U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

44–853 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–539 

CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 1774 S. 3017 

S. 2255 S. 3045 

S. 2359 S. 3096 

S. 2943 H.R. 1143 

S. 3010 H.R. 3022 

JUNE 17, 2008 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JEFF BINGAMAN and PETE V. DOMENICI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii ............................................. 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California ............................................ 8 

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator From North Carolina ..................................... 2 

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., Delegate to Congress, U.S. Virgin Islands .......... 4 

Knechtel, Jon, Director of Trail Management/Acting Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Trail Association, Sedro-Woolley, WA ...................................... 24 

Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator From Florida .................................................. 10 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 3 

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 6 

Taylor-Goodrich, Karen, Associate Director, Visitor and Resource Protection, 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior .......................................... 12 

Veni, George, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Cave and Karst Research 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 37 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 39 

(1) 

CURRENT NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Good afternoon everyone. The Subcommittee on 

National Parks will come to order. 

Despite holding hearings on almost 20 park and historic preservation bills in April and reporting most of those from the full committee in May, we still have many requests to consider new bills. 

Like the previous hearings, this hearing will cover a wide range of 

subjects including two national park wilderness proposals, new national trail designations, the first proposed national heritage area 

in the Forest Service, a historical commemorative commission, and 

a proposal to lease high value, national park lands to allow for continued operation of a resort. 

At this point I’d like to list the specific bills that we will be hearing today. They include: 

S. 1774 and H.R. 3022, which would designate certain lands as 

wilderness in the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in California; 

S. 2255, to authorize studies of the Chisholm Trail and the Great 

Western Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System; 

S. 2539, to establish a commission to commemorate the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, Florida; 

S. 2493, to designate the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail; 

S. 3010, to reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program; 

S. 3017, to designate the Beaver Basin Wilderness in Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan; 

S. 3045, to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area in Alaska; 

S. 3096, to authorize appropriations for the National Cave and 

Karst Research Institute; and 

H.R. 1143, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease the 

Caneel Bay property in Virgin Islands National Park. 
2 

While many of the bills on today’s agenda are supported by the 

Park Service and are not controversial, others raise important policy issues. I hope to use this afternoon’s hearing to better understand some of the issues of concern. At this time I’d like to recognize Senator Burr, our ranking member of the subcommittee for his 

opening statement. 

Senator Burr. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today’s hearing on several important public 

lands bills and for including a bill I introduced with Senator Murray to designate 

the Pacific Northwest Trail a National Scenic Trail. 

I’d also like to specifically welcome Jon Knechtel (Kuh-necktell) from Washington 

state, the Director of Trail Management and Acting Executive Director of the Pacific 

Northwest Trail Association. 

Mr. Knechtel has worked tirelessly over the years, together with volunteers, partners, and students to promote, share, and bring greater recognition to the Pacific 

Northwest Trail. 

My home state of Washington, and the Pacific Northwest in general, is home some 

of the most pristine nature and breathtaking scenery this country has to offer. 

The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from the Continental Divide to the Pacific 

Coast, is 1,200 miles long and ranks among the most scenic trails in the world. 

This carefully chosen path runs through the Rocky Mountains, Selkirk Mountains, 

Pasayten Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic Mountains, and Wilderness Coast. 

From beginning to end it passes through three states, crosses three National 

Parks, and winds through seven National Forests. 

Designating the Pacific Northwest Trail a National Scenic Trail will give it the 

proper recognition, bring benefits to countless neighboring communities, and promote its protection, development, and maintenance. 

In 1980, the National Park Service and the Forest Service completed a feasibility 

study of the proposed Pacific Northwest Trail. 

The study concluded that the Pacific Northwest Trail has the scenic and recreational qualities needed for designation as a National Scenic Trail. 

Today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest Trail are completed and 

provide significant outdoor recreational experiences to citizens and visitors of the 

United States. 

Three segments of the Trail have already been designated as national recreation 

trails. 

Adding the Pacific Northwest Trail to the National Trail—System has gained the 

support of Commissioners in Clallam, Jefferson, Island, Skagit, Whatcom, 

Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties in Washington and Boundary 

County in Idaho. 

Many County Commissioners and Mayors in numerous cities along the trail support the national scenic designation and the economic impact the trail has had on 

their communities. 

National Scenic Trails provide recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities. The Pacific Northwest Trail is 

a national prize and should be recognized as such. 

I look forward to working with this committee to properly recognize one of the 

truly most scenic trails in our nation’s land. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. 

Thank you for convening this very important meeting. 

Now we do have a full agenda as usual. All of these bills are important. But two have caught my attention as I prepared for this 

hearing. 

First is S. 3045 which would establish the Kenai Mountain National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska. Senator Murkowski 

can be assured that I’m not questioning the merits of this area for 
3 

national designation. But we need to take a close look at how it’s 

been structured. 

Of 40 National Heritage Areas that currently exist, all of them 

are placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. 

S. 3045 would make the Department of Agriculture responsible for 

the Kenai Mountains Heritage Area. Why is it necessary to place 

it within agriculture? Is it the right thing to do? I’d like to discuss 

that with our witnesses today after receiving their testimony. 

The second item of concern is H.R. 1143 a bill to authorize the 

National Park Service to arrange a long term lease with the proprietors of Caneel Bay Resort in the Virgin Islands National Park. At 

first glance this looks like we’re authorizing a sole source contract 

and a sweet deal for a profit making company. I understand that 

the National Park Service views it as a beneficial arrangement for 

the U.S. Government and supports the legislation. I’m very interested in hearing the logic behind the Park Service’s position this 

morning. 

I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I look forward to hearing their testimonies. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I 

would yield back. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. Now I’d 

like to call on Senator Murkowski for her statement. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman. You know between 

the McCaskill, Mikulski and Murkowski, all three women. The fact 

that you got close was just fine. 

Chairman, I want to thank you for adding S. 3045, which will establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area. This is in my State. I appreciate it being on the agenda 

today. 

We have a very rich history in the State. But in spite of nearly 

a decade of effort, Alaska hosts not one single National Heritage 

Area. This would be the first for Alaska. I do believe it’s about 

time. 

The proposed Heritage Area designation has been endorsed by 

the municipality of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Burrow and 

the Cities of Seward and Whittier as well as numerous conservation and historic preservation groups. This proposed Heritage Area 

would encompass some of Alaska’s most beautiful and most accessible and most heavily visited places including the communities of 

Girdwood, Cooper Landing, Hope, Seward and Whittier. This area 

in the State draws many, many visitors, tens of thousands of visitors each year from every part of our Nation and around the world. 

Yet few of our visitors know much more about the area than that 

it offers some of the most picturesque scenery that our Nation has 

to offer. 

The Kenai-Turnagain Arm Corridor Communities Association 

was created back in 2000 to promote the historic and cultural significance of this area. In 2000 the Senate passed legislation designating a heritage area under the auspices of the National Park 

Services National Heritage Area program. This legislation wasn’t 
4 

enacted into law, but the Corridor Communities Association didn’t 

give up. They worked over the past several years to refine their 

proposal. 

The current proposal that we see in the legislation would establish our Nation’s first National Heritage Area under the auspices 

of the Forest Service. This is the product of several years of conversations between the Chugach National Forest and National 

Park Service in the Alaska region. I’m told that the proposal fits 

within the strategic direction of the Chugach National Forest. 

It is an outside the box, innovative approach to the Heritage 

Area concept. It was custom designed to address the capabilities, 

the limitations of the communities involved. It steers clear of some 

of the criticisms about National Heritage Areas that are often advanced here in the Senate. It’s been described as a low budget approach which would leverage partnerships and existing facilities to 

tell the stories of these unique communities to the visitors that are 

drawn to the region. 

This afternoon we’ll hear from the Department of Agriculture 

and the National Park Service on S. 3045. The Corridor Communities Association has submitted testimony for the record along 

with supporting resolutions. I would ask that they would also be 

included in the record, and further ask that the endorsing letter of 

the National Park’s Conservation Association be included in the 

record. 

I’m pleased that we have the witnesses with us today and look 

forward to the testimony on this bill and the other matters on the 

agenda. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. Now 

I’d like to call on Congresswoman Donna Christensen for your 

statement on H.R. 1143. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, DELEGATE TO 

CONGRESS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, Senator Murkowski. It’s good 

to be back here again. 

Senator AKAKA. We’re pleased to welcome you back to the subcommittee. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, thank you and thanks for once again allowing me to make a brief statement in support of legislation that 

I sponsored, H.R. 1143 which would authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to enter into a lease with the owners of Caneel Bay Resort 

in my Congressional District. I want to thank you for such a timely 

scheduling of this hearing on the bill. 

Mr. Chairman and ranking member, members of the subcommittee, Caneel Bay traces its roots to Lawrence Rockefeller’s 

coming to the Island of St. John in 1952. He purchased a then existing resort facilities and also acquired more than 5,000 surrounding acres to protect the area. In 1956 he donated the additional land to create the Virgin Islands National Park. At the same 

time he created Caneel Bay Resort comprising of 170 acres which 

complements and is environmentally consistent with the natural 

beauty of the park setting and that remains the case today. 
5 

Mr. Rockefeller subsequently decided to transfer the land underlying Caneel Bay to the National Park Service while retaining the 

improvements and continuing the Caneel Bay operations. He accomplished this through the execution of a series of unique agreements generally known as a retained use estate or RUE. H.R. 1143 

became necessary because the RUE is slated to expire in 2023 and 

its current owners require more than its remaining 15 years to provide the capital and long term financing necessary to reverse some 

of the decline that’s happening at the facilities at the resort and 

to make sure that we return it and keep it at the grandeur and 

stature that it deserves. 

Mr. Chairman, other than the Virgin Islands National Park, 

Caneel Bay Resort is perhaps the single most important entity to 

the tourism based economy of St. John and the Virgin Islands in 

general. It is not an exaggeration to say that Caneel Bay helped 

to establish the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Island of St. John, in particular is a major tourist destination point playing a prominent role 

in the Islands economic renaissance. 

Since its founding in October 1956 it has been and remains the 

paradise of choice for generations of families, many of whom return 

every year. It is the largest employer on St. John, employing approximately 475 workers. Many of whom spend their entire careers 

spanning two or three decades, some even more, as employees of 

Caneel. 

The National Park Service testified in support of the bill when 

it was considered in the House. I hope that they will do so again 

today. We also worked with the executors of Lawrence S. Rockefeller’s estate and the trustees of his family’s conservation, nonprofit, Jackson Hole Preserve to secure their support of the legislation which would provide the National Park Service leasing authority with certain conditions which we all believe can be addressed 

in the negotiations between the two parties. 

In conclusion let me thank you once again, Mr. Chairman for 

holding this hearing on H.R. 1143 today. I look forward to working 

with you and your colleagues to move the bill to the floor of the 

full Senate and on to the White House for the President’s signature. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. Now 

I’d like to call the witnesses. Before we do that, are there any questions for our Congressman Christensen? 

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Christensen. We normally have a separate panel for Administration witnesses. So we’ll 

call on them. I want to thank you for being here and welcome your 

statement. 

I would like to invite all three of our witnesses to come to the 

table at this time. In our next panel are the Honorable Mark Rey, 

Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture; 

Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director, Visitor and Resource 

Protection, National Park Service; 

Jon Knechtel, Acting Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Trail 

Association. 

