this would have to go through the
entire review process again, and would add more and more time
to the process, and here we get to the nub of the problem.
The States of Minnesota and Wisconsin have worked hard to
plan for this project over 30 years, and they have the money to
build it. They're not asking here today, they're not coming and
asking Congress for money. Some of the State and Federal funds
that would be used for construction will expire in 2014. That
is why we cannot go through an entire process again, Mr.
Chairman, for a different design.
Unfortunately, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
estimates that it will take 3 years to complete all the
necessary permits for constructing this project. That is why
Governor Dayton has said that the legislation to authorize the
bridge should be enacted by September 30th, 2011.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, for decades the people and
businesses of the St. Croix River Valley have been crying out
for a safer, more efficient alternative to the lift bridge. Not
only that, the States have the resources necessary to start
construction, and any bridge proposal would likely need
congressional authorization.
So, what are we waiting for? It's time to break the
deadlock and bring this project out of the bureaucratic limbo
that it's been in for 30 years. We've waited long enough, and
it's time to move forward.
I ask for your support and your help in moving this bill
quickly to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to the
full Senate.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator From Minnesota
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 1134, the
St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act, which I introduced
with my colleagues Senators Kohl and Johnson of Wisconsin, and Senator
Franken, a member of this Subcommittee.
Before I begin, I would like to welcome to the U.S. Senate the
Minnesota witnesses who will speak later: Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki
and Roger Tomten.
The St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act would allow
construction of a bridge across the St. Croix River. The project would
not only provide a new link between the states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin, but also ensure that a critical package of projects are
built to mitigate impacts the bridge may have on the scenic,
recreational or historical values of the St. Croix River valley.
And, the project has the support of Governors Dayton and Walker as
you can see from their strong testimony for the hearing record.
There is broad consensus that a new bridge is necessary. The
current crossing is the Lift Bridge, which was built in 1931 and
designed to handle 11,000 vehicles per day. Today, it handles over
18,000 vehicles per day and as many as 25,000 per day in the summer.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has listed the
bridge as being ``structurally deficient,'' and is also ``fracture
critical,'' which means that if one component of the bridge fails, the
entire structure will fail.
As the bridge has aged, closures for maintenance and repairs have
increased. This spring, the Lift Bridge was featured on the History
Channel's, ``Inspector America'' program, which showed the severe
corrosion on the steel plates and the host's ability to remove
concreted from the piers with his hands.
The bridge itself is a source of significant traffic congestion,
especially in the summer months, when it lifts frequently to allow
watercraft to pass. This backs up on both sides of the bridge, as much
as an entire mile, creating extensive gridlock and air pollution,
hindering economic activity and threatening public safety--particularly
when emergency vehicles are unable to pass through.
Simply put, there is nearly unanimous agreement that the current
bridge is completely inadequate.
Mr. Chairman, Mayor Harycki will discuss the impact the Lift Bridge
has on his community. And, testimony discussing the regional impact of
the Lift Bridge has been submitted by Lakeview Hospital; Leo's Grill
and Malt Shop, a small business owner; and the Minnesota Building and
Construction Trades Council on the potential to create 3,000
construction jobs each year.
You may ask why this project has taken thirty years if everyone
agrees that a new bridge is necessary, which is a very good question.
In October 2010, the National Park Service determined that the
proposed bridge would violate section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. This was the third such determination issued by the NPS,
which, in doing so, reversed their previous 7(a) determination, which,
in turn, was a reversal of their first 7(a) determination on this
project dating back to the mid-1990s.
So, when you combine these actions with endless litigation, it's
very easy to see why we're here today considering a bill to authorize
the project to finally move forward.
The bridge that my bill would authorize has been developed through
a comprehensive stakeholder process that began three decades ago.
Local, state and federal officials joined with the environmental
community, historical preservationists, local businesses and the
general public to partner on this process.
I worked closely with the NPS to ensure my legislation required a
comprehensive package of mitigation projects, which would be
implemented with construction of the bridge. This mitigation package
was developed among a 28 member stakeholder process in 2006, including
the NPS, and would make important improvements like remove other
manmade structures from the river, and protect park land and bluffs.
And, as you can see the bridge would be constructed near an
existing power plant, water treatment facility, and a marina. All of
these structures already exist in the river valley.
In 2004, options were studied with the goal of choosing the most
appropriate bridge project that would not only meet the region's
current and future transportation needs , but would also have the best
design with the smallest impact on the river valley's scenic,
recreational, historical and environmental resources.
A few weeks ago a proposed ``lower and slower'' bridge design
reemerged that would have a diagonal three lane bridge be constructed
closer to the existing Lift Bridge.
I say that the ``lower-slower'' bridge ``reemerged,'' because it is
similar to options that were studied during the 2004 review. Those
options were studied extensively and rejected because I t was
determined that they would have greater environmental impacts than the
preferred alternative--impacts that would affect everything from park
properties, bluff areas, historical structures, flood plains, wetlands,
and commercial properties. And, they would face a difficult time making
it through the very same Wild and Scenic Rivers Act review process that
brings us here today.
That's not to mention the issues of cost for the ``lower-slower''
option. In 2004, the rejected bridge proposals--the ones that included
similar ideas to this ``lower-slower'' plan--were anticipated to cost
at least $500 million. That's nearly double the estimate cited for the
reemerged design.
In addition, because this may technically be a ``new'' proposal,
the environmental work would have to be reopened, amended and perhaps
redone. And, yet another review under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
would also likely be required. This would cause the project to be
delayed for years--perhaps as long as a decade. So, this would mean
that we all could be sitting right back here, 10 years from now,
discussing legislation to build the exact same bridge.
During that time, congestion will grow. . . the need for repairs
and maintenance on the lift bridge will increase. . . threats to public
safety and critical access to medical care will worsen. . . economic
development will be stifled. . . and costs will continue to rise with
inflation.
So, they are right when they say that their proposal is both
``lower'' and ``slower!''
The states of Minnesota and Wisconsin have worked hard to plan for
this project and they have the money to build it.
Some of the state and federal funds that would be used for
construction will expire in 2014. Unfortunately, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation estimates that it will take three years to
complete all the necessary permits for constructing this project. That
is why Governor Dayton has said that legislation to authorize the
bridge should be enacted by September 30, 2011.
For decades, the people and businesses of the St. Croix River
Valley have been crying out for a safer, more efficient alternative to
the Lift Bridge. Not only that, but the states have the resources
necessary to start construction, and any bridge proposal would likely
need Congressional authorization. So what are we waiting for? It's time
to break the deadlock and bring this project out of bureaucratic limbo.
We've waited long enough and it's time to move forward. I ask for your
support and your help in moving this bill quickly through the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee to the full Senate.
Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Johnson, welcome. We're eager to hear your
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ranking Member Paul, congratulations; and Senator Franken.
Rather than repeat an awful lot of what Senator Klobuchar
has already said--she's made a very good case--let me just ask
that my testimony be added to the record, and I'll just make a
few points.
First of all, I'm very happy to join my Senate colleagues
from Minnesota and Wisconsin. This truly is a bipartisan
effort. I think that's a good thing. So, I'm happy to support
this, and really do appreciate Senator Klobuchar's leadership
in getting this bill presented.
As soon as I travel in, particularly in the western part of
the State of Wisconsin, this is a very high priority for the
constituents. I mean, it's generally topic A, topic B, and
topic C. So, this is very important from a standpoint of
economic growth.
I'm originally from Minnesota so, back in the 1970s I
repeatedly went over this bridge. In fact, the matter is, back
then is, you know, when the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was
passed. It was 37 years old at that point in time, when I was
crossing that bridge in the 1970s, it seemed like a pretty
unsafe bridge at that point. So it hasn't improved much. Now
it's 80 years old.
Just to kind of put some perspective, back when it was
built in 1931, the number of cars on the road numbered about 26
million. Today the number of cars on the road are almost 10
times that amount--242--and you've heard the statistics that
Senator Klobuchar cited in terms of the peak traffic out of
that, close to 20,000 cars.
I realize that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very
important. I support it as well. I just want to say that no one
enjoys a clean and pristine environment more than I do. I mean,
when I had time for vacations, pretty much I did camping,
fishing, hiking throughout the States of Minnesota and
Wisconsin. I mean, I think they're 2 of the most beautiful
States in the country. There may be some disputes. But, they're
gorgeous. There would be, I would never propose anything that
would harm----
Senator Klobuchar. Remember, we have to keep the Ranking
Member and the Chairman happy.
Senator Johnson. I understand.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. But, anyhow, from my standpoint, I would
never propose anything that would harm that scenic beauty. So,
again, I think it's extremely important--one other point I'd
like to make is, this project has been put on hold. Back when
this was originally proposed back in 1992, the original
construction costs would have been $80 million. Today it's
going to cost close to $700 million, and we're looking at
potentially having some funding running out here. So, again, I
think it's just absolutely critical that we move forward with
this thing.
Again, I'm happy to join this effort. I really do ask full
consideration to get this project moving forward quickly. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Johnson, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin,
on S. 1134
Chairman (Mark) Udall, Ranking Member Paul and Members of the
Committee, thank you for your consideration of S. 1134. I am happy to
join my three Senate colleagues from Wisconsin and Minnesota in
cosponsoring this bill that facilitates the construction of a four-lane
highway bridge over the Lower St. Croix River connecting St. Joseph,
Wisconsin and Oak Park Heights, Minnesota.
The current lift-bridge that connects Stillwater, Minnesota and
Houlton, Wisconsin was built in 1931. Herbert Hoover was president and
the country was in the early stages of the Great Depression. According
to the United States Department of Transportation, there were only 26
million motor vehicles registered in 1931. To put that in perspective,
in 2009, there were 242 million. . .almost 10 times more.
In 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed by Congress and
signed into law by President Johnson. The intent of the Act was to help
maintain the natural beauty of our nation's rivers. At that time, the
Lift Bridge was already 37 years old. I remember crossing the bridge a
number of times during the 1970's. It was already showing signs of age
at that time, and was hardly a thing of beauty.
Now it is 80 years old, and conditions in the area are far
different than they were in 1931. Motor vehicle traffic has increased
exponentially in the area, and traffic congestion is having a negative
impact on the daily lives of local citizens and the regional economy.
It is now estimated that as many as 20,000 cars use the lift bridge
every day. Looking at pictures of the lift bridge, I think it's pretty
clear that it wasn't built for that much traffic. Traffic backs up into
the local communities causing congestion, delays, and more dangerous
commutes to work and school. And the Minnesota Department of
Transportation projects traffic volumes will increase significantly
over the next 20 years.
Mr. Chairman, no one enjoys a clean and pristine environment more
than my family and I. When we had time for vacations, we generally
chose activities and locations that allowed us to enjoy the natural
beauty of God's creation. We camped, fished, and hiked extensively
throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. They are two of the most beautiful
states in America. I would not propose anything that would harm or
detract from their beauty.
My experience in manufacturing and business certainly taught me how
economic development can positively affect an area when a major project
is initiated. The economic impact of a new bridge on the local
communities, both during construction and after, would be decidedly
positive. According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, more
than 6,000 full time workers would be required during peak
construction. In addition, this upgrade of an important element of
regional infrastructure would help facilitate economic development for
decades.
According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the
deterioration of bridge components is expected and rehabilitation
projects are needed to ensure its safety.
As I said earlier, I remember driving across the bridge during the
70's. It didn't feel very safe to me then, and now the safety ratings
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicate the bridge is
one of the least safe bridges in the Midwest. According to an April
2011 report by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the
sufficiency rating is only 33 out of 100. To put this into perspective,
the I-35W Mississippi Bridge that collapsed on Aug. 1, 2007, causing 13
deaths and 145 injuries, received a sufficiency rating of 50.
Since 1980, the Wisconsin, Minnesota, and United States Departments
of Transportation have worked together toward a replacement bridge.
It is important to point out that his bill does not require any new
funding from the federal government in order to pay for the project.
The only further contribution the Federal government needs to make is
to pass this bill to let construction proceed. It is a shame
construction of this bridge has been on hold since 1992, when the
construction cost would have been approximately $80 million. Today, the
cost will be closer to $700 million. Further delay in undertaking this
necessary infrastructure project will only result in higher costs to
our states in the future.
Both Governor Walker and Governor Dayton support the project. A
bipartisan coalition of members from the House and Senate support an
exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for the St. Croix River
Crossing Project. More importantly, the local communities in Wisconsin
and Minnesota overwhelmingly support the construction of a new four-
lane bridge connecting our states.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the Committee to take the necessary
action to move this project forward. Congress should exempt the St.
Croix River Crossing Project from the Act so that we can retire an old
and substandard bridge and replace it with a modern bridge to meet the
needs of the region and contribute to economic growth.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Your statements are self-explanatory. I don't have any
questions. But let me turn to the Ranking Member to see if he
has any questions.
Senator Paul. You know, the first thing that comes to my
mind--and I'm supportive of your effort. But the first thing
that comes to my mind when it takes from 1992 to the present to
get something done because Federal rules are inhibiting it,
that perhaps the original Federal legislation has some
problems. While I do support this specific exemption, really,
to me it points to the fact that there are problems with the
legislation if the Federal Government holds you up, and each of
the States in particular saying this is not something, you
know, we're worried that the new bridge will obstruct the view
to the power plant, or worried that the new bridge might not
let us see the prison.
So, but I really think we ought to review the Scenic
Waters, you know. I mean, I understand the ode to Walter
Mondale. But, for goodness sakes, 20-some-odd years to build a
bridge because of this legislation makes me think there may be
some problems with the legislation.
I don't have a specific question, unless you'd care to
comment.
Senator Klobuchar. Obviously, we have a lot of respect for
the legislation in our States, and we love our rivers and our
lakes. But right now we are really focused on this specific
exemption, Senator Paul, and we think that is, and the story
is, there have been reversals of opinions and a lot of
litigation. We've come to the point now where we actually have
the money set aside from the 2 States, strong agreement from
the 2 Governors, and we believe that this is the time to
proceed.
You know, I'm sure there are other versions of the bridge,
and other things that could be proposed here. But at some point
you realize that time is running out here with the funds.
Senator Udall. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. I guess I'd just like to add that this is
a moment in time when we can actually accomplish this. To open
up a debate on a larger issue, it's probably just not worth. I
mean, I think it's extremely important. Again, I just want to
underline how incredibly important this is to, just, economic
development.
I think one of the things that Senator Klobuchar pointed
out, if you just speak construction, you know, their estimate's
close to 6,000 jobs being created there. Again, this project
would be instrumental for economic development for decades. So,
it really is important.
Senator Udall. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. I just want to thank my colleagues for
testifying, and apologize on behalf of Senator Johnson. New
Mexico and Kentucky are exquisitely beautiful.
Senator Klobuchar. Colorado is----
Senator Franken. Oh. Colorado. I'm sorry.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. Really quite beautiful.
Senator Franken. Yes. I was going to say--but, actually, I
think New Mexico is more beautiful than Colorado. No. I'm
sorry. I mistook you for your cousin for a second. Colorado and
Kentucky are just exquisite States. We'd appreciate the vote
for the bridge.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Let me thank both senators for taking time
out of your busy schedules. I know you have much in the way of
demands on your time. But if you'd like to stay, you're
certainly welcome to join the committee. We would welcome your
participation. We also understand if you need to go off to
other engagements. So, thanks again.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Senator Johnson. Thank you much.
Senator Udall. While the senators take their leave, I'd
like to call the second panel to the table, and we'll start
with your testimony when you get comfortable and ready to go.
Welcome to both of you. We've been joined by Peggy O'Dell,
who's the Deputy Director for Operations, National Park
Service, Department of Interior, and by Joel Holtrop, Deputy
Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.
Neither of you are unfamiliar to the committee. We welcome
you. Thank you for taking the time to come up here today.
Let me turn to Ms. O'Dell for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY O'DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Franken, and
Ranking Member Paul when he comes back.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee to present the Department of the Interior's views
on the 8 bills on today's agenda.
I would like to submit our full statement on each of these
subjects for the record and summarize the Department's
positions on these bills.
[The prepared statements of Ms. O'Dell follow:]
Prepared Statement of Peggy O'Dell, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
s. 264
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 264, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the
State of Mississippi two parcels of surplus land within the boundary of
the Natchez Trace Parkway, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 264 with an amendment described later in
this statement. This legislation would authorize the conveyance of 67
acres of unused federal land to the State of Mississippi. This land was
originally donated by the state to the National Park Service to help
complete construction of the Natchez Trace Parkway (Parkway), but it
was never used for that purpose. The bill would also adjust the
boundary of the Parkway to include approximately 10 acres of land that
the National Park Service owns around the current southern terminus,
which were inadvertently excluded from the boundary previously.
The Natchez Trace was the main overland link between the old
southwest territory and the Ohio River Valley in the 18th and 19th
centuries. In 1938, Congress established the Natchez Trace Parkway as a
unit of the National Park System. The Parkway was constructed between
1938 and 2005 at a cost of nearly $500 million. During the construction
period, the states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee helped
acquire and donate over 50,000 acres of land to facilitate parkway
construction and protect the scenic, natural, cultural, and historic
resources within the Natchez Trace corridor. Today, the completed
Parkway spans 444 miles from Nashville, Tennessee, to Natchez,
Mississippi, and is enjoyed by over 13 million travelers each year.
The southern terminus in Natchez was the final section of Parkway
constructed and was completed in 2005. Decades prior to this section
being planned and designed, it was uncertain where the Parkway would
terminate. In order to prepare, the State of Mississippi acquired and
donated to the National Park Service two different sections of land to
accommodate two possible construction alternatives.
The National Park Service began planning the final section of
Parkway in the mid-1990s. After completing an environmental impact
statement in 1998, which included significant public input, the Park
Service selected the Liberty Road alternative. This decision left land
acquired for the alternative terminus unused. The 67 acres identified
in S. 264 are the unused land.
The 67 acres are subdivided into two parcels, both within the city
limits of Natchez. One parcel, commonly known as the bean field
property, is approximately 38 acres and is adjacent to Natchez High
School. The other parcel, commonly known as the Feltus property, is
approximately 29 acres and is located in the new business district of
Natchez. The Feltus property includes a structure that has been used by
the city since 1999 under a cooperative agreement with the National
Park Service.
In 2000, the city approached the National Park Service with a
request to lease the bean field parcel to facilitate construction of a
public recreational complex for the city, including soccer fields and
other amenities. Public Law 106-527, enacted that year, authorized the
National Park Service to lease land within its boundary to the city
``for any purpose compatible with the Parkway.'' This legislation
provided authority for the National Park Service to accommodate the
city's request to use the bean field property for public recreational
uses.
The National Park Service then entered into a 25-year memorandum of
agreement with the city to help facilitate the recreational project. In
2001, as part of the agreement, an extensive archeological
investigation was performed to determine if any significant cultural or
historical resources existed on the bean field property. None were
found. This investigation was in addition to the assessments undertaken
for the 1998 environmental impact statement, which covered all 67
acres.
The city is planning to invest up to $5 million to build the
recreational complex on the bean field property. With such a large
local investment planned, we believe this is an appropriate time to end
the National Park Service's role as the property's lessor by conveying
the property back to the state. Both the state and the city are highly
supportive of the proposed conveyance and have discussed the best way
to proceed should this legislation pass. The state has indicated that
in the short term, the state would continue honoring the existing ``any
purpose compatible with the Parkway'' lease authority and may consider
conveying the parcel to the city to allow for fee simple ownership. The
Feltus property would be retained by the state for purposes deemed
appropriate, and the state would collaborate with the city on any
future plans for this property as well.
While we support the proposed conveyance, we are concerned about
how the bean field property might be used in the future, beyond the
planned use for recreational purposes. We recommend that S. 264 be
amended to provide for reversion of the 38-acre bean field property to
the United States, for administration by the National Park Service, in
the event that the land is not used for purposes compatible with the
Parkway. The bean field, unlike the Feltus property, is visible from
the Parkway. A reversionary clause would help protect against the
future possibility of incompatible development detracting from the
Parkway's scenic values. We would be happy to work with the committee
on language for such an amendment, as well as a technical amendment
needed for 10-acre boundary adjustment provision.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee
may have.
s. 265
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 265, a bill to authorize the acquisition of core battlefield land at
Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond for addition to Vicksburg
National Military Park.
The Department supports S. 265. This bill would enable the National
Park Service to add three separate battlefield sites to Vicksburg
National Military Park, which would each make significant contributions
to telling the story of the remarkable campaign that resulted in the
Union Army's capture of the city of Vicksburg during the Civil War.
The battlefields at Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond are
sites of military engagement associated with the 1863 Vicksburg
Campaign. The campaign was a major milestone on the road that led to
the final success of the Union army in the war and the ultimate
reunification of the nation. The strategies and tactics of Major
General Ulysses S. Grant during the campaign continue to be studied by
modern military leaders as examples of excellence in generalship.
The proposed addition of campaign battlefields to Vicksburg
National Military Park is based on the study authorized by Public Law
106-487, the Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act.
That law directed the Secretary of the Interior to complete a study to
determine what measures should be taken to preserve Civil War
battlefields along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail. The Vicksburg Campaign
Trail Feasibility Study, transmitted to Congress in 2006, identified
Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond as ``Tier I'' sites, placing
them among the 19 highest-ranked resources out of the more than 500
Vicksburg Campaign-related resources evaluated by the study. The study
recommended Champion Hill and Port Gibson for addition to the National
Park System. Raymond was viewed as adequately protected by the Friends
of Raymond, a local non-profit group.
All three battlefields continue to exhibit a very high degree of
historical integrity. Most essential features remain intact, and modern
intrusions are limited. Acquisition of the battlefields would allow the
National Park Service to ensure long-term preservation of the cultural
landscape and other cultural resources, and to better interpret the
stories of the Vicksburg Campaign. The renewed public interest in the
need to protect Civil War battlefields that is being generated by Civil
War Sesquicentennial activities makes this legislation particularly
timely. In addition, this legislation would advance the vision of
safeguarding our historic and cultural heritage that the President
committed to through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
The battlefield at Port Gibson marks the first engagement of
Grant's operations against Vicksburg after his army landed on
Mississippi soil. After a day of battle, the Confederate army left the
field and Grant secured his beachhead. The proposed boundary at Port
Gibson encompasses about 3,810 acres. The State of Mississippi owns 14
acres in fee, and holds a preservation easement on 609 acres. The
historic Schaifer House, a Civil War-era home, is extant on the
property owned by the state. Many roads within the battlefield remain
very similar in appearance to the mid-19th century and provide a strong
sense of how Civil War troops moved.
Eleven days after the battle at Port Gibson, the Union and
Confederate armies met again on the field at Raymond. After a day of
heavy fighting, Federal forces again prevailed and General Pemberton's
troops withdrew to Jackson. The proposed boundary at Raymond
encompasses about 1,520 acres. The Friends of Raymond owns 140 acres of
this land in fee, and holds a preservation easement on an additional 6
acres. The battlefield remains largely pristine, and holds high
potential for interpretation.
Following the battle at Raymond and the subsequent occupation of
Jackson, General Grant turned his army towards the west. On May 16,
Union and Confederate forces met again, this time at Champion Hill. The
battle was the largest, bloodiest, and most decisive engagement of the
Vicksburg Campaign. By the end of the day, the Confederates were in
full retreat towards Vicksburg. The proposed boundary at Champion Hill
includes approximately 6,350 acres. The State owns 836 acres in fee,
and holds a preservation easement on an additional 558 acres. The Civil
War Trust also owns 60 acres in fee. The historic Coker House, a Civil
War-era home, is extant on the property owned by the State.
In total, S. 265 authorizes the addition of up to 11,680 acres to
Vicksburg National Military Park. The State of Mississippi, Civil War
Trust, and Friends of Raymond cumulatively own about 1,050 acres in
fee, and hold preservation easements on about 1,172 acres of land. Each
of these entities has expressed the desire to transfer its interests to
the National Park Service. Acquisition costs for these properties would
be nominal, since they would be donated. Based on current assessed
property values, the acquisition costs for other lands in these areas
are expected to average between $1,700 and $3,000 per acre (depending
on the presence, if any, of marketable timber), totaling approximately
$16 million to $28 million, for acquisition in fee. The National Park
Service would also seek to protect land through less costly means, such
as conservation easements. Additional management planning involving
public participation would be necessary to best determine the level of
facilities needed to serve the visiting public and to identify
important battlefield protection strategies for these new lands. The
capital investment needed to support infrastructure and recurring
operational costs, consequently, have not been defined in detail. In
gross terms, annual operational costs have been estimated at $1 million
to $1.5 million.
Under S. 265, the properties identified for potential acquisition
by the National Park Service would not be added to the boundary of, or
managed as part of, Vicksburg National Military Park unless and until
they are actually acquired.
S. 265 enjoys strong local and national support. Mississippi
Governor Haley Barbour and leadership at the Mississippi Department of
Archives and History are on record as supporting the transfer of state
lands to the National Park Service. The Civil War Trust and Friends of
Raymond have expressed support for the legislation, as have elected
officials and community leaders in Hinds and Claiborne Counties and the
communities of Raymond and Port Gibson. This bill would help guarantee
the preservation, protection, restoration, and interpretation of these
important lands for current and future generations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee may have.
s. 324
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 324, a bill that would amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Development Act to extend the authority of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal National Historical Park Commission.
The Department supports S. 324. The establishment of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission (Commission) on
January 8, 1971, stemmed in part from the unique nature of the canal.
