[Senate Hearing 111-223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-223
PUBLIC LANDS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 555 S. 607
S. 721 S. 1122
S. 1328 S. 1442
H.R. 129
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-226 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 6
Bidwell, Ryan D., Executive Director, Colorado Wild, Durango, CO. 43
Bingaman, Hon., Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico............... 5
Crapser, Bill, State Forester, Wyoming State Forestry Division,
Cheyenne, WY................................................... 40
Gregory, Rusty, CEO/President, Mammoth Chairman, National Ski
Areas Association, Mammoth Lakes, CA........................... 36
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 10
Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Senator From Colorado...................... 8
Moseley, Cassandra Ph.D., Director of The Ecosystem Workforce
Program, Institute For A Sustainable Environment, University of
Oregon, Eugene, OR............................................. 48
Stanton, Robert G., Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Policy and
Program Management, Department of the Interior................. 19
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 63
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 77
PUBLIC LANDS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. This subcommittee will come to order. The
purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on several
bills pending before the subcommittee.
These include S. 555, the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection
District Land Exchange Act.
S. 607, the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement
Act.
S. 721, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and
Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act.
S. 1122, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act.
S. 1328 and H.R. 689, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act.
S. 1442, the Public Lands Service Corps Act.
H.R. 129, to authorize the conveyance of certain National
Forest System lands in the Los Padres National Forest in
California.
Our ranking minority member, Senator Barrasso, is very
gracious, as always, and thought that Senator Bingaman, our
Chair of our full committee should go next. So, Chairman
Bingaman, welcome.
[The prepared Statements of Senators Ensign, Murray, and
Feinstein, and Representative Reichert follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Ensign, U.S. Senator From Nevada,
on S. 607
I want to thank Senator Wyden for holding today's hearing about the
Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act. This legislation
provides us with a unique opportunity to promote some of our country's
most beautiful recreational areas by encouraging and welcoming
innovative thinking and more efficient use of our land.
Several decades ago, ski slopes were for skiing. That was pretty
much the extent of the scope and income of ski areas. We have all
witnessed the evolution of those slopes into prime opportunities for
year-round activities. Unfortunately, our outdated laws are stifling
recreational and economic opportunity.
The Ski Permit Act of 1986 makes it difficult for the U.S. Forest
Service to permit some recreational activities at ski resorts during
the summer months. While a variety of activities have been permitted at
resorts in some regions, resorts in other regions are stuck struggling
through a bureaucratic process.
The legislation under consideration today would allow the U.S.
Forest Service to provide more consistent and informed decisions across
the country. Increasing the amount and availability of year-round
activities at ski resorts will help attract more visitors to the resort
communities. By allowing these year-round activities, families will
have a greater variety of activities to choose from.
Attracting guests with new experiences and activities will also
help local communities by stimulating the economy. Many of these
communities have the capability to accommodate visitors all four
seasons but lack the tourism needed to capitalize on their current
infrastructure. This leaves many businesses behind and stagnant in the
off months as their potential is being greatly underutilized.
In my home State of Nevada, we have tremendous ski resorts at Lake
Tahoe, Mount Rose, and Mount Charleston. Their slopes are breathtaking
when they are covered in fresh snow, but they are also beautiful on a
warm summer day. We should not prevent people from enjoying these
recreational areas all year long. Let's update this law to allow for
more opportunities to take advantage of our recreational areas. It will
benefit our local economies, benefit visitors to these areas, encourage
an appreciation for our natural surroundings, and lead to increased
health and fitness opportunities.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patty Murray, U.S. Senator From Washington,
on S. 721
Thank you, Chairman Wyden. I want to thank you and Senator Barrasso
for including the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and
Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act as part of your hearing
today.
The existing 394,000 acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness is a treasure
both in Washington State and across the country. As one of the most
visited wilderness areas in the country, Alpine Lakes Wilderness gives
millions of people the opportunity to enjoy our public lands just a
short drive from Seattle.
Today we are here to discuss the opportunity to permanently protect
additional lands near the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and to designate two
rivers of great importance to the surrounding ecosystem as Wild and
Scenic. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork
Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act will protect wildlife, promote clean
water, enhance and protect recreational opportunities, reflect the
diverse landscapes of the Puget Sound region, and contribute to the
local economy.
This has been a team effort and I want to thank Senator Cantwell
for being here. I appreciate her co-sponsorship of this bill as well as
her assistance.
I also want to acknowledge my colleague and partner on this bill,
Congressman Dave Reichert. Throughout this process, Dave has reached
out to the local communities and stakeholders to understand their
priorities.
The bill before you today is the result of discussion and
negotiation with the local community and interested stakeholders
regarding issues such as mountain bike use, search and rescue
operations, ski operations, and road and trailhead access.
My colleagues and I have worked hard to address constructive issues
and concerns that have been brought to us. I am grateful to everyone
who reached out to us and worked with us, and I think you'll see that
because we worked hard to address those concerns, this bill has
garnered broad support.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to mention just a few of the benefits the
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie
Rivers Protection Act will offer.
First, this wilderness area will protect wildlife and promote clean
water by preserving the landscapes that host many native plants and
animals. The wilderness is home to abundant elk and deer populations as
well as other animals and native fish populations.
Second, this wilderness designation, along with the Wild and Scenic
River designations will enhance and protect recreational opportunities
for our growing region. More people and more families are turning to
outdoor recreation on our public lands. This bill protects the area for
users today and into the future, and will preserve existing road and
trailhead access.
That leads me to the third benefit of this bill: Wilderness and
Wild and Scenic River designations will contribute to the local
economy. Even during the tough economy of the last several years,
outdoor industry retail sales have stayed strong. That means more
people are going out more often into our wildlands and the gateway
communities that serve them. The existing Alpine Lakes Wilderness is
already a destination and these additional protections will add to the
allure of this special place.
Another driving purpose behind the bill is the inclusion of low
elevation lands. The proposed additions we are discussing today provide
an opportunity to protect rare low elevation old growth and mature
forests. These low elevation lands were largely excluded from the
Alpine Lakes Wilderness in 1976, and about half of the lands included
in this proposal are below 3,000 feet in elevation.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few letters from groups and individuals I
would like to submit for the record and the Committee's consideration.
I know that Senator Cantwell also has letters to submit to the record
and I hope to supplement those.
I appreciate that Deputy Chief Holtrop from the Forest Service is
here today to testify. I understand that the Forest Service will
provide some suggestions on the legislation, and I look forward to
working with them.
Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to visit the Alpine Lakes area
this spring, and it truly is a special place. Conserving and preserving
our natural resources reflects the values I grew up with here in
Washington State and I want to leave the same kind of legacy for my
grandson and for future generations to enjoy. And this legislation will
ensure that we protect these special places. I appreciate your time
today and I look forward to working with you and the Committee to move
forward on this legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From
California, on S. 1328, H.R. 129, S. 1442, S. 607
Introduction
Chairman Wyden, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
taking the time to hold this hearing and provide the opportunity for
testimony on these important matters. I appreciate the opportunity to
come tell you why I support four bills you are addressing today:
S. 1328--Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administration
Jurisdiction Transfer Act;
H.R. 129--Authorization of the conveyance of certain
National Forest System lands in the Los Padres National Forest
in California;
S. 1442--Public Lands Service Corps Act; and
S. 607--Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act
Each of these bills will make it easier for people to enjoy and use
federal lands.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administration Jurisdiction Transfer Act
(S. 1328)
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administration Jurisdiction
Transfer Act would improve the management of an Off-Highway Vehicle
area and several parcels of wilderness. The Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway
Vehicle area would be improved because it would be entirely under the
management of the Bureau of Land Management. People wanting to recreate
in the area would have greater certainty and less unnecessary
bureaucracy, and be better able to enjoy federal lands. And the Forest
Service would be able to manage wilderness areas contiguous to its
current lands.
This bill would fix the difficulties and additional expense for the
public created by the current split management of the Off-Highway
Vehicle area. Users would no longer need two permits, often at
substantial and unnecessary cost. And the entire area would no longer
have different opening dates, frustrating the local Off-Highway Vehicle
community and the thousands of tourists who travel there every year.
This exchange only would affect land already controlled by the
federal government and would not change the designation of these lands.
Furthermore, it would be beneficial to the local community, which has
supported this jurisdictional change. The bill was developed in a
collaborative manner, with input and agreement at the local level by
the Forest Service and BLM, in conjunction with the local Off-Highway
Vehicle community. The bill is also supported by the County Board of
Supervisors.
Authorization of the conveyance of certain National Forest System lands
in the Los Padres National Forest in California (H.R. 129)
This bill would authorize the Forest Service to sell a small parcel
of land to the White Lotus Foundation, ensuring its continued access to
its private property. White Lotus runs a private institution providing
yoga teacher training, continuing education, and retreats, but there is
only one entry road to the property, which zigzags through a small
section--just 5 acres--of steeply sloped Forest Service land. White
Lotus would pay for all the necessary environmental reviews and
approvals needed for the conveyance. And the proceeds from the sale of
the land would be used to purchase more useful lands for the Forest
Service. This is a common-sense solution worked out by members of the
local community.
Public Lands Service Corps Act (S. 1442)
I support this amendment to the Public Lands Corps Act. It would
substantially expand the program and create more opportunities for our
nation's youth to participate in the management and care-taking of our
natural resources. In particular, it would continue to provide funding
and authorize participation in hazardous fuel reduction projects, which
help protect communities and habitat, and restore our forest
landscapes.
Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (S. 607)
This bill would amend the 1986 Ski Area Permit Act to allow summer,
natural resource-based recreational activities at public land ski
resorts. Currently, Forest Service policy on summer activities is
unclear, and as a result, agency decision making on summer activities
varies greatly by region. Eighteen ski resorts in California would be
affected by this legislation: Heavenly, Kirkwood, Sierra, Mt. Rose,
Alpine Meadows, Sugar Bowl, Bear Valley, and several in the Big Bear
Lake area. The ski resorts need to have year-round use to keep jobs
during the off-season. The language in S. 607 would provide for more
clarity and consistent decision making. There would still be National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and environmental assessment for
any proposed off-season use, and any proposed use must be consistent
with the Forest Plan.
Conclusion
Again, I thank you for holding this hearing. Each of these four
bills would ensure better utilization of public lands, resolve local
conflicts, and continue good stewardship practices.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dave Reichert, U.S. Representative From
Washington, on S. 721
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
subcommittee--thank you for holding this hearing on the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers
Protection Act (S.721), and for allowing me to submit supporting
testimony. Senator Patty Murray has been an outstanding partner in this
bipartisan conservation effort, and I am pleased to have her leadership
and the support of Senator Maria Cantwell on this bill.
S.721, the companion to House legislation I first introduced in
2007 and reintroduced this year (H.R. 1769), builds upon the proud
Washington State tradition initiated by Senators Warren Magnuson (D-
WA), Scoop Jackson (D-WA), and Dan Evans (R-WA) of working together to
protect our public lands and preserve recreational opportunities for
outdoors enthusiasts. The people of Washington State understand how
this bipartisanship works for their lasting benefit: look no further
than Mt. Rainier, Olympic, and the North Cascades National Parks to see
how these anchors of outdoor recreation are treasured by residents and
visitors alike.
The current 394,000-acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness reaches the crest
of the Cascade Mountains just east of the Seattle-Bellevue metropolitan
area. In 1976, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was designated by Congress
and has become one of the most popular wilderness areas in the country.
Now, 30 years later, S.721/H.R.1769 provides an opportunity to
permanently protect key additions to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in my
congressional district that will preserve important wildlife habitats,
existing recreational opportunities, and local economies that rely on
both. The legislation embraces important lower-elevation lands,
completes watersheds, protects two rivers with Wild and Scenic
designations (the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers), and
provides clean water and flood control for the Middle Fork and South
Fork valleys. Congressionally-designated Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River designations are the strongest and most durable means to ensure
these special areas are preserved for our children and grandchildren to
experience.
The Middle Fork and South Fork valleys are the closest and most
accessible mountain valleys to residents of the greater Seattle-
Bellevue metropolitan area. The proposed additions have been carefully
crafted with consideration for existing recreational opportunities for
hiking, camping, rafting, kayaking, horseback riding, mountain biking,
and wildlife viewing. It also protects a large area of accessible
lowland forests, preserving hunting and fishing opportunities in
primitive settings.
Our proposal also protects an important wildlife habitat that
contains abundant elk and deer populations. And although salmon are not
present in the Middle Fork, there are substantial populations of
resident trout that rely on the streams of the Pratt and Middle Fork
Snoqualmie Rivers. These watersheds are sources of clean water,
important for downstream fisheries and commercial and residential water
users. Preserving the forests as Wilderness would ensure maintenance of
flow during the dry summer months, and aid in flood control. The
Snoqualmie basin is subject to flood events on a regular basis; the
low-elevation forest valleys are critical to controlling run-off rates
here and the proposed additions would preserve intact forest
ecosystems, protecting against increasing flood severity on downstream
infrastructure and residents.
The benefits of the legislation are clear, but the process we
engaged in to reach this consensus measure is equally important for the
subcommittee to consider. I am proud of the fact that this legislation
is the result of extensive consultation and consensus-building with
local stakeholders. Meetings began as early as May 2007, and frequent
gatherings to collaborate with elected officials, conservation
enthusiasts, recreation groups, and property-rights advocates
constructed and modified this proposal to address concerns raised by
stakeholders. That is one of many reasons why this and the original
proposal enjoys the strong, broad-based local support of 104 elected
officials; 113 businesses, ranging from recreational outfitters to
restaurants and retailers; 15 hunting and angling groups; 14
recreational groups, including paddlers, bikers, and hikers; 24
conservation organizations; and 69 religious leaders.
This collaborative approach is best exemplified by an agreement
worked out between user groups for access to trails along the
wilderness boundary. Through discussions with mountain bikers, hikers,
and conservationists, a consensus plan was crafted to use the trail
adjacent to the proposed wilderness addition on alternate days, so that
those hikers seeking a trail 3 experience without encountering
bicyclists could do so on specific days. Here is an innovative
resolution to what might otherwise have been a festering controversy.
This collaboration is a perfect example of the broad coalition of
supporters for this proposal, and the unity of purpose among them in
seeking federal designation for these wilderness additions.
The additions made by S.721/H.R. 1769 to the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness Area, combined with the designation of the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River, fit the Washington State tradition of collaborative,
consensus-based, environmental stewardship. This wilderness will serve
vast, untold numbers of Americans. It serves those who choose to
adventure into its quiet valleys and up to its sentinel peaks. Some of
those are hardy mountain climbers; for others the adventure is an
afternoon walk, grandparents introducing their grandchildren to nature
at its most wild and inviting along a quiet, easy wilderness trail. It
serves the larger group of wilderness users who take pleasure from the
wilderness they view from the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway, an
extraordinary corridor of protected federal, State, and private lands
offering all kinds of recreational opportunities to those who travel
across our State on InterState 90, which crosses the Cascades just
south of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Those who savor the wild scenery
from more developed sites and roadways are no less users of wilderness
than the adventurers who trek to the highest, farther peaks.
Finally, this wilderness serves the future generations for whom we
must act today. As a grandfather, I understand that we have a stake
today in a future I will not live to see. That is the world in which
our grandchildren's children will live their lives, amid whatever kind
of landscape we have left them. Count mine as one solid voice on behalf
of ensuring that the landscape we bequeath to future generations is one
with an abundant, generous, diverse system of wilderness areas, not
only in the most remote stretches of our beautiful country, but right
here close to home--in a ``backyard wilderness'' such as the Alpine
Lakes.
I urge you to support this legislation and to approve it for floor
consideration. Again, I appreciate your leadership and responsiveness
in scheduling this hearing, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you for the courtesies. I didn't need
to go next. But I'm glad to just make a couple of sentences of
Statement here.
This is an important hearing for several of these bills. I
have particular interest in S. 1442, the Public Lands Service
Corps Act of 2009. That's a bill that we have several co-
sponsors of. It would expand opportunities for young men and
women to become involved in work projects on public lands.
I think we have a great history in our country of young
people doing good work on our public lands. We need to continue
that and increase it. This is an opportunity to do that.
We have a letter* from some 50 organizations supporting the
legislation that I would ask you to include in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Letter has been placed in Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Wyden. Without objection it will be done.
The Chairman. Another bill that you have on the agenda that
I'm interested in is this Good Neighbor Forestry Act. I support
the core goal of improving coordination and cooperation across
the political boundaries. I do think there are some legitimate
concerns have been raised about some of the specific provisions
of the bill. Maybe in the question and answer we can get into
consideration of those.
Then S. 607, which is the National Forest Ski Area Permit
Act, is another bill of interest. One I generally support the
idea of trying to encourage additional recreational uses of our
national forests. Again we need to look at the specifics of the
legislation. Be sure that the taxpayer is properly compensated
as part of this.
So, thank you again for having the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator From New Mexico
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding a hearing on Senate Bill 1442--
the Public Land Service Corps Act of 2009-which is a bill I introduced
along with a number of other cosponsors.
S. 1442 would expand the opportunities for young men and women to
become involved in work projects on public lands. This bill would build
on the long and impressive record of the conservation corps in helping
to conserve, protect, and improve our natural, cultural, and historical
resources on public lands, offer productive employment for young
adults, and provide critical job skills.
I have a letter from some 50 organizations supporting this
legislation that I'd like to include in the record.
I also would like to briefly address the Good Neighbor Forestry
Act. I support the core goal of improving coordination and cooperation
across political boundaries. This is especially important int he
wildland-urban interface, where coordination in both directions across
boundaries is critical to protecting communities and reducing fire
suppression costs.
A number of legitimate concerns have been raised about some of the
specific provisions in this bill. I think these concerns can be
addressed with some modifications, and I hope to work with Senator
Barrasso and other Members, the Administration, and the other
stakeholders to address these concerns so we have a proposal that can
get through the Senate and the House, and across the President's desk.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and commend you for scheduling the hearing today.
One of the bills on the agenda, S. 1122, the Good Neighbor
Forestry Act, is legislation that I introduced some time ago.
It's a bipartisan common sense bill. Original co-sponsors of
the bill include Senators Tim Johnson, Mark Udall, Michael
Bennett, Jim Risch and Bob Bennett. I want to thank Wyoming
State Forester Bill Crapser for rearranging his schedule to be
here with us today from Wyoming. Bill has been a big help from
the start.
S. 1122 authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with State
foresters. The bill authorizes State foresters to provide
certain forest, range land and watershed restoration and
protection services in collaboration with Federal agencies. I
call it the Good Neighbor Forestry Act because it brings
together State and Federal agencies to work cooperatively. We
need to work together as neighbors to address land management
challenges.
Now Wyoming forests, like those of all the States across
the West are facing unprecedented challenges. These challenges,
such as preventing wildfires, removing invasive species,
improving watersheds and conserving habitat, require big
picture thinking. We have to address these threats at the
landscape level.
This bill is very simple. The Good Neighbor Forestry Act
would allow the Forest Service or BLM to work with Western
States to complete work that crosses ownership boundaries. The
bill would provide on the ground management tools that our
Federal, State and private lands desperately need.
Good neighbor authority has been enjoyed by the States of
Colorado and Utah for most of the last decade. Good neighbor
projects have worked well in those States. They've met
environmental goals and provided benefits to the local
communities involved.
I'll give you an example: Perhaps we have Canadian thistle
that's over taking a drainage area. The State owns the land on
one side of the creek. The Forest Service owns the land on the
other side. We can't effectively manage this invasive weed,
unless we treat the landscape as a whole.
If the State clears out all the thistle on its side of the
creek 1 year, but the Forest Service can't address the thistle
problem that same year, the thistle seeds will continue to
spread and the State's work will go to waste. By the next year,
the thistle will have reclaimed the State land and many acres
further down the mountain.
If instead, we use good neighbor authority, the Forest
Service can prepare a cooperative agreement with the State for
invasive species control. The State can then send workers to
clear the entire drainage of thistle. Good neighbor authority
allows us to effectively address the problem, use management
funds efficiently and meet both the State and the Federal land
management goals.
This is a win/win situation. Now I'm sure you're going to
hear some concerns today that good neighbor authority could run
amok. But these concerns, I believe, are overblown.
Good neighbor authority simply provides the Federal
agencies with the ability to enter into cooperative agreements.
It does not cede decisionmaking authority to the States. S.
1122 does nothing more or less than the authority already in
place in Utah and Colorado. It would simply expand the use of
that authority to other States west of the 100th meridian.
Mr. Harris Sherman, the soon to be USDA Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment was very supportive of
this authority in his testimony. In responding to questions for
the record he wrote, ``I further believe national good neighbor
authority is warranted to help address forest health issues
that challenge Eastern forests across diverse land
ownerships.'' He went on, ``in these times of limited resources
it's important to leverage work force and technical capacities
all within existing environmental laws and regulations.
I'm pleased to see USDA's support. I've always appreciated
Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar's leadership in supporting
Good Neighbor authority. The Administration has the right idea
here. We are eager to work with them.
Mr. Chairman, I am also the co-sponsor of Senator Udall's
bill, S. 607, to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act
of 1986. This bill clarifies the authority of the Forest
Service to permit recreational use of ski areas during the off
season. I think it's an important bill for economic development
and tourism in Wyoming communities and other locations. I'd
like to welcome each of the witnesses here today and look
forward to the questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I
did want to add my thanks to the members that are here to you
for bringing three bills that are very important to me in my
State to the hearing today: my Sugar Loaf Fire Protection
District Land Exchange Act, the Ski Area Recreational
Opportunity Enhancement Act that Senator Barrasso just
mentioned and has graciously co-sponsored and then Senator
Barrasso's the Good Neighbor Forestry Act.
I look forward to having a chance to question the
witnesses. Thanks again for holding the hearing.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Udall. Let's bring
forward Robert Stanton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
Policy Management and Budget, Department of Interior.
Mr. Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
We also have several Statements we want to put into the
record. We've gotten Statements from Senator Murray and
Congressman Reichert in support of S. 721, the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness bill. Without objection they'll be included in the
record.
[The prepared Statement of Senator Udall follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Senator From Colorado
s. 555
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this bill-S. 555-for a
hearing today. This bill would direct a land exchange between the
Forest Service and a Fire District that currently has two fire stations
occupying Forest Service land under a special use permit.
These fire stations-operated by the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection
District-serve an area west of the City of Boulder, Colorado. The Fire
District covers a 17 square mile area and within this area are about
500 homes.
This area was the location of a major forest fire in 1989 called
the Black Tiger Fire. That fire destroyed 44 homes and other
structures, and many others were damaged. The fire was not completely
extinguished until four days later, after burning almost 2,100 acres.
The Sugar Loaf Fire District is interested in expanding these two
facilities to provide for the equipment and other needed services they
provide to address fire threats in this region. Under their existing
special use permit with the Forest Service, the Fire District has
encountered difficulties in their efforts to makes some minor
expansions and improvements.
The Fire District has provided the Committee with written testimony
that outlines the history of this effort and the reasons why this
legislation is needed to facilitate this exchange.
I would note that the Fire District has worked long and hard-and in
good faith-with the Forest Service to accommodate their needs and in
exploring a land exchange. Given the limitations of the existing laws
and administrative exchange process, I believe that this bill is needed
to finally effectuate such an exchange.
If we can pass this bill and implement this exchange, the Fire
District will be able to provide the services to this community and not
be limited by the constraints of the special use permit. The benefits
to the Forest Service includes ownership of an inholding surrounded by
Forest Service land in the area that the Fire District secured to offer
in this exchange-at fair and equivalent value-as well as the avoidance
of having to continually manage special use permits for these
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the Committee
on seeing this important bill reported favorably.
s. 607
Mr. Chairman, thanks for scheduling this bipartisan bill-S. 607-for
today's hearing. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses we
have before us.
First, I would like to thank Senators Barrasso, Bennet, Bennett,
Cantwell, Ensign, Enzi, Feinstein, Gregg, Leahy, Murray, Reid, Risch,
Sanders, Shaheen, and Stabenow for cosponsoring this bill.
Mr. Chairman, as you and my colleagues on the Committee know, ski
areas are an important part of many mountain communities. Many of these
areas operate their lifts, runs and warming lodges under permits on
National Forest system lands. Many of these permits are authorized
under a law that intended to capture the scope of winter activities-the
National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Under that Act, the Forest
Service is authorized to issue permits for the establishment of nordic
and alpine ski areas and facilities.
But as many of my colleagues know, these areas present many more
opportunities for outdoor recreation than just nordic and alpine
skiing. Snowboarding is a good example. So are a number of summertime
activities, like mountain biking, horseback riding and musical concerts
and stage plays. These areas already possess the infrastructure and
other facilities in place to provide these experiences.
Recently, there have been issues raised about the permitting of
these additional outdoor recreational activities at permitted ski
areas. As these activities fit with the existing uses-and can help
promote year-round recreational economies as well as promote outdoor
recreation-I introduced this bill to make it clear that the Forest
Service is authorized to permit additional and year-round activities at
these ski areas.
Since I first introduced this bill in the House last session, I
have heard some issued raised that although we ought to allow things
like snowboarding and other year-round activities, we also should not
end up turning these areas into amusement parks with water slides,
Ferris wheels, haunted houses, and the like.
My bill addresses that by requiring that the Forest Service only
consider permitting activities that are natural resource and outdoor
based, appropriate for the area, and do not result in turning the ski
area into something other than a ski area.
I believe that these limitations are important and appropriate.
However, some still believe that these limitations are not sufficiently
clear. I am concerned about adding language to the bill that itemizes
specific activities that are-or are not-permitted as we need to give
the Forest Service flexibility to work with the public and the
communities to determine what activity may fit at a specific area that
also complies with the limitations in this bill. My concern also stems
from the reality that recreational activities change and evolve over
time. Thus, getting too specific about particular activities may
require future Congresses to make revisions based on those new
realities.