Now I’d like to call on Honorable Mark Rey to begin with your 

statement. 
6 

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. REY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank Senator Murkowski, 

Senator Burr. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today 

on S. 3045 which would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain 

Arm National Forest Heritage Area in South Central Alaska. 

In previous testimony before this subcommittee on similar legislation the Administration has recommended that the committee 

defer action on proposed individual heritage area designations until 

national program legislation is enacted that establishes guidelines 

and a process for the designation of the National Heritage Areas. 

We still support that position. As other specific designations have 

programmatic authorizations like the National Wilderness Act, the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Trails Act, designations that the Heritage Areas lack. 

Notwithstanding that view, the Administration appreciates the 

strong community advocacy for designation of the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area. If feasible 

this designation would recognize the nationally significant history 

of the Kenai Peninsula by providing for the interpretation of the 

history and culture of the area. This designation upon a determination of the feasibility would also facilitate public enjoyment of these 

resources and would foster cooperative planning and partnerships 

among communities and State and Federal Government. 

S. 3045 would designate one million, two hundred and 17 thousand and 600 acres on the Kenai Peninsula as a National Forest 

Heritage Area. Modeled after other National Forest National Heritage Areas administered by the National Park Service this would 

be, as already indicated, the first to be administered by the Forest 

Service. 89 percent of the lands within the proposed boundaries are 

part of the Chugach National Forest. The proposed Heritage Area 

is also surrounded by the remainder of the more than 5.3 million 

acres of the Chugach National Forest. 

Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service values heritage resources and considers it part of the agency’s mission to preserve and interpret them for the public. Indeed, this year, the Forest Service was given a Preserve America award for agency action 

in the heritage preservation arena by the First Lady. 

The Administration believes that the rich history, spectacular 

natural resource values and community support merits the completion of a Heritage Area feasibility study will offer the evaluation 

of the area prior to designation. Completion of the study for this 

heritage area would assure the alignment with the management 

goal of the Chugach National Forest and provide a strong framework for collaborative management under which the significant 

historical resources of the area would strive, thrive and grow. Information covering many of the criteria for a National Heritage 

Area feasibility studies has already been gathered in previous studies for the Iditarod National Heritage Area—National Heritage 

Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway. 

We recommend that a final feasibility analysis which could be 

conducted relatively quickly, be prepared that would consolidate all 

of this information into one document, make any Federal boundary 
7 

adjustments that may be necessary or identify any further unknowns. We would be more than willing to work with the committee on this scope of such an analysis. 

Finally Section Eight of the bill would provide that all laws applicable to the Federal, tribal, State, local and private lands in the 

designated area would continue to apply. As part of the extensive 

public involvement in developing the revised management plan for 

the Chugach National Forest, the Forest Service worked directly 

with the proponents of the Heritage Area to incorporate goals and 

objectives into the forest plan that express the mutual interest in 

protecting and interpreting the cultural resources of the Kenai Peninsula. The local coordinating entity has worked tirelessly to bring 

the concept of a heritage area for this part of Alaska to reality. The 

Administration supports its energy and enthusiasm as it dovetails 

with Forest Service support for local communities on the Kenai Peninsula. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to submit the entire 

statement to the record and respond to any questions that you’ve 

got. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ON S. 3045 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify here today on S. 3045 which would establish the Kenai MountainsTurnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area in the State of Alaska. 

In previous testimony before this Subcommittee on similar legislation, the Administration has consistently recommended that the Committee defer action on proposed heritage area designations until national program legislation is enacted that 

establishes guidelines and a process for the designation of national heritages areas. 

We still support that position and recommend that the Committee defer action on 

S. 3045. The Administration appreciates the strong community advocacy for designation of the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Forest Heritage Area. If 

feasible, this designation would recognize the nationally significant history of the 

Kenai Peninsula by providing for the interpretation of the history and culture of the 

area. This designation upon a determination of feasibility would also facilitate public enjoyment of these resources, and would foster cooperative planning and partnerships among communities, and State and Federal governments. 

S. 3045 would designate 1,217,600 acres on the Kenai Peninsula as a National 

Forest Heritage Area. Modeled after other National Heritage Areas administered by 

the National Park Service, this would be the first to be administered by the Forest 

Service. Eighty-nine percent of the lands within the proposed boundaries are within 

the Chugach National Forest. The proposed heritage area is also surrounded by the 

remainder of the Chugach’s more than 5.3 million acres. 

Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service values heritage resources and 

considers it part of the agency’s mission to preserve and interpret them for the public. The Administration believes that the rich history, spectacular natural resource 

values, and community support merits the completion of a heritage area feasibility 

study that would allow for evaluation of the area prior to designation. Completion 

of a feasibility study for this heritage area would assure alignment with the management goals of the Chugach National Forest and provide a strong framework for 

collaborative management under which the significant historical resources of the 

area would thrive and grow. Information covering many of the criteria for national 

heritage area feasibility studies has been gathered in previous studies for the 

Iditarod National Heritage Trail and the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway. 

We recommend that a final feasibility analysis be prepared that would consolidate 

all this information into one document, make any final boundary adjustments that 

may be necessary, or identify any unknowns. We would be willing to work with the 

Committee on the scope of the analysis. 

Section 5 of the bill would designate a local non-profit coordinating entity to develop and implement a management plan for the heritage area. Section 6 would require the entity to submit the management plan to the Secretary of Agriculture for 
8 

approval or disapproval. The management plan would be consistent with the applicable Federal, State, borough, and local plans. 

Section 7(a) would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of the Interior to establish a general 

framework for cooperation and consultation in the review and implementation of the 

management plan. The Forest Service and the National Park Service will work cooperatively to support this community-based effort. 

Section 7(c) would require the Secretary of the Interior to include the heritage 

area in nationwide releases, listings, and maps developed by the National Park 

Service about national heritage areas. The Administration recognizes the advantages and efficiencies to be gained by this requirement. 

Section 8 of the bill would provide that all laws applicable to the Federal, Tribal, 

State, local, or private lands in the designated area would continue to apply. As part 

of the extensive public involvement in developing the revised Land Management 

Plan for the Chugach National Forest, the Forest Service worked directly with proponents of the heritage area to incorporate goals and objectives into the plan that 

express the mutual interest in protecting and interpreting the cultural resources of 

the Kenai Peninsula. The local coordinating entity has worked tirelessly to bring the 

concept of a heritage area for this part of Alaska into reality. The Administration 

supports its energy and enthusiasm, as it dovetails with Forest Service support for 

local communities on the Kenai Peninsula. 

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, should S. 3045 be enacted to include a feasibility 

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, the Forest Service looks forward to working with you, the local coordinating entity, and the National Park Service to carry 

out the intent of the amended bill. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much Mr. Rey for your statement and your full statement will be included in the record. 

At this point I’d like to call on Senator Boxer and ask you for 

your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for considering 

S. 1774, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act 

and for giving me the opportunity, which I greatly treasure, to testify in front of you today. Co-sponsored by Senator Feinstein this 

bipartisan, bicameral effort will protect almost 115,000 acres of 

spectacular high Sierra lands within Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks, including majestic, granite peaks, deep canyons, 

extensive caverns and awe inspiring Sequoia groves. 

This bill is sponsored in the House by Representatives Jim Costa 

and Devin Nunes, a democrat and a republican. I’m so proud to 

have worked in close partnership with these Members of Congress 

over the last year and a half to get this bill negotiated, drafted and 

moved. Indeed just last Monday, this bill passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote. As you know in these contentious 

times it’s—and that doesn’t happen very often. 

Specifically the bill would create one new wilderness area. We 

want to name it the John Krebs Wilderness, named after a former 

Congressman who is really an unsung conservationist and a man 

of extraordinary political courage and will expand one other, the 

Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness. These areas, much loved by 

Californians and Americans from all over the country will remain 

open to the public for recreational activities, such as camping and 
9 

hiking and horseback riding, so future generations can enjoy them 

just as we have. 

My testimony is brief. I have about another 2 minutes. I’d like 

to just show you what we’re talking about in these magnificent 

photographs. 

Senators, I think if you look at these photographs you’ll see why 

this has no opposition. This is Mineral King Valley, the spectacular 

valley in the heart of this bill. We’ll show you Mineral King in winter and about 7,000 of those are the John Krebs Wilderness Area. 

There. That’s it. 

Naming the new wilderness area, again created by this proposal 

after former Congressman Krebs, who’s 82 now, is an overdue and 

fitting tribute to a great conservationist. He deserves our gratitude 

for preserving the pristine natural beauty of the park that we enjoy 

today. 

I want to show you Redwood Mountain at sunrise. Redwood 

Mountain. The bill includes a designation for the Redwood Mountain Grove, the park’s largest grove of the world’s largest trees, sequoias. 

The area also includes California’s longest cave, Lilburn Cave 

with over 17 miles of surveyed caverns, the historic, old Hockett 

Trail, one of the cross Sierra routes in the Southern Sierra Nevada 

Range. This is Hockett meadow. This is so beautiful. 

The tremendous diversity of the elevations and geology of these 

areas yield an equally diverse array of terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean ecosystems. Here’s a chart of Chimney Rock. This image 

of Chimney Rock helps to demonstrate the vast array of geologic 

diversity here. 

In turn the lands provide much needed habitat for wildlife including the Golden Eagle, Bighorn Sheep, the Spotted Owl and the 

Mountain Yellow Leg Frog. We need to preserve these species here. 

So we develop elsewhere, they have a place to go. 

The last thing I’m going to show you here is Big Baldy Mountain. 

Finally, this picture shows the magnificent high Sierra that Americans recognize as, I’d say, quintessentially Western. My legislation, 

our legislation will ensure that these beautiful areas will be sustained and preserved as part of America’s identity and rich, natural heritage. 

In closing I want to note that this legislation was developed in 

close consultation with local communities, elected officials, recreation organizations, businesses, Federal and State agencies and 

local property owners. I look forward to working with each and 

every one of you as well as Chairman Bingaman and Ranking 

Member Domenici to move this bill forward before the end of the 

session. I think by any measure that you could choose, bipartisan 

support, business support, community support, home owner support, the beauty of the area. It passes the test with flying colors. 

I thank you so much, members, for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for considering S. 1774, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, and for giving me the opportunity to testify in support of my legislation. 
10 

Cosponsored by Senator Feinstein, this bipartisan, bicameral effort will protect almost 115,000 acres of spectacular High Sierra lands within Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, including majestic granite peaks, deep canyons, extensive caverns and awe-inspiring Sequoia groves. 

This bill is sponsored in the House by Representatives Jim Costa and Devin 

Nunes—a Democrat and a Republican. I am so proud to have worked in close partnership with these members of Congress over the last year and a half to get this 

bill negotiated, drafted and moved. 

Indeed, just last Monday, this bill passed the House of Representatives by a voice 

vote. 

Specifically, this bill would create one new wilderness area, the John Krebs Wilderness—named after the former Congressman, an unsung conservationist hero and 

a man of extraordinary political courage—and expand one other, the Sequoia-Kings 

Canyon Wilderness. 

These areas, much loved by Californians and Americans from all over the country, 

will remain open to the public for recreational activities such as camping, hiking, 

and horseback riding so future generations can enjoy them just as we have. 

Let me take a few minutes now and show you why this public land is so special 

and why it deserves Wilderness protection. 