It is unlike most areas administered by the National Park Service as it
is a linear park running along a 185-mile stretch of river shoreline
and is flanked by the nation's capital, suburban communities, and
numerous small towns.
S. 324 would change the termination date of the Commission from 40
years to 50 years after the effective date of January 8, 1971. The
Commission's authority to operate terminated on January 8, 2011. S. 324
would extend the authority to operate to January 8, 2021.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, begun in 1828 and completed in 1850,
runs continuously 185 miles from Georgetown in the District of Columbia
through Maryland and West Virginia to Cumberland in Maryland.
Originally planned to link Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, as part of this nation's canal-building boom, the canal
was constructed to be a major commercial route. While the canal
operated until 1924 when it was abandoned, competition from the newly
constructed railroad and the National Road resulted in much less
commercial success than its builders had hoped. In 1938, the United
States purchased the narrow canal right-of-way from Georgetown to
Cumberland, Maryland, and partially restored the lower end of the
canal.
In 1961, the C & O Canal Monument was created by Presidential
Proclamation but no funding was provided to develop the area or acquire
adjacent lands. A proposal to construct a highway along the canal's
route met considerable public opposition led by Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas and this support ultimately led to the establishment
of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, running the
length of the original canal.
When the park was established in 1971, the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal National Historical Park Commission was created. The 19-member
Commission served to link the various jurisdictions along the length of
the park. Under the 1971 legislation, the Secretary of the Interior was
directed to meet and consult with the Commission at least annually on
general policies and specific matters related to the administration and
development of the park.
The Commission has performed valuable service during the past 39
years in advising and assisting the National Park Service in the
administration and development of the park. In the early years, the
Commission served as the vehicle for public meetings in the development
of the general plan for the park, and subsequently for several park,
site-specific development concept plans. In the years since, the
Commission has served as the public forum for discussing implementation
of plans along the 185 miles of the park.
The Commission represented not only the local park neighbors, but
the national constituency as well. Many Commission members had a life-
long interest in the C & O Canal and the National Park Service. The
Commission met quarterly and Commission members were only compensated
for reimbursement of actual expenses for meetings. Individual members
of the Commission served on various volunteer groups and participated
in park-sponsored events throughout the year. The commissioners
communicated directly with the park superintendent during meetings and
individually throughout the year regarding park issues.
The need for the Commission continues because the park is spread
across 19 political jurisdictions. The Commission assisted park staff
in reaching out to these numerous constituencies and ensuring that all
their views were heard. As the work of managing C & O Canal National
Historical Park continues, the public connection to park management
through the Commission should continue as well.
This completes my prepared comments concerning S. 384. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
s. 864
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
864, a bill to designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial
at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
The Department would defer to the Department of Defense for a
position on S. 864 since the purpose of the legislation is to further
honor military personnel who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying
Cross at a site that is not under the jurisdiction of the Department.
The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to a member of the United
States armed forces who distinguishes himself or herself in support of
operations by ``heroism or extraordinary achievement while
participating in an aerial flight.'' We applaud the effort of the March
Field Air Museum to create a suitable memorial to the honor, bravery,
and sacrifice of members of our Armed Forces who have earned this
medal.
This legislation explicitly states that this memorial is not a unit
of the National Park System. As this language makes clear, the use of
the title ``national memorial'' creates a reasonable expectation among
the general public that it must have an affiliation with the National
Park Service, which currently administers 27 national memorials across
the country. This is not the first time this issue has arisen, nor is
it likely to be the last, and the Department respectfully encourages
only the most thoughtful and judicious designation of any future
``national'' memorials or other similar sites.
That concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions from you and members of the committee.
s. 883
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 883, a bill to authorize the National Mall
Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on federal land in the
District of Columbia to honor free persons and slaves who fought for
independence, liberty, and justice for all during the American
Revolution.
The Department supports S. 883 if amended to conform to the
principles, processes, and requirements set forth in the Commemorative
Works Act, which has successfully guided the process for establishing
monuments in the nation's capital since it was enacted in 1986 and as
amended since that time.
The bill would authorize the establishment of a memorial on federal
land in Area I in the District of Columbia to recognize and commemorate
the contributions of 5,000 African Americans who served as soldiers and
sailors or provided civilian assistance during the American
Revolutionary War. The bill prohibits the use of federal funds to
establish the memorial, directs that the memorial be established
according to the Commemorative Works Act, and repeals two laws for the
authorization and site selection of a similar memorial proposal that
have already lapsed by operation of law.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Commemorative Works Act to guide the
process for establishing memorials in the nation's capital. Since its
enactment, the Act has played an important role in ensuring that
memorials in the nation's capital are located, designed and erected in
a manner that is worthy of their historically significant subjects. The
act was amended in 2003 to, among other things, provide for
establishment of the Reserve where no additional memorials may be
located.
While S. 883 states that the memorial shall be established in
accordance with the Commemorative Works Act, the bill contravenes a
critical requirement of the Commemorative Works Act by pre-authorizing
the memorial to be located within Area I. In effect, the bill directs
that the memorial be located within Area I without benefit of public
participation or the participation of the Secretary of the Interior,
circumventing the process Congress has adhered to since 1986. This
preempts the Secretary's responsibility to recommend Area I
designations to Congress for Congress to consider and act upon, and it
curtails the roles of the National Capital Planning Commission and the
Commission of Fine Arts.
The Commemorative Works Act, as amended, designates federal land in
two areas in the District of Columbia and environs on which memorials
could be sited within the District of Columbia, and one area, known as
the Reserve, where no additional memorials can be located. These areas
are depicted on the attached map which is designated in the Act. All
memorials authorized to be located on this federal land in the District
of Columbia and environs are authorized to seek sites within the
portion of the map designated as Area II. However, a new memorial may
be located in Area I only if the Secretary determines, after 3
consulting with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission,
which holds public meetings, that the memorial's subject warrants
location in Area I, and if the Congress agrees with the Secretary's
determination by passing legislation to this effect within 150 days.
Area I is within the Monumental Core of the Nation's Capital extending
from Third Street, N.W. to the eastern boundary of Arlington National
Cemetery and along the shoreline on the Virginia side of the Potomac
River.
The Department's position regarding adherence to the Commemorative
Works Act process for Area I designation is consistent with the
position taken by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission,
which reviewed S. 883 at its public meeting on June 23, 2011. The
Commission recommended support for S. 883 if brought into conformance
with the Commemorative Works Act by deleting the word ``preeminent'' in
Section 1, and the reference to Area I in Section 2(A)(i).
In the Department's view, following the Commemorative Works Act
would not hinder the Liberty Memorial Foundation in its ability to
establish this memorial. In fact, if the Foundation obtains an Area I
designation through the Commemorative Works Act process, the
Foundation's 7-year statutory period to establish the memorial is
automatically extended seven more years, beginning on the enactment of
the Area I designation, instead of expiring at the 7-year point. This
change to give sponsors seven more years for a memorial when seeking an
Area I designation, was made by Congress when it amended the
Commemorative Works Act in 2003, and as a result, sponsors no longer
need to factor into their goals that seeking an Area I designation
would reduce the time available to them to locate, fund and design
their memorials.
We also would point out that S. 883 makes no provisions for the
disposition of monies raised in excess of funds needed for the
establishment of the memorial or to hold in reserve the amount
available should the authority to establish the memorial lapse. The
Department recommends that the bill be amended to clarify the
disposition of these funds.
The Department reiterates our support of the establishment of a
memorial in the Nation's Capital that recognizes and commemorates the
contributions of African Americans who fought for independence, liberty
and justice during the Revolutionary War. We look forward to the
opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to develop language that
would provide for such authorization in a manner consistent with the
principles, processes, and requirements set forth by existing
authorities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared testimony, I would be glad
to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
may have.
Attachment (map)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Map has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
s. 970
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior
on S. 970, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by
designating additional segments and tributaries of the White Clay Creek
in Delaware and Pennsylvania as components of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation with one
technical amendment.
S. 970 would amend the White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River
designation to add nine additional miles of segments and tributaries to
the designation, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary). The additional segments and tributaries will be managed in
accordance with the ``White Clay Creek and Its Tributaries Watershed
Management Plan'' (amended Summer 2001) with the Secretary coordinating
the White Clay Creek Watershed Management Committee.
In December 1991, Congress directed the National Park Service to
undertake a study of the headwaters of the White Clay Creek in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its confluence with the Christina River
in the State of Delaware. The study was also to include the East, West,
and Middle Branches; Middle Run; Pike Creek; Mill Creek; and other
tributaries of the White Clay, as identified by the Secretary, to
determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. The study was to be done in cooperation and
consultation with various federal, state, regional, and local
governments and affected landowners. In addition, a river management
plan was to be prepared that would provide recommendations as to the
protection and management of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries.
The plan was to outline roles for the state and local governments and
affected landowners to play in the management of the White Clay Creek
as a designated component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.
In 1998, a watershed management plan was prepared that contained
six goals for management of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries.
These goals include improving and conserving water quality and
quantity, and conserving open space, woodlands, wetlands, and geologic
features. The plan was done cooperatively and calls for a management
framework for the White Clay Creek and its tributaries that rely
heavily on local land use decisions.
In 1999, the National Park Service issued the ``White Clay Creek
and Its Tributaries National Wild and Scenic River Study Draft
Report.'' In the report, the National Park Service found that the
majority of the river segments identified in the study met the
eligibility requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by virtue of
their free-flowing condition and presence of one or more outstandingly
remarkable resource values. The watershed also includes open space and
recreational opportunities for hiking, jogging, canoeing and fishing;
in fact, the White Clay Creek is the most heavily stocked and heavily
used put-and-take trout stream in the State of Delaware. In 2000,
Public Law 106-357 designated 190 miles of the White Clay Creek and its
tributaries as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System.
The study report also identified additional segments and
tributaries, which are the subject of S. 970, that would be eligible
and suitable for designation. These segments and tributaries are
eligible and suitable because they are free-flowing streams with
outstandingly remarkable values including the Cockeysville marble
geologic formation that supports a high-yielding aquifer, a major
source of drinking water, and threatened and endangered species
including the Muhlenberg's (bog) turtle and cerulean warbler. However,
these segments and tributaries were removed from consideration because
the Delaware River Basin Commission was looking at these areas as
possible locations for reservoirs under their comprehensive plan. In
addition, there was not demonstrated municipal support for such a
designation.
In 2007, these segments and tributaries were removed from the
comprehensive plan of the Delaware River Basin Commission. In addition,
the New Garden Township in Pennsylvania, the only affected
municipality, passed a resolution in support of the designation. With
these two issues resolved, the Department now supports these segments
and tributaries, totaling nine miles, be added to the National Wild and
Scenic River System. The Department would like to work with the
committee to make a technical correction to a map reference in Section
3 of the bill.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
s. 1063
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1063, the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act of 2011.
This legislation provides for the restoration of an important
cultural connection to Glacier Bay by the Huna Tlingit, and provides
for the environmentally preferred action identified in our studies. As
such, the Department supports enactment of S. 1063 with an amendment.
Glacier Bay National Park is the traditional homeland of the Huna
Tlingit who harvested eggs at gull rookeries in Glacier Bay prior to,
and after the park was established in 1925. Egg collection was
curtailed in the 1960s as Migratory Bird Treaty Act and National Park
Service (NPS) regulations prohibited the activity.
The Glacier Bay National Park Resource Management Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-455) directed the NPS to study whether gull egg collection could
resume without impairing the biological sustainability of the gull
population in the park. The NPS conducted the study, wrote an
environmental impact statement, and issued a record of decision, which
found that collection under certain conditions would be sustainable.
Those conditions, addressing the frequency of harvest and an annual
harvest plan, are reflected in S. 1063.
Section 2 (b) of the bill contains a condition for the Secretary of
the Interior to develop an annual harvest plan jointly with the Hoonah
Indian Association. To clarify that the Hoonah Indian Association's
role is purely advisory, we recommend the attached amendment.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to testify on this
matter. I will be glad to answer any questions.
AMENDMENT TO S. 1063
On p. 2, line 9, strike ``jointly by the Secretary and the Hoonah
Indian Association.'' and insert ``by the Secretary in consultation
with the Hoonah Indian Association.''.
s. 1134
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding S. 1134, a bill
to authorize the St. Croix River Crossing Project with appropriate
mitigation measures to promote river values. This bill would allow
construction of a new extradosed bridge crossing the St. Croix River if
the mitigation items are included as enforceable conditions.
The Department cannot support this legislation, as the NPS
determined that the St. Croix River Project would have a direct and
adverse impact to the river and that these impacts cannot be mitigated,
as documented in its Section 7(a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act evaluation
of October 15, 2010. We are very concerned about the precedent that
such legislation would establish given that the Department found the
bridge project would have a direct and adverse effect on the designated
river. In its May 4, 2011 testimony NPS did not support a similar
bill--H.R. 850, which would facilitate a proposed project in the Lower
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. S. 1134 differs from H.R. 850 with
the inclusion of mitigation measures for the project.
This bill requires that the mitigation items described in paragraph
9 of the 2006 St. Croix River Crossing Project Memorandum of
Understanding for Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items, signed
by the Federal Highway Administration on March 28, 2006, and by the
National Park Service on March 27, 2006, are included as enforceable
conditions.\1\ It also states that any subsequent amendments to the
Memorandum of Understanding are included as enforceable conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding may be found at
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/pdfs/Memounder/
Riverway%20MOU%204-11-06.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway) received
protection as a ``study river'' with passage of the Act in 1968.
Congress subsequently designated the upper 27-mile segment of the Lower
St. Croix River as a Wild and Scenic River in 1972 and provided that if
the Governors of the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin submit an
application for the lower 25-mile segment, the Secretary of the
Interior upon his approval shall designate that segment. The Governors
did submit an application and the Secretary designated the lower
segment in 1976. The Act established a method for providing Federal
protection for some of our country's remaining free-flowing rivers,
preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations.
In Section 7(a) of the Act, Congress expressed the clear intent to
protect river values. The Act prohibits Federal agencies from assisting
in the construction of any water resources project that would have a
direct and adverse effect on the values of a designated river. Section
7(a) states:
. . .no department or agency of the United States
shall assist by loan, grant, license or otherwise in
the construction of any water resources project that
would have a direct and adverse effect on the values
for which such river was established, as determined by
the Secretary charged with its administration. . .
Pursuant to that statute, if the Department determines a direct and
adverse impact would occur, the project cannot proceed absent
congressional action.
The Riverway is administered by the states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin for 25 miles and the National Park Service (NPS) for 27
miles. However, the Department of the Interior, through the NPS, has
responsibility for evaluation of proposed Federal projects for the
entire 52 miles of the designated river. The NPS is responsible for
evaluating water resources projects under Section 7(a) of the Act to
determine whether those Federal projects, including bridges, will have
a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway's free-flowing condition,
water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. Each water
resources project is evaluated independently on its own merits.
The Riverway runs fast over sections of exposed bedrock, slow and
deep over great depositional sediments left by the last glaciers, and
throughout its course to the Mississippi River, the river carves
through steep forested bluffs and rich valley bottomlands. Although
solitude in natural settings is increasingly rare so close to a major
metropolitan area, the Riverway offers natural solitude and abundant
recreation.
In 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a
Record of Decision to construct a new bridge over the Lower St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway and in June 1996, the Sierra Club and
Voyageurs Region National Park Association commenced a lawsuit against
the United States Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Department and the NPS to enjoin construction of
the project. They alleged that the Department had violated Section 7(a)
of the Act by failing to determine whether the new bridge would have a
direct and adverse effect upon the values for which the Riverway was
established. In September 1996, the FHWA and its lead partner--the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)--applied for a Section
10/404 permit to place fill in the waters of the United States for
bridge construction. Subsequently, the NPS prepared a Section 7(a)
evaluation and determined that the project would have a direct and
adverse effect on the Riverway's scenic and recreational values because
of its visual impacts and that no available mitigation measures could
significantly reduce the negative effects of the proposed bridge.
Therefore, permits could not be issued and the bridge project could not
go forward. MnDOT, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT)
and the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, intervened in the lawsuit as
defendants. They alleged that the 1996 NPS Section 7(a) determination
was arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory authority. The
court upheld the 1996 NPS Section 7(a) determination, establishing case
law that bridges are water resources projects subject to Section 7(a)
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
In 1998, after discussions with legislators and other interested
parties, the FHWA, MnDOT and WisDOT decided to revisit the issue of a
river crossing near Stillwater. MnDOT facilitated a consensus-building
process for a new bridge crossing of the Riverway. This process
resulted in a new bridge alignment and design as well as a mitigation
package.
In 2000, the NPS prepared a Draft Section 7(a) evaluation for
inclusion in FHWA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This
evaluation determined that the proposed bridge would have a direct and
adverse effect on scenic and recreational values; however, the adverse
effects were adequately offset by the mitigation package developed by
the stakeholders.
In 2001, the FHWA suspended that EIS process short of a final
decision, citing insufficient funds for the implementation of the
mitigation measures.
In 2002, the FHWA and its two state partners again re-initiated a
St. Croix River Crossing EIS process. A ``Stakeholders Group,'' made up
of 28 representatives of diverse interests was formed to provide input
to the transportation agencies in their decision-making process. This
process resulted in a new proposed bridge alignment (similar to the
original 1996 alignment), a bridge design, and a mitigation package.
In 2005, the NPS prepared an updated Section 7(a) evaluation that
determined that the proposed crossing, when taken along with its
mitigation package, would not have a direct and adverse effect on the
scenic and recreational values, provided that the mitigation package
remained intact.
In 2006, the FHWA issued a new record of decision to allow the
bridge to be built. The Sierra Club again sued the Secretaries of
Transportation and the Interior, alleging violations of the National
Environmental Policy Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (40 U.S.C. 1653(f)), and the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.
On March 11, 2010, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota found the
2005 NPS Section 7(a) evaluation ``arbitrary and capricious'' and
vacated it.
On April 6, 2010, the FHWA requested that the NPS prepare a new
evaluation in response to the court's decision. The NPS released its
latest Section 7(a) evaluation on October 15, 2010. The evaluation
determined that, due to visual impacts, the St. Croix River Crossing
Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river and that
those impacts cannot be mitigated.
The NPS transmitted the 2010 Section 7(a) evaluation to the FHWA,
stating that, ``While the NPS believes the mitigation measures are not
sufficient to eliminate the direct and adverse effects of the Project
on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway's designated scenic and
recreational values, the NPS strongly supports their implementation if
Congressional action is taken to allow the Project to move forward. The
mitigation measures are essential to meet the requirements of Section
4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 and help the states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin protect and enhance river values under Section 10(a) of the
Act. ''
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the committee.
Ms. O'Dell. S. 264 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to convey 67 acres of land from Natchez Trace Parkway
to the State of Mississippi. This land was donated by the State
to the National Park Service to help complete construction of
the southern terminus of the parkway at Natchez, but it was not
needed for that purpose.
The bill would also adjust the parkway boundary to include
10 acres already owned by the National Park Service around the
southern terminus.
The Department supports this legislation with an amendment
to help protect against the possibility of future development
that would be incompatible with the parkway.
S. 265 would authorize the National Park Service to add 3
separate battlefield sites to Vicksburg National Military
Park--Champion Hill, Port Gibson and Raymond. These 3 sites
would each make significant contributions to telling the story
of the remarkable campaign that resulted in the Union Army's
capture of the city of Vicksburg during the Civil War. All 3
battlefields exhibit a very high degree of historic integrity,
and are among the highest-ranked resources evaluated in the
study the National Park Service conducted of the Vicksburg
Campaign Trail.
The Department supports this legislation.
S. 324 would amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Development Act to extend the authority of the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. The
Commission's authority to operate terminated on January 8,
2011. S. 324 would extend the authority to operate to January
8, 2021. The Department supports S. 324.
S. 864 would designate a Distinguished Flying Cross
National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside,
California. The Department defers to the Department of Defense
for a position on S. 864, since the purpose of the legislation
is to further honor military personnel who have been awarded
the Distinguished Flying Cross at a site not under the
jurisdiction of the Department. This legislation explicitly
states that this memorial is not a unit of the National Park
Service.
S. 883 would authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund DC.
to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of
Columbia to recognize the contributions of African-Americans
who served as soldiers and sailors, or provided civilian
assistance during the American Revolutionary War.
The Department supports S. 883 if amended to conform to the
principles, process and requirements set forth in the
Commemorative Works Act. While S. 883 states that the memorial
shall be established in accordance with the act, the bill
contravenes a critical requirement of the act by preauthorizing
the memorial to be located within Area 1.
In addition, S. 883 makes no provisions for the disposition
of excess moneys raised to establish the memorial, or to hold
in reserve the amount available should the authority to
establish the memorial lapse. The Department recommends that
the bill be amended to clarify the disposition of these funds.
S. 970 amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
approximately 9 miles of additional segments and tributaries of
White Clay Creek in the State of Delaware and the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania as components of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
The Department supports enactment of S. 970, with only a
technical correction to the map reference.
S. 1063 would allow for the sustainable harvest of gull
eggs by the Huna Tlingit people within Glacier Bay National
Park. This legislation provides for the restoration of an
important cultural connection to Glacier Bay, and provides for
the environmentally preferred identified in a recent
environmental impact statement.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1063 with one
amendment, which is provided in our written testimony.
S. 1134 seeks to authorize the St. Croix River Crossing
Project with appropriate mitigation measures. This bill would
allow construction of a new bridge crossing if the mitigation
items are included as enforceable conditions.
The Department cannot support this legislation, as the
National Park Service determined that the St. Croix River
Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river,
and that certain of those impacts cannot be mitigated, as
documented in its section 7(a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
evaluation of October 15th, 2010.
We are very concerned about the precedent that such
legislation would establish. We feel strongly that any
authorization or appropriations for this project should include
the mitigation measures referenced above if congressional
action is taken to allow the project to move forward.
While we cannot support the legislation, we acknowledge the
efforts of Senator Klobuchar and her staff to include the
mitigation provisions and to preserve the original intent of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which are concerns that we
raised during a hearing on a similar bill in the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public
Lands.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I'm available
for any questions you all might have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. O'Dell.
Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Chairman Udall and Senator Franken, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you to provide the views
of the Department on 3 bills being considered today.
The Department supports S. 764, which would amend the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections to the
segment divisions for the Chetco River in Oregon. This bill
would also add language to the act to provide for withdrawal of
the land within the entire river boundary, subject to valid
existing rights, from all forms of mineral entry.
The Wild and Scenic River designation of the Chetco River
protects its important anadromous fishery, water quality, and
recreational values. The river also contributes exceptionally
pure and clean water to the domestic water supplies for the
communities of Brookings and Harbor, Oregon.
The technical corrections in the bill would move the
divisional Wild and Scenic River boundary to extend the wild
segment 2 miles. The scenic segment of the river would be
extended 1.5 miles. Both changes better reflect the respective
river classifications, and there is no change in the overall
mileage of the designated portion of the ChetcoRiver.
The withdrawal proposed in this bill would, will help to
further protect these watersheds. To provide time for Congress
to consider and take action on legislation introduced in June
2010, the Forest Service submitted a withdrawal request within
the scenic and recreational segments of the Chetco River
boundary for 5 years.
The Department strongly supports S. 888, which would amend
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of
Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington as a component of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It would add 14.3
miles to the system in 2 segments, but would exclude the lower
2 miles of Illabot Creek.
The segment to be designated by this bill is a tributary of
the Skagit River which was added to the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System in 1978. It is located on the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest approximately 100 miles northeast of
Seattle, Washington, and flows from the glaciers of the North
Cascades into the upper Skagit River, the largest tributary to
Puget Sound.
Illabot Creek provides exceptional spawning and rearing
habitat for salmon, native steelhead, and one of the largest
populations of bull trout in the Skagit River watershed. Puget
Sound Chinook, steelhead and bull trout are listed under the
Endangered Species Act.
Illabot Creek also provides habitat for wintering bald
eagles. Eagles using the Illabot roost are a part of one of the
largest concentrations of wintering bald eagles in the
continental United States.
Because of Illabot Creek's outstandingly remarkable fish
and wildlife values, I recommend the subcommittee consider
designating all 16.3 miles of Illabot Creek, from its
headwaters to its confluence with the Skagit River. With the
designation of Illabot Creek as proposed in S. 888, only 0.6
miles of the entire creek would not be afforded the protections
of a Wild and Scenic Rivers corridor.
The Department has no objection to the enactment of S. 925,
which would direct the designation of an unnamed 12,240-foot
peak located on the boundary between Ansel Adams Wilderness and
Yosemite National Park as ``Mount Andrea Lawrence.'' Ms.
Lawrence was a successful Olympic athlete and a committed
public servant. She was a strong supporter of the work of the
Inyo National Forest and Yosemite National Park. She worked
tirelessly to protect the health and vitality of the
environment and economies in the Eastern Sierra and the Sierra
Nevada as a whole. Ms. Lawrence passed away at the age of 76 on
March 31, 2009.
The Department recognizes the contributions of Ms. Lawrence
to both the United States and California, and concurs with the
principles embodied in the legislation. However, we do note
that the policy of the Board on Geographic Names requires that
a person be deceased at least 5 years before a commemorative
proposal will be considered.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 764
Chairman Bingaman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture
on S. 764, the Chetco River Protection Act of 2011.
