ISLAND PARK PRESERVATION COALITION
MAY 26,2016 MEETING NOTES
Committee Members Attending
Ken Watts- IPPC Chairman
Perry Thompson-National Park Service, retired
Rosemary Thompson-IPPC Fund Raising
Dave Moore (and wife Joan)-IP Medical Community
Joe Sielinsky-IP Sustainable Fire
Greg Bitter-IPPC Vice-Chair
Zak Miller-Idaho Farm Bureau
Kathy Rinaldi-GYC
Dale Swenson-HFWC
Trent Yancey-Fall River Cooperative
Leanne Yancey-IPPC Research
Ann Anthony-IP News
Committee Members Absent
Hal Buster-FC Ranching
Brandon Hoffner-HFWC
Bob Stantus-Ellen Stantus
Connie Funkhauser-IP Business/ IPPC Fund Raising/IP Trails Project
Judy Kholey-Secretary
Alynn Crapo-IPPC website admin
Terry DeLong-Treasurer
Jon Stiehl-Trout Hunter-HFF
Knowledge Experts Present
John Hoehney-Senator Crapo
Kathryn Hitch- Senator Crapo
Lee Miller-Fremont County Commissioner
Jordan Stoddard-Fremont County Commissioner
Ken Watts gave the Treasurer’s report for Terry. The balance as of 4-30-16 was $2622.02. Ken submitted 2 invoices for reimbursement for printing costs for tonight’s meeting prep and for our PO Box renewal. Ken mentioned that our costs, at this point, are not significant. In the future we anticipate the need for approximately $10,000 to dedicate to our legislation writing effort.
Rosemary Thompson-reported that the fundraiser quilt project had deposited $200 into the IPPC account at the Bank of Idaho. The quilt can be viewed at Connie’s Restaurant until the next IP community event. She reported that IP Cook-off Breakfast will be July 9th at Connie’s. Half of the proceeds from that event will go to the IPPC. Cooking teams are needed. Also be aware of the Box Canyon National Hike Day. Details will be printed in the IP News. It will be the featured hike showcasing the IP Community Trail.
Ken reported on current events. The IP News front page was dedicated to Governor Otter’s letter to Sally Jewell asking to have our wishes and local efforts respected and to not encourage President Obama to designate IP as a national monument. This is a very positive development. We have successfully gained local-county-regional-congressional-and now state executive support for our monument opposition and Coalition efforts.
Commissioner LeRoy Miller reported that the Fremont County Commissioners have drafted a similar letter to the governor’s letter and that they are sharing this letter with local leaders and groups to solicit their signatures as well.
Ann reported that she had spoken to IP Mayor Tom Jewell who has a City of IP letter to add to that effort. Both letters will be sent to Interior Secretary Jewell.
Dale Swenson asked if these letters should also be cc’d to the congressional staffs. It was agreed that they should.
Ken then reported on a trip he and his wife, Patsy, took to Utah National Parks and national monuments. It was very busy trip, lodging was an issue, expensive. Infrastructure seemed to be an issue handling the tourist traffic. Some parts were very well planned and functioning. He appreciated the planning layout. He wanted to highlight for our group his observations of both Bears Ears which is being considered for national monument designation (controversial) and Grand Staircase Escalante.
Grand Staircase has no paved roads. It has dirt roads. Of most interest was the town of Escalante. They arrived there at 5 p.m. on a Saturday evening. He estimated the population at less 2000. There were no people on the streets. There was an open gas station, convenience store, and grocery store. There were many of what he assumed used to be former professional buildings which were vacant. They viewed a local report from KUTV-Channel 2-SLC. It spoke to the Vanishing Children of Escalante. Kids are leaving as they mature. There is no industry to support them. The high school has 75 students (the principal hopes). He is the principal for 3 schools, elementary to high school. Summer is the only time for jobs. The national monument economy is 4 months for seasonal jobs. The economic impact of the national monument has been devastating to Escalante and has changed the traditional lifestyle of the residents there. Grazing is one of few land uses left that is allowed. The federal managing agency is re-looking at the grazing leases. The leases may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Rosemary asked which agency administrates GSENM. Ken answered BLM. There had been 5 to 7 sawmills in the area and now there is one.
http://kutv.com/news/local/residents-say-federal-land-ownership-is-choking-life-from-garfield-county
video
http://kutv.com/news/local/residents-say-federal-land-ownership-is-choking-life-from-garfield-county
Ken added that he thought it was interesting that east of GSE he saw a sign that said ‘these lands are administered by the NPS’ and he wondered if the immediate lands next to Bryce Canyon National Park were being ‘acquired’ for the national park through the aspect of a‘creep factor’ as they are adjoining lands? Is this one way to make a national park bigger?