Nevertheless, I am willing to work with my colleagues to consider
including report language that would help provide further guidance to
the Forest Service on what we mean in the bill by ``seasonal or year-
round natural resource-based, outdoor-developed recreational activities
and associated facilities.'' I think that report language would be the
more appropriate place to address these concerns.
I would also note that many-if not all-permitted ski areas are
currently allowing activities such as snowboarding. So, I would be
willing to work with my colleagues on language that would essentially
``grandfather'' these existing activities-activities that are currently
provided and are consistent with the limitations in the bill.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you, my
colleagues and I look forward to the testimony from the panel.
Senator Wyden. Also the subcommittee has received several
other statements relating to the various bills on today's
agenda. Those, without objection, will be included in the
record as well.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, thank you. You both have
cooperated with the subcommittee on a number of occasions. We
appreciate that. We'll put your prepared Statements into the
record in their entirety.
Why don't you start, Mr. Holtrop?
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Chairman Wyden, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking
Member Barrasso and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on seven bills affecting the United
States Forest Service. You already have my written testimony.
I'll address each bill very briefly.
S. 555 would provide for the exchange or sale of two
parcels within the boundaries of the Arapaho National Forest in
Colorado to the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District. The
Department supports the exchange but would like to work with
the bill's sponsors and the committee on minor modifications.
We suggest that a year is a more realistic timeframe than the
120 days provided in the bill to complete all the statutory
requirements to convey the Federal lands.
Also, we do not support the provision that would allow the
district to modify the fire stations without Departmental
authorization before conveyance.
S. 607 would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act
of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to permit seasonal and year
round resource based developed recreational activities at ski
areas in addition to the Nordic and alpine skiing and related
facilities that are currently authorized. This amendment would
assist the Forest Service to further its goal of encouraging
people, especially youth, to experience the outdoors. We would
develop directives that establish criteria for implementing the
expanded authority based onsite specific review of proposals.
The Department would like to work with the committee to
identify activities that are clearly not appropriate for a
natural resource setting such as amusement and water parks,
golf course and tennis courts.
S. 721 would designate about 22,000 acres as a component of
the National Wilderness System and about 37 miles of river as
components of the Wild and Scenic River System on the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington. We have
completed suitability studies for the wild and scenic rivers.
We have not completed a wilderness evaluation although
management of the area is aligned with wilderness values under
the forest plan.
The Department supports this legislation and would like to
work with the committee to address some technical issues
outlined in my testimony such as modifying the wilderness
boundary to allow for trail reconstruction.
The Department supports the Good Neighbor authority which
would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
to enter into cooperative agreements with State foresters in
States west of the 100th meridian to provide certain services
such as fuels reduction. The Forest Service has gained valuable
experience using the Good Neighbor authority pilot programs in
Colorado and Utah over the last several years. Increased
efficiency for both the Federal and State agencies, consistent
project implementation and improved working relationships are
among the benefits.
We believe further analysis is needed to understand the
interplay of needs, State and Federal contracting and labor law
and regulation before the proposed expansion of the authority
is authorized. We look forward to working with the committee to
improve the bill.
The Department supports S. 1328 which would transfer
jurisdiction of about 12,000 acres of National Forest System
land in the Shasta-Chappie Off Highway Vehicle Area in
California to BLM jurisdiction and transfer about 5,000 acres
of public land in the area to Forest Service management. The
bill will provide seamless management of the Shasta-Chappie OHV
Area and consolidate key land holdings for the Forest Service
and better serve the public.
The Department strongly supports S. 1442 which would
strengthen the Public Lands Service Corps Act by making
programmatic changes to encourage broader use of the program.
Most projects implemented by the Forest Service's volunteer
youth and hosted programs are designed to address maintenance
and ecological restoration while providing service learning
opportunities for enrolled youth. Moreover, the Forest Service
is uniquely situated to play a key role in coordination in
management of residential conservation presenters based on our
agency's experience and over many years through our Job Corps
program.
H.R. 129 would convey for consideration up to five acres
within the Los Padres National Forest in California to the
White Lotus Foundation. The Department does not support the
bill because it serves only a small set of citizens. Moreover
the National Forest System has many encroachments.
This bill would set a precedent for other landowners to
resolve encroachments on National Forest System lands through
case specific legislation.
That concludes my prepared Statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared Statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
h.r. 129
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide the Department's views on H.R. 129, regarding conveyance
with consideration of National Forest System lands located in the Los
Padres National Forest.
This legislation would authorize the Secretary to convey, subject
to valid existing rights with consideration, all right, title, and
interest in National Forest System land up to 5 acres within the Los
Padres National Forest located in Santa Barbara County, California. The
Department appreciates this Committee's efforts to resolve this issue;
however, we do not support H.R. 129 because there would be limited
benefit to the public from this conveyance. This legislation would
serve only a small, select group of citizens, the White Lotus
Foundation. In addition, the conveyance would legitimize the
Foundation's long-standing encroachments on lands in the Los Padres
National Forest by allowing the Foundation to acquire them through
legislation for the Foundation's private use and enjoyment.
Adjacent landowners with similar long-standing encroachments on
National Forest System lands in the Los Padres National Forest would
not receive a remedy. These landowners are following H.R. 129 with
interest, as the model for resolving their encroachment cases.
Resolving the White Lotus Foundation encroachments through H.R. 129
would therefore set a precedent for resolution of other encroachment
cases through case-specific legislation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared Statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or
Members of the Committee may have.
s. 555
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide the Department's views on S. 555, regarding the exchange of
certain lands in the Arapaho National Forest.
S.555 would provide for the exchange or sale of two federal parcels
within the boundaries of the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado to the
Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District (SLFPD). A portion of one parcel is
under special-use permit for a fire station. The other was under a
similar permit that has expired. The bill allows the SLFPD to make
modifications to the permitted area in the interim period between
enactment and conveyance without further authorization by the Secretary
of Agriculture.
The Department supports S. 555, but would like to work with bill
sponsors and the Committee on some minor modifications to the bill. The
Department supports the work of the SLFPD and its efforts to improve
facilities to more effectively deliver services. The federal lands
proposed for conveyance have lost their national forest character due
to past permitted activities and are better suited to private
ownership. The lands proposed for conveyance to the United States have
suitable national forest character and could contribute to increased
management efficiency.
However, we are concerned that the 120-day timeline is not adequate
to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, including
National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Antiquities Act of 1906, and myriad other laws requiring compliance
prior to conveyance of federal lands. We suggest that a year is a
realistic timeframe to complete all requirements.
The Department does not support the provisions of Sec. 4 (e), which
allow the SLFPD to modify the fire stations located on federal lands
during the period between enactment of the Act and completion of the
land exchange without any additional authorization from the Department.
We are confident that given a reasonable timeframe for completion of a
conveyance, the Forest Service can work with the SLFPD to accommodate
any confirmed construction plans, negating the need for this provision.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared Statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or
Members of the Committee may have.
s. 607
Chairman Wyden and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture to appear before you today
to present our views on S. 607, the ``Ski Area Recreational Opportunity
Enhancement Act of 2009.'' The Administration supports this legislation
with technical amendments. We would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the Committee to refine the bill to provide the appropriate
natural resource-based experience for visitors to the National Forests
while ensuring the protection of the natural environment.
The bill would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of
1986 to authorize the Secretary to permit seasonal and year-round
natural resource-based, outdoor-developed recreational activities and
associated facilities at ski areas, in addition to those that support
Nordic and alpine skiing and other snow sports that are currently
authorized by the Act.
The Act authorizes issuance of permits for Nordic and alpine ski
operations and appropriate ancillary facilities (16 U.S.C. 497b(b)(3)).
Congress intended the term ``appropriate ancillary facilities to
include ``only those facilities directly necessary for the operation
and support of a winter sports facility...'' ( S. Rep. No. 99-449, 99th
Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1986)).
The additional seasonal and year-round recreational activities and
associated facilities authorized by the bill would encourage outdoor
recreation and have to harmonize with the natural environment. The bill
would make clear that the primary purpose of the authorized use and
occupancy would continue to be skiing and other snow sports.
Background and Need for Legislation
Current law does not authorize activities other than Nordic and
alpine skiing, snow sports, and their ancillary facilities at ski
areas. Ski areas serve as portals to national forest recreation. There
are 121 ski areas operating under permit on national forests. These ski
areas occupy a fraction of 1 percent of the total National Forest
System land base. Nevertheless, about one-fifth of all recreation on
national forests occurs at these ski areas. For many Americans, ski
areas are gateways to our national forests and a means to greater
appreciation of the natural world. Further, these recreational
opportunities provide a great avenue for visitors to reconnect to the
land, a core tenant of Secretary Vilsack's vision for forests.
We have become concerned about trends showing a decline in
appreciation and understanding of the natural environment among our
youth. However, we still see strong visitation by youth and families at
ski areas. The Forest Service has developed strong partnerships with
many ski area operators that enhance visitors' understanding and
appreciation of the environment through interpretive signing, programs,
and exhibits. Expanding opportunities for year-round use will encourage
more of the public to experience and appreciate the national forests.
Ski areas introduce the national forests to our increasingly urban
population.
Ski areas are some of the most developed sites on the national
forests. Focusing more of the developed outdoor recreational activities
in these areas could reduce negative impacts in other areas of the
national forests. One example of a popular developed outdoor
recreational activity is freestyle mountain biking. By focusing this
activity at ski areas, ski area operators would be able to increase
utilization of existing infrastructure, and the impacts on surrounding
National Forest System lands caused by freestyle biking may be
minimized.
Across the country we have received numerous proposals by ski areas
to add off-season recreational activities. Some we have approved,
perhaps without fully understanding the current limitations of the 1986
Ski Area Permit Act, while others we have denied, or not acted upon.
We're aware that summer activities at a number of ski areas that
operate summer facilities on non-National Forest Service land are very
popular. Whistler-Blackcomb Ski Area in British Columbia has become a
very popular destination for biking. In the Northeast, Bretton Woods
Ski area offers an array of summer activities which reportedly ``sell
out'' at times. We believe we'd see the most interest for summer uses
at ski areas that are either located near large population centers or
are near communities with large hotel capacities that tend to be
underutilized in the summer.
Because of longer summers and higher temperatures due to climate
change, it is possible that ski areas in some locations may see
somewhat shorter winter operating seasons. Increasing the scope of
activities and facilities that may be authorized under a ski area
permit, where appropriate and in conformance with environmental law,
could help ski areas remain economically viable by more fully utilizing
their significant investment in infrastructure, such as ski lifts, in
the off-season or year-round.
Recommended Changes to S.607
We would like to work with the committee to develop amendments in
two areas:
While we support allowing additional activities and
infrastructure for year-round activities, activities should be
appropriate to the natural resource setting and should contrast
with an urban environment. Excluding facilities such as
amusement and water parks, golf courses, tennis courts, and
skateboard parks is consistent with Forest Service policy.
Ski area boundaries should continue to encompass only the
acreage the Secretary deems sufficient and appropriate to
accommodate the permit holder's needs for snow sports and
appropriate ancillary facilities for winter operations. Permit
boundaries should not be expanded to accommodate recreational
activities and facilities that are not related to skiing and
snow sports, which are the primary purpose of these resorts.
In addition, consistent with the discretion afforded the Secretary
in the bill, we would develop directives that would establish criteria
for implementing the expanded authority, based on case-specific review
of proposals from ski areas in accordance with applicable regulations
and environmental law. The criteria would likely include (1)
availability and suitability of private lands as alternative sites for
the activities; (2) the proposed location within the permitted area,
including proximity to existing areas of concentrated development; (3)
consistency with the applicable land management plan and applicable
federal, State, and local law; (4) impacts on soil, water, wildlife,
aesthetics, and other national forest resources; (5) effects on the
primary purpose of the resort for alpine and Nordic skiing; (6) tribal
interests; and (7) visitor safety.
If the bill is enacted, we would envision that more highly
developed summer facilities would be focused in areas which already
support extensive resort infrastructure, while lesser developed parts
of ski areas would primarily be for hiking, mountain biking, and other
activities that require more limited facilities.
The legislation does not provide a blanket approval for any
particular summer facility or use. Proposals would be subject to the
Agency's requirements for site-specific environmental review and public
involvement. In those environmental reviews we would look very
carefully at the sometimes sensitive nature of high elevation ecologic
conditions before approving a proposal. While we might approve an
activity or facility at one location at a given ski area, we might not
at a different location at another ski area or even at a different
location within the same ski area.
In summary, this legislation would concentrate highly developed
recreation in those areas that are currently the most developed sites
on the national forests and enhance the long term viability of these
ski areas and the adjoining rural economies. For these reasons, the
legislation is a positive step and one which the Administration
supports, with the suggested clarifications.
s. 721
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on S.
721.
This legislation would designate approximately 22,100 acres as a
component of the National Wilderness System and approximately 37 miles
of river as components the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System on
the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of Washington.
The Department supports this legislation in concept and we would like
to work with the Committee to address some technical issues as outlined
below. We would also like the committee to be aware however, while we
have completed suitability studies for the wild and scenic rivers, we
have not completed a wilderness evaluation of the area designated under
this bill. For the area that would be designated wilderness, management
direction under the Land and Resource Management Plan is aligned with
wilderness values with the majority of the land being managed as Late
Successional Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan. We thank the
delegation for its collaborative approach and local involvement that
have contributed to this bill.
Alpine Lakes Wilderness
The proposed additions to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness lie in the
valleys of the Pratt River, the Middle and South Forks of the
Snoqualmie River. The existing 394,000 acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness is
one of the jewels of our wilderness system, encompassing rugged ice
carved peaks, over 700 lakes, and tumbling rivers. The lower valleys
include stands of old growth forest next to winding rivers with native
fish populations. The area is located within minutes of the Seattle
metro area. Trails accessing the area are among the most heavily used
in the Northwest as they lead to some exceptionally accessible and
beautiful destinations. The proposed additions to the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness would expand this area to include the entire heavily
forested Pratt River valley and trail approaches to lakes in the
wilderness area in the InterState 90 corridor.
We would like to work with the subcommittee to address some
technical aspects of the bill. These include:
The Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Trail #1003 is popular
among mountain bicyclists. The Department's concern is that the
trail is immediately adjacent to the proposed wilderness, not
allowing sufficient room for reconstruction or relocation if
needed as a result of likely future events such as flooding or
landslides. We suggest a modification of the proposed
wilderness boundary to allow for reconstruction or for
relocation.
The entire Pratt River Trail #1035 is included within the
boundary of the proposed wilderness. The first mile of this
trail currently is used by large numbers of people and groups.
The trail, which would be a primary access corridor for the
newly designated wilderness, is scheduled for major
reconstruction work beginning this fiscal year. The Department
suggests that the wilderness boundary be drawn to exclude
approximately three miles of this trail to allow this continued
recreation opportunity and future reconstruction if needed.
This change would not alter the wilderness proposal
significantly, but would allow the current recreation
opportunity for high-use and large groups along this stretch of
the Middle Fork Snoqualmie. This adjustment would also reduce
operation and maintenance costs along this segment of the Pratt
River Trail as motorized equipment could be used in its
maintenance.
The northwestern boundary of the wilderness proposal
includes two segments of Washington State Department of Natural
Resources lands totaling about 300 acres. We recommend that the
boundary of the proposed wilderness be adjusted so that only
National Forest System lands are included.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
This legislation would also designate two rivers as additions to
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: approximately 9.5 miles of
the Pratt River from its headwaters to its confluence with the Middle
Fork Snoqualmie River; and approximately 27.4 miles of the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River from its headwaters to within + mile of the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest boundary. Each river was studied in the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Plan and determined to be a suitable
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Pratt River
has outstandingly remarkable recreation, fisheries, wildlife and
ecological values. The corridor provides important hiking and fishing
opportunities in an undeveloped setting. The river supports resident
cutthroat trout and its corridor contains extensive deer and mountain
goat winter range and excellent riparian habitat. Its corridor retains
a diverse riparian forest, including remnant stands of low-elevation
old-growth.
The Middle Fork Snoqualmie River also has outstandingly remarkable
recreation, wildlife and fisheries values. The river is within an easy
driving distance from Seattle and attracts many visitors. It provides
important whitewater boating, fishing, hiking and dispersed recreation
opportunities. The river corridor contains extensive deer winter range
and excellent riparian habitat for numerous wildlife species. This is
the premier recreational inland-fishing location on the National Forest
due to it high-quality resident cutthroat and rainbow trout
populations. Adding these rivers to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System will protect their freeflowing condition, water quality and
outstandingly remarkable values. Designation also promotes partnerships
among landowners, river users, tribal nations and all levels of
government to provide for their stewardship. We therefore support the
designation of these rivers into the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
The Department has one concern with the wild and scenic river
designations relating to the management of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
River Road. We are currently in the process of improving this road and
feel that this work is needed to protect the wild and scenic values
associated with this river while improving visitor safety and watershed
health. Approximately 20 years ago, the U.S. Forest Service submitted
the Middle Fork Road to the Federal Highway Administration for
reconstruction via their enhancement program. The project has been
approved, design work is approximately 15% complete, and construction
is planned for 2011 or 2012. The Federal Highway Administration has
already expended approximately $3 million to date on the project. We
would like to work with the committee to ensure timely completion of
the project. This concludes my prepared Statement and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
s. 1122
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on S.
1122.
S.1122 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements or
contracts with State foresters authorizing State foresters to provide
certain forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration and protection
services in States west of the 100th meridian. Activities that could be
undertaken using this authority include: (1) activities to treat insect
infected trees; (2) activities to reduce hazardous fuels; and (3) any
other activities to restore or improve forest, rangeland, and watershed
health, including fish and wildlife habitat. The bill authorizes the
States to act as agents for the Secretary and provides that States may
subcontract for activities accomplished using this authority. The bill
ensures federal retention of responsibilities for compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). The authority would expire on September 30, 2018.
We support Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) and believe our Nation's
forests face forest health challenges that must be addressed across
diverse land ownerships. In these times of limited resources, it is
important to leverage workforce and technical capacities and develop
partnerships for forest restoration across all lands, while ensuring
compliance with existing applicable laws and regulations. We believe
further study and analysis is needed to better understand the interplay
of needs, State and federal contracting and labor law and regulation
before expansion of the authority is authorized. We look forward to
working with the committee, States, and federal agencies to develop a
better understanding of the issues and make suggestions to improve the
bill in a manner that meets the needs of key stakeholders.
How we use the current Good Neighbor Authority
The Forest Service has gained valuable experience using GNA in
Colorado and Utah pilot programs over the past several years. We have
completed 53 projects in Colorado and Utah at a cost to the federal
government of about $1.4 million. Colorado Good Neighbor projects have
focused on fuel reduction activities, such as tree thinning, mostly in
the Colorado wildland-urban interface and have resulted in about 2,700
acres of treatment. In Utah, Good Neighbor projects focused on the
repair of fire-damaged trails and watershed protection and restoration.
The GNA was the subject of a Government Accounting Office report in
February of 2009 (GAO-09-277). The report summarizes our experiences
and makes suggestions for improving use of the authority.
Since its inception, the authority has been successfully used on
over 35 projects in Colorado to treat approximately 2,700 acres,
primarily on the Arapaho-Roosevelt and Pike-San Isabel National
Forests. In Utah, the authority has been used on the Dixie National
Forest to enhance watersheds, particularly during the rehabilitation
and recovery of a burned area. Almost all of the projects in Colorado
included some form of hazardous fuels reduction within the wildland-
urban interface, including the creation of defensible space around
subdivisions and private residences, the creation of shaded fuelbreaks,
treatment and salvage of insect-infested trees, creation of evacuation
routes, and thinning.
For example, Shadow Mountain EStates is a large subdivision
(several hundred acres) that directly borders National Forest System
(NFS) lands on the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado. In 2006, Shadow
Mountain EStates contracted the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) to
remove dead trees from within the neighborhood to reduce fire risk, and
in 2007 they requested that the Forest Service treat the adjoining
public lands to complement their fire prevention efforts. As a result
of this request, the Forest Service entered into the Green Ridge Good
Neighbor Agreement with the CSFS to remove hazardous fuels and create a
defensible space on federal lands in this wildland urban interface.
The contract to remove the trees from both private and federal
lands was prepared, advertised and administered by the CSFS, and
resulted in the treatment of 135 acres of NFS land. The project was
completed in June of 2008. Shadow Mountain EStates is satisfied with
the result as the treated area is aesthetically pleasing and
contributes to reduced wildfire damage risk to the neighborhood.
Benefits to the land and relationships
The GAO report found that the GNA has facilitated cross boundary
watershed restoration and hazardous fuel removal activities. The
authority has resulted in the accomplishment of more restoration and
protection treatments than would have otherwise been accomplished,
particularly within the wildland urban interface. On the ground
experience from Colorado and Utah indicates there is increased
efficiency for both State and federal agencies because all project work
is done at one time, with one contract, making implementation more
consistent. Further, the authority enhances our ability to work with
private landowners through the State Forester to remove hazardous fuels
on adjacent NFS lands and, perhaps most importantly, it builds greater
cooperation among stakeholders.
What we've learned
The GAO report on GNA found that the Forest Service and Colorado
State Forest Service (CSFS) developed timber operating procedures in
2007, in response to some confusion over the requirements governing
timber sales. When GNA was first being used, general operating
procedures were contained in the master agreements, but no specific
operating procedures existed and some CSFS officials were unsure about
certain requirements that needed to be followed as part of conducting a
timber sale on federal land. The Forest Service and CSFS are drafting
additional timber procedures that identify federal and State roles in
GNA timber sales from the initial NEPA documentation through the sale
and subsequent harvesting of national forest timber. Project task
orders for timber sale contracts will clearly specify special Forest
Service contract requirements that are the responsibility of the State,
which in turn holds the contractor accountable for meeting those
requirements.
The GAO recommended the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
(1) require that the U.S. Forest Service in Utah, Bureau of Land
Management in Colorado and any agencies that receive the authority in
other States develop written procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales
before conducting any future sales and (2) direct the agencies to
better document their experiences using the authority. The Forest
Service will continue its review of the findings and recommendations
and continue to improve its use of the authority.
s. 1328
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide the Department of Agriculture's views on S. 1328, regarding
the interchange of certain Federal lands between the Forest Service
(FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Shasta-Trinity
National Forest has worked closely with the Redding, California Field
Office (BLM) to identify the appropriate lands for inclusion in the
administrative jurisdiction transfer.
The Department supports this bill, which provides a seamless
recreation experience and improved management of the Shasta-Chappie Off
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area as well as enabling the Forest Service to
consolidate key landholdings, including the BLM's portion of the
Trinity Alps Wilderness. We note that many of the same goals of this
act could be achieved administratively through Service First Authority
(PL 106-291), an authority available to both Departments to more
efficiently and effectively manage the Federal eState. We would
appreciate the opportunity to work with the subcommittee and the BLM to
address technical changes to the lands involved in the interchange.
Just 10 miles northwest of Redding, the Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway
area offers 200 miles of roads and trails over 52,000 acres for off-
road enthusiasts. The Chappie-Shasta area is conducive for mountain
biking, camping, fishing, hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding,
and hunting, in addition to the off-highway vehicle use.
S. 1328 transfers to the BLM administrative jurisdiction for
approximately 11,760 acres of National Forest System lands located
within the Chappie-Shasta OHV Area. In return, the bill transfers to
the FS administrative jurisdiction for approximately 5, 000 acres in
three parcels of public land currently managed by the BLM in Trinity,
Shasta, Humboldt, and Siskiyou Counties. The BLM lands include
approximately 4,830 acres of the Tunnel Ridge portion of the Trinity
Alps Wilderness of which the FS manages approximately 517,000 acres.
The other two parcels are approximately 217 acres adjacent to Shasta
Lake and approximately 44 acres along California Highway 89.
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest currently issues four to six
Special Use Permits per year for OHV race events within the Chappie-
Shasta OHV Area. The OHV staging area is currently on National Forest
System lands within the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation
Area. However, large portions of the trails are on private and other
federal lands administered by the FS, BLM, the Bureau of Recreation and
the National Park Service.
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest and the Bureau of Land
Management have a long history of working together in the development
and management of the Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway Vehicle Area. However,
the different permitting and administrative processes of the two
agencies have caused difficulties for recreational users. In addition,
each agency has been separately applying for grant funding for the OHV
area, which is both inefficient and redundant.
s. 1442
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on S. 1442, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009.
Introduction
On April 2, 2009, the Department testified in strong support of
H.R. 1612 at a hearing on the House of Representative version of the
current bill. The Department strongly supports S. 1442. This bill would
strengthen and facilitate the use of the Public Lands Corps program,
helping to fulfill the vision that Secretary Vilsack has for
reconnecting people to the land by promoting ways to engage youth
across America to serve their community and their country. We have much
work to do in restoring our forests, some of which can be achieved
through the robust partnerships that this bill creates.
Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009
S. 1442 would strengthen and improve the Public Land Corps Act by
making several administrative and programmatic changes that would
encourage broader agency use of the program, as well as foster
opportunities that are more varied for young men and women. The
amendment would also enhance participant support for Corps enrollees
during and after their service. Appropriately, S. 1442 would change the
program's name to Public Lands Service Corps, reflecting an emphasis on
``service.''