S. 764 amends Sec. 3(a) (69) (A), (B), and (C) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (the Act) to make technical corrections to the
segment divisions for the Chetco River in Oregon. The bill would also
add language to the Act to provide for withdrawal of the land within
the entire river boundary (44.5 miles and all classifications), subject
to valid existing rights, from all forms of appropriation or disposal
under the public land laws; location, entry, and patent under the
United States mining laws; and disposition under laws relating to
mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
We support the legislation. The Chetco River was added to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1988 to protect its important
anadromous fishery, water quality, and recreational values. The Chetco
River supports significant populations of anadromous winter steelhead,
fall Chinook salmon, and sea-run cutthroat with resident cutthroat and
rainbow trout abundant in its upper reaches. The River has striking
water color and clarity, and ability to clear quickly following storm
events. It also contributes exceptionally pure and clean water to the
domestic water supplies for the communities of Brookings and Harbor,
Oregon. The withdrawal proposed in this bill will help protect these
regionally significant values.
There are two technical corrections proposed in this bill. The
first would move the divisional boundary to extend the wild segment of
the river 2 miles. The second would move the divisional boundary to
extend the scenic segment of the river 1.5 miles. Both changes better
reflect the respective classifications. There is no change in the
overall mileage of the designated portion of the Chetco River. These
technical changes are consistent with the recommendation in the
decision notice for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's
comprehensive river management plan for the Chetco River which was
signed in 1993.
The wild segment of the Chetco River was withdrawn from mining and
mineral leasing when the River was designated, as are all wild river
classifications by the enabling legislation. To provide time for
Congress to consider and take action on legislation introduced in June
2010 (H.R. 5526 and S. 3488), the Forest Service submitted a withdrawal
request to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management to withdraw the approximate 5,610 acres within the scenic
and recreational segments of the Chetco River boundary for 5 years in
order to protect this area from future mining claims. This withdrawal
request is consistent with the lands described in (this bill) S.764. We
expect the withdrawal request to be published in the Federal Register
within the next two weeks. All withdrawals are subject to valid
existing rights and validity exams will have to be conducted on any
proposed mining activity
S. 888, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE A SEGMENT
OF ILLABOT CREEK IN SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AS A COMPONENT
OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542 (16 U.S.C. 1271--
1287, as amended) protects the free-flowing condition, water quality,
and outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural, and recreational values
of some of our most precious rivers. It also provides an opportunity to
build partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, and
all levels of government.
S. 888 amends Sec. 3(a) of the Act to designate a segment of
Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It adds 14.3 miles in two
segments: 4.3 miles from the headwaters to the Glacier Peak Wilderness
boundary classified as wild, and 10 miles from the Glacier Peak
Wilderness boundary to approximately 1000 feet south of the Rockport-
Cascade road classified as recreational.
We strongly support the legislation.
The segment to be designated by S. 888 is a tributary of the Skagit
River, which was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in
1978. It is located on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest,
approximately 100 miles northeast of Seattle, Washington and flows from
the glaciers of the North Cascades into the upper Skagit River, the
largest tributary to Puget Sound.
Illabot Creek provides exceptional spawning and rearing habitat for
summer and fall Chinook, coho, chum and pink salmon; native steelhead;
and, one of the largest populations of bull trout in the Skagit River
watershed. Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead and bull trout are listed
under the Endangered Species Act. Illabot Creek also supports the
highest density of chum and pink salmon in the Skagit River watershed
and provides habitat for wintering bald eagles. Eagles using the
Illabot roost are a part of one of the largest concentration of
wintering bald eagles in the continental United States.
Mr. Chairman, we recommend the Subcommittee consider designating
all of Illabot Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the
Skagit River (16.3 miles) as recommended in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest Plan (June 1990). This includes the lower 2 miles,
classified as a recreational river, of which approximately 1.4 miles is
in the Skagit Wild and Scenic River Corridor. With the designation of
Illabot Creek as proposed in H.R. 1740, only 0.6 mile is not included
in either Illabot Creek Wild and Scenic River or the existing Skagit
Wild and Scenic River corridor. The lower 2 miles includes some of the
most important fish spawning habitat and an important foraging and
roosting area for wintering bald eagles. Much of this area is in the
Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area and dedicated to resource
protection.
S. 925 THE MOUNT ANDREA LAWRENCE DESIGNATION ACT OF 2011
This legislation directs the designation of an unnamed 12,240 foot
peak, located on the boundary between Ansel Adams Wilderness Area and
Yosemite National Park approximately six tenths miles (0.6) northeast
of Donahue Peak, as ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence.''
The management of the proposed Mt. Andrea Lawrence is shared
between the Inyo National Forest and Yosemite National Park. We have
consulted with the U. S. Department of the Interior--National Park
Service in the preparation of this statement.
Ms. Lawrence was a successful Olympic athlete and a committed
public servant, having served 16-years on the Mono County Board of
Supervisors and founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and
Rivers. She was a strong supporter of the work of the Inyo National
Forest and Yosemite National Park. She worked tirelessly to protect the
health and vitality of the environment and economies in the Eastern
Sierra and the Sierra Nevada Region as a whole. Ms. Lawrence passed
away at the age of 76 on March 31, 2009.
The Department has no objection to the enactment of S. 925 and
notes that it would have no adverse impact to the management of the
Inyo National Forest, or the Ansel Adams Wilderness. However, the Board
on Geographic Names was created by Congress in 1947 to establish and
maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal
Government. It is Board policy not to consider names that commemorate
living persons. In addition, a person must be deceased at least 5-years
before a commemorative proposal will be considered. In accordance with
the Board's interpretation of Wilderness Act of 1964, the Board on
Geographic Names discourages naming features in congressionally
designated wilderness areas unless an overriding need can be
demonstrated. Although the Administration does not have any objections
to the enactment of S. 925, maintaining consistency with the
longstanding policies of the Board on Geographic Names is recommended.
The Department recognizes the contributions of Ms. Lawrence to both
the United States and California, and concurs with the principles
embodied in the legislation. Should the legislation be enacted, the
Forest Service would work to ensure that our visitor information maps
reflect the new designation, and understand that the National Park
Service would do the same when their maps, signs, and other
informational materials are replaced or updated.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop.
Let me turn to Ms. O'Dell. I have a suite of 3 questions
I'd like to direct your way, and then I'll turn to Senator
Franken.
Let me start with the S. 1036, the collection of seagull
eggs in Glacier Bay National Park. The bill authorizes the
collection of gull eggs from within the park, notwithstanding
any other provision of law--that's quote, unquote. As I read
this language, it would waive the National Park Service Organic
Act, the laws specific to the establishment of Glacier Bay, and
several other applicable laws.
Why do you believe such a broad waiver of park laws is
necessary to allow for the limited collection of gull eggs?
Ms. O'Dell. Those laws govern that we protect the natural
resources of Glacier Bay National Park without impairment. The
environmental impact statement that we did was a legislative
environmental impact statement. The ROD suggested that we would
need legislation to protect the status of all of those other
laws, and to allow for the sustainable harvesting of eggs to
take place.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification. I may want
to submit an additional question or more for the record to that
particular point.
But, let me turn to the S. 1134, the St. Croix River
bridge. The bill would authorize Federal agencies to assist in
the construction of a bridge over the St. Croix River,
notwithstanding section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Do
you know how many other times section 7 has been waived for
other designated Wild and Scenic Rivers?
Ms. O'Dell. The National Park Service does not have the
authority to waive section 7 of the bill, so if anything had
ever happened, it would have been due to congressional action.
Senator Udall. But, you don't know how many times it has
been----
Ms. O'Dell. It hasn't----
Senator Udall [continuing]. Waived?
Ms. O'Dell [continuing]. Been, sir.
Senator Udall. I think that's an important question. We'll
work together to find the answer.
Let me move to the second question tied to the bridge.
There appears to be general consensus that a new bridge needs
to be built. The question seems to be more about what type of
bridge and how much it costs. Is legislation needed to move any
new bridge forward, or just the bridge discussed in this
proposal?
Furthermore, is the Park Service opposed to any new bridge
over the river, or just the specific bridge that has been
proposed?
Ms. O'Dell. Let me try to clarify what the National Park
Service's role is in this project. It's our job to analyze any
bridge proposal in this project, in this circumstance, and
analyze whether or not it has direct and adverse impacts on the
Wild and Scenic River. That's our sole role. So, any proposal
for a bridge that comes to the National Park Service, we will
do that analysis and present that finding. We have not been in
a position, nor would we, under section 7(a), to compare any
bridge proposal to another bridge proposal.
Senator Udall. OK. That's an important clarification for
this committee's understanding.
Third question----
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall [continuing]. On the heels of your answer. I
understand Senator Klobuchar's bill conditions the
authorization for a new bridge on a requirement that a
mitigation package be included as enforceable conditions. So,
am I correct that the Park Service agrees that if a bridge is
authorized, it's important that the mitigation be included in
the legislation?
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir. We believe that's true. We're very
grateful to the Senator for including that provision in her
bill. It protects the spirit of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
if this proposal should go forward. I think that many people in
the community and the country will appreciate that factor.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop, I always enjoy asking you questions, but I
have no questions for you today, so----
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall [continuing]. I'll get over that.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. First, I just want to say something about
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I'm sorry that the Ranking
Member isn't here. We want to preserve this act, and we want to
preserve the intent that Senators Mondale and Gaylord Nelson
had, which is to preserve these beautiful, beautiful rivers.
This is, will be the first bridge that has been built over one
of these rivers. It's really the exception that proves the
rule. I think that's important.
I don't want this to be an invitation to override,
wholesale overriding of the act, which has done its job for 43
years. I just want to say that.
Ms. O'Dell, in the National Park Service's most recent
section 7(a) evaluation it explains that ``adverse impacts must
be eliminated rather than partially offset'' for the Park
Service to consent to the project. The Lower St. Croix was
added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in part
because of its ``outstanding, remarkable scenic values.''
Would it ever be possible to completely eliminate all
adverse impacts of a new bridge on the scenic values of a
river?
Ms. O'Dell. That's a difficult question for me to answer
without looking at a specific proposal.
Senator Franken. OK. Let me move on. First of all, the 7(a)
section of this bill calls for this process.
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir.
Senator Franken. Right? That Senator Klobuchar and the rest
of us have, that this legislation is following. This is part of
the 7(a) process. So, I wanted to make that clear.
Ms. O'Dell, the National Park Service also oversees the
National Register of Historic Places, which includes the
Stillwater Lift Bridge. The Park Service has said it can't
approve a bridge ``where there was not one previously.'' Are
you aware of that?
Ms. O'Dell. I am.
Senator Franken. OK. The existing bridge cannot be
replaced, because it is protected as an historic bridge.
Given the protections of these different programs, it is
the position of the National Park Service that no bridge--this
is my understanding. I've talked to the National Park Service,
in Minnesota, at least--that no new bridge could move forward
in the Stillwater area without congressional action. It that
your understanding?
Ms. O'Dell. I don't know that we could say that today, sir.
Our job, really, is solely to evaluate a specific proposal, and
to provide an analysis of that impact----
Senator Franken. OK.
Ms. O'Dell [continuing]. Of that specific proposal.
Senator Franken. I guess my, having looked into this, that,
officially, that may be the case. But, basically, looking at
all the different bridge plans, there, what I understood from
the National Park Service in Minnesota was that no bridge would
get a 7(a) exemption, or, a positive 7(a) ruling, but that the
mitigation that we're putting in here will definitely help.
Anyway, in, let's move on.
In the Park Service's letter to the Federal Highway
Administration announcing the results of the most recent 7(a)
evaluation, it mentions the congressional process--which is
what we're doing--for authorizing specific projects in
accordance with a provision within the act itself. In fact, it
states that the NPS, National Park Service, strongly supports
the implementation of the mitigation package if congressional
action is taken to allow the project to move forward. This bill
explicitly includes that same mitigation package, right?
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir.
Senator Franken. If Congress is going to move forward with
authorizing this project, does the Park Service have any
concerns that this bill does not address?
Ms. O'Dell. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Senator Franken. OK. OK. So, what I--and, having done a lot
of research on this--is that we are, this act makes certain
that nothing will disturb the nature of a wild and scenic
river. We have this unique situation. The, a bridge can't be
built that's not in the footprint of the current bridge. We
can't get rid of the current bridge because of the historic
nature of it. So, we're going to--and this bridge that we're
talking about right now has mitigation that you favor, that
doesn't qualify the 7(a) under the technical parts of whether
it doesn't disturb the nature of the river, but which, under
7(a), the legislation as crafted does satisfy 7(a), and does
allow for the building of this bridge.
Ms. O'Dell. The mitigation measures that the Park Service
and Federal Highways agreed to do not mitigate the direct and
adverse impacts of the building of a new bridge. However, they
do support the spirit of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Senator Franken. Great. I thank you very much.
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Franken.
I have no further questions.
I want to thank you for taking the time to come to the
Senate side of Capitol Hill.
We will keep the record open, which, of course, I will
announce at the end of the hearing, and you may have additional
questions directed your way.
Thanks again for your service. Thank you.
As Mr. Holtrop and Ms. O'Dell leave, I'd ask the 3
witnesses for the--would the witnesses, Ms. O'Dell and Mr.
Holtrop, would the witnesses, actually, be willing to stay for
a few more minutes? I think Senator Coons is here. Evidently he
has a question or 2.
If Ms. O'Dell would stay.
Mr. Holtrop, we will excuse you. It's your luck day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. So, yes. So, yes. Ms. O'Dell, it's, your
number came up. We'd like you to rejoin us at the--That was,
I'm indebted to you. I'll see if I can make it up to you at
some point, if you----
Senator Coons is recognized when he's ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
DELAWARE
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. Thank
you for convening this hearing.
My congratulations to Senator Paul on joining you as the
ranking minority.
I simply wanted to speak for a few moments, if I could, Ms.
O'Dell about, I believe it's S. 970, to designate some
additional segments and tributaries of the White Clay Creek and
include them in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as
someone who grew up in the area of that rivering system, and
has hiked and fished it since childhood.
I was just recommending to you, its consideration is
something that my predecessor, Senator Kaufman, worked very
hard on, that has enjoyed the support of Congressman Pitts of
Pennsylvania, Congressman Carney of Delaware.
The reason these 2 sections were held out of the original
designation was because they were being considered by both a
Pennsylvania and Delaware local government as a future water
storage site. I was actively involved in my previous role as
County Executive in some of those discussions. They've both
since been removed from consideration for water storage because
other options have been pursued.
So, I just wanted to say that this bill, which passed
favorably from this committee in the last congress, I think, is
worthy of consideration. My sense was that it had no cost. I
wanted to make sure that that is accurate before urging my
colleagues to support this common-sense, no-cost, modest scope
expansion to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Ms. O'Dell.
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir. That's true. We believe there is no
additional cost to including these 9 extra miles in this system
that's already about 190 miles wide.
Senator Coons. Hopefully, this common-sense, no-cost
bipartisan amendment will pass----
[Laughter.]
Senator Coons [continuing]. Without any huge controversy.
But, given where we are in the Congress these days, I thought
it none-the-less worthwhile to compel you to say that it has no
cost.
Ms. O'Dell. I'm happy I could say that for you, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coons. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to----
Senator Franken. Can I ask one question? How much does it
cost?
[Laughter.]
Ms. O'Dell. I would have to get back to you on that,
Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Coons, and Senator
Franken.
Senator Coons makes an important point.
Ms. O'Dell, I know he and I both look forward to the day
when we call you back to the committee to discuss further a
proposal to create a national park in the 1 State that doesn't
have a national park, which is the great State of Delaware--the
first State. I know Senator Coons feels strongly about this.
We're going to continue to work together to make this a reality
for the people of Delaware, and the people of the United
States.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Udall. We have a very
solid plan that Senator Carper has advocated for tirelessly.
I'm grateful for your support. We look forward to the detailed
consideration of how we can keep the cost to a bare minimum for
the last State without a national park. Thanks, Senator.
Ms. O'Dell. We look forward to working with you to get us
across that finish line, sir.
Senator Udall. There's a lot of looking forward. Thank you,
Ms. O'Dell, again, and thank you for returning to the witness
table. That was, I think, relatively painless. I think we would
all look forward to adding some acreage to the Wild and Scenic
River System in Delaware. I think it's important to note that
we have Pennsylvania's support as well.
Ms. O'Dell. Correct. We do.
Senator Udall. We do. So, thank you again, and----
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall [continuing]. We can move to the next panel.
If the next panel would join us, we look forward to your
testimony.
We've been joined by, it's Mayor Harycki, Mr. Tomten, Mr.
Hession.
Thank you all for being here. We look forward to your
testimony.
Let me start with Mayor Harycki, and we'll move from my
right to my left. We would love to hear from each of you, and
if you can work within a 5-minute timeframe, that would be
excellent, and then we will direct some questions your way as
necessary.
So, again, thank you. Thanks for making the long trip to
our Nation's capital. I just drove across country a few weeks
ago with my daughter, who's at the University of Virginia, and
we bonded in a 36-hour non-stop drive back here. So, I know the
time it takes to get here, but it's great to have you here. I
know this speaks to the importance of this issue.
Mr. Harycki. We had 7 people bonding.
Senator Udall. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF KEN HARYCKI, MAYOR,
CITY OF STILLWATER, MN
Mayor Harycki. Thank you.
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul, members of the
committee. I'm Mayor Ken Harycki, co-chairman of the Crossing
Coalition.
I'm here today because only Congress can untangle this
catch-22 that Federal law has created and has stopped the long
overdue bridge from being built.
First a little background. Downtown Stillwater's protected
by the National Historic Register. The counties on both sides
of the river are part of the Twin Cities' 3 million population
metro area. The current lift bridge was built in 1931. By the
1960s it was apparent that demand was exceeding the design. It
is also on the Historic Register. Now, unfortunately, it is
dangerously outdated.
The lift bridge has a capacity of 11,000 cars per day, but
currently it's overburdened by an average of 18,000 vehicles.
In the summer it can jump to 25,000, all coming through
downtown.
The roadway has an accident rate nearly twice the State
average, and flooding and maintenance force the old bridge to
close on a regular basis. This is a functionally obsolete,
fractured critical bridge. A structural failure would result in
collapse. The bridge's efficiency rating of 33 is lower than
that of the 35W bridge before it collapsed in 2007, killing 13
and injuring 144.
It's been difficult to find a plan that's consistent with
the 3 important Federal--and sometimes conflicting--Federal
laws. We believe the river is an important natural resource
protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We want to
continue to protect the river and to protect the historic
sites. But we also need a safe crossing.
Our project was developed through a ground-breaking
environmental mediation process led by the Udall Institute. If
I may, perhaps it's not an accident that this committee is
being shared by Senator Udall.
In order to make sure that all ideas were considered, the
Udall Institute brought together 27 stakeholder groups. Staff
by a team of professionals, the group met for 3 years. It's
valuable to note that the National Park Service was an
important part of this process. This diverse group considered
numerous ideas and locations for a new crossing. We even looked
at tunneling.
The stakeholders needed to protect the river and to respect
the history of the region, all while making sure the natural
area has a transportation facility that's capable of meeting
current and future needs. The result was a package that
balances the 3 Federal laws. All but one of the groups involved
supported the plan, and we received a Record of Decision.
Our vision is for more than a bridge. We'll be making
significant park improvements and environmental remediation.
The project will preserve the historic bridge, converting it to
a key element of a bike and pedestrian trail, giving people new
and exciting ways to enjoy the river valley and the national
park.
Among other environmental improvements, the new bridge will
reduce phosphorous pollution by 20 percent. Finally, note the
bridge location. We think it's better to building the new
crossing within the industrial part of the river, next to a
power plant, a sewage plant, and a marina. This portion of the
river is surely not scenic and not wild. It is the correct
location for the bridge.
Now, after the latest lawsuit, the Park Service has
determined that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow
them to grant permit for any new construction. This is an
important part--point. The NPS has not just blocked this
bridge. It has rejected any new construction in a Wild and
Scenic Riverway. Only Congress has the authority to grant an
exemption.
This leads me to address the so-called Sensible Bridge plan
that has been reintroduced. This plan is a modified version of
a plan studied and rejected by the community stakeholder group.
The plan is neither sensible, nor realistic. In fact, it's
unbuildable.
It proposes a 3-lane weight-restricted, diagonal, visually
dominating bridge directly in front of the Stillwater historic
district, obliterating the scenic values of the Wild and Scenic
St. Croix. It will be functionally obsolete upon opening.
Besides its ascetic fatal flaws, it has dramatic negative
and disqualifying environmental and historic property impacts.
The cost of this plan is irresponsibly presented as a fact, but
unlike the Udall community-endorsed plan, it has not been
subject to analysis by bridge engineers. Governor Dayton said
it best earlier this year: Proposing a new plan at this stage
is just, quote, disingenuous.
Returning now to a conceptual design stage would delay the
project for a decade or longer. The longer we wait, the more
expensive the solution will be, and the greater risk that
something tragic could happen. Living in Minnesota after the
35W bridge collapse, we're especially sensitive about our
bridges. We're especially pleased to say that this support has
bridged political divides. The Governors of both Minnesota and
Wisconsin, both representatives to Congress and your Senate
colleagues and our author, Senator Klobuchar, was joined by
Senators Frank and Kohl, and Johnson.
We believe that the support we have created--we believe,
with that support, we have a project and legislation that works
within the procedural confines of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act in a limited way. It's now up to you to help us untangle
this catch-22 that Federal law created, and help us move
forward.
I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Harycki follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Harycki, Mayor, City of Stillwater, MN
Chairman Udall, ranking member Paul, and members of the committee.
My name is Ken Harycki. I am the Mayor of Stillwater, Minnesota,
and also co-chairman of the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing,
a two-state regional community organization that has been formed to
advocate for the new bridge project.
My hometown is a beautiful and historic city located on the St.
Croix River, which creates the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.
It is acknowledged as the birthplace of Minnesota and our downtown is
protected by the National Register of Historic Places. The counties on
both sides of the river are part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area, with a population of 3.2 million.
Since even before 1848, when Wisconsin was admitted by Congress
into the Union, communities on both sides of the river have been
connected by a river crossing at Stillwater. In 1931, 80 years ago, a
lift bridge was built across the river as our communities grew. This
bridge, still in operation, is also on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Through the 1940's and 50's the bridge was able to handle the
demands of people who needed to cross between our communities, but in
the 1960's it became apparent that demand was exceeding this design.
Now, in 2011 our bridge is dangerously outdated.
The lift bridge was designed to handle a capacity of 11,200 cars
per day, but today it is overburdened by an average of 18,400 vehicles
daily. In the summer, traffic can jump to over 25,000 cars a day, all
of it funneling through the narrow main street and 90 degree turns of
our historic downtown.
The road that leads up to the bridge has a traffic accident rate
that is nearly twice the state average for comparable roadways.
Cars idle for hours on both sides waiting to cross the bridge,
creating pollution and making it challenging for residents and visitors
to navigate Stillwater's historic downtown.
Too many years and too much traffic have taken a toll on the
bridge. Flooding and maintenance force the bridge to close on a regular
basis, sending tens of thousands of cars and trucks elsewhere.
This is a functionally-obsolete, fracture-critical bridge. A
structural failure would result in collapse. The bridge's sufficiency
rating of 33 is lower than that of the I-35W Bridge before it collapsed
in 2007, killing 13 people and injuring 144.
As you can see from the handout that we've provided to the
committee, it has been difficult to find the right plan that is
consistent with three important federal laws.
Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act;
Section 4 of the Transportation Act of 1996; and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
In particular, the St. Croix River is an important natural resource
that is recognized and protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Area residents support this designation and want to continue to protect
the river from over-development. We support protecting historic sites
throughout the region. But we still need a safe, reliable crossing.
The project that we are asking the Congress to permit to go forward
was developed through an unprecedented environmental mediation process
that was administered by the Udall Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution.
To make sure every possible idea for a new bridge was considered,
the Udall Institute brought together 27 different stakeholder
organizations. They are listed in your materials, and also on the
poster board behind us. The group met in Stillwater City Hall at least
monthly for three years.
The Stakeholder Group, staffed by a team of engineering,
environmental and design professionals, worked together to study a
multitude of options, designs and features. These organizations
represented the community, state and federal regulatory agencies,
environmental organizations, historic preservation interests, economic
development interests, and local governments from both sides of the
river.
The National Park Service was a very important part of this
exhaustive planning process.
This diverse group looked at every possible idea and location for a
new crossing. We even looked at tunneling under the river. Your handout
includes a map of the dozen or so routes that were reviewed as part of
the Stakeholder process.
The Stakeholders considered ways to protect the river, to make this
national resource more accessible to people, and respect the history of
Stillwater and the region--all while making sure the metro area has a
transportation facility that is capable of meeting current and future
needs.
The result was a plan that balances the three laws. All but one of
the groups involved supported the plan. We received a Record of
Decision (the second we had received) that validated the work we did
and the final result.
Our plan and the community's vision are for more than just a new
bridge. We'll be using federal and state highway funds to make
significant park improvements and environmental remediations as part of
the project.
The project will preserve the historic bridge by converting it into
the key element of a new bicycle and pedestrian loop trail along and
above the river, giving people a new and exciting way to access and
enjoy the river valley and this national park.
Bluff lands on both sides of the river where the present-day
roadway is located will be restored.
The pilings and the riverfront for the old coal barge terminal in
front of the power plant will be removed.
