**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONCERNING H.R. 1143, A BILL
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO LEASE CERTAIN LANDS IN
VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**JUNE 17, 2008**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of
the Interior's views on H.R. 1143, a bill to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to lease certain lands in Virgin Islands National Park, and
for other purposes.

The Department previously testified in support of the intent of H.R.
1143 before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands, on October 30, 2007. After that hearing, H.R. 1143 was amended,
addressing several of the concerns that the Department raised. The
Department supports the general intent of H.R. 1143 and what it seeks to
accomplish. However, we would like the opportunity to work with the
Subcommittee to clarify some additional terms and conditions of the
lease.

H.R. 1143 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a
lease with the current holder of a retained use estate at Virgin Islands
National Park for the Caneel Bay property, which is currently operated
as a luxury resort, after the termination of the retained use estate and
donation of all improvements to the National Park Service (NPS).

Without H.R. 1143 the NPS does not have the authority to enter into a
lease, in accordance with 36 CFR §18, Leasing of Properties in Park
Areas, without issuing a Request for Bids or a Request for Proposals. A
noncompetitive lease could only be issued under two circumstances -- by
issuing the lease to a nonprofit organization or unit of government, or
by entering into a short-term, 60-day or less lease, neither of which
would apply in this case.

Caneel Bay Resort is one of two large resorts on the island of St. John.
The resort is located on a 150-acre peninsula on the northwest side of
the island of St. John and caters to an upscale clientele that stays an
average of 6 nights and 7 days. The resort has approximately 425 to 450
employees and serves as one of the primary economic engines for the U.S.
Virgin Islands. A large number of employees travel daily to St. John
from their residences on neighboring St. Thomas. The resort is also an
Economic Development Center beneficiary and, as such, receives various
tax exemptions from the Government of the Virgin Islands.

The resort was established in 1956 by Laurance S. Rockefeller and the
Jackson Hole Preserve. In 1983, Jackson Hole Preserve donated the land
at Caneel Bay to the United States Government for inclusion within
Virgin Islands National Park and reserved the right to continue its
operations under a retained use estate. Jackson Hole Preserve did not
convey the improvements on the land to the United States at that time.
The reserved use estate is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2023.
The warranty deed stipulates that when the retained use estate
terminates, the owner of the retained use estate must donate the
buildings and other improvements to the NPS.

Enactment of H.R. 1143 would allow the current holder of the retained
use estate to negotiate a long-term lease with the NPS that could extend
the Caneel Bay Resort operation well beyond the year 2023. Such an
extension could allow the leaseholder to secure financing and undertake
other long-term operational measures that might not be possible under
the provisions of the current retained use estate.

The NPS has evaluated various options for the future use and management
of the Caneel Bay property. Based upon a value analysis, we believe that
the continued future operation of Caneel Bay as a resort under a lease
would provide the greatest advantage to the NPS and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. A lease could provide economic and administrative benefits to
the NPS and the lessee that are not available or not as viable as under
a retained use estate or a concession contract, two of the other options
that were examined.

H.R. 1143 was amended by the House and requires that the operations and
maintenance of the resort be conducted in a manner consistent with the
preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the park.
Additionally, the lease proposed by the bill would address the continued
protection, preservation, and restoration of the property's structures,
many of which are more than 50 years old, and may be National Register
eligible. Any work conducted on the structures would have to be
conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The lease also would address
the fair market value rent of the property, constraints on development
of property during the term of the lease, and the ability to transfer
the lease in the future.

When the current retained use estate was created there were three small
properties that are integral to the operation of the Caneel Bay resort
that were not included. We would like to include these properties under
the terms of the lease. Finally, H.R. 1143 may need to be amended to
clarify the intent of the bill regarding when the current retained use
estate would expire and when the new lease would begin, the terms and
conditions of the lease, and whether or how often the property's fair
market value rent would be re-assessed. We will be happy to work with
the Subcommittee to develop these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members might have.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON S. 1774 AND H.R. 3022, BILLS TO DESIGNATE
THE JOHN KREBS WILDERNESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO ADD CERTAIN
LAND TO THE SEQUOIA-KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.**

**June 17, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1774 and H.R.
3022, bills to designate the John Krebs Wilderness in the State of
California, to add certain land to the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National
Park Wilderness, and for other purposes.

The Department supports H.R. 3022 and S. 1774 if amended in accordance
with this statement. Both S. 1774 and H.R. 3022 would designate
additional wilderness areas in Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon
National Park, and would name one of the new wilderness areas after John
Krebs, a former Member of Congress. While we believe these designations
are appropriate, we would like to work with the committee on amendments
that would address concerns raised by some of the specific provisions in
the bills. H.R. 3022, as passed by the House of Representatives,
addresses many, but not all of our concerns.