Most projects implemented by the Forest Service's Volunteer\1\,
Youth\2\ and Hosted Programs\3\ in the national forests and grasslands
are designed to address needs for maintenance and ecological
restoration, while providing a service-learning opportunity for the
enrolled youth. We fully expect those types of projects would continue
to be completed under S. 1442. However, this amendment specifies a
broader range of potential projects, making it likely that Corps
members would become involved with the varied activities of the Forest
Service mission including the Deputy Areas for Forestry Research and
Development, National Forest Systems, State and Private Forestry and
Business Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Youth aged 15 to 18 e.g. YCC
\2\ Domestic and international
\3\ Conservation partnerships with non-governmental organizations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service History and Involvement With Corps and Youth
Beginning in 1933 with Camp Roosevelt, the first Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) camp located on the George Washington National
Forest, the Forest Service has had a long and robust association with
youth and young adult conservation corps. Indeed, the Forest Service
Job Corps Program, authorized by Congress in 1964, is modeled after the
CCC of the 1930(s). The Forest Service operates this program pursuant
to an agreement with the Secretary of Labor.\4\ Since enactment of the
Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-378), the Forest
Service has sponsored the Youth Conservation Corps for young men and
women age 16 through 18, who complete service-learning projects on
National Forest System lands. Many current agency employees, inspired
by their service-learning and association with the Forest Service,
initiated their career aspirations through involvement with the Youth
Conservation Corps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under the authority of the Title I-C of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA), which generally authorizes the Job Corps program,
the Department of Labor transfers funds to the Forest Service to
operate its Job Corps Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department regards the Public Land Corps program as an
important and successful example of civic engagement and conservation
service for the Nation's youth. National Forest System lands are a
place for Public Lands Service Corps participants to learn and practice
an array of conservation, preservation, interpretation and cultural
resource skills. Indeed, in forty-two States and Puerto Rico the Forest
Service has already benefited greatly over the years from the service
and volunteer work on National Forest System lands.
One example, the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC), headquartered
in Taos, NM, annually enrolls nearly 150 at-risk youth and has a long-
standing partnership with the Carson National Forest. Through the
Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP), authorized by Public
Law 106-393, and designed to involve citizens and youth in the
management and care of national forests and grasslands, 30 RMYC Corps
members recently completed a three-year thinning project on the Carson
National Forest. The purpose of the project was to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire, thereby making the area safer for homes and
people. Throughout the project, Corps members' received tangible
training and experience. Many of the enrollees could go on to careers
in forestry, wildlife and natural resource management.
Our second example is from the summer of 2009. The Wyoming
Conservation Corps (WCC), housed within the University of Wyoming's
School of Environment and Natural Resources, engaged more than 40 young
people to clear dead trees from trails and campgrounds on the Medicine
Bow National Forest. The service work was performed to make trails and
campgrounds safer for visitor use and enjoyment. Following their
experience with WCC, many of these young people expressed an interest
in pursuing careers in land and natural resource management.
A third example is the Northwest Youth Corps. For over 20-years,
the non-profit, community-based organization in Eugene, OR, has been a
partner with the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other
natural resource and land management agencies. This collaboration has
provided service-learning opportunities for over 10,000 youth.
Implementation and Expertise
S. 1442 would grant the Secretary the discretion to establish
residential conservation centers to include housing, food service,
medical care, transportation, and other services associated with
residential living arrangements. The Forest Service is uniquely
situated to play a key role in the coordination and management of the
residential conservation centers for the Public Lands Service Corps
through its Job Corps Program. The Forest Service Job Corps Program
would likely be the coordinating office for Public Lands Service Corps
residential conservation centers in the Forest Service.
The Forest Service Job Corps Program has the institutional capacity
to operate residential facilities successfully. However, there are a
number of implementation issues that need to be considered in
establishing new residential conservation centers. These include the
costs of operating and maintaining the facilities, potential liability
issues, and questions about the impact on contract and labor laws and
the need for a structured behavior management program to ensure the
health and safety of students and staff. In implementing the
residential living centers authorized by the act, we intend to work
closely with the Department of Labor to ensure that any new
responsibilities and activities undertaken by the Forest Service Job
Corps Program will neither divert Job Corps resources nor detract from
carrying out the existing Job Corps program mission. In addition, we
would appreciate the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the
subcommittee to address these implementation issues in the bill.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Department of Agriculture welcomes S. 1442,
which would increase the opportunity for Public Lands Service Corps
members to leverage their education and work experience in obtaining
permanent, full-time employment with Federal agencies. By completing
service-learning projects in the Public Lands Corps, a skilled cadre of
young and diverse natural resource professionals would be available to
meet some of the staffing needs of agencies. Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee this concludes my prepared Statement. I am happy to
answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. We'll have a couple
questions in a moment.
Mr. Stanton, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. STANTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Stanton. Good afternoon. Chairman Wyden, Chairman
Bingaman, Senator Udall and I believe you will be returning,
Ranking Member Barrasso. Thank you for this opportunity to
present testimony on behalf of three bills affecting programs
and area within the Department of the Interior.
I have for you a copy of my full Statement which I would
like to make available for the record, but I will summarize my
testimony.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, S. 1328 and the companion bill H.R. 689, a bill to
transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal
lands in California between the Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Forest Service. The Department of the Interior
supports S. 1328 and H.R. 689 as passed by the House of
Representatives. As my distinguished colleague from the U.S.
Forest Service mentioned, that it transfers to BLM roughly
12,000 acres and from the Forest Service 5,000 acres to BLM.
Second, we support S. 1122, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act
which authorizes the Secretary to enter into corporate
agreements of contract with a State forester to provide forest,
range management and watershed restoration and protected
services on lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. We support the Good Neighbor authority. But we have
some concerns that requires further analysis that addresses the
interplay of State and Federal contract and labor laws and
regulations.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we support, we strongly support S.
1442, the bill that would strengthen and facilitate the use of
the public lands for program helping to fulfill the vision as
quoted by numerous occasions by Secretary Salazar to increase
the participation of young people throughout the breadth of the
Department of the Interior through education, engagement and
employment. Secretary Salazar, after being sworn in as
Secretary of Interior appointed a study group to determine how
best to proceed. As a result of that effort he established a
youth office which I'm pleased to say is under my direct
jurisdiction.
This bill will facilitate the increased involvement of
young people in experiencing first hand their natural and
cultural environment. It will provide expanded employment
opportunities for young people looking at possible careers in
the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture and
State Department as well.
This bill will also give us an opportunity to increase our
leverage, if you will, partnerships with many concerned civic
and community and conservation organizations. The National Park
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife, U.S.
Geologic Survey and other programs and offices with the
Interior have enjoyed over the years partnerships with a wide
range of organizations. This bill will give opportunity to
strengthen those partnerships.
In specific terms this bill would allow the Department of
the Interior to reach out to organizations and to communities
which heretofore have not been widely represented in
conservation activities. I speak specifically of
underrepresented groups, both ethnic, racial and economically
disadvantaged young people. This bill will give us
opportunities to bridge that gap, if you will, to make the
resources and services available of the Department of the
Interior available to all Americans.
Last, and certainly not the least is to recognize that as
with the Department of Agriculture and all the branches in the
Federal Government we need to make sure that we are competitive
with developing the future work force for our country. Through
the engagement of young people through the Public Land Service
Corps we will broaden the opportunities for young people to
consider entering into the Federal Government. Hopefully many
of them will enter into the field of conservation.
Last, and certainly not the least the young people within
their capabilities have the opportunity to contribute
substantially to enhancing the preservation of the priceless
resources entrusted to the care of not only the Department of
the Interior, but the Department of Agriculture, Bureau--and
the U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers and other
Federal land management agencies. We are very fortunate, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee, to have had a long term
experience in youth programs going back to the Civilian
Conservation Corps and more recently with the Youth
Conservation Corps authorized in 1970 and certainly with the
Public Lands Corps authorized in 1993. With these amendments to
that legislation we are very pleased that we'll have the
opportunity to substantially increase the involvement of young
people throughout the breadth of the program and lands of the
Department of the Interior.
This concludes my testimony. I'd be more than happy to
respond to questions or comments that you may have, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee.
[The prepared Statement of Mr. Stanton follows:]
Statement of Robert G. Stanton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
and Program Management, Department of the Interior
s. 1122
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 1122, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act. The bill authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements or
contracts with a State forester to provide forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration and protection services on lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Administration supports Good
Neighbor Authority, but we believe further study and analysis are
needed to better understand the interplay of State and federal
contracting and labor law and regulation before expansion of the
authority is authorized. We look forward to working with the committee,
States, and federal agencies to develop a better understanding of the
issues and to improve the bill in a manner that meets the needs of key
stakeholders. We welcome opportunities to enhance our capability to
manage our natural resources through a landscape-scale approach that
crosses a diverse spectrum of land ownerships.
Background
The BLM is increasingly taking a landscape-scale approach to
managing natural resources on the public lands. Recent drought cycles,
catastrophic fires, large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, the
impacts of global climate change, and invasions of harmful non-native
species all threaten the health of the public lands. They also tax a
land manager's ability to ensure ecological integrity, while
accommodating increased demands for public land uses across the
landscape. The BLM engages in land restoration and hazardous fuels
reduction activities with interagency partners and affected landowners
to expand and accelerate forest ecosystem restoration. The ``Good
Neighbor'' concept provides a mechanism to facilitate treatments across
the landscape, inclusive of all ownerships, and enhances relationships
between Federal, State, and private land managers.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, Congress authorized the U.S. Forest
Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) to conduct
activities such as hazardous fuels reduction on U.S. Forest Service
lands when performing similar activities on adjacent State or private
lands. The BLM received similar authority in Colorado in FY 2004, as
did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah.
The BLM used this ``Good Neighbor'' authority beginning in 2006 in
the agency's Royal Gorge Field Office. Through an assistance agreement
with the CSFS, the BLM accomplished a fuels reduction and mitigation
project within and adjacent to the Gold Hill Subdivision of Boulder
County. The Gold Hill Project treated a total of 372 acres of wildland
urban interface consisting of 122 acres of BLM land, 27 acres of U.S.
Forest Service land, and 223 acres of private land. All of these acres
were identified as priorities within the Gold Hill Community Wildfire
Protection Plan. Through the assistance agreement, the CSFS delineated
the areas to be treated within the Gold Hill Project, managed the
project, administered contracts, monitored firewood removal, and
monitored forestry and fuels projects on BLM and U.S. Forest Service
lands. No timber was harvested or sold from the BLM lands. The BLM and
the U.S. Forest Service conducted the project planning and fulfilled
NEPA requirements on their respective lands.
The project area consisted of small parcels of Federal lands
interspersed with State and private lands. Since all the landowners
used the same State contract, treatments were accomplished concurrently
and with consistency in treatment methods, thereby achieving hazardous
fuels reductions across a larger area to reduce the risk of wildfire.
Efficiencies were also realized by utilizing a single contractor to
treat one large project area. The BLM also realized savings in
personnel resources. Although the project area was located nearly 200
miles from the BLM field office, CSFS personnel were in the immediate
vicinity and were able to conduct the field work for the BLM. In
addition, the CSFS regularly worked with private landowners in the area
and easily gained access through the private lands to conduct work on
the Federal lands, which allowed the work to begin quickly. Simplified
State contracting procedures also expedited the project. The project
was completed in 2008.
A February 2009 GAO report examined State service contracting
procedures regarding transparency, competitiveness, and oversight, and
found that the State requirements generally addressed each of these
areas. (GAO-09-277). The GAO issued two recommendations to the BLM: 1)
To develop written procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales in
collaboration with each State to better ensure accountability for
federal timber; and 2) To document how prior experiences with Good
Neighbor projects offer ways to enhance the use of the authority in the
future and make such information available to current and prospective
users of the authority. The BLM's Forest and Woodlands Division is
working to complete a final corrective action plan incorporating these
suggestions by the end of the 2009 calendar year. .
S. 1122
S. 1122 provides for the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
enter into agreements and contracts with State foresters in any State
west of the 100th meridian, to provide forest, rangeland, and watershed
restoration and protection services on National Forest System land or
BLM land. The success that the BLM experienced in using the Good
Neighbor authority in Colorado as a cross-boundary management tool
would be available under S. 1122 to all BLM-managed lands throughout
the west. The authority provided by the bill is discretionary; each BLM
office could determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not the Good
Neighbor authority is a desirable option. All Good Neighbor projects
would be undertaken in conformance with land use plans and comply with
the National Environmental Policy Act, if applicable.
Section 3a of the bill addresses cooperative agreements. The BLM
suggests an amendment to the language to add ``notwithstanding the
Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act.'' Without this
clarifying amendment, the BLM would be concerned about its ability to
use agreements with the State rather than contracts.
The provisions in section 3b authorize services to include
activities that treat insect-infected trees; reduce hazardous fuels;
and any other activities to restore or improve forest, rangeland, and
watershed health, including fish and wildlife habitat. There is no
requirement that the BLM-managed lands be adjacent to State or private
lands to be eligible for services. This expansion of authority could be
beneficial in watershed restoration projects where State and Federal
lands might not be immediately adjacent to one another, but are within
the same watershed. Accordingly, this expanded authority could enhance
the effectiveness of landscape-scale treatment.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about Good Neighbor
Authority and S. 1122. The Department of the Interior and the BLM
welcome opportunities to engage in efforts that can advance cooperation
of all landowners, improve the effectiveness of restoration and fuels
treatments, and provide cost-effective tools for managing natural
resources. I would be happy to answer any questions.
s. 1328 and h.r. 689
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1328 and H.R. 689,
companion bills to transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain
Federal lands in California between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and the U.S. Forest Service (FS). The BLM supports H.R. 689 as passed
by the House of Representatives.
Background
The Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area consists of
approximately 56,000 acres located within Shasta County, California.
The area has a complex pattern of land ownership with approximately
25,000 acres administered by the BLM, 11,760 acres managed by the FS,
and the rest in other Federal or private ownership. Each year, numerous
special recreation events occur within this popular OHV area that
require special recreation permits from both the BLM and the FS. In an
effort to more consistently handle the recreational use, the BLM has
taken the lead in managing the area and special events on both BLM and
FS managed lands. Nonetheless, the mixed ownership and separate
management and regulatory frameworks between the two agencies have, at
times, caused frustrations for the public.
S. 1328 and H.R. 689
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 689 on June 2, 2009; our
testimony addresses the House-passed bill.
H.R. 689 transfers to the BLM administrative jurisdiction of 11,760
acres of Federal land located within the Chappie-Shasta OHV Area that
are currently managed by the FS. Consolidation of land ownership within
the Chappie-Shasta OHV Area will allow for a more streamlined
administration of recreation use and an improved recreation experience
for the area's users.
In addition, the bill transfers to the FS administrative
jurisdiction over three parcels totaling approximately 5,000 acres of
public land currently managed by the BLM in Trinity, Shasta, Humboldt,
and Siskiyou Counties. These lands are either adjacent to or within
areas managed by the FS, and include the 4,830 acre-Tunnel Ridge
portion of the Trinity Alps Wilderness (currently managed by the FS
through a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM) which is within the
FS managed 517,000 acre Trinity Alps Wilderness. The other two parcels
are a 217-acre parcel adjacent to Shasta Lake and a 44-acre parcel
along California Highway 89. Both parcels are surrounded by FS lands
and were identified for transfer to the FS in the 1993 BLM California
Redding Resource Management Plan.
This interchange of administrative jurisdiction between the two
agencies will lead to efficiencies in agency management, consistent
management of Federal resources involved and better service to the
public. H.R. 689 is the result of years of local efforts by the
agencies, the public, and the sponsor. The BLM believes enactment of
the bill would make land management adjustments where they are
appropriate and beneficial to the public.
A number of technical amendments were made to H.R. 689 to address
concerns raised by the BLM in testimony before the House Natural
Resources subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public lands on
March 24, 2009. Since that time, additional minor mapping corrections
have come to the BLM's attention. The Bureau would like to work with
the Sponsor and Committee to prepare a new map. .
s. 1442
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1442, a bill that would amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to
expand the authorization of the Secretaries of the Interior,
Agriculture and Commerce to provide service-learning opportunities on
public lands, help restore the Nation's natural, cultural, historic,
archaeological, recreational and scenic resources, train a new
generation of public land managers and enthusiasts, and promote the
value of public service.
The Department strongly supports S. 1442. This bill would
strengthen and facilitate the use of the Public Land Corps (PLC)
program, helping to fulfill the vision that Secretary Salazar has for
promoting ways to engage young people across America to serve their
community and their country. On April 2, 2009, the Department testified
in support of the House companion bill, H.R. 1612. While we are
strongly supportive of S. 1442, there are a few areas where we would
like to suggest some changes. We commit to working with the committee
to address these recommendations.
Engaging America's Youth Through Service
While there are other Federal programs that promote service,
expanding the use of the Public Land Corps could be a particularly
important part of our overall strategy for increasing opportunities and
incentives for young people to become involved because this program
serves other high-priority goals as well. Through it, we could
reconnect young people with their natural environment and cultural
heritage; make progress on energy conservation and the use of
alternative sources of energy; and provide education, training, and
career-building experiences--and a pathway to careers in Federal land
management agencies, which are in serious need of new, younger
employees.
Secretary Salazar created the Youth in Natural Resources program
during his tenure at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources as a
way to educate thousands of young people about Colorado's natural
resources, and he saw firsthand what a difference it made in their
lives. From the day he was nominated as Secretary of the Interior, he
has emphasized that it would be one of his top priorities to find more
ways to introduce young Americans from all backgrounds to the beauty of
our national parks, refuges, and public lands and to promote an ethic
of volunteerism and conservation in the younger generation. Enactment
of this legislation could pave the way to meeting one of the
Secretary's top priority goals--to develop a 21st Century Youth
Civilian Conservation Corps.
Background on Public Land Corps Program
The Department regards the Public Land Corps program as an
important and successful example of civic engagement and conservation.
Authorized by the National and Community Service Trust Act on in 1993,
the program uses non-profit organizations such as the Student
Conservation Association (SCA) and other service and conservation corps
organizations affiliated with the Corps Network as the primary partners
in administering the Public Land Corps program. In addition, other non-
profit youth organizations such as the YMCA also participate, as do
local high schools and job-training youth organizations. The youth
organizations assist the National Park Service (NPS) in its efforts to
attract diverse participants to the parks by recruiting youth 16-25
years of age from all socioeconomic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
The National Park Service makes extensive use of the PLC program.
Projects are funded through recreational fee revenue, with the typical
project receiving $25,000 from NPS plus a 25 percent match from a
partner organization. NPS spent $4.1 million on the program in FY 2008,
which funded about 1,500 young men and women working on 178 projects at
99 park units. Most PLC projects at parks are designed to address
maintenance and ecological restoration needs. The NPS also conducts
other youth service and conservation projects at larger parks which are
funded out of the parks' own budgets.
NPS also spent more than $3 million on the Youth Conservation Corps
program which is a summer employment program for 15-18 year old youth.
NPS in fiscal year 2008 employed 833 youth to work on conservation
projects across the country. The YCC program has been administered by
the National Park Service since 1974.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) have a long history of employing youth service and
conservation corps participants from the SCA, Youth Conservation Corps
and other organizations for a wide array of projects related to public
lands resource enhancement and facility maintenance. Though most corps
are affiliated with the nationwide Corps Network, they are often
administered at the State, rather than national level. For example, the
FWS and SCA have partnered for over 20 years to offer work and learning
opportunities to students. In FY 2007, 122 Conservation Interns served
at 45 FWS sites in 24 States, contributing more than 80,000 hours of
work.
The BLM has engaged the services of SCA interns for many years
under a longstanding national assistance agreement, then under
individual State agreements. In 2006, the last year of BLM's national
agreement, a total of 116 SCA members served at 16 BLM sites in eight
States. The interns participated in a variety of conservation service
activities such as recreation and river management, historic building
restoration and maintenance, seed collection, and invasive species
control. BLM's Salem Oregon District, for example, hires a mixture of
Northwest Youth Corps, Clackamas County, and Columbia River Youth Corps
members each year to perform a variety of activities such as trail
maintenance and construction.
The FWS manages 587 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System
that cover over 150 million acres, as well as 70 National Fish
Hatcheries, which would directly benefit from programs authorized under
S. 1442. National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries enjoy
strong relationships with the local communities in which they are
located, and are involved in many community-based projects that help
maintain sustainable landscapes. The FWS's work is also supported by
over 200 non-profit Friends organizations that assist in offering
quality education programs, mentoring, and work experience for youth.
In 2007, the FWS employed 496 Youth Conservation Corps enrollees
and 177 individuals through the Student Conservation Association
program. Last year, over 39,000 volunteers contributed their time and
talents to a variety of programs including support for youth education
projects. Over the past two years the FWS has provided funding for a
YCC program involving the Mescalero Apache youth at the Mescalero
Tribal Hatchery in New Mexico. The FWS has working relationships with
numerous colleges and universities for students interested in pursuing
careers in fish and wildlife management.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009
S. 1442 would make several administrative and programmatic changes
that, in our view, would strengthen and improve the Public Land Corps
Act. These changes would encourage broader agency use of the program,
make more varied opportunities available for young men and women, and
provide more support for participants during and after their service.
Appropriately, S. 1442 would change the program's name to Public Lands
Service Corps, reflecting the emphasis on ``service'' that is the
hallmark of the program. President Obama is committed to providing
young people with greater opportunities and incentives to serve their
community and country. Through an enhanced Public Lands Service Corps,
we would be taking a critical first step that direction.
Key changes that the legislation would make to existing law
include:
Adding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
which administers national marine sanctuaries, as an agency
authorized to use the program;
Establishing an Indian Youth Corps so Indian Youth can
benefit from Corps programs based on Indian lands, carrying out
projects that their tribes and communities determine to be
priorities;
Authorizing a departmental-level office at the Department of
the Interior to coordinate Corps activities within the three
land management bureaus;
Requiring each of the three relevant departments to
undertake or contract for a recruiting program for the Corps;
Requiring each of the three relevant departments to
establish a training program for Corps members, and identifying
specific components the training must include;
Identifying more specific types of projects that could be
conducted under this authority;
Allowing participants in other volunteer programs to
participate in PLC projects;
Allowing agencies to make arrangements with other Federal,
State, or local agencies, or private organizations, to provide
temporary housing for Corps members;
Providing explicit authority for the establishment of
residential conservation centers, and authorizing the Secretary
to seek the assistance of the Secretary of Energy in
identifying and using solar and other green building
technologies that may be adapted for these facilities;
Authorizing agencies to recruit experienced volunteers from
other programs to serve as mentors to Corps members;
Adding ``consulting intern'' as a new category of service
employment under the PLC program;
Allowing agencies to apply a cost-of-living differential in
the provision of living allowances and to reimburse travel
expenses;
Allowing agencies to provide noncompetitive hiring status
for Corps members for two years after completing service,
rather than only 120 days, if certain terms are met;
Allowing agencies to provide job and education counseling,
referrals, and other appropriate services to Corps members who
have completed their service; and
Eliminating the $12 million authorization ceiling for the
program.
We believe that the Department's program would benefit from
enactment of this legislation. As noted above, most PLC projects at
national parks are designed to address maintenance and ecological
restoration needs, and those types of projects would continue to be
done under S. 1442. However, this legislation specifies a broader range
of potential projects, making it likely that Corps members could become
involved in such varied activities as historical and cultural research,
museum curatorial work, oral history projects and programs, documentary
photography, public information and orientation services that promote
visitor safety, and activities that support the creation of public
works of art. Participants might assist employees in the delivery of
interpretive or educational programs and create interpretive products
such as website content, Junior Ranger program books, printed handouts,
and audiovisual programs.
PLC participants would also be able to work for a park partner
organization where the work might involve sales, office work,
accounting, and management, so long as the work experience is directly
related to the protection and management of public lands. The NPS and
the FWS have a large number of partner organizations that would be
potential sponsors of young people interested in the type of work they
might offer.
An important change for the Department is the addition of specific
authority for agencies to pay transportation expenses for non-
residential Corps members. Transportation costs may be a limiting
factor in program participation of economically disadvantaged young
people.
Another important change is the addition of ``consulting intern''
as a new category of service employment under the PLC program,
expanding on the use of mostly college-student ``resource assistants,''
provided for under existing law. The consulting interns would be
graduate students who would help agencies carry out management analysis
activities. NPS has successfully used business and public management
graduate student interns to write business plans for parks for several
years, and this addition would bring these interns under the PLC
umbrella.
The Public Lands Service Corps would also offer agencies the
ability to hire successful corps members non-competitively at the end
of their appointment, which would provide the agency with an influx of
knowledgeable employees as well as career opportunities for those
interested in the agencies' mission. Refuges and hatcheries, for
example, are uniquely qualified to connect with local communities since
the Service has so many refuges across the country that are located
near smaller communities and can directly engage urban, inner city, and
rural youth. For example, partnering academic institutions could offer
educational programs to enhance the students' work experience, thereby
providing orientation and exposure to a broad range of career options.
The legislation would also give the Department's other bureaus that
would utilize this program the authority to expand the scope of
existing corps programs to reflect modern day challenges, such as
climate change and add incentives to attract new participants,
especially from underrepresented populations.
An expanded Public Lands Service Corps program would provide more
opportunities for thousands of young Americans to participate in public
service while we address the critical maintenance, restoration, repair
and rehabilitation needs on our public lands and gain a better
understanding of the impacts of climate change on these treasured
landscapes.
Recommended Changes to S.1442
While we are very supportive of S.1442, there are few areas we
would like to suggest some changes. We would be happy to work with the
committee to develop technical amendments and changes in the following
areas:
Cost sharing for nonprofit organizations contributing to
expenses of resource assistants and consulting interns.--Under
current law in the case of resource assistants, and under S.
1442 in the case of consulting interns, sponsoring
organizations are required to cost-share the expenses of
providing and supporting these individuals from ``private
sources of funding''.25 percent for resource assistants and 10
percent for consulting interns. The administration recommends
leveling this cost-requirement to 25 percent for both
categories of participants with an additional provision to give
agencies the ability to reduce the non-Federal contribution to
no less than 10 percent, but only when the Secretary determines
it is necessary to enable a greater range of organizations,
such as smaller, community-based organizations that draw from
low-income and rural populations, to participate in the PLSC
program.