First, is the spectacular Mineral King Valley, the heart of this bill. 

Our bill designates the John Krebs Wilderness—almost 70,000 acres, including 

the 15,000 acre Mineral King Valley. 

As many of you may recall, John Krebs, the former Fresno County Supervisor and 

U.S. Congressman tirelessly and successfully fought to keep Mineral King Valley 

undeveloped in the 1970’s by transferring the land into the Park. 

Naming the new wilderness area created by this proposal after former Congressman Krebs, now 82 years old, is an overdue and fitting tribute to a great conservationist and legislator. John deserves our gratitude for preserving the pristine natural beauty of the Park that we enjoy today. 

Next, is Redwood Mountain. The bill includes a designation for the Redwood 

Mountain Grove, the Park’s largest grove of the world’s largest trees—Sequoias. 

The areas also include California’s longest cave, Lilburn Cave, with over 17 miles 

of surveyed caverns, and the historic Old Hockett Trail, one of the first cross-Sierra 

routes in the southern Sierra Nevada range. 

This chart shows a picture of Hockett Meadow, along this route. 

Additionally, the tremendous diversity of elevations and geology of these areas 

yield an equally diverse array of terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean ecosystems. 

This image of Chimney Rock helps to demonstrate the vast array of geologic diversity. 

In turn, these lands provide much needed habitat for wildlife, including the California Spotted Owl, Golden Eagle, bighorn sheep, and mountain yellow-legged frog. 

Finally, this picture on top of Big Baldy Mountain shows the magnificent High 

Sierra that Americans recognize as quintessentially California. 

My legislation will ensure that these beautiful areas will be sustained and preserved as part of California’s identity and rich, natural heritage. 

I would also like to note that this legislation was developed in close consultation 

with local communities, elected officials, recreation organizations, businesses, federal and state agencies and local property owners. 

In closing, thank you again for this opportunity to testify in support of this important legislation to protect California’s Sierra Nevada range and honor former Congressman John Krebs. 

I look forward to working with each of you, as well as Chairman Bingaman and 

Ranking Member Domenici, to move this bill forward before the end of this session. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Thank 

you for your statement. Are there any questions to her? Otherwise, 

let me ask—thank you very much, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Martinez, do you have any statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM FLORIDA 

Senator MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I do indeed. Thank you for 

calling on me and for holding this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I wanted 

to speak on behalf of Senate bill 2359, is the St. Augustine 450th 

Commemorative Commission Act. 
11 

Today marks another important step for the people of St. Augustine, Florida to honor the incredible history and the significance of 

its founding as the first permanent European colony in 1565. So I 

wanted to take this opportunity to recognize Mayor Joe Boyles of 

St. Augustine and all of the State and local stakeholders that have 

come together to begin the preparation for this exciting event. I 

also would like to ask that a letter from Mayor Boyles to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee be submitted for the 

record. 

St. Augustine has been at the very center of our Nation’s founding. Its old and complex history mirrors much of the American experience. This city was the birthplace of Christianity in the New 

World. It was truly our first blending pot of cultures that included 

peoples of Spanish, English, French, Native American and African 

decent. 

Many do not know that St. Augustine is the location of the first 

parish mass in the United States. It was the location of the first 

free black settlement in North America. 

Nearly a century before the founding of Jamestown, Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon landed off the coast of St. Augustine. 

He was looking for the fabled Fountain of Youth. But instead he 

founded a colony known as La Florida. 

He discovered very favorable currents that would later be known 

as the Gulf Stream which would serve as straight routes for European explorers to discover other parts of the New World. Because 

of St. Augustine’s location along the strategic trade routes, Spain 

constructed the Castillo de San Marcos in 1762 to protect the capital of La Florida from French and British interest. The Castillo de 

San Marcos is built on the ruin of the original fort that was burned 

to the ground by famous British sailor and explorer, Sir Francis 

Drake. The fort still stands today and has had six different flags 

fly above its ramparts. It’s the oldest surviving European fortification in the United States. 

The legislation before the committee today is modeled largely 

along the lines of the Commission authorized by Congress for the 

founding of Jamestown in Virginia. The St. Augustine Commission, 

Mr. Chairman, is necessary to help organize a tremendous amount 

of historical and cultural events that will take place in Florida’s 

first coast. In addition the Commission will provide the necessary 

framework to navigate the significant logistical challenges that the 

city of St. Augustine, the State of Florida and the National Park 

Service will face in coordinating efforts for an event of this magnitude. 

The Commission will encompass a broad array of members from 

Federal, State, local and academic backgrounds to ensure they 

have the diverse make up of professionals to assist the city of St. 

Augustine in celebrating its founding. This legislation is bipartisan 

and is co-sponsored by my good friend and colleague, Senator Bill 

Nelson, as well as St. Augustine’s Congressman, John Mica. So I 

urge the committee to quickly take up and pass this important legislation and help write a new chapter in the history of our Nation’s 

founding. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
12 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Martinez. Now 

I’d like to return to the panel and ask Karen Taylor-Goodrich for 

your statement. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Senator Burr, Senator Martinez. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you on behalf of the Department of the Interior 

and to speak on today’s bills. 

We have nine bills that I would like to submit my testimony in 

full for the record. But I’d like to do a quick summary of each of 

these bills, if you may permit me. 

S. 1774 and H.R. 3022 would both designate additional wilderness areas in Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National 

Park and would name one of the new wilderness areas after Mr. 

John Krebs, a former Member of Congress. The Department supports these bills if they are amended in accordance with our testimony. 

S. 2255 would amend Section 5C of the National Trails System 

Act directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies of the 

Chisholm Trail and the Great Western Trail in order to consider 

both trails for inclusion in the National Trails System. The Department supports S. 2255 with an amendment. However we do feel 

that priority should be given to the 38 previously authorized studies that have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

S. 2359 would establish the St. Augustine 450th Commemoration 

Commission that Senator Martinez spoke of. 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 of our suggested amendments and our concerns as noted in our full testimony. 

S. 2943 would designate the Pacific Northwest National Scenic 

Trail, an approximately 1,200 mile route from the Pacific Ocean 

and Olympic National Park in Washington to the East Side of the 

Continental Divide in Glacier National Park in Montana. The Department does not object to this bill if amended to authorize an update to our 30-year-old Pacific Northwest Scenic Trail feasibility 

study. We do feel that’s outdated and would need to be updated. 

We believe priority should be given, however, to the 38 previously 

authorized studies that have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

S. 3010 would reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Preservation 

Program for 10 years from 2009 to 2019. We do not have an objection to this bill. 

S. 3017 would designate 11,740 acres, or 16 percent, of Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore on Lake Superior in the upper peninsula 

of Michigan as a federally protected wilderness area called the Beaver Basin Wilderness Area. The Department strongly supports this 

bill. 

S. 3045 would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm 

National Forest Heritage Area in Alaska. Based on our experience 

over the past 24 years working with our National Heritage Area 

System, we’ve learned that a critical component for this, in order 
13 

to be successful, would be completion of a feasibility study that 

would evaluate the proposed area against the interim criteria before designation. 

We defer to the Department of Agriculture for the official position on this legislation. The completion of the Heritage Area feasibility study based on that interim criteria would allow for an evaluation of the area prior to designation. 

S. 3096 would amend the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Act of 1998. The bill would strike a portion of the Act that 

would allow the Secretary of the Interior to spend only Federal 

funds that are matched by an equal amount of funds from non-Federal sources. The Department supports this bill if amended to retain a requirement that any annual appropriations to the Research 

Institute under this Act would still be subject to a non-Federal 

matching requirement. 

H.R. 1143 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 

lease with the current holder of the retained use estate at Virgin 

Islands National Park the Caneel Bay property, currently operated 

as a luxury resort, after the termination of a retained use estate 

and donation of all improvements to the National Park Service. 

The Department supports the general intent of H.R. 1143 and what 

it seeks to accomplish. 

However, we would like to suggest a few amendments. We did 

have some success in amending the bill after testifying before the 

House. However, we’d like to work with the committee to clarify 

additional terms and conditions of this proposed lease. 

Mr. Chairman and members, that concludes my statement. I 

would be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Taylor-Goodrich follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, VISITOR

AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 1143

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 
14 

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. 

S. 1774 AND H.R. 3022

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. 
15 

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, 1‡ lane-wide road, with 

a boundary at up to one-half mile (2,640 ft.) from center line of road and from onequarter 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 wil-
16 

derness 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 SequoiaKings 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. 

S. 2255

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 
17 

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. 

S. 2359

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 450th 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 Mene ́ndez de Avile ́s, 

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 Span-
18 

ish 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 19th 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. 
19 

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. 

S. 2943

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 
20 

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. 

S. 3010

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 20th-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 19th-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 20th-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. 

S. 3017

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. 
21 

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 beechmaple 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 onequarter 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 
22 

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. 

S. 3045

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 
23 

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 MountainsTurnagain 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. 

S. 3096

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 
24 

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. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. Now 

we will hear from Mr. Jon Knechtel, the Acting Executive Director. 

STATEMENT OF JON KNECHTEL, DIRECTOR OF TRAIL MANAGEMENT/ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION, SEDRO-WOOLLEY, WA 

Mr. KNECHTEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee 

it’s truly an honor to appear before you today. My name is Jon 

Knechtel. I am the Director of Trail Management and the Acting 

Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Trail Association. I am 

here today as a designee of all of our members, volunteers, partners and students who have kept alive the vision of the trail, the 

Pacific Northwest Trail. 

To testify before a Senate committee is a rare opportunity for 

any citizen. I’m extremely grateful to Chairman Akaka for the invitation to be here today. When President Lyndon Johnson signed 

the National Trails Act legislation in 1968 and the Appalachian 

and Pacific Crest Trails became our first two National Scenic 

Trails. Those people who were avid through hikers and explorers 

of new territories envision a network of trails crisscrossing the 

United States. 

One such visionary was a young college student from Georgetown 

University named Ron Strickland. In 1971 and on through the 

early 1970s he and some of his friends would spend their winter 

months pouring over available maps of the Pacific Northwest. Summers were then spent hiking segments of what was to become the 

PMT. 

By 1977 segments have been put together. Ron and his hiking 

friends have hiked these segments. The trail was born along with 

the non-profit organization that bears its name. 

A feasibility study was completed in 1980 on the PMT. Though 

it met all the criteria that a National Scenic Trail needs, the cost 

of implementing the trail was astronomical, around 95 million dollars. Much of this cost was intended to acquire a wide right-of-way 

for the Trail. 

Since that time much of the route of the Trail on lands that were 

not in public ownership have been acquired by cities and counties 

that the Trail passes through. Also at that time the feasibility 

study was done commercial use of our National Forest was in full 

swing. The opportunity cost of removing these lands from the timber base was high. 

Since the early 1980s commercial forest use has dwindled. Numerous new wilderness areas have been designated along with the 

course of the trail or the route of the trail. Today the majority of 

the trail is protected by its very location. 

Sections of the trail in the lower elevation areas often employ the 

use of old rail corridors. Many of these corridors have been acquired over the last two decades by local municipalities and converted to trail. There are still areas where the trail crosses the 

State or private land where commercial use still takes place. The 
25 

PMT has worked very diligently over the years to work with and 

not impede the various guidelines under which these lands are 

managed. 

