SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
51–797 CC
1998
FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1998, KALISPELL, MONTANA
Serial No. 105–115
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
TODD HULL, Professional Staff
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held September 21, 1998
Statements of Members:
Burns, Hon. Conrad, a Senator in Congress from the State of Montana, letter to Hon. Rick Hill
Statements of witnesses:
Armbruster, Rahn
Prepared statement of
Black, Roscoe
Brooke, Will, President, Glacier/Waterton Visitor Association
Prepared statement of
Darrow, George
Hall, Gary, Mayor of Columbia Falls, Montana
Prepared statement of
Helton, John E., Abbott Valley Homestead, Martin City, Montana
Prepared statement of
Hunt, Richard B., Vice-President, Friends of Glacier, Inc.
Prepared statement of
Jacoby, Carol H., Division Engineer, Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from Mr. Hill
Meznarich, Lowell, Glacier County Commissioner
Prepared statement of
Mihalic, David, Superintendent, Glacier National Park, National Park Service
Prepared statement of
Retz, Bob
Running Crane, Roger, Vice-Chairman, Blackfeet Nation
Prepared statement of
Unterreiner, Joe, President, Associated Chambers of the Flathead Valley
Prepared statement of
Wieringa, Onno
Additional material supplied:
Baggetta, Mike and Joe Galliani, Founding Partners, The Parks Company, prepared statement of
Bissell, Gilbert K., Owner/Manager, Aero Inn, Kalispell, Montana, prepared statement of
Brown, Dee, Canyon RV & Campground, Hungry Horse, Montana, prepared statement of
Kennedy, James E., Designer, Log Chalets for Two, West Glacier, Montana, prepared statement of
Streeter, Serena, Owner, Glacier Park Super 8 Motel, prepared statement of
Willows, Sharlon L., C.L.A., Certified Legal Assistant, Adminstrative Law, Hungry Horse, Montana, prepared statement of
FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1998
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources, Kalispell, Montana.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. at Cavanaugh's at Kalispell Center, Ballroom A, 20 North Main, Kalispell, Montana, Hon. Rick Hill, presiding.
Mr. HILL. [presiding] The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on rehabilitating the historic Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier Park.
I do have an opening statement that I want to add to the record. First, I want to thank all the witnesses for taking their valuable time to add to the important discussion, and I want to thank all of you who are here attending today's hearing. Your interest in helping the National Park Service and our Subcommittee deliberate on rebuilding this road is very important to all of us, and I've asked for this hearing due to my concern and the concern that has been expressed by many of my constituents over the possible impacts that the rebuilding effort may have on the Park, on nearby communities and on Montana's tourism industry.
Chairman Hanson was gracious enough to allow us to hold this hearing because of the road's significance, not only to the local communities and to Montana, because of its important to the whole of the National Park System, and he has told me personally that he believes that this hearing will be very valuable as the Subcommittee examines this effort and similar projects around the country.
He and other Members of the Subcommittee could not be here today. However, that doesn't mean they don't care about this issue. They will continue to pay close attention to the hearing record and the progress that we make in this matter today. I would point out to you that we had two Committee Members who were unable to attend the hearing simply because of accommodations for the airlines. They were unable to get air passage into Kalispell because of the strike and then the impacts associated with that.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is important for many reasons, this hearing. We all want to protect this historic road, and I think everybody here agrees that that is an important role for the Congress and for the Park Service. We also want to enhance access by visitors, and we want to also enhance visitor enjoyment of the Park. We also want to make sure that the local economy will not be unfairly impacted by and during the reconstruction effort, and for that reason, my goals in this hearing are really two-fold: One, I want to have a discussion of the mitigating—how we can mitigate the economic impacts to the local communities as much as possible by finding the right alternative to the reconstrudditional days following this hearing. We also are going to have an open mike period for some period following the hearing. That may be restricted by time to a half hour or an hour, and we will allow people to enter public comment. I would ask those that do to limit their comments to 2 minutes and to also confine their comments to the road as opposed to any of the other issues associated with the Management Plan.
You may also submit your thoughts to my offices here in Montana or in Washington, or you can submit them to the Honorable Jim Hanson, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, at H1–814 O'Neill House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515, and that will be available for you. You don't have to write that down. You can also see any member of my staff that is here if you have trouble getting any or all of that information or submitting that information. They will be here to help the public during and after this hearing.
With that, again, I want to thank everybody for their interest. I look forward to a productive discussion and hearing where we can work together to find some commonsense solutions, and with that I would like to call our first witnesses to the table.
Our first panel of witnesses is Dave Mihalic, superintendent of Glacier Park, and Carol Jacoby, an engineer with the Western Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration.
If you would both stand and raise your right hands, it is the general process, as you know, with the rules of the 105th Congress, that all witnesses appearing before Congressional hearings are sworn under oath, and we will ask all witnesses to do that.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. HILL. Thank you.
I would remind the witnesses that under the Committee rules they should be limiting their oral statements to 5 minutes. If they have a longer statement than that, it will appear in the record.
I now recognize Mr. Mihalic.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MIHALIC, SUPERINTENDENT, GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. MIHALIC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to introduce Ms. Mary Riddle, who is our General Management Plan coordinator, who is sitting next to me.
Mr. Chairman, we applaud your interest in seeking ways to maintain the values preserved by——
Mr. HILL. You need to turn your mike on.
Mr. MIHALIC. I'm sorry. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that my statement has been submitted to the Committee for the record, and I'll summarize it here.
Mr. Chairman, we applaud your interest in seeking ways to maintain the values preserved by our national parks, which are so important to all Americans, and also critical to local communities near the parks. A General Management Plan guides the administration of each unit of the National Park System.
Glacier's last master plan was completed in 1977. Our first public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 1995. Since then, we have had a number of opportunities to listen to the public, those both near and far, so that we can incorporate their comments into our planning. One of the most controversial issues is how to rehabilitate the world famous Going-to-the-Sun Road.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This national landmark has been rightly recognized as perhaps the most scenic road in North America. The deterioration of the Sun Road was recognized by the Service over a decade ago. With the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, funds were made available to the National Park Service for park road construction across the nation. Glacier and the needs of the Sun Road competed with other national park needs across the country.
The only work scheduled in the next few years is on some of the most critical repair needs on the retaining walls in the alpine section of the Sun Road and a slumping section of the Many Glacier Road. These sites are sections of the road where it is easier to maintain visitor traffic during construction even though delays still result. There is no apss than a half mile of road in the Logan Pass area. For those who remember, it was a nightmare, both for the contractor and the public. Some of the delays seemed interminable. We tried many things and learned a tremendous amount from that experience. For example, we tried night work. We tried lane closures, scheduling major work in the fall, all those steps that quickly come to mind. Mostly, we learned that working on this high, narrow, carved-from-a-cliff national landmark cannot be done without conflicts and impacts when the construction season and the visitor season are almost one and the same.
As a result, the Service and the Federal Highway Administration put our most experienced engineers and transportation planners to work on how best to continue the road work and minimize the impact to visitors. We're using the General Management Plan process to seek public input.
We quickly learned three things: First, doing the work conventionally with the funding we would normally expect from the Park Roads and Parkways Program would take decades to complete; second, being able to maintain traffic flow, which really means ensuring visitors to Glacier would be able to continue to traverse the Park, is a tremendous complicating factor; finally, the costs of the different alternatives vary radically, from approximately $70 million to $210 million.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We've been very concerned since the beginning about the potential for tremendous economic impact. We know that the road work might impact the whole state, especially as Montana prepares for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. We also know that there are different economic interests at stake, whether one is located east of the Divide or in the Flathead, in a retail or service industry or gateway community visiting Glacier.
We arranged for studies of the economic impacts on local businesses and the broader travel industry. Those studies indicated that the economic pain only gets worse the longer the work drags on. Since then, the University of Montana has conducted independent studies arriving at similar conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, I wish I could sit before you today and tell you that we have a plan or the money to carry it out to rebuild the road without disrupting anything, but I cannot. We do not have the fiscal resources that come anywhere near matching the road needs of our parks, and for every tax dollar spent in Glacier, there are $3 for other national parks that go unmet.
We have proposed what we believe is the best solution given the knowledge we have today. Believe me. If there's a better solution, I will be the first to embrace it. We also do not want to see the road closed from the public any more than necessary, nor do we want to see a catastrophic road failure.
I also pledge to you that we see this as an opportunity to work closely with the surrounding communities and the State of Montana. During the time we are developing detail design, we would be happy to work with the communities and the state to mitigate as much as possible the effects on local and State economies during the period that the road is under construction. In fact, I hope we can use the challenge we all face with the road construction to forge the most successful cooperation yet among the Park, the State and the affected communities to better serve our visitors.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in bringing these issues to the forefront. The Sun Road is perhaps the most spectacular roadway in the National Park System. Our agency's mission is to preserve these treasures for future generations and also use them for the present. I assure you that is our goal.
That concludes my formal remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. HILL. Thank you Mr. Mihalic.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihalic may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Ms. Jacoby.
STATEMENT OF CAROL H. JACOBY, DIVISION ENGINEER, WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMes to improve the condition of Going-to-the-Sun Road. The Federal Highway Administration has been assisting the Park Service in assessing the roadway and transportation needs and how to enact reconstruction. This assistance is being provided in accordance with the 1983 Interagency Agreement between the National Park Service and Federal Highway Administration.
The current assistance Federal Highway is providing began in 1984 with a study of the roads in Glacier National Park and, particularly, Going-to-the-Sun Road. Since then, we've been updating the findings of the 1984 study, and we've been continuing our efforts with the Park to look at these roads.