Benefits for consulting interns.--The Department recommends
clarifying amendments to include consulting interns as the
third type of corps member who are eligible for living
allowances; national service educational awards and forbearance
in the collection of Stafford loans. This change would allow
all three types of corps members--PLSC participants, resource
assistants, and consulting interns--to be treated equally for
purposes of eligibility for living allowances and education
benefits. We also suggest clarifying language to ensure that
members of qualifying conservation and youth corps are treated
as Corps participants. Existing law and the bill as introduced
differentiate between Corps participants, who are hired
directly by the agencies, and youth who are sponsored by other
organizations.
Hiring Preference.--It is unclear whether resource
assistance would qualify for the provision of credit for time
served with the Public Lands Service Corps for future federal
hiring. We recommend that this language be clarified to ensure
resource assistants are made eligible for these benefits.
Second, S.1422 provides that former PLSC members would be eligible
for noncompetitive hiring status for up to two years. The
Administration opposes eligibility for up to two years because the
service requirements for this program are minimal. Therefore, we
recommend making eligibility status one year, which is consistent with
other Government-wide, non-competitive appointment authorities based on
service outside of the Federal government.
The Department further suggests including language to ensure that
time these former Corps members (both types) spent as full-time
students does not accrue against the time period they have to use their
noncompetitive hiring status. That way, college students who served in
the Corps during the summer, for example, would be able to use their
time period of noncompetitive status after they graduate from college.
While we support the noncompetitive hiring authority for all the
different types of PLSC participants, we recommend including language
to ensure that the participants have documented work experience within
a legitimate program in order to be eligible for this authority. In the
case of youth serving on PLSC projects though outside organizations,
this could be achieved by specifying that the participants need to
achieve the requisite hours of work within qualified youth or
conservation corps programs as defined in Section 203 of the Act.
Agreements with Partners on Training and Employing Corps
Members.--Finally, we recommend striking the provision in
S.1422 that would allow PLSC members to receive federally
funded stipends and other PLSC benefits while working directly
for non-Federal third parties. The need for this language is
unclear, since agencies already have flexibility in how they
coordinate work with cooperating associations, educational
institutes, friends groups, or similar non-profit partnership
organizations. Yet, the language could raise unanticipated
concerns over accountability, liability, and conflicts of
interest. For example, this language could allow an individual
to receive a federally funded stipend under a PLSC agreement,
and then perform work for a different non-federal group (such
as a cooperating association) that is subject to agency
oversight under different agreements. This language could blur
the lines of responsibility that have been established in
response to IG concerns over the management of cooperating
associations and friends groups.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer
any questions you or the other members of the subcommittee have.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, thank you both. That's very
helpful. Let me start off this way.
This subcommittee has been involved in four major statutes
over the last few years. Certainly I've spent a lot of my time
on it: the County Payments legislation, twice, the Public Lands
Package, a historic package signed by the President this year
and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Invariably on these
major bills you are trying to bring together environmental
folks and folks from various industries, the timber industry,
State and local officials.
The debates, very often, start at a fairly high decibel
level. There are strong differences of opinion. Then we try to
bring folks together. We're going to try to do that in a number
of these bills that we're working on today.
I am still trying to get my arms. Let me start with the
question of the Good Neighbor bill. Trying to get my arms
around what is at issue here.
It seems to me some seem to be saying that the issues are
largely technical questions. Others seem to be approaching this
is a major philosophical change. I'm going to continue to try
to bring all sides together.
I think the Obama administration has made it clear that's
what they want to do. So just one question I think, probably
more technical than anything else on the Good Neighbor Bill. My
understanding is under the Good Neighbor authority the State
acts as the ``agent'' of the Forest Service or the BLM.
So given that kind of standing how does the Department/
Departments delineate the potential liability between a State
forester and the Federal Government under what amounts to the
current situation, the pilot Good Neighbor authority?
Mr. Holtrop, the question I guess is for you.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you.
First of all let me just State that we have not had
liability issues with any of the projects that we've completed
in the States of Colorado and Utah. But it's--I think at our
liability issues, I think there are some issues around wages,
safety, fair labor standards. Those are the types of things
that we just think need to require a little bit more analysis
and consideration before we're ready to expand this authority
as broadly as we want to.
But we want to do this. The Good Neighbor authority, as
Senator Barrasso adequately--or appropriately expressed in his
opening comments, it's an authority that can be very valuable
to us. We want to have this. We are willing to work
expeditiously to resolve those issues.
Senator Wyden. Very good. One question about the Ski Area
issue, S. 607. As I understand it in your testimony the Forest
Service explicitly has authorized a number of non-skiing
activities that in effect the agency now recognizes as not
proper under existing law, but the extent in character of these
activities are not clear from the testimony that we've received
at this point.
Can you work with the ski areas to get the committee a list
of what non-conforming activities have been authorized by the
Forest Service? Whether you think they conform to the 7
criteria that you've laid out in the testimony today?
Mr. Holtrop. We would be happy to work with the ski
industry to provide a list.
Mr. Holtrop. I would say that the Ski Area Permit Act that
we currently operate under doesn't explicitly exclude many
activities. But it's not explicitly authorizing some of those
activities.
The activities that do occur under Ski Area Permits could
be authorized under many other authorizing authorities as well.
But I think we can get you a list of all of those activities
that do occur outside of the winter season on ski areas.
Senator Wyden. Very good. It seems to me that all sides are
rooting in effect for a bit more clarity in this area. I think
that's going to be helpful.
So, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We
know that Good Neighbor authority is in place, as you
mentioned, Utah, Colorado. So I'd like to ask a little bit
about your experience in those States.
You said there were no liability issues. It's something you
want to move to expeditiously. So, how does it help you fulfill
your agencies' missions in those States?
Mr. Stanton. At this point, Senator Barrasso, is that the
Bureau of Land Management has had only experience with the Good
Neighbor policy in Colorado. It has worked extremely well. It
has proven to be an effective tool that also resulted in
management efficiencies. Therefore, cost savings as well. Plus
it improves coordination with private landowners, with other
State jurisdiction as well as with other Federal agencies.
So the concept and the practice of the concept, I think, is
very viable. I think it paves a way for improved efficiencies
in the government. There is a responsibility, however, born by
the Federal Government and the States to assure that there's
clear understanding about the agreement requirements. I think
all of those--any differences have been worked out on the
ground.
But as with any new effort, you continue to analyze and
make sure that if there's anything need to be improved upon,
you improve upon it. But the Good Neighbor policy is very well
accepted in The Department of the Interior.
Mr. Holtrop. Also agree with everything that Mr. Stanton
just said. I would also say that it is efficiencies that this
provides us. We have, again, as your Statement, Senator
Barrasso, indicated, we have in the State of Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah and across the West, a great deal of work to do on insect
infestations. Every tool that we can have in our tool chest to
help us accomplish that is something that would be important to
us.
There's an example that I would like to just mention in
Colorado where we had a community that worked with the Colorado
State Forest Service to do hazardous fuel reduction within the
community on the private lands next to the National Forest
system lands. We then worked with the Colorado State Forest
Service to expand that work onto the National Forest system
lands. The efficiency that came from that and the overall
accomplishment of restoring some safety to that community was
important.
Senator Barrasso. Colorado and Wyoming are addressing
forest health threat from bark beetles. Is that what you're
making reference to?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. It seems there's a lot you could do with
that. That would be great. So anytime you try to work with good
neighbor authority and implement one of these projects, the
land management plan, still really dictates the parameters of
the project.
So it's not something that a State could all of sudden take
over? Is that correct?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct. The forest land and resource
management plan in the case of the Bureau of Land Management,
their resource plans, dictate the Federal agency is responsible
for the national environmental policy work in making the
decisions.
Senator Barrasso. So if a State tried to go beyond that
authority, there are Federal restrictions?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. There would be somebody who would step in
and make sure that did not occur.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. No further questions at this time, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Chairman Bingaman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I thank both the
witnesses.
Mr. Stanton, thank you for the strong Statement of support
for S. 1442. I know you've worked hard throughout your career
to make the forest available for training and employment
opportunities for young people. I think it is very important
that we strengthen that legislation. So I appreciate your
Statement.
On the Good Neighbor issue I think one of the reasons that
I think there's been a little concern. We had a hearing a
couple years ago on the problem of alleged problems in
connection with some of the forestry workers who were brought
in to do work, forest restoration type work. Many of them were
foreigners coming here under an H-2B visa, essentially. There
were real questions as to whether the conditions that they were
working in were appropriate.
As I understood at that time there were some pretty strict
rules put in place there to ensure that these folks were
properly dealt with, that the working conditions were
acceptable and all of that.
First, let me just ask if I'm right in my recollection of
that.
Mr. Holtrop. You are correct in your recollection. That is
one of the issues that causes us to have a desire to make sure
that we have analyzed and studied all of the----
The Chairman. But it would be your desire to be sure that
if you're contracting with the State or you entered into an
agreement with the State to go ahead and do other work that the
Federal Government is supporting, financially, that--those same
kinds of requirements would apply to any contractor doing that
work that applied to any contractor working directly for the
Federal Government.
Mr. Holtrop. That's correct.
The Chairman. Ok. I think that's one concern. I just wanted
to be sure to get out for folks to think about.
On the legislation that Senator Udall has introduced which
I generally support trying to get more recreational
opportunities on our forest lands. Some are recreational
opportunities in ski areas. One suggestion I've heard is that
there's been a proposal at at least one ski area to put in a
what's called an alpine roller coaster.
First, I'd be interested in knowing whether you know what
that is.
Second, is that an appropriate use of the National Forest
lands?
I guess to the extent that I've thought about this. I've
thought that we clearly want to encourage more recreational use
of the National Forest lands and in ski areas as well. We don't
want to see the National Forest lands turned into Disneyland
type parks. I don't know whether an alpine roller coaster,
which category that winds us up in.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you for the question.
We generally refer to the device as an alpine coaster. My
understanding is generally what they would do, they are a
device that sits on rails, but generally follows the contour of
the land as they roll down. They are somewhat similar to an
alpine slide, but the slide is more on the ground. The coaster
is raised above the ground a little bit more and the different
way in which they move down the hill.
I think the key question is there clearly are some
activities that would be outside the scope of what the
subcommittee or the Forest Service would be interested in
having occur on National Forest system lands. We want to make
sure that the legislation addresses that appropriately. We
believe the type of activities that could/should occur on ski
areas outside of the winter season should be nature based,
should be largely generated by the and dependent upon the
resources such as the mountains and the scenery and the forests
that are there.
There are some facilities that we think definitely fall
outside of that category. We would like to work with the
subcommittee to have those explicitly identified in the
legislation. There are some that we think should be considered
on a site by site, case by case basis. We would put into place
directives that would help us analyze those on a case by case,
site by site basis.
The Chairman. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
Senator Udall, I think was next in terms of arrival.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Holtrop, let me turn first to the Sugarloaf Fire
Protection District Land Exchange Act. I want to thank you for
your testimony. To start I would like to continue to work with
you and the fire district to address the issues you raised in
your testimony. I think we can resolve them fairly quickly.
In fact, I understand the fire district has preliminarily
let us know they're alright with making the changes that you
recommend. I can't speak definitively for them. But I really
want to make sure that we get a solution here.
We've been working on this land exchange for more than 10
years. We can't have another 10 years go by without action. So
do I have your commitment that you'll work with the fire
district and with my staff to move this legislation forward?
Mr. Holtrop. Absolutely. You have that commitment. We also
don't want it to take anywhere near another 10 years, months
sounds better.
Senator Udall. That sounds very appropriate to me. Let me
turn to the ski area bill that Senator Wyden has discussed and
Senator Bingaman as well. I want to thank the 15 co-sponsors
that joined me in supporting this bipartisan legislation that
includes several members of the committee: Senators Barrasso,
Cantwell, Sanders, Shaheen and Stabenow.
I have a longer Statement for the record, Mr. Chairman,
that I would like to include in the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection that will be done.
Senator Udall. It, in particular, focuses on the importance
of the bill to our mountain economies. Let me turn to a
specific set of comments. I agree with you and those who will
testify in the next panel that we need to have side boards so
that permitted activities are in keeping with outdoor, natural-
based, recreational opportunities.
I do believe with a pride of authorship here we've struck
the right balance in the bill given that, I think you even
point out this is a fluid and evolving concept and specific
activities need to fit individual areas. So that's why I do
have some concerns about spelling out in detail what permitted
activities can and cannot be in law. Nevertheless, would you
and the Forest Service be willing to work with us in providing
more guidance on this point through report language as the bill
moves forward?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, we would. I think you point out a couple
of things.
One is that the--I don't think we can be definitive in
establishing what are all of those activities that should be
excluded at this point in time because there will be new
inventions. They'll be new activities. They'll be new ideas
that we also need to be able to respond to over time. So I
think that's an important part of what we need to look at in
this legislation.
Although I do think that there are some that are so clearly
outside the scope in my testimony list a few of those like
tennis courts and golf courses and things like that that I
think we can reach resolution on fairly quickly. But yes, you
have my commitment to work with you to continue to either
identify what are those, some of those specific side boards
where after the legislation is passed as we work on the
guidance necessary to make the correct decisions on a site by
site, case by case basis.
Senator Udall. I would note for the record that in part the
genesis for this idea was a particular ski area in Colorado
that wanted to operate within the law, wanted to be an
outfitter guide that didn't include activities on the ski area
lands in the summertime that weren't within the very unspecific
guidelines. Included in this was an interest in having mountain
biking in the ski area and use of those roads. They were
operating in a very responsible, straight forward way.
So that was one of the reasons that I brought this bill
forward. So they had that clarity. As you know the ski area
business model is based on an active winter season, a less
active summer season. Although you see the revenues rising up
to the point now where the summer sometimes equals or surpasses
the winter season. But they also look as any good business
people would, to level out those peaks and valleys in the
spring and the fall seasons.
One final question. In Mr. Bidwell's testimony in the panel
that will follow yours, he makes the point that in current
Forest Service, I want to quote his testimony here. In current
Forest Service policies recreation ski areas should continue to
be dependent on the natural setting and provide recreational
opportunities that are generally not available on private lands
or non forested settings such as urban areas.''
Is there anything in my bill that would change this policy?
Mr. Holtrop. No, not that I'm aware of. Again, it is
something that's important to us as well. Generally the types
of recreational activities that occur on National Forest system
lands in ski areas ought to be activities that are unique to
opportunities on National Forest not of an urban setting.
That's the intent of the legislation. I appreciate the work
that you've done on it.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I think there's, Mr. Chairman, a
lot of violent agreement on this point. I might use just a few
additional seconds to welcome Mr. Stanton. He's one of my
heroes. It's great to see you here.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you for your continued service.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. The Stanton Family, the Udall Family have
long ties. It's nice to see you here.
Mr. Stanton. That's nice to hear.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Wyden. We are glad to have Senator McCain on this
subcommittee and this Congress. I mentioned a number of those
bills that people didn't think you could get significantly over
60 votes over the years. One of the reasons we were able to is
the participation of Senator McCain.
So we recognize you and glad you're on the subcommittee.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all
your leadership and your commitment to these issues that are so
important to the Nation that are under the obligations of this
subcommittee. I thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Stanton, I'm very, very glad to see you, sir. Mr.
Holtrop, I've got a problem I need to discuss with you. I think
you're aware of the issue is the Snow Bowl issue in Arizona.
In 2005 the Forest Service approved a proposal to install
snow making infrastructure and other facility improvements at
the Arizona Snow Bowl which you know is a ski area permitee in
the Coconino National Forest. It gets about 150,000 people
every year. Immediately a coalition of Indian tribes surmounted
a legal challenge arguing that artificial snow would desecrate
the San Francisco Peaks.
In 2008 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the Forest Service. In June 2009 the Supreme Court declined
to hear the case. In order to make the 2010 ski season
construction has to begin no later than next March.
Can you tell me what's the status of when we can expect the
Forest Service to issue a notice to proceed?
Mr. Holtrop. Senator, I'm certainly aware of the concerns
that you're expressing there. I'm looking forward to sharing
your concerns with the other folks in the Department that have
been working on this issue. I think we have a shared
understanding of how important these issues are to the ski area
and to the community around the ski area and to the tribal
interest. We look forward to continuing to work with you and
others on resolution.
Senator McCain. Mr. Holtrop, we got a letter from the
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture that said basically that they
were considering the situation. I must say in the years that
I've been here I've never heard of a decision that is upheld by
the U.S. Supreme Court then an agency of government not
implementing the results of that decision. I'm frankly
dumfounded that having fought this all the way through the
courts, a million dollars of the taxpayer's money and yet
there's no action that has been taken. Do you have any?
Now the information we have is that Secretary Merigan is
attempting to facilitate negotiations for the sale of the ski
area to the Navajo nation. Have you heard of that?
Mr. Holtrop. I've heard there are some discussions going on
such as that.
Senator McCain. What authority does the Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture have to engage in negotiations which have been
requested by neither party?
Mr. Holtrop. My understanding is that the parties have
mutually agreed to have some discussions. Have actually asked
the USDA to refrain from involvement at this time. But again, I
understand what your concern is. I understand the sense of
urgency.
I assure you that as I continue to work on this and as I
work on this with the folks in the Department I'll share your
concerns with them. We'll continue to work forward.
Senator McCain. I appreciate your nice words. I really do.
How does anyone, much less an unelected bureaucrat, in all due
respect, take it upon herself to say that here's the decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court which through all the Constitution
requirements were fulfilled and she's not going to act?
In other words, her words were, ``We have it under
consideration.'' What gives the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
that kind of authority not to move forward after the issue has
been resolved?
Now there's been another case brought, another suit brought
by another organization which will be quickly dismissed because
it's frivolous in nature. But I would like to know, again, when
this Deputy Secretary or you intend to act to implement a case
that's been settled all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Very frankly, your answer, while we look forward to working
with you, isn't quite good enough given what's happened so far
since the decision was made.
So I don't want to hold up bills. I don't want to hold up
nominees to positions. But I have to exercise my rights in
order to see that the people of Flagstaff, Arizona and my State
can enjoy one of their really great recreational facilities,
that they can have the right to move forward with a process
that has already been decided in the courts.
So I hope to get a rapid response from you. I do not
threaten anything. But I do say that it is unacceptable for a
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture to respond to a case that's
been in the U.S. Supreme Court to say well, we're considering
action.
So I hope that you will help us out here. Move forward with
this process. Now again, if the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
has a reason not to act, then I understand that. I'd like to
know that reason.
But to just say we're considering it, I think is not in the
way our government is supposed to function.
Mr. Holtrop. I assure you I will pass your concerns on. My
understanding is members of the Department have met with
members of your staff earlier this week. Follow up
conversations, I'm sure, will happen. I'll make sure that I
pass on your concern.
Senator McCain. I thank you very much. I hope that we can
get this done quickly. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Holtrop, why don't you keep me apprised
of that as well in terms of the progress and the discussions
with Senator McCain's folks?
Mr. Holtrop. I'd be happy to do so.
Senator Wyden. Ok. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
holding this important hearing. I'd like to enter into the
record a longer Statement, if I could on S. 721, the Alpine
Lakes Wilderness Expansion bill.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. If I could also include I have
many letters of support from businesses, conservation groups,
religious groups, hunters, anglers, sportsmen. If we can
include those in the record I'd appreciate it as well.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop, I see from your testimony you support this
expansion of the Alpine Wilderness Area. Obviously it's a very
important and well visited area of our State, the designation
that happened in 19, I think it was 76 has been a good
investment for everyone. Obviously we'd like to see this
expansion take place.
You say you support it. I want to ask you about a couple of
the concerns that you raised about the bill. One is about this
DNR land. My understanding is DNR land can be part of a
wilderness area. So I want you to help me understand that
concern.
Then some of the issues with the adjacency issue on the
Middle Fork.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, thank you.
The DNR land, it's--DNR land could be included within the
wilderness boundary. The way the wilderness boundary is drawn,
as I recall, reflecting on the maps, it appears to be drawn on
a topographic feature in which just happens to include 330
acres or something like in two different parcels of State land.
The whole rest of the 22,000 acres or so, I believe is all
National Forest system land or maybe a few private in holdings
in one portion. We just thought that it would be less
administratively difficult to make a very minor modification of
the boundary to exclude the State lands from the wilderness
boundary.
Regarding the adjacency issue in the Middle Forks
Snoqualmie, that's an issue of a mountain bike trail, a very
popular mountain bike trail, which is outside the proposed
wilderness. But the proposed wilderness goes right up to the
mountain bike trail. The trail is located between what would
then be the wilderness boundary in the Middle Forks Snoqualmie
River.
If there were any landslides, floods, anything that would
require relocation of the mountain bike trail to allow it to
continue as a mountain bike trail, we would like to have the
opportunity to be able to move it further from the river by
moving it upstream, by moving it above a little bit. So if we
had the wilderness boundary offset from the existing trail
boundary by a small margin it would allow us some more
flexibility in the management of that mountain bike trail over
time.
Senator Cantwell. What are we talking about?
Mr. Holtrop. A couple hundred feet.
Senator Cantwell. So that seems to be a minor issue. What
of DNR has no problem with inclusion of this? So if you're
definitely talking about a boundary.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes. We'd be happy to work with you and the
DNR on that boundary issue.
Senator Cantwell. Ok. So you're supportive of moving this
bill?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes we are.
Senator Cantwell. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. I want to say my colleague, Senator
Murray, has worked very hard on this legislation in a
bipartisan fashion. She is the original sponsor of this. I'm
happy to be a co-sponsor of it. But we're very proud of her
work in this area.
Senator Wyden. I know that Senator Murray has and kudos to
her and you and all who put so much time into it.
Any colleagues have any other questions they would like to
ask of these witnesses? Senator Barrasso? Senator McCain? Other
questions?
Ok. Gentlemen, we'll excuse you at this time. Thank you.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Let's go on to our next panel.
Rusty Gregory, Chairman and CEO, Mammoth Mountain Ski
Resort, Mammoth Lakes, California.
Ryan Bidwell, Executive Director of Colorado Wild in
Durango, Colorado.
Bill Crapser, State Forestry, Wyoming State Forestry
Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Cassandra Moseley, Ph.D., Director of the Ecosystem
Workforce Program at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
While you're all getting seated, it's a pleasure to have a
constituent and a friend, someone we admire greatly on this
subcommittee here, Cassandra Moseley. Have been doing good work
on sustainable approaches in natural resources for a lot of
years. Dr. Moseley, we appreciate your coming.
Let's start with Rusty Gregory, Chairman and CEO, Mammoth
Mountain Ski Resort.
Mr. Gregory.
For all of you we'll make your prepared remarks part of the
record and if you could take 5 minutes or so and summarize your
big concerns that would be helpful.
STATEMENT OF RUSTY GREGORY, CEO/PRESIDENT, MAMMOTH CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION, MAMMOTH LAKES, CA
Mr. Gregory. My full comments have been submitted to the
record. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of the National Ski Areas Association. NSAA has
121 member ski areas that operate on the National Forest System
lands.
These public land resorts are in the States of Arizona,
California, where Mammoth Mountain is located, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Vermont, Washington, Wyoming. At the onset, NSAA would like to
thank Senator Udall for his leadership on this bill and for
being a champion of outdoor recreation. We'd also like to
extend our regrets to Senator Murkowski regarding her ski
mishap at Alyeska recently and her resulting knee surgery.
She's a great skier. We know she won't hold that against us and
our efforts in this bill.
Public land ski areas work in partnership with the U.S.
Forest Service to deliver an outdoor recreation experience
unmatched in the world. Our partnership dating back to the
1940s is a model public/private partnership that greatly
benefits the American public. The recreation opportunities
provided at public land resorts help benefit rural economies,
improve the health and fitness of millions of Americans, get
more kids out in the woods and promote appreciation for the
national environment.
Over the past 5 years we have averaged 57.8 million skiers
and snowboarder visits annually and about 60 percent of those
visits have occurred on ski resorts that are on public lands.
Ski areas are the perfect place to accommodate large numbers of
forest visitors. Make no mistake about it. Ski areas are
developed sites.
They inspire an appreciation for the natural environment.
But they also represent a built environment. Ski areas already
have parking lots, bathrooms, trails and other facilities to
accommodate the significant numbers of summer visitors.
Increasing use of developed ski areas will help Forest Service
provide recreational opportunities in a controlled and already
mitigated environment and alleviate the impacts elsewhere on
forest lands.
Some year round activities are not new to ski areas.
Resorts across the country have offered summer activity for
decades with scenic chair rides and gondola rides dating back
as far as the early 1960s. These activities typically include
mountain biking, scenic chair lift rides, as I said, hiking,
zip lines, alpine slides, climbing walls, Frisbee golf and
others. Many ski area permits reference year round or four
seasoned resorts and Forest Service policy encourages the year
round use of resort facilities. Even Congress recognized the
four seasoned nature of resorts back in 1996 by including the
term gross year round revenue in our fee system.
So why are we here? The NSAA strongly supports Senate bill
607, to create a national comprehensive approach to authorizing
seasonal and year round recreational opportunities. In the
110th Congress the Forest Service testified in support of the
bill and Stated that further clarifications of the bill would
be helpful.
NSAA agrees that the Forest Service needs clarification on
what summer activities should be deemed permissible at public
land resorts and which should not. There does not seem to be
much debate over some of the more traditional summer uses at
ski areas. At issue here are the more modern recreation
features and those that are likely to arise in the future.
NSAA is in favor of providing the Forest Service more
clarity in its decisionmaking and respectfully offers the
following suggestions.
First, existing, authorized summer and year round
facilities or activities at public land resorts should be
grandfathered in the bill. For example, authorization of alpine
slides, zip lines, mountain bike parks, climbing walls and
other amenities that have received previous Forest Service
approval should not be changed or revoked as a result of this
act.
Second, the types of summer and year round facilities that
should already have been authorized, that have already been
authorized by the Forest Service on public lands should not be
considered as prohibited. Authorization of summer or year round
activities at resorts should be viewed as a two step process.