Ken said he felt a mix of good and bad. The lay-outs were nicely planned with paved roads and public facilities. The amount of land that public could view was appropriate. He thought that the design showcased the Parks well. Tour buses over-whelmed the infrastructure. Regular public attendance could be handled with the facilities available but the new factor of tour bus and that style of tourism resulted in the overwhelming factor-no vacancies-no room for cars-large tour buses take up the space, etc.. There was group discussion of the same phenomenon in Yellowstone, with the tour buses and foreign visitors.
Kathy Rinaldi, asked considering what Ken described, if the focus of IPPC is to prevent that kind of tourism or benefit from that kind of tourism? She noted there are pros and cons to various land management plans, whether it is legislation, designation, or administration. She asked if a national monument designation in Island Park could provide revenue opportunities (e.g. better roads, more facilities)? She stated that every national monument is different. Would we consider a national monument if we could write the management plan? Ken said no, because we would not have 100% control of the management plan. Kathy stated that we also would not have control of the legislation and that Congress can change it. She asked what the focus of our work should be? She mentioned that we should assess the pros and cons of all the tools. She mentioned Rocky Barker’s comment about IP may be more about the idea that Island Park may start to get overwhelmed by tourists going to Yellowstone. Do we want to ever be known or not? Ken mentioned that the legislation being written is not a management plan. The designation is made then you get what you get. We have no control over that.
Zak Miller told of friends that he has that live at GSENM. He said that they have many concerns all dealing with how they are allowed to live there. There is no development or building for the future there and many land use concerns. Land is locked-up and cut-off. He asked the question: “is this not why we are here”? We do not want to become a national monument.
Ken also introduced the topic of the new BLM 2.0 Rule. There are many concerns and he encouraged the group to study it. He has sent an inquiry on the topic to Mike Webster from Governor Otter’s staff. Presidential executive orders giving more power to federal managing agencies should be a concern for all communities sharing public lands.
Perry Thompson-retired NPS gave his presentation on the ecology of Island Park.
(see notes and slides) It was a wonderful presentation and the group very much enjoyed his presentation. Thank you Perry.
Ken introduced the next phase of our work, sub-committees.
From our sub-committee list, Brandon Hoffner had offered that we combine topics to 4 groups A,B,C,D.
Group discussion of topics and structure.
Leanne Yancey suggested that we take a non-traditional approach to sub-committee model.
Summer is a busy time for us to enter into this critical part of our work. There will be absences such as is the case tonight. We encourage audience attendance. Leanne asked how will they see us doing our work if we are divided into sub-committees. Many of us would like to participate in more than one topic. We would then have to repeat and review so much to compensate for absences and people moving around. Why not use the group learning model? The sub-committee would take the presentation responsibilities for the topics but review and discussion of each would remain with the core committee? Each meeting would address several topics or just one topic if it is a large topic. The topics could be discussed by the entire group. Sub-committee heads would conduct the meetings and chose from the group to get help with the topic.
Zak offered support for this idea. He referred to his familiarity with it as a mini-model of function. Kathy offered support for the traditional model and questioned whether this could even work for us. There were two views on the organizational structure that should be used to address the legislative topics. The first view was to appoint a topic lead and have that person lead the discussion for the entire group at a Coalition meeting. The second view was to divide into subgroups that develop the legislation of each topic and then present their solution to the Coalition. Members expressed concern about both approaches. (Editorial comment from Ken: There was a lot of confusion about the organization approach. Members were not sure what they were voting on. See the following comments.) Rosemary was unsure of the style we are considering and there was additional support for her concerns. Kathy abstained from a vote because she was unclear about the approach. Greg Bitter abstained from the final vote.
The first view was offered for vote by Leanne and seconded by Zak. Kathy abstained from the vote, not understanding fully what the concept would be. The group agreed by majority that we would give it a test run at the next meeting. Perry voted against the motion. The topic for the June meeting is recreation which includes access to public land. Greg Bitter was chosen as the topic sub-committee chair for the recreation discussion.
Next IPPC meeting will be Wednesday June 15th-6 p.m. at IP EMT Building.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10.
