FIRST COMMUNITY MEETING NOTES 9-29-15
ALTERNATIVES TO A NATIONAL MONUMENT
(Notes will follow the order of the evening slide presentation)
Note: Prior to our evening meeting, our Special Guests were toured around much of the Island Park area. They toured Harriman State Park, Mesa Falls, Big Springs, scenic routes to showcase locations, and took a UTV tour to the top of Sawtelle Peak for a panoramic viewing of the IPC.
EVENING MEETING - 7 pm at the IP EMS Building.
In Attendance:
112 Community Members
Special Guests
John Hoehne - Chief of Staff-Senator Crapo
Mitch Silvers - State Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Environment Senator Crapo
Katheryn Hitch - Regional Director Senator Crapo
Amy Taylor - Regional Director Senato Risch
Travis Jones - State Policy Director Congressman Simpson
Ethan Huffman - Regional Director Congressman Simpson
David Longhorst - Director, Idaho Dept of Parks and Recreation
John Sullivan - Director of Harriman State Park
Michael Robinson – Trails Specialist, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Mike Webster - Eastern Idaho Field Representative Governor Otter (attended the day tour)
Elizabeth Davy – Caribou - Targhee National Forest (USFS)
Invited but unable to attend:
Fremont County Commissioners
Mayor Jewell
Mike Mathews - State Director Senator Risch
Mike Roach - State Natural Resource Director Senator Risch
Paul Romrell - Idaho State Representative, District 35
Jeff Siddoway - Idaho State Senator
Van Burtenshaw – Idaho State Representative, District 35A
The meeting was conducted by Ken Watts, Chairman of the Caldera Heritage Coalition. Jackie Jensen, Island Park Chamber president welcomed everyone. The presentation Ken offered covered research and information as well as an evaluation of our current status and offered alternatives that we could consider for Island Park's future.
THE THREAT IS REAL
" This idea will not go away." He noted, that next year is the 150th anniversary of the National Park Service and of Yellowstone and that many consider the Island Park Caldera "part of the whole package". Therefore, they are seeking to extend a similar protective status over the Caldera possibly as part of the commemoration".
Rick Johnson
Idaho Conservation League
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING. A POSITIVE COMMUNITY MEETING ABOUT THE FUTURE - not a discussion about the past.
Discuss possible Legislative Alternatives, generate new alternatives, receive community feedback, determine a preferred approach, unite behind a preferred approach.
WHAT DO WE HEAR MOST OFTEN FROM THE COMMUNITY
* We like Island Park the way that it is.
* Leave us alone.
* Nothing is 'broken here'.
* No large developments.
* The president can declare a national monument with the stroke of a pen.
OUR REALITY....TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT FUTURE POTENTIAL...ACTION ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED.
CURRENT STATUS AND UPDATE were given in report style including topics of: research and study on the issues that has been done, congressional outreach, other national monuments designations and the Boulder White Clouds, Senator Crapo's and Rep. Raul Labrador's House and Senate legislation that are in committee at this time intended to limit the use of the president's powers to designate National Monuments through the Antiquities Act, and the community was informed that Sandra Mitchell of the Idaho Recreation Council has agreed to be the media spokesman for the Caldera Heritage Coalition and partner on our efforts going forward.
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION was discussed. Such is a designation allows exclusive federal management and direction, under the authority of a federal agency’s management plan. All uses, allowances, regulations and rules are determined by that plan and directed by federally mandated policy. That managing agency has the power to determine whether to comply, coordinate, and collaborate with the local agencies and any local persons.
Such designations are:
National Parks, national monuments, wildlife refuges, and wilderness designations....while wilderness designations are a legislative creation they are in most cases the most restrictive. The designation is made first, the management plan is developed afterward. The president, under the Antiquities Act, has the power to proclaim the designation (define the area), and declare what will be protected (can include and extend further to restrictions for special features: i.e. water, landmarks).
PRIVATE PROPERTY and BUSINESSES. Questions were asked how such a designation would effect these?