The first step, determining of the class of activities or
facilities should be prohibited outright or deemed permissible
assuming that it is not prohibited.
The second step is to determine the appropriateness of that
activity or facility in a particular site specific location.
To improve Forest Service decisionmaking the types of
existing activities and facilities that have been approved by
the agency should be deemed to pass this first hurdle. We would
welcome a friendly amendment stating that existing activities
and facilities are deemed to be in compliance with the
provisions of Section Three, Paragraph (4)(c)(2) of the bill.
Certainly these types of facilities need to undergo site
specific approval, but resorts ought to have the opportunity to
at least propose them to the Forest Service for site specific
consideration and decisionmaking.
Some good examples of these types of existing facilities
are alpine slides and zip lines. Alpine slides exist in various
parts of the country on public land. However with the exception
of the Pacific Northwest, resorts in most ski States are not
even allowed to submit a proposal for a new alpine slide.
Although several zip lines exist at ski areas on public
land that have been constructed in the last 2 years. Other
locations across the country are not permitted to submit a
proposal for one. More clarity for the agency should bring this
inconsistency and arbitrariness to an end.
To identify which summer or year round uses are existing as
of the date of enactment, the Forest Service should conduct a
brief survey, as there are only 121 resorts operating on Forest
Service land. This task should not be difficult.
Third, it would be helpful if the Forest Service--if the
committee provided guidance on the attention of Paragraph
(4)(c)(2) of the bill. While the development of the amusement
parks on public lands should not be permitted under this bill,
we feel strongly about that. At the same time a collection of
recreation or amusement related features may be authorized,
should be authorized. In many cases already have been under
existing approval.
For example amusement park features such as a Ferris wheel
are not natural resource based and are clearly inappropriate.
However a collection of features such as alpine slides, zip
lines and climbing walls should not be considered an
``amusement park'' for purposes of this bill. Moreover more
alpine slides such as year round bobsleds or mountain alpine
coasters that are substantially follow the contour of natural
terrain may also be considered permissible. Photos of these
activities have been provided to the committee.
Again, my full remarks have been given to the record. I
thank you very much for the time to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gregory follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rusty Gregory, CEO/President, Mammoth Chairman,
Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort, Mammoth Lakes, CA
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
National Ski Areas Association. NSAA has 121 member ski areas that
operate on National Forest System lands. These public land resorts are
in the States of Arizona, California (where Mammoth is located),
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Ten (10) members of the Senate
Energy & Natural Resources Committee have public land ski areas in
their State. At the outset, NSAA would like to thank Senator Udall for
his leadership on this bill and for being a champion of outdoor
recreation. NSAA supports S. 607 and is eager to work with all of you
toward its passage.
Background
Public land ski areas work in partnership with the US Forest
Service to deliver an outdoor recreation experience unmatched in the
world. Our longstanding partnership-dating back to the 1940s, is a
model public-private partnership that greatly benefits the American
public. The recreation opportunities provided at public land resorts
help benefit rural economies, improve the health and fitness of
millions of Americans, get more kids in the woods and promote
appreciation for the natural environment. Over the past five years, we
have averaged 57.8 million skier/snowboarder visits annually, and about
60% of those visits occurred on public land.
Ski areas are the perfect place to accommodate large numbers of
forest visitors. Make no mistake about it--ski areas are developed
sites. They inspire appreciation for the natural environment, but they
also represent a built environment that is accessible and convenient
for most people. Ski areas already have the parking lots, bathrooms,
trails and other facilities to accommodate millions of summer visitors.
Increasing use of developed ski areas will help the Forest Service
provide recreation opportunities in a controlled and mitigated
environment and alleviate the impacts elsewhere on the forests. This
increased utilization will benefit the natural landscapes and assist
the Forest Service in meeting its challenge of providing quality
outdoor recreation.
Summer and Year-Round Activities
Summer and year-round activities are not new to ski areas. Resorts
across the country have offered summer activities for decades, with
scenic chairlift rides dating back to the 1960s. These activities
typically include mountain biking, scenic chairlift rides, hiking,
ziplines, alpine slides, climbing walls, Frisbee golf and others. To
date, the authorization of summer activities at public land resorts has
occurred in a variety of ways. Many ski area special use permits
reference ``year-round'' or ``four season'' resorts. Forest Service
policy encourages the year-round use of resort facilities. Even
Congress recognized the fourseason nature of resorts back in 1996 by
including the term ``gross year-round revenue'' in our fee system (16
USC 497c).
So why are we here? NSAA strongly supports S. 607 to create a
national comprehensive approach to growing seasonal and year-round
recreational opportunities. Such an approach will provide for more
consistent decision making and more accurately reflect what is now
taking place at modern four season resorts. Specifically, S. 607
clarifies the Forest Service's authority to permit appropriate seasonal
or year-round recreational activities and facilities subject to ski
area permits issued by the Secretary under Section 3 of the National
Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 USC 497b). The bill is also an
opportunity to update the language used to describe snowsports to
better reflect the wide range of winter activities (including
snowboarding, snow-biking, etc) taking place at modern ski areas. NSAA
notes and appreciates the discretion and guidance the bill provides to
the Secretary to make site-specific decisions on appropriate activities
and facilities that are natural resource-based, outdoor, and harmonize
with the natural environment at ski areas.
In the 110th Congress, the Forest Service testified in support of
the bill and Stated that further clarifications to the bill would
assist the agency in its interpretation of the bill. NSAA agrees that
the Forest Service needs clarification on what summer activities should
be deemed permissible at public land resorts, and which should not.
There does not seem to be much debate over some of the more traditional
summer uses at ski areas. Hiking, chairlift rides, mountain biking,
concerts and Frisbee golf have been approved at ski areas across the
country without much fan fare. At issue here are the more modern
recreation features and those that are likely to arise in the future.
NSAA is in favor of providing the Forest Service more clarity in its
decision making and respectfully offers the following suggestions.
First, existing, authorized summer and year-round facilities or
activities at public land resorts should be grandfathered in the bill.
For example, authorization for alpine slides, zip lines, mountain bike
parks, climbing walls and other amenities that have received Forest
Service approval should not be changed or revoked as a result of this
Act.
Second, the types of summer and year-round facilities that have
already been authorized by the Forest Service on public land should not
be considered ``prohibited.'' Authorization of summer or year-round
activities at resorts should be viewed as a two step process. The first
step is determining if the class of activities or facilities should be
prohibited outright or deemed permissible. Assuming that it is not
prohibited, the second step is to determine the appropriateness of that
activity or facility in a particular location. To improve future Forest
Service decision making, the types of existing activities and
facilities that have been approved by the agency should be deemed to
pass this first hurdle. Another way of stating this is to say that
existing activities and facilities are deemed to be in compliance with
the provisions of Section 3, paragraph (4)(c)(2) of the bill. Certainly
these types of facilities need to undergo site specific approval, but
resorts ought to have the opportunity to at least propose them to the
Forest Service for site-specific consideration. Some good examples of
these types of existing facilities are alpine slides and ziplines.
Alpine slides exist in various parts of the country on public land.
However, with the exception of the Pacific Northwest, resorts in most
ski States are not even allowed to submit a proposal for a new alpine
slide. Although several ziplines exist at ski areas on public land and
have been constructed in the past two years, other locations across the
country are not permitted to submit a proposal for one. More clarity
for the agency should bring this inconsistency and arbitrariness to an
end. Again, these features need site specific review and analysis.
However, as a class of facilities, they should not be considered
prohibited in any part of the country.
To identify which summer or year-round uses are existing as of the
date of enactment, the Forest Service should conduct a brief survey. As
there are only 121 resorts operating on Forest Service land, this task
should not be difficult. The results of the survey should be submitted
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the
House Committee on Natural Resources within 180 days of enactment.
Third, it would be helpful to the Forest Service if the Committee
provided guidance on the intention of paragraph (4)(c)(2) of the bill.
While the development of amusement parks on public lands should not be
permitted under this bill, at the same time, a collection of recreation
or amusement-related features may be authorized--and in many cases
already have been under existing approvals. For example, amusement park
features such as Ferris wheels are not natural resource-based and are
not appropriate. However, a collection of features such as alpine
slides, zip lines and climbing walls should not be considered an
``amusement park'' for purposes of this bill. Moreover, more modern
features such as year-round bob sled rides or mountain or alpine
coasters that are gravity propelled and substantially follow the
contour of the natural terrain may also be considered permissible. We
have attached photos of these other summer and year-round activities
for the Committee.
Likewise, guidance to the Forest Service regarding water parks
would be helpful. While the development of water parks on public lands
should not be permissible, at the same time, a collection of recreation
features or activities that may require or benefit from the use of
water may be authorized under the bill--and in many cases already have
been under existing approvals. A log flume may not be appropriate in
the view of the Committee, but naturally appearing pools, water-related
mountain bike features, or summer tubing operations that utilize water
and substantially follow the contour of the natural terrain may be
deemed permissible.
Finally, we would welcome the removal of the ``primary purpose''
test from paragraph (4)(c)(3) of the bill. Removal of this provision
will provide clarity to the agency, because there is already a revenue-
based test existing in the Code of Federal Regulations that is more
objective than this proposed ``primary purpose'' test. Under existing
Forest Service regulations (36 CFR Sec. 251.51), a ski area must
derive the preponderance of its revenues from ``the sale of lift
tickets and fees for ski rentals, for skiing instruction and trail
passes for the use of permittee-maintained ski trails.'' This existing
revenue-based test is more objective and is less likely to invite
litigation over ski area summer proposals than the proposed ``primary
purpose'' test.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Let's go right to Mr. Crapser.
STATEMENT OF BILL CRAPSER, STATE FORESTER, WYOMING STATE
FORESTRY DIVISION, CHEYENNE, WY
Mr. Crapser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. My name is
Bill Crapser. I'm the State Forester from Wyoming. I'd like to
speak with you today supporting S. 1122, the Good Neighbor
Forestry Act.
Given the nature of some of the concerns I've heard you ask
the first panel, I'd like to start off by saying I'm a
forester, pretty much practical minded, dirt forester. I'm not
an employment lawyer or a labor specialist. So if I don't
clearly answer some questions it's because I'd be outside of my
range and my expertise.
Wyoming has approximate--is like several other States in
the West. We have approximately 11 and a half million acres of
forest land. Nine million of those acres are owned by the
Federal Government. Two and a half million are either State or
private ownership.
In the State with only 11 and a half million acres of
forest we currently have 2 million of those acres that are
directly impacted by either mountain pine beetles, spruce bark
beetle or Douglas fir beetle. At the same time we've seen a
huge increase in the number of people in homes in the wild land
urban interface throughout the State. Currently Wyoming has 260
communities at risk of wildfire. To deal with these and other
issues that exist in these intermingled ownerships local, State
and Federal managers need to develop ways to work in a cross
boundary approach when carrying out fuels mitigation, forest
health and restoration projects in our forests.
I believe the passage of S. 1122 will provide an important
tool for the Federal and State agencies to utilize in meeting
these management needs. Let me use fuel mitigation in the
interface as an example. Much of the land in the Western United
States is intermingled ownership patterns with the development
of community wildfire protection plans communities have been
able to identify areas where fuels treatment is of high
priority to them.
Local and State efforts have focused in these areas as have
Forest Service and BLM efforts on their side of the line.
However, I believe that with Good Neighbor authority these
efforts could be better coordinated and projects could be
carried out much more efficiently. This would allow for
leveraging of limited resources to complete the most and
highest priority work. In simple terms it would allow us to
receive the biggest bang for the taxpayers buck.
The concept of Good Neighbor authority, cross boundary work
is not new. Colorado and Utah have had the authority for
several years under a pilot project. From conversations with my
colleagues in those States, have seen good results in carrying
out fuels, trail, burning, watershed and in Colorado even a
timber sale project. I think that this success and cooperation
should be expanded to States across the Western United States.
From a State Forester's perspective let me take a few
moments to talk about what Good Neighbor authority is and what
it is not. To me, quite simply, it's a tool to be used when
appropriate, to achieve the most important work on both sides
of the property line in the most efficient and cost effective
way possible. It's not a ploy by State Foresters to take over
the management of the National Forest.
The Federal agency is still responsible for all NEPA
compliance with their plans and for paying for the project.
Good Neighbor authority will provide a tool to perform work on
Federal lands that is mutually beneficial to Federal land
managers, communities and the State. In my mind, this would
include watershed work, WUI or wild and urban interface work,
right of ways and other types of projects.
It's not a way to avoid Federal employment laws or
regulations. From my conversations with Colorado projects
carried out under their agreement, each project, has its own
task order. Individual task order is very clear which Federal
regulations apply to this type of project. The State complies
with those regulations and the administration of the project.
As with most grants and agreements between the Federal agencies
and the States, the State is required to sign what's called a
standard form 24B assurances. This document clearly sets out
the expectations the State is required to meet.
In closing let me reiterate. Most of my colleagues in the
West and I support the implementation of Good Neighbor
authority because we truly feel that it will increase the
cooperation on the ground between local, State and Federal land
management agencies. It will allow us to be better stewards of
the natural resources that we are charged to protect and manage
while at the same time put or most efficiently use the
taxpayer's dollars on the ground where they can do the most
good.
Thank you.
[The prepared Statement of Mr. Crapser follows:]
Statement of Bill Crasper, State Forester, Wyoming State Forestry
Division, Cheyenne, WY, on S. 1122
Mr. Chairman, Senators good afternoon, my name is Bill Crapser, I
am the State Forester of Wyoming, and would like to speak with you
today supporting S.1122, ``The Good Neighbor Forestry Act''.
Wyoming like many western States is a diverse and special place
made up of prairies, foothills, mountains, and lakes. People from all
over the world come to Wyoming to enjoy our treasures from Yellowstone,
to Devils Tower, to The Flaming Gorge. Much of the western United
States water supply originates in our mountains. As you know Wyoming is
also a major producer of energy for the nation.
Wyoming has approximately 11.5 million acres of forest land within
it's' borders.
9.0 million acres of federal lands
--6 million acres US Forest Service
--1.3 million acres BLM
--1.7 million acres NPS
2.0 million acres of Private lands
0.50 million acres of State Lands
In the State we currently have over 2 million acres of these
forests lands that have been impacted by the Mountain Pine Beetle, the
Spruce Beetle, or the Doug Fir Beetle.
At the same time we have seen a huge increase in the number of
people and homes in the Wildland interface throughout the State.
Currently Wyoming has 260 communities at risk from wildfire.
To deal with these and other issues that exist in the intermingled
ownerships, local, State, and federal managers need to develop ways to
work in a `cross-boundary' approach when carrying out fuels mitigation,
forest health, and restoration projects in our forests.
I believe that passage of S.1122 will provide an important tool for
the Federal and State agencies to utilize in meeting these management
needs.
Let me use fuels mitigation in the interface as an example. Much of
the land in the western United States is in intermingled ownership
patterns. With the development of CWPPs, communities have been able to
identify areas where fuels treatment work is of high priority them.
Local and State efforts have focused in these areas, as have Forest
Service and BLM efforts on their side of the line. However, I believe
that with the GNA these efforts could be better coordinated and
projects carried out much more efficiently. This would allow for the
leveraging of limited resources, to complete the most and highest
priority work. In simple terms, it would allow us to receive the
biggest bang with the taxpayers buck.
The concept of Good Neighbor, cross boundary work is not new.
Colorado and Utah have had the authority for several years under a
pilot project, and from conversations with my colleagues in those
State, have seen good results in carrying out fuels, trail, burning,
watershed, and in Colorado even timber sale projects. I think that this
success and cooperation should be expanded to States across the western
US.
From a State Foresters perspective let me take a few moments to
talk about what GNA is and what it is not.
To me quite simply it is a tool to be used when appropriate
to achieve important work on both sides of a property line in
the most efficient and cost-effective way possible.
It is not a ploy by State Foresters to take over the
management of the national forests. The federal agency is still
responsible for all NEPA, compliance with their plans, and for
paying for the project.
GNA will provide a tool to perform work on Federal lands
that is mutually beneficial to the federal land managers, the
communities, and the State. In my mind this would include
watershed, WUI, right-a-way, and other types of projects.
It is not a way to avoid federal employment laws or
regulations. From my conversations with Colorado, each project
carried out under the agreement, has its' own task order. The
individual Task Order is very clear which federal regulations
apply to the project, and the State complies with those
regulations in the administration of the project. As with most
grants and agreements between federal agencies and States, the
State is required to sign a Standard Form 424B ``Assurances''.
This document clearly sets out the expectations the State is
required to meet.
In closing let me reiterate, Most my colleagues in the west and I
support the implementation of Good neighbor authority, because we truly
feel that it will increase the cooperation on the ground between local,
State, and federal land management agencies, and will allow us to be
better stewards of the natural resources we are charged to protect and
manage, while at the time allow us to most effectively put the tax
payers dollars on the ground where they can do the most good.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bidwell.
STATEMENT OF RYAN D. BIDWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO
WILD, DURANGO, CO
Mr. Bidwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on the Ski
Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, S. 607. My name
is Ryan Bidwell. I'm the Executive Director of Colorado Wild.
I'm presenting my testimony today on behalf of my own
organization as well as the Wilderness Society, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Colorado Mountain Club, Wild Earth
Guardians, Save Our Canyons, See our Nevada Alliance, Greater
Yellowstone Coalition and Oregon Wild.
National Forests play an invaluable role in providing
healthy and engaging outdoor opportunities for the American
public. We support amending the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to
address its outdated elements as well as to authorize year
round, appropriate types of recreation at ski areas. National
Forest ski areas can and should continue to provide
opportunities for the healthy, natural resource dependent
recreation that is increasingly unavailable on private lands or
non-forested settings such as urban areas.
As introduced however, S. 607 could authorize virtually any
type of recreational activity within ski area permit boundaries
and could result in a dramatic shift away from the outdoor
oriented, natural resource dependent recreation that National
Forests currently provide. In other words it leaves the door
open to inappropriate, urbanized recreation like water parks or
amusement parks that are unrelated to and degrade the
experience for users of a natural National Forest environment.
Make no mistake this concern is not unfounded.
Vail Mountain and Las Vegas ski and snowboard resort have
each proposed large, permanently constructed downhill roller
coasters. Were S. 607 to instead provide clear direction to the
Forest Service on the nature of activities to be permitted we
believe it would end the uncertainty and inconsistent land
management that has, at least in part, contributed to the need
for amending this law. In terms of strategy we believe amending
S. 607 to clarify the characteristics of recreational
activities and facilities that should be permitted is
preferable to developing a list of prohibited activities as we
believe, will better stand the test of time as new recreational
pursuits emerge in the future.
We also believe it is important to concentrate new
facilities in already developed areas. Some ski areas, as you
may know, have very large permit areas that extent well out
beyond the existing lifts, trails and other infrastructure.
These areas include vital habitat for threatened and endangered
species, sources of clean drinking water, prime areas for
hunting, fishing and other outdoor pursuits and some of our
most beautiful scenic areas.
For example, Vail Mountain's permit area includes nearly
six square miles of undeveloped forest that's well out and
beyond the existing trails and infrastructure. The situation is
similar at many other resorts. S. 607 provides no guidance to
the Forest Service as to where year round recreational
facilities should occur potentially threatening large acreages
of pristine National Forest with easily avoidable and
unnecessary impacts. This issue can be remedied by
concentrating new recreational facilities in the areas already
modified by trails, lifts and other developments.
We also believe that any amendments to the act should not
create an uneven playing field for other recreational
providers. S. 607 allows 40-year, non-competitive permits for
ski companies to operate year round activities while special
use permits for other outfitters are generally available only
through a competitive process for 1, 5 or 10-year intervals. In
the interest of fairness we believe non-skiing, recreational
activities permitted for ski companies should be held to the
same standards as other permitees.
In closing we support amending S. 607 to clarify the
characteristics of recreational activities and facilities that
may be authorized to concentrate new facility construction in
appropriate areas and to level the playing field for other
recreational businesses. We are willing and interested in
working with the committee to achieve a Ski Area Permit Act
that ensures year round recreation at ski areas encourages
healthy, natural, outdoor dependent exploration and discovery
of the public's National Forests in a manner that's fair,
sustainable and consistent nationwide. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bidwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ryan Bidwell, Executive Director, Colorado Wild,
Durango, CO
s. 607
Introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify today. My name is Ryan Bidwell and I am the
Executive Director of Colorado Wild, a membership-based conservation
organization based in Durango, Colorado. I am also the chairperson of
the Ski Area Citizens Coalition, a broad group of more than 25 local,
regional and national organizations that annually research and publish
the Ski Area Environmental Scorecard which evaluates more than 80 ski
resorts across the West on their environmental stewardship practices.
It is as an avid skier and conservationist that I make my remarks today
on the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, S. 607.
I am presenting my testimony today on behalf of Colorado Wild and
it members, but also on behalf of The Wilderness Society, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Colorado Mountain Club, WildEarth Guardians,
Save Our Canyons, Sierra Nevada Alliance, Greater Yellowstone
Coalition, and Oregon Wild. We appreciate the opportunity to share our
perspectives on S.607 at this hearing. Our organizations, representing
more than 1.8 million members and activists nationwide, are committed
to the fair and sustainable management of our public lands. We have
also been working with Senator Udall and other members of the Colorado
delegation on various iterations of this bill for several years and
have previously submitted suggestions for minor amendments to the bill
that would permit our organizations to support this legislation.
Our National Forests play an invaluable role in providing healthy
and engaging outdoor opportunities for the American public. Whether
it's just a family hike on a trail, or an activity taking place under
the auspices of a special use permit issued to a third party, public
lands can and should provide appropriate and well-managed recreational
opportunities without degrading the resources upon which those
activities depend.
In light of this general principle, my testimony today aims to
communicate five points:
1. Our organizations support amending the Ski Area Permit Act
of 1986 to address its outdated elements, and to facilitate
appropriate year-round recreation at ski areas;
2. As introduced, the proposed amendments could authorize
virtually any type of recreation activity or facility within
ski area permit boundaries, and result in a dramatic shift away
from the outdoors-oriented, natural resource-dependent
recreation that National Forests should provide;
3. S. 607 could open large acreages of pristine, undisturbed
National Forest land with important natural values to
unnecessary and inappropriate impacts;
4. S. 607 may provide an unfair competitive advantage to ski
area permit holders over other National Forest permittees and
local businesses;
5. Overly broad amendments to the Ski Area Permit Act would
perpetuate the same uncertainty and inconsistent land
management policies that have led to the desire to amend the
current law.
Accordingly, we support amending S.607 to clarify the types of
recreational activities and facilities that may be authorized,
concentrate new facility construction in appropriate areas, and to
level the playing field for other recreational businesses. We believe
only minor amendments would be required in order to permit our
organizations to support this legislation.
Background
Approximately 125 of America's privately-operated ski resorts are
located on federal land, with all but one of those managed by the U.S.
Forest Service (the other is on land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management). These ski areas operate under special use permits issued
by the agency for up to 40 years. Roughly half of the approximately 60
million skier visits that occur in the U.S. each winter occur at ski
areas located on National Forest lands. While many of these ski areas
have a long history, the special use permits governing their operation
on public land were inconsistent and somewhat haphazard until passage
of the Ski Area Permit Act in 1986. National Forest Ski Areas are now
subject to renewable 40-year special use permits, a consistent fee
system, and a special set of regulations governing their management.
Despite some standardization provided by the 1986 Act, ski area
permits remain highly variable in certain respects, largely as a result
of historical factors and the discretion of local Forest Service
officials. Most notably, ski permit areas vary dramatically in size.
Some ski areas have large acreages included in their permit that extend
far beyond existing developed ski runs. For example, the largest ski
area in the U.S. is Vail Mountain in Colorado with a permit area
encompassing 12,590 acres, only 8,850 of which are within the existing
ski area footprint (5,290 of which are developed for skiing). In other
words, there are 3,740 acres-nearly 6 square miles-of undeveloped
forest within Vail's permit area. The situation is similar at many ski
resorts located on National Forest lands.
While ski lifts and lodges extend into the backcountry, the nature
and seasonal aspect of snowsports limit their impacts on natural values
in some important respects. Lands within ski area permits often see
very little human visitation or disturbance during spring, summer and
autumn. Therefore, without appropriate guidelines, summer recreation
facilities that import amusement park features into these settings
could greatly aggravate the impacts on sensitive lands.
Lands within ski area permits are not just meant for skiing. They
are havens for wildlife and include vital habitat for threatened and
endangered species. These lands are also the source of clean drinking
water for many Americans, prime areas for hunting, fishing and other
outdoor activities, and include some of our most beautiful scenic areas
and opportunities for solitude. Some lands within ski area permits are
so wild they are included in National Forest Roadless Areas and are
protected by applicable rules and regulations. For all these reasons,
unregulated expansion of year-round recreational impacts into the
backcountry portions of ski area permit areas could greatly increase
the environmental impact of ski resorts on public lands.
National Forests Provide a Unique, Healthy and Natural Recreation
Experience
With this background in mind, let me describe the kind of unique,
healthy, and natural recreation experience our National Forest ski
areas currently provide-the experience we should strive to preserve. As
communities adjacent to ski areas have become more and more intensely
developed and urbanized, ski areas on public lands continue to provide
a breath of fresh air and a natural respite. While in town there may be
hotels and discos and traffic, National Forests where ski areas are
located allow individuals to escape into the trees and play year-round
in the kind of natural environment that is increasingly scarce in our
modern world.
Therefore, while we agree that it is reasonable and even desirable
for ski areas to provide year-round recreational opportunities, we
believe it is of fundamental importance that any amendments to the Ski
Area Permit Act preserve our National Forests' uniquely natural
recreation experience and sustain the mountain environments in which
these activities occur. Because S. 607 lacks clear guidance to the
Forest Service on how these values are to be preserved, we are
concerned that S. 607 will create more uncertainty and problems than it
aims to solve.