Sequoia National Park, established in 1890, and Kings Canyon National
Park, established in 1940, have been administered jointly since 1943.
The California Wilderness Act of 1984 designated about 723,000 acres in
the two parks, or 84 percent of the land base, as the Sequoia-Kings
Canyon Wilderness. Both bills would designate as wilderness virtually
all the remaining land in the two parks that is appropriate for that
designation, adding about 114,488 acres. With this legislation, about 97
percent of the land base of the two parks would be designated as
wilderness.

The area that the bills propose as the John Krebs Wilderness consists of
the Hockett Plateau and Mineral King areas of Sequoia National Park, and
totals about 69,500 acres. The other area, which would add about 45,145
acres to the existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness, consists of lands
in and around the North Fork of the Kaweah River in Sequoia National
Park and the Redwood Canyon/Chimney Rock area of Kings Canyon National
Park. The lands other than Mineral King and Chimney Rock underwent
formal wilderness studies in the early 1970's and are recommended by the
National Park Service for wilderness designation. The Mineral King and
Chimney Rock areas underwent wilderness eligibility assessments in 2003
and both were found to have characteristics which support their
designation as wilderness.

The Hockett Plateau protects vast rolling forests of lodgepole pine
surrounding spectacular sub-alpine meadows, and is a favorite
destination for equestrians, backpackers, and anglers. This area, which
has been part of Sequoia National Park since the park was established in
1890, includes the route of the old Hockett trail that was one of the
first trans-mountain routes in the southern Sierra Nevada and is popular
with hikers, fishermen, equestrians and backpackers. The Mineral King
portion includes much of Mineral King Valley, a striking and spectacular
example of sub-alpine and alpine environments unlike any other in the
Sierra Nevada.

The North Fork Kaweah area includes extensive lower- and mid-elevation
vegetation communities that are rarely represented in Sierra Nevada
wilderness areas. The area contains foothill oak woodland, chaparral,
and low-elevation hardwood and conifer forest types. The river is an
exemplary foothill river with beautiful pools, riparian borders, and is
rich in wildlife including western pond turtle, bear, and mountain lion.
The Redwood Canyon area includes all or part of eight Giant Sequoia
groves including the Redwood Mountain Grove, the largest Giant Sequoia
grove inside Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

We believe it is appropriate to name the Hockett Plateau and Mineral
King area as the John Krebs Wilderness. The National Park Service
considers it a high honor to be permanently commemorated in a national
park and seeks to reserve this honor for cases where there is a
compelling justification for such recognition, as there is here. Mr.
John H. Krebs, who immigrated to the United States in 1946 and obtained
his citizenship in 1954, served on the planning commission and the board
of supervisors for Fresno County through the 1960's and 1970's and in
the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975-1979. In 1978, he secured
passage of legislation that transferred management of the beautiful
Mineral King Valley to the National Park Service. The Valley at that
time was slated for development as a downhill ski area, and he led a
hard-fought battle to assure the long-term protection of this very
special place as a natural area. Mr. Krebs currently resides in Fresno.

We recommend changes to S. 1774 to mirror H.R. 3022, plus several
additional changes to ensure that the National Park Service is able to
manage the lands the bills would designate as wilderness consistent with
the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the California Wilderness Act of 1984, as
explained below.

First, we recommend that the bills be amended to provide for the
treatment of roads and development in wilderness that conforms to the
standard practice used in other wilderness legislation. That would
require revising the bills' referenced maps in their depiction of the
wilderness boundary delineated for Mineral King Road and cabins along
the road. The maps for both H.R. 3022 and S. 1774 show a "cherry-stem"
of Mineral King Road, a relatively quiet, 1½ lane-wide road, with a
boundary at up to one-half mile (2,640 ft.) from center line of road and
from one-quarter to one-half of a mile from cabin developments. The
National Park Service and other wilderness land management agencies
primarily use a road corridor exclusion area of 100 feet off both sides
of the center line of a road for major roads, and from 100 to 200 feet
away from existing developments. The standard road corridor exclusion is
recognizable on the ground and provides for consistent, effective
management. It is also the boundary delineation guidance that Congress
provided in committee report language (House Report 98-40) for the
Generals Highway, a busy, two-lane-wide paved road, when the
Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness was established as part of the
California Wilderness Act of 1984.

Second, S. 1774 excludes from wilderness designation four check dams
located in the Hockett Plateau/Mineral King. We prefer that the dams be
designated as potential wilderness additions, as they are under H.R.
3022, rather than be set aside as exclusions. Designation as potential
wilderness additions would allow Southern California Edison, the
operator, to continue its hydroelectric power operation as long as it
wants. However, in the event that the operator of the dams ceases to
operate them in the future, the National Park Service would have the
option to convert the area to wilderness through administrative action.
The designation of "potential wilderness addition" has been used in the
existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness and in other wilderness areas
in similar cases of non-conforming uses.