The new bridge will also decrease the amount of phosphorous
pollution entering the river by 20 percent--the number one goal of the
St. Croix River Basin Team. The new crossing will also reduce the
dangerous levels of traffic and automotive pollution from our small,
historic downtown area.
And finally, the bridge design and location. As you can see from
our posters, the bridge is gorgeous. It's a low profile cable stay
design that has been built in only two other locations in North
America. The Stakeholders wanted a ``signature bridge'' that is worthy
of the St. Croix Valley. We believe it will become as iconic as the
Lift Bridge.
Also, note the location. We think it's appropriate to build the new
crossing within the industrial part of the riverway, next to a power
plant, a sewage treatment plant and a marina. This portion of the river
is assuredly not wild, and not historic like downtown Stillwater. It is
the correct location for the crossing.
Now, after the latest lawsuit the National Park Service has
determined that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow them to
grant a permit for any new construction in a designated riverway. This
is an important point: the NPS has not just blocked this bridge; it has
rejected any new construction in a Wild and Scenic Riverway. Only
Congress has the authority to grant an exemption, as spelled out in the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
This leads me to address the so-called ``sensible bridge'' plan
that has been recently reintroduced. This plan is a modified version of
a plan that was studied and rejected by the Community Stakeholder
group, described as alternative D in the 2006 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement.
This plan is neither sensible nor even realistic. It would build a
diagonal, visually dominating and intrusive bridge directly in front of
the Stillwater historic district, obliterating the scenic values of the
Wild and Scenic St. Croix River. To top it off it will be functionally
obsolete upon opening.
It proposes a three-lane weight-restricted bridge with no
connecting road improvements. It will not be able to carry the current
traffic at opening, much less the traffic projected for the coming
decades.
Besides its aesthetic fatal flaws it has dramatically negative and
disqualifying environmental and historic property impacts. Alternative
D was shown to destroy 9 acres of park property, carve out at least 20
times the cubic yardage of bluffs, 760,000 cubic yards, and require
over 4,000 feet of retaining wall, 2000 feet at 25 ft high.
The cost of this plan is irresponsibly presented as fact, but
unlike the Udall/community endorsed plan, it has not been subjected to
analysis by bridge engineers. When studied as Alternative D in the SEIS
it came in at only about 10% less then the chosen alternative.
Gov. Dayton said earlier this year that proposing a new plan at
this stage is just, quote, ``disingenuous.'' Returning now to the
conceptual design stage would delay this project for conceivably
another decade and maybe longer. And the longer we wait, the more
expensive the solution will get and the greater the risk that something
tragic could happen. Living in Minnesota, after the I35W bridge
collapse, we are especially sensitive about our bridges.
While support for the project is not universal, as with all large
public projects, there is strikingly broad and deep public support for
this new bridge. That support is reflected by the majority of elected
local and state officials.
And we are especially pleased to say that throughout the decades
this support has bridged political divides. Now is no different, with
the Governors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, both representatives to
Congress, and your Senate colleagues; our author, Senator Klobuchar,
who is joined by Senator Franken, Senator Kohl and Senator Johnson.
I assure you that the people who live and work in the St. Croix
River Valley have done everything possible to create the best plan for
the entire region. We care deeply about the river that unites our
communities.
Together, with the help of federal and state officials, we have
created a project that
Meets current and future traffic demands
Protects the historic lift bridge and historic sites
throughout the region.
Respects the river and its scenic beauty
And works within the procedural confines of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act in a limited and project-specific way.
It's now up to you to take action and help us resolve this matter.
I thank you for your time and again ask for your help and support.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mayor Harycki.
We've been joined by Roger Tomten.
I hope I've pronounced your name at least close to
properly. We want to welcome you. You're a resident and a
business owner in Stillwater, Minnesota, and we're pleased your
here. We're eager to hear your testimony. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF ROGER L. TOMTEN, RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNER,
STILLWATER, MN
Mr. Tomten. TThank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Franken, and members of the
subcommittee.
For the record, I am Roger Tomten. I'm a 21-year-old
resident and business owner in Stillwater, Minnesota.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of a
growing number of Stillwater and Minnesota residents who
support a new bridge across the St. Croix River between
Minnesota and Wisconsin, but not the enormous freeway-style
bridge prescribed in S. 1134.
Candidly, I am humbled they are supporting a bridge design
that I and 2 other St. Croix Valley architects have proposed.
Our design was presented for the first time just 2 weeks ago,
and its sensible size, scale and cost are resonating with
fiscal conservatives and environmental advocates alike, and
among Stillwater residents, too.
Mr. Chairman, the National Park Service has approved
construction projects in Wild and Scenic Riverways. But the so-
called extradosed bridge recommended by this bill has rightly
been deemed incompatible with the Wild and Scenic St. Croix
River. This bill, put simply, neuters the 40-year protections
embodied in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Vice President
Mondale, one of the act's original authors, shares a similar
assessment in his submitted testimony.
The mayor and other say they will build this bridge
alongside a coal-fired power plant. They fail to state the fact
that this power plant was the very reason for the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. No laws existed to stop this intrusion on
the beautiful St. Croix River, and Senators Mondale and Gaylord
Nelson wanted to be sure such an intrusion would never, ever
happen again. Congress agreed.
The bridge prescribed in this bill is such an intrusion. It
is enormous--160 feet from river to deck, 60-foot towers above
the deck, 4 lanes, and travel speeds of 65 miles an hour. It
will cost nearly $700 million--nearly $700 million when
Congress is fiercely debating how to curtail our Nation's
spending, and coming just weeks after Minnesota's State
Government ended the 20-day shutdown over a $5 billion State
budget deficit.
This bill effectively would green-light construction on the
most expensive bridge in Minnesota history, costing more than 2
and a half times the I-35 bridge that collapsed in 2007; yet,
it would carry a fraction of the traffic. Advocates of this
boondoggle give little regard to Minnesota's crumbling
infrastructure. Our dwindling finances are struggling to repair
the estimated 1,170 bridges deemed structurally deficient. We
have 13 rural counties, where 15 to 25 percent of the bridges
are structurally deficient.
With all due respect to the Mayor, he and other proponents
of S. 1134 say that every possible idea was studied in the
mediation process held from 2003 to 2006. I participated in
that mediation process, and I can assure you, only high-speed,
freeway-style solutions were analyzed. Slower 40-mile-an-hour
designs were not studied. Smaller scale bridges were not
studied. These are the cornerstones of the Sensible Stillwater
Bridge design that we propose.
The historic lift bridge built in 1931 has been good for
the city of Stillwater. Over the years, the bridge has become
the symbol of the city--an icon, bringing thousands of National
Park visitors into our community. There is no reason the
Sensible Stillwater Bridge couldn't become another icon for the
city of Stillwater.
The prospect of cars bypassing downtown a mile down river
on a new freeway-style bridge is a scary one. We think it will
permanently alter the economic vitality of our historic
commercial core, to say nothing of the beauty and character of
the St. Croix River.
The thought of foregoing the protections of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act to benefit roughly 9,000 daily commuters is
wrong; and to move this boondoggle bridge forward when our
Nation is locked in a debate over spending, and Minnesota is
coping with the effects of closing a $5 billion budget deficit
makes no sense.
My community of Stillwater needs a new bridge to replace
the historic lift bridge. But the bridge prescribed in this
bill is not the answer. It is too much bridge, at too high a
price, for my State, for my community, and for the St. Croix
Wild and Scenic Riverway.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tomten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger L. Tomten, Resident and Business Owner,
Stillwater, MN
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Paul, and members of the Subcommittee,
for the record I am Roger Tomten, a resident and business owner in
Stillwater, Minnesota. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on
behalf of a growing number of Stillwater and Minnesota residents who
support a new bridge across the St. Croix River between Minnesota and
Wisconsin, but NOT the freeway style bridge prescribed in S. 1134.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill you see here has
cosponsors from both states and both parties and appears to have
widespread support, but there is great controversy over this bill's
recommended bridge design that reaches beyond Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The bridge in this bill will forever change the character of
Stillwater, Minnesota and the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, the
national park it is neighbor to. Just as troubling is the bill's
methodology--the unprecedented exemption for a transportation project
of this size and scale--opens the door for other incompatible
development projects over America's Wild and Scenic Rivers. This bill
put simply, neuters the 40-year protections embodied in the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.
The bridge prescribed in this bill will cost nearly $700 million at
a time when Congress is fiercely debating our nation's spending and
less than two weeks after the government of Minnesota resolved a
lengthy shutdown over a five billion dollar state budget deficit. It
would be the most expensive bridge in Minnesota history, costing more
than two and a half times the $265 million I-35 bridge that collapsed
in 2007. Yet it would carry less than 30 percent of the traffic the I-
35 bridge carries.
While advocates of this Bridge over the St. Croix lobby Congress
and Minnesota officials to green light the $690 million project, the
state's bridge repair fund is struggling to repair or replace the
estimated 1,170 bridges deemed structurally deficient. No doubt
Minnesota's infrastructure crisis exemplifies our nation's
infrastructure crisis.
The bridge prescribed in this bill is a 65-mile an hour, four-lane,
freeway style bridge that was designed when the price of gasoline was
less than two dollars a gallon. The enormous scale of this bridge was
based on mid 1990s growth projections for new housing development--
primarily in Wisconsin. That growth has slowed to a crawl, as it has
throughout the country. And now the freeway bridge called for in S.
1134 would carry about 9,000 commuters daily, when there is already an
eight-lane interstate bridge located just seven miles south.
The historic lift bridge, built in 1931, has been good for the city
of Stillwater, but it is in need of repair as it simply cannot handle
the traffic today. Over the years the bridge has become the symbol of
the city, bringing thousands of national park visitors into the town.
These visitors have significantly boosted the economy in our small
downtown area. The way the bridge prescribed in this bill is designed--
going from blufftop to blufftop, about a mile south of our downtown
core--it will be very difficult for travelers to find their way into a
downtown Stillwater business. Instead, cars will go whizzing past
downtown on a new freeway-style bridge and permanently altering the
economic vitality of our historic commercial core.
There is an alternative, more sensible bridge design that is
gaining growing support among Stillwater and Minnesota residents, with
national park supporters, and transportation and taxpayer advocates who
see it as a pragmatic and sensible option to the Boondoggle of a Bridge
in this legislation. Our Sensible Stillwater bridge would cost less
than $300 million, be more respectful of the St. Croix River it graces,
and continue to bring scores of visitors to downtown Stillwater, while
managing traffic flow and easing congestion for commuters. Construction
of this bridge could be completed in the same timeframe as the big
freeway-style bridge. Speeds on the Sensible Stillwater bridge would be
limited to 40 miles per hour, reducing noise and vibration in the river
valley, so that the valley will retain the serene character that it is
known for.
The Lower St. Croix River, where the city of Stillwater is located,
has been protected as part of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in
the National Park System since 1972. Congress voted to protect the
Lower St. Croix after Northern States Power built a coal-burning power
plant on the river's edge. Industrialization along the St. Croix south
of Stillwater had to stop. And Congress stopped it with the Wild and
Scenic designation.
I understand that proponents of the mega-bridge point to the coal-
fired plant as justification for their bluff-top to bluff-top bridge.
Such an explanation completely defies the primary reason why the St.
Croix became a federally protected river--To prevent more eyesores like
the King Power Plant that scar the inherent beauty of the St. Croix.
Action by environmental visionaries like Walter Mondale and Gaylord
Nelson prevented any additional industrialization. And the
unsightliness and noise and pollution that came along with it. The Wild
and Scenic River Act protected the St Croix River Valley for boating,
canoeing, fishing, hiking, birdwatching. And just simply enjoying the
scenery and solitude. And for nearly 40 years, those protections have
held firm.
Proponents of S.1134 indicate that all alternatives were studied in
the mediation process held from 2003-2006. As a stakeholder in that
mediation process, I can assure you, this was not the case. Only high-
speed freeway-style solutions were analyzed. Our Sensible Stillwater
Bridge proposal establishes a slower design speed, builds a smaller
bridge lower to the water, eliminates the commuter traffic from
downtown Stillwater and meets the traffic needs of the area all for
less than half the price. This is backed up by fact that several other
members of the mediation process, the St. Croix River Association and
the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy have dropped their
support for the bridge proposed in S.1134, and now support our Sensible
Stillwater Bridge.
The bridge prescribed in S.1134 headlined a feature story on out-
of-control spending in the July 19, 2011 front page section of the New
York Times: ``. . .local officials and members of Congress have pushed
for a new four-lane bridge over the St. Croix River that was co-
sponsored by Representatives Michele Bachmann and Sean Duffy. .
.Opponents labeled the bridge an earmark, but they defend the spending
by arguing that it was not an earmark. The legislation calls only for a
bridge to be built.''
The thought of forgoing the protection of the Wild and Scenic River
Act to benefit roughly 9,000 daily commuters is wrong. And to move this
mega-bridge plan forward when our nation is locked in debate over
spending and the state of Minnesota is coping with a $5 billion budget
deficit makes no sense. The community of Stillwater needs a new bridge
to replace the historic lift bridge, but not the one prescribed in this
bill.
It is too much bridge at too high a cost for my state and my
community.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Tomten.
Let me turn to Mr. Hession, who's here to testify on S.
1063, as I understand it.
STATEMENT OF JACK HESSION, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ALASKA
CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB
Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Franken, for inviting me to present the views of the Sierra
Club here this afternoon.
My name is Jack Hession. I'm a member of the Executive
Committee of the Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club, and I am
familiar with all of the areas within the scope of this bill.
While we support traditional HunaTlingit gull egg
gathering, we oppose S. 1068 because it would open Glacier Bay
National Park to this subsistence practice.
The park is a world-famous wildlife sanctuary--one of 4
national parks in Alaska closed to consumption of wildlife,
including to subsistence. It's almost entirely a wilderness
national park, and it even has 5 saltwater wilderness areas.
It's also an internationally significant natural area and
wildlife sanctuary. It's a World Heritage Site, and part of an
international biosphere reserve with Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and 2 adjacent Canadian Parks--Kluane National
Park and Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park.
According to the National Park Service in its LEIS that the
committee has before it, the collection of glaucous-winged gull
eggs by members of the HunaTlingit tribe would reduce the
number of fledglings of these gulls by an estimated 22 percent.
There is also a potential adverse spillover effect of the bill
if it is approved: If Glacier Bay is open to egg collecting,
Alaska native corporations and village corporations living near
Katmai, Denali and Kenai Fjords National Parks--these are the 3
other sanctuaries in the system in Alaska--might ask this
subcommittee for the same privilege.
As an alternative to this bill, we suggest that the
subcommittee encourage the HunaTlingit to gather gull eggs at a
half dozen of the tribe's traditional bird egg collecting sites
located just outside the park. Attached to my statement is a
list of these traditional sites, documented at a National Park
Service study of traditional HunaTlingit bird egg collecting
within the tribe's traditional territory.
Use of these non-park sites by the HunaTlingit would
preserve a valuable cultural resource--a goal the Sierra Club
fully supports--and, at the same time, maintain the integrity
of the park.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, and in conclusion, this bill
is not necessary.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hession follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Hession, Member, Executive Committee, Alaska
Chapter, Sierra Club, on S. 1063
Sierra Club is a national environmental organization with chapters
in every state. Achieving maximum protection and proper management of
the national parks, including Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve
(Glacier Bay), has long been a high priority for our organization.
For example, during Congress's consideration of the Mining in the
Parks Act of 1976, we urged members of Congress to include Glacier Bay
National Monument (now a national park and preserve or NPP) and the
former Mt. McKinley National Park (now Denali NPP) in the list of
national park system units to be closed to new mining claims. In a
strong show of support for these two magnificent units, Congress
rebuffed the mining industry's attempt to keep them open to new claims.
Our primary legislative goal during the 1970's was passage of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the single
largest public land conservation act in the history of this nation.
Among its other accomplishments, the Act expanded and re-designated the
former Glacier Bay National Monument as a national park/preserve, and
gave wilderness system status to almost the entire terrestrial portion
and five saltwater areas, the latter unique in the Alaska system.
During the 1990's Congress, at the urging of the Sierra Club and
other environmental organizations, blocked attempts by the Alaska
congressional delegation and the State of Alaska to open the park to
subsistence practices by local rural residents.
S. 1063
The Sierra Club strongly opposes S.1063 because it would open
Glacier Bay National Park to the consumptive use of a wildlife species,
specifically, the gathering of glaucous-winged gull eggs by the Huna
Tlingit Tribe of Alaska Natives. The park is closed to the consumptive
use of wildlife, including subsistence practices.
Opening the park would harm the gull population, be in derogation
of park purposes and values, and potentially lead to proposals for the
subsistence taking of other wildlife in the park, in three other
national parks in Alaska, and in national parks in other states. The
Huna Tlingit advocate opening the park to subsistence hunting for seals
and mountain goats, as well as to gull egg collecting.
Opening the park to egg gathering conflicts with Congress's
historic policy prohibiting human predation on wildlife in national
parks. A recent expression of this policy is found in the Tabitha
Shoshone Homeland Act of 2000 involving Death Valley National Park. In
Sec. 4(e)(3), Resource Use by the Tribe, Congress specified that ``In
the special areas any use of park resources by the tribe for
traditional purposes, practices, and activities shall not include the
taking of wildlife and shall not be in derogation of purposes and
values for which the park was established'' (emphasis added).
Opening the park to egg gathering also conflicts with Congress's
intent in ANILCA that Glacier Bay National Park and other national
parks in Alaska serve as wildlife sanctuaries. These parks ``. . .are
intended to be large sanctuaries where fish and wildlife may roam
freely, develop their social structures and evolve over long periods of
time as nearly as possible, without the changes that extensive human
activity would cause.'' Senate Report 96-413 p. 137. Reducing Glaucous-
winged fledglings in the park by an estimated 22 percent, as is
anticipated under the agency's proposal, is an extensive human activity
clearly contrary to Congress's intent.
Opening the park to egg collecting is in conflict with the National
Park Service Organic Act of 1916, which requires the Secretary of the
Interior to ``. . .promote and regulate the use of Federal areas known
as national parks. . .to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' (Emphasis
added.)
Under this standard national parks are closed to the consumptive
use of wildlife, unless exceptions to the rule are made by Congress,
because consumptive use impairs that wildlife by definition. In terms
of the Organic Act, then, whether a species within a national park can
be maintained on a sustained yield basis--the ``biological
sustainability'' test of P.L. 106-455--or not is irrelevant. Sustained
yield of park wildlife is a wildlife management goal that has no basis
in federal law and policy governing national parks.
As discussed below, there are traditional glaucous-winged gull egg
gathering sites near but outside the park within Huna Tlingit
traditional territory. The availability of these sites means that
Congress and the public do not have to choose, as the Park Service
suggests, between opening the park to gull egg gathering and denying
the Huna Tlingit the opportunity to maintain their culturally valuable
practice of subsistence gull egg gathering
Glacier Bay National Park
In addition to its national significance, Glacier Bay is recognized
as a globally important wildlife sanctuary and natural area. It is a
World Heritage Site and the primary coastal component of an
International Biosphere Reserve with the contiguous Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park, Kluane National Park of the Yukon Territory, and
Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park of British Columbia. Glacier Bay
provides a sanctuary and feeding grounds for endangered humpback whales
and threatened Steller sea lions.
When the congressionally ordered phase-out of commercial fishing in
Glacier Bay proper is complete, the park will contain one of the
largest, perhaps the largest, marine protected area in the northern
hemisphere. This will fulfill major scientific and sanctuary purposes
of the park.
The park's submerged lands and waters, including the saltwater
areas, are federally owned. This gives the National Park Service (NPS)
exclusive jurisdiction, freeing it from problems and disputes that can
arise in other park system units in Alaska where the traditionally
hostile State of Alaska owns the submerged lands and can pursue uses
incompatible with park purposes and values.
Similarly, the terrestrial portion of the park is not encumbered by
extensive private or state-owned properties, aside from the University
of Alaska's large undeveloped mining claim that is probably trading
stock at best. With its sister sanctuaries Katmai NPP and Denali NPP,
the park is one of the most pristine parks in the national park system.
Origin of the current controversy
A technical paper prepared for the park by four academic
anthropologists describes the origin of the current issue:
In the mid-1990's cultural resource management
personnel at the Park invited a group of Huna elders to
a workshop on traditional ecological knowledge attended
by representatives of the Hoonah community, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, the National Park Service,
and professional anthropologists who had worked in
Hoonah. The original intent was to discuss possible
collaboration on a project to gather and document
Tlingit knowledge of cultural and natural resources to
be used in Park management. The Huna diverted the
conference proceedings when they realized they were
being asked to share their knowledge without being
promised anything in return. In exchange for their
cooperation, they demanded that the Park restore
limited harvest rights for three key subsistence foods,
in order of priority: seagull eggs, seals, and mountain
goats. Park officials agreed to work cooperatively with
them toward a resolution of these issues.\1\ (Emphasis
added. The remainder of this paragraph describes the
subsequent ethnographic and biological studies.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hunn, E.S, Johnson, D.R., Russell, P.M., Thornton, T.F., ``The
Huna Tlingit People's Traditional Use of Gull Eggs and the
Establishment of Glacier Bay National Park,'' Technical Report NPS D-
121, National Park Service, 2003, p. 4.
This willingness of park officials to work ``toward a resolution of
these issues'' led to the enactment of P.L. 106-455, the Glacier Bay
Resources Management Act of November 2000. Sponsored by former Alaska
senators Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens, it directed the Secretary to
study the ``sea gulls'' in the park ``. . .to assess whether sea gull
eggs can be collected on a limited basis without impairing the
biological sustainability of the sea gull population.'' If the
Secretary ``. . .determines that limited collection of sea gull eggs
can occur without impairing the biological sustainability of the sea
gull population in the park, the Secretary shall submit recommendations
for legislation to the [Senate and House Committees].''
The NPS's subsequent study of a glaucous-winged gull colony on
South Marble Island in the park found that an egg collecting party
could take every egg out of every nest in two separate visits. It was
assumed that the gulls would resume egg laying once the egg collections
were over. Based on a mathematical model and subsistence egg collecting
elsewhere in Alaska, the study estimated that the egg sweeps on the
island would result in a 22 percent reduction in the number of
glaucous-winged gull fledglings in the park, and therefore that the
biological sustainability of the gull population in the park would not
be impaired.
Accordingly, the NPS recommended in its Legislative EIS and its
July 28, 2011 testimony before the Subcommittee that Congress open the
park to Huna Tlingit egg gathering. The proposed action/preferred
alternative of the LEIS that would be implemented if S. 1063 is
approved would ``. . . authorize the collecting of glaucous-winged gull
eggs by Huna Tlingit tribal members at several locations within the
park on two separate dates.''
Park Service refuses to consider an alternative to opening the park
As part of the study called for in P.L. 106-455, park managers
funded research into traditional Huna Tlingit bird egg use within the
tribe's traditional territory. Glaucous-winged gull colonies were
inventoried and described within and without the park. Six traditional
glaucous-winged gull egg collecting sites were located outside the park
in the Icy Strait-Cross Sound area.
The availability of these non-park sites presented the NPS with an
obvious alternative to opening the park to this subsistence practice.
But rather than analyze this alternative in its LEIS, the agency merely
acknowledged that traditional collecting sites are found ``. . . on
National Forest Lands in Icy Strait and Cross Sound, including Middle
Pass Rock near the Inian Islands, Table Rock in Cross Sound, and other
traditional locations on the coast of Yakobi Island.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This quotation is taken from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regulation [50 CFR Part 100.3] governing subsistence gull egg
collecting by the villagers of Hoonah that shows the non-park
alternative to be in place:
Current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations allow
residents of Hoonah to gather glaucous winged gull eggs on National
Forest lands in Icy Strait and Cross Sound, including Middle Pass Rock
near the Inian Islands, Table Rock in Cross Sound, and other
traditional locations on the coast of Yakobi Island between May 15 and
June 30. The land and waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain closed
to all subsistence harvesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS dismissed LEIS consideration of the non-park alternative
with this argument: ``Although permanent residents of Hoonah are
authorized to harvest glaucous-winged gull eggs on islands outside [of
the park] in Icy Strait and Cross Sound, these nesting sites are
virtually inaccessible on most days due to ocean swells and tidal
currents. Moreover, such sites were never favored by the Huna Tlingit
and do not fulfill the traditional practice of harvesting eggs within
the homeland of Glacier Bay.''
However, evidence in technical reports\3\ funded by the agency
refutes the agency's argument, ``A Study of Traditional Use of Birds'
Eggs by the Huna Tlingit,'' (2003), and ``The Huna Tlingit People's
Traditional Use of Gull Eggs and the Establishment of Glacier Bay
National Park'' (2002).
\3\ Hunn et al., previously cited, and Hunn, E.S., Johnson, D.R.,
Russell, P.N., Thorton, T.F., A Study of Traditional Use of Birds' Eggs
by the Huna Tlingit, Technical Report NPS/ccsouw/nrtr-2002-02 NPS D-
113, National Park Service, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS claim: ``These [non-park] nesting sites are virtually
inaccessible on most days due to ocean swells and tidal currents.'' The
2002 report notes that:
Huna Tlingit gull egg harvests fit into the local
pattern of seasonal harvests. Gull eggs were taken
during a brief window of opportunity between mid-May
and mid-June, during the initial egg-laying phase at
the gull colonies. The timing of these harvests was
critical. Given the right synchronization of egg laying
in the gull colonies (described in more detail below),
optimal harvests with maximum numbers of fresh eggs
were possible only for a very limited time. Gull egg
trips heralded the arrival of good travel weather and
release from the period of late winter and early spring
food shortage. For Huna people, it was a particularly
exciting time, especially for children, who
participated actively in the gull egg harvests.