Permitted Activities and Facilities Should be Limited to Appropriate
Uses of Public Land
National Forest ski areas should continue to contrast with
urbanization and provide opportunities for the healthy, natural
resource-dependent recreation that is increasingly unavailable in other
settings.
We support skiing and other snowsports on public lands as
traditional natural resource dependent outdoor recreation, and
as important economic drivers for our States and mountain
communities;
We also support recreation other than snowsports on public
lands within ski area permit boundaries during spring, summer
and autumn, but it is essential that we preserve our public
lands' natural beauty while providing year-round recreational
opportunities at ski areas;
National Forests, including ski areas, should continue to
offer recreation opportunities not available elsewhere,
emphasizing non-urbanized, natural resource dependent
recreational experiences.
As currently drafted, S.607 lacks clear guidelines for the types of
summer and year-round recreational activities and facilities that could
be permitted at National Forest ski areas. Because they are already
developed and accessible, ski areas are unquestionably logical
locations to concentrate year-round recreational activities that are
customary on public lands, like mountain bike trails, hiking and
picnicking areas, and wildlife viewing areas. However, as currently
drafted, S.607 leaves the door open to inappropriate, urbanized
recreation like roller coasters and water parks that are unrelated to
and degrade the user experience of natural National Forest lands. As
identified in current Forest Service policies, recreation at ski areas
should continue to be dependent on the natural setting, and provide
recreational opportunities that are generally not available on private
lands or in non-forested settings such as urban areas.
Make no mistake, this concern is not unfounded. Vail Mountain in my
home State of Colorado has recently proposed a large, permanent, roller
coaster that would descend the ski mountain. Las Vegas Ski and
Snowboard Resort is proposing a suite of permanent developments
including a concert amphitheater and its own roller coaster. These
examples would clearly be just the tip of the iceberg if responsible
guidelines on the construction of recreation facilities are not
included in any legislation.
We agree with the National Ski Areas Association that ski areas are
great locations to get kids into the woods and exposed to public lands.
In fact it was at Loon Mountain on the White Mountain National Forest
in New Hampshire that I learned to ski and first visited National
Forest lands. Yet the learning opportunity and the chance to promote
healthy and active lifestyles for our nation's youth will be lost if
visitors find the same types of recreational facilities in the
mountains that they left behind at home in their city or suburb.
We believe the best strategy for ensuring that inappropriate
facilities are not constructed within ski area permits is to amend S.
607 with additional language to clarify the characteristics of
recreational activities and facilities that are to be permitted. We
believe this strategy is preferable to developing a list of prohibited
activities because it will better stand the test of time as new
recreational pursuits emerge in the future.
Facilities Should be Concentrated in Already Developed Areas
In addition to the acreage already developed with ski runs and
lifts, many ski area permits go beyond these lands and cover large,
entirely undeveloped National Forest areas that offer important
wildlife habitat and wildlife migration corridors, backcountry
recreation, and scenic viewsheds. As I mentioned, nearly 6 square miles
of undeveloped land fall within Vail Mountain's ski area permit.
Similarly 2,400 acres within Loveland Ski Area's permit in Colorado
overlaps with undeveloped inventoried roadless National Forest land.
S.607 provides no guidance to the Forest Service as to where year-
round recreational facilities should occur, potentially threatening
large acreages of pristine, undisturbed National Forest land with
inappropriate impacts. For those activities that are not readily
provided on private lands, we recommend concentrating any new
recreational facilities in the areas already modified by trail, lift,
lodge, and other developments in order to reduce the adverse effects of
these installations.
The Amendments Should Not Create an Uneven Playing Field
Ski areas are not the only permit holders on National Forest land
that provide recreational opportunities for the public. Yet, as
introduced, S.607 could provide a significant competitive advantage to
ski areas over other National Forest special use permit holders and
local businesses in mountain communities.
S.607 would allow 40-year non-competitive permits for ski companies
to operate non-skiing activities within ski area permits. In contrast,
special use permits for other outfitters and guides that provide
outdoor recreation programs on public lands--often very small
businesses completely dependent upon this source of income--are
generally available through a competitive process for only 1, 5, or 10
year time frames. While the significant costs of ski lifts, snowmaking
and other infrastructure investments at ski areas justifies the longer
permit time frame for winter ski facilities, those same financial
circumstances do not apply to the year-round, non-skiing uses
contemplated here. In the interest of fairness, non-skiing recreational
activities permitted for ski companies should be held to the same
standards as other permittees.
S.607 could give also ski companies a competitive advantage
compared to other existing recreational providers that are in town and
lack access to public lands. Existing local business and communities
that provide year-round facilities such as rock climbing walls and
mountain bike skills courses could be undercut by ski companies that,
if permitted for these same activities, have access to vast acreages of
public land. Accordingly, we believe that it is important that the
economic implications of S.607 to existing business owners be more
thoroughly understood and considered.
The Amendments Must Foster Clear and Consistent National Forest
Management
One of the reasons for this bill is the current unpredictable
interpretation and inconsistent management regarding year-round
recreational activities at National Forest ski areas. The current lack
of guidance on what activities are permitted has resulted in
significant problems for the Forest Service. Without proper guidance,
determinations regarding allowable facilities and activities have been
largely left to the discretion of Forest Service line officers. The
result has been wildly inconsistent determinations that result in
industry frustration and resentment when one ski area is permitted to
undertake an activity that another was denied, or when there is
inequity between a ski company and a small guiding company. For
example, alpine slides have been constructed at Winter Park in Colorado
and Mt. Hood Ski Bowl in Oregon, while other resorts' requests to
install these temporary structures have been denied.
As currently drafted, S.607 does not solve this problem. We believe
the subcommittee should clarify the guidance language in the
amendments, and we are ready to help with that process. With the proper
drafting, we can achieve a Ski Area Permit Act that ensures year-round
recreation at ski areas encourages healthy, natural, outdoor-dependent
exploration and discovery of the public's National Forests in a manner
that is fair, sustainable, and consistent nationwide.
Thank you for considering these remarks and for the opportunity to
address the subcommittee.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Bidwell. We'll have some
questions for you and everybody in a moment. But we've got Dr.
Moseley. This U of O grad is always glad to have you come from
campus and have certainly won the respect of a lot of folks
across the political spectrum on these issues.
So Dr. Moseley, welcome. You go ahead with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA MOSELEY, PH.D., ECOSYSTEM WORKFORCE
PROGRAM, INSTITUTE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF
OREGON, EUGENE, OR
Mr. Moseley. Thank you, chairman and ranking members,
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about the proposed Good Neighbor Forestry
Act.
Restoring our Nation's forests and grasslands, we all know,
is complicated and challenging and success requires evolving
our laws, policies and practices. The Good Neighbor Act is a
bill that would allow Western State Foresters to act as agents
of the Forest Service and BLM in procuring services and selling
timber on public lands. This bill allows State Foresters to use
State contracting provisions to implement these projects.
The bill is addressing one critical issue of restoration,
working in cross multiple landscapes, multiple land ownerships.
But I think we need to consider a number of different
dimensions of restoration. So, I want to talk about two of
those today.
One is the need to create high quality green jobs and small
business opportunities doing these restoration activities
particularly in rural communities near where these lands are
located.
The second is that we need to ensure that the Federal
Government can meet its obligations to perform inherently
governmental functions and to adequately oversee its agreements
and contracts.
So let me provide a few examples of areas where we could
make some improvements in this bill. The success of rural job
creation really requires that rural firms have access to
business opportunities and that workers have good quality jobs.
By good quality jobs, I mean jobs that are free of exploitation
and that could help support their families.
One of the challenges of shifting to State led service
contracts is that these contracts would no longer necessarily
be satisfied for small businesses. Because not all States have
small business set aside programs. This is particularly
important in creating rural green jobs because rural businesses
are almost always small businesses.
In the area of job quality and worker production the
Federal Government has numerous laws and policies to protect
Federal contract workers. However, not all States have
contracting specific laws and policies. Some States have weak
enforcement.
This, as Senator Bingaman suggested earlier, I think this
shift away from Federal protection and oversight is problematic
in the area of hazardous fuels reduction where workers often
face exploitive conditions. This committee has held hearings
and there's also been hearings in the House on this very issue.
I think shifting this to State led procurement could undo some
of the hard work that the Forest Service and the Department of
Labor has done to undertake to increase oversight and
enforcement in a number of labor laws on National Forest lands.
But in addition to worker and small business protections it
is also critical that this bill provide mechanisms to ensure
that the Federal Government can protect Federal interest in
contracting. For example, in this bill there's an exemption of
the National Forest Management Act that allows contractors to
choose trees for harvest based on agency prescription. This is
a very important tool for doing high quality restoration work
efficiently.
This is, in the stewardship contracting contest we've been
calling this designation by prescription. So there is this
similar provision in stewardship contracting. But this
provision comes with some risks because it allows for a
contractor that has financial interest in the timber to choose
the trees. So this provision needs to be coupled with a
requirement for best value contracting as it is in stewardship
contracting so that the government can choose contractors that
it is confident has the skills and integrity to make these
selections and to create consequences for contractors who do
not perform appropriately.
So how can we address some of these shortcomings? Let me
suggest a few things.
First of all the agencies could be using stewardship
contracting authority to enter into agreements with States.
Stewardship contracting allows for agreements with public
entities. It allows for designation by description. It requires
best value contracting. As it has been implemented the Forest
Service has also required collaboration which serves as an
additional check and has created agreement templates that
include provisions for subcontracting timber sale and service
activities.
In going forward with this bill I would suggest that we may
want to think about the key--that requiring States to follow
key Federal contracting provisions for both timber sales and
service contracts rather than simply using State procedures.
The requirement of payment of service contract back wages,
small business set asides and prohibition of the contracting of
contract labor might be three of these kinds of authorities. As
I've suggested I think this bill should include best
requirement for best value contracting on both the timber sale
side and the service side to ensure a focus on high quality
restoration work. I think to create the efficiencies that we've
heard about today this bill should require that the State
Foresters contract for work on non Federal lands at the same
time that it contracts for work on Federal lands.
So in closing let me step back a bit and suggest that the
Forest Service and the BLM have collaboration and partnerships
have become increasingly important for these 2 agencies. That
it is critical for the BLM and particularly for the National
Forest system that it has a set of agreement authorities that
allows them to work together with a broad array of governmental
and nongovernmental organizations. These authorities need to
attend to the multiple objectives we have in the restoration of
public lands.
Part of what makes restoration so challenging is that we
are doing this work, this new work of restoration with old
management tools. We've been making some progress. I'm
confident that we can craft solutions that create multiple
ecological, economic and social benefits for public lands,
rural communities and the Nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moseley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cassandra Moseley, Ph.D., Ecosystem Workforce
Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment University of Oregon,
on S. 1122
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today about the
proposed Good Neighbor Forestry Act. I would like to address my
comments to issues of how the public land management agencies can
increase coordination with States, landowners, and stakeholders to work
across ownerships to restore forests, range, and watersheds, and create
rural green jobs through such legislation.
I direct the Ecosystem Workforce Program in the Institute for a
Sustainable Environment at the University of Oregon. Founded in 1994,
the Ecosystem Workforce Program seeks to build ecological health,
economic vitality, and democratic governance in rural forest
communities in the American West. The Ecosystem Workforce Program
supports these interconnected issues with applied research and policy
education related to rural forestry communities and federal forest
management. I am an active participant in the Rural Voices for
Conservation Coalition, where I chair its Contracting Working Group.
Over the past eight years, I have undertaken a number of studies about
the rural community benefits of Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) restoration contracting, the working conditions of
Federal contract forest workers, and the use of stewardship
contracting.
Context and Goals
We have significant work to do to restore the ecological function
and resilience of our nation's forests and grasslands in the face of
climate change, increasing wildfire, and land degradation. We depend on
these lands to: sustain biodiversity; provide ecosystem services such
as clean air, water, and carbon storage; as well as supply us with
wood, bioenergy, and food. The restoration and maintenance of these
lands can and do create jobs and economic opportunities in rural
communities, and are an integral part of a healthy national economy.
In the West, we face a complex mixture of federal, private
industrial, family, and State landownership, each with their own set of
priorities and legal obligations. Yet, restoring ecosystem function and
reducing wildfire risk requires working across land ownerships because
fire, water, insects, endangered species, and wildlife readily move
across these boundaries. Federal and State agencies have multiple roles
in these efforts because they provide land management, fire protection,
and technical assistance. Some State foresters also regulate private
forests. State foresters play a particularly important role in
providing technical assistance and multi-landowner coordination for
hazardous fuels reduction and other restoration activities on private
lands.
Over the past decade, we have made considerable progress in
improving coordination and increasing collaboration among landowners
and stakeholders. This increased coordination has occurred with
congressional authority (such as the Wyden Amendment and stewardship
contracting); Federal, State, and local government engagement (such as
through the National Fire Plan and Community Wildfire Protection
Plans); and the rise of local and regional collaborative groups.
Increasing coordination has been, and will continue to be, an
incremental process that requires numerous changes in authority,
procedure, understanding, and habit.
At the same time that we have been working to increase
collaboration and coordination, there also has been a dramatic rise in
Federal use of contracts and agreements to do the work of the Federal
government. This rapid expansion had led to a growing concern that the
Federal government may be contracting out inherently governmental
functions and is not always providing adequate oversight for the
protection of workers and the effective use of taxpayer dollars.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Barak Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments
and Agencies, March 4, 2009; Hearing of the U.S. Senate Energy and
Natural Resource Committee, subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
regarding forest workers on public lands, March 1, 2006; and Government
Accountability Office, Better Planning Guidance, and Data Are Needed to
Improve Management of the Competitive Sourcing Program, GAO-18-195,
January 2008. In addition, the appropriations bills for Interior and
Related Agencies over the past several years have prohibited Forest
Service engagement in competitive sourcing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this complex ecological, economic, and administrative
context, effective legislation would:
Focus on comprehensive forest, range, and watershed
restoration;
Increase coordination among a diversity of governmental and
nongovernmental stakeholders to maximize the effectiveness of
these activities;
Insure that the Federal government can meet its obligations
to perform inherently governmental functions in house and to
adequately oversee its agreements and contracts; and
Create high quality green jobs and small business
opportunities performing these restoration activities,
especially in rural areas where these lands are located.
Bill Analysis
Senate Bill S. 1122 seeks to increase the ability of the Forest
Service and BLM to coordinate forest, range, and watershed restoration
efforts across land ownerships. It would do so by allowing the two
agencies to enter into agreements with State foresters. Under these
agreements, State foresters could use Federal funds to sell timber and
enter into service contracts on national forests and BLM lands in the
west of the 100th Meridian. S. 1122 would allow State law to govern the
development, execution, and oversight of the contracts that the State
foresters award. In doing so, S. 1122 would not require the application
of Federal service contracting, timber sale, or worker protections laws
or policies that typically apply on public lands. In addition, S. 1122
explicitly allows State foresters and the timber sale purchasers to
mark timber for harvest.
Conceptually similar to the Good Neighbor Authority for
Colorado,\2\ S. 1122 takes a broader approach. S. 1122 would expand the
authority to include all States west of the 100th Meridian where there
is BLM or national forest lands, whereas the original law only included
Colorado and later was expanded to include Utah. The largest
substantive change, however, is that S. 1122 would allow agreements
with State foresters for treatments on any national forest system and
BLM lands, and does not require that there be any corresponding non-
federal treatments. The Colorado-specific authority required treatments
to occur on nearby non-Federal lands as well as on Federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 106-291, sec. 331
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1122 may help increase coordination across ownerships, although
that objective seems less clear than was the case with the Colorado-
only authority. And, because the bill does not require the application
of Federal service contracting, timber sale, or worker protections laws
or policies, it does not help address the other objectives of effective
restoration. Because, in many cases, State contracting and workers
protection laws are weaker than Federal provisions, this could:
Worsen the working conditions of forest workers in a sector
that already has significant challenges in protecting workers;
Limit the use of best value contracting, thereby potentially
reducing the quality of the work on the ground and local
economic community benefit;
Introduce conflicts of interest into the sale and harvest of
Federal timber; and
Reduce access of small business to contracting
opportunities.
Worker protections.--The Federal government has a robust set of
laws and regulations to protect employees when working under Federal
contract. However, not all States have such laws and policies, and some
have weak enforcement of the laws and policies that they do have. In
particular, the shifting of contracting authority to the State
foresters appears to exempt these contracts from the Service Contract
Act and Davis-Bacon Act. These laws and associated policies set wage
rates, health and welfare payments, and overtime pay requirements for
workers performing federal contracts.
The working conditions of forest workers-particularly thinners and
tree planters-have been the subject of considerable media attention,
scholarly study, and hearings by this committee\3\ as well as in the
House of Representatives over the past several years. The media
attention, research, and hearings have all pointed to significant
problems with the working conditions of these forest workers. For
example, in the 2008 Hearing of the House subcommittee on Public Lands
and Forests, the Department of Labor Testified that 12 of the 19
federal forestry contractors that had been inspected over the previous
two years were in violation of the Service Contract Act.\4\ Exempting
contractors from the Service Contract Act and other Federal contracting
and labor provisions would likely only worsen the conditions for
workers. Shifting oversight to the States could serve to undo the hard
work that the Forest Service and Department of Labor have undertaken to
increase oversight and enforcement in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Including, for example, Hearing of the U.S. Senate, Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, subcommittee on Forests and Public
Lands Management, to conduct oversight of the Administration's National
Fire Plan, March 29, 2001; Hearing of the U.S. Senate Energy and
Natural Resource Committee, subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
regarding forest workers on public lands, March 1, 2006.
\4\ Statement of Alexander J. Passantino, Acting Administrator,
Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, Department
of Labor before the Committee on Natural Resources, subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, U.S. House of
Representatives, September 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, according to the February 2009 GAO report about the Good
Neighbor Authority,\5\ the State agencies only included provisions of
the Migrant Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) when
requested by the Forest Service. In fact, MSPA applies to all migrant
and seasonal work including thinning and reforestation regardless of
landownership. These provisions should already be in all State manual-
thinning contracts. If these provisions were not already being
routinely included in State contracts, this raises troubling questions
about the extent to which States are prepared to enforce additional
laws and policies to protect workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Government Accountability Office, Additional Documentation of
Agency Experiences with the Good Neighborhood Authority Could Enhance
Its Future, GAO-09-277, February 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best value contracting.--Since the reforms of the 1990s, the
Federal Acquisition Regulations have provided the Federal government
with a broad array of contracting authorities including the ability to
consider the best value to the government when awarding contracts. By
contrast, many States do not permit the use of best value contracting
and, instead, require awards to the lowest bidder (or the highest
bidder for timber sales). In States where this is case, the Forest
Service and BLM would lose the ability to choose contractors that
perform high quality work on public lands. It would also eliminate the
opportunity to consider the extent to which contractors provide benefit
to rural communities, an authority that the Forest Service and BLM have
received as part of their annual appropriation since 2001.
Timber sale accountability, designation by prescription, and best
value.--By exempting these contracts from subsections (d) and (g) of
section 14 of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA),\6\ S. 1122
would allow State foresters or timber sale purchasers to mark timber
for harvest. Subsection (g) of NFMA requires that USDA personnel mark
timber for harvest and prohibits those with a financial interest in the
timber in participating in marking. At first blush, this appears to be
the same authority that allows for designation by prescription in
stewardship contracting; stewardship contracting allows for exemption
from same NFMA subsections. But, the goal in stewardship contracting
with exemption is to enable the creation of end-results contracts. With
these contracts, contractors are chosen and paid based on the quality
of the work they perform, assessed at the end of the contract. The
stewardship contracting authority does this by requiring best value
contracting. Under best value, the agencies are to choose contractors
that have a history of high quality work and provide the best value to
the government, whereas traditional timber sale provisions require
award to the highest bidder. Without the best value requirements, the
NFMA exemption in S. 1122 simply allows for people with a financial
stake in the timber to chose which trees to cut without a focus on the
end result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 16 U.S.C. 462a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small business set aside.--Not all States have provisions that set
aside contracts for small businesses, as is required under Federal law.
Currently, virtually all Forest Service and BLM thinning and hazardous
fuels reduction contracts are awarded to small businesses, as defined
by the Small Business Administration. Devolving contracting authority
to State agencies without requiring small business set asides could
decrease access to contracting opportunities for small businesses. This
is a particularly important authority for creating rural green jobs, as
most rural businesses are small businesses. In addition, the provisions
for set asides and preferences for minority, disadvantaged, and Indian
businesses would presumably no longer apply.
Recommendations for Improvements
How can we integrate the need to increase coordination among State
agencies, Federal agencies, and other landowners with the need for high
quality green jobs for rural communities and the need for adequate
Federal oversight of the way in which taxpayer funds are spent and
Federal timber is sold?
1. Use existing authorities, such as stewardship contracting
and the Wyden Amendment.--Existing stewardship contracting
authority allows the Forest Service and the BLM to enter into
stewardship agreements, including with States, for work on
national forests and BLM lands. Stewardship contracting
authority allows for non-USDA marking of timber, as is proposed
here. But it does so in a context that requires best value
contracting, which allows the agencies to pick contractors with
a track record of high quality work. As the agencies have
developed stewardship agreements, however, they have maintained
more oversight of these agreements than is proposed in S. 1122.
The agencies have also required collaboration in project
development. Their agreement templates have provisions for the
subcontracting of timber sale and service portions of the work,
including requiring subcontractors to pay prevailing wages
under the Service Contract and Davis-Bacon acts.
To address the goal of efficiently working across ownerships while
maintaining federal contracting provisions, the Forest Service and BLM
could also act as the lead contracting agencies for work on State,
private lands and public lands, using other existing authorities. For
example, the agencies could combine collection agreement authorities
with the Wyden Amendment. Collection agreements allow the agencies to
collect funds from other entities. With the Wyden Amendment, the
agencies can contract for restoration work across ownerships. Used
together, these authorities would allow these two agencies to collect
funds from States, and solicit and award contracts for work across
ownership boundaries.
Since first National Fire Plan appropriation in 2001, the Forest
Service and BLM have also had authority to enter into agreements not
only with State foresters but also with a broad array of entities to
undertake hazardous fuels reduction, watershed restoration, and other
activities on national forest and BLM lands.
2. Modify S. 1122
a. Require agreement holders to use Federal timber
sale and service contracting provisions.--This would
increase the likelihood that Federal, taxpayer, small
business and worker interests are protected. On the
service contracting side, these provisions would
include, but not be limited to: Service Contract and
Davis-Bacon acts; negotiated and best value
contracting; competitive contracting; small business
set asides; and other Federal provisions that protect
workers, small businesses access, the public interest.
It would also include clarity about liability and
bonding requirements. On the timber sale side, this
would include, but not be limited to, provisions
regarding: competitive bidding; penalties for cutting
the wrong trees; bonding; Federal disbarment; and other
provisions to protect the public interest.
b. Require best value contracting.--Because the
purpose of this bill is to foster restoration, this
authority should focus attention on the quality of the
work and require that the States consider the past
performance and other factors in addition to price when
awarding contracts. The use of best value would also
provide a check against abuse of the provision allowing
non-USDA timber marking, by making it difficult for
contractors who make inappropriate tree selections to
obtain future contracts.
c. Maintain Federal oversight over the execution of
the subcontracts, including the use of Federal timber
sale and service contracting officers, contracting
officer representatives and inspectors to help ensure
that agreements and subcontracts are appropriately
executed. This is particularly important in the area of
worker protection, where the Forest Service has
committed to have contracting officers visit all work
sites where work may involve migrant and seasonal
workers to ensure that contracting and labor provisions
are followed.
d. Require mutual benefit and adjacency.--The logic
of original Good Neighbor authority in Colorado was to
create efficiencies by allowing the State forester to
issue a single contract for work occurring on adjacent
parcels, rather than having two agencies create two
contracting processes for near-by, similar work. S.
1122 allows for the State to contract for federal lands
under any circumstances, not only when non-Federal
lands are involved. Adding some constraints about
multiple land ownerships and geographic proximity could
help focus the use of this authority to instances where
there would likely be efficiencies gained through
State-led contracting.
e. Require collaboration.--State foresters play a key
role in forest and rangeland management in the West,
but so do a number of other agencies, landowners, and
stakeholders. Requiring collaboration could ensure that
these projects and associated contracts are broadly
supported; it could also help engage private landowners
who need to treat their own lands. In addition,
collaboration could create informal oversight that
could increase the likelihood of early identification
of issues and problems in the development and execution
of projects and contracts.
f. Address fire protection separately.--This bill
appears to include suppression agreements and
contracting with the inclusion of ``and protection
services.'' Fire protection contracting and interagency
agreements are complicated and complex, involve
considerable risk, and are handled differently than
other types of land management. A change in laws
regarding fire protection contracting and agreements
should be given separate, focused attention in the
context of existing protection arrangements and ongoing
reform.
g. Require monitoring to evaluate the extent to which
the use of agreements with State subcontracting
increases coordination among landowners, improves the
quality and quantity of restoration activities,
provides high quality green jobs and business
opportunities for local workers and businesses, and
reflects the Federal interests in procurement and
timber sale execution.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Moseley, thank you very much. I'll start
with my questions for you.
One of the comments you made with respect to Good Neighbor
was especially striking to me because I already indicated that
we're going to work with colleagues on both sides. Senator
Barrasso has got a great interest in this, other colleagues.
I'm always struck when I'm home having Town Hall meetings in
rural areas. Go to every county, every year, about the support
for the stewardship contracting program using that as a model.
It seems to me running through your testimony is that some
of the principles of the stewardship program ought to be
applied to the Good Neighbor program. Is that generally true?
If so, why don't you just kind of list the sort of principles
of the stewardship, you know, program that you think could have
some applicability here as we work with colleagues and try to
get folks together.
Ms. Moseley. Sure. I think that's right. I think that the
stewardship--we've learned a lot with stewardship contracting
over the years, how to make it effective both on the ground and
make it comfortable for a lot of different kinds of
stakeholders.