Third, Section 4(c)(1) of S. 1774 states that if nonmotorized access is
not available or time is of the essence, nothing in the Act prevents
limited motorized access to hydrologic, meteorologic, or climatological
devices or facilities**.** The existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness
addresses maintenance and access to these types of devices consistent
with House Report 98-40. This committee report language states that,
"Modifications, relocations, adjustments and maintenance of these
devices are therefore acceptable, but it should remain an objective to
minimize any adverse impact of these devices upon wilderness resources
where possible, especially as improved technology (e.g. miniaturization)
and other factors permit." We prefer the language in H.R. 3022, which
directs the National Park Service to continue managing maintenance and
access to these devices and facilities consistent with the House Report
98-40, allowing current practice to continue throughout both the
previously designated wilderness areas and the new wilderness areas
designated by this bill.

Fourth, Section 4(c)(2) of S. 1774 and Section 3(d) of H.R. 3022 address
the use of helicopters for the operation and inspection of utility
facilities. We recommend that these sections be struck, as they are
unnecessary. The use of helicopters in the vicinity of designated
wilderness is permitted currently, when conditions warrant, as a means
of access for inspection and maintenance of hydrometeorological
facilities, pursuant to the minimum requirement provision of the
Wilderness Act and also as provided in House Report 98-40.

Fifth, Sections 4(d)(2) of both S. 1774 and H.R. 3022 address
nonwilderness activities outside of designated wilderness. We are
concerned that these sections could affect the National Park Service's
ability to protect the designated wilderness. Exempting activities
outside wilderness could affect the National Park Service's ability to
address noise, pollutants, or other undesirable effects on wilderness
that come from outside the parks. While we prefer the narrower language
in H.R. 3022, which focuses on authorized activities by cabin owners in
the Mineral King Valley area, or the property owners or lessees in the
Silver City private inholding, to the broader language in S. 1774, we
recommend that these sections be removed from the bills.

Sixth, Section 4(e) of both bills states that nothing in the Act
precludes horseback riding in, or the entry of recreational commercial
saddle or pack stock into an area that would be designated as wilderness
under this bill. The intent of this language is unclear and has been
interpreted several different ways. It appears to limit the ability of
the National Park Service to manage these operations consistent with the
park's enabling act as well as the Wilderness Act. By not clarifying
this language, it could lead to management conflict by setting different
standards for the previously designated wilderness areas and for the new
wilderness areas that would be designated by these bills. The parks have
long recognized and documented that the use of pack and saddle stock is
an appropriate and historically accepted recreational activity in
wilderness. The acceptance of this use has been reaffirmed in the parks'
2006 General Management Plan. However, we strongly believe the National
Park Service should retain the ability to determine the impacts of these
operations on park resources and to take actions necessary to regulate
their use when resources are being adversely affected. The language of
Section 4(e) is ambiguous about the Secretary's authority and we,
therefore, recommend that it be deleted.

Finally, as technical matters, we note that H.R. 3022 correctly refers
to the "Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness," the name of the existing
wilderness area given by that act, and that the maps referenced by H.R.
3022 include map numbers in addition to titles and dates as is standard
practice for legislative maps. We would be happy to work with the
committee on similar revisions to S. 1774.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2255, TO AMEND
THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO PROVIDE FOR STUDIES OF THE CHISHOLM
AND GREAT WESTERN TRAIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ADD THE TRAILS TO THE
NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**JUNE 17, 2008**

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. 2255, a bill to amend the National Trails System
Act to provide for studies of the Chisholm Trail and Great Western Trail
to determine whether to add the trails to the National Trails System,
and for other purposes.

The Department supports S. 2255 with an amendment. However, we feel that
priority should be given to the 38 previously authorized studies for
potential units of the National Park System, potential new National
Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System
and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been
transmitted to the Congress. We estimate the cost of this study to be
approximately \$250,000 to \$300,000.

S. 2255 would amend Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act by
directing the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to conduct studies
of the Chisholm Trail and the Great Western Trail for consideration of
both trails for inclusion in the National Trails System. As a part of
the study, the Secretary shall identify the point at which both the
Chisholm and Great Western Trails originated south of San Antonio Texas.
The bill also states that land for the trails may not be acquired
outside the boundaries of any federally administered area without the
consent of the owner.

A network of scenic and historic trails has been created since the
enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1968. These trails
provide for outdoor recreation needs and the enjoyment and appreciation
of historic resources, which in turn, promotes good health and
well-being. They traverse resources that connect us to history and
provide an important opportunity for local communities to become
involved in a national effort by encouraging public access and citizen
involvement. The importance of trails to Americans is evident, as was
witnessed in the recent celebration of National Trails Day.

During the cattle drive era, in the decades following the Civil War, it
is estimated that approximately ten million Longhorn cattle were driven
out of Texas to railheads in Missouri and Kansas. Two of the largest
trails that were used were the Chisholm Trail and the Great Western
Trail.

The route of earlier trails that went from Texas to Missouri was found
to be undesirable due to heavily forested territory that the trails
passed through and the presence of bandits, mob violence, and
lawlessness.