Improvements have been initiated on the Park road. The work within Glacier National Park is challenging due to the difficult terrain, the importance of preserving Park values and the impact of how and when reconstruction projects occur and the need to accommodate the traveling public. In summary, the Federal Highway Administration is committed to assisting the Park Service to develop and refine alternatives in the General Management Plan to expedite rehabilitating Going-to-the-Sun Road and, simultaneously, minimize impacts on the traveling public visiting the Park and the adjacent edge communities.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments, and we're available to answer detailed questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacoby may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Thank you very much.
Thank you both for your testimony. Let me ask a few questions.
Let me start with one—It's a bit indirectly related to the whole reconstruction effort, but one of the issues I've heard from a number of constituents about is the issue of the width of the road. There's some areas where we're doing reconstruction right now where we're actually narrowing the road from what it is now. I think it's what is referred to as Moose Country. Can you address that matter, why we're narrowing the road, Mr. Mihalic, and what the responsibilities of the Park are in that area?
Mr. MIHALIC. Well, I think that we're trying to make the road retain its historic character. The roadway width is 22 feet. It's that width substantially all the way up through the Lake McDonald section and also on the east side. There is a section in Moose Country, probably less than half a mile, that was flooded in the 1964 flood and repaired at that time, and at that time it was made 26 feet wide. In order to make that section back along the—to the width of the rest of the roadway, we're reducing it from 26 feet to 22 feet. Most of the road that the public drives, the vast majority of the road that the public drives, is 22 feet or less.
I think that—I'm not sure what the concern is in this one particular section of coming down from 26 to 22 feet, unless there's some engineering concern that I'm not aware of.
Mr. HILL. I think the concern is, I think, two-fold. One is the issue of safety. Are we adequately considering the concerns of safety when we narrow the road or if we confine it to its historic width? In your testimony I think you pointed out that we built this road with horse drawn equipment, and it was built for a different age. Are we adequately considering the impact on the safety of the traveling public?
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. I would believe we are, and, certainly, Ms. Jacoby could answer from an engineering prospective, from a safety engineering perspective.
The biggest concern we have with respect to safety on the road is really bicyclists on the road. Probably most people who have driven that road know that the area that's of most concern is really on the high alpine section. We've had hardly any bicycle accidents on those portions of the road that are 22 feet wide, and this one particular section is fairly straight. If anything, a wider road would encourage greater speeds.
I think we're just going on the basis of our experience.
Mr. HILL. One of the concerns there, it seems, Dave, is tning that part of the road an additional two to two and a half feet. I don't know if there's—if it's a strict standard through every one, but we are adding additional pavement and roadway width in those areas where it's a concern.
Mr. HILL. In the corners?
Mr. MIHALIC. So I think it's not so much that we're sticking to a standard and we're not considering anything else. I think we're trying to work with our engineers to try to find out how to maintain the road as a historic road, which the public has told us they want to see, and yet be able to take care of these safety concerns.
Mr. HILL. But it is your interpretation that your responsibility to maintain it as an historic road does obligate you to maintain the roadway width at 22 feet? I mean, that's the Park's conclusion?
Mr. MIHALIC. I think what we've found is that 22 feet keeps the road a gentle, curving, pleasurable, low-speed visitor experience and that any concern about safety with bicyclists, collisions or anything else is just really not there. Obviously, we want to—The road was probably even narrower. It was a gravel road when it was constructed for historic purposes.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We're not making a decision and saying, History is dictating this. I think what we're saying is that, This is the best roadway width in order to maintain lower speeds, maintain a safe roadway for bicyclists and the public, and so far, at least, in the 10 years of experience we have with that width on both sides of the Park, we haven't seen any increase in terms of problems with respect to accidents or accidents with bicyclists.
Mr. HILL. I have some photographs that a constituent has offered suggesting that you're not paving in the corners sufficiently. I'm not going to dwell on that, but what I would do is offer these photographs to you and ask you if you would respond just for the record with regard to the specifics that are here.
Mr. MIHALIC. Certainly.
Mr. HILL. And we can leave that behind.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. One of the other issues, though, that has been raised is the suggestion that the reason that the road in that area was wider was to accommodate people to stop and view moose and other wildlife and that, as part of the Management Plan with respect to the road, the Management Plan actually calls for more pullout areas and more areas for people who are touring the Park to be able to stop and observe wildlife or observe the scenery, and the concern that's been expressed to me is that, what is occurring in the area that we're doing reconstruction on right now is somewhat inconsistent with what we're suggesting is going to happen in the rest of the road reconstruction. Could you address that? I just want to get this behind us.
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite sure exactly of the details. In the Moose Country area, we had a huge, giant pullout that people parked in every which way they could, with continuing to have a pullout there that we're going to try to maintain with a little bit more direction, and it's being redesigned. It, I believe, is made a little bit smaller, but I think we're going to have a new base and extended pavement in that area.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that without trying to prejudge our General Management Plan and without trying to say that, This is the direction we're going to go, what we are doing in that Moose Country area will be very compatible with the direction of the Management Plan, the alternative that you just referred to.
Mr. HILL. How do you respond to those that say that the road was actually built wider to accommodate that and, by narrowing the road now, we're reducing the accommodation for people to stop and observe?
Mr. MIHALIC. I just don't agree with that. The roadway wasn't built to have cars parked along the edge of the road. The roadway in that area that's being reduced from 26 to 22 feet was much wider than any other part of the 52 miles of road, and our engineers—From an engineering standpoint, maybe Ms. Jacoby could add, but our planners and engineers determined we didn't need to have it that wide in that area. We're going to maintain visitor access. We're going to maintain parking. I think it's consistent with the proposals in the Management Plan.
Mr. HILL. The Management Plan does, as I characterized it, call for actually more pullouts to accommodate that in more areas, doesn't it?
Mr. MIHALIC. Yes, it does.
Mr. HILL. And so I just want to make sure that those who might be concluding from what's occurring in that section that they shouldn't be drawing a conclusion that that means that we're not going to have more pullouts or accommodate——
Mr. MIHALIC. In fact, in this particular section, the area that was there before will be the same size, but it will have some post and railing around it to better define the pullout itself, and we're putting in one extra pullout that was scheduled to be removed based on some of the comments that we had during our General Management Plan. I think we're trying to be very responsive to people who have opinions on highway engineering, but we've engaged the Federal Highway Association for actual engineering opinions.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. And, Ms. Jacoby, do you want to comment about that, about the width of the road and the safety issues there and turns and that?
Ms. JACOBY. Just a general statement is that, one of the frequent issues that we deal with on park roads is the issue of informal parking, and that does provide safety and operational problems. So we try to work with the Park Service to actually define where the parking will be and to accommodate the parking needs, but to do it in a defined area and to control the access to and from those parking areas, because that's a frequent point of safety interaction problems.
Mr. HILL. What about the width of the road? When you're designing roads today, what's the standard width that you design roads for today?
Ms. JACOBY. There's no one answer to that. It depends on the amount of traffic you have on the road, the terrain you're dealing with, and I would say that where we are for the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier is, we're trying to mesh what the current vehicle uses are with the historic character of the road and what we could feasibly enact. We don't have the opportunity to do a lot of road widening in here because of the nature of the road.
Mr. HILL. I understand. Particularly in the alpine region.
Ms. JACOBY. Right.
Mr. HILL. There's no doubt about that.
Going back to the issue of safety, I want to specifically address the issue of the safety. Is there some equation that the Highway Administration has with regard to road widths and gradients and with regard to speed and those matters? I mean, are there some formulas that are available for that?
Ms. JACOBY. The highway industry as a whole has some identified standards. The National Park Service has looked—And that industry, as a whole that I'm referring to, is the Association of the State Highway Transportation Officials. They've got standards defined, and we use those as guidance materials. The National Park Service in 1984 looked at those materials and published their own road standards that matched those pretty much line for line, but it brings in some of the Park road esthetics and that. So we used those two documents to come up with what we think we need to do.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also—We do have defined processes to identify how much curve widening we should be using in those curves.
Mr. HILL. Is that information available in some sort of a condensed manner that we could make available to the public so that we can—so that folks who have written to me and others who have raised this issue would have that available to them?
Ms. JACOBY. We could provide references for the record and probably provide a narrative of how we go through that process and submit that to the record.
Mr. HILL. The key point here is, obviously, you can mitigate for narrowness by speed and other issues; right, and how you deal with corners, and if there's some—Either you could provide in separate written report to the Committee or if there's some other material that's generally available, I'd appreciate it if you'd have that. We could make it available to those people that raised that concern.
Ms. JACOBY. We will do that.
Mr. HILL. I'd appreciate that.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Mr. Mihalic, your obligation here—You're not in the highway business, are you? The Park Service isn't in the business of designing highways and engineering highways? It's your responsibility to look to the Federal Highway Administration to consult with this?
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. The National Park Service and—I think in terms of good government and efficiency, there's no reason to duplicate those services in each agency, so we look to the Federal Highway Administration for the expertise.
Mr. HILL. And they do the design work for the design of the highway and the specifications and actually administer—Do they actually administer those contracts?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. They do, but, obviously, they work with our designers and our transportation planners. Most of our people that work with them are landscape architects as opposed to highway engineers. One of the reasons for that is because the Park road experience for visitors is usually a means to some further recreational or visitor experience. It's not normally merely a means for a car to get from Point A to Point B, and it becomes the trip——
Mr. HILL. In other words, a straight and level highway is not necessarily the objective here?
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct. So that's why one of the biggest things that the National Park Service, I think, has learned in all the national parks and working with all the roads—and as a ranger, I worked a lot of accidents—is that the biggest thing that you can do to prevent accidents is to keep the speed down, and when—Many of the visitors in national parks do not want to go fast. They want to go slow. It helps if you provide the vehicle, in a sense, in terms of the roadway, by having curves, by having not the standard highway road widths, by having what we call park road standards.
