
A Wyoming congresswoman carrying water for packrafters seeking access to rivers and streams in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks has offered an amendment to her own legislation that seemingly would force the National Park Service to open up specific waters to the paddlers.
The amendment, which will be considered Thursday when the House Natural Resource Committee marks up Rep. Cynthia Lummis' bill, specifically directs the Park Service to allow packrafters access to 50 streams in the two parks.
Among those 50 segments are 4.3 miles along Spread Creek from Grand Teton's eastern boundary to the Snake River, 6.8 miles of Pilgrim Creek from Grand Teton's northeast boundary to Jackson Lake, 26.7 miles of Yellowstone River from Yellowstone's southeast boundary to Yellowstone Lake, and 5.7 miles of the Mountain Ash Creek in southwestern Yellowstone to the creek's confluence with the Falls River.
Rep. Lummis in 2014 introduced legislation to open waters in the two parks to packrafters after discussing the matter with members of the American Packrafting Association. That initial effort was short on specifics, but gave the Interior Department and the Park Service three years to assess the paddling potential of nearly 7,000 stream miles in Yellowstone, and dozens more miles in nearby Grand Teton.
Just surveying those stream miles could take three years, let alone the months needed to produce the environmental reports and craft paddling regulations for the navigable streams. Under that bill, if the Park Service failed to come up with a plan that identified which sections of streams are open to paddling (by kayak, packraft, canoe, or, ostensibly, tube), all streams in the two parks would be open to paddlers. Drift boats could float the Yellowstone River through the Hayden Valley, canoeists could paddle the Lamar River through its namesake valley, and kayakers could tackle the 50 or so miles of the Yellowstone River from the Lower Falls to Gardiner, Montana. Groups could drift down the Firehole River, the Madison, and the Gibbon, as well as the Bechler, the Lewis, the Gallatin River and more.
While the measure was not taken up last year by Congress, Rep. Lummis reintroduced a similar measure early this year. That legislation, if enacted, would give the Park Service three years to study the potential streams that could be opened to paddle sports such as packrafting, kayaking, and canoeing and assess what impacts could be created; prevent additional commercial paddling operations beyond what currently are in place, and; somewhat restrict where paddlers could go in Grand Teton.
In a release announcing the measure, the Republican said, “I took great care to preserve the discretion of park managers to actually manage paddling as they do any other recreational activity in the parks, and to ensure park managers have the time and resources necessary to go through the proper studies and analysis. The end result will be yet another way for the public to have truly unforgettable experiences enjoying the Wyoming treasures that are Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park.”
But NPCA officials did not share the congresswoman's view of her legislation, saying that even with the changes it "could have far-reaching negative impacts on two of our country’s most iconic national parks. At this time, NPCA believes that the bill fails to address longstanding concerns raised by conservationists, visitors, the National Park Service, and other key stakeholders."
"As currently written, the bill would eliminate critically important rules that have protected these two iconic national parks for decades," said Sharon Mader, the park advocacy group's Grand Teton program manager, said in February. "The area of untouched rivers and streams that park managers would be forced to study is approximately three and a half times the length of the entire Mississippi River.”
This week the Wyoming congresswoman introduced an amendment that, if adopted, would take away some of the Park Service's discretion in reviewing which stream segments in the two parks could be opened to packrafting. In its introduction, the amendment states, "Waters where such use shall be allowed under the regulations shall include, at a minimum, the segments listed in subsection..." (emphasis added).
At NPCA, Kristen Brengel said Tuesday that the language forces the Park Service's hand when it comes to studying which rivers and streams might be appropriate for paddlers.
“You could still do a study, but you’d still be required to allow the use on these rivers and streams," said Ms. Brengel, the non-profit advocacy group's Senior Director, Legislation & Policy. "Thanks to this amendment, this bill has taken a turn for the worse. Yellowstone and Grand Teton deserve better.”
A request for comment Tuesday from Rep. Lummis' staff was not immediately met. In the Park Service's Intermountain Regional Office, spokesman Patrick O'Driscoll said the agency was aware of the amendment.
"We have only begun to look at it, and we will be consulting with staff in Washington to formulate a response," he said.
The more than 400 miles of stream segments identified in the congresswoman's bill are:
* BEAVERDAM CREEK.—The approximately 5.6-mile segment of Beaverdam Creek from 8085’ to Yellowstone Lake.
* BECHLER RIVER.—The approximately 17.4-mile segment of Bechler River from Three River Junction to the confluence with Falls River.
* BOUNDARY CREEK.—The approximately 15.3-mile segment of Boundary Creek from 7455’ to the confluence with Bechler River.
* CACHE CREEK.—The approximately 12.2-mile segment from 7737’ to the confluence with Lamar River.
* COULTER CREEK.—The approximately .9-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park south boundary to the confluence with the Snake River.
* FALLS RIVER.—The approximately 20.4-mile segment from 7316’ to the Yellowstone National Park south boundary.