In 1867, Joseph McCoy convinced railroad executives to extend the rail
line to the eastern prairies of Kansas. Stockyards were completed at
what was then a small town called Abilene. The trail with its feeder
trails that led to Abilene became known as the Chisholm Trail and in
1871 more than 1.4 million cattle had been herded along this trail.

As the railroads continued to press on across Kansas, the terminus of
the cattle trails also moved west. Due to the panic of 1873,
construction stopped for three years at Dodge City, Kansas. In 1876, a
new cattle trail was blazed to Dodge City that became known as the Great
Western Trail. This trail was twenty to thirty days shorter than the
Chisholm Trail and contained ample water and grass. While the two trails
were in use, four million cattle were driven from Texas to Abilene along
the Chisholm Trail and five million to Dodge City along the Great
Western Trail.

In 1975, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation completed a study entitled
"Old Cattle Trails of the Southwest, a National Scenic Trail Study." In
that study, several trails were examined, including the Chisholm and
Great Western Trails. The study determined that the two trails did not
meet the criteria for establishment as National Scenic Trails. However,
the study recommended that the trails should be reassessed as possible
National Historic Trails.

The Department recommends that Section 3 of the bill be deleted. Since
this legislation only authorizes a study of the potential national
historic trails, there is no possibility of land acquisition while the
study is being completed.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee might
have.

STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2359, A BILL TO ESTABLISH
THE ST. AUGUSTINE 450TH COMMEMORATION COMMISSION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.

# JUNE 17, 2008

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2359, a bill to establish the St.
Augustine 450^th^ Commemoration Commission, and for other purposes. The
Department has no objection to the concept of an Advisory Commission but
we would like to work with the Committee to address a few suggested
amendments and concerns with this bill as noted in the testimony.

St. Augustine, Florida is the oldest European city in the United States.
The area was first visited by Ponce de Leon in 1513, but it was Pedro
Menéndez de Avilés, who on September 8, 1565, established the first
settlement. This came 21 years before the English settlement at Roanoke
Island in Virginia Colony, and 42 years before the successful
settlements of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Jamestown, Virginia. In 1586,
St. Augustine was attacked and burned by Sir Francis Drake. In 1668, it
was plundered by pirates and most of the inhabitants were killed. In
1702 and 1740, it was unsuccessfully attacked by British forces from
their new colonies in the Carolinas and Georgia. The most serious of
these came in the latter year, when James Oglethorpe of Georgia allied
himself with the Alachua band of the Seminole tribe and conducted the
Siege of St. Augustine during the War of Jenkin\'s Ear. Although
initially repulsed at St. Augustine, the forces under Oglethorpe
defeated the Spanish counter-attack at the Battle of Bloody Marsh on St.
Simons Island, one of the Sea Islands of Georgia.

The British ultimately gained control of St. Augustine in 1763 and it
remained loyal to Britain during the Revolutionary war. It was briefly
returned to the Spanish in 1784 because of a provision of the Treaty of
Paris. The Spanish who had left during British control came back and
tried to return the city to its former appearance but were thwarted by
the decline of Spanish fortunes everywhere.

The Spanish sold Florida to the United States of America in 1821. St.
Augustine prospered during the Seminole war of the 1830s due to its
military involvement in the war. The city eventually developed good road
systems and the population grew. In 1883, oil tycoon and Florida
railroad pioneer Henry Flagler visited the city. He was so impressed
that he invested in St. Augustine\'s restoration and development of the
city as a winter resort. Flagler contributed some of the city's grandest
architecture, such as the Alcazar hotel (now the Lightner Museum), and
the Ponce de Leon Hotel (now Flagler College). Today, the heart of St.
Augustine retains the distinctive plan of a 16th century Spanish
Colonial walled town, much of which has been preserved or restored. The
numerous remaining colonial buildings in the historic district present
an impressive array of architecture from 1703 to 1898.

The National Park Service preserves, maintains, and interprets the
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, an imposing star-shaped
citadel that dominates the landscape in the center of the historic area
of St. Augustine. The Service also preserves the related coquina
watchtower known as Fort Matanzas National Monument near the Matanzas
Inlet approximately 14 miles south of the Castillo. The State of
Florida, the city of St. Augustine, and the University of Florida
collectively own and operate additional significant resources related to
the history of St. Augustine.

S. 2359 and an identical bill in the House of Representatives, H.R.
4258, would establish a 16-member commission to include one employee of
the National Park Service having experience relevant to the historic
resources relating to the city of St. Augustine and its commemoration,
the Mayor of St. Augustine or the Mayor's designee, one employee of the
State University System of Florida, and five nonresidents of the State
of Florida who have an interest in, support for, and expertise
appropriate to the commemoration. The commission members would be
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior based, in part, on
recommendations of the St. Augustine City Commission, the Governor of
Florida, and the Congress.

