Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Kemper, R. E. and Davis, L.S., "Costs of Environmental Constraints on Timber
Harvesting and Regeneration", Journal of Forestry 74(11) 1976: 754-756.

Leaird, John, "What is the $ Value of Aesthetics?", Florida Naturalist,
February 1972: 18-21.

Lundgren, Allen L., Cost-Price: A Useful Way to Evaluate Timber Growing Alternatives, USDA Forest Research paper NC-95, 1973.

Okamoto/Liskamm, Appearance and Design: Principles for Design and Development of San Francisco Bay, Bay Conservation and Development Commission Background Report #29, San Francisco, 1967.

Public Opinion on Environmental Issues. Results of a National Public Opinion Survey. Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Reimold, Robert J., Hardisky, Michael A. and Phillips, Jeannette, "Wetland Values A Non-consumptive Perspective", Journal of Environmental Management 11, 1980: 77-85.

[ocr errors]

Rickard, W.M., Hughes, Jay and Newport, Carl A., Economic Evaluation and Choice in Old Growth Douglas-fir, USFS Research paper PNW-49, 1967.

Skow, John, "Joe Horvath is Adding Up Your Dollars of Happiness", Outdoor
Life, March 1977:

66-192.

Tlusty, Wayne G., North in the 1980's: Landscape Aesthetic Values, University of Wisconsin

Extension 1979.

Yanagi, Soetsu, The Unknown Craftsman, Kodansha International Ltd., Tokyo, 1972.

[blocks in formation]

Senator EVANS. Thank you, very much. That is very interesting. Mr. ADLARD. Incidentally, there's a listing of 16 research studies, an excellent cost study that was just completed in Idaho attached to yours, and then I brought along some of these things to let you know that there are guidelines established.

Senator EVANS. Good. That is very helpful. Thank you, very much.

Vera Dafoe.

STATEMENT OF VERA DAFOE, FORMER MEMBER, OREGON COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE COMMISSION

Ms. DAFOE. Senator Evans, my name is Vera Dafoe. I'm a former member of the Oregon Columbia Gorge Commission. Today I'm speaking about the structure of the two gorge commissions and what their role has been in the land use planning going on in the gorge.

The five members of the Oregon Commission and six members of the Washington Commission are appointed by their respective Governors. All Washington commissioners and three of the Oregon commissioners must live in the gorge and represent the counties in the gorge. Two of the Oregon commissioners can live anywhere in the State, but they're ordinarily gorge residents, too.

Customarily, in Washington the candidates for the commission are recommended by the county commissioners to the Governor. In Oregon, the appointments are political by the Governor, he chooses them. In neither State are there requirements that the candidates have any experience or skills in land use planning, any knowledge of gorge issues or any other particular expertise.

Gorge commission literature gives lip service to the concept of one gorge, and this is the rule they try to live by. But, it doen't work that way. What is best for the gorge is lost in their deliberations because the commissioners are pressured from their own districts by their county commissioners and by special interests for both the county and State they live in.

By statute, the structure of the gorge commissioners is advisory. They have no actual authority. The advisory statements of the commissions are used by the Governors, county commissioners, loggers, developers, gravel pit operators, and so forth, when those positions suppport their views. But when the gorge commission positions are different, then they're ignored and dismissed by these same people. Again, they have no real authority. Further, some of the members have been subjected to scrutiny and belligerence in their own communities when they don't toe the line.

The very structure of the Columbia River Gorge Commissions hampers their effectiveness because they become politicized, and they would be even more so if they had any real authority. As it is, the gorge commission members represent some individuals from their counties, but seldom do they represent the concept of the one gorge. Therefore, every decision made by the gorge commissions is a weak compromise. The commissioners tend to become deadlocked and ineffective in their advisory role. Nobody really wants their advice.

The lesson to be gained from an analysis of the structure of the gorge commissions is this: Commissions have not and will not work in the Columbia Gorge. What is needed is an entity such as the Forest Service or the National Park Service which is removed from the local, short-term, economic interests championed by the gorge county commissioners.