(Emphasis added.)
The six non-park sites, each named by the Huna Tlingit, are
traditional egg collecting sites. This alone indicates their
accessibility. And as noted above, these sites were visited by Huna
Tlingit egg gathering parties during the ``good travel weather,'' a
period associated with calm seas of the late spring-early summer.
Ocean swells and tidal currents in this area are well-known, but
the fact that the sites are traditional Huna Tlingit gull egg gathering
sites suggests that the swells and currents were not in the past and
are not now a deterrent to tribal members intent on collecting gull and
other bird eggs. Huna Tlingit villages, settlements, and forts were
located throughout the Cross Sound-Icy Strait area in the past,
indicating extensive travel in the region. Prior to the introduction of
motorized boats, the Huna Tlingit used their large ocean-going dugout
canoes for travel throughout the region. Today the villagers use
motorized boats.
In addition, the community of Elfin Cove in Cross Sound, a noted
sport-fishing center, and the commercial fishing community of Pelican
in Lisianski Inlet off Cross Sound testify to the extensive boat
traffic in the area.
NPS claim: That the Huna Tlingit ``never favored'' the six non-park
sites. No evidence is cited in support of this assertion, but it is at
least an admission that eggs were gathered at these sites. During the
Little Ice Age, the six sites may well have been favored. As
unglaciated sites in the Icy Strait-Cross Sound-Outer Coast area they
were among the only sites available for egg collecting. When Captain
George Vancouver sailed by the mouth of Glacier Bay proper the fiord
was still filled with ice.
NPS claim: That the six non-park sites ``do not fulfill the
traditional practice of harvesting eggs within the homeland of Glacier
Bay.'' True, traditional egg collecting sites outside the park
obviously cannot fulfill the traditional pre-park practice of
collecting eggs within the park. But the non-park sites do fulfill the
traditional practice of collecting glaucous-winged gull eggs in the
tribe's traditional territory--its homeland--outside the park, and in
the case of George Island and Middle Pass Rock, the gathering of black-
legged kittiwake eggs as well.
The 2002 report documents 11 traditional, active glaucous-winged
egg collecting sites in the Cross Sound/Outer Coast area, five within
and six outside the park.\4\ The six active non-park sites in the Cross
Sound-Yakobi Island area are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Two other collecting sites in the park in this area are
inactive ``non-seagull egg'' collecting sites. There are also three,
possibly four (the text has three, the map four) other non-seagull gull
collecting sites in eastern Icy Strait near Hoonah, one of which is
active.
In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's North Pacific
Seabird Database, an online source the DLEIS authors apparently
overlooked, locates two ``seabird colonies'' on islands just off the
northwest entrance to Frederick Sound near Hoonah, as well as one
closer to Hoonah, one at the west entrance to Lisianski Strait between
Yakobi and Chichagof Islands, and one near Pt. Couverden. The active/
inactive status of the colonies is not disclosed.
--Inian Islands: Middle Pass Rock; small island in the W part of
the middle passage in the Indian Islands in Cross Sound;
about 70 km NW of Hoonah; Lugheiya? `Nose' (check
location); medium productivity for eggs [SF, MM, PL, MI];
associated with commercial fishing in Inian Island (now
closed); difficult to access due to strong tides and big
swells; considered dangerous; usually only men harvest (Ken
Grant; Johanna Dybdahl).
--George Islands, outside Elfin Cove; at the mouth of Port Althorp
in Cross Sound; about 76 km NW of Hoonah; Khushnaaxh'
(``Tumbling Water Shelter''); medium productivity for eggs
[SF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; Huna Tlingits that harvested at
Middle Pass Rock often harvested here as well; associated
with commercial fishing activities in Cross Sound and the
outer coast.
--Table Rock (aka ``Bird Rock''); just S of Three Hill Island, near
Point Lucan in Cross Sound; about 80 km W of Hoonah;
Taweik' (``Coming Up Over It''); medium productivity for
eggs [SF, BF, MI]; this site is still used by some Natives
in Pelican, but is not considered very accessible by Huna
Natives; site was used in the past when fishing in the
Inian Islands.
--Point Lucan and Column Point, rock; halfway between Point Lucan
and Column Point off Althorp Peninsula, Cross Sound; about
85 km W of Hoonah; Lix' Xagu (``Broken Rock Sandbar'')
(check location); productivity for eggs uncertain [SF, BF,
MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; location needs to be checked.
--Surge Bay rocks; at the mouth of Surge Bay on the outside of
Yakobi Island near the southwest entrance to Cross Sound;
about 110 km W of Hoonah; Tsaa Aayi (``Seal Country'')
(check location); productivity of eggs uncertain [SF, BF,
MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; not commonly used; Surge Bay is a
former village site (Frank See).
--Yakobi Rock; just west of Yakobi Island at the SW entrance to
Cross Sound; about 105 km W of Hoonah; Yeiya (``On the face
of Yei'') (Yakobi Island?) medium productivity for eggs
[SF, BF, MM, TA, BH, PL, MI]; this site is considered to be
productive but not very accessible due to its distance from
Hoonah and exposure to waves and ocean swells; it was used
occasionally in the past when commercial fishing activities
brought Hunas to the outer coast in spring. (Emphases and
parenthetical remarks in original.)
Distances from Hoonah to the three most productive sites in Glacier
Bay proper and from Hoonah to the six non-park sites are estimated in
the 2000 report cited above. Three of the non-park sites are as close
as or closer to Hoonah than the three park sites the NPS has selected
for the proposed egg gathering:
A Park Service demonstration project
Shortly after passage of P.L. 106-455, the act authorizing the gull
study, park managers invited a party of Huna Tlingit tribal members
from Hoonah on an egg collecting trio to Middle Passage Rock, one of
the non-park sites. Agency assistance was ``in the form of consultation
throughout the permitting process, and vessel and safety support.''
Glaucous-winged gull eggs were gathered. In 2002, the managers arranged
for a private charter boat to take the villagers to Middle Pass Rock
where eggs were again gathered.
Park staff did not investigate the other five non-park sites for
purposes of the LEIS. An alternative calling for Park Service
facilitation of Huna Tlingit egg gathering outside the park modeled on
the agency's successful demonstration project was rejected on the
grounds that ``this alternative, while reasonable and feasible, falls
outside the scope of this LEIS, as Congress, through Section 4 of
P.L.106-455, directed the NPS to assess whether ``sea gull eggs can be
collected in Glacier Bay National Park without impairing the biological
sustainability of the gull population of the park.'' (Emphasis added.)
However, the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal
agencies to consider all reasonable and feasible alternatives, and
there is no indication that in enacting P.L. 106-455 Congress intended
to limit the consideration of reasonable and feasible alternatives to
just those selected by the NPS.
Conclusion and recommendation
The Park Service's proposal, which is now before the Congress in S.
1063, is an unprecedented, startling, and deeply disappointing
development--the Park Service itself is determined to open the park to
the extraction of a wildlife species the agency is charged by Congress
to protect.
Its proposal is unprecedented in that this is apparently the first
such instance of the agency asking Congress to open a national park to
the consumption of wildlife for subsistence or any other purpose.
Previous attempts to extract resources from Glacier Bay have come from
private interests and their allies. At those times, park managers have
joined with citizen supporters to defend the park.
The Park Service has apparently given no thought to the possible
repercussions of their proposal. As noted above, the Huna Tlingit seek
seal hunting and mountain goat hunting privileges in the park, and
perhaps other subsistence practices, in addition to access for
glaucous-winged gull egg gathering. Enactment of S. 1063 could invite
legislative proposals for allowing these additional subsistence
practices.
If Congress opens the park to egg collecting, its action could also
encourage Alaska Natives living near Katmai NP, old Mt. McKinley NP
within Denali NPP, and Kenai Fjords NP to ask Congress to extend this
subsistence practice to these wildlife sanctuaries. Native Americans in
other states will also be interested in how Congress resolves the egg
gathering issue in Glacier Bay National Park. If the gathering is
approved, Native American tribes might ask Congress to authorize the
same or similar practice in national parks near them.
Sierra Club recommends that the Subcommittee take no further action
on S. 1063.
Thank you for considering our views.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Hession.
Mr. Hession, let me follow up with you with my first
question.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
It appears in this case that the Park Service and the bill
sponsors are trying to balance 2 areas of concern: On one hand,
the protection of a national park and its native wildlife, and
on the other, the cultural traditions of a native community.
According to the Park Service's testimony, they believe
that a limited collection of gull eggs can be undertaken
without threatening the parks' gull population. If their
position's correct, and there will not be any detrimental
effect on the park's gull population, why is it a problem if
they try and, to accommodate the cultural practices of the
HunaTlingit within the park?
Mr. Hession. As I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman,
there is a detrimental effect. The gull population, the
glaucous-winged gull population, would be hit with an impact of
approximately 22 percent. That's an incompatible use in a
national park, particularly in a park of this stature.
In addition, we are not, as I mentioned, we are not opposed
to HunaTlingit traditional egg gathering. In fact, we support
it. But, not within the park; particularly when there are these
alternative sites that the Park Service itself has identified
but has refused to consider.
We just suggest the subcommittee consider them and, in
turn, encourage the HunaTlingit to utilize the instead of going
into the park, which we see as completely unnecessary. In other
words, it's a win-win situation, as they say nowadays.
Senator Udall. Would you further explain the 22 percent?
That applies to what?
Mr. Hession. That applies to the entire park population.
This proposal would allow 2 collecting trips to 5 sites a year.
The idea is to go into, first, to South Marble Island, which is
a very productive gull nesting site, and a haul out--major haul
out for Steller sea lions. The idea is that the party of egg
collectors would sweep across this island--I've been there.
I've seen it. I've not been on it. The Park Service says you
must maintain a suitable distance. But, sweep across it; take
eggs out of every nest; then come back again on a second trip
and do the same, in the hope, according to the Park Service,
that this, that the gulls would relay a second series of
clutches, and then everything would be OK. The problem is, they
also concluded that you would have that better than one-fifth
reduction in the number of fledglings in the park.
Senator Udall. So, that's, that 22 is, to one-fifth less
fledglings----
Mr. Hession. Fledglings. Yes.
Senator Udall. Thank you for testifying. Thank you for
making the long journey here, to Washington, DC.
Let me turn to Mayor Harycki. You noted in your testimony
that the proposed bridge was developed by various stakeholders
through an environmental mediation process administered by the
Udall Instructions for Environmental Conflict, and you also
referred to the bridge proposal as a Udall Community Endorsed
Plan. Now, I'm very familiar with the Udall Institute. It's a
federally chartered institute. But it's my understanding that
it serves only to facilitate discussion, and it doesn't
actually endorse specific policy proposals.
So, I want to be clear here, because I, I want to be even-
handed. The Udall Institute isn't advocating for or against any
of the proposals related to the St. Croix River Crossing. Is
that accurate?
Mayor Harycki. If I may, at the end of the process, the,
all but one of the stakeholder groups did sign off on the plan
that was developed through the process.
So, although it was specifically endorsed by the Udall
Institute----
Senator Udall. They convened the process and----
Mayor Harycki. Got us together, and----
Senator Udall. Got everyone together.
Mayor Harycki.--got us to this point.
Senator Udall. Yes. I think you can understand why I want
to make that clear, because the whole----
Mayor Harycki. Definitely.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Role in which the Udall
Institute operates is to mediate, convene, and encourage the
stakeholders to come up with their way forward, not a way
forward that's dictated by the institute.
Mayor Harycki. Correct.
Senator Udall. Clarify that for the record. Mr. Mayor, you
stated that area residents support the designation and want to
continue to protect their river from over development. But,
what's the point of the Wild and Scenic River designation if
the solution to development--conflict is to simply waive one of
the key protections under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act?
Mayor Harycki: I think the, you know, as I stated,
everybody in our community views the St. Croix River as
probably one of our greatest assets. I mean, we certainly
appreciate having that river there. But, we also appreciate
having a safe and reliable crossing. The important point is
that any crossing will require the exemption. There's simply,
you know, we're caught in a catch-22. We can't tear down the
existing bridge, nor do we want to, because it's protected as a
historic site. So, to build a bridge we require a congressional
exemption. I mean, this is the process that was laid out in the
law. We've spent 30 years as a community going down this
process to get here.
Senator Udall. I have a couple of additional questions for
each of you, but I want to turn to Senator Franken, and in the
next round I'll be able to ask my second round of questions.
So, Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank, I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Tomten, you're here representing a number of
Minnesotans and folks from Stillwater who support a new bridge,
but a smaller bridge than is currently being considered.
Given the past statements of the Park Service, that they
couldn't approve any new construction, would you support a
congressional exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for a
smaller bridge to be built?
Mr. Tomten. Yes. But I would also ask--there currently have
been 5 bridges built in the St. Croix River, replaced, there's
been new construction on 5 different crossings up and down the
St. Croix River in the last 20 years. If no one has, I believe
the person from the Park Service indicated that they haven't
turned down any, a proposal that they haven't analyzed, or,
they haven't been able to report on a proposal that they
haven't had before them.
So, if they haven't had a smaller, slower bridge put before
them, how do we know that they would not approve a bridge that
is in the central corridor? They have in the past stated that
the central corridor is the location that is appropriate for a
bridge crossing on the St. Croix River.
Senator Franken. My understanding from talking to the Park
Service in, the National Park Service, that, that's in,
authorized, to take care of the St. Croix, is that no bridge
there in that footprint, or near that footprint, would be, pass
the 7(a) process.
So, I really, I believe that the smaller, slower bridge
would also require an exemption, a congressional exemption.
That is my understanding.
Mayor Harycki, in your testimony you mentioned the fact
that the current lift bridge handles more traffic than it was
built for 80 years ago. Can you describe a typical summer day
in Stillwater, and how that affects bridge traffic?
Mayor Harycki. A typical summer day, and, really, a
typical, you know, winter day, is, it's very beautiful town
with an enormous traffic problem caused by an 80-year-old
bridge. In fact, when you were--even though we didn't plan it
that way, when you came to visit our community to look at the
bridge situation yourself, you were delayed in the meeting by
traffic. That is very--and it wasn't even the summer. That's a
very typical situation.
We can have several, we can problem have over a mile of
traffic backing up through town. It creates problems for the
city, because people are going through local community streets
trying to find ways around traffic.
So, a typical situation that we have is traffic delays;
idling cars; the bridge has been hit numerous times by semi's
trying to get across the river; they're trying to navigate a
very----
Senator Franken. Basically, we need a--the feeling is that,
and I think Mr. Tomten would agree, that a new bridge is
needed.
I'm sympathetic, as you know, Mr. Tomten, to the desire for
a lower, slower bridge. But I'm also sympathetic with the
Governor who is, has said that if we don't do this now, this is
really, he doesn't want to see this reopened. His, the State,
it's the State's, and Mn/DOT--that's the Minnesota Department
of Transportation's--decision, and the Governor's decision,
that they would like to see this, a bridge there, and that they
are feeling if we reopen this process, we're not going to see
one.
That is why I believe that we are going to need, no matter
what we do, we're going to need an exemption to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, and that we need, Stillwater needs a bridge,
and it needs it now, or, it needs it to start very soon.
But, I thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Tomten. If I could, Mr. Chairman? If I could respond to
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Yes, Stillwater does need a new bridge. It's our feeling
that with a smaller-scale bridge, because we've already studied
such a large scope for this project, I mean, the scale of this
bridge proposed is huge. The footprint is huge. The fact that
our smaller bridge fits so intimately within the large scope of
the existing EIS, that we feel that it, a fairly quick order
supplemental EIS can be handled in a fair amount of time, a
short amount of time--not the 6 to 10 mediation years that
everyone is concerned about, but rather, that we could turn
around a supplement in 18 to 24 months. That, because of the
smaller bridge, because of the quicker construction time, we
can actually have a completed bridge at the same timeframe that
we have under the big bridge proposal.
Senator Franken. I understand, and I'm sympathetic to that.
But, as the Governor has said, that, this is something that
really needs to get started before September 30, I believe.
Is that right, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Harycki. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Franken. OK.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Franken.
Mr. Tomten, I think you were just speaking to the question
I was going to ask, which was, the new bridge proposal, it
appears to me, that you're advocating would then require new
studies and evaluations; could take years; in the end the Park
Service might oppose that bridge as well, so we're right back
to our starting point.
If you didn't have a chance to fully answer that with
Senator Franken, I'd certainly welcome your comments.
Otherwise, for the record, I would ask you to submit your point
of view on that question that I've just answered--I'm sorry.
That I've asked, and I've asked you to answer.
Mr. Tomten. We feel that the timing can be brought about
in, again, in a short period of time to do the environmental
EIS on the project, and with the construction time being much
shorter, we can actually have our bridge constructed at the
same time as the bridge being proposed.
So, we don't feel the timeframe is as much an issue. We did
go through the long mediation process, and--I did want to
clarify one thing for the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Please.
Mr. Tomten. During the mediation process, again, the only
bridges that were ever studied were high speed freeway-style
bridges. At the plea of several of the mediation teams that
were, or, some of the stakeholders that were in the group, we
were unable to convince Mn/DOT that a smaller, slower bridge be
reviewed. So, Mn/DOT took upon, took their prerogative to limit
it to high speed freeway-style bridges, large bridges.
Just to clarify for the public record, there actually were
2 of the stakeholder groups that did not sign on the mediation,
not just one. It was our group--the Friends of the St. Croix--
and the Sierra Club. Since then, 2 of the other stakeholder
groups have now withdrawn their support for the large bridge
project and are now supporting the smaller, slower, cheaper
alternative, the Sensible Stillwater Bridge.
So, we feel we do have a lot of support. We feel that there
is, you know, there's just kind of a growing frustration as to
why slower and smaller bridges would not be analyzed answer
studied. It's kind of strange to have to come all of the way to
Washington to ask our own State Department of Transportation to
look at a smaller project that save $400 million. But that's
where I find myself today.
I'm certain that, with a statement like that, the question
of capacity would come up, and so I'd just like to preclude
that question by saying that our bridge, our bridge proposal
offers 2 lanes of traffic westbound in the morning, 2 lanes of
traffic eastbound in the afternoon. The large $700 million
bridge proposes 2 lanes of traffic eastward in the morning, 2
lanes of traffic westward in the afternoon. So, capacity-wise,
it will be very close to what the current bridge proposal is in
terms of capacity, but for less than half the price, saving
$400 million for the Federal Government and for the 2 States.
Mayor Harycki. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Tomten.
I'm going to turn to the Mayor--you both anticipated my
question. Because when I read your testimony, there is a
different point of view. I want to give each of you a chance to
respond to, whatever length of time you'd like to respond.
Mayor, you referred to the Sensible Bridge alternative, and
made the point that it had been studied and rejected. I'd,
would now----
Mayor Harycki. If I may----
Senator Udall [continuing]. Go to you to please respond.
Mayor Harycki. If I might. What we're asking for is, we're
not asking for Congress to design a bridge for us. We have
professionals both at Mn/DOT and WSDOT that are fully capable
of designing the bridge for us, and they're professionals. They
know what they're doing.
I would like to introduce a July 26, 2004, letter from the
United States Department of the Interior that discusses the
exemption process, and how any bridge being built would require
an exemption. That's really what we're here for.
The good news that I----
Senator Udall. Mayor, without objection, that will be
included in the record. Please continue.
[The information referred to follows:]
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
St. Croix Falls, WI, July 26, 2004.
Ms. Cheryl Martin,
Environmental Engineer, Federal Highway Administratio,n Galtier Plaza,
380 Jackson Street, Suite 500, St, Paul, MN.
Dear Ms. Martin:
This is in response to your letter of June 24, 2004, requesting
that the National. Park Service (NPS) review the alternatives under
consideration for the St. Croix River Crossing Project (crossing
project) and provide an indication of the viability of each alternative
under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The following
comments are preliminary, based on currently available information
about the crossing project. They are intended to provide planning
assistance to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), but do not
constitute the Section 7(a) evaluation of the crossing project.
wild and scenic rivers act
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act) (Public Law 90-542) was
passed by Congress in 1968. The Act established a method for providing
Federal protection for certain of our country's remaining free-flowing
rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use
and enjoyment of present and future generations. Section 1(b) of the
Act contains the Congressional declaration of policy and states:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States
that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their
immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-
flowing condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment
of present and future generations.
The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway) was
established under the Act for its outstandingly remarkable geologic,
scenic, and recreation values.
Section 7(a) of the Act provides substantial protection to
designated rivers. It states, in part, that:
no department or agency of the United States shall assist by
loan, grant, license or otherwise in the construction of any
water resources project that would have a direct and adverse
effect on the values for which such river was established as
determined by the Secretary charged with its administration.
applicable policy positions
The NPS and the Minnesota and Wisconsin natural resource
departments, which are partners in Lower St. Croix management, have
long held a position of non-proliferation of crossings over the
Riverway. The 2002 Cooperative Management Plan (CMP) for the Lower St.
Croix, which was approved by all management partners, provides
direction regarding the ``non-proliferation'' policy. It states that
there will be no net increase in the number of transportation
corridors. In general, transportation corridors are to be replaced in
or adjacent to the existing corridor. Capacity within an existing
transportation corridor may be increased by widening an existing bridge
or by constructing a parallel structure.
The CMP does, however, provide some latitude for relocating
transportation corridors if 1) the need for the project is clearly
justified; 2) the project is consistent with state and regional
transportation plans, 3) there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to relocating the corridor, and 4) all built elements of the existing
corridor are removed, and the corridor is restored to natural
conditions. All proposed changes to river crossings or corridors
require site specific environmental evaluations.
In the Final CMP Environmental Impact Analysis, it is stated that
the questions of whether or not a new bridge at Stillwater is built and
whether or not the lift bridge is replaced will both be addressed in a
separate environmental statement. If it is determined that a new bridge
is constructed, however, that project should still be developed to be
in conformance with the overall management goals outlined in the CMP.
past section 7(a) evaluations of the crossing project
The NPS has prepared Section 7(a) Evaluations for two previous
crossing proposals; one in 1996 on the 1995 FEIS preferred alternative
and one in 2000 for the bridge alternative developed through the 1998
process facilitated by former Minnesota transportation commissioner
Richard Braun. While particulars of the crossings described for the
1996, 2000 and current projects vary, the outcomes of the two prior
evaluations are generally applicable to the current effort.
The Section 7(a) Evaluation of the 1995 FEIS preferred alternative
determined that the proposed bridge, as described at that time, would
have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values
for which the Riverway was established. Factors that led to that
determination were the impacts of the proposed bridge on the existing
natural and historic scene and the recreational user's enjoyment of the
same. The 1995 proposed bridge would have interrupted and obscured
views upstream and downstream; introduced a new manmade development to
the natural appearing Wisconsin bluff; and disrupted views of historic
Stillwater. In addition, the NPS found that the adverse impacts were so
severe that they could not be adequately mitigated with available
strategies. In her April 1998 decision, U.S. District Judge Ann
Montgomery determined that the bridge was a water resources project
subject to review under Section 7(a) of the Act and that the NPS
Section 7(a) determination was not arbitrary and capricious.
The Draft Section 7(a) Evaluation of the 1998 alternative also
determined that the proposed bridge would have a direct and adverse
effect on the scenic and recreational values for which the Riverway was
established. Again, the factors that led to that determination were the
impacts of the proposed bridge on the existing natural and historic
scene. However, the evaluation also concluded that the direct and
adverse effects could be adequately offset by any one of three
mitigation packages developed through an interagency effort. The
mitigation packages included removing obstructions to flow, removing
manmade visual intrusions to the natural and historic scene, restoring
the Wisconsin bluff by removing pavement from the existing Wisconsin
approach road, and providing funds to preserve natural and cultural
resources and to protect the viewshed of the Riverway. The location of
the 1998 alternative is the same as Alternative C of the current
effort.
comparison of alternatives
Based on the foregoing, there are several important factors to
consider in determining the consistency of the crossing project with
Section 7(a) of the Act. They include the apparent mass of structure,
which is influenced by horizontal and vertical bridge elements as well
as the alignment of the bridge to the river, and the resulting degree
of impact to natural and historic scenes enjoyed by recreational users
of the river. Effective strategies for reducing the impact of the
proposed crossing would include using crossing locations, bridge
alignments, and bridge types that minimize impacts to natural
resources, including river bluffs and vegetation, and that minimize the
apparent mass of the bridge and obstructions of important natural and
historic scenes.
Alternative B-1 would use a new crossing corridor along a
relatively industrially developed section of the-Riverway. It would be
placed on a mostly perpendicularly alignment to the river. In general,
this more perpendicular crossing would be a foreground element in the
view of passing boaters for a shorter period of time and obstruct views
less than a more diagonal crossing in the same location (such as the
1995 FEIS preferred alternative). The bridge types under consideration
for Alternative B-1 attempt to minimize apparent mass. Its location
along a more industrially developed section of river on the Minnesota
side may help reduce its impact on the historic scene of downtown
Stillwater. An attempt to minimize the impact of a bridge on the
natural-appearing Wisconsin bluff has been made by locating the
abutment in a ravine. Impacts to the Wisconsin bluff could be further
compensated by restoring the bluff along the existing approach road to
the Lift Bridge and preserving the sparsely developed landscape on this
side of the river. Bluff restoration and landscape preservation would
also help meet CMP guidance regarding transportation corridors and land
use. The CMP states that if a new transportation corridor is selected,
the former should be restored to natural conditions. The CMP classifies
land use in this portion of the river as ``rural residential,'' which
is defined as providing the sense of being on a river in a sparsely
developed landscape.