The duties of the Commission would include:

1\) the planning, development, and execution of programs and activities
appropriate to commemorate the 450th anniversary of the founding of St.
Augustine, Florida;

\(2\) the general facilitation of St. Augustine commemoration-related
activities throughout the United States;

\(3\) the encouragement of civic, patriotic, historical, educational,
religious, economic, and other organizations throughout the United
States to organize and participate in anniversary activities to expand
understanding and appreciation of the significance of the founding and
continuing history of St. Augustine;

\(4\) coordination and facilitation of scholarly research on,
publication about, and interpretation of, St. Augustine for the
education of the public; and

\(5\) the assurance that the 450th anniversary of St. Augustine provides
a lasting legacy and long-term public benefit for the United States by
assisting in the development of appropriate programs and facilities to
accommodate those programs.

The Department does have four suggested amendments for S. 2359.

First, we suggest that Section 2(b)(4) (Purpose) be revised to include a
specific reference to the experiences of Native Americans as follows:
"(4) assist in ensuring that the St. Augustine 450th anniversary
observances are inclusive and appropriately recognize the experiences of
all peoples in St. Augustine\'s history, ***including indigenous peoples
who inhabited the area prior to the Spanish arrival and certain western
tribes who were incarcerated at the Castillo (then known as Fort Marion)
during America's westward expansion in the late 19^th^ century***".

Second, we recommend amending section 6 to include two additional
members, after the Secretary receives recommendations from the
leadership of the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes of Florida.

Third, we are concerned that the designation of some specific members of
the commission may not be in conformance with the Appointments Clause of
the Constitution. We would like to work with the committee to revise the
language to address this concern.

Fourth, we recommend that the duties of the Commission be limited to
serving in an advisory capacity and leaving the execution of programs
and activities to Federal agencies under existing authorities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or any members of the Subcommittee may have.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 2943, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS
SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.**

**June 17, 2008**

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee today to present the views of the Department of the Interior
on S. 2943, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act by
designating the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail as a component
of the National Trails System.

The Department does not object to S. 2943 if amended to authorize an
update to the nearly 30-year-old Pacific Northwest Scenic Trail
feasibility study. However, we believe that priority should be given to
the 38 previously authorized studies for potential units of the National
Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential
additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic
River System that have not yet been transmitted to the Congress.

S. 2943 would designate an approximately 1200-mile trail route from the
Pacific Ocean in Olympic National Park, Washington, to the east side of
the Continental Divide in Glacier National Park, Montana as the Pacific
Northwest National Scenic Trail. S. 2943 assigns responsibility for
administering the trail to the Secretary of the Interior.

In 1977, Congress authorized a study to determine the feasibility and
desirability of constructing the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
(Public Law 94-527). The study was initiated in 1978 and completed in
1980, and conducted jointly by the National Park Service and the U.S.
Forest Service. The study evaluated four alternatives and three
potential trail corridors, and concluded that a Pacific Northwest Trail
would have the scenic and recreational qualities needed for designation
as a National Scenic Trail, noting that the trail "would cross some of
America's most breathtaking and varied landscapes." However, the study
concluded that its construction was neither feasible nor desirable. This
conclusion was based on concerns with the cost of land acquisition and
construction, a perception that there were already adequate trails
available in the area, and concerns about the trail's potential impact
on grizzly bear habitat and fragile high-elevation areas.

In spite of the study's conclusions, trail supporters moved forward with
the creation of the Pacific Northwest Trail and established a private
volunteer organization, the Pacific Northwest Trail Association
(Association), to build, maintain, and promote the trail. The
Association informs us that trail construction has been completed on
approximately 950 miles of the proposed 1,200 mile route. According to
the Association, an estimated 59% of the proposed Pacific Northwest
National Scenic Trail is on National Forest land in seven National
Forests, 20% in on National Park Service land in three National Parks,
10% is on state-owned land, 6% on city and county-owned land, and 5% on
privately owned land. Much of the trail route on federal land is in
Congressionally designated wilderness. The segments of the Pacific
Northwest Trail in Olympic National Park, North Cascades National Park,
and Glacier National Park have been designated as National Recreation
Trails under the National Trails System Act.

We recommend that S. 2943 be amended to authorize an update to the 1980
feasibility study and that this update be conducted jointly by the U.S.
Forest Service and the National Park Service. This update is necessary
because so much has changed since the 1980 feasibility study that the
study's conclusions merit revisiting. A route for the trail has been
selected and much of the trail has been constructed. The route that S.
2943 would designate as the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail was
not studied in the 1980 study, although it is similar to one of the
routes studied. An updated feasibility study would allow the agencies to
consult the public as well as the states, counties, municipalities and
private landowners who own portions of the underlying route, and
complete an analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. An
updated feasibility study would also allow the agencies to revise cost
estimates, evaluate management strategies and responsibilities, and
evaluate how trail designation might impact wilderness values through
Congressionally designated wilderness areas.

We anticipate that an updated feasibility study would cost approximately
\$250,000 - \$500,000 and would be completed 3 years after funds are
made available.