The PMT has a conglomerate of trail types under the recreational opportunity spectrum. There are rural-urban trails, front 

country trails, back country trails and wilderness trails. There are 

sections of the trail that only receive 50 to 100 hikers a year. While 

others sections like Deception Pass State Park in Washington receive over three million. Almost all of who have set foot on the 

PMT. 

There are sections of trail where use may be restricted to protect 

threatened and endangered animal species such as the Grizzly bear 

or Woodland Caribou. Maximum group size is restricted in Federal 

wilderness areas and limited entry permits are required in some 

sections. Illegal use by off highway vehicles is still a problem on 

some sections of the trail. The PMT is and always should be a 

hiker, equestrian and where permitted bicycle trail. 

You know the Department of Interior under the National Trail 

System Act has designated the PMT segments through North Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park and Glacier National 

Park as National Recreation Trail, a total of 254 miles. Under the 

Clinton Administration the entire PMT was named a millennium 

trail. These are all great accolades. However, the vision of those 

who have been involved with PMT is to someday see it become a 

National Scenic Trail. Over the last 30 years since the PMTA was 

founded more than 131,000 hours of labor on the trail have taken 

place for the benefit of to our agency partners of over one and a 

half million dollars. 

That’s the extent of my testimony. Thank you, chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knechtel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON KNECHTEL, DIRECTOR OF TRAIL MANAGEMENT/ACTING

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION, SEDRO-WOOLLEY, WA 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is truly an honor to appear 

before you today. My name is Jon Knechtel and I am the Director of Trail Management and Acting Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Trail Association 

(PNTA). I am here today as the designee of all of our members, volunteers, partners, 

and students who have kept alive the dream of the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT). 

To testify before a Senate committee is a rare opportunity for any citizen, and I am 

extremely grateful to Chairman Akaka for the invitation to be here today. 

When President Johnson signed the National Trails System legislation in 1968, 

and the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails became our first two National Scenic 

Trails, those people who were avid through-hikers and explorers of new territory envisioned a network of trails crisscrossing the United States. One such visionary was 

a young college student from Georgetown University named Ron Strickland. In 

1971, and on through the early 1970’s, he and some of his friends would spend their 

winter months pouring over available maps of the Pacific Northwest, summers were 

then spent hiking segments of what was to become the PNT. By 1977 segments had 

been put together, Ron and his hiking friends had hiked these segments and the 

trail was born, along with the association that bears its name. 

A feasibility study was completed in 1980 on the PNT, and though it met all the 

criteria that a National Scenic Trail needs the cost of implementing the trail was 

astronomical, around $95 million dollars. Much of this cost was intended to acquire 

a wide right-of-way for the Trail. Since that time much of the route of the Trail on 

lands that were not in public ownership has been acquired by the cities and counties 

that the Trail passes through. Also, at the time the Feasibility Study was done, 

commercial use of our national forests was in full swing and the opportunity cost 

of removing these lands from the timber base was high. Since the early eighties, 

commercial forest use has dwindled, and many new wilderness areas have been des-
26 

ignated along the route of the Trail. Today the majority of the trail is protected by 

its very location. Sections of the Trail, in the lower elevation areas, often employ 

the use of old rail corridors. Many of these corridors have been acquired over the 

last two decades by local municipalities and converted to trail. There are still areas 

where the trail crosses state or private land where commercial use still takes place. 

The PNTA has worked very diligently over the years to work with and not impede 

the various guidelines under which these lands are managed. Adopt-a-Trail agreements are in place with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (as 

well as a Land-use Agreement) and the Washington State Parks, through which the 

trail goes. Land-use Agreements are in place with some of the private landowners 

and these continue to be obtained as needed. Help and support by the Pacific Northwest Trail Association for land purchases and exchanges for the trail and trailheads 

have been negotiated with cities and counties along the trail, as well as with federal 

land managers. 

The PNT is a conglomerate of trail types under the Recreational Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). There are rural-urban trails, front country trails, back country 

trails, and wilderness trails. There are sections of the trail that only receive 50-100 

hikers per year, while other sections (like Deception Pass State Park) receive over 

3 million visitors per year, most of whom set foot on the PNT. There are sections 

of the trail where use may be restricted to protect Threatened or Endangered animal species such as the Grizzly Bear or Woodland Caribou. Maximum group size 

is restricted in federal wilderness areas and limited entry permits are required in 

some sections. Illegal use by Off Highway Vehicles (ORVs) is a problem on some 

sections of the Trail. The PNT is, and should always be a hiker, equestrian, and 

where permitted, bicycle trail. Existing trail management objectives set forth by the 

governing agencies or land owners will govern the maintenance and use of the PNT. 

Trails will not be upgraded to meet a minimum PNT ‘‘standard’’, as is the case for 

the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. Changes in management direction would be 

done on a case by case basis, based on other recreational management objectives, 

with the caveat that the trail use remains non-motorized. 

When I first became an employee of the PNTA in late 2003 (having been a board 

member for three years prior to my retirement from Weyerhaeuser Corporation), my 

first job was to travel the trail, meet with all my partners and the agencies through 

which the trail traverses. There were many issues that were brought forth by the 

1980 study that I personally wanted to rectify if at all possible without jeopardizing 

the scenic beauty and wild places through which the trail passed. Starting in Glacier National Park, the Flathead, Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, Colville, Okanogan 

National Forests, North Cascades National Park, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, the 

Olympic National Forests, and the Olympic National Park, I met with the recreational staff from each park, forest, or district and asked the same questions. 

What are the concerns? Because there are hikers hiking the trail, whether you recognize it or not, where would you like to see them hike? I talked with local groups 

who used trails in their areas and relied on their expertise to determine the most 

feasible routes for the Trail. By doing these things, all but one bushwhack has been 

removed from the trail. The Trail route has been relocated in numerous spots to locate it on system trails and/or abandoned logging roads. The PNT, with agency support, will probably, like the other National Scenic Trails, continue to evolve. 

Although the PNT was not originally recommended for National Scenic Trail Status, the members and volunteers would not let the vision of a Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail die. In the mid 1980’s the PNTA formed a partnership with the 

British Army. The Army crew worked for three summers building new sections of 

the trail on Blanchard Mountain, in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, in the State of 

Washington. Our volunteers worked to keep the trail in Skagit and Whatcom Counties maintained along with some new trail construction in Island County during the 

late 1990’s. 

In 2000 we developed our Service-Knowledge-Youth (SKY) Education Program 

and Curriculum thanks to funding from the Ford Motor Company and Tully’s Coffee 

Company. This program was instituted in 2001 with help from the Sedro-Woolley 

and Mt. Baker School Districts by putting at-risk youth out to work on trails in the 

Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest. Thanks to Title II monies from the Secure 

Rural Schools Act we were able to provide a stipend to the students for their efforts, 

while they earned additional school credits. In 2001, when falling budgets on the 

Olympic National Forest threatened to eliminate an innovative youth work experience program known as the Quilcene Ranger Corps, the PNTA stepped in to manage 

it through a partnership with the Forest Service and Washington State University 

4-H. 

In 2002, again thanks to Title II and Title III funds, we were able to expand our 

youth programs to Jefferson and Clallam Counties on the Olympic Peninsula. This 
27 

enabled us to help our agency partners, performing trail work for which they had 

neither the manpower nor funding to accomplish. We also developed, through private donations, a Native Plant Nursery in Mt. Vernon, WA. This had a three-fold 

purpose; (1) to give youth an opportunity to learn about native plants and their effect on the environment, (2) to supply native plants to local communities and private 

developers for mitigation/restoration projects, and (3) to replant native vegetation 

along impacted areas along the PNT. 

From 2003-2007 we were able to expand the programs to the Okanogan, Colville, 

and Idaho Panhandle National Forests under Title II and Grants from the National 

Forest Foundation. Through other funding avenues work took place in the Olympic 

and North Cascades National Parks. These programs will continue through 2008 

unimpeded, however with the Secure Rural Schools Act not being renewed, some of 

the programs may be in jeopardy after this year. 

Also, in 2003 we developed a partnership with Cascade Job Corps in SedroWoolley, WA wherein we provide work-based training to young people prior to their 

going out in the workforce. This has proven to be a wonderful year-round program 

where we can provide more services to our agency partners. These students do a 

myriad of different projects where they are needed. They have worked in Mt. Rainer 

National Park, Idaho, Eastern Washington, the Olympic Peninsula, and the entirety 

of the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest. The crews have built new trail 

bridges and removed damaged ones, built and maintained trails while obliterating 

user made trails. They have removed toilet buildings from campgrounds and 

trailheads in preparation for the installation of new ones, done stream restoration 

for the protection of the Bull Trout, installed new trailhead sign kiosks at 

trailheads, removed hazard trees from trails and campgrounds and saved our agency partners large amounts of money. In the winter they work on mitigation projects 

for local municipalities and agencies, and have provided labor sandbagging during 

flooding in western Washington. 

With these programs, we’ve been able to get a tremendous amount of work done 

for our partners, not only on the PNT but also on other trails on federal lands. Over 

950 youth have participated in our programs over the last 7 years, the graduation 

rate at the schools where the programs have been implemented has increased, juvenile delinquency rates have dropped, at-risk youth who have never had the opportunity are getting out and learning to be stewards of the environment, and the 

agencies have benefited by getting projects accomplished. 

The Department of Interior, under the National Trails System Act has designated 

the PNT segments through North Cascades National Park (2002), Olympic National 

Park (2003), and Glacier National Park (2005) as National Recreation Trails, a total 

of 254 miles. Under the Clinton Administration the entire PNT was named a Millennium Trail. These are all great accolades; however the vision of all who have 

been involved with the PNT is to someday see it become a National Scenic Trail. 

The hikers who through-hike the PNT are astounded by the beauty, the elevation 

changes, the variety of wildlife and flora, and the serenity as they head for their 

final destination at Cape Alava on the Pacific Ocean. 

Creating a Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail makes sense! From East Glacier National Park the PNT is a direct connector; tying the already designated Continental Divide Trail and the Pacific Crest Trails to one another, with the possibility 

of someday tying the PNT to the North Country Trail and creating a Sea-to-Sea 

Trail. This was all part of the vision in 1968 of a National Trail System tying the 

country together, north-to-south, and east-to-west. 

Over the last 30 years, since the PNTA was founded, more than 131,000 hours 

of labor on the Trail have taken place with a benefit to our agency partners of over 

1.5 million dollars. A breakdown on land along the Trail where these hours were 

spent is as follows: 
28 

National Park Service ................................................................................ 13,376 

US Forest Service ....................................................................................... 79,337 

Bureau of Land Management .................................................................... 272 

Bureau of Indian Affairs ............................................................................ 966 

WA Department of Natural Resources ..................................................... 26,931 

WA State Parks .......................................................................................... 4,337 

County Lands .............................................................................................. 3.120 

City Lands ................................................................................................... 305 

Private Lands ............................................................................................. 2,698 

Total ..................................................................................................... 131,342 

The PNT is broadly supported by many groups such as the Backcountry Horseman of Washington, Washington Trails Association, the Mountaineers, Jefferson 

Trails Coalition, Quimper Trail Association, Peninsula Trails Coalition, Colville 

Trails Coalition, Volunteers for Outdoor Washington, Washington States Trails Coalition, and Tobacco Valley Highcountry Horseman in Eureka, MT. 