The concrete arch bridge type for Alternative C has already been
evaluated under Section 7(a). The evaluation concluded that it would
have a direct and adverse effect on scenic and recreational values, but
that those effects could be adequately offset by any one of three
mitigation packages. If an adequate mitigation package can again be
developed for this alternative, it would likely again be found to meet
the requirements of Section 7(a).
Alternatives D and E would use a location near the existing Lift
Bridge. This alternative attempts to minimize impacts by concentrating
bridge structures in a more developed section of Riverway,
incorporating traditional-style bridge designs, and using the existing
Wisconsin approach road. To do so the bridge would be placed on a
diagonal alignment to the river, multi-level entrance and exit ramps
and a retaining wall would be required on the Stillwater riverfrortt,
and the existing Wisconsin approach and the Wisconsin bluff road would
be expanded. The NPS is concerned that in an attempt to place this
crossing nearer to the existing crossing, the bridge, the necessary
entrance and exit ramps, and the retaining wall may not only disrupt
but obscure views of historic Stillwater and the Wisconsin bluff from
important perspectives. We are also concerned that two bridges in such
close proximity to one another, one on a perpendicular alignment, and
one on a diagonal alignment may create more of a safety hazard for
boaters.
The NPS believes that, lie the 1998 proposal, any one of the
alternatives currently under consideration would have a direct and
adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values of the Riverway.
However, each alternative also includes measures to minimize visual
impacts that were not included in the 1995 FEIS preferred alternative.
Therefore, based on the information provided thus far, the NPS believes
that given appropriate design considerations coupled with a strong
mitigation package, the impacts of any of the alternatives, with the
possible exception of Alternatives D and E, could likely be adequately
offset It should be noted that the mitigation package must include
removing vehicular traffic from the existing Lift Bridge. The Riverway
managing agencies (NPS, MnDNR, WIDNR) position on this issue, as
expressed in the CMP, is very clear-cut. There is to be no net increase
in the number of transportation corridors crossing the Riverway.
information needs
The NPS recommends that additional analysis be conducted on the
crossing alternatives to determine the scenes impacted by the various
bridge locations. The visualization sequence of the 1998 proposal, as
seen from a boater's perspective, was very useful in facilitating its
review under Section 7(a). A viewshed analysis of each alternative
should also be conducted to determine the distances from which each
bridge would be visible, particularly from the water surface. To assess
impacts to free-flow, additional information will also be needed.
Section 10.3.2.4 states that there will be no change in flooding,
change in river profile, or increase in the 100-year to 500-year
floodplain elevations, but provides no supporting analysis. The NPS
will also require the same information as outlined in our June 22,
1999, letter to Adam Josephson, Minnesota Department of Transportation,
to complete a Section 7(a) evaluation of the preferred alternative.
conclusion
We believe that the alternatives under review with the possible
exceptions of D and E, should be able to sustain Section 7(a) review if
the following conditions are met: 1) our aforementioned concerns,
especially those regarding bridge design, are adequately addressed; 2)
an effective mitigation strategy is developed; and 3) close
consultation between the transportation agencies, Minnesota and
Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, National Park Service and
others continues. Should a new bridge be constructed, conversion of the
lift bridge to a pedestrian/bike crossing until such time as it may be
removed would satisfy the spirit of the CMP's guidance of non-
proliferation of crossings.
These comments have been provided as early technical assistance,
based on currently available information, and do not necessarily
indicate the NPS response to future environmental documents prepared in
association with the project The NPS has a continuing interest in
working with the FHWA to ensure that the resource values of the St.
Croix National Scenic Riverway are protected. A full evaluation under
Section 7(a) will be completed after a preferred alternative is
selected, all necessary data is available, and the NPS has had adequate
time to carefully evaluate its impacts and the effectiveness of the
mitigation items currently under development.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Bradley,
Superintendent.
Mayor Harycki. Thank you.
The good news is that, you know, really, we've moved as a
community from the discussion 15 years ago, do we need a bridge
or don't we need a bridge, to saying, you know, both of us are
saying we do need a bridge. That's really a key element. You
know, the community acknowledges that a bridge needs to be
built. What we're asking for is for Congress to grant us the
ability to build the bridge.
Mn/DOT has studied it. There are 2, 4-lane highways at each
end of that bridge with freeway-style, freeway speeds on it. I
believe, although I was not part of that process that preceded
me, I believe that, you know, it would be irresponsible to take
traffic from 55 miles an hour and build a bottleneck at 40
miles an hour. That's, you know, ultimately why I think the
lower speeds were not looked at.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Tomten, did you want to respond? Then if the Mayor
wants to respond. Then I probably will include what----
Mr. Tomten. I would agree we do----
Senator Udall. I want the record to show what each of you
bring as a point of view.
Mr. Tomten. We do both agree, we do need a new bridge. It's
a matter of how big. Unfortunately, our State Department of
Transportation has only given the public one option--a freeway
style bridge, and up to this point, no bridge. No bridge, or a
freeway style bridge. We would like to propose an alternative
in the middle that would save $400 million, and still pull all
of the traffic out of downtown. It would still meet the
capacity needs now and in the future for the freeway systems
that are already built in place.
In fact, our proposal utilizes much more of the existing
infrastructure already in place that handles that traffic than
the new proposal does. The new proposal basically redesigns
several intersections that we feel are not necessary. So, we
can save a ton of money in doing that.
But what we would ask, all we're trying to ask is for the
Governor and for the Department of Transportation to look at
our alternative. What we'd ask of this committee is that you
would ask the National Park Service to take a look at our
proposal alongside the large bridge proposal and see which one
is preferred, and which one really follows the spirit and
intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Senator Udall. Mayor Harycki.
Mayor Harycki. We've gone down that path, and we've put 3
hard years into looking at options. I really think at this
point to build what would be a functionally obsolete bridge
that would not meet future demands would be irresponsible. So,
we've, you know, we've looked at, I think, about 12 different
crossings, and we kept coming back to the one--and the other
point is, the diagonal bridge that's being presented--if you'd
put up the picture.
The diagonal bridge that's being proposed would just
obliterate the view from downtown Stillwater. We have a very
picturesque--we actually own the land in Wisconsin, so part of
Stillwater is in Wisconsin. We own the parkland there. This is
a view from our downtown with the existing lift bridge on the
left side. What we'd be looking at from our main park and from
many of our residences' backyards would be a 40- to 50-foot
tall bridge that would span the river. All you'd be seeing is
bridges and the river. Whereas, the, I think we have a further
view. Did we bring that picture with us? No, we didn't. We have
a further view that, you know, it would push it down a mile,
and it would be out of the view shot.
So, I mean, if the Scenic River Act is trying to protect
the views, I mean, this is what we're trying to protect
against.
Mr. Tomten. Mr. Chairman, if I could. Once again, to
clarify it for the record, our Sensible Stillwater Bridge
proposal has not been studied by the mitigation group. The
bridge proposal that the Mayor is showing you and is referring
to in his testimony was an alternative brought to the mediation
by Mn/DOT called Alternate D. Alternate D is not our bridge.
Our bridge is a smaller bridge. Our bridge is a lower bridge,
and has not been studied by this mediation group.
So, any of these statements about, our bridge is more
impactful to the environment, that's wrong, because our bridge
hasn't been studied. Any statements that our bridge would,
really, be an eyesore from the Lowell Park in Stillwater I
think are wrong, because, again, our bridge has not been
studied. It needs to be brought forward.
All we're asking this committee is to ask the Park Service,
with the, after a request to the, from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, to compare the 2 proposals side-by-side and
see which one meets the spirit and intent of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act.
Senator Udall. Thank you again. I'm going to bring the
hearing to a close.
There are no further questions today, but we will keep the
record open for members of the committee to submit additional
questions. Those of you on the panel are certainly welcome to
submit additional statements for the record.
I want to thank you for the tone in which we've conducted
this hearing.
I want to also thank the Minnesota Senators--Senator
Franken, Senator Klobuchar, who's still here, for their
attention and involvement.
With that, this subcommittee's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Wyden
s. 764
Question 1. Earlier this month, a Forest Service employee in Oregon
was quoted in the Curry Coastal Pilot saying that the paperwork for
finally withdrawing the Chetco is ``sitting on the desk of the director
of the BLM in Washington, DC''. Is that the case?
Answer. The Forest Service defers to the BLM to answer this
question.
Question 2. Can you give us an update on why this administrative
withdrawal is taking so long?
Answer. The application to withdraw 5,610 acres of National Forest
System lands along the Chetco Wild and Scenic River was originally
submitted to the BLM in the fall of 2010. However, at that time the
Forest Service was in the midst of changing the protocol for developing
maps and the legal boundary description needed to be verified before
the package could be finalized. The notice of application for
withdrawal and public meeting was published on August 1, 2011, a few
days after the Subcommittee hearing. The lands will be temporarily
segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws
for up to 2 years.
Question 3. The Oregon delegation has asked, on multiple occasions
over the last decade, that the Forest Service and BLM protect areas not
covered by this bill in Southwest Oregon. What can you tell me about
your agency's position on the Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek
watersheds?
Answer. There are currently many mining claims in the areas of
interest and a withdrawal would have little impact as to whether mining
activities would continue. The Forest also believes that it can
adequately protect these watersheds through administration and
enforcement of current available laws and regulations. If these lands
were withdrawn from mineral entry, there would be an impact to the
agency's workload. For example, the agency would need to perform a
number of validity exams. Given that a withdrawal of this area would
not have the desired effect of limiting mining, the agency feels its
resources are better utilized focusing on administration of ongoing
operations.
Question 4. Is there anything that really prevents the Forest
Service from acting without legislation?
Answer. The Forest Service has the option to proceed with an
administrative withdrawal and conduct an environmental analysis. The
area could not be withdrawn to protect the area from future mining
claims while the analysis proceeded since it was already withdrawn once
for this purpose. If the analysis resulted in a withdrawal, it would
have little effect on current mining, as described in #2 above. A
proposed legislative withdrawal would allow the agency to commence a
withdrawal in aid of legislation, as is the case with the Chetco Wild
and Scenic River withdrawal.
Question 5. Is it the Forest Service's position that we have to
introduce legislation before a withdrawal of these areas would go
forward?
Answer. The Forest Service continues to review its options.
However, as stated in answer to the previous questions, given that a
withdrawal in this area would have little effect on existing mining
claims, the Forest Service believes its resources are better utilized
by focusing on administration of current mining activities.
Question 6. I understand that validity exams are costly for the
Forest Service. Is there ways that Congress could help the Forest
Service lower the cost of a validity exam, much like the language used
in the mineral withdrawals for the Smith River National Recreation
Area?
Answer. Within the Smith River NRA the operator of a mining claim
located prior to the withdrawal is required to submit specific
information to the authorized officer showing there is a discovery of a
valuable mineral deposit, facilitating this process. The authorized
officer has been given the authority to determine if there is enough
evidence for the Forest Service to verify the discovery with a validity
examination, or to contact BLM and initiate a contest action against
the mining claim. The decision to initiate contest is not subject to
further agency or Department of Agriculture review or administrative
appeal.
Under a traditional withdrawal, any claim located prior to the date
of the withdrawal requires a valid existing rights determination
through a validity examination. This is usually initiated when the
operator submits a proposed Plan of Operations. If there are no
proposed mining activities on the claim there is no requirement to
verify a discovery and
the claim may stay in the withdrawn area. The authorized officer
does not have the authority to determine if there is a discovery or
initiate a mineral contest action without a validity examination. A
valid existing right must be completed by a certified mineral examiner
and if it is determined there is not a discovery a contest will then be
initiated.
Under the Smith River process the Forest Service is only required
to perform validity examinations on mining claims that have been
identified by the authorized officer as needing verification of a
discovery. Depending on the deposit and operation, a validity
examination to determine a valid existing right, can cost the
government tens of thousands of dollars, not including the legal aspect
of the contest hearing. This process will not reduce the cost of the
validity examination but it may reduce the number of validity
examinations needed.
______
Responses of Peggy O'Dell to Questions From Senator Udall
s. 1063
Question 1. The National Park Service completed an environmental
impact statement in 2010 on the issue of allowing for the limited
collection of gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park. However S. 1036
doesn't link the authority to allow egg collecting in the park to the
preferred alternative of the EIS. Would it make sense to tie the
legislative authority to the findings and criteria in the EIS and
record of decision?
Answer. The harvest provisions in S. 1063--which limit collection
by members of the Hoonah Indian Association to not more than twice each
calendar year at up to 5 locations--are taken directly from the EIS/
Record of Decision. Thus, the link to the EIS and ROD is evident in the
language of the proposed legislation.
s. 1134
Question 1. I understand that the National Park Service manages
approximately 40 rivers which are components of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. Has the Park Service ever approved construction
of a bridge over any of those rivers subsequent to their designation as
a wild and scenic river? If yes, please identify the specific rivers
and bridges where construction was approved.
Answer. The NPS is responsible for determining whether a proposed
water resources project would have a direct and adverse effect on the
water quality, free-flowing condition, and outstandingly remarkable
values for which a river was designated. The NPS considers the impacts
of each bridge project individually to assess the effect a given
project will have on the specific values for which a river was
designated.
The NPS has reviewed proposals for the construction of bridges over
wild and scenic rivers and has determined in several instances that the
bridge would not have a direct and adverse impact on the values for
which the river was included in the National Wild and Scenic River
System. The vast majority of these bridges are replacements (including
removal) of an existing bridge that resulted in the improvement of
river values. Identified below are the rivers with bridge projects that
NPS found did not have a direct and adverse effect on the river, along
with the number of bridges for each river.
Allagash, ME--1 bridge Missouri River, NE/SD--2 bridges
Big & Little Darby Creek, OH--3 Musconetcong, NJ--1 bridge
bridges
Eel River, CA--2 bridges Namekagon, WI--8 bridges
Farmington, CT--1 bridge Niobrara, NE--2 bridges
Flathead, MT--2 bridges Obed River, TN--1 bridge
Great Egg Harbor, NJ--5 bridges St. Croix, MN/WI--4 bridges
Lamprey, NH--4 bridges Sudbury, Assabet & Concord, MA--6
bridges
Little Miami River, OH--2 bridges Upper Delaware, NY--1 bridge
Lower Delaware, DE--2 bridges Westfield, MA--6 bridges
Lower St. Croix, MN/WI--2 bridges White Clay Creek, DE--2 bridges
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
[Due to the large amount of materials received, only a
representative sample of statements follow. Additional documents and
statements have been retained in subcommittee files.]
Statement of Emily Jones, Senior Program Manager, Southeast Region,
National Parks Conservation Association, on S. 265
I write to submit my written statement in strong support of S. 265,
the Champion Hill, Port Gibson and Raymond Battlefields Addition Act,
introduced by Senators Cochran and Wicker, which would authorize the
National Park Service to acquire approximately 10,000 acres of historic
battlefield sites significant to the Vicksburg Campaign for addition to
Vicksburg National Military Park.
The State of Mississippi, Friends of Raymond, and Civil War Trust
hold 1,050 acres of this land, and have conservation easements on an
additional 1,171 acres. They have expressed strong interest in this
land becoming part of the National Park, and in donating their
interests. The Champion Hill, Port Gibson and Raymond Battlefields
Addition Act is a most timely opportunity to protect hallowed ground in
the Vicksburg Campaign as the nation commemorates the sesquicentennial
of the Civil War.
Port Gibson and Raymond are identified as Priority I landscapes by
the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC)'s State of Mississippi
report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields. The Commission,
established by Congress in 1991, first published its Report on the
Nation's Civil War Battlefields in 1993. Both Port Gibson and Raymond
retain a significant percentage of their integrity, as identified in
the 1993 CWSAC Report and the October 2010 update.
Champion Hill, a Priority III landscape, is one of the most intact
battlefields in Mississippi. Champion Hill and Port Gibson are
designated National Historic Landmarks and Raymond is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. Threats to Port Gibson include
the proposed widening of US Highway 61 which could threaten the eastern
half of the battlefield. Commercial development along State Highway 18,
which bisects the battlefield, could pose a threat to the Raymond
Battlefield. As stated in the CWSAC report, ``with the exception of
resources protected within the boundaries of Vicksburg National
Military Park, most of the Vicksburg battlefield landscape has been
destroyed by modern development.'' According to the Civil War Trust, we
are losing one acre of hallowed ground every hour of every day to
sprawl in rural towns and urban suburbs.
In addition to the historic integrity and military significance of
these battlefields to the Vicksburg Campaign, the protection of these
lands as part of the national park is of economic importance to the
rural community of Raymond. On April 5, 2011, I had the honor of
touring Raymond Battlefield and Champion Hill with Brigadier General
Parker Hills (Ret.) to learn more about the proposed sites for addition
to Vicksburg National Military Park. I also met with Mayor Isla Tullos
who showed me the town's new Visitor Center, located appropriately in
the same building as the Chamber of Commerce. She was hopeful about the
tourism potential of the upcoming Civil War Sesquicentennial and saw a
tremendous opportunity for Raymond to build business based on the
historic character of the town by attracting visitors interested in
learning more about the battle and the people of Raymond during those
days leading up to the Siege of Vicksburg.
The Mayor of Raymond has every reason to be optimistic about the
economic future of her rural community if this legislation is passed.
On average, national parks generate $4.00 in value for every tax dollar
invested in them. They support $13.3 billion in private sector activity
and provide jobs to 267,000 people across America. If Raymond
Battlefield is added to Vicksburg National Military Park, local
businesses would certainly benefit as Raymond is positioned to receive
nearly 1 million visitors a year.
After visiting Raymond Battlefield and Champion Hill with General
Hills, I was very eager to learn more about the events leading up to
the Siege of Vicksburg, General Pemberton's surrender, and the impact
these events had in connection with Gettysburg and the outcome of the
war. I was hooked on Civil War history in Mississippi having been to
that place where history happened. I even made a personal connection
through the National Park Service's Civil War Soldiers and Sailors
system where I learned about an ancestor who fought at Chickasaw Bayou,
Big Black River Bridge, and Vicksburg. My curiosity had been sparked by
a story I'd heard from the Battle of Raymond. The story was of Irish
immigrants from St. Louis, `the son's of Ireland', fighting under the
Confederate leadership of Colonel McGavock, a past mayor of Nashville,
Tennessee. Imagine the anguish of Confederate and Union troops as they
met in battle with flags emblazoned with golden harps, the symbol of
Ireland.
Ensuring today's and tomorrow's National Park visitors can learn
from the places where history happened is a key objective for NPCA
during the Civil War's 150th Anniversary years 2011-2015. Beyond
military tactics and the personalities of famous fascinating generals,
NPCA seeks to shed light on the causes and consequences of the Civil
War as well as upon the acts of heroism on both sides of the conflict.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement on behalf of
the National Parks Conservation Association. Our mission is to preserve
and protect America's National Parks for future generations. Since
1919, NPCA has been the leading voice of the American people working to
protect our national parks and historic landmarks from Yellowstone to
Gettysburg. Our 350,000 members across the country, including the 1,373
members in the State of Mississippi, are everyday Americans who want to
preserve our land and historical sites for our children and
grandchildren.
______
Civil War Trust,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2011.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, 304 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul and Members of the
Subcommittee:
On behalf of the national nonprofit Civil War Trust, we are writing
in strong support of S. 265, the Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and
Raymond Battlefields Addition Act. This legislation would authorize a
boundary adjustment to the Vicksburg National Military Park in the
State of Mississippi to include lands at the Champion Hill, Port Gibson
and Raymond Battlefields, three battles associated with Major General
Ulysses S. Grant's Operations against Vicksburg in 1863.
Today the National Park Service interprets and protects 1,800 acres
in Mississippi that commemorate the campaign, siege, and defense of
Vicksburg. The inclusion of the Champion Hill, Port Gibson and Raymond
battlefields in the Park's authorized boundary will create
opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War
landscapes and resources allowing the Park to convey a more
comprehensive Civil War story.
In the spring of 1863, Grant, with orders to eliminate the
Confederate resistance in the Mississippi Valley, launched his march on
Vicksburg. Along the way, Grant's forces engaged and defeated
Confederate forces at Port Gibson, Raymond, and Champion Hill. On July
4, 1863, Confederate Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton, surrendered
the city of Vicksburg after prolonged siege operations. This was the
culmination of one of the most brilliant military campaigns of the war.
With the loss of Pemberton's army and the vital stronghold on the
Mississippi, the Confederacy was effectively split in half. Grant's
successes in the West boosted his reputation, leading ultimately to his
appointment as General-in-Chief of the Union armies.
It is worth noting that all three battlefields, along with the
Vicksburg Battlefield, were recognized as nationally significant
historic resources in a 1993 Congressional study on the status of the
nation's Civil War battlefields conducted by the Civil War Sites
Advisory Commission. In addition, Champion Hill and Port Gibson are
designated National Historic Landmarks and Raymond is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
The Civil War Trust has preserved more than 30,000 acres of
hallowed ground throughout the United States, including more than 3,300
acres of battlefield lands in Mississippi. We are in a race against
time to protect these historically-significant battlefield lands for
future generations because about 30 acres of hallowed ground is lost
each day to development.
In conclusion, we applaud Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker
for their leadership on this important piece of legislation. The Civil
War Trust fully supports the passage of S. 265 to modify the boundary
of the Vicksburg National Military Park. With the Civil War's
sesquicentennial anniversary in full swing, Congressional approval and
enactment of this boundary expansion legislation during the 112th
Congress would appropriately commemorate this chapter of America's
history.
Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of
legislation.
Sincerely yours,
John L. Nau, III,
Chairman Emeritus.
Jim Lighthizer,
President.
______
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Washington, DC, August 2, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to report to you the findings of the National Capital
Memorial Advisory Commission (Commission) which met on. June 23, 2011,
to review S. 253 and S. 883, two bills now under consideration by your
Committee. The Commission was established under the Commemorative Works
Act of 1986 (40 U.S.C. 89, et. seq.). This letter is intended to
fulfill the requirements of Section 8903(d) of that Act, which states
that the Congress shall solicit the views of the Commission in
considering legislation authorizing commemorative works within the
District of Columbia and its environs.
(b) S. 253, a bill to establish a World War I National
Memorial Commission and reestablish the District of Columbia
World War Memorial as the National World War I Memorial.
The Commission considered testimony from Congressman Ted Poe, Edwin
Fountain, Director, World War 1 Memorial Foundation, Joseph Grano,
President of the Rhodes Tavern-D.C. Heritage Society, Nelson
Rimensnyder, Historian of the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of
the District of Columbia, and William Brown, President of the
Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia.
The Commission recognized that the District of Columbia World War
Memorial has a unique significance to the citizens of the District of
Columbia and recommends that this memorial not be reestablished as a
national memorial. The Commission noted that memorials can achieve
prominence and high visitation without being located directly on the
Mall, and recognized that the Memorial to General Pershing and the
fighting forces in World War I was authorized by the Congress and built
by the American Battle Monuments Commission on Pennsylvania Avenue as
the national memorial to World War I. The Commission discussed Mr.
Grano's and Mr. Rimensnyder's recommendations that the site, design,
and national character of this memorial could better support the
enhancements intended by S. 253. The Commission concluded that
enhancements intended to provide a greater commemoration of World War I
may be better suited at the National World War I Memorial in Pershing
Park, but cautioned that the modification of the existing memorial in
Pershing Park was not within the scope of S. 253 and should not be
explored or recommended within the scope of the Commission's evaluation
of S. 253.
S. 883, a bill to authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund
D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of
Columbia to honor free persons and slaves who fought for
independence, liberty, and justice for all during the American
Revolution.
The Commission considered testimony provided by Senator Joseph
Lieberman, sponsor of S. 883, and Maurice Barboza, founder of the
National Mall Liberty Fund D.C.
The Commission noted that S. 883 would direct that the memorial be
located within Area I without benefit of public participation or the
participation of the Secretary of the Interior, both of which were
actions that cannot be sanctioned under the Commemorative Works Act.
This direction contradicts the site approval authority provided to the
Secretary, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the
Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) under the Commemorative Works Act.
The Commission recommends its support for S. 883, provided that it
is brought into conformance with the Commemorative Works Act by
deleting the word ``preeminent'' in Section 1, and the reference to
Area I in Section 2(A)(i). Should the Congress enact this proposal into
law and the National Mall Liberty Fund DC seek Area 1 designation, the
Commission would welcome the opportunity to assist the Secretary of the
Interior in considering the request, pursuant to Section 8908(b)(1) of
the Commemorative Works Act.
I would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide further
information if you so desire.
Sincerely,
Peter May, Chairman.
National Capital Memorial Commission.
Statement of Jim Stratton, Alaska Regional Director, National Parks
Conservation Association, on S. 1063
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) works to
protect, preserve, and enhance America's national parks for present and
future generations. On behalf of NPCA's 335,000 members, and especially
the national parks in Alaska, we appreciate the opportunity to submit
these comments for the record.