Section 5 (b)(7) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244)
states that feasibility studies should identify the proposed Federal
administering agency, "which in the case of a national scenic or
national historic trail wholly or substantially within a national
forest, shall be the Department of Agriculture." For this reason we
recommend that if the committee moves forward with designation, the bill
should be amended to assign trail administration to the Secretary of
Agriculture.

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.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 3010, TO
REAUTHORIZE THE ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROGRAM.**

**JUNE 17, 2008**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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. 3010, a bill to reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program.

The Department has no objection to S. 3010, which would amend Public Law
106-45 to extend the time period for the expenditure of authorized
appropriations for ten years from 2009 to 2019.

Route 66 charts a nationally significant path of 20^th^-century American
history. The promise of free land and economic opportunity drew
thousands of Americans westward on the Oregon, California and Santa Fe
trails during the 19^th^-century. A century later, those rutted
corridors yielded to smoother, faster highways. Foremost among those
early ribbons of asphalt was U.S. Highway 66, popularly known as Route
66.

It is ironic that Route 66's success led to its own demise. As Americans
of the Baby Boom era became increasingly mobile, this two-lane road
could not handle the booming rise in car and truck traffic. The
interstate highway system, with its wide and divided pavement, became
the new and improved way to cross the continent by land. However, Route
66 remains embedded in the scenic landscape and in the minds of so many
Americans who traveled it or came to know it through its iconic
depictions in American popular culture.

Public Law 106-45 directs the National Park Service (NPS) to develop
guidelines, provide technical assistance and matching grants for State,
local and private preservation efforts, serve as a clearinghouse for
communication, and help states determine ways to continue the program
after federal support ends. This led to the Route 66 Corridor
Preservation Program, administered by the NPS, to help local, State,
Tribal and federal agencies, nonprofits, and individuals set
preservation priorities. Partners now include individuals, business
owners, State Historic Preservation offices, Scenic Byway and Main
Street programs, Route 66 groups, departments of transportation, tribal
agencies, environmental protection agencies, The National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and others.

Matching grants, technical assistance and clearinghouse services help
with historic preservation, research, oral history, interpretation, and
educational outreach. In addition, collaboration and partnerships help
stimulate business and economic growth and community revitalization
across the eight states and 36 congressional districts through which
Route 66 passes. Grants are awarded in an annual competitive cycle.
Special projects also are undertaken according to need and available
resources. Public Law 106-45 authorized up to \$10 million over 10 years
for program work. In FY08, about \$300,000 was appropriated.

In 2007, Route 66 was put on most-endangered-places lists by the World
Monuments Fund, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and at
least two state preservation organizations. Momentum continues to grow
at grassroots and governmental levels, boosting awareness of Route 66's
significance and the need to save it as a part of 20^th^-century
American history.

The partners of the Route 66 Preservation Program have expressed
gratitude for the Federal government's support, which has triggered
interest from other local governments, nonprofits, and individuals to
supplement and boost those funds, thus increasing preservation efforts
in the Route 66 corridor.

The partners and individuals who share interest in the Route 66 historic
corridor believe reauthorization of Federal support is vital to
preserving the historic roadway. The Administration has no objection to
reauthorization of continued federal funding, subject to NPS priorities
and the availability of appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
have.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 3017, A BILL TO DESIGNATE THE
BEAVER BASIN WILDERNESS AT PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE IN THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN**

**June 17, 2008**

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. 3017, a bill to designate the Beaver Basin
Wilderness at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in the State of
Michigan.

The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 3017. The
Administration transmitted a similar proposal to Congress on May 8,
2008.

S. 3017 would designate 11,740 acres, or 16 percent of Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore in Michigan's Upper Peninsula as federally protected
wilderness. It defines the boundary of the wilderness area as the line
of demarcation or the point on the bank or shore at which the surface
waters of Lake Superior meet the land or sand beach. Management of the
wilderness area would be in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was authorized in October, 1966 as
America's first National Lakeshore "to preserve for the benefit,
inspiration, education, recreational use, and enjoyment of the public a
significant portion of the diminishing shoreline of the United States
and its related geographic and scientific features."

The park extends over 40 miles along the southern shore of Lake
Superior, the largest and cleanest of our Great lakes. It is the largest
freshwater lake in the world and contains approximately 10 percent of
the planet's surface supply of fresh water. The National Lakeshore
protects and preserves superlative scenic and recreational resources
including fifteen miles of spectacular multi-colored sandstone cliffs
that rise over 200 feet above Lake Superior; miles of beautiful white
sand beaches and numerous backcountry lakes, streams and waterfalls;
five square miles of perched sand dunes that rise as high as 300 feet;
important wetlands, and a upland beech-maple Northern Hardwood Forest.
This landscape is home to timber wolf, moose, black bear, deer, fisher
and marten, raptors and many species of songbirds. Federally threatened
and endangered species include the Piping Plover and Pitcher's Thistle
as well as several state listed species.