MAY 26,2016 MEETING NOTES
Committee Members Attending
Ken Watts- IPPC Chairman
Perry Thompson-National Park Service, retired
Rosemary Thompson-IPPC Fund Raising
Dave Moore (and wife Joan)-IP Medical Community
Joe Sielinsky-IP Sustainable Fire
Greg Bitter-IPPC Vice-Chair
Zak Miller-Idaho Farm Bureau
Kathy Rinaldi-GYC
Dale Swenson-HFWC
Trent Yancey-Fall River Cooperative
Leanne Yancey-IPPC Research
Ann Anthony-IP News
Committee Members Absent
Hal Buster-FC Ranching
Brandon Hoffner-HFWC
Bob Stantus-Ellen Stantus
Connie Funkhauser-IP Business/ IPPC Fund Raising/IP Trails Project
Judy Kholey-Secretary
Alynn Crapo-IPPC website admin
Terry DeLong-Treasurer
Jon Stiehl-Trout Hunter-HFF
Knowledge Experts Present
John Hoehney-Senator Crapo
Kathryn Hitch- Senator Crapo
Lee Miller-Fremont County Commissioner
Jordan Stoddard-Fremont County Commissioner
Ken Watts gave the Treasurer’s report for Terry. The balance as of 4-30-16 was $2622.02. Ken submitted 2 invoices for reimbursement for printing costs for tonight’s meeting prep and for our PO Box renewal. Ken mentioned that our costs, at this point, are not significant. In the future we anticipate the need for approximately $10,000 to dedicate to our legislation writing effort.
Rosemary Thompson-reported that the fundraiser quilt project had deposited $200 into the IPPC account at the Bank of Idaho. The quilt can be viewed at Connie’s Restaurant until the next IP community event. She reported that IP Cook-off Breakfast will be July 9th at Connie’s. Half of the proceeds from that event will go to the IPPC. Cooking teams are needed. Also be aware of the Box Canyon National Hike Day. Details will be printed in the IP News. It will be the featured hike showcasing the IP Community Trail.
Ken reported on current events. The IP News front page was dedicated to Governor Otter’s letter to Sally Jewell asking to have our wishes and local efforts respected and to not encourage President Obama to designate IP as a national monument. This is a very positive development. We have successfully gained local-county-regional-congressional-and now state executive support for our monument opposition and Coalition efforts.
Commissioner LeRoy Miller reported that the Fremont County Commissioners have drafted a similar letter to the governor’s letter and that they are sharing this letter with local leaders and groups to solicit their signatures as well.
Ann reported that she had spoken to IP Mayor Tom Jewell who has a City of IP letter to add to that effort. Both letters will be sent to Interior Secretary Jewell.
Dale Swenson asked if these letters should also be cc’d to the congressional staffs. It was agreed that they should.
Ken then reported on a trip he and his wife, Patsy, took to Utah National Parks and national monuments. It was very busy trip, lodging was an issue, expensive. Infrastructure seemed to be an issue handling the tourist traffic. Some parts were very well planned and functioning. He appreciated the planning layout. He wanted to highlight for our group his observations of both Bears Ears which is being considered for national monument designation (controversial) and Grand Staircase Escalante.
Grand Staircase has no paved roads. It has dirt roads. Of most interest was the town of Escalante. They arrived there at 5 p.m. on a Saturday evening. He estimated the population at less 2000. There were no people on the streets. There was an open gas station, convenience store, and grocery store. There were many of what he assumed used to be former professional buildings which were vacant. They viewed a local report from KUTV-Channel 2-SLC. It spoke to the Vanishing Children of Escalante. Kids are leaving as they mature. There is no industry to support them. The high school has 75 students (the principal hopes). He is the principal for 3 schools, elementary to high school. Summer is the only time for jobs. The national monument economy is 4 months for seasonal jobs. The economic impact of the national monument has been devastating to Escalante and has changed the traditional lifestyle of the residents there. Grazing is one of few land uses left that is allowed. The federal managing agency is re-looking at the grazing leases. The leases may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Rosemary asked which agency administrates GSENM. Ken answered BLM. There had been 5 to 7 sawmills in the area and now there is one.
http://kutv.com/news/local/residents-say-federal-land-ownership-is-choking-life-from-garfield-county
video
http://kutv.com/news/local/residents-say-federal-land-ownership-is-choking-life-from-garfield-county
Ken added that he thought it was interesting that east of GSE he saw a sign that said ‘these lands are administered by the NPS’ and he wondered if the immediate lands next to Bryce Canyon National Park were being ‘acquired’ for the national park through the aspect of a‘creep factor’ as they are adjoining lands? Is this one way to make a national park bigger?