Under such a designation, existing personal and private properties become known as an “in-holding”. Personal property cannot be taken but is affected by the uses, allowances, rules, regulations, access restrictions of the federal management plan.
FOR CLARIFICATION: the following was only briefly touched upon and was not a completely vetted area of discussion in the meeting.
[Note: in holdings present detrimental management concerns for federal managers. They are not preferred. In holders are historically encouraged to either sell, trade outside of the designation for other land/or property, in cases where no agreement can be reached and the federal agency is determined to acquire the personal property, condemnation and eminent domain can be used to resolve the issue, which does not support the private property position.]
? How large of an area was being discussed for a national monument here?
Answer/ while vague, the Targhee Range District was what had been discussed. ( The caldera-
Approx. 7000,00 acres.)
? What would then be the role of the USFS if such a designation be made?
Answer/ That is unknown. That would be determined by who the federal managing agency was,
as also defined by the president at the time of his/her proclamation.
? That would also impact the current and ongoing parallel discussions being addressed
concerning the USFS building located in the Ponds Lodge area would it not?
Answer/ yes, but the how it would affect it, is of course, unknown.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HAVE
* DO NOTHING.
We have been advised that this should not be an option.
Remarks were directed to these topics:
We know that historically we have been discussed in regards to enlargement as a buffer to Yellowstone, and twice now as a national monument. We have been identified because of the past focus under Secretary Kempthore for a national monument designation. The current president has been taking aggressive action to name national monuments. The Yellowstone birthday is upcoming, that makes our situation time sensitive and our timeline of urgency. We have had a recent past effort that has focused the issue here. It would be irresponsible/not realistic for us to try to “the can down the road” and ask our children to have to address it. It is up to us to work at this time to “self-determine” we can enhance what we value and want to keep in Island Park for the current and future generations.
THE COMMUNITY/COOPERATION/NEGOTIATION/COLLABORATION PROCESSES
* In the Owyhees and the Clearwater Basin there is a collaboration in that region led by Senator Crapo. Their Owyhee situation was driven by the issue of grazing vs. none. In the Clearwater Basin the issue is logging versus none. The area has gone from a collapsing forestry industry, caused by restrictions and environmental interests, back to current limited and selective harvesting .
* In the San Gabriel's, a national monument was recently declared, in large part there was larger local support, opposition came late to the process, but they had also been working on a national recreation area action there, In the Basin Range recent , a collaborative process and effort was over-stepped by the president and national monument was made. That is the danger of a collaboration; an effort can be ignored or hijacked toward a different result.
*Entering into a collaborative process invites special interests to the process that are more well-seasoned to work the process and infinitely well organized through years of existence and have access to a vast amount of funding. We would be rookies going up against well seasoned and experienced professionals in such a process. We are not prepared for, nor do we welcome that level of negotiation, at this time. A question was asked in this regard as to when we would be willing to include the National Wildlife Federation to our discussions. (Note: The National Wildlife Federation was involved in advancing and funding the recent national monument designation effort) Answer/ IF they were to be considered as an invitee to any discussion in Island Park, that would be much farther down the road in our process.
*It was noted that in these types of discussions often times involve the currency of wilderness designation. Such was the case in the Boulder White Clouds. Because wilderness designation is done through a legislative process, there is not an exercise of the Antiquities Act. But, it should be noted, as it did happen in the Boulder White Clouds, the threat of a national monument was advanced so that a wilderness designation was the preferred process. In the Boulders there was land considered locally as un-accessible and agreeable as wilderness. An existing SNRA (Sawtooth National Recreation Area) was in place. It was asked and answered that the president could come over this legislative designation to declare a national monument (not ever been challenged), so rather than let that happen, Custer and Blaine Counties agreed to the legislative compromise led by Rep. , and negotiated with the Idaho Conservation League and the Wilderness Society. Sandra Mitchell noted that existing winter and summer recreation did not suffer. We have learned a lot from the example of what has happened historically, the end result, and from the valuable relationships we have made in The Boulders.
A NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
*An exclusive federal designation
*A federal agency writes the management plan
*Private Property Rights can be effected
*Are limited use/not multiple-use
* To be considered as a viable option for Island Park, there would have to be a strong State Lands, Parks Department component. We have two State Parks, at Harriman and Henry's Lake.
Remarks were made about the Boulder White Clouds example, again that wilderness as a currency is not realistic for Island Park, we do not have lands we would want to consider/be willing to offer for wilderness consideration.
? Can a national monument be named over an NRA? Yes. That had been answered, and what would need to happen to try to counter that would be legislative language prohibiting that possibility.
MULTIPLE USE DESIGNATION
* An Island Park Multiple Use and Conservation Act (potential legislation where we would define what we want to keep, goal to maintain and enhance what we have, balance multi-use with conservation projects and goals.)
* No exclusive federal jurisdiction
* Maintain and enhance all current local, county, state (stronger-larger), federal management (USFS) relationships. (Enhance current status)
* prohibit future federal designation ( no more language)
*maintain and enhancing through conservation projects such as: watershed/water quality projects, healthy forest initiatives, game and wildlife projects, healthy rangeland practices, enhancing open space
* the balanced approach of multi-use and conservation goals to maintain and enhance would hope to achieve common and supported consensus for successful legislation and little or no opposition to it in the process.
? Could this be both offered as a state legislation, processed through our Idaho Legislature and presented to Governor Otter as well as a federal legislative process?
Answer/ yes. Both legislative efforts would be best run concurrently.
THIS COULD BE A NEW MODEL FOR THE WEST. ALL WESTERN STATES are vulnerable to acquisition by and under the process and threat of federal designations.
BY CONSENSUS AND LARGE APPLAUSE THIS ALTERNATIVE WAS AGREED UPON BY THE ATTENDING AUDIENCE.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS:
*the process can be derailed by environment and conservation special interests who are well funded, experienced using litigation as challenge, well funded, and politically well advantaged.
*we can lose our voice and any control in the process once entered into
*by moving forward we bring more attention to Island Park (it was noted once again that the focus is already on us whether we want it or not)
*there is the possibility that once we start this process we might not be able to get the necessary votes for passage in Congress. (it was recognized that this is why our local, county, and state leadership and support is so vital to any success we hope to have)
*we must recognize that we are vulnerable to a national monument designation if a national recreation area designation were to fail.
OPEN COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD OPENED:
SPEAKER 1. Joe Sielinsky (Sustainable Fire Program local coordinator)
Presented a map of IP showing:
*approx. # of acres/residential areas = 14,000 acres
*approx. # of lots is greater than 7600 (this did not reflect the number of lots not sub-divided)
*approx. # of structures is greater than 4065 (this may not include summer camps/trailers on lots)
*approx. # of sub-divisions/residential areas is 300, within those are 45 subdivision/residential complexes.
Breakdown by state ownerships. 2100 Idaho residents, 900 Utah, 240 California, 74 Arizona, as the top catagories = 4000+
SPEAKER 2 David Langhorst, Director of Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Following his self-introduction, stated, "I am here to help you". Large applause.
Paraphrase of his comments. What can a larger role of his department possibly mean/be for the future of Island Park? We are having an important and good community conversation about our future. As a community we know who and what the state parks department does through our interaction, support and visitation to Harriman and Henry's Lake State Parks. Did we know that they also mange the federal facility at Mesa Falls? This is an excellent example of inter-agency cooperation that is a great success. The budget is lean but IDPR has very successful department. 1/2 of their budget goes to the parks and the other 1/2 to the recreation programs (much given out thorough grants). In the example of Fremont County they have helped us with 500 miles of trails. Recreation is recognized as an important economic value in communities such as ours, not just as it effects positively in direct dollars invested, but as a ripple and spending multiplier. The footprint of our state parks is much larger than just the economic value of just the park, but to the large community. The IDPR has approximately 2500 miles of trails. Looking to the future, of whatever decision is reached, he wanted to assure us, "that as the Idaho State Parks and Recreation Department, WE ARE HERE FOR YOU". "Idahoans are good at collaborations and finding Idaho Solutions". He reminded us of Senator Risch's Roadless Plan that guides and protects us today as an example of a very successful Idaho Solution.