* FAN CREEK.—The approximately 7.7-mile segment from Fan Creek upper forks (7526’) to the confluence with the Gallatin River.
* FERRIS FORK.—The approximately 1-mile segment from 7455’ to Three River Junction.
* FIREHOLE RIVER.—The approximately 4.5-mile segment of campsite OA3 to Kepler Cascades.
* GALLATIN RIVER.—The approximately 22.3-mile segment from 7650’ to the Yellowstone National Park northwest boundary.
* GARDNER RIVER.—The approximately 23.6-mile segment from Fawn Creek to the confluence with Yellowstone River.
* GRAYLING CREEK.—The approximately 7.4-mile segment from Grayling Creek canyon mouth (7088’) to the Yellowstone National Park west boundary.
* GREGG FORK.—The approximately 1.7-mile segment from 7795’ to Three River Junction.
* HEART RIVER.—The approximately 4.8-mile segment from Heart Lake to the confluence with Snake River.
* HELLROARING CREEK.—The approximately 6.4-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park north boundary to the confluence with the Yellowstone River.
* HOWELL CREEK.—The approximately 5.4-mile segment from Howell Creek upper forks to the confluence with Mountain Creek.
* INDIAN CREEK.—The approximately 7.7-mile segment from 8030’ meadow to the confluence with Gardner River.
* LAMAR RIVER.—The approximately 27.3-mile segment from 8167’ to Specimen Ridge trail.
* LAMAR RIVER.—The approximately 7.5-mile segment from the top of Lamar Canyon (6478’) to the confluence with Yellowstone River.
* LEWIS RIVER.—The approximately 8.5-mile segment from the top of Lewis Canyon (7730’) to the confluence with Snake River.
* LITTLE LAMAR RIVER.—The approximately 3.7-mile segment from 8200’ to the confluence with the Lamar River.
* MIDDLE CREEK.—The approximately 4-mile segment from 7265’ to the Yellowstone National Park east boundary.
* MILLER CREEK.—The approximately 10-mile segment from 7655’ to the confluence with Lamar River.
* MOUNTAIN ASH CREEK.—The approximately 5.7-mile segment from 6555’ to the confluence with Falls River.
* MOUNTAIN CREEK.—The approximately 7.9-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park east boundary to the confluence with Yellowstone River.
* NEZ PERCE CREEK.—The approximately 8.2-mile segment from 7310’ to Grand Loop Road.
* PEBBLE CREEK.—The approximately 10.3-mile segment from 7954’ trail crossing to the confluence with Soda Butte Creek.
* POLECAT CREEK.—The approximately 2-mile segment from 7050’ to the Yellowstone National Park south boundary.
* ROBINSON CREEK.—The approximately 4.4-mile segment from 6555’ to the Yellowstone National Park southwest boundary.
* SLOUGH CREEK.—The approximately 13.4-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park north boundary to Slough Creek trail head/campground.
* SNAKE RIVER.—The approximately 31.8-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park southeast boundary (8059’) to the Yellowstone National Park south boundary (6867’).
* SODA BUTTE CREEK.—The approximately 10.3-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park northeast boundary to the confluence with Amphitheater Creek.
* SPECIMEN CREEK.—The approximately 2.6-mile segment from 7170’ to the confluence with the Gallatin River.
* THOROFARE CREEK.—The approximately 4.4-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park southeast boundary to the confluence with Yellowstone River.
* TRAIL CREEK.—The approximately 3-mile segment from Trail Lake to Yellowstone Lake.
* YELLOWSTONE RIVER.—The approximately 36-mile segment, including Grand and Black canyons, from Sevenmile Hole to the Yellowstone National Park north boundary.
* YELLOWSTONE RIVER.—The approximately 26.7-mile segment from Yellowstone National Park southeast boundary to Yellowstone Lake.
* ARIZONA CREEK.—The approximately 4.8-mile segment from the Grand Teton National Park east boundary to Jackson Lake.
* BERRY CREEK.—The approximately 9.9-mile segment from 7560’ to Jackson Lake.
* BUFFALO FORK RIVER.—The approximately 8.7-mile segment from the Grand Teton National Park east boundary to the confluence with Snake River.
* COTTONWOOD CREEK.—The approximately 7.3-mile segment from Jenny Lake to the confluence with Snake River.
* DITCH CREEK.—The approximately 7.3-mile segment from the Grand Teton National Park east boundary to the confluence with Snake River.
* GROS VENTRE RIVER.—The approximately 12.7-mile segment from the Grand Teton National Park southeast boundary to the Grand Teton National Park south boundary.
* LAKE CREEK.—The approximately 3.9-mile segment from Phelps Lake to the Grand Teton National Park south boundary.
* OWL CREEK.—The approximately 2.2-mile segment from 7312’ to the confluence with Berry Creek.
* PACIFIC CREEK.—The approximately 4.6-mile segment from the Grand Teton National Park northeast boundary to the confluence with Snake River.
