OCR Text |
Show F development of infrastructure DABNEY: No park that I did not fill the Administrative Officer position at group headquarters, and instead put that money into field positions. That certainly has me running around playing different roles. I've asked my staff to identify anything we're doing that we don't need to. At this point we have a single layer of management in most areas. I have one procurement officer and one budget officer and one property manager for all three parks. We have 35 personnel office staff dealing with 0 processing the paperwork for paid staff plus volunteers who are coming and going in the three units; they're absolutely overwhelmed. I have one wildlife lead person and one vegetation lead person for the three parks. I don't have anybody who's sitting around not directly dealing with and supporting the people in the field. We centralized our road function; we have one diesel mechanic for the three parks, one electrician, one radio technician. We consolidated the River District with Island in the Sky, eliminating the District Ranger and moving that person into operating this huge new fee program without adding any administrative positions. field folks. 1 140-16- in those new park areas? know of has been established based on a geologic or rationale. Take Canyonlands. Discussion about the ppningirai or even historical assumed the basin drainage - you stand on the rim and prospective park in the 1950's look in; God drew the boundaries. If you stand at Dead Horse Point or Needles Overlook, you, like Bates Wilson and Senator Moss, can see the natural boundaries of fee program and the likely increases in staff Canyonlands National Park. With this can expect to have the staff and resources to appropriations from Congress, we boundaries. manage a park expanded to its natural geologic The land on the west side of Canyonlands, the Orange Cliffs unit, was put into Glen Canyon NRA to keep the option of developing tar sands open and to continue which belong to the natural park but are not grazing. The eastern and western areas 71 nominated for wilderness in H.R. 1500, and in the park, 500,000- - acres, are about some 37 of that total is in BLM Wilderness Study Areas. As to whether these areas would receive more development if administered by the NPS in an expanded park versus if added to the Wilderness Preservation System in a BLM wilderness bill, the The Bill for Search and Rescue CHRISTIE: While it is not a crime to get lost, stranded or injured in a park, it seems the number of searches and rescues in the parks are on the increase along with visitation. An article last week announced that Grand Canyon National Park has imposed a $ 200 fine on visitors who disregard advice on carrying adequate water, and require rescue because of dehydration. Who assumes the cost of search and rescue operations in the SE Group? Can the victim be expected to pay or does the burden fall on the taxpayer? DABNEY: If we call in an air ambulance, the ambulance company bills the individual. If we are looking for somebody's lost kid or something like that, the Park Service eats the cost. If you have headed out and violated a regulation, for example, failed to sign in for a climb on Mt. Rainier, and we get a missing persons report and have to find you and rescue you, we'll issue a citation and try to collect. If someone's child wanders off from a campground and we spend three days and use a helicopter to find the child, the family probably doesn't have the means to pay for the rescue anyway. Most of the rescues we end up dealing with do not result from wanton, willful disregard of personal safety; people just make mistakes. The total cost of searches and rescues in the total National Park system per year is $1-- 2 million, which is fairly small. We don't have a search and rescue budget item. We have the ability under the appropriations law to go back into our construction budgets and reprogram funds to pay for search and rescue costs, and then submit this to Congress for review. If someone isn't willing to pay the cost of a search and rescue, then it generally costs more to try and collect than you can get out of it. You have to take the person to federal district court, and it will cost somewhere around $10,000 to go through the we can't collect it from you. If there is a legal process. If you don't have wanton disregard or violation of law, then we'll evaluate that into the decision, but for most people, they didn't want to get into trouble. I don't know how this fine for not having enough water is going to work out in the Grand Canyon; I didn't know about it. We have an advantage with backcountry users because, when they apply for their permit, we talk to them about water and how to protect themselves against other hazards we know about out there. It's different for a day hiker. We try to post the information: take a gallon of water a day and that sort of thing. CHRISTIE: It sounds like a primary function of the backcountry permit system is to provide the NPS with an educational opportunity. DABNEY: It certainly is. The Salt Creek permit system, for example permits us to talk to the visitor about archaeological sites, about the riparian environment, and about staying on the trail going up to Angel Arch. It's a great tool. It's but worthwhile. $5-6,0- 00, labor-intensiv- e, Expanding the Parks CHRISTIE: There are proposals, which you support, to expand the boundaries of Canyonlands and Arches National Parks. Do you think adding lands to Canyonlands and Arches would hater protect the land than adding these areas to the Wilderness Preservation System through a comprehensive BLM wilderness bill? Would expansion of park boundaries be followed by Southcsast Utah Group Superintendent Walt Dabney answer is no. The National Park Service nominates areas within its jurisdiction to the Wilderness Preservation System. I expect there will be a NPS wilderness bill passed by Congress, including Utah park lands. This gives such lands the dual protection of both NPS management as park, and being designated wilderness. I can't identify need for any development on the H.R. 1500 land within the park expansion which wouldn't be allowed if it were designated BLM wilderness. Outside file proposed wilderness areas, I can't think of any existing roads which need to be expanded or improved. I think it is pure folly to just designate lands as wilderness unless you are going to put some significant resources in there to manage it. Otherwise you're just targeting it - drawing a big bull's eye on the map for folks to flock to. One of the problems we have today is that, if a place is any good, somebodys already written a guidebook to it or is doing so. If you highlight it on the map and the guidebook comes out, you'd better have staff to manage it or it's going to get trashed. If you're talking about a Canyonlands Park based on the drainage basin, I don't think we need many more resources to manage the additional area. We don't need much more infrastructure, and I already have ranger districts in Needles and the Maze for patrol and permitting. If you expand the parks, you are going to go through a new General Management Planning process, and the public is going to tell you what it wants. I do you need to supply water beyond the reach of power lines, then solar power can solve the problem. Well and surface pumps: 500 to 30,000 gallons a day. Let us help you determine the optimum system to meet your needs. Complete do it yourself kits available. If Robert Soldat HC 64 BOX 2510 Castle Valley, UT 84532 (801)259-763- 8 CALL SUPERIOR ENERGY, SOLAR PUMPING EXPERIENCE SINCE 1987. k -j- ?S idilftuaji ,;Tr' ..iVSr ' |