And those are the standards Ms. Jacoby refers to, and most of those road standards do focus on narrow width, curve linear alignment and trying to keep down speed as one of the principal issues of trying to maintain a safe highway environment for folks in a national park.
Mr. HILL. What I was leading up to is, some have suggested that, because of the unique nature of this road and the complexities associated with its reconstruction, it might be valuable to go outside the Federal Highway Administration to seek advice and input in how the road might be designed or how the work ought to be staged.
I mean, in this instance we're not redesigning the road in the sense we're not going to relocate the road. We're talking about reconstructing it, and I'd make the case that this isn't anywhere near the typical highway. This really is retaining wall reconstruction more than it is roadbed reconstruction; right?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct. There is a lot of roadbed reconstruction in it because of the way the road was constructed with those horse drawn scrapers and steam shovels way back when.
Mr. HILL. So you do envision removing significant portions of the roadbed itself or relaying the roadbed?
Mr. MIHALIC. I think we have found, in a number of areas, that part of the problems that we see on the surface or with the retaining walls is with respect to the base, the roadbed itself in some areas. I think we're finding that—We had people just last week who found one new, horrendous example, and it is some, what, 15 or 20 feet below the surface of the road.
Mr. HILL. Some kind of void or something?
Ms. JACOBY. Yeah.
Mr. HILL. Ms. Jacoby, how about that? Does the Federal Western Highway Administration have experience with something that you could characterize as similar to this road and this kind of an environment with this kind of challenge?
Ms. JACOBY. Definitely. We just completed a project or we're in the process of completing a project this week in Mt. Rainier National Park in the state of Washington where the road construction techniques are very similar to what we're talking about for Going-for-the-Sun Road.
Mr. HILL. How large of a section of road was that?
Ms. JACOBY. That was only eight-tenths of a mile, but it's only one piece of another alpine section of road.
Mr. HILL. How long did it take it to be constructed?
Ms. JACOBY. For eight-tenths of a mile, we've done it in one season. We've not completed the masonry work, and we've not placed the final pavement surface, but we've gone in and stabilized the walls, put in parapet walls without the final masonry finish and trued up the roadway for its use until we——
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. And was that road closed during that reconstruction?
Ms. JACOBY. It was closed Monday through Thursday at five o'clock, and then the public had access to it Thursday evening, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. That was the traffic management plan we worked out with the Park Service there and the local businesses, but if I could elaborate on some other point.
What has happened to date is that, our efforts with the Park Service—we've actually gone out and talked to Canadian highway officials and other State officials in the continental U.S. and Alaska that deal with cold weather construction techniques, so while it's the Federal Highway Administration that's been providing the engineering input to the Park Service at this point, we have gone through and done literature searches and talked with our partners in the industry to see if there's something new that we could be incorporating in this road.
Mr. HILL. When you made reference in your testimony to the experience, I think, in 1995 with the reconstruction effort, what were the problems that developed in that project in your mind?
Ms. JACOBY. I'm personally going to have to either defer to a staff member from my office, because I did not work in that office in 1995—I just know it didn't work or if—or if Dave wants to talk——
Mr. HILL. Sure.
Mr. MIHALIC. I'll be happy to kind of give you a general overview. The biggest problems that I think occurred were the fact that we tried night work, and part of the problem with night work is that, to maintain traffic every day as opposed to several days a week and then work on it several days a week, as Ms. Jacoby just related with respect to Mt. Rainier, is a fact that a portion of the time is getting back to the point you were the night before. So you spend a couple of hours or at least some time getting to the point where you can make progress, further progress, and then before the road opens the next morning, you have to put the road back so that the public can then, therefore, use it. That's one of the issues, together with the fact that it's cold. It's rainy. It could be dark. You're having to use lights to—you know, artificial lighting and so on in terms of a safety issue, but just the fact that you're expending some of your time just getting to a point where you can make progress.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The biggest thing during the day, I think, from the public's point of view, was that we allowed the contractor, I believe, 25-minute closures, and during that time, the traffic backed up so far that it would take 2 or 3 hours to get the traffic—because we could only move one lane at a time, to get all the traffic moving to a point where they could have another 25-minute closure. The folks behind us might know differently, but I've been told that on some days things were so bad that they'd have one period of closure in the morning, and traffic would be disrupted for the rest of the day, and they would, literally, have to just do things that they could do around the fact that traffic was moving until they could get a second closure either late in the day and, on some days, maybe not even get a second closure.
That was part of the problem that ran that job, which originally was scheduled to be 1 year and finishing up the second year, to end up being a 2-year job, and it finished up the third year.
Mr. HILL. How large of a section of road was that?
Mr. MIHALIC. It was less than a half a mile. It was right at Oberland Bend, from Logan Pass around the corner, and it was all in just one short section.
Mr. HILL. I guess what I'm leading up to—I'm not sure there's an answer to this, but what have we learned from that? It didn't work out like you thought it was going to.
Mr. MIHALIC. The biggest thing that we learned at that time was that—And I'm told it was seven-tenths of a mile. It looked like a half a mile to me.
Mr. HILL. It was on a curve.
Mr. MIHALIC. The biggest thing I think we learned is that we had in our program—And I can't remember which year it was to begin. We had some three miles along the Rimrock section, which, for the public that knows the road, is the high alpine section just immediately preceding Logan Pass on the west side—But we had a three-mile section of road that, working with Federal Highway engineers, our folks had thought we could do in 2 years, and they came back after that, and they said, Well, we think now if we cut it in half we could do it in 7 years.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That was about the time that we started asking, Well, just how long will it take us to do it, given the fact that the way we do road construction is not in a comprehensive manner, but it's strictly driven by the dollars that we get out of the total pot of park roadway money that's allocated to Glacier? We take the money we get. We find a project to fit it.
Mr. HILL. In fact, I've made note to make that point, and my understanding is that, right now, the funding that you get comes from an allocation that's made to the Park Service, and it's allocated to this Park and Yellowstone and all the other parks, and you, I would presume, have some sort of a queuing system that you go into for those dollars, and that's how it's handled; right?
Mr. MIHALIC. It's all on a competition basis where we compete with roads within our region, which includes Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain National Park, and then we further compete with roadway needs across the nation.
Mr. HILL. But what we're proposing here is to actually have Congress appropriate funds independent of that park allocation or to direct the Park Service to use its allocation to this purpose. That's part of what the Management Plan now contemplates, as opposed to how it's now handled, at least the preferred alternative.
Mr. MIHALIC. The Management Plan would not suggest your first alternative, certainly. That would be way beyond their bounds, but what the Management Plan is suggesting is that, by continuing to go about it the way we have been, driven by the dollar allocation that we get—and it's a very small allocation——
Mr. HILL. Which is, what, $3 million a year?
Mr. MIHALIC. It's a couple of million dollars a year. It's, like, $3 to $4 million every other year, so it ends up being about a couple million dollars a year. That to continue to try to do the comprehensive project in that manner literally will take decades. I say ''Decades'' because I've been told 30 years, 40 years or 50 years.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. In the recent highway bill, do you recall how much was allocated to parks, to all the parks?
Mr. MIHALIC. It was about $182 million, I believe, in appropriation, but there's $20 million that's set aside for another project. I believe the Park Service ends up with about $161——
Mr. HILL. For this year?
Mr. MIHALIC. No. Each year. That's correct.
Mr. HILL. Each year. So in other words, there's $150 or $160 million dollars per year for the next 5 years from now——
Mr. MIHALIC. About $165 million a year.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] for all the parks and all the roads and——
Mr. MIHALIC. We're competing with 370 national park areas.
Mr. HILL. The Management Plan contemplates that this project will be handled, at least to some extent, independent of that?
Mr. MIHALIC. What it suggests is that, to be fiscally responsible, we ought to do it in some sort of broader, comprehensive manner, rather than look at road construction up on that road, which is of tremendous impact on public use, every year for the next 30, 40 or 50 years.
Mr. HILL. Ms. Jacoby, has the Federal Highway Administration solicited any input from outside parties, engineering groups, construction, design/build organizations, et cetera, to look at this project in terms of how you're looking at—how we might handle the scheduling issue and the staging problems that we experienced in 1995?
Ms. JACOBY. At this point, other than talking with other industry officials that I referenced earlier, no, we have not. The efforts we have done to date have been really conceptual in format to identify techniques that could be used, and some of that information we had internally. Some of that information we learned through talking with other State and Canadian highway officials.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are not in design at this point. We've been doing the conceptual planning with the Park Service, and we've been doing data gathering as far as surveying or field data collection, but we've been waiting——
Mr. HILL. But you haven't gone outside the Highway Administration?
Ms. JACOBY. No.
Mr. HILL. Do you think it's a good idea that you did?
Ms. JACOBY. At this point I don't know what we would have asked. We're not into design. We've got no funding for design. We're waiting for the Park Service to select a preferred alternative as a result of this Management Plan and to collectively have the Park Service and Federal Highway Administration go into the final design of this project.
Mr. HILL. But, you know, there's a bit of a chicken and egg thing here. If you're going to wait for the conclusion of the Management Plan before you contemplate the issues of staging and scheduling—I mean, the choices that are made in this Management Plan assume that those decisions have been made. I mean, they're built into the decision, if you're going to do it 5 years or you're going to do it 15 years.
So the question that I'm asking is, do you think that there would be some value in seeking some outside input at this point in looking at this issue and this set of issues at this stage of the game? We're going to be making some decisions that are going to be, theoretically, irreversible here if the Management Plan is adopted and Congress supports it.