County Commissioners in Clallam, Jefferson, Island, Whatcom, Okanogan, Ferry, 

and Pend Oreille counties support a Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The 

mayors of Eureka, MT, Metaline Falls, WA, Forks, WA, have sent their support for 

the Trail. 

Numerous through-hikers, members, students, volunteers, and corporations have 

voiced their support either by sending letters, signing petitions, voting and/or commenting on the Washington Watch website. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. I want you to know that 

each of your full statements will be included in the official hearing 

record. Now we’d like to begin with the questions to each of you. 

Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, before turning to questions on the bills you 

testified on, I have a question relating to two national park advisory boards. I understand that the authority for both the National 

Park System Advisory Board and the National Park Service Concessions Management Advisory Board will expire at the end of this 

year. Have these Advisory Boards been helpful in providing useful 

advice and recommendations to the Park Service? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Yes, sir. They have been very helpful in 

providing recommendations on a variety of issues. 

Senator AKAKA. I thought it would be useful to get that response 

on the record in case the committee decides to extend the authorization for either or both of the commissions through legislation. 

My next question is on S. 3096 relating to the Cave and Karst 

Institute. The 1998 law that established the Institute states that 

it will be jointly administered by the National Park Service. If the 

Park Service is a partner in this, why should there be any requirement for matching funds? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. What we found is the requirement for 

the Federal match to the non-Federal dollars has kept the Institute 

from doing business and taking advantage of grant opportunities 

available from other Federal entities. Removing the matching provision will allow the Institute to take advantage of a number of opportunities to support itself. 

Senator AKAKA. I have a couple of questions on H.R. 1143 which 

authorizes the lease of property in Virgin Islands National Park. 

As you know the Park Service concession law provides for a standard contract of 10 years with a maximum of 20 years if the Park 
29 

Service determines that a longer term is needed for construction of 

capital improvements. 

If 20 years is adequate for other lodging operations in National 

Park units, why should Caneel Bay be given a 40-year term? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. The current operator is CBI acquisition. 

They have expressed the need to have additional time in order to 

make improvements to the property and remain profitable and 

competitive in the local hotel market in the Virgin Islands. 

Senator AKAKA. Last year the Inspector General issued a report 

that criticized the Park Service for allowing private use of public 

lands. In her response to the IG, Director Bomar ensured that Park 

management would move quickly to open these areas to the public. 

I understand that the Caneel Bay property that would be leased in 

H.R. 1143 is reserved for use of the resort guests, and not open to 

the general public. If the Park Service entered into a long term 

lease, would the public be allowed to access the property, consistent 

with Director Bomar’s statement? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the report from the Office of Inspector General, but it is more specific to 

private clubs and having established private clubs on National 

Park Service managed property and controlling access to public 

lands. In the case of this lease, in particular, the public would be 

allowed to use the property as a guest of the resort similar to how 

other operations and the public areas of the resort, grounds, food, 

beverage and other facilities would be open to the public. 

Senator AKAKA. Your testimony indicates the Park Service would 

be willing to work with the subcommittee to develop your recommended amendments. Will you please provide us with a written 

draft of your proposed amendments? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We’d be happy to provide that for you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. You mentioned that based on a value 

analysis, the Park Service has determined that a lease would provide the greatest advantage to the park. Would you please provide 

the subcommittee with a copy of that analysis? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Yes, we’d be glad to provide a copy. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Rey, I understand that Congress 

previously authorized a heritage area in Iowa to be administered 

by the Department of Agriculture. Eventually, the law was amended to transfer the area to the Interior Department, because the 

Heritage Area was not receiving any attention in the Department 

of Agriculture. The Park Service already administers a large number of heritage areas. Why does it make sense to duplicate this program in the Forest Service? 

Mr. REY. The Heritage Area that you were referring to was the 

Silos and Smokestacks Heritage Area in the Midwest. That unfortunately did not have a logical home within the Department of Agriculture. There was no land management involved with Agriculture Department lands in the Heritage Area proper. 

This, we think, is a different circumstance for three general reasons. First, 89 percent of the land involved in this Heritage Area 

is already managed by the United States Forest Service. So that 

any project that’s associated with this Heritage Area would have 

to be approved by the Forest Service. 
30 

The process would be much more streamlined if the Forest Service would have direct participation as the management entity and 

with the local cooperator. So I think from a practical standpoint the 

first reason is that we own almost all of the land involved. Therefore it could expedite meeting. 

Second, unlike the balance of the Department of Agriculture, the 

Forest Service has a very active Heritage Program, both archeological and historical resources. We have many sites registered on 

the National Register of Historic Sites. We are representing the 

Department on the Advisory Council, the National Historic Preservation. As I indicated earlier we did receive the First Lady’s Preserve America award this year for our Heritage Programs. 

Finally, although it’s not apropos, but I think we know which six 

flags flew over St. Augustine. The third general reason is that in 

all of the other special land use designations, save this one, the 

Forest Service, the Park Service and to some extent the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management all manage 

areas under those programs. They all have National Wilderness 

Areas, elements of the National Wilderness System. 

We just celebrated the designation of Big Sky Wilderness at 

Index, Washington a few weeks ago. Congratulations. We have National Scenic or rather National Trails that are the National Trail 

Program. We have National Wild Scenic Rivers. We have National 

Recreation Areas. The Forest Service even has a National Seashore 

in Oregon at Oregon Dunes. 

So this Heritage Area System is an exception to a general rule 

where the Forest Service, the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to one degree or another, have all managed units of these systems. So this isn’t that 

extraordinary an exception to what has generally become the rule. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rey, or excuse me, 

Ms. Goodrich. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas that currently 

exist do you know how many of those contain National Forest Land 

within the Heritage boundaries? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. I don’t have that information. But we can 

provide it to you. 

Senator BURR. Do you know if the Association with National Forest Service land has created any unique challenges? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator BURR. Ok. Thank you. Mr. Rey, does the Department of 

Agriculture have a mechanism for funding Kenai Mountains Heritage Area if this legislation were enacted? 

Mr. REY. If this legislation were enacted we would fund it as part 

of the budget request for the Forest Service’s State and Private 

Forestry Program and the Chugach National Forest Budget in the 

years after enactment. 

To your first question, I’m aware of only one National Heritage 

Area where the significant amount of Forest Service ownership. 

That’s the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area which is 

in all honesty, having some problems getting enacted because of a 

disconnect or getting implemented because of the disconnect between the ownership and the heritage activities. 
31 

Senator BURR. We’ll certainly look at that. Would the Department of Agriculture raise any opposition if S. 3045 is amended to 

place the Kenai National Heritage Area under the jurisdiction of 

the Department of the Interior? 

Mr. REY. Our working relationship with the Department of the 

Interior is such that, you know, our primary objective would be to 

support the designation. We’ll work out the operational details 

later. But as, you know, we indicated, and we can submit for the 

record, there will be some logistical complications associated with 

using another heritage area administrator over top of the management of the National Forest lands involved. 

Senator BURR. Ms. Goodrich, let me come back to you if I could. 

In relation to the Caneel Bay Resort lease, I’ll say to the subcommittee and to the chairman, I’ve got some real questions on 

this that will take me more time to dig into than we’ve got today. 

I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to send additional 

questions to be answered. 

Has the Rockefeller estate taken a position on the proposed lease 

arrangement? Have they conveyed their position in written form to 

the National Park Service? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. If you would allow me, Mr. Chairman 

and Ranking Member Burr, I have with me today our Chief of Concessions Management for the National Park Service, who has a 

more in depth understanding of the Rockefeller’s relationships with 

Caneel Bay. Would you mind if I ask her to address that question? 

Senator BURR. Be happy to do that, but if she could also, if you 

can’t, do we have a written conveyance on their part that they’re 

ok with this? 

Ms. PENDRY. Yes, sir. My name is Jo Pendry. I’m the Chief of the 

National Park Service Concession Program. We do have something 

in writing from the representative of the Rockefeller’s stating that 

they do support. They do have certain caveats that they would like 

to see which I believe are already incorporated into the draft legislation. We can provide a copy of that letter for you. 

Senator BURR. Ok. To either one of you that can answer it. What 

was the purchase price CBI paid for the lease in 2004? 

Ms. PENDRY. I can’t remember the exact price, we could get that 

for you for the record. 

Senator BURR. Would you provide that for the record? 

Was CBI acquisition LLC fully aware of the lease expiration date 

when they purchased this property? 

Ms. PENDRY. It’s my understanding that they were aware that 

the RUE was up in 2023. 

Senator BURR. So that’s not a question on their part? 

Ms. PENDRY. I don’t believe so. 

Senator BURR. Did the National Park Service inquire from CBI 

if they were interested in selling back the remainder of their lease? 

I guess some 15 years? 

Ms. PENDRY. Yes, we have had those discussions. 

Senator BURR. What was their reaction to that? 

Ms. PENDRY. I don’t think they were interested in doing that at 

this time. I don’t think the Park Service would be aware of all of 

the implications of doing that until we are able to complete a fair 
32 

market value assessment of the property. So they did not indicate 

opposition or support of that. 

Senator BURR. Caneel Bay is a very sought after piece of property. It somewhat surprises me that the National Park Service 

would come in as enthusiastic as they are about a sole source contract extension of a lease. Not knowing what the marketplace 

might bid the price to, if in fact you had the ability to open it to 

others to bid on. 

The only way that you could do that is if you had explored the 

buyout of the current lease which has 15 years left on it by CBI. 

The fact that they showed little if no interest in allowing the National Park Service to buy back those 15 years might suggest that 

what they see as most attractive is the ability not to compete with 

anybody for that property. I don’t have too great of a confidence in 

any entity of the Federal Government in determining what the 

value of an asset is. I think I can only share this with you that 

there will have to be a great deal more, I believe, addressed in this 

before I’m going to be supportive of moving forward. 

I’m not exactly sure what those questions will be, but I will assure you over the next 10 days I’ll get those to the Department. I 

think we have rushed this before we were ready to fully think it 

through. I would ask the chair to pay particular attention to this 

as we think about any type of mark up on legislation. I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. Let me ask 

Senator Cantwell for any statement you may have. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

enter a statement into the record about what we were trying to do 

in the Northwest. 

Welcome Mr. Knechtel for being here today. We appreciate you 

being here very much. Sorry to hear about the loss in your family. 

We appreciate you coming to testify about this important legislation. 

Obviously the Pacific Northwest Trail which really goes a great 

distance across a large part of the Northwest is something that we 

think should be designated even more as a national treasure. But 

Mr. Knechtel, because the trail connects three major National 

Parks from the Olympic coast all the way to Montana, I really have 

a question for you about the who should manage this area if such 

designation is given. 

The Park Service does currently manage, I think, five of the 

eight National Scenic Trails. Three of which are over 1,000 miles 

long. So I don’t know if you have any thoughts that you want to 

share on that particular question. 

Mr. KNECHTEL. Thank you, Senator. When I first started working with Tom Gilbert, who is an employee of the Park Service last 

year, we had the Department of Agriculture as the administering 

agency for the trail. After quite a bit of thought and when it got 

to your office it was decided that it made more sense that the Department of Interior over administer the trail because of the North 

Country Trail being a National Park Service administered trail, 

their Board having looked into the possibility of adopting that section in North Dakota and Montana that would connect the Pacific 
33 

Northwest Trail to the North Country Trail at the Continental Divide which would make it a sea to sea trail. 