SPEAKER 3. (Name?)
Spoke to one important aspect of the value of our private properties in Island Park, both in monetary valuations and what we personally value is the freedom to recreate from and on our personal properties without federal restriction. That is why we chose to live here, that is why people chose to visit here. He offered that it is not the "locals' that abuse restrictions, our sensitive and special places. "WE TAKE CARE OF OUR LAND AND RESOURCES, we don't abuse them." He self-identified as 75% “tree-hugger” as a fly-fisherman and quiet outdoor enthusiast and 25% other recreation supporter. He wanted to stress our 'intrinsic values' and wished them to be considered as importantly as the economic values. He is happy we are finally doing this-it is long over do. As good stewards we need to participate, we need to make our voices known and heard, we need to all join together to make the best future happen, and he supports our pro-active management and self-determination efforts.
SPEAKER 4. Gordon Jenkins, resident.
Offered his opinion that if we really want to avoid an exclusive federal jurisdiction we need to form 'a master committee' - representative of and inclusive of everyone, our organization's, our local interests. Currently we have too many organization's that might not be working together and sometimes at cross-purposes. We need to not isolate our concerns but rather join them to be considered together. Perhaps call it a 'grand council'....something like that concept? The point is we want to be able to prevent any federal agency from being able to say they could manage it better. "We need to SHOW them that we can manage better."
CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING
POINTS. THIS IS SADLY A REALITY FOR JUST THE WESTERN STATES, that is because of our high percentage of federally claimed lands.
TIME
2016 is a critical timeframe if we must worry about the Yellowstone Celebration year. Do we have time to get something done? If we get started on our own effort will that be enough to deter consideration of Island Park as some kind of acquisition? Do we have enough time to form the necessary associations? Do we have the cooperation necessary to develop a management plan between the interests and different jurisdictions now in place?
Those concerns need to be immediately addressed.
WHAT LEVEL OF LEGISLATION ARE WE LOOKING TO DEVELOP.
The concurrent state and federal management was the preferred method.
A state resolution would not be binding from the federal perspective, but it would show unanimous support from the local, county, state legislative and executive positions. It would be very symbolic of respect for the process and show unified support from all levels of our representative positions and elected legislature.
Again we need to quickly organize, support the parallel efforts of the antiquities act limitation legislations being forwarded by Senator Crapo and Rep. Labrador, write letters (if we reside part-time in another state please send letters to those legislators, establish our definitions that work for today and anticipate the future, do we/should we set geographic limitations?. We need to recognize that this will need to be an efficient but also multi-step process.
FUNDING FOR THIS LARGE EFFORT
Will be funded through the Island Park Chamber of Commerce, which has set-up a dedicated account for this effort (first to counter the national monument effort earlier this year) but will now be converted toward development of this legislation (we are moving forward). That account is in a local bank, the IP Chamber will also create a gofundme account for online/far distant donation and make that available ASAP.
KEEPING YOU INFORMED
The IP Chamber has established a “Constant Contact” service. All residents, concerned recreationist's, concerned individuals can make updates available for themselves and are encouraged to share with others the opportunity to submit their email address to the IP Chamber to be added to the constant contact list.
OUR NEXT STEP
Volunteers signed up to serve on the working group (yet to be titled)
Meeting set Oct 20, 2015
Community representatives from all identified areas of interest that did not volunteer on the sheet will be approached so that all interests are/can be involved.
PUBLIC MEETING ended. Everyone was thanked for coming. MIXER. People mingled, visited, introduced themselves and enjoyed the fellowship and the opportunity to appreciate one another as a community and thank our leadership for their support and future action.