Ms. JACOBY. What's in the Management Plan right now is based on the concepts we know that are available in the industry, and the timeframes and the dollars that are outlined in there provide some flexibility on how they would be implemented.
Mr. HILL. When you say, Concepts in the industry——
Ms. JACOBY. As far as whether you would go in and have precast roadside barriers versus building that barrier onsite, whether you can—when you have to do concrete work in the cold weather, what you can do to still get good concrete but knowing that you're trying to extend your construction season on the alpine section. We've talked to the industry on what they've done, if they did pave in less than desirable weather conditions.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. When you're talking about talking to the industry, then you have consulted with engineering firms and construction companies outside the Highway Administration, or has that consultation been within the——
Ms. JACOBY. The consultation has been with the State Departments of Transportation as far as what they're implementing and with the Canadian Department of Transportation or whatever their structure is in Canada.
Mr. HILL. Let me ask, again, the question. Do you think there would be some value in seeking some input from outside organizations, engineering firms, construction companies that have dealt with some of these issues in other ways? Do you think there's some value in that?
Ms. JACOBY. I think the value comes when we actually start putting the pieces together and get more detailed about talking staging and manpower.
Mr. HILL. So the answer is, Yes, or, No?
Ms. JACOBY. The answer is, Yes, there's value in doing it. It's being smart about when you do it.
Mr. HILL. There's some who think that we could actually bring some creative ideas to the table now if we went outside the environment that we're in now and, I mean, given the fact that those are—we're going to be making some of those decisions before we actually get the design in terms of how the Management Plan is adopted——
Ms. JACOBY. Right.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] that this would be a good time perhaps to do that. Do you need direction from Congress to do that, or would it be helpful if Congress gave that direction?
Ms. JACOBY. I don't need that direction, sir. I guess what I'm looking at is that, I see the alternatives to the Management Plan where we lay out a scheme on how we're going to manage traffic, and they really don't deal with the engineering solutions to the issues. The alternatives in there——
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. I mean, part of the engineering issue here is how the work is staged and scheduled and laid out, whether you close the road or don't, how you accommodate use of the Park. That's part of this decision, and it will be part of the design; right? I mean, it will be part of—I mean, how you—what sequence you allow—let contracts, if you do it in multiple contracts, how you stage restoring supplies, where you get gravel, where a hot plant—I mean, all those are issues that will be changed, depending upon how you went about staging this work; right? They would all change, depending on how you went about staging this work; right?
Ms. JACOBY. They would all change, depending on how we've staged the work, and we've provided that information to the Park Service in the preparation of the Management Plan. All those items will also change, depending on how the work is actually funded and whether we get the funding when we need it.
Mr. HILL. Going on on this—Dave, one of the questions that has been raised—and I'd ask you to respond to—is that, it appears as though in the Management Plan that there—Obviously, there's a big effort here in terms of allocation of dollars to the reconstruction of the road, and it seems to ignore the need for road maintenance. I mean, if you take 10 years to rebuild this road or 15 years or 6 years, there's going to have to also be some ongoing maintenance of the sections of the road that have already been done; right?
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct.
Mr. HILL. Where does that come into this equation? Is that going to be some supplemental funding? Do you think you'll get an allocation from the Park Service in addition to this project? Will you use FEMA? You have funds now that you're getting from increased fees. Are you anticipating allocating some of those to that effort?
Mr. MIHALIC. Obviously, it would be wonderful, as happened with the Beartooth, if we got road construction funding that we also got maintenance funding along with it. Maintenance of park roads comes out of our operation of the National Park Service allocation, and that allocation is part of the normal budget process with the Department of Interior and the Office of Management and Budget and——
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. I mean, you're hopeful, is where we are. There's one other thing I want to go on, and then, just so the people understand, you're going to come back later, after we hear from the members of the public, and we can carry on this conversation some more, because—Hopefully, we'll have some valuable input.
One of the questions that I have goes to the economic impacts. Dave, you and I have talked some about that. I don't know than we necessarily agree about that, but let me just ask you a couple of questions.
One, nowhere in the economic analysis that I have seen is there any analysis of the economic impacts to the Park itself, revenues to the Park, revenues—how that would impact the budget of the Park——
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] and, basically, no analysis of how that would impact the concessions within the Park or the concessionaires within the Park.
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct.
Mr. HILL. Is that by design?
Mr. MIHALIC. I don't believe so, sir. I think, you know, the Management Plan is to provide general guidance. It's to provide a direction. It seemed to me that this issue was such a huge issue that, if we were to just assume that we can reconstruct this road over the next several decades the way we have been doing it and not consider it in a General Management Plan that we would be doing two things. First, we wouldn't be being very honest with the public about what to expect in their national Park over the next 20 years, but, second, that we wouldn't be giving them an opportunity to say if they wanted to do it—have it be done any other way. So we included the Sun Road issue in the Management Plan.
As part of that general management planning process, we looked at what to do with the Sun Road, and we've come a tremendous distance with respect to how the Sun Road should be managed, and what we're proposing is that the Sun Road not be turned into a tramway, not be turned into a monorail, not be turned into a railway, not be turned into a bike path or a hiking trail, but continue its historic use by the private automobile and general use by the American public as an example of one of the most spectacular roadways in the world.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The real issue is how to get there, and we recognized that there was going to be an economic impact, regardless of the different ways of how to get there, and so we took the funding that we had available for that, and we asked the contractor to tell us the economic impact to the state of Montana in the best way they could in the time that they had to do that.
The Park is not there for the benefit of the concessionaire. The concessionaire works as a contractor for the National Park Service to provide visitor services for us. The National Park does not exist for the economic benefit of the contractor. The fact that there are economic benefits around the Park are wonderful because they—That's stuff that we don't have to provide, and we couldn't really best serve our public without them, and so we do want to minimize any economic impact.
What we tried to do is that—We tried to address everything in a comprehensive manner, and the contractor—The economic impact contractor was asked to include the concessionaires, not in specifics, but in the broader sense, with the economic figures for the state of Montana. The local businesses were the same. We didn't ask for it to be strictly local because we know that if somebody turns right in Miles City and heads up toward Glacier National Park it's going to have an economic impact to communities along the High Line.
So we didn't want to try to limit it in any way, and with what we have—We've got a general overlook, and the specifics may be—As you have said, some of the underpinnings may not be as strong as they could be. If we had an approved project and had approved direction to look at this road construction in some greater comprehensive manner, then we could have—the funding, I would assume, would come with that to do such economic studies to make sure we got the right solution in the end.
Mr. HILL. The concern—I guess what I'm leading up to is that, in your opinion is it the responsibility of the Park Service to mitigate the economic impacts on the Park itself?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. That's not what Congress has told us our responsibility is, no, sir.
Mr. HILL. OK. What is your responsibility, then? What in your judgment is your responsibility in terms of the Park itself, the Park, the budget——
Mr. MIHALIC. With respect to the economic——
Mr. HILL. Yeah.
Mr. MIHALIC. I think that what we have here is almost a classic tale of Aesop's fable in which we have a goose that's laying golden eggs, and if we want to have those eggs continue to provide economic benefit from the Park, then we need to make sure that that goose is a healthy goose.
Mr. HILL. I understand that.
Mr. MIHALIC. This national park has resources and—that are spectacular in terms of the scenery, has animals that people can see from the road. Just yesterday morning I was able to see a bear on the east side of the Park. That's what the public wants to see, so our responsibility is to ensure that that national park is a healthy national park with basic infrastructure to serve Park visitors. Some of those other visitor needs, rightfully, should be assumed by the private economy outside the Park. They're not an inherited government function, and I would think they wouldn't be our responsibility.
Mr. HILL. That's what I wanted to spend some time talking about, because in the contemplation of this, maybe that's something Congress should look at. What I think I hear you saying is that, as part of the development of the Management Plan—and we're confining, at this point, to the discussion of the road—is that it is your view that the Park Service doesn't have an obligation to conduct this reconstruction in a fashion that would mitigate—I'm talking responsibility now. To mitigate the economic impacts even to the Park itself. Is that what you're saying?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. No, sir. I'm saying that—I'm saying that our responsibility is set up in more than just one particular area, and on page 49 of our Management Plan overview, we've said that, The National Park Service prefers an alternative that preserves the historic character of the road, completes the repairs before the road fails, minimizes the impact on natural resources, visitors and the local economy and minimizes the costs.
So we think that the impact on the local economy is certainly part of our responsibility, but it's not the first part, nor is it the only part, and I think that what we want to ensure is that we can choose the alternative that best minimizes the impact.
To date two studies have shown that the longer the work drags on the more the economic pain. If there's a better solution that will do a better job that accomplishes all of those other goals and even further minimizes the local economic impact, I'm all for that, but I'm not sure that it's the National Park Service's responsibility to produce a solution that first goes to the greatest effort to minimizing that local economic impact.
Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, I agree with you about that, but what I'm just trying to get the point to here is that, either it is part of your responsibility or not. I'm not trying to suggest that——
Mr. MIHALIC. I think it is part of our responsibility.
Mr. HILL. You agree this is part of your responsibility——
Mr. MIHALIC. Yes.
Mr. HILL. [continuing] both to the Park and to the communities, the gateway communities, the people that are directly impacted, and you've made the case that people as far as away as Glasgow could be impacted if it diminishes people who would travel across Highway 2 to the Park, and that's accurate. But I think you would agree that the closer you get to the Park the greater the impact is going to be if, in fact, we reduce visitorship to the Park. Do you agree with that?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct. I would agree with that.