As I suggested in my remarks now I think, you know, the
best value contracting is the only required authority in
stewardship contracting. I think that that is a critical
component. I think that designation by prescription has an
opportunity to help do restoration work that is sophisticated
and efficient at the same time.
I think the way that the Forest Service has implemented
stewardship contracting to require the use of collaboration in
the development and implementation of projects has been very
effective. I think the agreements authority has been very
helpful in allowing us to, for the Forest Service and BLM, to
work with nongovernmental organizations. I don't know that
they've done it with States, but they could in areas of mutual
benefit to allow the partnerships to really implement the
activities with mutual benefit. I think that that has a lot of
potential.
I think one of the interesting ways we've also seen
stewardship contracting occur on the Siuslaw National Forest
has been to combine stewardship contracting and the Wyden
amendment to allow watershed restoration that is occurring both
on public lands and private lands at the same time with the
same goals. So I think you also see some opportunity for
working together there.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. I was joking with Mr. Holtrop
earlier when we had a visit that I didn't even know I had my
own amendment, the so called Wyden amendment for several years
after it was actually enacted. But we're glad that folks are
using it.
We'll be talking to more of you about ideas as it relates
to Good Neighbor. I just want to get one other question in,
otherwise I'd probably be pummeling you on the same thing, Mr.
Crapser. We're going to work closely with you and all the
parties and Senator Barrasso on this.
Let me make sure on this alpine coaster, you know, issue
that I really get a sense of what it all entails. So perhaps a
question for you, Mr. Gregory and for you Mr. Bidwell on it,
both of you touched on the alpine coaster. Essentially the
subcommittee has been brought around to the idea that this is
basically a gravity propelled roller coaster going down a ski
hill.
Now you, as I understand it, Mr. Bidwell, said that you
thought that was inappropriate on National Forest land. If I
heard that right why don't you flush that out? Then I'd like to
hear your thoughts, Mr. Gregory on the same question whether
you think that kind of ride is or isn't appropriate on forest
land. Because I think we'll have a big debate in this committee
and certainly citizens in the country are going to feel
strongly on this.
So we'll start with you, Mr. Bidwell. I picked up when you
said that you thought it was inappropriate. So why don't you
flush out why you think that's the case. Then we'll go to you,
Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Bidwell.
Mr. Bidwell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First I should say that I think most important to our
organizations is that we provide greater clarity, where exactly
we draw that line is a difficult decision. We recognize that.
But part of the reason that we're here is because the existing
law lacks explicit guidance for the Forest Service and the end
result of that has been inconsistent land management around the
country. So we feel it's important for the law to be clear.
I feel personally that the issue of the alpine coaster
crosses the line of what is natural resource dependent and
natural resource based recreation. The reason that I feel that
way is because it is a large permanent, constructed apparatus
on the landscape that really changes the nature of the
experience for a National Forest visitor. It's no longer about
their relationship to a National Forest resource, you know, the
forested setting or an alpine setting or anything of that
nature. It's about driving a cart.
So to me it's a very slippery slope if we allow something
like an alpine coaster. I don't see how it's fundamentally
different than driving a steam train down a mountain. You know,
yes, there is an interaction between the person and the
apparatus. But that interaction is not fundamentally, you know,
related to the natural environment that National Forest lands
provide.
Senator Wyden. Ok.
Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Gregory. Respectfully, the assertion that's it's a
steam train going down the mountain, it's a gravity device that
people slide. Part of our obligation as ski area operators
under permit is to provide access to public lands for
experiences that people would not otherwise get, which is why
it is important to make it different than urban activities. So
that obligation I think extends to benefit non athletes,
disabled people to have experiences similar to skiing without
having to have the experience of the athletic ability to do
that.
So this is--and I appreciate the Chairman's reference to it
as alpine coaster. The roller coaster notion smacks of, you
know, Six Flags and upside down, heavily mechanized, very
intrusive sites. Pictures have been provided as to what these
look like. They are, we think, much less intrusive than lifts
often.
Again, there's 2 tests.
One is can proposals be submitted. We strongly believe that
they should be able to be submitted. They're appropriate in
some areas, not in other areas. That site specific analysis and
the rigorous requirements of NEPA will apply.
So we think that it's very consistent with what we do in
the develop recreations in ski area permits. It's best to do it
there. Think it is very consistent with resource based
recreation.
Senator Wyden. Discussion to be continued. Senator
Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Crapser, again, thank you very much for being with us. You
know, you're very active in the National Association of State
Foresters. You were the immediate past Chairman of the Council
of Western State Foresters. I know you're currently the Chair
of the Committee on State Forest Science and Health.
You know, if I could ask you, Mr. Crapser, what do you see
in terms of other State Foresters across the West in terms of
how they would view this bill?
Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso, I do have a
letter with me. I believe several of you are in receipt of it
from the Council of Western State Foresters and the Society of
American Foresters supporting Good Neighbor authority. We've
had some numerous letters from the Council over the last few
years and from the Western Forest Leadership Coalition talking
about the importance of cross boundary authorities and working
together to get some of this work done.
I think from a lot of my colleagues one of the words and I
didn't use it in my testimony would be nimble, as far as been
able to do things having a MOU agreement in place between the
Forest Service and the State. Then be able to work on
individual task orders to accomplish work. Not only is very
efficient, but it also lets us to move in some instances fairly
rapidly.
An example that comes to mind, Senator Barrasso as you
know, this summer we had a tornado in the Black Hills in our
State, tore up quite a bit of National Forest land, a little
bit of private and State land. We had within a couple days, we
had our inmate crews up there doing some watershed restoration
work, working along the streams doing some work. The Forest
Service desperately wanted us to do some work on their side of
the line.
We didn't have an agreement in place that would allow us to
do that with any type of speed. It wasn't an emergency, per se,
like a fire. So we couldn't use our fire agreements.
I think that's another benefit that we really haven't
talked about of the whole concept of Good Neighbor authority is
on those types of instances, we could move. I think most of my
colleagues would agree with me that would help a lot in
restorations and in post emergency type activities.
Senator Barrasso. At your meetings with those from Colorado
or Utah, are they--do you see an advantage to what they've been
doing for the last 10 years?
Mr. Crapser. Yes, Senator Barrasso. It's my colleague from
Colorado, Jeff Jahnke is very pleased with what they've been
able to do with Good Neighbor authority as is my colleague from
Utah, Dick Beuler.
Senator Barrasso. Could you explain how the interest of
local communities fit into a State's decisionmaking process? I
don't know if you've gotten calls on these things and how that
helps.
Mr. Crapser. Senator Barrasso, you know, if we're--we who
have really worked hard on the Community Wildfire Protection
Plans in Wyoming and in all of the Western States. Right now we
have of the 23 counties in our States, we have 21 counties with
completed plans. The 2 that aren't are Prairie Counties.
Probably we'll never get them done because there's not that
much of an interest.
With those, those are very locally driven, locally
developed plans. Any of our projects, fuels mitigation in
particular, that we move forward with on private land we move
forward with the local community, the local groups, priorities
and try to support those projects. I see the same thing
developing as we start doing cross boundary projects, trying to
lean on the communities in those CWPPs to really drive fuel
mitigation work. I think the same with watershed restoration or
any of the other work under the authority.
Senator Barrasso. So when the Wyoming Department of
Forestry is soliciting bids for a project. Do you consider the
interest of local communities, local businesses before awarding
the contract?
Mr. Crapser. Mr. Senator, yes, we do. We, as you know from
your time in the State legislature, we do have our procurement
policies. We do have an advantage for in State bidders. While
we don't have a small business set aside, per se, most of the
contractors that do the type of work that we're talking about
are small businesses, father/son, three or four brothers, that
sort of businesses are doing a lot of/most of the fuel
mitigation work in our State.
Senator Barrasso. Because we've heard some concerns about
labor implications of this bill. It seems that some people are
worried that the State would subjugate the Federal agency's
labor policies. Has that happened at all in Colorado or in Utah
to your knowledge?
Mr. Crapser. Senator, not that I'm aware of. I know I've
talked to the State Forester in Colorado extensively about
this. We do, as I mentioned in my testimony, we have in our
agreements with the Forest Service, we have numerous forms,
assurances that we're held to. I believe in the individual task
orders there could be any type of requirements that the Federal
agencies wanted to put in those.
Senator Barrasso. So there are requirements that apply to
State agencies when subcontracting is part of a Good Neighbor
agreement in the other States involved?
Mr. Crapser. That's correct.
Senator Barrasso. Do you know if those requirements apply
to immigration records as well?
Mr. Crapser. Yes, it does.
Senator Barrasso. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Let me repeat
on the Good Neighbor effort. We'll work very closely together
with you.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I turn to my
fellow Coloradan and ask Mr. Gregory to talk about the ski area
bill, I want to thank Mr. Crapser for being here, for your work
with our State Forester. Senator Barrasso and I have teamed up
on a number of important policy matters that affect both of our
States. The only place which we differ is when CSU comes up to
Laramie or vice versa during the fall football season. But
thank you for your leadership and for the pioneering work
you've done in this important area.
Let me turn to Mr. Bidwell. Welcome. It's great to have you
here in Washington, DC. Thanks for making the trip from a
beautiful and important part of Colorado, Southwestern
Colorado.
Mr. Bidwell. Thanks for having me.
Senator Udall. I know that you testified that you feel the
bill as proposed creates an unfair advantage for ski areas in
terms of opportunities for other users of Federal lands. I've
received letters of support for the bill from Outward Bound and
from the International Mountain Biking Association. All
organizations that use public lands for outdoor, natural
resource based recreation.
I want to give you a chance to respond to that support from
those organizations.
Mr. Bidwell. Absolutely. I think clearly there are a lot of
organizations that do--that participate in getting the American
public onto public lands. We're very supportive of that
objective.
Our concern here is that is really at a local level. There
are, as you are well aware of many small, local businesses that
depend upon permits to take the public onto National Forest
land and other public land. We have questions. They have
questions. I regret that they haven't weighed in with you. I
will encourage them to do that immediately.
For example, a woman named Anne Rapp runs a horseback
riding/outfitting guide service just down the street from
Durango Mountain Resort in Southwest Colorado where I live. You
know, Anne's been in business for more than 20 years. She's
managed to secure a permit with the Forest Service for up to
5,000 user days both in the summertime and in the winter to do
sleigh riding.
She's very concerned that if Durango Mountain Resort on
Federal land just up the street from her can suddenly offer a
very similar service in the summertime to their guests of
taking people out on horsebacks, you know, on horses for the
day. They can do that without going through the same
competitive process for a number of user days that she's gone
through. They can do that on a 40 year permit. That
essentially, you know, her business will be significantly
disadvantaged.
So I think her story is similar to probably the story that
a lot of local outfitters could tell. We just feel that the
Forest Service ought to consider the impacts to local, existing
businesses, local existing outfitters and provide some equity
between the two permitting processes provided. Given that, you
know, for the activities that we are considering here there's
not a huge long term investment as is the case with ski lifts
and other infrastructure that justified the 40 year permit
timeframe in the Ski Area Permit Act.
Senator Udall. If I might, let me give Mr. Gregory a chance
to respond to those concerns.
Mr. Gregory. If I may, Mr. Bidwell makes an important
point. But I think that point was most accurate with respect to
the local nature of that issue. Clearly, you know, large
companies that tend to be ski permit holders moving into the
territory, guide outfitters would be problematic, if that in
fact happened. It happens very, very rarely. The problem is at
a local level and the solution is at a local level.
When any permitee whether it be a long term permitee like a
ski area holder or a guide outfitter applies for permit they
look to, the service looks to No. 1 is their demand that's not
yet met. No. 2, who's the best to satisfy that demand. That
would get dealt with at a local level. It's not something that
from the perspective of the bill that can be solved through the
legislation.
So I think it's getting dealt with quite aptly now, quite
frankly.
Senator Udall. I'd welcome further comments from both of
you. I assume we're going to keep the record open as we
continue to consider the legislation on this particular matter.
Senator Udall. If I might, Mr. Gregory, let me----
Senator Wyden. If I could, Senator Udall has made an
important point. We're going to keep the record open for 2
weeks. So we'll make sure colleagues can be heard.
I know the Senator from Colorado wants additional time. I
think is appropriate.
Senator Udall. The Chairman is known as one of the most, if
not the most fair member of the U.S. Senate. I thank you for
your forbearance.
Skiers are very important to mountain economies in general.
In a time of tough economic prospects we've seen pretty strong
numbers relative to the general economy. We had a hearing
yesterday on the Great Smoky National Park, among other topics.
It was nice to hear that in the communities around the park
this summer their numbers have held up.
People are staying a little closer to home, taking
advantage of vacation opportunities in our parks on our public
lands. What do you think the economic benefits of this bill
would be if and when we move the bill through the Congress into
the desk?
Mr. Gregory. Economic benefits are dramatic. The ski area
that I own and operate, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in
California, we have a town of approximately 7,000 people. 3,000
in the winter work for the ski area. In the summertime, we have
approximately 1,000 year round employees.
With the current economic crisis that we're going through
our standard 1,000 person, year round employees with benefits
that go with that year round employment has been reduced by
approximately 200. So these fragile communities are always
fragile. During economic times like this they're even more so
with unemployment ranging often close to 20 and above 20
percent.
So opportunities to work on the same resource in the
summertime and the winter time, to be able to be employed on a
year round basis, you know, makes a huge difference to these
rural economies. Makes them, you know, a little less fragile
than they already are.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, if you might indulge me for
one last question and perhaps a comment?
Mr. Bidwell, Mr. Gregory, I know in the package you
provided to the committee that in the one photograph of the
alpine slide you do have the built environment that Mr. Bidwell
commented on with the alpine slide. But you also have another
built environment which is the ski lift structures and the
cables themselves. So I would note that although, Mr. Bidwell,
your concerns are ones that you hold, that you have a built
environment in place already.
What I'd like to offer is to continue the conversation
about how we structure this bill in its final form to respond
to some of the concerns that you've expressed here today.
Mr. Bidwell. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. We would
very much welcome that opportunity. We've had very productive
conversations with the ski industry throughout this process as
well as with your staff. Those conversations have frankly
gotten even more productive than just the last few weeks
leading up to this hearing. So I'm optimistic that we can work
together as a team and try to find the language that makes us
all feel comfortable.
I'm encouraged because, I think, there is agreement in
principle between the conservation community and the ski
industry and your office on this issue. We would all very much
like to see ski areas continue to play an important role
economically in their communities. We'd all frankly like to see
them play a role in getting more children out into the woods.
It's just a question of making sure that we do that in an
appropriate way.
So, thank you for that offer.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding the
hearing.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Senator Udall. For including these important witnesses.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. I'm going to give them the last
word. I just am struck by the fact I have been either the Chair
or the Ranking Minority Member on this subcommittee for most of
my time in the U.S. Senate. What it always comes back to when
you're trying to deal with one of these major issues whether
it's county payments, Healthy Forest Restoration Act, public
lands package. It's about trying to bring people together.
What is striking about natural resources policy is almost
everybody wants a win/win. In other words they want to protect
their treasures and at the same time they want to be sensitive
to local economies. If you don't find a way to bring people
together in effect you get, what I call a lose/lose. You don't
protect your treasures nor do you do what is sensitive in terms
of local economies.
The point Dr. Moseley, my constituent makes in terms of
getting good paying jobs, particularly in our State where we
have consistently had close to a 12 percent unemployment rate
for quite some time. So you've given us a lot of good ideas in
the course of the afternoon for doing natural resources the
right way which is to bring people together. With good people
like Senator Barrasso and Senator Udall we're going to set to
work to go on about doing it.
Your testimony has been very good. We'll give you the last
word. Any of you four want to add anything? You're not required
to.
Mr. Gregory. I would just like to strongly agree with your
Statement. I think what we're looking for is really just
general clarification in S. 607 that's provided to the local
line officer so that in a local communities we can do exactly
what's being talked about here, work cooperatively to develop
local solutions to these local challenges. You know, if we
don't agree, nothing gets done anyway. I think it's a very
compelling case that you make for that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Anything further?
Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman while I've been sitting here I
came to a thought on S. 1122 that I hadn't even thought about
before as far as the whole Good Neighbor authority and cross
boundary. We talked a lot today and the bill addresses
utilizing State resources or State--working as an agent of the
Federal Government on Federal land. All of a sudden it struck
my mind, why haven't we talked about using Federal fuel crews
on State or on private land?
I guess----
Senator Wyden. Getting a lot of nodding from Dr. Moseley on
that.
Mr. Crapser. I was thinking about my analogy I use with my
inmate crews being in the same spot where the Forest Service
needed some work done. I got thinking to myself well, what if
they'd had a hot shot crew working on Federal land could I have
used them on the State or the private land as well. So if I had
a suggestion it would be to look at even expanding it a little
bit farther where we could utilize Federal contractors or
Federal crews on State and private as long as we were ready to
go with the project also.
Senator Wyden. You all aren't required to do this. But
you're welcome to anything else you want to add, Mr. Bidwell,
Dr. Moseley?
Mr. Bidwell. No, thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Moseley.
Ms. Moseley. I think what the State Forester from Wyoming
is suggesting makes a lot of sense. These are lines really with
two sets of, you know, different owners and different laws on
both sides of those lines. But how can we figure out what the
mutual benefit is here.
I think this is as much about wrinkles and thinking about
this as comprehensive restoration as it is anything else. So I
think there's a lot of opportunity to iron out the technical
issues and make this a strategy that creates multiple benefits,
not just one benefit. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. We'll be back in touch with all 4 of you.
With that the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Ryan D. Bidwell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
proposed amendments to s. 607
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional
information to the Hearing Record. As an initial matter, we submit the
following suggested amendment language for the Subcommittee's
consideration. We believe that the following additions and
clarifications (changes in bold/italics) to Sec. 3(c)(2) would address
the primary concerns that we, and the U.S. Forest Service, identified
in our respective testimony for the October 29, 2009 hearing.
Sec.3 (c)(2) REQUIREMENT OF ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES.--Each
activity and facility authorized by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) shall----
(A) encourage outdoor recreation that fosters an
understanding of and appreciation for natural resources
and values through a direct association with,
interaction with, or relation to National Forest
resources;
(B) to the extent practicable, harmonize with the
natural environment of the National Forest System land
on which the activity or facility is located;
(C) be located within the portions of the ski area
permit area that have already been developed or
otherwise significantly altered for the purpose of
supporting recreation;
(D) emphasize recreational opportunities that are
generally not available on private lands or in non-
forested settings such as urban areas;
(E) support recreation activities which may be
facilitated by, but that are not solely dependent upon,
permanently constructed facilities.
(F) be subject to such terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.
In responding to Senator Murkowski's questions below, we have made
an effort to explain how and why these amendments would provide clarity
and guidance to the U.S. Forest Service in implementing the Act.
Subsection (A) above has been expanded to clarify that the
recreational experiences in question should have a clear nexus with the
National Forest context in which it occurs.
Subsection (B) remains unchanged.
Subsection (C) has been added to provide guidance to the Forest
Service as to where year-round recreational facilities should occur,
reducing the impact of new year-round recreational facilities on the
large acreages of undisturbed National Forest land, including some
inventoried roadless areas, located within ski area permit boundaries.
Subsection (D) has been added to clarify the characteristics of
recreational activities and facilities that are to be permitted by
preserving the current National Forest direction to prioritize
activities and facilities that are unavailable on nearby private lands
or in other settings. This would alleviate concerns to other existing
business and communities that could potentially suffer from ski area
competition, while also providing guidance on what types of activities
are appropriate in a particular context.
Subsection (E) has been added to provide guidance as to what types
of recreation facilities are best suited to ski areas. Following the
model established by ski lifts, we propose that facilities should
continue to facilitate recreational activities, rather than constitute
that activity itself. This distinction would provide clear guidance to
the Forest Service about what types of uses are in fact ``natural
resource-based,'' and would ensure that recreational activities
continue to depend primarily upon the natural resource setting offered
by National Forests, rather than depend entirely upon a an artificially
constructed setting.
other issues and concepts
We are aware of other general proposals to modify S. 607 to
address, at least in part, concerns about the Bill as introduced. We
address each of these briefly here.
Grandfathering Existing Facilities--We are not aware of any
organization that is actively pushing to have existing facilities at
ski area removed, or current activities discontinued. Nonetheless,
until either the ski industry or the Forest Service has prepared a
comprehensive list of year-round facilities/activities that have been
authorized to date, there is no way to know what the effect of allowing
these same activities/facilities to be permitted elsewhere would be.
Without access to this information, we believe it is inappropriate for
S. 607 to explicitly grandfather all current uses at all National
Forest ski areas. Instead, grandfathering specific activities/
facilities may be acceptable.
Adding a List of Prohibitions--While still constituting an
improvement over the Bill as introduced, we continue to believe that
explicitly prohibiting a list of activities/facilities (e.g., water
parks, amusement parks, etc.) is problematic. As a primary matter,
defining these terms can be challenging if not impossible. Similarly,
any list of prohibitions will inevitably become outdated quickly.
``Primary Purpose'' Language--We are understanding of the ski
industry's concern that Sec.3 (c)(3) of S. 607 would create a new test
(and hence new reporting requirements) for resorts in order to
demonstrate that the majority of their revenue is derived from
snowsports. While we believe it is imperative that the bill include
language that guards against ski areas becoming predominantly summer
facilities (as there are other National Forest special use permits
better suited to that situation) we are not opposed to modifying Sec.3
(c)(3) to avoid creating an altogether new administrative burden on ski
areas and National Forest managers charged with administering ski area
permits. It is our understanding that ski areas already account
separately for revenue from non-skiing sources (e.g., food and
beverage) and this current system might be easily adapted to
accommodate any additional new sources of year-round revenue.
Until now, some of the Forest Service's staff expressed concerns
about a number of types of activities that they believe may not be
acceptable on Forest Service land. Water parks and alpine coasters are
most often mentioned, we are having difficulty getting a handle on what
is allowed or has been allowed at ski areas that your agency
administers.
Question 1a. In your experience does the Forest Service allow any
ski areas to transport mountain bikes up their lifts so that the
recreationists can ride down the mountain? If so, do you know how many
areas this activity is allowed in, how many is it restricted, and do
you know why the agency restricted these activity at some but not all
ski areas?
Answer. In our experience the Forest Service does allow ski areas
to transport mountain bikes up their lifts so that riders can descend
the mountain. We are not aware of any ski areas where a request by the
ski area permit holder to provide this activity has been denied. The
Forest Service routinely requires that mountain bikes remain on
designated roads and bicycle tails, rather than riding straight down
ski runs themselves, which would result in significant erosion on these
steeper slopes.
Question 1b. Would you recommend restricting people traveling the
ski mountains on other non-motorized wheels vehicles (say--roller
blades, skate board with large tires, glide carts) and if so, why?
Answer. Assuming that the Forest Service determined that these
activities could be conducted without significant environmental
degradation, we would not recommend restricting activities involving
other non-motorized wheeled vehicles so long as they met the criteria
in our amendments to Sec.3 (c)(2) of S. 607. We believe mountain biking
is consistent with the criteria provided because it is directly related
to National Forest resources, generally unavailable on private lands or
in urban settings, and is not itself dependent upon permanently
constructed facilities (even though lifts may facilitate access).
Question 2. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows any
ski area to have a pool (on Forest Service lands) as part of their
permit? If so, do you know where and if not, why not they restrict
them?
Answer. We are not aware of any ski area that has constructed a
pool on National Forest land. We believe that a pool would be
inappropriate at a National Forest ski area because swimming in a pool
is not a recreational experience that is directly related to or
associated with National Forest resources. This activity is also easily
provided on private lands (where many pools are located in close
proximity to ski resorts) or in urban settings. Finally, swimming in a
pool is entirely dependent upon a permanently constructed facility, and
therefore is not a natural resource-based recreation activity.
Question 3. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows any
ski areas to have a water slide park (on Forest Service lands) as part
of their permit? If so, where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. We are not aware of any ski area that has constructed a
water slide park on National Forest land. Silver Mountain in Idaho has
constructed a water park at their resort, but it is our understanding
that this facility is located entirely on private land. As with #2
above, we believe that a water park would be inappropriate at a
National Forest ski area because water parks do not provide
recreational experiences that are directly related to or associated
with National Forest resources. These activities are also easily
provided on private lands (e.g., Silver Mountain's facility) or in
urban settings. Finally, water parks are entirely dependent upon
permanently constructed facilities, and therefore are not a natural
resource-based recreation activity.
Question 4. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows any
ski area to permit swimming or soaking in a hot spring within the ski
area permit area? If so, where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. It is highly likely that the public does in fact swim in
rivers and streams as well as natural and human-built lakes and ponds
within ski area permits, but we are unaware of any ski area that
provides this activity commercially as a part of its permit with the
Forest Service. Swimming in a natural water body is clearly a natural
resource-based activity that would be appropriate based upon on
proposed modifications to S. 607.
Question 5. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows zip-
lines in any of the Forest Service ski area permits? If so, do you know
where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. It is our understanding that zip lines have been approved
and built on National Forest lands at Heavenly Ski Resort in California
and Mt. Hood Ski Bowl in Oregon. A zip line has also been approved at
Hodoo Ski Area in Oregon, and proposed at Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard
Resort in Nevada. We are unaware of whether other resorts have sought
permission to construct these facilities. Based upon the criteria we
have proposed, zip lines would be inappropriate at a National Forest
ski area because they are entirely dependent upon a permanently
constructed facility, and therefore is not a natural resource-based
recreation activity. Given that several of these facilities already
exist, this may be an instance where grandfathering makes sense.
Question 6. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows
Alpine scooters on Forest Service lands? If so, where and if not, do
you why not?