ALTERNATIVES TO A NATIONAL MONUMENT
(Notes will follow the order of the evening slide presentation)
Note: Prior to our evening meeting, our Special Guests were toured around much of the Island Park area. They toured Harriman State Park, Mesa Falls, Big Springs, scenic routes to showcase locations, and took a UTV tour to the top of Sawtelle Peak for a panoramic viewing of the IPC.
EVENING MEETING - 7 pm at the IP EMS Building.
In Attendance:
112 Community Members
Special Guests
John Hoehne - Chief of Staff-Senator Crapo
Mitch Silvers - State Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Environment Senator Crapo
Katheryn Hitch - Regional Director Senator Crapo
Amy Taylor - Regional Director Senato Risch
Travis Jones - State Policy Director Congressman Simpson
Ethan Huffman - Regional Director Congressman Simpson
David Longhorst - Director, Idaho Dept of Parks and Recreation
John Sullivan - Director of Harriman State Park
Michael Robinson – Trails Specialist, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Mike Webster - Eastern Idaho Field Representative Governor Otter (attended the day tour)
Elizabeth Davy – Caribou - Targhee National Forest (USFS)
Invited but unable to attend:
Fremont County Commissioners
Mayor Jewell
Mike Mathews - State Director Senator Risch
Mike Roach - State Natural Resource Director Senator Risch
Paul Romrell - Idaho State Representative, District 35
Jeff Siddoway - Idaho State Senator
Van Burtenshaw – Idaho State Representative, District 35A
The meeting was conducted by Ken Watts, Chairman of the Caldera Heritage Coalition. Jackie Jensen, Island Park Chamber president welcomed everyone. The presentation Ken offered covered research and information as well as an evaluation of our current status and offered alternatives that we could consider for Island Park's future.
THE THREAT IS REAL
" This idea will not go away." He noted, that next year is the 150th anniversary of the National Park Service and of Yellowstone and that many consider the Island Park Caldera "part of the whole package". Therefore, they are seeking to extend a similar protective status over the Caldera possibly as part of the commemoration".
Rick Johnson
Idaho Conservation League
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING. A POSITIVE COMMUNITY MEETING ABOUT THE FUTURE - not a discussion about the past.
Discuss possible Legislative Alternatives, generate new alternatives, receive community feedback, determine a preferred approach, unite behind a preferred approach.
WHAT DO WE HEAR MOST OFTEN FROM THE COMMUNITY
* We like Island Park the way that it is.
* Leave us alone.
* Nothing is 'broken here'.
* No large developments.
* The president can declare a national monument with the stroke of a pen.
OUR REALITY....TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT FUTURE POTENTIAL...ACTION ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED.
CURRENT STATUS AND UPDATE were given in report style including topics of: research and study on the issues that has been done, congressional outreach, other national monuments designations and the Boulder White Clouds, Senator Crapo's and Rep. Raul Labrador's House and Senate legislation that are in committee at this time intended to limit the use of the president's powers to designate National Monuments through the Antiquities Act, and the community was informed that Sandra Mitchell of the Idaho Recreation Council has agreed to be the media spokesman for the Caldera Heritage Coalition and partner on our efforts going forward.
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION was discussed. Such is a designation allows exclusive federal management and direction, under the authority of a federal agency’s management plan. All uses, allowances, regulations and rules are determined by that plan and directed by federally mandated policy. That managing agency has the power to determine whether to comply, coordinate, and collaborate with the local agencies and any local persons.
Such designations are:
National Parks, national monuments, wildlife refuges, and wilderness designations....while wilderness designations are a legislative creation they are in most cases the most restrictive. The designation is made first, the management plan is developed afterward. The president, under the Antiquities Act, has the power to proclaim the designation (define the area), and declare what will be protected (can include and extend further to restrictions for special features: i.e. water, landmarks).
PRIVATE PROPERTY and BUSINESSES. Questions were asked how such a designation would effect these?