Mr. HILL. That's one of the quarrels I have with the economic study is that the economic study didn't do anything to try to identify the different levels of impact that would occur based upon proximity to the Park, and I want to be careful here that—We're talking about the economic impacts only because that's where I have the largest quarrel with what has taken place at this point, not necessarily because I think it's the most important thing, and I certainly don't think it's the most important thing. I would agree with your assessment, but it is an important thing.
I would just draw the parallel. If we were talking about the impact on endangered species and we were talking about the proximity of a denning area to the road and we were just going say, Generally, this isn't going to impact grizzly bears, even though we're going to put a gravel pit at a denning area, people would say, Well, no. You've got to be more specific about that. Or if we were going to, you know, locate a hot plant in a location where there was an endangered plant species that could endanger that species particularly, people would say, Well, no. We've got to find a way to locate it in another area because we've got to mitigate that impact and, perhaps in that instance, totally mitigate that impact.
I would simply make the argument that in the area of the economy we have some responsibility to do what we can to mitigate that impact, and the more specific you get, the better job you can do. The more general you get, the less likely you're going to have a good outcome. That's one of my quarrels with the economic analysis that's been done so far.
The second is that the economic analysis and the analysis that has been done of the economic analysis are based upon some assumptions that I think are not reliable, and that is that this is substantially based upon a fairly casual survey that was taken of people traveling through the Park, a relatively small sample and, I think, an inappropriate sample and that even the conclusions that were drawn from that sample are inaccurate conclusions, and then they're replicated in the analysis. If those assumptions are wrong—and I think there's reason to believe that they are—then the whole analysis has relatively little value.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That's a concern that I have, Dave. We don't need to beat about that.
Mr. MIHALIC. No, sir. I think it's a very valid concern, and I think it's a very real concern. I don't know whether—With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the concern is, in fact, correct. In all of the economic or other socioscience studies that I'm familiar with in the National Park Service, the samples that can determine a confidence level do not have to be all encompassing in order to give you a fairly good confidence level.
I think that the study here gives us a good, broad, general direction to go. Does it give us specifics? No, it doesn't, and in that regard you may, in fact, be correct. However, I would think that it's probably more right than it is wrong. In the study itself, it recognized that, while the estimates are for the whole state, the impacts would be disproportionately felt on communities nearer the Park. It just doesn't say how disproportionately it would be felt.
Mr. HILL. Let me just ask you, Dave. If that report said that this road building would have a disproportionate affect on grizzly bears than it would on bald eagles, do you think the community will say, OK. That's all right?
Mr. MIHALIC. No, sir.
Mr. HILL. You would have to define that?
Mr. MIHALIC. Of course you would. I think the biggest thing that we've taken away from this economic impact analysis is this one point, and that is, the longer the work drags on, the greater the economic pain, and so it reinforced our concern that we should seek a better solution than merely dragging out the work over decades.
Our concern also, although it's not expressed in the plan or in the economic analysis, was the fact that the Park road construction every year probably has a detrimental impact to the local economy, and if visitors say, Gosh, it's a great experience, but be ready for road delays, every year, every year, every year, that, too, has an economic impact.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So that's why we really tried to seek a more comprehensive solution. We came up with two ways working with our highway experts, and the general, overall economic analysis for those ways was that quicker was better, and if there's a better way, I will be happy to embrace it.
Mr. HILL. I want to make clear. I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this.
Mr. MIHALIC. I know.
Mr. HILL. What I am saying, though—then we'll move on here—is that you can't mitigate impacts you haven't identified.
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct. I agree with you. You sure can't.
Mr. HILL. My view of the study to date is that it doesn't identify—sufficiently identify those impacts, and so it's almost impossible for you to develop a plan to mitigate it.
Mr. MIHALIC. It doesn't except for the fact that we felt that it went far enough to look at the broad, general direction in terms of a comprehensive plan. You're very correct that it does not go anywhere near to mitigating the impacts if we were to choose one without any further study.
Mr. HILL. Let me just get one last question, and then we're going to let you rest. That is, are you willing to work with the interests that are involved in these local communities to minimize these economic impacts?
Mr. MIHALIC. Absolutely.
Mr. HILL. OK. We'll talk later about how we can get that done, but there's no doubt that you feel a responsibility to do that, and there's a commitment on your part to do that?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. There's no doubt, Mr. Chairman. I think that it would have been very easy during my tenure as superintendent of Glacier to pass this one by and to let it explode some time down the road. I truly believe that we are much better off to face these things head-on and work together and develop some sort of comprehensive solution before we need to, and that, honest to goodness, is my greatest concern.
Within the first year I was here, a part of that road fell off that mountain, and we even brought—We even brought part of the headlines, and it had a profound impact on me, and that led me to ask Ms. Jacoby's predecessor, Just what plans have we got if that were to occur? Do we even know where it would occur? We didn't know where it would occur. We had no knowledge of the total condition of the road. Everything was in broad, general parameters.
It seemed to me that, as tough of a pill as this is to even contemplate swallowing, we are far better off trying to work together to come to the best solution for all concerned rather than to just say, Well, we'll turn a blind eye to it, and if it happens, we'll deal with it then. I was just trying to be comprehensive.
I still think that we can work together and get to the end, and it will be better for the local economy, not worse.
Mr. HILL. Let me just say this. I compliment you on that. It's hard to face down the tough issues sometimes, particularly when there's no easy solution, and I agree with you. You and I have had private conversations. I am absolutely committed to do what I can do to help us find a solution and then to fight for what that solution is.
Mr. MIHALIC. I know you are. I'll be there with you.
Mr. HILL. All right. It's going to take a lot of work on a lot of people's parts to do that. The purpose here is to not deter us from finding a solution. The purpose of this meeting to try to get—first of all, to get the community informed about issues and then, also, to get input from the community about, How do we accomplish the best result here? I mean, how do we get to the place that we all know that—We have to rebuild the road, and sooner is better than later. There's no doubt about it. I agree with you about that.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fact that you're starting this far ahead and—is important, because it allows us to realistically deal with all those issues. I compliment you on that. I appreciate the work that you're doing in that regard.
With that we'll take a brief recess, and we'll come back for some more discussion about that, but I'll ask the other panel to come up. We'll take about a 5-minute recess.
Thank you, Mr. Superintendent.
Thank you, Ms. Jacoby.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. HILL. If we can take our seats and if our second panel would come forward.
Our second panel consists of the Honorable Gary Hall, mayor of Columbia Falls; the Honorable Lowell Meznarich, Glacier County commissioner; Joseph Unterreiner, executive vice-president of the Kalispell Area Chamber of Commerce; Roger Running Crane, vice-chairman of the Blackfeet Tribe; and Will Brooke, owner of the St. Mary KOA Campground.
Before I swear this panel in, I do want to read into the record letters that we have received from Senator Burns and Governor Racicot, and I'll read these into the record so that the people who are in attendance here will have the benefit of this.
From Senator Burns, ''I want to congratulate you for your attention to Glacier National Park and Going-to-the-Sun Road. It seems there are few easy answers to the infrastructure needs of Glacier. Whatever course we take with the Going-to-the-Sun Road, whether it be shorter term action, longer term action or even inaction, it will have great implication for the Park and for the families and the communities that depend upon the Park for their survival. That is why it is extremely vital that we have all the information and opportunities for public input that we can afford.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Glacier National Park is truly one of our national treasures. We must do everything in our power, in accordance with our stewardship of the Park system, to preserve it and also to help provide for the demands of continued visitation. In light of this, today's hearing is an important one, and the Committee is to be applauded for your efforts.
''Senator Burns.''
[The prepared statement of Hon. Conrad Burns may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Governor Racicot writes, ''We were very pleased to learn that the Subcommittee of the Committee on Resources will be coming to Montana to conduct an oversight hearing on management options regarding the Going-to-the-Sun highway within Glacier National Park. Glacier National Park is valuable to Montanans and Americans in so many ways. It is truly one of Montana's most unique and special places to visit. In addition, it provides a key component to the economic well-being of many communities in the Flathead and surrounding areas.
''Because we hold such strong feelings about Glacier and because of its extraordinary economic importance, I'm very pleased that you've had the foresight to hold an oversight hearing into the future management of Going-to-the-Sun Highway.
''As you are very aware, Glacier National Park has released for public review their draft Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan. The complex and difficult issues addressed in this document will be subject to more discussion and review because the Park and future management options for the Park are significantly important both economically and ecologically to our state.
''You have spent much time examining this issue, and I know one of the most complex components of the plan deals with the famous Going-to-the-Sun Highway. While most will recognize that the highway is in need of repair, just how to accomplish the reconstruction is not clear. It is worthy of the review and attention of the Subcommittee hearing that will be—that the Subcommittee's hearing will provide.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''One very important component in any successful solution will be Congress and the issue of funding. This will be no doubt an expensive multiyear contract, and having Members of the Congressional Subcommittee in Montana to hear from Montanans and Park officials is very important to any successful solution.
''We have informed the National Park Service of our intent to carefully review and analyze the draft Environmental Impact Statement. After our review and analysis is complete, the State of Montana will submit formal comments. As with other efforts of this nature, we will utilize the expertise and various disciplines within State government, which will include this office and the Departments of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Environmental Quality, Commerce, Natural Resources and Conservation and Transportation. As well, we will be listening to and evaluating comments which come to us from the local and tribal governments and other interested parties.
''Again, thank you for your leadership and for conducting this hearing. We look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of Congress, the National Park Service and others as we consider future management options for Glacier National Park.
''Sincerely, Marc Racicot, Governor.''