The park includes historic U.S. Life Saving, Lighthouse Service, and
Coast Guard facilities. Many of these facilities including the Au Sable
Light Station, a majestic lighthouse and keeper's quarters that dates to
1874, remain open for public enjoyment. There are also remnants and
active interpretation of historic mining activity, white pine and
hardwood logging, and commercial fishing.

The park operates three drive-in campgrounds, over 100 miles of
backcountry trails, and 14 backcountry camping areas. It receives over
425,000 visitors each year who enjoy commercial boat cruises to view the
Pictured Rocks cliffs and underwater shipwrecks, hiking, camping,
backpacking, hunting, fishing, bird watching, kayaking, cross-country
skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, ice climbing and more. The National
Park Service (NPS) estimates that the presence of the National Lakeshore
brings nearly \$20 million of economic benefit to the local community
each year. Native American use of the area extends some 4,000 years into
the past and is represented today by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians, the nation's second largest tribe. Nothing in S. 3017
would modify, alter, or affect any treaty rights.

The park encompasses a total of 73,235 acres, managed in two zones: (1)
the Shoreline Zone, 33,929 acres owned in fee simple by the NPS, and (2)
the Inland Buffer Zone, 39,306 acres of mixed ownership, where sustained
yield timber harvests and other residential and commercial activities
are permitted by the park's enabling legislation. Pictured Rocks is the
only unit of the National Park System with a legislated buffer zone.

The Beaver Basin portion of the park, including the entire proposed
11,740-acre wilderness area, has been managed as a
backcountry/wilderness area, or a "Primitive Management Prescription",
since the first comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) was
published in 1981. Since that time, motor vehicles have been prohibited
in this portion of the park. Also, for over 25 years, this area has
provided outstanding recreational opportunities for hikers, backpackers,
anglers, boaters and hunters (allowed in accordance with State
regulations). A network of hiking trails and designated campsites will
continue to be maintained in this portion of the park, even with
wilderness designation. Since formal wilderness designation would not
change the way in which visitor use is currently managed in this portion
of the park, there is no reason to believe it would have any detrimental
impact on visitation or the local economy.

The proposed wilderness area does not include Little Beaver Lake, Little
Beaver Lake Campground, the campground access road corridor, and the
access road to the Beaver Basin Overlook. Although the National
Lakeshore boundary extends one-quarter mile out into Lake Superior, none
of the waters of Lake Superior are proposed as wilderness. S. 3017 would
authorize the use of boats powered by electric motors on Little Beaver
and Big Beaver Lakes as well as the use of motors on the surface water
of Lake Superior adjacent to the wilderness and beaching of those boats
at the line of demarcation, subject to applicable laws. This is to
ensure continued access by boaters to the shoreline beach adjacent to
the wilderness area. This has been an area of significant public
concern.

Designation of the Beaver Basin Wilderness Area will not limit public
access to this area or change the way this portion of the park is
currently being managed for public use and enjoyment. County Road H-58,
the dirt and gravel primary access road to and through the National
Lakeshore, is scheduled to be reconstructed and paved within the next
two years. While the NPS supports this upgrade and improved access, we
anticipate it will lead to increases in both overall park visitation and
development outside the park as well as impacts to front and backcountry
resources. Permanent wilderness designation in the Beaver Basin area
will ensure protection of significant ecological resources and
wilderness values along with solitude, quiet, and unconfined recreation
for this and future generations in this portion of the National
Lakeshore.

Between 1999 and 2004, the NPS developed an updated GMP for the park. In
compliance with law and NPS policy, a formal Wilderness Study was
conducted as part of this comprehensive planning effort. During the
Wilderness Study, 18,063 acres within the Lakeshore were identified as
being potentially eligible for wilderness designation (12,843 acres in
Beaver Basin and 5,220 acres in the Chapel Basin area of the park). All
of the lands and waters in the study area are in fee-simple Federal
ownership within the Shoreline Zone of the park. After extensive public
involvement, review, and comment, including overwhelming public support
for this wilderness designation, the preferred alternative in the final
GMP/Wilderness Study was approved by the Midwest Regional Director on
November 23, 2004. The final GMP/Wilderness Study does not propose
wilderness in the Chapel Basin area of the Lakeshore. Also, the removal
of the one-quarter mile strip of surface water from the proposed
wilderness resulted in the reduction of proposed acres from 12, 483 to
11,740 in the Beaver Basin area.

Passage of S. 3017 would support the overarching concept in the new GMP
for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, which is to provide additional
and more convenient access to significant lakeshore features on the east
and west ends of the park and to preserve the central portion of the
national lakeshore in a primitive, relatively undisturbed state.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes
my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or
other committee members might have.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 3045, TO
ESTABLISH THE Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage
AREA IN THE STATE OF ALASKA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.**

**JUNE 17, 2008**

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. 3045, a bill to establish the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area in the State of
Alaska.

Similar legislation has passed the Senate in earlier Congresses and a
small, grassroots organization in Alaska has continued to be an
articulate advocate for this proposal. In these earlier bills, the
National Park Service (NPS) and the Secretary of the Interior were the
principal federal government partners; in S. 3045, the U.S. Forest
Service and the Secretary of Agriculture would be given that role.