Ken said he felt a mix of good and bad. The lay-outs were nicely planned with paved roads and public facilities. The amount of land that public could view was appropriate. He thought that the design showcased the Parks well. Tour buses over-whelmed the infrastructure. Regular public attendance could be handled with the facilities available but the new factor of tour bus and that style of tourism resulted in the overwhelming factor-no vacancies-no room for cars-large tour buses take up the space, etc.. There was group discussion of the same phenomenon in Yellowstone, with the tour buses and foreign visitors.
Kathy Rinaldi, asked considering what Ken described, if the focus of IPPC is to prevent that kind of tourism or benefit from that kind of tourism? She noted there are pros and cons to various land management plans, whether it is legislation, designation, or administration. She asked if a national monument designation in Island Park could provide revenue opportunities (e.g. better roads, more facilities)? She stated that every national monument is different. Would we consider a national monument if we could write the management plan? Ken said no, because we would not have 100% control of the management plan. Kathy stated that we also would not have control of the legislation and that Congress can change it. She asked what the focus of our work should be? She mentioned that we should assess the pros and cons of all the tools. She mentioned Rocky Barker’s comment about IP may be more about the idea that Island Park may start to get overwhelmed by tourists going to Yellowstone. Do we want to ever be known or not? Ken mentioned that the legislation being written is not a management plan. The designation is made then you get what you get. We have no control over that.
Zak Miller told of friends that he has that live at GSENM. He said that they have many concerns all dealing with how they are allowed to live there. There is no development or building for the future there and many land use concerns. Land is locked-up and cut-off. He asked the question: “is this not why we are here”? We do not want to become a national monument.
Ken also introduced the topic of the new BLM 2.0 Rule. There are many concerns and he encouraged the group to study it. He has sent an inquiry on the topic to Mike Webster from Governor Otter’s staff. Presidential executive orders giving more power to federal managing agencies should be a concern for all communities sharing public lands.
Perry Thompson-retired NPS gave his presentation on the ecology of Island Park.
(see notes and slides) It was a wonderful presentation and the group very much enjoyed his presentation. Thank you Perry.
Ken introduced the next phase of our work, sub-committees.
From our sub-committee list, Brandon Hoffner had offered that we combine topics to 4 groups A,B,C,D.
Group discussion of topics and structure.
Leanne Yancey suggested that we take a non-traditional approach to sub-committee model.
Summer is a busy time for us to enter into this critical part of our work. There will be absences such as is the case tonight. We encourage audience attendance. Leanne asked how will they see us doing our work if we are divided into sub-committees. Many of us would like to participate in more than one topic. We would then have to repeat and review so much to compensate for absences and people moving around. Why not use the group learning model? The sub-committee would take the presentation responsibilities for the topics but review and discussion of each would remain with the core committee? Each meeting would address several topics or just one topic if it is a large topic. The topics could be discussed by the entire group. Sub-committee heads would conduct the meetings and chose from the group to get help with the topic.
Zak offered support for this idea. He referred to his familiarity with it as a mini-model of function. Kathy offered support for the traditional model and questioned whether this could even work for us. There were two views on the organizational structure that should be used to address the legislative topics. The first view was to appoint a topic lead and have that person lead the discussion for the entire group at a Coalition meeting. The second view was to divide into subgroups that develop the legislation of each topic and then present their solution to the Coalition. Members expressed concern about both approaches. (Editorial comment from Ken: There was a lot of confusion about the organization approach. Members were not sure what they were voting on. See the following comments.) Rosemary was unsure of the style we are considering and there was additional support for her concerns. Kathy abstained from a vote because she was unclear about the approach. Greg Bitter abstained from the final vote.
The first view was offered for vote by Leanne and seconded by Zak. Kathy abstained from the vote, not understanding fully what the concept would be. The group agreed by majority that we would give it a test run at the next meeting. Perry voted against the motion. The topic for the June meeting is recreation which includes access to public land. Greg Bitter was chosen as the topic sub-committee chair for the recreation discussion.
Next IPPC meeting will be Wednesday June 15th-6 p.m. at IP EMT Building.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10.