The National Parks Conservation Association supports S. 1063, a
bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the collection
of glaucous-winged gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park by members of
the Hoonah Indian Association. This bill will help connect the Huna
Tlingit to their ancestral homeland. Gathering gull eggs is a
traditional practice that enhances physical, cultural and spiritual
well being. NPCA understands these values and is supportive so long as
egg collecting is done in a manner that does not significantly impact
the natural resources of Glacier Bay.
While NPCA is concerned that egg harvest could impact the gull
population, we are reasonably confident that collection can be done
with minimal effects. Glacier Bay contains a healthy population of
glaucous-winged gulls, and if gathered at the right time of year, most
gulls will lay a second clutch of eggs. Many years of studies have been
conducted and they conclude that egg harvest can occur with only minor
impacts.
Also important is that no other park resources are adversely
impacted by the egg collecting. Of special concern are Steller sea
lions and other nesting sea birds. The primary location where egg
collecting will occur is South Marble Island, which contains the
largest sea lion rookery in Glacier Bay proper. Most sea lions in
Glacier Bay belong to the eastern stock which was listed as
``threatened'' in 1990, and some also belong to the western stock,
listed as ``endangered'' in 1997. Many other birds (such as terns,
kittiwakes, oystercatchers, puffins and cormorants) nest in the same
locations as gulls. However with careful collecting techniques (as
outlined in the May 2010 environmental impact statement) we believe
gathering can occur with minimal disturbance to sea lions and other
nesting sea birds.
Key to the success of authorizing the Huna Tlingit to collect eggs
in one of our country's premier national parks is creation of careful
collection methods followed by diligent monitoring. It is important
that the National Park Service sets dates, locations, group size, and
other conditions to ensure collecting is done in a manner that least
impacts gulls, other sea birds, Steller sea lions and other park
resources. Equally important is that monitoring occurs to ensure no
unforeseen consequences occur. Because the National Park Service will
prepare an annual harvest plan and follow up with monitoring, we are
confident the Huna Tlingit can return to this cultural tradition while
park resources continue to be protected for future generations.
In summary, NPCA supports this legislation for the following
reasons:
Gathering gull eggs in Glacier Bay enhances important
traditional cultural ties for the Huna Tlingit
Glaucous-winged gulls are common in the park
If gathered at the right time, most gulls relay their eggs
Studies have determined the overall population of gulls will
not be impacted by carefully conducted egg collection
A harvest plan will be developed annually to set conditions
to minimize impacts
Monitoring will ensure no long term impacts take place to
gulls, other sea birds, Steller sea lions or other park
resources
If unacceptable impacts do occur, egg collection methods
will be adjusted
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Statement of Barbara Ullian, on S. 764
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a personal statement in
support of the Chetco River Protection Act, S.764, and for holding a
hearing for it on July 28th, 2011. I'd also like to thank Senators Ron
Wyden and Jeff Merkley for introducing the legislation and Congressman
Peter DeFazio for introducing it in the House of Representatives. My
name is Barbara Ullian. I've lived and worked in Southwest Oregon since
1947. Over the years I've photographed, rafted and grown to love and
know the wild rivers and watersheds of what has become known as the
Wild Rivers Coast.
summary
A plan to mine about 20 miles of the National Wild and Scenic
Chetco River was submitted to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
in 2008. The instream mining proposal threatens the river and the
nationally outstanding values that Congress sought to protect in 1988,
when it added the Chetco to the National Wild and Scenic River System.
The Siskiyou National Forest's 1993 Management Plan for the Wild and
Scenic Chetco River recommends that Congress upgrade the classification
of a two-mile river segment, between Boulder Creek and Mislatnah Creek,
from ``Scenic'' to ``Wild.'' ``Wild'' River segments are automatically
withdrawn from operation of the mining laws under the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. However, the recommendation, along with a second
classification change, was never forwarded to Congress. The ``Scenic
River Area'' of the Chetco was also recommended for withdrawal but the
Forest Supervisor chose not to pursue the withdrawal because the area
had low mineral potential and at the time a low probability that the
existing mining claims would be developed into mining operations.
Forest Supervisor rejected the mineral withdrawal in 1993 because there
was no threat of mining. The Chetco River Protection Act is based on
the Forest Service's recommendations that have undergone public review
and comment as per the National Environmental Protection Act.
location
The National Wild & Scenic Chetco River is one of three
Congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers that flow through an
approximately 400,000 acre complex of designated Wilderness and
adjacent inventoried roadless areas known as the Kalmiopsis Wildlands.
It lies between lies between the National Wild and Scenic Illinois
River and the National Wild and Scenic Smith River. The Chetco River
flows undammed from its headwaters to the Pacific Ocean at Brookings,
Oregon. It's entirely in Curry County.
the new mining threat
With the rise in the price of gold and the advent of so-called
recreational gold mining, the low mineral potential of the Chetco no
longer protected it from mining. The primary threat lies in 8 plans to
mine about 20 miles of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River submitted to
the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest beginning in 2008.\1\ The
mining is on existing claims. It begins deep inside the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness, continues down the ``Wild'' segment to where the Chetco
River leaves the Wilderness and then down the ``Scenic'' and
``Recreational'' segments almost to the Forest Boundary. Additional
mining claims were located in 2009 through 2010. Some may be located
over the top of existing claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The proposed mining is mostly instream with suction dredges.
The dredges float on pontoons over the water. Powered by gasoline
engines, they suck up the streambed like a giant vacuum. The bed
material is run through a sluice and deposited behind the dredge in
unconsolidated tailings piles. The size and amount of streambed
material that can be processed is determined by size of the intake
nozzle and engine of the dredge. Volkswagen engines can be used. Fuels
are often stored along stream banks and dredges refueled over the
water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
why greater protection is needed
The Forest Service's position regarding the mining proposed for the
Chetco River is that, ``absent an official mineral withdrawal, [they]
cannot prohibit location, entry, or any other operation under the
mining law'' and that mining can occur whether or not claims are
valid.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's June 17, 2008 response
to Chetco River Mining and Exploration's (CRME) notice of intent to
mine 19 miles of the National Wild and Scenic Chetco River outside the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mining plans for the Wild and Scenic Chetco River includes
using a variety of different sized gasoline-powered suction dredges
(which harm streambeds) and ``highbankers,''\3\ (which harms riparian
areas along the streams). Proposed access in Wilderness and Wild River
Areas includes the use of helicopters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A highbanker is gold mining equipment that employs (usually) a
gasoline powered pump to force water through a sluice box to separate
gold from soil taken from riparian areas and uplands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the forest service's recommendation to congress
The Forest Supervisor's 1993 Decision for the Chetco's Wild &
Scenic Management Plan includes the following direction:\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USDA Forest Service, 1993. Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact, Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan
Environmental Assessment, Forest Plan Amendment No. 6, Curry County,
Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest, Chetco Ranger District, pp. 40-41.
The Forest Service is recommending to Congress that the Wild
segment be extended approximately 2 miles downstream from the
existing designation at Boulder Creek to the confluence of
Mislatnah Creek. This 2 mile addition shall be managed as Wild
until Congress acts on the Forest Service recommendation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Forest Supervisor's Decision states: ``My selection of
Alternative II will initiate a recommendation from the Forest Service
to Congress that the Wild segment end at Mislatnah Creek. This is an
extension of the original Congressional designation by two miles. This
is my preference because the two mile segment of river from Boulder
Creek to Mislatnah Creek is remote and accessible only by trail; is
entirely free of impoundments, diversions, or other alternation; and
has high water quality and shorelines which are essentially primitive.
All these criteria meet the definition of a Wild River segment. A
similar statement is made in the Decision regarding the extension of
the Scenic segment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service is recommending to Congress that the
Scenic segment be extended approximately 1.5 miles downstream
from the existing designation at the Steel Bridge to the
confluence of Eagle Creek. This 1.5 mile addition [to the
Scenic segment of the Chetco] shall be managed as Scenic until
Congress acts on the Forest Service recommendation.
The Chetco Wild & Scenic Management Plan Environmental Assessment
also recommended that the ``Scenic'' segment of the river be withdrawn
from future mineral entry.\6\ The Forest Supervisor chose not to pursue
recommended withdrawal stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USDA Forest Service 1993. Environmental Assessment for the
Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, USDA Forest Service
Siskiyou National Forest, p. 17.
. . . it would be impractical to recommend mineral
withdrawal on an area that has low mineral potential and low
probability of existing claims being developed into mining
operations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid. 43.
However, on the recommendation of the Forest Service, the
Department of Interior has proposed withdrawing about 17 miles of the
Chetco River, outside the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, for five years,
through the authority granted the Secretary of Interior in the Federal
Land Management and Policy Act. The Federal Register Notice beginning
the temporary segregation of the river from the Mining Law was
published on August 1, 2011, a little more than a year after the Forest
Service announced it would recommend a five year withdrawal to the
Bureau of Land Management for the purposes of aiding Congress in their
consideration of the Chetco River Protection Act.
how s.764 would help protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable
values of the chetco river
The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires that designated rivers
be administered in such a manner as to protect and enhance the values
which caused it to be included in the Wild & Scenic River System.\8\
The guidelines for the designation and management of National Wild &
Scenic Rivers, issued by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture in
1982, confirm that the Act codifies a nondegradation and enhancement
policy regardless of river classification.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 16 USC Sec. 1281 (a).
\9\ 47 Fed. Reg. 39454 (Sept. 7, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the ``protect and enhance'' standard applies equally to river
segments classified as ``Scenic'' or ``Recreation,'' only a river
segment classified as ``Wild'' is automatically withdrawn (upon
Congressional designation) from all forms of mineral development
(subject to valid existing rights).\10\ To fulfill the nondegradtion
mandate of the WSRA, the areas of the National Wild & Scenic Chetco
River, classified as ``Scenic'' and ``Recreational'' should also be
withdrawn from operation of the Mining Law.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 16 USC Sec. 1280 (a)(iii).
\11\ Terry S. Maley, in ``Mineral Law'' (Sixth Edition, p. 91)
defines ``withdrawal'' as ``. . . withholding an area of Federal land
from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the
general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those
laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving
the area for a particular public purpose or program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is precedent for this. Congress, in designating other
additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, has seen fit
to include specific language, amending the WSRA, that also withdraws
designated stream segments classified as ``Scenic'' and
``Recreational.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``16 USC Sec. 1274(a)(62)(B)(ii) (Merced River, CA) and 16 USC
Sec. 1274(a)(109) (East Fork Jemez River, NM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a river area is withdrawn from mineral entry, no new mining
claims can be located within it and existing claims can be exploited/
mined only if the claim is found to be valid. A valid claim is one on
which the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit can be demonstrated
on the date of withdrawal and one which meets all requirements of the
law at the time of the hearing.\13\ The claimant cannot conduct mining
activities to make a discovery after the date of withdrawal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. at p. 106.
\14\ Id at p. 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Validity is determined through a process that includes mineral
examination in the field, a mineral report and recommendation on
whether the claim is valid or not. If the claim is found not to be
valid, a claim contest proceeding is initiated in accordance with due
process. Existing claims found to be invalid are terminated, no mining
can occur and no new mining claims can be filed in the area.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at p. 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim validity is determined by the ability of the claimant to show
a profit can be made after accounting for all costs, including
compliance with federal and state laws (including the nondegradation
standard of the WSRA).\16\ Mining in areas which require helicopter
access (Wilderness and ``Wild'' river segments) will also result in
high mining costs and this can affect claim validity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Great Basin Mine Watch, 147 IBLA 248,256 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of the requirement to determine whether an existing
mining claim is valid could be that no mining occurs, thereby
protecting the ``outstandingly remarkable values'' for which the stream
segment was included in the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ While mineral withdrawal is a clumsy method to protect
nonmineral values from mining activity, its all there currently is on
National Forest lands. This is because Congress has failed to provide
meaningful reform of the 136 year old Mining Law and second, because of
the timidity of the Forest Service in challenging mining operations.
While the 1872 Mining Law grants a claimant the right to mine public
lands, this right is strictly derivative of the ``discovery of a
valuable mineral deposit.'' However, the Forest Service's policy is to
simply assume the right to mine exists, unless an area is withdrawn
from mineral entry. It's withdrawal that triggers examination of claim
validity. For a discussion on this see John D. Leshy, ``The Mining Law:
A Study in Perpetual Motion,'' Resources for the Future 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another result, if a few of the claims are valid, will be less
extensive mining than had the valid existing rights determination not
been done. Additionally, in some cases, such as Rock Mesa in the Three
Sisters Wilderness (1983) and Taggart's Bar in the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness (1999)\18\, Congress has appropriated money from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to buyout the valid claims and protect the
area from mining. Absent an official mineral withdrawal, the Forest
Service's policy is that they have no authority to prohibit location,
entry, or any other operation under the Mining Law.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ During the process of the buyout of the patented Chetco River
claim at Taggarts Bar in 1999, the owner of the claim agreed to
terminate all the additional existing mining claims he held in the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness. These existing claims spanned over 2,000 acres,
mostly along the National Wild & Scenic Chetco River. Because the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness is withdrawn from mineral entry, no new claims
can be filed and no mining can occur on the 2,000 acre or the Chetco
River claim.
\19\ Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's June 17, 2008 response
to Chetco River Mining and Exploration's notice of intent to mine
outside the Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
why the stream beds and banks of world class salmon and steelhead
rivers should not be mined
The bed of a river is not the lifeless assortment of rock and
gravel that proponents of suction dredge mining would have you believe.
Rather, streambeds are complex and sensitive ecosystems--essential to
the health of the river and for native fish reproduction. Suction
dredge mining in wild salmon and steelhead habitat is like using a
bulldozer to rearrange a hospital's maternity wing.
Salmon and steelhead return from their long journey at sea to spawn
in the vicinity of where they themselves were born. They select
relatively flat, stable areas of the stream to lay their eggs. These
high-value reaches are limited in number and extent within a river
system. Exacting conditions are required for successful reproduction.
The spawning gravels must be the right size for the female to dig her
nest with her tail. The nests are called redds. The surrounding
streambed must be stable. Movement of the streambed during high flows,
even some distance from the redd, will destroy the redd and smother or
crush the developing eggs and alevins (tiny hatchlings) or cause them
to be washed out of the shelter of the redds.
The eggs hatch in one to three months. The alevins remain in the
gravels for one to five months more. The flow of water within the redd
must be enough to provide adequate oxygen to the eggs and alevins but
not so high as to wash them from the protection of their nursery.
Emergence and survival are also dependent on suitable water
temperatures.
The stability and structure of a stream's bed comes about through a
process occurring over numerous seasons of high flows. The different
sized bed material--rock, gravel and fines--is sorted by the river's
hydraulics into stable configurations with an armoring layer.
Unfortunately, high-value, low gradient spawning reaches also attract
miners because it's where gold often settles out between the bed rock
and streambed gravels. The mining destroys the stream's armoring layer
and the order and stability crucial to naturally reproducing fish.
Directly or indirectly, the mining can be deadly to salmonids and other
aquatic species.
Preserving relatively pristine fresh water refugia--such as the
National Wild and Scenic Chetco River--is essential to assuring the
survival of declining wild salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout
populations in this era of deteriorating ocean conditions and global
climate change. Thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement
in support of S.764.
______
Statement of Michael Dombeck, on S. 764
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of S.
764, the Chetco River Protection Act. I served as chief of the U.S.
Forest Service and director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I
have professional expertise in watershed restoration, fisheries and
ecosystem management. I'm a former fishing guide, and still an avid
hunter and fisherman.
I'm pleased to write on behalf of this legislation and the
exceptional river it seeks to provide greater protection for. S. 764 is
based on recommendations made by local Forest Service managers through
a public National Environmental Policy Act process. Senator Wyden,
Senator Merkley and Congressman DeFazio are to be commended for taking
it to the next step, adapting the recommendations to the current
situation and introducing legislation. In the interim, to preserve the
status quo while Congress considers the bill, the Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management has proposed withdrawing the Scenic
and Recreational segments of the Chetco River on the recommendation of
the Forest Service, the land managing agency.
The Chetco River is one of those priceless national assets that
protected will only grow in importance to the local community and as a
part of the natural heritage of all Americans. It flows, without the
impediment of dams, from its headwaters in Wilderness through the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest to the Pacific Ocean. It's famous for
its large salmon and steelhead, some of the largest in Oregon, with
reports of Chinook salmon weighing over 60 pounds.
The high percentage of National Forest and Wilderness lands in its
watershed, populations of native, naturally reproducing salmon,
steelhead and cutthroat trout and its free flowing state presents
opportunities for the Chetco to serve as a wild salmon refuge--rare in
the lower 48 states. Yet the heart of all this, the river itself, is
threatened by proposals to mine almost half its length using gasoline
powered suction dredges for a period of 10 years. The impacts are
likely to be profound on water quality, recreation opportunities, and
the salmon resources.
Jack Ward Thomas, my predecessor at the Forest Service, is often
quoted as saying ``not only are ecosystems more complex than we think,
they are more complex than we can think.'' As a fisheries biologist and
ecosystem manager, I believe this especially applies to stream
ecosystems. As someone who has a spent a lifetime observing rivers--
often hip deep in their rushing waters, with a fishing rod in hand,
studying their flow, insect hatches and finned inhabitants--I know it
to be true.
The only peer reviewed review of the effects of suction dredge
mining on streams urges caution saying, ``fisheries managers would be
prudent to suspect dredging is harmful to aquatic resources.''\1\ The
National Wild and Scenic Chetco River (or any other Wild and Scenic
River or river with nationally outstanding fisheries, water quality and
other values) is simply not the place for instream mining, which will
add stressors and impacts to an ecosystem already having to adapt to
increasingly rapid changes and instability in climate and ocean
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bret C. Harvey & Thomas E. Lisle, ``Effects of Suction Dredging
on Streams: A Review and an Evaluation Strategy,'' in Fisheries, Vol.
23, Issue 8, 1998--http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8446
percent281998 percent29023 percent3C0008 percent3AEOSDOS
percent3E2.0.CO percent3B2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on reform of the Mining Law of 1872. I was asked to comment
on five very important questions about the types of environmental
reforms needed to modernize this law. Two of these are relevant to the
issues facing the Chetco River today. Currently professional land
managers that work for the Forest Service and BLM believe that the 1872
Mining Law makes hard rock mining the dominant use of public lands. So
Forest Service managers, charged with ``protecting and enhancing'' the
outstandingly remarkable values of the Chetco River, under the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, are caught between the Mining Law and
Congress' mandate to preserve the Chetco's exceptional water quality,
fisheries and recreation values (the opportunity to catch large salmon
and steelhead in a natural setting).
In that testimony, I wrote that mining reform legislation needs to
``reaffirm the doctrine of multiple-use and recognize the inherent
value of public lands for other important uses and values, including
hunting and fishing opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat'' and
that ``special places with important fish and wildlife and water values
out to be placed off-limits to mining entirely.'' One of the most
important tools for achieving this is for ``agency managers [to] be
given the discretion to make logical decisions based on land health
about where to mine and where not to mine.'' However, we're not talking
about Mining Law reform here but about site specific legislation
needed--in the absence of reform--to best protect and enhance the
values which Congress sought to preserve when it added 44.5 miles of
the Chetco River to the National Wild and Scenic River System in 1988.
S. 764 may not be perfect in achieving this mandate because its
withdrawal provisions are ``subject to valid existing rights.'' If the
holders of existing mining claims demonstrate that there's a discovery
of a valuable mineral deposit within the confines of each claim--in
other words that there's a valid existing right to mine under the 1872
Mining Law--then under current agency policy, land managers have no
authority of deny the mining. However without withdrawal, the managing
agency simply assumes that the mining claims are valid under law. This
makes mining the dominant use, even though the 1872 Mining Law may not
apply. This is not acceptable for a national wild and scenic river like
the Chetco. So until there's meaningful reform of the Mining Law, S.
764 will at least require that there's a valid right under the Mining
Law before mining can commence and it will prevent the location of new
mining claims.
Under the 1872 Mining Law, any gold found in the Wild and Scenic
Chetco River belongs to the miner. Mine operators pay no royalties for
the gold or other valuable mineral found on the public's lands. In
Oregon, unpatented mining claims are not taxable property.\2\ In fact,
the proposed mining of the Chetco would be subsidized by the taxpayer.
For example in 2010, the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest estimated
that it would cost about $800,000 to process seven of the plans
submitted to mine the river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/307.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while I'm a biologist and former professor living in
Wisconsin, the connectivity of the internet has allowed me to virtually
experience the Chetco River through the adventures of five young people
who epitomize what President Obama seeks achieve in his America's Great
Outdoor policy. In June, four kayakers packed their boats and gear 8
grueling miles and two days into the Chetco River canyon, deep in the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness, to run both Wilderness reaches and almost
equally wild segments of the river subject to the Chetco River
Protection Act--bringing back photographs and video for the rest of us.
They said they wanted ``to raise awareness about how rare and special
this river is.''\3\ Then in a solo, also one-of-a-kind journey, a local
Brookings, Oregon man packed a small raft and supplies for 10 days into
the very headwaters of the Chetco and ran the river's entire 50 mile
length to the Pacific. When asked why he did it, he said the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness which the Chetco passes through is ``a vast and rich natural
area that belongs to all of us--the source of the river that gives life
to the area we call home.''\4\ A float of the Recreational section of
the Chetco in drift boats--captured in a video sponsored by local
businesses, individuals and the Chetco Watershed Council--shows a tamer
but equally beautiful side of the river and some of the reasons its so
important to the local community.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Medford Mail Tribune,''Clearer than crystal: Local men carry
kayaks though hardscrabble wilderness to ride the rarely seen upper
Chetco River,'' July 22, 2011--http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110722/LIFE/107220301
\4\ Curry Coastal Pilot, ``Chetco River: From headwaters to the
sea,'' August 2, 2011--http://www.currypilot.com/20110802118255/News/
Local-News/Chetco-River-From-headwaters-to-the-sea
\5\ Floating the Chetco--http://www.vimeo.com/24964697
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Wild and Scenic Chetco River, its Wilderness watershed
and its Scenic and Recreational sections embody the priceless legacy of
America's great outdoors on many levels. It deserves the highest level
of protection we can give it. Thank you for the opportunity to add my
support to the Chetco River Protection Act.
______
Trout Unlimited,
August 4, 2011.
Trout Unlimited is the largest coldwater fisheries conservation
group in the United States with over 140,000 members nationally and
2,500 in Oregon who volunteer their time to help protect, reconnect and
restore the habitat so crucial to our trout, salmon and steelhead
populations.
We write today to support S. 764, The Chetco River Protection Act
of 2011, a bill recently reintroduced from previous efforts in 2008, to
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections to
the segment designations for the Chetco River, Oregon and to protect it
and its prized fishery from in-stream mining--an activity that provides
little economic value to surrounding communities but can severely harm
salmon and steelhead fisheries. As avid anglers, maintaining healthy
runs of the Chetco's runs of salmon and steelhead is of utmost
importance to us as well as our children and grandchildren.
The Chetco River was added to the National Wild and Scenic River
System in 1988, in recognition of its outstanding water quality, superb
fishery and tremendous angling opportunities for salmon and steelhead.
The Chetco River is free flowing from its headwaters in the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness to the Pacific Ocean. Of the 44.5 miles that were designated
in the Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 25.5 miles were
classified as ``Wild,'' 8 miles as ``Scenic,'' and 11 miles as
``Recreational.''
Only Wild-classified segments of a Wild and Scenic River are
withdrawn from mineral entry under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968. The result is that no new mining claims may be filed and only
valid existing claims may be mined in Wild river segments.
The ``Scenic'' and ``Recreational'' classifications of the Chetco
River remain open to the filing of new claims and mining on claims that
may not be valid because these river areas are not ``withdrawn'' from
mineral entry. Unfortunately outdated mining statutes leave land
managers little option but to withdraw an area from mining if they wish
to protect its fish, wildlife, and water values. Recently, a plan was
submitted to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest by Chetco River
Mining & Exploration, LLC to establish a large-scale instream suction
dredge mine on approximately 24 miles of the river. This mining
threatens the river, its prized fishery and the outstanding values that
Congress sought to protect in 1988.
In 1993, the Forest Service partially addressed this problem when
it made the decision to recommend to Congress a technical correction to
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The agency recommended upgrading the
classification of 2 miles of the Chetco River from ``Scenic'' to
``Wild.'' The classification change would withdraw two miles of river,
currently classified as ``Scenic,'' from mineral entry, allowing mining
only on valid existing claims. The Forest Service also recommended that
1.5 miles of the ``Recreational'' segment be upgraded to ``Scenic.''
However, the recommendations were never forwarded to Congress.
In the same year, the Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor turned
down a staff recommendation to administratively withdraw the ``Scenic''
segment of the Chetco River from mineral entry. He justified rejecting
this part of the Chetco's Wild and Scenic River management plan by
noting there was a low probability of existing claims being developed.
With current gold prices in the vicinity of $1,500 per ounce, the low
possibility of developing mining claims has become a high probability,
as evidenced by the new suction dredging proposal mentioned above.
This is not the first time the Chetco River has been threatened by
mining. In 1999, a bipartisan effort led by Senator Smith, with the
support from Senator Wyden and Congressman DeFazio, prevented a mining
proposal from moving forward in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness through the
appropriation of funds to purchase 145 acres, which had recently been
patented (for $2.50 per acre) under provisions of the1872 Mining Law.