[The prepared statement of Hon. Marc Racicot follows:]
Mr. HILL. If each of you would stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. HILL. What we will do—again, I would ask members of the panels to try to keep their comments to 5 minutes, their public statements. If the statement is longer than that, we will make it a part of the permanent record, and we will start with Mayor Hall.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF GARY HALL, MAYOR OF COLUMBIA FALLS, MONTANA
Mr. HALL. I begin this 5-minute dissertation by sincerely thanking Representative Hill for his definite leadership and concern for this most important event in Montana's history. On behalf of small businesses of the Flathead Valley, we truly thank you. We, as you know, are a minority, and it is real nice to know that we are being considered and given a voice at this most crucial time.
I don't believe that the GNP is out to hurt small business, but I do believe that there are some inequities in the Alternative A road closures. I applaud the efforts put forth by GNP and by the reports and the willingness to listen to the community, so I would ask that you listen real carefully today to all that is brought before you.
The Federal Highway Administration proposed a 15-year reconstruction plan with partial closures and several untried measures to allow visitor use, but GNP did not offer this to us, and we are wondering why.
At Representative Hill's last meeting in Kalispell, a man from the Department of Transportation told us how rock walls can be built on the Valley floor and be lifted in place, which can save many days and many dollars. Please listen to Mr. Hill's suggestion of getting outside input for reconstruction ideas.
Another concern is that there has not been a formal engineering study done on the road, and that should be a concern for all of us. We must know all the facts before pushing hundreds of businesses to the edge of extinction. We have made everyone aware that up to this point there is not a citizens' advisory board in place, and we just insist on having that in place before we move any further.
The economic study that was done at the University of Montana was good, but one of my concerns is the talk of promoting people to come and plan their vacation around observing the construction. No matter how you look at it or present it, it's a bad deal. I know that if I'm going to spend an average of $206 per person per day in the Park, why in the world would I want to spend it doing that? It would be a marketing miracle to pull that one off, and one we shouldn't risk.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People who don't own a business or whose hopes and dreams aren't hinging on whether the road closes or not will get their say today and tomorrow, for example, newspapers, others whose jobs are not directly affected by the road being closed.
Please hear the heartfelt concerns of the business community. They will not be able to recover their businesses once closed.
I also believe that the public deserves a full and separate environmental and economic review of the options. Also, it seems that we may be putting the cart before the horse. We are beginning this process without committed funding. Are we going to close the Park for reconstruction and then try to get the funding? I would sincerely hope not.
There has been talk of the importance of communication and marketing. GNP needs to communicate to people now and forever that Logan Pass is and should always be open no matter what the scenario we come to. Once again, we must take the word ''Closure'' out of our vocabulary, literally.
Also, by the information given to the media and the press to this point about the road being shut down for reconstruction, we have had a minimum decline in tourism to the state of 20 percent. We cannot expect the general public to understand all that is going on at this end.
I also find it disturbing that the road reconstruction plan ended up in the General Management Plan in March. We got a basic explanation for that today, but I would ask that it be removed. NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, demands that any major construction of this nature must have its own Environmental Impact Statement. The construction of Going-to-the-Sun Road should be removed from the General Management Plan.
No one has ment around the other side, but don't advertise the C word.
No. 2, do everything possible to keep the $160 million income and 2,400 jobs going strong in this area.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A suggestion by a local business directly affected by the proposal is to extend the Many Glacier Road to the North Fork Road, which would create a loop. This would allow repair of the road to happen at any time, even emergency closures by accidents, rock slides and so forth. It would also make opportunity for campsites off the North Fork Road from Camas Creek to Columbia Falls, thus taking pressure off of the Park.
Last—And I hate to end on this note, but to let you know how serious local businesses are to being sure that they are protected, there is in place substantial dollars from even only two businesses so far that would be applied to a class action lawsuit, if necessary, to protect our businesses and our futures, not a desired action.
Again, thank you very, very much for allowing me to express these grave concerns as an elected official along with the views of other local business people directly affected by the road closure idea. Please help us stay in business.
Respectfully submitted, Gary Hall, Mayor.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mayor Hall, for that valuable testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Our next witness will be the Honorable County Commissioner Lowell Meznarich.
Mr. MEZNARICH. Meznarich.
Mr. HILL. Meznarich. I understand that. Rich and Rick. People confuse my name that way too. I apologize.
STATEMENT OF LOWELL MEZNARICH, GLACIER COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. MEZNARICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My name is Lowell Meznarich, and I'm an elected commissioner representing Glacier County. All of Glacier National Park, which is east of the Continental Divide is in my county. Given that fact, all issues which affect Glacier National Park are important to us.
My fellow commissioners and I have cautiously monitored the discussions regarding the future maintenance and repair of the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park. Simultaneously, we have questioned the population to obtain their input on the matter at hand. I am pleased to have this opportunity to offer our collective thoughts.
No local issue in the past 5 years has seen greater scrutiny than the options given to repair the Going-to-the-Sun Road. All of the options will be harmful to the tourism industry in northwestern Montana. There is a solution, however.
The fast-track option, coupled with several other enhancements, has the potential to get the work done effectively, while also providing a unique opportunity to assist the east side of the Park in reducing its tourism loss. I am strongly in favor of the fast-track option and reducing the impact on the economy by taking advantage of an upcoming significant event.
Enhancement No. 1. The closure of the east side of the road should coincide with the observance of the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The large increase in visitors for the Bicentennial will help a great deal with the expected reduction in visitors to Glacier National Park because of the road work and closure. Planning to have these two events at the same time will be a tremendous benefit to Glacier County.
The years 2004 through 2006 would be ideal for the east side closure. This is important since within 25 miles of Cut Bank, the Glacier County seat are two of the most significant sites along the Lewis and Clark Trail. The first, Camp Disappointment, is where Meriweather Lewis and three of his party discovered that the Missouri River drainage did not cover as much territory to the north as originally hoped. The dreary, overcast day not only added to the disappointment, it also obscured the Rocky Mountains, which were just to the west.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Had the day been clearer, Lewis would have plainly seen the opening to Marias Pass, the lowest elevation pass through the Rocky Mountains. Lewis was within easy sight of one of his most significant potential discoveries, but he would never know. The possibilities of that missed discovery have been romanticized for years.
The fight site is the location of the following day's camp. At this site Lewis encountered and camped with a group of Blackfeet Indians. The following morning was the only armed conflict of the entire expedition. The fight over horses and weapons resulted in the death of two of the Blackfeet party and a close call for Lewis who wrote, ''Being bare headed at the time, I plainly felt the ball pass over my head.''
This encounter took place near the banks of the Two Medicine River in an area which historians consider the most primitive and least changed in the nearly 200 years since the explorers' journey. Use of this site will also provide an additional introduction to the Blackfeet Indian culture, which is another of the great treasures of our region.
The residents of Glacier County are quickly learning that the upcoming Bicentennial is gaining national and international attention. Already, Glacier County residents have taken the first few sparks of interest, added their entrepreneurial spirit and developed creative business ventures to cash in on the expected rush of adventuresome tourists. With the expected increase in visitors to our area I believe we can significantly reduce the negative impact of the closure of the east side of the road. A carefully crafted promotion would be very beneficial to Glacier County.
Enhancement No. 2. Regarding the Lewis and Clark Trail sites, we need assistance to improve access opportunities to the sites themselves. Traveling to each site presently requires driving on undeveloped roads, followed by a walk of up to one mile. The roads are one lane only and are often not more than slightly worn paths through the natural grass. The walk is over easy terrain, but the path is not clearly visible in many areas.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Any improvement should maintain the present condition of the sites and not detract from the natural state each site presently enjoys. As such, many portions of the road and trail will merely need simple markings to keep the traveler on the proper path. Other areas may need compaction work and/or a light gravel application.
Much like the work in Glacier National Park, any improvements to these sites must preserve and protect the area. Little has changed since Lewis appeared at these sites. We need to keep it that way, since that is precisely why these sites appeal to a significant number of Americans. These improvements could be accomplished with a very small amount of funding.
Both sites are located on and accessible only through private land. I believe we must immediately pursue public acquisition of the sites and access. If that not possible, in the least we must have agreements in place which allow for public maintenance and access when appropriate.
Glacier National Park Enhancement No. 3. Glacier National Park must do everything in its power to trumpet what is available to the visitors and downplay the Going-to-the-Sun Road closure. We don't need the headline to scream that the road is closed. Instead, leading up to and during the east side closure, national and international promotions should extol the uncommon beauty of our many east side areas, Two Medicine, St. Mary's, Many Glaciers and even Canada's Waterton National Park.
Promoting jointly with Waterton should become a priority. The opportunities to experience the Lewis and Clark sites should also be a significant part of the promotion.
Enhancement No. 4 has been discussed. Let's get the job done. Let's not have the types of delays that have plagued previous construction projects.
Enhancement No. 5. Glacier National Park must accept primary responsibility for repair and maintenance of Highway 49, which is known as the Looking Glass Road. This road is the north/south link between East Glacier Park, Two Medicine and St. Mary's.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The road was originally constructed by the National Park Service and for years was maintained by them. Since it is outside the Park boundary, the Park Service has chosen to allow the road to deteriorate. At present the Looking Glass Road is generally open on the same calendar used by Glacier National Park. The road is not maintained during the winter. Like the Sun Road, the Looking Glass offers a unique view of Glacier National Park, which is just to the west of the road. The road itself winds along the slopes of the moun Glass Road.
With these five easily attainable enhancements, I'm confident the Park Service will find general support for the road repair project.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal comments.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Meznarich.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meznarich may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Again, I would just urge all those submitting testimony to try to stay as close as you can to the 5-minute limit.
Our next testimony will come from Joe Unterreiner, executive vice-president of the Kalispell Area Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you for appearing, Joe.