When I was talking with Mr. Merkel in your office, we changed 

that language in the legislation to Department of Interior and that 

was the main reason. The Pacific Northwest Trail is a vital link 

connecting the Continental Divide Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail 

which are both Forest Service Trails along the Northern tier of the 

United States and then continuing on to the Pacific Ocean. I work 

with both agencies. 

Over the last 7 years we’ve done 70 some thousand hours worth 

of work for the Forest Service, 15,000 for the Park Service. It’s 

been a little easier through the Secure Rural Schools Act to get 

money to work on Forest Service land than it has been through 

NRTP to do work on Park Service land. So that’s what brings about 

the discrepancy in the amount of volunteer hours that have been 

put out there by not only by our sky education programs but our 

volunteers and everything. 

It makes no difference to me in the long run whether it be the 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service or Department of Interior Park Service who administers the trail. 

Senator CANTWELL. Ok. 

Mr. KNECHTEL. I would just like to see the trail designated. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you. I see that there is a 

great deal of support from the Commissioners from most of those 

counties, Cowlitz, Jefferson Islands, Skaqit. Why do you think it’s 

getting such support from all those counties? 

Mr. KNECHTEL. We have, with our youth education programs and 

over the last 7 years, we developed the sky program which is service, knowledge and youth, and that has been done under the Secure 

Rural Schools Act, has put this curriculum into schools. We’ve employed over 950 youth, ages 13 to 21 over the last 7 years. They 

have done numerous jobs. 

The counties in the State of Washington have been very impressed with the inclined rate of graduation from the schools where 

the program is plus the decline in juvenile delinquency. It’s been 

an extremely beneficial program, especially to the Forest Service, 

who has benefited most by it. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I 

could, as I said, put a longer statement in the record. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. You 

know that the Park Service has no objection to that and also was 

asking that we authorize the feasibility study for that. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 

the folks who have testified today. Mr. Rey, a couple questions for 

you about the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Corridor. 

Before I begin those I wanted to just note for the record, Senator 

Burr you had mentioned, you asked about the cost. In my opening 

statement I kind of referred to this as the low budget option. We’re 

trying to figure out a way that it isn’t a burden to the taxpayer, 

something that will work. I think that the folks that were working 

to put this proposal together were looking for just that. 
34 

They have indicated that, in so far as, we know the moneys ultimately come from the appropriations process. The Corridor Communities Association will have to come up with 25 percent match 

on the Federal grants. The Association strongly believes that they 

can make this concept work even if there’s little or no new Federal 

money made available. They believe they can do so by leveraging 

partnership in the existing resources. There won’t be any Federal 

grants to support the heritage area that would come from the National Park Service accounts. It’s my understanding. 

I want to explore a little bit the suggestion that both you, Mr. 

Rey and Ms. Taylor-Goodrich have suggested that we need to move 

forward with this feasibility study. This idea that the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Corridor area become a Heritage area has 

been around for about a decade. It’s passed the Senate before. 

The historic, the cultural attributes of the area are very well documented. What do you think we gain from the feasibility study 

that we don’t already have? 

Mr. REY. What we have is much of the underlying information 

that would go into a single feasibility study spread across a couple 

of different documents. Some of it’s in the Chugach Land and Resource Management Plan. Some of it’s in the Iditarod Trail proposal. Some of it’s in the Seward Highway proposal, not proposal, 

project. 

So I think what we’re seeking is to collect all of that information 

in one location so that it does have a totality to it. Do one more 

evaluation to see if there’s anything else that we’re overlooking. 

There are a few boundary adjustments that may need to be made, 

things like that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But I—— 

Mr. REY. I don’t look at it as a major project, a fairly quick action. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ok. Because the concern, of course, that we 

have in going back to Senator Burr’s point which is absolutely legitimate. We don’t want to spend money unnecessarily doing things 

that we’ve already done before gathering more information. So you 

feel that we could do something that kind of wraps it all together. 

Do so in a manner that is fiscally responsible or frugal without necessarily reinventing the work that is already out there. 

Mr. REY. I think we’re talking about bringing that work together 

and combining it with a multi year action plan at a cost of probably 

somewhere around 100,000 dollars total. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You think that you can do that in a timely 

manner? 

Mr. REY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. Taylor-Goodrich, do you concur? 

Ms. TAYLOR-GOODRICH. We concur. We’d be glad to provide any 

advice and assistance needed to Mr. Rey. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In response to Chairman Akaka’s question 

about, you know, why the Forest Service as opposed to the Park 

Service. I think your outline of why the Kenai MountainsTurnagain Arm Corridor is a little bit different, the fact that 89 

percent of the lands are managed currently by the Forest Service, 

primarily there in the Chugach. Can you perhaps elaborate for the 

committee some of the other things that the Chugach National For-
35 

est is doing that would be complemented by a National Heritage 

designation? 

Mr. REY. Sure. The management of the Iditarod National Heritage Trail which would be in this Heritage Area in part, the management of the Seward Highway Heritage Corridor, the Alaska 

Railroad Whistle Stop Tour which we’ve constructed and interpreted as a recreational and heritage resource. I believe we’ve got 

some sites on the Chugach that would be within this Heritage Area 

that are probably eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Sites. There is an active archeological program on the Chugach National Forest that interprets a number of archeological and historic 

sites, both Native American as well as early settlement. 

The area is a corridor that essentially opened up the interior of 

Alaska to settlement by, you know, the Russians and then subsequently, America. So it’s rich in historic resources and rich in archeological resources since the Alaska native population used some 

of those travel corridors before the post Columbian population did. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate your comments. I think it is 

important to identify how this particular corridor or area might be 

appropriate for oversight by the Forest Service as opposed to the 

National Park Service because I think we need to be sensitive to 

duplication of efforts within agencies. But I think when you have 

agencies that recognizes that because of all the other things that 

are going on under that oversight currently that really in order to 

gain as many efficiencies as possible the best thing to do is to mirror the program that is happened or taking place in another agency 

and yet have that oversight be done by the Forest Service as we’re 

proposing here. You gain the best of all worlds. 

Mr. REY. Yes. I think the objective here is to try to avoid duplication. You know we have many jointly managed areas. 

So what we always try to do with the Park Service and with the 

Bureau of Land Management is to try to manage them jointly on 

the basis of what the greatest level of efficiency we can achieve. 

Through that effort would be where we’ve got the preponderance 

of the underlying resource, we take the lead. When they’ve got the 

preponderance of the underlying resource, they take the lead. 

In the case that we were just describing which is the Pacific 

Northwest Trail, it’s about, you know, an even bet. There are three 

National Parks and seven National Forests. I think we’ve got about 

60 percent of the trail corridor. You’ve probably got about 38 percent of the trail corridor. So, again, you all decide who you want 

and we’ll figure out the operational details. 

But you can make it easier for us by reflecting what’s really 

there on the ground. The fact that this is the first Forest Service 

Heritage Area is, you know, an anomaly that isn’t necessarily dispositive as opposed to how we could best manage the heritage resources in this area. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate those comments. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could work with Mr. Rey and Ms. Taylor-Goodrich and others to make this a reality in this incredibly 

historic and scenic part of the State of Alaska. So thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. Let 

me follow up by asking a question of Mr. Rey. I understand that 
36 

you are asking that the area feasibility study be completed, I think 

you had asked that. What does it require to complete it? 

Mr. REY. I think what would be required here is to take the information that currently exists in four separate studies, consolidate 

them into one, make sure we’ve answered all the remaining questions. We still are adjusting boundaries a little bit. Then use that 

study as the conclusion for proceeding. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Knechtel. 

The study for the Pacific Northwest Trail is now almost 30 years 

old. That study did not recommend, as you know, including the 

trail in the National Trail System. 

Mr. KNECHTEL. Right. 

Senator AKAKA. As you have heard today, the Park Service is 

recommending that the bill be amended to require an update of the 

study. I think you have the proper knowledge here to answer my 

question. My question to you is, what are your thoughts on their 

proposal? 

Mr. KNECHTEL. I think, you know, I’ve read the 1980 feasibility 

study numerous times. Most of the people who were against recommending the trail in 1980 have now come around and are supporting it, such as the Department of Interior. You know the Mountaineers in the State of Washington were very much against the 

trail. They’re very much in favor now. 

Most of the trail has been, in the 1980s wasn’t on trail. A lot of 

the trail was bushwhacked, which, you know, cross country, which 

is a no-no with the Forest Service. Those have almost all been 

taken out. There’s one left in Northern Idaho. 

I’ve been working with the Idaho State Forest and also the U.S. 

Forest Service on trying to get a trail, either do the NEPA and 

build a trail. The State Forest Service has said that they would 

support that. I haven’t got that commitment from the Forest Service yet, but it would be about a mile of new trail on Forest Service 

land. 

I guess where I’m coming from, Senator Akaka, is I don’t feel 

that there is a true need to do a complete feasibility study review. 

I’d rather see that $250,000 or half a million dollars be put into 

the trail. As far as building or finishing it, there is a couple of sections where NEPA would have to be done to get the trail off of 

some roads in Stevens County in Washington. 

You know I’m not going to fight the government if they do want 

to update the feasibility study. You know I’m going to work with 

my partners and with the agencies. That’s my firm belief. 

You don’t get anywhere by fighting the system. You work with 

the system. You support them. Hopefully in return, they’ll support 

you. 

I just, you know, the trail is all on trail. People hike it every 

year. There are some sections that need to be moved off of major 

roads. I’d rather see that money for the feasibility study be spent 

there. 

Senator AKAKA. I’m really taken with what you said. The way it 

came to me was, the connection made will be from sea to shining 

sea. 

Mr. KNECHTEL. Right. 

Senator AKAKA. Across the country. 
37 

Mr. KNECHTEL. This, Senator is a vision of a lot of people is to 

see this sea to sea route from Cape—from, you know, Massachusetts clear across to the Pacific Ocean. Andy Skurka hiked this particular trail 3 years ago. It took him 11 months. But he did make 

the hike using the Long Trail, the New England Trail, the North 

Country and our trail to accomplish it. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for that. Senator, do you 

have any? 

Mr. KNECHTEL. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I want to thank you. This has been a good hearing. I want to thank each of you for testifying this afternoon. 

Without question, your statements and testimony will be very 

helpful to us. We look forward to working with you, even with your 

recommendations here to us on each of these bills. 

Now before we close today I want to let you know that some 

members of the committee who were not able to attend this afternoon may want to submit additional questions in writing. If they 

do, we will forward them to you and ask you to respond to the 

questions. 

I look forward to moving some of these bills. Thank you again. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following statement was received for the record.] 

NATIONAL CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 

Carlsbad, NM, June 10, 2008. 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 312 Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. 

Senate, Washington, DC. 

S. 3096—Proposed legislation to amend Section 5(a) of the National Cave and Karst 

Research Institute Act of 1998 

Caves and karst are a hidden, little known, yet vital underground resource that 

directly impact over 25% of the United States. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) was created by the U.S. Congress in 1998 to support and 

conduct research, education, and sound management of these areas directly and 

through partnerships with other entities. One group of crucial partners are federal 

agencies and federally-funded organizations which hold properties that contain 

many of the country’s and world’s most significant caves and karst areas. Unfortunately, the legislation that created NCKRI had the unexpected effect of severely limiting NCKRI’s ability to establish those crucial partnerships. As Executive Director 

of NCKRI, this letter is submitted to strongly support passage of S.3096 so NCKRI 

can more effectively fulfill its mandates. 