The 145-acre proposed mining site, along the Chetco, was returned to
the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. In addition, 2,100 acres of unpatented
Kalmiopsis Wilderness mining claims were relinquished by the claim
holder. Both of these measures have benefited the public.
Until Congress comprehensively reforms the 1872 Mining Law, current
and future threats facing the Chetco River will continue. Supporting
S.764--The Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 is the action needed to
protect the important values that we cherish in this river and we
applaud you for introducing it.
On behalf of our organization and chapters and future generations
of anglers, we thank you for your leadership and attention on this
issue. We look forward to working with your office to ensure passage.
Sincerely,
Mike Beagle, Sportsmen's Conservation Project-Trout
Unlimited; Drew Irby, Chair, California
Council-Trout Unlimited; Tom Wolf, Chair,
Oregon Council-Trout Unlimited; Dick
Hollenbeck, President, Clackamas Chapter-
Trout Unlimited; Karl Mueller, President,
McKenzie-Upper Willamette Chapter-Trout
Unlimited; Alan Moore, Pacific Salmon and
Steelhead Office-Trout Unlimited; Mike
Gentry, President, Tualatin Valley Chapter-
Trout Unlimited; Carl Page, President, Wild
Rivers Chapter-Trout Unlimited.
______
July 26, 2011.
Hon. Mark Udall,
SH-317 Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Udall:
I write to express strong concern over legislation pending in the
U.S. House (H.R. 850) and the U.S. Senate (S. 1134) that would allow a
fiscally-irresponsible and environmentally-damaging $700 million
``mega-bridge'' to be constructed over the St. Croix River between
Minnesota and Wisconsin--a segment of the river currently protected
under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A new bridge is
needed to replace the obsolete lift bridge in Stillwater, Minnesota.
However, more fiscally and environmentally responsible design
alternatives are available. I urge you to give careful consideration to
legislation that will allow construction of a bridge that is considered
by many Minnesotans to be a boondoggle.
This is a local issue with national consequences. While the
language in H.R. 850 and S. 1134 is not identical, these bills would
produce the same result. Both bills endorse and allow construction of a
massive bridge design rejected by the National Park Service as having a
``direct and adverse effect on the designated river.'' Because the
proposed St. Croix bridge design is so intrusive, passage of either
bill would set a dangerously low standard for exclusions to Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act protections that threatens every mile of every
protected river in this national system.
In addition, I strongly oppose the proposed St. Croix River mega-
bridge out of concern for my constituents. I represent the communities
with the most to lose from the current freeway-style bridge design. If
the traffic projections being used to justify this mega-bridge are
accurate, tens of thousands more cars and semi-trucks will spill into
the Minnesota Highway 36 corridor and worsen traffic congestion for
Oakdale, North St. Paul, Maplewood, Little Canada, and Roseville--all
communities in my congressional district in which traffic levels are
presently ``at capacity.'' Despite the extraordinary $700 million cost
of the mega-bridge, none of these funds are available to build
overpasses, add lanes, or otherwise mitigate the guaranteed traffic
mess in these Minnesota Highway 36 communities.
If this mega-bridge over the St. Croix is constructed, it will be a
monument to fiscal irresponsibility. At a total cost of nearly $700
million, the proposed St. Croix mega-bridge project will be at least
250 percent more expensive than the most expensive bridge ever built in
Minnesota. Following the tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse in August
2006, the replacement I-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River in
Minneapolis was built for $260 million--a modest cost compared to this
mega-bridge.
Here are other key facts highlighting the fiscal irrationality of
the mega-bridge proposed in H.R. 850 and S. 1134:
Despite costing nearly 3 times more than the I-35W Bridge in
Minneapolis, the mega-bridge would serve 127,000 fewer vehicles
per day (I-35W Bridge: 145,000 ADT/St. Croix Bridge: 18,400
ADT);
The four-lane, freeway-style, $700 million bridge described
in H.R. 850 and S. 1134 would connect a town of 17,970 people
(Stillwater, MN) to a village of 400 people (Houlton, WI).
Only six miles from the proposed site of the $700 million
mega-bridge is the Interstate-94 St. Croix River Bridge
connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin, serving more than 80,000
vehicles per day;
The population growth assumptions used to justify the huge
cost and size of the bridge in H.R. 850 and S. 1134 are based
on 2005 data that does not account for the subsequent housing
market collapse and skyrocketing gas prices--the foreclosure
rate in the Wisconsin County adjacent to the proposed mega-
bridge is the highest in that state.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is not a barrier to progress in the
St. Croix River valley. In reality, the Act is the last protection for
taxpayers against an irresponsible and over-sized boondoggle. I urge
you to oppose H.R. 850 and S. 1134 if either bill comes before your
committee for a vote. Feel free to contact me or my staff Peter Frosch
([email protected]; 202-225-6631) for more information.
Sincerely,
Betty McCollum,
Member of Congress.
attachment
CONGRESSWOMAN BETTY MCCOLLUM
Testimony in Opposition to H.R. 850
u.s. house natural resources committee subcommittee on national parks,
forests and public lands
may 4, 2011
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the
Subcommittee:
Minnesota residents deserve a replacement for the existing,
outdated lift bridge over the St. Croix River connecting Stillwater, MN
to western Wisconsin. I strongly support a fiscally responsible,
appropriately-scaled transportation solution for the St. Croix River
crossing in Stillwater. There is consensus that a new bridge is needed.
However, there is intense debate and controversy over the specific
design and overall cost of the proposed replacement bridge that H.R.
850 would permit. Therefore, this legislation can only be described as
a stalking horse for an excessively expensive mega-bridge to be built
only six miles from the existing eight lane Interstate-94 St. Croix
River crossing.
While this debate is new to most Members of Congress, it is a
debate that I have been involved in throughout my twenty-five year
career in public service. In fact, the St. Croix crossing has been
discussed locally for thirty years. During that period, numerous bridge
replacement proposals have come and gone. Be assured, passage of H.R.
850 will not end debate or controversy over this proposed St. Croix
crossing.
Irrespective of the bridge proposal in question, this Committee
should reject H.R. 850 as an unprecedented assault on one of the most
successful laws to protect America's natural treasures. The Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act preserves the nation's finest rivers for future
generations. The Act protects 11,000 miles of 166 rivers in 38 states
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Inclusion in this system is a
highly selective distinction: protected rivers amount to one quarter of
one percent of America's rivers. The St. Croix is the only river in
Minnesota protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and gained
this protection only after enormous effort from leaders such as former-
U.S. Senator and Vice-President Walter Mondale.
Since the Act was passed in 1968, only extremely rare modifications
have been granted by Congress. Passage of H.R. 850 would set a new,
dangerously low standard for granting exemptions to the Wild and Scenic
River Act that threatens every mile of every protected river in this
national system.
The legislation under review today capriciously ignores the legacy
of stewardship that millions of Americans enjoy today because of the
law. H.R. 850 uses only 41 words to end over 40 years of federal
protection for the St. Croix River. Regretfully, the effect of this
legislation would be far less economical than its language. This
legislation would ``deem'' a $700 million bridge over the St. Croix
River to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. But in
October 2010, after careful review, the National Park Service
determined this specific bridge proposal was not consistent with the
Act. H.R. 850 simply disregards the Park Service finding and states
fiction as fact.
If Congress were to take the extraordinary step of granting an
exemption to the Wild and Scenic River Act, the bridge proposed in H.R.
850 is not deserving of the precedent. This $700 million bridge
proposal is excessively expensive and would likely impose huge unfunded
costs on the communities I represent.
Following the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35 Bridge over the
Mississippi River in Minneapolis, a new state-of-the art bridge was
constructed in record time for $260 million (this figure includes a $27
million contractor bonus for early completion). The bridge H.R. 850
enables to be built would cost taxpayers nearly three times as much the
Interstate 35W Bridge, but serve only a fraction of the traffic.
(Currently, around 18,000 vehicles cross the St. Croix River in
Stillwater each day.) In this time of record deficits at the federal,
state and local level, elected leaders must carefully consider the
value of every investment. The bridge in H.R. 850 fails every common-
sense test of taxpayer value.
Closer inspection of the proposed St. Croix Bridge reveals the true
costs of the project may be much higher. There has been little
attention paid to the traffic congestion that a new interstate-style
bridge in Stillwater would add to the State Highway 36 corridor,
including the cities of Oakdale, Maplewood, Mahtomedi, Roseville and
North St. Paul. If there is enough traffic projected to justify
building a bridge that costs nearly three times as much as the new
Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis then the communities along State
Highway 36 should expect to be overrun with thousands more semi-trucks,
buses, and daily commuters. Expanding State Highway 36 to accommodate
an interstate-style bridge in Stillwater could raise the true cost of
the mega-bridge project close to one billion dollars. Local elected
officials from communities along State Highway 36 are raising concerns
over the unfunded costs that H.R. 850 could impose on their taxpayers.
The full cost of the bridge proposed in H.R. 850 is unknown and the
value of this public investment is deeply in doubt. Thankfully, the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is forcing a closer review of this proposal.
The Act is safeguarding the environmental integrity of the St. Croix
River and also protecting taxpayers from wasteful government spending.
Granting an exemption to the Wild and Scenic River Act would be nothing
short of fiscally reckless and a violation of the principle of local
control.
It is possible to build a new bridge that meets the requirements of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, solves the long-standing transportation
problem in Stillwater, and guarantees state and federal taxpayers a
responsible return on their investment. I strongly support construction
of a bridge that satisfies these reasonable expectations. My
experience--and plain Minnesota common sense--suggests the fastest path
to a new bridge is the path of consensus and fiscal responsibility. The
Interstate-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis is
proof that Minnesota can build a new bridge in record time when there's
community consensus around a sensible plan. An affordable St. Croix
bridge could be designed and constructed long before the Interstate
style bridge proposal and offer taxpayers much greater value.
I strongly urge Members of this Committee to support fiscal
responsibility and environmental protection and oppose H.R. 850.
______
Statement of Hon. Scott Walker, Governor, State of Wisconsin, on S.
1134
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in
support of S. 1134, St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act.
A new bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin over the St. Croix
River is a priority for our region. Since 1980, both states have worked
closely with multiple stakeholders, state and federal agencies, and
have had extensive public involvement to find solutions to address the
many challenges facing this project. Undoubtedly, replacing the eighty-
year-old, two-lane Stillwater Lift Bridge is a project with
significant, national interest. It is absolutely imperative for
Congress to act to allow for the construction of a new bridge.
As you know, most government services in Minnesota were recently
shutdown during their budget crisis. However, the Stillwater Lift
Bridge was deemed a critical service during this shutdown and remained
operational as a matter of public health and safety. The Minnesota and
Wisconsin state governments both recognize the importance of this
bridge and the need for a replacement, and I am respectfully asking
your subcommittee to do the same.
S. 1134 was introduced by Wisconsin Senators Herb Kohl and Ron
Johnson, and Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, as
bipartisan legislation to help more quickly facilitate the St. Croix
River Crossing project; I am kindly requesting that the Subcommittee on
National Parks act soon in order for a new crossing to be constructed.
After decades of raising and lowering the bridge to allow boats to
travel the St. Croix River, the existing Lift Bridge has surpassed its
useful life and faces structural, operational and maintenance issues.
Traffic has continued to increase in the region. Congestion on both
sides of the bridge--in Stillwater, Minnesota and Houlton, Wisconsin--
frequently occurs as vehicles must wait for the bridge to lower before
resuming movement to their destination. The existing bridge is located
in a constrained local street network in downtown Stillwater and has
topographic constraints on the Wisconsin-side due to the river bluffs.
This creates severe limitations necessary to improve the safety and
approaches of the existing Lift Bridge, resulting in the need for our
states to study alternative bridge locations.
I strongly support Senate bill S. 1134 as the best opportunity to
achieve the required project authorization that will allow the
construction of a new bridge over the St. Croix River.
This bipartisan legislation deems the St. Croix River Crossing
project compliant with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which
will allow the project to move forward as was agreed to in the 2006
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU includes a rigorous
mitigation package for identified impacts of the project.
The measures, which were included in the 2006 MOU, help to balance
natural resource protections with the transportation needs necessary to
replace the bridge. While the National Park Service (NPS) agreed to the
project proposal and proposed mitigation measures in 2005, the U.S.
District Court of Minnesota issued a ruling in 2010, vacating their
findings.
Since then, the NPS's new evaluation of the project indicated the
proposed project's direct and adverse impacts on the riverway, which is
nationally designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, could not
allow the project to be constructed. This revised finding halted
further progress on the project, and will continue to be a barrier,
unless there is Congressional action.
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has a provision that allows
Congress to make an exemption from the Act and recommend a project's
authorization. This bill would provide that needed exemption to allow
our important project to move forward.
Subjecting this project to years of more study, review and redesign
will only result in added construction costs and further delays to the
much needed construction of a replacement bridge. Additionally, money
allotted to a new bridge by Minnesota will be reallocated if Congress
does not act before September 30, so time is of the essence.
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul, and Subcommittee Members, I
respectfully request your support of this bill. If I can assist you or
provide more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the State of
Wisconsin.
______
State of Minnesota,
Office of the Governor,
Saint Paul, MN, July 21, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
703 Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman:
Thank you for hearing Senator Klobuchar's bill to enact the
necessary federal legislation to permit the St. Croix River Crossing
Project to be constructed. This vitally important highway connection
between Minnesota and Wisconsin will greatly improve mobility for the
citizens of both states and will also alleviate severe traffic problems
in downtown Stillwater.
The current lift bridge crosses the St. Croix River at Stillwater.
The connection to the bridge in Minnesota is the historic main street
of Stillwater and is frequently very congested due to the volume of
traffic and the periodic raising of the bridge. The existing bridge was
built in 1931 and is in poor structural condition.
For decades, stakeholders have been working to balance
transportation, historical preservation, and environmental concerns in
a project design. The result of that effort is a proposed four-lane
bridge that will provide additional capacity and connect expressways on
both sides of the river.
Again, thank you for hearing Senator Klobuchar's bill. I urge you
and your colleagues to support it and move it quickly through the
process so work on this important project can resume as quickly as
possible.
Sincerely
Mark Dayton,
Governor.
______
July 13, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Bingaman and Murkowski:
The organizations signing this letter represent millions of
Americans committed to protecting our nation's lands, wildlife, and
water as places that Congress set aside for the enjoyment and
recreation of all. We are writing to express our strong opposition to
S. 1134, a bill that overrides the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and
authorizes the construction of a costly, freeway-style bridge over and
through the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.
If enacted, S. 1134 will not only result in the construction of a
bridge that will harm a unit of the National Park System, the St. Croix
River, it will set a dangerous precedent for all Wild and Scenic Rivers
under pressure from harmful development. In its more than 40-year
history, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has never been waived for a
transportation project or for any project of this magnitude. The St.
Croix River begins in northwest Wisconsin and flows south, forming the
border of Minnesota and Wisconsin and joining the Mississippi River
southeast of the Twin Cities.
The St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was established in 1968 as
one of the eight original Wild and Scenic Rivers and the lower section
was designated four years later. The only Wild and Scenic river in
Minnesota, the St. Croix provides a unique wilderness-like experience
for outdoor recreation near a growing metropolitan area.
In late 2010, the National Park Service, the official steward of
the St. Croix River, determined that the bridge that will be built if
S. 1134 is passed would create a ``direct and adverse effect on the
values for which the riverway was established.''
In addition to the terrible precedent of allowing enormous
construction projects over a Wild and Scenic River, the bridge being
proposed will cost Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the American taxpayer
close to $700 million to build. This $700 million bridge would serve
only 18,000 cars a day between Stillwater, Minnesota and Houlton,
Wisconsin, with a population of 400. In contrast, the collapsed I-35W
bridge in Minneapolis was rebuilt and completed in 2008 at a cost of
only $234 million, and it is handling 145,000 vehicles a day. This
proposed bridge would be the most costly bridge ever built in the
history of the state of Minnesota.
We recognize the need for a new crossing at the St. Croix National
Scenic Riverway as the bridge currently serving the community of
Stillwater is outdated and in need of repair, and we support a more
sensible, smaller, and less-costly solution.
We understand that the Committee may schedule a legislative hearing
on S. 1134 soon. We prefer the Committee not consider this bill, but if
the hearing is to be held, then we request to appear as witnesses to
provide testimony on how the proposed bridge sets a terrible precedent
for undermining the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and in these tight
fiscal times simply does not make sense.
Sincerely,
Bill Lee, Chief Operating Officer.
American Rivers.
Anna Aurilio, Director, Washington Office,
Environment America.
Tom Kiernan, President,
National Parks Conservation Association.
Debbie Sease, National Campaign Director,
Sierra Club.
Bill Meadows, President,
The Wilderness Society.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club, on S. 1134
The Sierra Club North Star Chapter appreciates the opportunity to
share our grave concerns regarding S. 1134. This legislation, by
exempting the current proposed freeway-style bridge from federal
review, would set a troubling national precedent, gut the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, and cause irreversible damage the Lower St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway.
The Sierra Club is the world's oldest and largest grassroots
environmental organization. Our 1.4 million members and supporters, in
65 chapters and over 400 local groups nationwide, possess the unique
ability to empower people and influence public policy through community
activism, public education, outreach and litigation. The Sierra Club's
North Star Chapter is the leading grassroots voice working to preserve
and protect Minnesota's environment since its inception in 1968. We do
this by involving and cultivating volunteer leadership to act through
environmental advocacy and outdoor exploration.
The Lower St. Croix, which extends 52 miles on the border of
Minnesota and Wisconsin, is a regional and national treasure, widely
recognized for its pristine natural character and scenic qualities. The
river passes through diverse landscapes including a deep, narrow gorge
and broad valleys lined with wooded bluffs. The Lower St. Croix is also
considered to be a biodiversity ``hot spot,'' with many rare or unique
habitats located along the river. Because of its outstandingly
remarkable scenic and recreational values, it was added to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers System by Congress in 1972.
The proposal to build a blufftop-to-blufftop, $690 million bridge
that would pierce the heart of the St. Croix poses a serious threat to
these values. For this reason, the National Park Service determined in
October 2010 that the proposal could not be approved. The Sierra Club
believes that a new design with growing community support offers a
solution that is responsive to residents' needs and fiscal realities
while honoring the river's protected status. It would utilize a
smaller, three-lane bridge, and rise 100 feet closer to the water than
the current proposed design. A reversible lane would accommodate peak
travel demand.
Contrary to the claims of supporters of the freeway style
superbridge, this new design, which would balance community needs,
federal protections and the unique character and value of the St.
Croix, is so different from any of the officially evaluated, rejected
alternatives that it can only be described as new and unevaluated. We
specifically and strongly reject the falsehood put forth by Riverway
opponents that this alternative is similar to any previously evaluated
bridge. It has never been evaluated by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, the lead agency on the project, or by the National Park
Service.
We have analyzed the new proposal and believe it is a balanced and
reasonable compromise, consistent with community needs, federal
protections and preserving the character of the river.
The Sierra Club is aware that the National Park Service has stated
that they may find any bridge not at the exact location of the current
Lift Bridge in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We do not
take lightly our decision to support the Sensible Stillwater Bridge
Coalition design. While we categorically oppose the current proposed
freeway-style bridge, we believe that the new proposal could be
compatible with the Riverway.
It is also a much less costly approach. With a $5 billion state
deficit, the savings from the smaller proposal will also free up needed
funds to address urgent transportation and repair needs in our region.
We urge you to oppose the legislation before you, and uphold
federal protections that safeguard 11,000 miles of 166 Wild and Scenic
Rivers across the U.S.
Thank you for consideration of our perspective.
______
Statment of Matt Kramer, President of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of
Commerce, on S. 1134
Chairman Udall, ranking member Paul, and members of the committee:
My name is Matt Kramer. I am the president of the Saint Paul Area
Chamber of Commerce. The chamber represents businesses and
organizations in the Saint Paul and east metro region that includes the
St. Croix River Valley. We have been a supporter of the decades-long
effort to build a new St. Croix River Crossing and have previously
submitted comments as part of the Environmental Impact Statement
related to the project planning process. We strongly support this
project and urge your support of S1134, which will allow this project
to finally move forward.
Our members strongly believe that reliable, adequate and accessible
transportation is one of the most important resources needed to foster
a thriving business marketplace. The Minneapolis-Saint Paul
metropolitan area has grown to now include 13 counties; including
Pierce and St. Croix counties in Wisconsin. Our regional challenge is
to make strategic investments in the transportation system that not
only meet the needs of the 3 million people who already live and work
in this vibrant metro area, but can also handle the future demand as we
continue to grow.
Minneapolis and Saint Paul must do everything possible to maintain
and enhance a competitive and thriving business environment that will
help us keep the businesses and jobs already here as well as attract
new companies and employees. We work with private and public sectors to
not only comprehensively plan and review projects, but also to make
sure there are resources in place to build and maintain our roads,
bridges, and public transportation system.
We have been actively engaged in a number of important and
regionally significant transportation initiatives. The chamber helped
create, fund and manage the Central Corridor Partnership, a public-
private partnership that played a key role in advocating for the
Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Line that is now under
construction. Our members contributed significant resources to fund
outreach work that helped make sure this project became a reality. We
are also actively engaged in the campaign to secure passage of an
amendment to Minnesota's constitution that would dedicate a portion of
motor vehicle excise tax revenues to fund road and transit projects.
We understand that leadership requires actively engaging in and
bringing resources to a partnership to produce results. The Central
Corridor, the motor vehicle sales tax, and the proposed bridge project
are examples of people working together for the larger vision of the
community.
For decades St. Croix River Valley residents and the entire east
metro region have been trying to solve a decades-long transportation
problem that just keeps getting worse. The 80-year-old Stillwater Lift
Bridge was originally designed to handle 11,200 cars per day, but today
it is overburdened by an average of 18,400 vehicles daily. Companies
throughout the east metro region depend on employees and businesses on
both sides of the St. Croix River. In addition to pressuring companies
and residents, the growing traffic bottleneck is also putting
additional strain on the existing Interstate 94 bridge.
Residents, elected officials, engineers, and environmental
advocates thoroughly studied a dozen different plans before determining
that the St. Croix River Crossing was the best plan for the region. The
new bridge will solve transportation problems now and in the future as
our region continues to experience widespread growth. It will make sure
the investment today will benefit the community years into the future.
What we need now is your help and immediate action on this matter.
I strongly encourage you to approve S1134 and allow this project to
move forward. The plan is ready, and we need this crucial
transportation corridor.
______
Statement of Harry Melander, President, Minnesota Building and
Construction Trades Council, St. Paul, MN, on S. 1134
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul, and Members of the Committee.
I'm Harry Melander, President of the Minnesota Building and
Construction Trades Council. Our organization represents more than
50,000 trades people who live and work in Minnesota and Western
Wisconsin.
Union construction workers in Minnesota and Wisconsin are very
aware of the river crossing project. The inadequacy of the existing
1931 Stillwater Lift Bridge is well known to all who live in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, and a replacement bridge has
been thoroughly discussed in St. Croix Valley communities for several
decades.
We note for the committee that 28 Stakeholders representing federal
and state regulatory agencies, local governments and environmental and
historic preservation interests met during three years of mediation to
discuss and develop a bridge plan. The group intentionally chose a very
unique cable stay bridge design for this project. The new bridge would
feature open support piers and cable stays that allow for a slimmer
bridge deck, with the overall goal of making the bridge less obtrusive
to its surroundings. It is a beautiful, uncommon design, and this would
be only the third one of this style built in all of North America.
As part of this project the Stillwater Lift Bridge, protected on
the National Register of Historic Places, will be retired from service
as an automobile bridge. After a complete restoration, the lift bridge
will become the signature component of a new walking and biking loop
trail, meandering through natural and historic sites in both Stillwater
and Wisconsin. The plan to construct new park and trail resources as
part of the overall project will improve public access to the river.
Already tens of thousands of people each year enjoy the historic charm
and scenic beauty of downtown Stillwater and other sites in the St.
Croix Valley region. These elements will add to the public's enjoyment
of the riverway.
The project has been thoroughly researched and carefully developed
over the past two decades. The overall plan provides balance between
the need to protect the scenic values of the river and improve
opportunities for public recreation, the need to preserve the region's
many historic sites, and the need to improve traffic safety and meet
transportation needs for the region.
The bridge design that has been selected will be more challenging
to construct than a typical box girder freeway bridge. It is an
important river crossing, with unique design elements that respect its
natural surroundings. It will be constructed in and among sites that
have great historical value for the people of two states. Our workers
will use all of their talent and skill as tradespeople, and they will
remember their work on this project for their entire careers.
A commitment to full funding from Minnesota and Wisconsin means
that the project does not require further appropriation from the
Congress. We only need Congressional permission to build the bridge,
and then we can get to work.
Recent economic conditions have fallen heavily on the men and women
who work in the construction trades in Minnesota, and so this project
could not come along at a better time. Over one-quarter of Minnesota's
unemployed workers are construction workers. Sadly, our state ranks
third-highest in the nation for the percentage of construction jobs
lost in the past year.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation indicates that as many
as 3,000 jobs per year will be created as a result of this project over
the three years it will take to build it. This construction can provide
an economic shot in the arm to many families at a time when it is most
needed.
Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Paul, and Committee Members, we hope
you will act favorably on S1134 as soon as possible. The men and women
of the Minnesota construction trades are up to the challenge of
building this legacy project.
Thank you.