STATEMENT OF JOE UNTERREINER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF THE FLATHEAD VALLEY
Mr. UNTERREINER. I am executive vice-president of the Kalispell Chamber. I was invited to speak as the president of the Associated Chambers.
The Associated Chamber group is an association of six chambers of commerce and three tourism organizations, consisting of 1,800 businesses and organizations in northwest Montana, and, Congressman, I'd like to applaud your efforts to understand this issue, its implications for northwest Montana's economy and the steps that you've taken to ensure the best possible course of action is taken. We would like to recognize and express our appreciation for your efforts.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Sun Road is a critical economic, social, cultural and historic asset of this area. There is, perhaps, no other singular resource in the Flathead that effects more people both personally and professionally than the Sun Road. It is essential that this road be maintained and repaired in a way that provides for the enjoyment of future generations while minimizing the economic and social impact to the current generation.
There are several things we think that Congress can do to help achieve this goal: One, ensure that the best possible road construction expertise is applied to this engineering challenge and make impact reduction the highest priority; two, provide public education funding to minimize projected visitation losses as part of the appropriation request; three, provide financial relief for those businesses most severely affected by the negative impacts of reconstruction; four, utilize business input; and, five, provide adequate funding for national park roads.
I'd first like to note that data from the University of Montana's Institute for Tourism and Recreational Research has indicated that 25 percent of nonresident tourists to Montana come here primarily to see Glacier National Park. This is a destination tourism attraction that benefits not just the Glacier areas, but other cities and towns that line the roads to and from the Park. They come because the Going-to-the-Sun Road, a national historic landmark, offers some of the most spectacular scenery anywhere in North America.
The National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration have developed three concepts for preserving the road. We think this is a good start, and we'd like to see a process begun that further refines these alternatives. The two economic impact studies have both concluded that the fast-track option, the 4- to 6-year option has the least economic impact and the lowest cost of construction, and this is the Park's preferred alternative.
However, it is now time to refine the two action alternatives by using the best experts available, including financial incentive to complete the work as quickly as possible and completing the formal engineering study.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The findings of two economic studies on this issue indicate that the quicker construction is completed the more negative impacts are minimized. Therefore, every effort should be made to explore techniques that might hasten the reconstruction period. Sections of retaining wall might be prefabricated offsite, for example, or perhaps some international firms that have extensive expertise in high-altitude road work might have innovations to offer.
We'd like to see a bid structure that provides incentives for early completion. If we examine the reconstruction of Interstate 10 in Los Angeles after the Northridge quake, we can see how financial incentives were effectively used. The time of completion was substantially reduced by running around-the-clock shifts. This more aggressive approach might reduce the time of the fast-track option or reduce the time on the accelerated option to a more acceptable timeframe. If the National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration are prohibited from using such incentives for early completion, we urge Congress to waive that restriction for this project.
We would like to also indicate our support for the efforts of Congressman Hill and Senator Burns to have a formal engineering study produced on the Sun Road. We may find that some sections do not need reconstruction.
In any event, loss of visitation and its resulting impact on business losses must be viewed as real costs in preserving the Sun Road. Early completion incentives can be justified when weighed against the total cost of economic loss and the impact on communities. Reducing these negative impacts must be given our highest priority.
We'd like to see an appropriation request include a fully funded—fully developed public education program to help offset visitor losses. We think that this can help offset—And we encourage Congress to fund and implement a plan prior to commencement of construction with sufficient investment to continue to educate and inform the public.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I indicated, I'd like to also see a program to help offset—impact those businesses that are most severely affected. We'd like to see something that would address those businesses as well.
I'd like to call your attention to a survey that was conducted of 550 businesses, area businesses here in the Flathead Valley, of which 120 responded to. Sixty percent of those businesses also prefer the fast-track reconstruction option, with 20 percent favoring the accelerated reconstruction, 6 percent for the status quo.
I'd like to conclude by saying that the Sun Road is a main attraction to some of the most beautiful scenery in North America, and it is disintegrating. There's no perfect time to rebuild a stretch of road that presents some of the most difficult conditions imaginable, but given the recent increase in funding for the highway bill and the current budget surplus, we should act now while the window of opportunity is still available. We could choose to delay or study further or do nothing at all, but if we do, we risk losing the road altogether.
Mr. HILL. Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you for those valuable comments, and I'll be looking forward to asking you some more detailed questions about those.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Unterreiner may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. The next witness is Roger Running Crane, who is vice-chairman of the Blackfeet Nation.
Mr. Running Crane, thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROGER RUNNING CRANE, VICE-CHAIRMAN, BLACKFEET NATION
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RUNNING CRANE. Good morning. I bring you greetings from the Blackfeet Nation and would like to first of all thank the Honorable Rick Hill, who sits on the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and Lands for scheduling this hearing and allowing us to provide testimony for the record.
My name is Roger Running Crane, vice-chairman of the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council, which is the governing body of the Blackfeet Nation.
Historically, Glacier National Park was part of the original land base of the Blackfeet people and later was transferred to the hands of the U.S. Government through a treaty in 1896. We still claim treaty rights in the Park that include privileges to hunt, fish and gather wood.
Presently, our western boundary of the Blackfeet Reservation is Glacier National Park. I point this out because it documents our presence before and after the creation of the Park that serves as a showcase for the entire world to enjoy its natural beauty.
With that said, the Blackfeet Nation would simply like to offer their human and natural resources in the proposed future maintenance and repair of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. These resources consist of a qualified work force, unlimited amounts of and access to gravel and other road construction materials. We have land adjacent to the Park for recreational and campground use by the tourists who may wish to choose to visit only the east side of Logan Pass when the Going-to-the-Sun Road is under construction.
Finally, the Tribe also offers any other resources in assisting the Park Service to make the construction phase an experience that we can all benefit from.
In closing, Congressman Hill, the Tribe is sensitive to the economic downside of the tourism industry if the road construction is to occur. By not being viable participants in that industry for reasons that I will not go into, we simply want to maximize the economic opportunities for our people who are at the lowest economic rungs of the ladder in this country. Any economic stimulus for our people is welcomed, and I'm sure the surrounding communities in the Blackfeet Country would agree as well, since they, too, reap the benefits of those dollars.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, thank you for this opportunity, and we reserve the right to send additional documents for the record within a 10-day time period after this hearing. Thank you.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Running Crane, and that is true. The record will be held open for 10 days to make it an official part of the record, and, obviously, if folks have other comments, they can make those comments to our office, and we will do everything we can to get them either in the record at this hearing or a subsequent hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Running Crane may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. I apologize to people back there. Evidently, our sound system has had some malfunction. Can you still hear back there? Can you hear the testimony in the back? OK. We will proceed, then, with Mr. Richard Hunt, vice-president of Friends of Glacier.
Thank you, Mr. Hunt, for being here. We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, panel members and interested persons. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. HILL. You need to turn that mike on. I don't think it's on.
Just wait a moment. Let's see if we can get the volume——
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. HILL. We're ready to go.
Mr. Hunt, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. HUNT, VICE-PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF GLACIER, INC.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HUNT. Thank you.
Friends of Glacier was formed with the purpose of assuring access to Glacier National Park and opposing any plans to diminish access during the publication of and hearings on the draft Newsletters in 1997, which related to the General Management Plan for Glacier National Park.
By 1924 Park officials had promoted a goal to enable people to reach the interior of the Park even if they could not afford the rates of the Great Northern Railroad and its chalets. In 1925 the Bureau of Public Roads began to oversee the building of the Going-to-the-Sun Road, which traversed Logan Pass and connected the east and the west and gave the people the opportunity to reach the interior of the Park. In 1933, Park officials attained their goal as visitation increased by 44 percent with the completion of the road.
This 22 miles of the most difficult stretch of the proposed road was completed with primitive equipment by today's standards. In the Management Plan developed by Glacier Park planners, the preferred alternative fast-track reconstruction of the road plans on 4 to 6 years to complete utilizing the most modern technology and equipment available, only eight miles more than that done from 1925 to 1933. Alpine road construction techniques of today should be able to do better.
However, that is only part of the story. Several other shortcomings are presented in the GMP related to the Going-to-the-Sun Road. Two critical issues were identified by the Park planners related to the road: Visitor use on the Going-to-the-Sun Road and preservation of the Going-to-the-Sun Road.
One, in the preferred alternative of the first issue, several actions to be taken relate to an expanded transportation system, modifying and/or adding pullouts, picnic areas and short trails, although it is interesting to consider adding picnic areas on the Going-to-be-the-Sun Road while removing one at the developed area also on the Going-to-the-Sun Road.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is little in the plan which identifies the impact of those actions on the newly completed reconstruction. In our view, some linkage should be in the GMP.
Two, in the preferred alternative of the second issue, several criteria were established to develop the preferred, to minimize impacts on the visitors and minimize impacts on the local economy. The GMP suggests that local business persons would have time to develop the mitigation for the impact of closing one side of the Park's Going-to-the-Sun Road for 2 to 3 years, then close the other side for 2 to 3 years. It is the Park's criteria. Yet the GMP says little about how the Park would assist in such a minimization plan. The GMP also says little about measures to be taken to minimize the impact on the visitor. These two areas of the General Management Plan are deficient in our view.
One of the most disturbing deficiencies in the GMP is also related to one other aspect of this oversight hearing, maintenance. Little is said about the long-term need to maintain the Going-to-the-Sun Road after it is reconstructed. This GMP is to provide guidance to the Park for 20 or so years. Yet preservation of the road also means maintenance, and maintenance deserves a place in the General Management Plan.