Based on our experience over the past 24 years working with National
Heritage Areas, the NPS has learned that a critical component for
success is the completion of a feasibility study that evaluates a
proposed area against interim criteria before designation. A study
should be prepared that demonstrates evidence of place-based resources
that tell a nationally important story, that has the support and
involvement of the local community, and that evaluates the commitment
and financial capability of the local coordinating entity and partners
to carry out the approved management plan for the heritage area. Studies
that were done for the designation of the Iditarod National Historic
Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway have confirmed the
national importance of the region; however, they were undertaken before
generally accepted criteria for designating heritage areas had been
established, and were directed at a smaller region than the area
encompassed by this bill. While we defer to the Department of
Agriculture for the official position on this legislation, the
completion of a heritage area feasibility study, based on interim
criteria used for similar studies, would allow for evaluation of the
area prior to designation. The Department of the Interior is willing to
provide advice or assistance to the Department of Agriculture in the
completion of a study that meets applicable standards for other heritage
areas and provides Congress with the necessary information and
assessment upon which to base its decision regarding designation in the
future.

With 40 National Heritage Areas designated across 28 states, and more
heritage area legislative proposals forthcoming, the Administration
believes it is critical for Congress to enact National Heritage Area
program legislation. This legislation would provide a much-needed
framework for evaluating proposed National Heritage Areas, offering
guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying the roles
and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing timeframes and
funding for designated areas. Program legislation would also clarify the
expectation that Heritage Areas would work toward self-sufficiency by
outlining the necessary steps, including appropriate planning, to
achieve that goal.

We would note that the majority of the acreage in the proposed Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area is under U.S.
Forest Service management. The park contributes to the themes noted in
the Section 1 of the legislation, particularly with regard to
recreational resources, history, natural landscapes, and climate change.

If the Committee chooses to move forward with this bill, the Department
would recommend that the bill be amended to include an additional
requirement for an evaluation to be conducted by the Secretary of
Agriculture, three years prior to the cessation of federal funding under
this act. The evaluation would examine the accomplishments of the
heritage area in meeting the goals of the management plan; analyze the
leveraging and impact of investments to the heritage area; identify the
critical components of the management structure and sustainability of
the heritage area; and recommend what future role, if any, the Forest
Service should have with respect to the heritage area. We would
recommend also that the Subcommittee make the appropriations language in
Section 9 consistent with other recent National Heritage Area bills.

Should S. 3045 be enacted, the NPS looks forward to working with both
the U.S. Forest Service and the local coordinating entity as a
management plan and other provisions are carried out. We would be happy
to share what may be applicable lessons learned from working with the
other 37 heritage areas in 27 states that Congress designated prior to
this year.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.

**STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND
RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 3096, TO AMEND
THE NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE ACT OF 1998 TO AUTHORIZE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE.**

**JUNE 17, 2008**

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. 3096, a bill to amend the National Cave and Karst
Research Institute Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations for the
National Cave and Karst Research Institute.

The Department supports S. 3096 if amended to retain a requirement that
any annual appropriations to the National Cave and Karst Research
Institute under this Act would still be subject to a non-federal
matching requirement. S. 3096 would amend The National Cave and Karst
Research Institute Act of 1998, Public Law 105-325, by striking the
portion of the Act that allows the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to spend only those federal funds that are matched by an equal amount of
funds from non-federal sources.

Public Law 105-325 directed the Secretary to establish the National Cave
and Karst Institute near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The National Park Service
(NPS) was directed to administer the Institute with one or more
partners. The purposes of the Institute are to further the science of
speleology, to encourage and provide public education, and to promote
environmentally sound cave and karst management. An interim Director was
first named in 2000 and the Institute now has a permanent Director and
facilities.

Since the Institute was established, it has suffered from a provision in
Public Law 105-325 that specifies that in operating the Institute, the
Secretary may spend only an amount of federal funds that are matched by
funds from non-federal sources. Federal funds have been interpreted to
mean not only funds that are appropriated to the NPS, but also funds
appropriated to other federal agencies and quasi-federal agencies.

This provision has had a chilling affect on the ability of the Institute
to partner and collaborate on mutually beneficial projects and
initiatives with federal agencies. Because of the matching fund
language, the Institute has not submitted grant proposals to partner on
cave and karst projects with the National Science Foundation, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of
Health, or the Department of Energy. The Institute has been advised that
if it were successful in obtaining a grant from one of these agencies,
it would need to find matching, non-federal monies before being able to
accept and spend the federal funds.

The matching funds provision also appears to present a disincentive for
federal agencies to partner with the Institute because of federal fiscal
year spending limitations coupled with the additional time and lack of
predictability associated with the Institute's ability to secure
non-federal matching funds. As a result, opportunities to engage in
mutually beneficial projects have been passed up to the detriment of the
Institute and the federal agencies.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee might
have.