[blocks in formation]

STATEMENT OF KATE MCCARTHY, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OR

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator Evans. My name is Kate McCarthy and I am a resident of Hood River County. I am also a farmer. I feel, contrary to Rita Swyers, that this bill would really increase the protection of the farming areas rather than be detrimental to farming.

I feel that a good deal of my written testimony has been covered, so I may wander around just a little bit.

Local control is not a plan for protecting and managing the gorge. It commits us to crisis-to-crisis confrontation and not working together of the local, State, and Federal levels which I believe is necessary for the proper management of the gorge.

One thing that hasn't been particularly brought up, I feel, is we talk about protection of the gorge, and I think the use of the gorge, management for the use of increasing numbers that are coming to the gorge is a factor I don't think we've dwelled on.

I think there are weaknesses on the Washington side because there are not the number of parks there are on the Oregon side. There is a possibility that the private land could become a wall of private estates without access to the river. I think this is an important factor in the use and management of the gorge to make it possible for the Washington side to share the heavy use the Oregon side now has. Our parks are very crowded and our trails are crowded, and I feel that to have a balanced management on both sides there needs to be a single unit management of the gorge, with the three levels cooperating.

It's time to stop talking about protecting the gorge and finally do it so that all of this confrontation can cease and we can work out a plan. I believe if we could sit down together, hopefully we've accomplished something today, and that your Federal effort on this can bring the thinking of the different factions in the gorge closer together. I don't think there's as much difference in the outlooks as people would like to make out, because I think everybody does want to see the gorge protected.

I do support a bill similar to the Packwood bill. Putting management of the gorge in the hands of local control, subject to local pressure, will leave the future of the gorge up to chance, to the political climate and how the political winds blow. This does not ensure a good plan or lasting protection.

I have served both on the Oregon Columbia Gorge Commission and on the board of the Mid-Columbia Economic Development District and have viewed firsthand the imbalance between the present weak powers for protection and the great power for development

and special interests in the gorge. A formidable array of chambers of commerce, port districts, development-oriented county commissioners, economic development disticts, timber, real estate and land development, and business interests powered by money operate at the local level. I do not mean to imply that these interests do not have a vital and needed place. What I am saying is a balance for the necessary portection of the gorge is not likely to be realized by placing it in the hands of the local business-political leadership. Historically, it can be documented that in protecting large landscapes, local control does not have a good track record.

I'll skip along down here for the sake of time.

In any plan for the gorge, there must be a strong Federal role, both to provide funding the States and counties won't and can't, and to oversee the local State-Federal partnership to ensure that the purpose of the legislation is accomplished. We have spent billions of dollars of Federal money in effort and involvement in the gorge for exploitation and resources. I do not feel it is un-American to spend a few bucks of Federal money and effort and involvement for protection of some of what is left. We owe it to the gorge, ourselves, and to future generations.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]

Dear Senator

I am

8th hearing

Kate R. McCarthy 9095 Cooper Spur Road Parkdale, Oregon 97041

Evans;

sending my testimony from the November on the bolumbia River Gorge.

a

I am enclosing letter written by Governor Victor Atiyaḥ

photograph and a copy

1981

[ocr errors]

of a

May

to members of The Oregen delegation. It gives

The background of his concerns for the Gorge and depth study he asked Joan Smith Borden Beck to carry out - and cutlines his

mentions an in

and

Main points

[blocks in formation]

för

plan

for the Gerije, Legislation

on the basis of These points which

[blocks in formation]

Plead for Feiral, state, and brul partnership

Meed to maintain role as

major transportation corrider

Need to promote economic viability of urban communities communities exempt so as not to nemper economic

development

Single management

[blocks in formation]

Identification of critical areas.

Existing homes and businesses protected
Substantial lical participation

Forest Service lead agency
illechanism for
appeal

Funding planning and implementation

of

eminent domain

« AnteriorContinuar »