Section 5(a) of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Act of 1998 requires NCKRI to receive matching non-federal funds for the federal funding it is allocated. While the intent of this requirement seems clear, the reality is that NCKRI 

is either unable to work with federal or federally-funded agencies, or can do so 

under conditions that can seldom be achieved. The two fundamental problems are 

that in many cases: 

1) Non-federal matches may not exist for the specific needs, or cannot be effectively located without disproportionate expenditure of NCKRI resources; 

2) There is often insufficient time to locate non-federal funds. 

In the case of grants, such as from the National Science Foundation, potential 

non-federal sponsors do not want to commit funds for protracted grant review periods without a clear end date (since many grants are not accepted in the first round 

of review but years later in future rounds) or reasonable degree of certainty that 

the federal funds will be approved. 

During the past year, I have met with staff from the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Geological Survey. They were all supportive of NCKRI and interested in 

partnering, but put-off by the matching funds requirement. For example, in May 

2008, the Klamath Network of national parks contacted NCKRI to develop a pro-
38 

gram for inventorying and monitoring caves. Instead, the funds for that program 

may likely go to a private consulting firm, which would provide no match. Within 

the last week, the Bureau of Land Management released a request for proposals for 

cave management and research needs in New Mexico, with an estimated total 5- 

year budget that nearly matches NCKRI’s current combined federal and non-federal 

annual budget. Given the constraints of time and personnel, NCKRI hopes for affiliation with whichever organization receives this project, but will not benefit from the 

funds, growth, and prestige that receiving this project would provide. 

Should S.3096 be approved, there may be concern that the matching funds currently provided by the State of New Mexico, through the New Mexico Institute of 

Mining and Technology (NMT), may diminish or cease. That will not occur. I have 

been assured by the NMT President and Vice-President and Associate Vice-President of Research and Economic Development that NCKRI has NMT’s full support 

regardless of federal funding, and have seen their words supported by actions. Additionally, it is in NMT’s and the State of New Mexico’s best interest for NCKRI to 

succeed and bring in additional funding, both of which would be greatly facilitated 

by approval of S.3096. 

In 1998, Congress took an unprecedented step in recognizing the importance of 

cave and karst resources by creating NCKRI. Approval of S.3096 will remove a wellintentioned but flawed clause that severely limits NCKRI’s ability to effectively fulfill the purposes Congress intended. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE VENI, PH.D., 

Executive Director. 
(39) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF JON KNECHTEL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

Question 1. Northwest National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 2943): How much of 

the Pacific Northwest Trail is currently established, who manages it, and how is it 

funded? 

Answer. The majority of the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT) is on the ground and 

people hike it on a yearly basis. 900 miles of the trail are actual trail; the balance 

is on minimal-use roads (263 miles), minimal-use paved roads (30 miles), city or 

county roads (130 miles), state highways (30 miles), and US Highways (4 miles). 

The National Park Service (NPS) maintains those sections of the PNT within 

their boundaries. If the PNTA obtains grant money, we have been able to put our 

youth crews within the parks to help with the maintenance. 

Very few districts of the United States forest Service (USFS) have trail crews so 

the PNTA, as a non-profit, applies for and receives substantial grant monies each 

year to place our Service-Knowledge-Youth (SKY) Crews on USFS land to not only 

maintain the PNT, but help the USFS maintain other trails, trailheads, and campgrounds. A lot of maintenance on USFS land is also done by our volunteers. 

Many sections of the trail (such as state, county, city, or private lands) are maintained by volunteers from the Pacific Northwest Trail Association and our SKY 

Youth programs. The PNTA has also implemented, and supplied tools to, many 

Trail Maintenance Organizations (TMO’s) over the years such as the Quimper Trail 

Association (Port Townsend, WA), the Skagit TMO (Mt. Vernon, WA), Glacier Trail 

Club (Bellingham, WA), the Oroville TMO (Oroville, WA), and the 49th Parallel 

Mountain Cursors (Eureka, MT). The PNTA has also formed partnerships with 

many Trail Coalitions (TC’s) such as the Peninsula TC (Port Angeles, WA), Whidbey 

Island TC (Oak Harbor, WA), Skagit TC (Mt. Vernon, WA), Okanogan TC 

(Okanogan, WA), and Colville TC (Colville, WA). The PNTA has also developed partnerships with the Backcountry Horsemen of Washington, Idaho, and Montana, Tobacco Valley High Country Horsemen (Eureka, MT), Washington Trails Association, 

Washington, Idaho, and Montana Conservation Corps, Cascade (Sedro-Woolley, WA) 

and Curlew Job Corps Centers (Curlew, WA). 

The PNTA has developed numerous youth programs which have been funded by 

the Secure Rural Schools Act, NRTP Grants, and grants from the National forest 

Foundation. Private funding has been available, over the years, from companies 

such as Weyerhaeuser, Microsoft, Williams Corporation, Ford Motor Company, 

Tully’s Coffee, the Spring Family Trust, Skagit Community Foundation and many 

others. 

Question 2. Northwest National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 2943): How many private property owners have land that is part of the Pacific Northwest Trail corridor? 

Answer. There are some private timber companies where Land Use Agreements 

are in place, and the WA Department of Natural Resources and State Parks where 

agreements are in place. The trail uses rural-urban trails which are owned and protected by cities and counties. There are some small landowners along the trail, 

where if permission has been given the trail goes through their property; otherwise 

it traverses the property on county roads. 

Question 3. Northwest National Scenic Trail Designation (S. 2943): Will any land 

need to be purchased to complete the Pacific Northwest Trail, what is the estimated 

cost, and is the Federal government expected to purchase it if the legislation is enacted? 

Answer. To complete the trail on federal lands, there are a few areas where new 

trail would have to be built to get it off roads. These would require NEPAs to be 

done, however the trail would most likely be built by volunteer labor. 

There are some sections along the trail, through private land, that could possibly 

be purchased. Most of these lands have had the merchantable timber removed in 
40 

the last 15-years and won’t be harvested for another 25-40 years, if then. I don’t 

know what the costs would be as we’ve never negotiated that. 

State Lands in Washington, through which the trail passes, would not be available for purchase under the RCW Codes of the State. There is no language in the 

RCW Codes allowing the sale of, or 30-year easements, through State Trust Land, 

however a permanent license to use these lands is available under the RCW Codes. 

If NST Status is granted for all the federal lands the trail passes through, then 

purchases could be made of private lands as they come available through yearly appropriation requests, private donations, land swaps, or through the Land Conservation Acts. 

If granted NST Status by the Federal Government, the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNNST) would be in a better position to garner private funds 

and different types of available grant monies, than now exist to a strictly non-profit 

organization. More community involvement along the trail would take place because 

of the economic impact of having a National Scenic Trail in their backyard. I also 

feel because of the diversity of trail types, under the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum, the PNNST would allow more users to partake in the outdoor experience. 

With the rail-trails along the PNT, handicapped persons and mothers with baby 

strollers can join the ranks of trail users. 

Those of us who have spent many years working on the PNT, putting these agreements together, building new sections of trail, getting youth into the great outdoors, 

to learn about the environment and help maintain, not only the PNT, but trails that 

our agency partners don’t have the funding to maintain feel that we have one of 

the most scenic trails in the country. 

Yes, there are issues to be faced and worked through, however these issues are 

no different than those undertaken by all the other trails. The PNTA has spent the 

last 30-plus years getting to this point without the benefits provided the other NST 

and NHT Trails. We feel the PNT should be a part of the National Trail System 

because it not only is an extremely scenic and diverse trail, it provides a vital link 

to our National Trail System connecting the Pacific Crest and Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trails to the Pacific Ocean. 

RESPONSES OF MARK REY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BURR

Question 1. The Secretary of Agriculture was previously given responsibility for 

the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. The arrangement was not successful and the bill was amended to give oversight authority to the Secretary of the 

Interior. What were the circumstances that resulted in the transfer of oversight 

from Agriculture to Interior and how has that been resolved for the proposed Kenai 

Mountains Heritage Area? 

Answer. The Secretary of Agriculture was originally designated in 1996, as the 

lead in assisting with the development of the Heritage Area called ‘‘America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership: Silos & Smokestacks.’’ However, the management entity later worked to change this designation. The Silos & Smokestacks website provides the following explanation for the change: 

We have asked the Iowa Congressional and Senate delegation to amend 

the original legislation and place us under the Department of Interior 

where all other Heritage Areas are established. AAHP was originally placed 

under the Department of Agriculture because it was thought that our story 

fit their mission. While the USDA will continue to assist Silos & Smokestacks, from the standpoint of funding and technical assistance, we have determined that our best ‘‘home’’ is with the National Park Service, which is 

behind the development of heritage areas. 

In 2000, an omnibus parks bill was enacted that transferred the responsibility for 

the Heritage Area from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. 

In the twelve years since Silos & Smokestacks was established, it has not received 

any Federal financial assistance through USDA because Congress never appropriated funds despite the authorization for up to $1 million annually, not to exceed 

$10 million by 2012. In contrast, the National Park Service presented Silos & 

Smokestacks with a check for $248,000 on May 5, 2000. The scenario described 

above did not involve the Forest Service. The Forest Service has a rich and vibrant 

heritage program established in 1980. In fact, in February 2008, the Forest Service 

received the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s award for Federal Preserve 

America Accomplishment. 
41 

S. 3045, which would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National 

Forest Heritage Area, would give the Department of Agriculture responsibility because: 

• There is a long-standing and proven relationship between the Forest Service 

and the management entity that has successfully accomplished several heritage 

related projects. • The management entity has requested that the Forest Service be the lead Federal agency. • The goals and objectives of the proposed heritage area are very compatible with 

the land management plan for the National Forest System (NFS) lands included 

within the boundary. • The Alaska Regional Office of the National Park Service has been supportive 

and has agreed to collaborate fully with the Forest Service. 

Question 2. S. 3045 authorizes certain appropriations for use by the Kenai Mountains National Heritage Area. Does Department of Agriculture have a mechanism 

for funding Kenai Mountains Heritage Area if this legislation is enacted? 

Answer. S. 3045 authorizes appropriations to be made available to the management entity for the development and implementation of the management plan for 

the Heritage Area. 

The Forest Service would have a mechanism for making that funding available 

to the management entity if the legislation is enacted and funds are appropriated 

as authorized. The Forest Service already has resource staff in place throughout the 

Area, including archaeologists, recreation/tourism planners, landscape architects, 

and engineers. Within existing authorities and budgets, we can provide a limited 

amount of technical assistance to local communities, and are now doing so. Because 

the Forest Service manages most of the land within the proposed Area, we have the 

resource information, visitor information, and technical tools needed to support the 

goals of the proposed Heritage Area, as well as working relationships already established with local communities. In the past, we have provided financial assistance to 

local communities through the Economic Recovery Program, but due to national 

budget priorities, this program has not received funding in the past few years. 