Under such a designation, existing personal and private properties become known as an “in-holding”. Personal property cannot be taken but is affected by the uses, allowances, rules, regulations, access restrictions of the federal management plan.
FOR CLARIFICATION: the following was only briefly touched upon and was not a completely vetted area of discussion in the meeting.
[Note: in holdings present detrimental management concerns for federal managers. They are not preferred. In holders are historically encouraged to either sell, trade outside of the designation for other land/or property, in cases where no agreement can be reached and the federal agency is determined to acquire the personal property, condemnation and eminent domain can be used to resolve the issue, which does not support the private property position.]
? How large of an area was being discussed for a national monument here?
Answer/ while vague, the Targhee Range District was what had been discussed. ( The caldera-
Approx. 7000,00 acres.)
? What would then be the role of the USFS if such a designation be made?
Answer/ That is unknown. That would be determined by who the federal managing agency was,
as also defined by the president at the time of his/her proclamation.
? That would also impact the current and ongoing parallel discussions being addressed
concerning the USFS building located in the Ponds Lodge area would it not?
Answer/ yes, but the how it would affect it, is of course, unknown.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HAVE
* DO NOTHING.
We have been advised that this should not be an option.
Remarks were directed to these topics:
We know that historically we have been discussed in regards to enlargement as a buffer to Yellowstone, and twice now as a national monument. We have been identified because of the past focus under Secretary Kempthore for a national monument designation. The current president has been taking aggressive action to name national monuments. The Yellowstone birthday is upcoming, that makes our situation time sensitive and our timeline of urgency. We have had a recent past effort that has focused the issue here. It would be irresponsible/not realistic for us to try to “the can down the road” and ask our children to have to address it. It is up to us to work at this time to “self-determine” we can enhance what we value and want to keep in Island Park for the current and future generations.
THE COMMUNITY/COOPERATION/NEGOTIATION/COLLABORATION PROCESSES
* In the Owyhees and the Clearwater Basin there is a collaboration in that region led by Senator Crapo. Their Owyhee situation was driven by the issue of grazing vs. none. In the Clearwater Basin the issue is logging versus none. The area has gone from a collapsing forestry industry, caused by restrictions and environmental interests, back to current limited and selective harvesting .
* In the San Gabriel's, a national monument was recently declared, in large part there was larger local support, opposition came late to the process, but they had also been working on a national recreation area action there, In the Basin Range recent , a collaborative process and effort was over-stepped by the president and national monument was made. That is the danger of a collaboration; an effort can be ignored or hijacked toward a different result.
*Entering into a collaborative process invites special interests to the process that are more well-seasoned to work the process and infinitely well organized through years of existence and have access to a vast amount of funding. We would be rookies going up against well seasoned and experienced professionals in such a process. We are not prepared for, nor do we welcome that level of negotiation, at this time. A question was asked in this regard as to when we would be willing to include the National Wildlife Federation to our discussions. (Note: The National Wildlife Federation was involved in advancing and funding the recent national monument designation effort) Answer/ IF they were to be considered as an invitee to any discussion in Island Park, that would be much farther down the road in our process.
*It was noted that in these types of discussions often times involve the currency of wilderness designation. Such was the case in the Boulder White Clouds. Because wilderness designation is done through a legislative process, there is not an exercise of the Antiquities Act. But, it should be noted, as it did happen in the Boulder White Clouds, the threat of a national monument was advanced so that a wilderness designation was the preferred process. In the Boulders there was land considered locally as un-accessible and agreeable as wilderness. An existing SNRA (Sawtooth National Recreation Area) was in place. It was asked and answered that the president could come over this legislative designation to declare a national monument (not ever been challenged), so rather than let that happen, Custer and Blaine Counties agreed to the legislative compromise led by Rep. , and negotiated with the Idaho Conservation League and the Wilderness Society. Sandra Mitchell noted that existing winter and summer recreation did not suffer. We have learned a lot from the example of what has happened historically, the end result, and from the valuable relationships we have made in The Boulders.
A NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
*An exclusive federal designation
*A federal agency writes the management plan
*Private Property Rights can be effected
*Are limited use/not multiple-use
* To be considered as a viable option for Island Park, there would have to be a strong State Lands, Parks Department component. We have two State Parks, at Harriman and Henry's Lake.
Remarks were made about the Boulder White Clouds example, again that wilderness as a currency is not realistic for Island Park, we do not have lands we would want to consider/be willing to offer for wilderness consideration.
? Can a national monument be named over an NRA? Yes. That had been answered, and what would need to happen to try to counter that would be legislative language prohibiting that possibility.
MULTIPLE USE DESIGNATION
* An Island Park Multiple Use and Conservation Act (potential legislation where we would define what we want to keep, goal to maintain and enhance what we have, balance multi-use with conservation projects and goals.)
* No exclusive federal jurisdiction
* Maintain and enhance all current local, county, state (stronger-larger), federal management (USFS) relationships. (Enhance current status)
* prohibit future federal designation ( no more language)
*maintain and enhancing through conservation projects such as: watershed/water quality projects, healthy forest initiatives, game and wildlife projects, healthy rangeland practices, enhancing open space
* the balanced approach of multi-use and conservation goals to maintain and enhance would hope to achieve common and supported consensus for successful legislation and little or no opposition to it in the process.
? Could this be both offered as a state legislation, processed through our Idaho Legislature and presented to Governor Otter as well as a federal legislative process?
Answer/ yes. Both legislative efforts would be best run concurrently.
THIS COULD BE A NEW MODEL FOR THE WEST. ALL WESTERN STATES are vulnerable to acquisition by and under the process and threat of federal designations.
BY CONSENSUS AND LARGE APPLAUSE THIS ALTERNATIVE WAS AGREED UPON BY THE ATTENDING AUDIENCE.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS:
*the process can be derailed by environment and conservation special interests who are well funded, experienced using litigation as challenge, well funded, and politically well advantaged.
*we can lose our voice and any control in the process once entered into
*by moving forward we bring more attention to Island Park (it was noted once again that the focus is already on us whether we want it or not)
*there is the possibility that once we start this process we might not be able to get the necessary votes for passage in Congress. (it was recognized that this is why our local, county, and state leadership and support is so vital to any success we hope to have)
*we must recognize that we are vulnerable to a national monument designation if a national recreation area designation were to fail.
OPEN COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD OPENED:
SPEAKER 1. Joe Sielinsky (Sustainable Fire Program local coordinator)
Presented a map of IP showing:
*approx. # of acres/residential areas = 14,000 acres
*approx. # of lots is greater than 7600 (this did not reflect the number of lots not sub-divided)
*approx. # of structures is greater than 4065 (this may not include summer camps/trailers on lots)
*approx. # of sub-divisions/residential areas is 300, within those are 45 subdivision/residential complexes.
Breakdown by state ownerships. 2100 Idaho residents, 900 Utah, 240 California, 74 Arizona, as the top catagories = 4000+
SPEAKER 2 David Langhorst, Director of Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Following his self-introduction, stated, "I am here to help you". Large applause.
Paraphrase of his comments. What can a larger role of his department possibly mean/be for the future of Island Park? We are having an important and good community conversation about our future. As a community we know who and what the state parks department does through our interaction, support and visitation to Harriman and Henry's Lake State Parks. Did we know that they also mange the federal facility at Mesa Falls? This is an excellent example of inter-agency cooperation that is a great success. The budget is lean but IDPR has very successful department. 1/2 of their budget goes to the parks and the other 1/2 to the recreation programs (much given out thorough grants). In the example of Fremont County they have helped us with 500 miles of trails. Recreation is recognized as an important economic value in communities such as ours, not just as it effects positively in direct dollars invested, but as a ripple and spending multiplier. The footprint of our state parks is much larger than just the economic value of just the park, but to the large community. The IDPR has approximately 2500 miles of trails. Looking to the future, of whatever decision is reached, he wanted to assure us, "that as the Idaho State Parks and Recreation Department, WE ARE HERE FOR YOU". "Idahoans are good at collaborations and finding Idaho Solutions". He reminded us of Senator Risch's Roadless Plan that guides and protects us today as an example of a very successful Idaho Solution.