* PILGRIM CREEK.—The approximately 6.8-mile segment from Grand Teton National Park northeast boundary to Jackson Lake.
* PILGRIM CREEK EAST FORK.—The approximately .8-mile segment from the Grand Teton National Park northeast boundary to the confluence with Pilgrim Creek.
* POLECAT CREEK.—The approximately 3.9-mile segment from the Yellowstone National Park south boundary to the confluence with Snake River.
* SPREAD CREEK.—The approximately 4.3-mile segment, including both channels of Spread Creek, from the Grand Teton National Park east boundary to the Snake River.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Missing from this report is a list of people or organizations that are pushing the Congresswoman to shove this bill through. Are they a small group of individuals? A large group of individuals? Are they mainly outfitters who would be able to open new opportunities to make money using Yellowstone's rivers?
That kind of information is vital so other Americans may decide whether to support or oppose this legislation.
Also, how many miles of rivers outside but near the park are already open to such activities?
A lot more information is needed.
Sounds like the time tables are unfair to the NPS. Maybe it would be better to do one river at a time. And NPS could always add a huge fee for packrafting to deter if they are opposed.
While I believe it is in Congress's perview to broadly define the role of the NPS including requesting studies, I am totally against the micro management that this bill mandates. What is the purpose of a "study" if it is already determined that certain waters must be opened?
"carrying water for packrafters seeking access to rivers and streams" Kurt you are better than that.
Yes, Kurt, you really know better than trying to use the old "carrying water" bit. Certainly you know it should have read, "Carrying pocketsful of money from packrafters businesses seeking access to rivers and streams."
Shame upon you!
'-}
Lee - back to your empty accusations - unless you can prove her position is based on monies from packrafters.
She's a congresscritter.
Q.E.D.
So Rick, want to back up the accusation or just be another member of the empty accusation crowd?
It was so nice and quiet in here just of late.
Eric - you go ahead and call me whatever you need to.
Eric - I took a few minutes to do the research. Her funding comes from people you like and I dislike. Have a nice day.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00...
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=...
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00029788&cycle=...
http://www.wyofile.com/wyoming-delegation-rep-cynthia-lummis-among-riche...
And nary a packrafter outfit on the lists. I don't agree with her bill but there is no evidence that she is doing anything other than earnestly representing the interest of her constituents - i.e. her job. That makes your claims pure empty accusations.
Pray tell, Rick, what name did I call you? That is more the style of you and Lee (congresscritter)
Ok, class, let's be civil.
EC, there is a story in the Jackson Hole Guide this morning that said Rep. Lummis worked with two packrafters to craft the amendments.
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/parks-paddling-act-twea...
Whether they represent the majority views of her "constituents" could be debated.
That said, I, too, disagree with her approach, and in the past have said the NPS should at least sit down with those seeking packrafting access and discuss the matter.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/08/travelers-view-packrafting-...
The fact she worked with packrafters to craft the amendments in no way implies she has taken her position only because of money. It is common sense that if one believes that packrafting is appropriate that they would consult with packrafting companies in drafting the legislation. But you and I are in agreement, it would be best if the industry and the NPS discussed the issue and reached some middle ground rather than Congress micro-managing the NPS affairs. I just felt your use of the perjoritive "carrying water" was unneccessary.
Thank you, Kurt. Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall in this age of funding hidden behind walls of secrecy and funneled through various PACs.
Our lawmakers are experts at hiding their tracks within that maze of secrecy.
It's very gratifying, ec, to see that you are upset today at Congressional "micormanaging" of the NPS. That's a complete about-face from many of your past commentaries here. Congratulations. Perhaps you're starting to see the light.
Absolutely false. I have consitently argued against Congressional micro management of the NPS.
Meanwhile you have consistently made unsubstantiated claims regarding funding even while admitting that "Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall". You have no clue if she received any money from packrafting companies and even less of a clue as to whether that influenced her actions.
ec, you need to run for Congress. You're really good at dodging around and covering tracks.
How do you fail to see the irony in your comment: "Meanwhile you have consistently made unsubstantiated claims regarding funding even while admitting that "Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall"
Exactly!
In the meantime, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has apparently expired while Congress has fiddled and piddled.
Perhaps you could explain it. I see no irony. I see a statement which is sad but true. And what have I dodged and covered up? Do I have some special access to this site that allows me to delete past statements? Can you show anywhere where I have advocated micro management of the NPS by Congress? More unsubstantiated accusations.
It's time to leave judgement to other readers. Have a smiling day!
In other words, you can't substantiate your claims.
What confuses me is the idea that packrafting down a river is a problem in yellowstone, which has huge, wide cut TRAILS throughout the entire park. The whole of the park has these corridors that allow thousand to walk right into wilderness. How are they not a much bigger impact? Conservationists that are ok with trails, but against using natural corridors have a huge blindspot in their understanding of wilderness. Let the trails overgrow and only allow wilderness travel like we have in much of Alaska. Don't post your gps coordinates either. That has created an impact on Denali National Park.