Friends of Glacier recognizes and applauds plans to improve access by adding pullouts, picnic areas, short trails and emphasis upon a safe Going-to-the-Sun Road for visitors to appreciate one of the premier experiences in the Park, which is to traverse the road from east to west and west to east. We also recognize and appreciate the Plan's efforts to preserve the Park and to preserve this Park as a traditional western park.
Friends of Glacier stands ready to participate in finding solutions to some of the shortcomings we see in the GMP. Directors and officers of Friends of Glacier attended the meeting held in Kalispell by Representative Rick Hill in June 1998. Many ideas were presented, including the suggestion that more time was needed to examine the data and to consider forming an advisory group with alpine road construction experts, local business persons and interested persons to determine effective economical methods of construction, timeframe and strategy with the least impact on local, regional and international economies as well as other activities which would mitigate the effects of this necessary and important project.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Park planners tell us on page 50 of the Draft General Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, that the National Park Service prefers an alternative that conforms to a certain set of criteria, and from available information, Alternative A, the fast-track reconstruction, 4 to 6 years, appears best to satisfy those criteria. However—and I quote—''If new data and analyses revealed information that would better respond to the criteria, a different alternative would be selected in the final plan.'' Emphasis added. How would this data and analyses be revealed to the Park planners?
In summary, Friends of Glacier continue to support the broadest possible access to Glacier National Park. We ask that our testimony will cause the Park planners and this Committee to seek ways to improve the connection between the two critical issues discussed, visitor use on Going-on-the-Sun Road and preservation of Going-to-the-Sun Road.
We are not suggesting specific actions at this time. As indicated, Friends of Glacier stands ready to be a part of any method for arriving at solutions to those shortcomings we have identified.
Thank you, Chairman Hill, for the opportunity to present our views and our questions.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Hunt, for that valuable input, and I look forward to fleshing some of that out.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. Our last panelist will be, last but not least, Mr. Will Brooke, who is owner of the St. Mary's KOA Campground.
Thank you for appearing, Mr. Brooke. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILL BROOKE, PRESIDENT, GLACIER/WATERTON VISITOR ASSOCIATION
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BROOKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't tell you how nice it is to call you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Congressman after all these years. I wish Mr. Hanson were here so we could recall the days when it wasn't Mr. Chairman but Member of the Minority. It's nice to see you as Member of the Majority now.
First, I want to correct. It's St. Mary. It's not St. Mary's. Second, I want to correct. I appear here today as president of the Glacier/Waterton Visitor Association. We are a collection of businesses throughout the Park and around the Park, including Canada, and some of our Members have been providing service to the visitors of Glacier for over 65 years and know and understand the issues around the Park as well as anybody in the country.
I speak of Roscoe Black and his family at St. Mary, Lisa Lundgren and her family at West Glacier. These people understand these issues very well and need to be listened to carefully. They have the historical memory, if you will, that some of us don't have the benefit of.
The Association wants to be clear that in the first instance we commend the Park Service for what they're doing in terms of focusing attention on the maintenance, improvement and protection of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. It is a critical issue, and I would agree with Mr. Mihalic today that the easiest thing for him to do and for the Park Service to do would have been to let somebody else deal with this. That certainly has been the case previously, and I think that the Park Service is the victim of deferred maintenance by prior administrations, lack of attention by the public to what was building up as a result of the deferred maintenance, and Congress has had its finger in this problem by removing funding, critical funding for some of the maintenance.
But notwithstanding these problems, I think that the Park Service and what they're proposing in the General Management Plan specific to the Going-to-the-Sun Road is premature at this time. It is at a minimum based on improper procedure and public involvement, and at a maximum it may be just plain wrong.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We hope the Park Service is not wrong. In fact, if the Park Service is ultimately correct in its proposed action, we will get behind the Park Service and help in every way possible by assisting and obtaining necessary funding from Congress, working with public relations and information to mitigate the perception that the Park is closed and, otherwise, working with the Park Service. However, whether the Park Service is correct is the key issue as we sit here today.
And, Mr. Congressman Hill, you put your finger on it, as you have the ability to so often do. There's a chicken and egg here, a cart before the horse question. The Federal Highways is saying, Well, we're not going to do the detailed engineering until the Park Service chooses their preferred alternative. How in the world can you choose a preferred alternative without detailed engineering studies? It doesn't make sense, and it's inappropriate to proceed that way.
The EIS for the General Management Plan has been proceeding through the NEPA process for several years now. The section for the Going-to-the-Sun in the Draft Management Plan is new. It wasn't in the former Management Plan. It came out, and it proposes a major significant new Federal action with enormous impacts to the environment and the economy.
You've heard about those impacts, the economic impact from the other witnesses, and I'm not going to continue those, but you asked the question or you pointed out that you had several concerns about how they did the economic studies. Well, I'll point out just one point. In the plan it talks about 2,400 jobs may be affected or are affected by the Park. Our membership can account for 2,000 jobs just through our members, so we know that 2,400 jobs is entirely inappropriate and a wrong number and a bad number. How they came up with it I don't know, but it points up bigger and larger problems, that they're using information that is, I guess, not entirely well researched or thought out.
More importantly, going back to what I was saying, we're proposing a major Federal action in the General Management Plan. The last-minute inclusion in the plan of a major new Federal action does not comply with the letter or the spirit of NEPA and the EIS process. It has not been properly scoped, we believe, and the information and studies and data supporting the action are nothing more than generalities, and there's a general failure to consider all of the appropriate alternatives.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The General Management Plan is a general guide of how the Federal land should be managed, usually for a period of about 10 years. The proposal for the Sun Road is not consistent with this principle. Rather, it is site specific, date specific and project specific. We believe the decision to do anything with the road of this magnitude necessarily requires and commands a separate plan and a separate Environmental Impact Statement.
There are alternatives that are not in this plan which we believe should have at least been considered or explained why they were not considered. The Federal Highway Administration analyzed at least one other alternative, from what we can tell from the information we've gathered, and it appears that there might be some merit to that alternative, but the Park Service didn't include it in the EIS, nor did they explain why the alternative was not considered, and I think it points up a larger point with this plan.
To use a old, worn-out cliche, when you look at the EIS, you ask the question, Where is the beef?
You compared it to looking at impacts on threatened and endangered species, so you can bet, if we were doing a timber sale or if we were doing some other kind of major Federal action that effected threatened and endangered species, we would have an enormous Environmental Impact Statement with studies that attached to it that went on forever, and appropriately so, but when we talk about economic impacts, we choose to do generalities. We choose to rely upon studies that are questionable at best, and I'll point that out, and I see the time is up, and I'll get out.
The survey that they relied upon, as you pointed out, is questionable, and one of things they did was, they surveyed people that had been to the Park.
The tourism business is extremely competitive, and there are states and countries spending hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising. Come to our state. Come to our area. They asked people who had went over the road, Would you come back under various scenarios? The appropriate way to do that kind of survey is to go back to somebody in Minnesota, somebody in Texas, somebody in Michigan, who has maybe requested information from the Montana Tourism Bureau, and ask them, you know, If the road is closed or partially closed, would you still come? I think you're going to get a much different answer. They're sampling the wrong population.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They also continuously point out that 80 percent said they would come back. If you read that survey, when you talk about closure, you talk about 60 percent coming back, and, unfortunately, when you talk about closure of any kind, people have the perception of closure.
The last thing I want to say is that, we're talking about possibly starting in the year 2004. A lot of us are making long-term financial commitments to capital improvements to build our businesses and to make improvements that result in lots of jobs and lots of money invested in the local economy. We cannot go to our financial institutions and say, Look, We've got a possibility of road closure in the year 2004. This thing has to be laid out with longer term commitments so that we can go back and get long-term financing to do the kind of capital improvements that we want to do, and we have to have it far enough out in front of us that we can make the appropriate kind of planning. This doesn't do it.
The association requests that the EIS or that section on the road be pulled out and a separate EIS done. We think that's appropriate, given the magnitude of this kind of decision.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Brooke.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooke may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HILL. I have quite a few questions, and let me start with Mayor Hall.
What are the people in Columbia Falls saying when you talk to them about this reconstruction effort? What do you hear them—What are they saying to you?
Mr. HALL. Through the tears, they are saying that there's no possible way they would be able to recover from the loss that would be incurred by this Alternative A.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are marginal at best anyway. We are probably the closest large population community close to the Park, and the business is two and a half to 3 months strong, and the impact that it would have on these small businesses would be too much to recover from at the end of this reconstruction process. That's the main theme.
Mr. HILL. One of the troubling things, in reading the Management Plan with reference to this, is the sense that, you have the time from now to the year 2004 to prepare your business for the economic impact. How does a businessman——
And I'd ask anyone else who wants to answer this question. As a former business owner, how do you prepare your business for being out of business for 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 years? Do you know any way that a business can prepare for that kind of an event?
Mr. HALL. It's a good question, and I don't have an answer for it because I don't think there is one. There really isn't an answer to that.
Mr. HILL. You can't prepare?
Mr. HALL. You can't.
Mr. HILL. Joe, do you want to comment on that? I mean, you've testified that you think that—I hate this word ''Fast track'' by the way. I'd just comment that fast track also refers to trade authority that's a matter of some controversy.
I was answering the telephones in my office as people were calling in on another issue, and one evening a lady called in. It was kind of a feeble voice, and she said, Tell the Congressman that he should oppose fast track. The trains are already going too fast. When you talk about fast track, some people may think the train is going too fast here.
Anyway, Joe, go ahead.
Mr. UNTERREINER. I guess I see those kinds of arguments as the reason why there needs to be some kind of program for financial relief offered to the people that are most severely affected, and I don't—It doesn't get any easier by drawing it out longer, so I see that partially as an argument for getting it over as quickly as possible and, hopefully, providing some kind of relief