Mechanisms are already in place to grant monies to other entities through State 

and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs and more recently, through the National 

Forest System programs if funding is made available. There are at least four grant 

authorities that could be applied to this type of activity: 

• National and Community Service Act of 1990 (provides broadest authority for 

National Forest System activities). • National Forest Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 

1990 (provides broadest authority for State and Private Forestry program activities). • Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. 

• National Trails System Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

To provide the same level of technical and financial assistance that the National 

Park Service generally provides to Heritage Areas, the Forest Service will need to 

have comparable level of funds appropriated for this purpose. For a Heritage Area 

managed by the Forest Service, funding appropriated to implement the legislation 

would need to be within BLIs that are appropriate to the types of activities being 

undertaken. Maintaining the existing level of funding for the Chugach National Forest and S&PF programs is essential to managing existing facilities and programs 

on National Forest System lands and state and private lands in Alaska. 

Question 3. Are we setting a precedent for other states or local interest groups 

to request National Heritage Areas associated with the Department of Agriculture 

if S. 3045 is enacted as introduced? 

Answer. Since many lands administered by the Forest Service have significant 

heritage resources and good working relationships with local communities, it is possible that other local interest groups could request similar legislation. 

Question 4. Are you aware of any other National Heritage Areas that are proposed 

for association with the Department of Agriculture? 

Answer. We are not aware of any proposed heritage areas that would be administered by the Department of Agriculture. But, of the bills introduced in the 110th 

Congress that would designate 12 new heritage areas and revise 4 existing heritage 

areas, we are aware of 5 proposals that include NFS lands. Those 5 are Northern 

Plains National Heritage Area (S. 2098), the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage 

Area, Colorado (S. 443), the Cache La Poudre River National Heritage Area, Colorado (S. 128), the South Park National Heritage Area, Colorado (S. 444), and the 

Land Between the Rivers Heritage Area, Illinois (S. 956). In fact, the proposed Land 
42 

Between the Rivers Heritage Area would encompass the entire Shawnee National 

Forest. 

Question 5. Would the Department of Agriculture raise any opposition if S. 3045 

is amended to place the Kenai Mountains National Heritage Area under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior as is the case for all other National Heritage Areas? 

Answer. The Alaska Region Forest Service has been working for many years with 

the local management entity to articulate and accomplish goals related to the proposed Heritage Area. Our mission is very compatible with the proposed goals. We 

feel that this historically significant area deserves recognition as a National Heritage Area, and would support designation under whichever Department the members 

of Congress see fit; however, we believe that designating the Department of Agriculture as the lead would avoid unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and duplication 

of efforts. 

Question 6. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas that currently exist, how many of 

those contain National Forest Service land within their boundaries? Has the association with the National Forest Service land created any unique challenges? 

Answer. NFS lands are included within 12 of the 40 currently existing National 

Heritage Areas (30 percent). The NFS land involved ranges from 1 percent to about 

50 percent of lands within individual heritage area boundaries. Forest Service units 

work cooperatively with the National Park Service on heritage tourism opportunities related to the heritage areas. The amount of involvement by the Forest Service 

varies greatly from one heritage area to the next due to differences in the management plans for the heritage areas and the varying amounts of NFS lands involved. 

We are not aware of any unique challenges with current heritage areas. 

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time the hearing went to press:] 

QUESTIONS FOR KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

H.R. 1143—CANEEL BAY LEASE IN VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Question 1. H.R. 1143 provides for a lease for a term not to exceed 40 years. Has 

the National Park Service conducted any analysis to determine what the appropriate length of the lease should be? 

Question 2. It’s my understanding that a concession contract may not exceed a 

term of 20 years. Have companies providing lodging services in national park system units under concession contracts been able to obtain financing for capital improvements? 

Question 3. H.R. 1143 requires the Secretary of the Interior to require appraisals 

to determine the property’s fair market value rent, as determined by appraisals. 

Given the unique nature and location of the Caneel Bay property, what do you expect to use as comparable properties? 

Question 4. Section 2(b) of H.R. 1143 requires any lease to include ‘‘the property 

covered by the RUE and any associated property owned by CBI donated to the National Park Service.’’ What associated property is CBI planning to donate to the 

Park Service? Does this paragraph cover different associated property than that described in paragraph 3(e), which requires the lease to take into account the value 

of any associated property transferred by CBI to the National Park Service? 

Question 5. Section 3 of H.R. 1143 provides that ‘‘as a condition of the lease, CBI 

shall relinquish to the Secretary all rights under the RUE and transfer, without 

compensation, ownership of improvements covered by the RUE to the United 

States.’’ Section 2(c) requires the lease to require payment to the United States of 

the property’s fair market value rent, taking into account the value of any associated property transferred by CBI . . .’’ 

Question 5a. Does the National Park Service interpret these provisions to require 

that CBI will receive no compensation for any property or improvements covered by 

the RUE, but will receive compensation for any associated property conveyed to the 

National Park Service? 

Question 5b. Under the terms of the RUE, is CBI entitled to any compensation 

for any structures or improvements covered by the RUE? 

Question 6. Please provide a list of the specific properties owned by CBI that 

would be conveyed to the National Park Service as ‘‘associated property’’. 

Question 7. Please provide a copy of the retained use estate referenced in H.R. 

1143. 
43 

Question 8. If Caneel Bay operates under the lease authorized under H.R. 1143, 

will the resort grounds and beaches be limited to use by guests of the resort, or will 

they be available for use by park visitors in general? If the general public (other 

than resort guests) will not be allowed use of the Caneel Bay grounds and beaches, 

please explain how that restriction is in the public interest. 

Question 9. Does the National Park Service allow any concession operators of hotels or lodging establishments at any other park to preclude public access (other 

than guests of the lodge) to large areas of public parkland? 

QUESTIONS FOR KAREN TAYLOR-GOODRICH FROM SENATOR BURR

SEQUOIA-KINGS CANYON WILDERNESS DESIGNATION (S. 1774)

Question 10a. Approximately how many property owners have in-holdings within 

the boundaries of the land designated as wilderness by S. 1774? Are property owners currently allowed to use motorized vehicles to access their property and will this 

change as a result of designation? 

Question 10b. Has the existing general management plan for Sequoia-Kings Canyon treated the land as wilderness for management purposes or will this designation 

constitute a major change in land use? 

Question 10c. What types of activities will be allowed in the proposed area that 

deviates from standard policy within wilderness areas? 

CHISHOLM TRAIL AND GREAT WESTERN TRAIL STUDY (S. 2255)

Question 11a. What is the length of each trail and how many states are involved? 

Question 11b. Will each private property owner with land containing portions of 

the trail be notified of the study and given an opportunity to provide comments? 

Question 11c. Is this envisioned as a historic trail for designation on a map or will 

it be a trail that can be used for recreation in the form of hiking, bicycling, or horseback riding? 

ST. AUGUSTINE COMMEMORATION COMMISSION (S. 2359)

Question 12a. What is the typical role of the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service in a commemoration commission and does S. 2359 establish any 

new role? 

Question 12b. S. 2359 gives the commemoration commission the authority to 

award grants up to $10,000 for projects associated with the 450th anniversary of 

St. Augustine. Do other commissions have grant authority and is this any different? 

Question 12c. Does the National Park Service have any units in St. Augustine, 

FL, that are planning activities associated with the 450th anniversary? 

Question 12d. Does the bill give the Secretary of the Interior sufficient discretion 

to choose commission members that represent a diversity of the culture of Florida 

and St. Augustine? 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL DESIGNATION (S. 2943)

Question 13a. What role does the National Park Service currently have in managing, interpreting, and maintaining the Pacific Northwest Trail? 

Question 13b. Through which National Parks does the Pacific Northwest Trail traverse and is the trail an integral part of the history and culture of the area? 

ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR REAUTHORIZATION (S. 3010)

Question 14a. When was the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program established 

and how much funding has it received since inception? 

Question 14b. What is the goal of the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program 

and what is its highest priority project? 

BEAVER BASIN WILDERNESS DESIGNATION AT PICTURE ROCKS NATIONAL

LAKESHORE (S. 3017)

Question 15a. How many private land owners have in-holdings within the area 

designated as wilderness by S. 3017? 

Question 15b. S. 3017 allows for continued use of electric motors to power boats 

within the wilderness area. How unusual is it to allow motorized transportation 

within a wilderness area and is this a compatible use within Beaver Basin? 

Question 15c. Does S. 3017 affect any existing activities within Beaver Basin and 

how will the General Management Plan for Picture Rocks National Lakeshore be 

changed as a result of the designation? 
44 

KENAI MOUNTAINS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA (S. 3045)

Question 16a. Has there been any previous attempt to place a National Heritage 

Area under the jurisdiction of anyone other than the Secretary of the Interior? If 

so, how did that work and who does that national heritage area currently report 

to? 

Question 16b. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas that currently exist, how many 

of those contain National Forest Service land within their boundaries? Has the association with National Forest Service land created any unique challenges? 

Question 16c. Is it possible for a feasibility study of the proposed heritage area 

to be completed by a local entity and submitted to the Administration for approval 

thereby avoiding the need for legislation to authorize a study? 

Question 16d. What advice or comments would you give to the Department of Agriculture regarding oversight of National Heritage Areas? 

CAVE AND KARST RESEARCH INSTITUTE AMENDMENT (S. 3096)

Question 17a. Since inception, the Cave and Karst Research Institute has been 

required to match Federal funds 1 to 1 with a nonfederal source. What is the total 

dollar amount they have obtained from nonfederal sources during that time? 

Question 17b. Want is the estimated annual funding needs for the Cave and Karst 

Research Institute without the nonfederal matching requirement? 

CANEEL BAY RESORT LEASE AGREEMENT (H.R. 1143)

Question 18a. Does the National Park Service see any drawbacks to having the 

management and operation of Caneel Bay Resort converted to a long-term lease arrangement? 

Question 18b. The proposed legislation establishes a long-term lease with a forprofit firm on a sole source basis. Should we be looking at amending the bill to authorize a long-term lease through a competitive process rather than a sole source 

arrangement? Would that cause any problems for the National Park Service? 

Question 18c. How many buildings are part of the Caneel Bay Resort, when were 

they constructed, what is their condition, and what is the estimated cost to bring 

them up to standards for long-term use as a resort? 

Question 18d. Prior to supporting the legislation, what steps did the National 

Park Service take to determine the fair market value of the Caneel Bay Resort, approximate lease rate if the legislation is enacted and estimated income to the Federal government during a 40-year lease? If so, what were the findings? 

Question 18e. What are the benefits to the National Park Service of converting 

the current arrangement to a long-term lease? 

Question 18f. Has the Rockefeller estate taken a position on the proposed lease 

arrangement and have they conveyed their position in written form that can be sent 

to us? If so, please provide a copy of the opinion with your response to this question. 

Question 18g. From whom did CBI purchase the retained use estate in 2003 and 

how much did they pay for it? 

Question 18h. Was CBI aware of the retained use estate expiring in 2023 when 

they purchased the property and did they attempt to extend the expiration date as 

a condition of purchase? 

Question 18i. What is the estimated value of the retained use estate if purchased 

by the Federal government in 2008? 

Question 18j. Has the National Park Service proposed purchasing the remainder 

of the retained use estate followed by solicitations for a lease through a competitive 

process? If so, when did such discussion occur and what was the conclusion? If not, 

why not? 

Question 18k. What is the estimated income to the Federal government if the proposed legislation is enacted and a 40-year lease is signed? 

Æ