SPEAKER 3. (Name?)
Spoke to one important aspect of the value of our private properties in Island Park, both in monetary valuations and what we personally value is the freedom to recreate from and on our personal properties without federal restriction. That is why we chose to live here, that is why people chose to visit here. He offered that it is not the "locals' that abuse restrictions, our sensitive and special places. "WE TAKE CARE OF OUR LAND AND RESOURCES, we don't abuse them." He self-identified as 75% “tree-hugger” as a fly-fisherman and quiet outdoor enthusiast and 25% other recreation supporter. He wanted to stress our 'intrinsic values' and wished them to be considered as importantly as the economic values. He is happy we are finally doing this-it is long over do. As good stewards we need to participate, we need to make our voices known and heard, we need to all join together to make the best future happen, and he supports our pro-active management and self-determination efforts.
SPEAKER 4. Gordon Jenkins, resident.
Offered his opinion that if we really want to avoid an exclusive federal jurisdiction we need to form 'a master committee' - representative of and inclusive of everyone, our organization's, our local interests. Currently we have too many organization's that might not be working together and sometimes at cross-purposes. We need to not isolate our concerns but rather join them to be considered together. Perhaps call it a 'grand council'....something like that concept? The point is we want to be able to prevent any federal agency from being able to say they could manage it better. "We need to SHOW them that we can manage better."
CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING
POINTS. THIS IS SADLY A REALITY FOR JUST THE WESTERN STATES, that is because of our high percentage of federally claimed lands.
TIME
2016 is a critical timeframe if we must worry about the Yellowstone Celebration year. Do we have time to get something done? If we get started on our own effort will that be enough to deter consideration of Island Park as some kind of acquisition? Do we have enough time to form the necessary associations? Do we have the cooperation necessary to develop a management plan between the interests and different jurisdictions now in place?
Those concerns need to be immediately addressed.
WHAT LEVEL OF LEGISLATION ARE WE LOOKING TO DEVELOP.
The concurrent state and federal management was the preferred method.
A state resolution would not be binding from the federal perspective, but it would show unanimous support from the local, county, state legislative and executive positions. It would be very symbolic of respect for the process and show unified support from all levels of our representative positions and elected legislature.
Again we need to quickly organize, support the parallel efforts of the antiquities act limitation legislations being forwarded by Senator Crapo and Rep. Labrador, write letters (if we reside part-time in another state please send letters to those legislators, establish our definitions that work for today and anticipate the future, do we/should we set geographic limitations?. We need to recognize that this will need to be an efficient but also multi-step process.
FUNDING FOR THIS LARGE EFFORT
Will be funded through the Island Park Chamber of Commerce, which has set-up a dedicated account for this effort (first to counter the national monument effort earlier this year) but will now be converted toward development of this legislation (we are moving forward). That account is in a local bank, the IP Chamber will also create a gofundme account for online/far distant donation and make that available ASAP.
KEEPING YOU INFORMED
The IP Chamber has established a “Constant Contact” service. All residents, concerned recreationist's, concerned individuals can make updates available for themselves and are encouraged to share with others the opportunity to submit their email address to the IP Chamber to be added to the constant contact list.
OUR NEXT STEP
Volunteers signed up to serve on the working group (yet to be titled)
Meeting set Oct 20, 2015
Community representatives from all identified areas of interest that did not volunteer on the sheet will be approached so that all interests are/can be involved.
PUBLIC MEETING ended. Everyone was thanked for coming. MIXER. People mingled, visited, introduced themselves and enjoyed the fellowship and the opportunity to appreciate one another as a community and thank our leadership for their support and future action.