Answer. We are unsure of what an alpine scooter is. We are aware of
several proposals by ski areas to build alpine coasters on public land,
which we assume to be similar. There are currently no alpine coasters
on public lands that we are aware of. Vail Mountain and Las Vegas Ski
and Snowboard Resort have proposed alpine coasters on public lands.
Several alpine coasters have been constructed on private land, but only
one of which that we are aware of is in proximity to a ski resort (Park
City, UT). We believe that an alpine coaster is inappropriate at a
National Forest ski area because piloting a cart on a metal scaffolding
structure is not a recreational experience that is directly related to
or associated with National Forest Resources. This activity is also
easily provided on private lands or in urban settings. Finally, alpine
coasters are entirely dependent upon a permanently constructed
facility, and therefore are not a natural resource based recreation
activity.
Question 7. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows
Alpine Slides? If so, where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. We are aware of at least four alpine slides that have been
constructed on public land at ski areas: Durango Mountain Resort, CO;
Winter Park, CO; Mt. Hood Ski Bowl, OR; and Snow King Resort, WY. Other
alpine slides exist nationwide on private lands. We understand that the
Forest Service is not currently accepting applications from ski areas
to construct these facilities. Similar to #6 above, we believe that an
alpine slide is inappropriate at a National Forest ski area because
piloting a cart down a concrete track is not a recreational experience
that is directly related to or associated with National Forest
Resources. This activity is also easily provided on private lands or in
urban settings. Technically, alpine slides are designed to be temporary
facilities, but in practice most ski areas have left them in place
permanently, and therefore this activity entirely dependent upon a
permanently constructed facility. Given that several of these
facilities already exist, this may be an instance where grandfathering
makes sense.
Question 7a. Can you explain what the fundamental difference
between the visual and esthetics of a ski chair lift vs. an Alpine
Coaster, vs. an Alpine scooter, vs. a zip line from your point of view?
And can you describe why one or more of these might unacceptable to the
Forest Service?
Answer. We do not believe that there is a fundamental difference
from a visual or esthetic perspective between ski lifts, alpine
coasters, alpine slides and zip lines, although the significance of the
visual/esthetic impact resulting from these facilities does decline in
that order. Where we feel there is a fundamental difference between
these facilities is related to the nature of the recreational
experience in question, and its relationship (or lack thereof) to
National Forest Resources.
Ski lifts are not themselves designed as recreational activities.
Instead, ski lifts facilitate a natural resource-based activity such as
skiing or snowboarding which itself does not depend on a permanently
constructed facility to occur. In contrast, alpine coasters, alpine
slides, and zip lines are all recreational activities that themselves
are dependent upon a permanent facility to be in place. Thus the
facility is the basis for the recreation in question, not the natural
resource context. Again, given that zip lines and alpine slides have
historically been approved and constructed, grandfathering these uses
may be acceptable, but in general, we believe that these activities are
not examples of natural resource-based recreation, and therefore not
appropriate for National Forest Ski areas.
Question 8. Do you think the Forest Service should allow ATV or OHV
use of forest lands within a ski area? If so, with what limitations?
Answer. We believe ATV/ORV use on public lands is best addressed in
a transparent and comprehensive planning process through the Travel
Management process. We are not aware of any ski area which provides
commercial ATV/ORV recreation on public lands, although all ski areas
we are aware of use ATVs and ORVs for maintenance and operations
purposes. We believe that well managed ATV/ORV use is an appropriate
natural resource-based recreation activity that is consistent with the
criteria we have proposed for amending S. 607. As with other areas on
public land, we believe it is important that ATV/ORV use is restricted
to designated routes that are appropriately located, designed, and
maintained so as to not result in significant adverse environmental
effects.
Question 9. Do you think the Forest Service should allow a
motorcycle hill climb within a ski permit on Forest Service lands? If
not, why not?
Answer. As with #8 above, we believe this activity would be best
managed in a consistent manner across a National Forest as determined
through the Travel Management process. In general though, motorcycle
hill climbs are not dependent upon National Forest settings and
resources, and could (and in fact are) generally available on private
lands and in non-forested settings. Therefore, motorcycle hill climbs
would likely not be an appropriate use of public lands at ski areas.
Question 10. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows the
summer use of hang-gliders, or para-sails in ski areas? If so, do you
know where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. We are not familiar with Forest Service policy on summer
use of hang-gliders and para-sails at ski areas. Based on our proposed
criteria above, we believe these activities could be appropriate year-
round recreation activities at ski areas.
Question 11. In your mind, how does winter paragliding or hang-
gliding differ from summer para-gliding or hang-gliding?
Answer. We do not see a fundamental difference between these
activities based on the season of their occurrence.
Question 12. Do you know if the Forest Service allows back country
horse back riding in ski areas on Forest Service lands? If so, do you
know where and if not, do you know why they don't allow it?
Answer. We are aware of a number of locations where other horseback
riding outfitters travel through ski area permit areas on designated
roads and trails, but no instances where ski areas themselves offer
year-round or summer only horseback riding activities. Backcountry
horseback riding is clearly an example of natural resource-based
recreation that would be appropriate on public lands at ski areas. As
we have expressed before, we believe that ski areas could gain a
competitive advantage compared to other outfitters and guides offering
similar services to the public if care is not taken by the Forest
Service to avoid this situation.
Question 13. Do you know if the Forest Service allows horseback
endurance rides or events like the Omak Suicide Race in permitted ski
areas on Forest Service lands?
Answer. We are not aware of the Forest Service allowing a horseback
endurance ride or race on public lands at ski areas. We believe this
activity would be best considered through applicable Forest Service
special use permit regulations, and not addressed separately for ski
areas.
Question 14. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows
paintball parks within ski areas on federal lands?If so, do you know
where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. We are not aware of any ski area that has been allowed to
construct a paintball park on National Forest land. While playing
paintball in a forested setting itself may be argued to be a natural
resource-based activity, we believe that the construction of a ``ball
field'' for this activity would be inappropriate at a National Forest
ski area because playing paintball in a regulation paintball park is
not a recreational experience that is directly related to or associated
with National Forest resources. This would be akin to providing a
basketball or tennis court. This activity is also easily provided on
private lands or in urban settings. Finally, playing paintball in a
paintball park is a recreational activity entirely dependent upon a
permanently constructed facility, and therefore is not a natural
resource-based recreation activity.
Question 15. Please help us understand why any of the above listed
summer recreation activities are that much different than snowboard
terrain parks (especially the metal rails and jumps that are
permanently or semi-permanently placed in the snow board terrain
parks)?
Answer. We believe that there is a clear distinction that can be
drawn between facilities that facilitate or enhance a natural resource-
based recreation experience from those that are themselves an
artificial constructed recreation experience. Terrain park features are
not themselves designed as recreational activities. Instead, jumps and
other terrain park features mimic natural features (logs, cliffs, etc.)
to facilitate a certain style of skiing or snowboarding. In contrast,
alpine coasters and water parks are recreational activities that are
dependent upon a permanent facility to be in place. Thus the facility
is the basis for the recreation in question, not the natural resource
context.
______
Responses of Bill Crapser to Questions From Senator Barrasso
You have wanted to utilize the good neighbor authority in Wyoming
for some time now.
Question 1. Could you explain why this authority will be an
important tool for our State?
Answer. Having Good neighbor authority would allow the federal
agencies and the State to be much more nimble and efficient in our
approach to accomplishing work, especially in intermingled ownerships.
This is especially important in Wyoming given the forest condition
problems that we face.
Question 2. Could you share a few examples of projects that would
benefit under a collaborative approach to land management?
Answer. GNA would be very useful for fuels mitigations projects in
the WUI, for hazard mitigation along powerlines, roads, and trails, and
for forest restorations projects that cross property lines.
Question 3. Don't you agree that the collaboration and cooperation
established under a good neighbor policy is much more efficient and
cost-effective than the ``go-it-alone'' situation land managers
currently face?
Answer. I believe that collaboration is the only way that we can
effectively move forward with many projects where the need crosses
property lines.
Question 4. Your testimony includes discussion of cost savings
provided by the good neighbor authority. Please explain.
Answer. First the very fact that different agencies would have to
communicate and work together would make projects more efficient.
Contractor utilization and mobilization costs would be greatly reduced
by combining projects under single contracts. If utilized the GNA would
allow States to not only reduce management costs on federal lands
projects, but this bundling of services would reduce costs to private
landowners as well.
I saw an article in the Denver Post on October 16th about the
Forest Service undertaking a project to remove hazard trees on the
White River, Arapaho-Roosevelt, and Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests
(see attached article).
The Forest Service plans to remove dead trees along 250 miles of
roads through forests, 380 miles of trails and on 1,000 acres of
campgrounds at a cost of $15 million.
Question 5. Would you care to guess how many miles of roads, miles
of trails, and acres of campgrounds could be cleared by your State or
Colorado State Forest Service if Congress granted you the Good Neighbor
Forestry Authority and the $15 million in funding?
Answer. I don't have a way to scientifically answer this question,
but with my logging and equipment movement experience, I would hazard a
guess that by bundling projects across ownership lines, would allow the
agencies to increase the amount of work completed per dollar by a
factor of between 1.3 and 1.5.
______
Responses of Rusty Gregory to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Given that the National Ski Association played an integral part in
helping develop S. 607 we are confused by several of the requests made
in your testimony. Could you answer these questions?
Question 1. Your testimony said: ``it would be helpful to the
Forest Service if the Committee provided guidance on the intention of
paragraph (4)(c)(2) of the bill. While the development of amusement
parks on public lands should not be permitted under this bill, at the
same time, a collection of recreation or amusement-related features may
be authorized--and in many cases already have been under existing
approvals.''
Would you provide the Committee a list of summer recreation
activities that you think should be allowed, as well as a list of those
activities that you think are inappropriate?
Answer. While we are happy to list examples of the types of
activities that should be deemed appropriate or not, we caution the
Committee that any such lists are not exhaustive, and that any listing
exercise completed today runs the risk of being out of date as
recreation activities continue to evolve over time.
As Stated in our testimony, the development of amusement parks on
public lands should not be permitted under this bill, yet at the same
time, a collection of recreation or amusement-related features may be
authorized--and in many cases already have been under existing
approvals. For example, a collection of features such as alpine slides,
alpine scooters, bungee, canopy tours, climbing walls, Frisbee golf,
hang-gliding and para-gliding, horseback riding facilities, mazes,
mountain bike parks, paintball, ropes courses, summer tubing, ``turf''
terrain parks and ziplines should not be considered an ``amusement
park'' for purposes of this bill. More modern features such as year-
round bob sled rides or mountain or alpine coasters that are gravity
propelled and substantially follow the contour of the natural terrain
should also be considered permissible.
Question 2.Your testimony said: ``Likewise, guidance to the Forest
Service regarding water parks would be helpful. While the development
of water parks on public lands should not be permissible, at the same
time, a collection of recreation features or activities that may
require or benefit from the use of water may be authorized under the
bill--and in many cases already have been under existing approvals.''
Would you provide the Committee a list of summer water based
recreation activities that you think should be allowed, as well as a
list of those activities that you think are inappropriate?
Answer. As Stated in our testimony, a water park should not
permitted under the bill. However, a collection of recreation features
or activities that may require or benefit from the use of water should
be authorized under the bill--and in many cases already have been under
existing approvals. A log flume may not be appropriate in the view of
the Committee, but naturally appearing pools or hot springs, water-
related mountain bike features, pond skims, or summer tubing operations
that utilize water and substantially follow the contour of the natural
terrain may be deemed permissible. Again, these examples of water-
related features should not be considered an exhaustive list, as
activities may evolve over time.
Question 3a. Your testimony said: ``Finally, we would welcome the
removal of the ``primary purpose'' test from paragraph (4)(c)(3) of the
bill. Removal of this provision will provide clarity to the agency,
because there is already a revenue-based test existing in the Code of
Federal Regulations that is more objective than this proposed ``primary
purpose'' test. Under existing Forest Service regulations (36 CFR Sec.
251.51), a ski area must derive the preponderance of its revenues from
``the sale of lift tickets and fees for ski rentals, for skiing
instruction and trail passes for the use of permittee-maintained ski
trails.'' This existing revenue-based test is more objective and is
less likely to invite litigation over ski area summer proposals than
the proposed ``primary purpose'' test.''
Do you agree that a provision of law is stronger and more permanent
than a Federal Regulation?
Answer. Yes. As drafted, however, the proposed law would conflict
with existing regulations that provide better clarity to the agency and
the permittee. The bill should be amended to match the revenue-based
test that is currently in regulation.
Question 3b. Would you provide the Committee with a specific list
of those parts of 36 CFR 251.51 that you think should be incorporated
in section 4(c) (3) of S. 607 as currently drafted?
Answer. We would propose striking section 4(c)(3) as currently
drafted and replacing it with the following language:
LIMITATION.--The Secretary may not authorize any activity or
facility under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that
the authorization of the activity or facility would cause the
site to no longer meet the definition of ski area. A ski area
is a winter, seasonal or year-round site and ancillary
facilities developed to accommodate snowsports, summer or year-
round recreation activities from which the preponderance of
revenue is generated by the sale of snowsports lift tickets,
fees for snowsports rentals, fees from winter ancillary
facilities, fees for snowsports instruction and fees for winter
trail passes for the use of permittee-maintained ski trails.
Responses of Rusty Gregory to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Until now, some of the Forest Service's staff expressed concerns
about a number of types of activities that they believe may not be
acceptable on Forest Service land. Water parks and alpine coasters are
most often mentioned, we are having difficulty getting a handle on what
is allowed or has been allowed at ski areas that your agency
administers.
Question 1. In your experience does the Forest Service allow any
ski areas to transport mountain bikes up their lifts so that the
recreationists can ride down the mountain?
Answer. Yes.
Question 1a. If so, do you know how many areas this activity is
allowed in, how many is it restricted, and do you know why the agency
restricted these activity at some but not all ski areas?
Answer. Out of the 121 resorts operating on National Forest System
lands, forty-one (41) have mountain biking. Some resorts have been
restricted from commercial mountain biking. For example, Mt. Hood
Meadows in OR requested commercial mountain biking in the past and was
denied. Also, the Forest Service restricts mountain biking events at
some resorts. For example, the Boise National Forest has not allowed
Bogus Basin in ID to have a ``Downhill'' event on the permitted area.
Question 1b. Would you recommend restricting people traveling the
ski mountains on other non-motorized wheels vehicles (say--roller
blades, skate board with large tires, glide carts) and if so, why?
Answer. No.
Question 2. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows any
ski area to have a pool (on Forest Service lands) as part of their
permit? If so, do you know where and if not, why not they restrict
them?
Answer. NSAA is not aware of any pools on NFS lands at ski areas
operating under a 1986 Act permit. There is one pool at Timberline
Resort in OR under a Granger Thye Permit. Naturally appearing pools
should not be restricted. Water-related recreation is a major
attraction for children. In keeping with the Forest Service's ``More
Kids in the Woods'' goal, recreating in water in a naturally appearing
setting should not only be permitted, it should be encouraged.
Question 3. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows any
ski areas to have a water slide park (on Forest Service lands) as part
of their permit? If so, where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. NSAA is not aware of any water slides on NFS lands.
Question 4. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows any
ski area to permit swimming or soaking in a hot spring within the ski
area permit area? If so, where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. NSAA is not aware of any such activity.
Question 5. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows zip-
lines in any of the Forest Service ski area permits?
Answer. Yes.
Question 6. If so, do you know where and if not, do you know why
not?
Answer. According to a recent survey, Heavenly in CA/NV has a
zipline, as do Mammoth in CA, Wildcat NH and Sugarbush VT. There are
dozens of resorts in other States that would like to submit a proposal
for a zipline at this time.
Question 7. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows
Alpine scooters on Forest Service lands? If so, where and if not, do
you why not?
Answer. Yes. Steamboat Resort in CO offers alpine scooters, and
potentially other resorts as well.
Question 8. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows
Alpine Slides? If so, where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. Yes. There are currently 5 public land ski areas with
alpine slides. These resorts include Attitash in NH, Breckenridge in
CO, Durango Mountain Resort in CO, Mt. Hood Ski Bowl in OR and Winter
Park in Colorado.
Question 8a. Can you explain what the fundamental difference
between the visual and esthetics of a ski chair lift vs. an Alpine
Coaster, vs. an Alpine scooter, vs. a zip line from your point of view?
And can you describe why one or more of these might unacceptable to the
Forest Service?
Answer. Ski areas are considered ``developed recreation.'' The
environment at a ski area is a built environment. Ski areas have trams,
gondolas, chairlifts and surface lifts that dominate the visual
landscape. In addition, they have an array of snowmaking hydrants and
buildings such as maintenance facilities, patrol facilities and
restaurants. These are all permanent structures. In NSAA's view, since
all of the features listed above (alpine slide, alpine scooter,
zipline) already exist on NFS lands at ski areas, none of these should
be considered ``unacceptable'' to the Forest Service. From a visual
standpoint, all of these activities blend within the existing developed
or built environment context.
Question 9. Do you think the Forest Service should allow ATV or OHV
use of forest lands within a ski area? If so, with what limitations?
Answer. Motorized vehicles are necessary at resorts for operations,
grooming, safety and patrol, construction, access to private
inholdings, and other related activities. In NSAA's view, recreational
use of ATVs should be permitted on a site-by-site basis in accordance
with travel management plans for each individual forest.
Question 10. Do you think the Forest Service should allow a motor
cycle hill climb within a ski permit on Forest Service lands? If not,
why not?
Answer. The event would need to be evaluated on a site-specific
basis. NSAA would defer to the local travel management plan for that
forest.
Question 11. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows the
summer use of hang-gliders, or para-sails in ski areas? If so, do you
know where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. Yes. NSAA is aware of 7 resorts with para-gliding or hang-
gliding. These resorts include Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in WY,
Copper in CO, Beaver Creek in CO, Telluride in CO, Snowbird in UT, Mt.
Bachelor in OR and Steamboat in CO. There are likely additional resorts
with para-gliding and hang-gliding.
Question 12. In your mind, how does winter paragliding or hang-
gliding differ from summer paragliding or hang-gliding?
Answer. It does not.
Question 13. Do you know if the Forest Service allows back country
horse back riding in ski areas on Forest Service lands? If so, do you
know where and if not, do you know why they don't allow it?
Answer. Yes. NSAA is aware of 9 ski areas with horseback riding.
Those resorts include Mountain High in CA, Loon in NH, Jackson Hole
Mountain Resort in WY, Durango Mountain Resort in CO, Vail in CO,
Kirkwood in CA, Bridger Bowl in MT, Grand Targhee in ID, and Beaver
Creek in CO. There are likely other resorts that offer horseback
riding.
Question 14. Do you know if the Forest Service allows horseback
endurance rides or events like the Omak Suicide Race in permitted ski
areas on Forest Service lands?
Answer. NSAA is not aware of any horseback endurance rides or races
at resorts. NSAA is not familiar with the Omak Suicide Race noted
above.
Question 15. Do you know if the Forest Service currently allows
paint-ball parks within ski areas on federal lands? If so, do you know
where and if not, do you know why not?
Answer. NSAA is not aware of any paint-ball parks within ski areas.
Question 16. Please help us understand why any of the above listed
summer recreation activities are that much different than snowboard
terrain parks (especially the metal rails and jumps that are
permanently or semi-permanently placed in the snow board terrain
parks)?
Answer. The summer and year round recreational facilities that
resorts desire on NFS lands are no different than the array of
recreational facilities that resorts provide in winter. They would be
permanent structures that allow million of recreationists to enjoy the
national forests in a developed setting.
______
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator McCain
Question 1. In 2005, the Forest Service approved a proposal to
install snowmaking infrastructure and other facility improvements at
Arizona Snowbowl, a ski area permittee in the Coconino National Forest
which receives about 160,000 visitors annually. Immediately, a
coalition of American Indian tribes mounted a legal challenge arguing
that the Forest Service decision violated NEPA, the National Historic
Preservation Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In 2008,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Forest
Service, and then in June 2009, the Supreme Court declined to hear the
case effectively affirming the decision of the lower court.
a) In order to make the 2010 ski season, construction must
begin no later than March 2010. In the meantime, Arizona
Snowbowl needs to make equipment purchases and complete
engineering plans immediately. What is the status of the
Arizona Snowbowl improvement project and when can we expect the
Forest Service to issue a ``Notice to Proceed?''
b) As you know, there is a pending lawsuit in District Court
(completely unrelated to Tribal concerns) that alleges the
Forest Service didn't properly consider the human health risks
associated with the use of reclaimed wastewater in snowmaking.
If this case is dismissed or decided in favor of the Forest
Service, will the Administration then move forward with the
Snowbowl project and if so under what timeline?
c) That aforementioned lawsuit was filed two months after the
Supreme Court action upholding the Forest Service Record of
Decision. Why didn't USDA move forward with the ROD during
those two months?
d) Under what statutory authority does the Deputy Secretary
have to indefinitely delay a Record of Decision which was
approved by the Forest Service in 2005 and upheld by the
Supreme Court?
e) The Forest Service conducted extensive tribal consultation
in developing its Record of Decision (41 public meetings, 500
phone calls and letters, and local radio and television
broadcasts). The R.O.D. provides for a Memorandum of Agreement
for tribal notification and consultation as the construction
process proceeds. Is it this Administration's position that the
laws and procedures established to develop and implement the
R.O.D. are inadequate?
Answer. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the petition to hear
the case brought against the US Forest Service (FS) brought an end to
the legal challenge against the FS based on alleged violations of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Neither that decision nor the
split Ninth Circuit en banc decision required the FS to issue a Notice
to Proceed
The Deputy Secretary's authority to review the Forest Service's
decision flows from the Secretary's authority to supervise and control
the activities of the Department of Agriculture pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
2202. Pursuant to 7 C.F.R. 2.15, the Secretary has generally delegated
his authority to the Deputy Secretary. As general officers of the
Department, the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary retain authority
over all delegated functions through 7 C.F.R. 2.12. The Deputy
Secretary therefore retains the authority to review the actions of
subordinate officials of the Department.
Deputy Secretary Merrigan notified Snowbowl in a telephone
conversation that the FS was moving forward on a part of the ROD on
November 6, 2009. The FS notified the Tribal Governments concerned
about the San Francisco Peaks in the Coconino National Forest through
correspondence on November 19, 2009. In this notice, the FS
communicated its intent to permit the Arizona Snowbowl ski area
operator to proceed with the construction of the ``magic carpet
conveyors'' as requested and approved in the Record of Decision.
Subsequent to the Deputy's call, local FS personnel have been in
contact with the ski operator to keep him informed on the consultation
procedures.
Other activities in the improvement request are under review due to
remaining concerns raised by Tribal Government with regards to
snowmaking. At the request of the tribes, the USDA has spent time
exploring with the tribes and the operator the possibility of resolving
the matter. The agency has not set a timeline for going further and has
respected the request of the parties for time to negotiate. Arizona
Snowbowl agreed there would be no physical construction this calendar
year, and indicated that it will not move forward with any ground
disturbing activity to install a snow making system until at least the
spring of 2010. Based on these representations by Arizona Snowbowl,
Plaintiffs agreed to not re-file their motion for a temporary
restraining order after the case was transferred to another division.
Question 2. Deputy Secretary Merrigan is or was attempting to
facilitate discussions for the sale of the ski area by the Navajo
Nation. My understanding is that this approach was not initiated at the
request of either party.
a. Under what authority and by whose direction is the Deputy
Secretary promoting these negotiations? Is the Deputy Secretary
obligated to delay a ROD at the request of one or more
interested parties?
b. How did the Deputy Secretary determine that the United
States is fulfilling its trust obligation by encouraging the
Navajo Nation to purchase a ski area that won't be economically
viable without artificial snowmaking? Please provide a copy of
records or correspondence indicating that the two parties
requested a delay in implementing the ROD
c. Please provide a copy of records or correspondence
indicating that the two parties requested Deputy Secretary's
involvement.
d. How will the Deputy Secretary determine when these
discussions are no longer fruitful? What guidelines are
governing the Deputy Secretary's actions?
Answer. As noted in the previous answer, the Deputy Secretary
retains the authority to review the actions of subordinate Department
officials. In determining alternatives to using reclaimed water for
snowmaking, the proprietor provided background on efforts made in the
past. The conservations between the parties over a potential sale pre-
date this Administration. When this history was shared with the Deputy,
she inquired as to whether there was continued interest by involved
parties in such a sale and suggested that the parties explore this
possibility once again. The Department offered mediation but the
parties did not wish to participate in mediation at that time. The
Department has a new request from attorneys for the tribes for
mediation.
If there were to be a sale, under the Forest Service's special use
regulations, an operator may transfer ownership of the improvements to
a successor. The successor is not entitled to a permit and must submit
an application for a new special use permit pursuant to 36 C.F.R.
251.59. Part of the requirements of such an application for a new
special use permit is a demonstration of sufficient evidence that the
proponent has, or will have, the technical and financial capability to
operate and maintain the project pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 251.54(d)(3). A
determination of the ability of any new owner to operate the facility
would be made at that time.
Question 3. According to the Justice Department, taxpayers spent
nearly $1 million defending the Forest Service in court. Arizona
Snowbowl says it spent about $5 million working through the project
approval process. How much does the Forest Service estimate it spent to
complete its Environmental Impact Statement and R.O.D?
Answer. The operator of the Arizona Snowbowl paid the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) expenses and Forest Service obligation was for
review of the EIS. The estimated amount of FS money spent on the review
of the EIS is $754,000.
Question 4. I'm pleased to see that the Administration supports the
goals of S. 607, which is to enhance public access to recreational
opportunities within Forest Service ski areas. However, I'm not
convinced this legislation does enough to guarantee its objectives if-
like in Snowbowl-this Administration believes a political appointee can
indefinitely delay government-approved projects upheld by the Supreme
Court. What assurances do ski area operators have that if S. 607 is
enacted the Department will actually implement the projects approved by
the Forest Service?
Answer. The agency fully supports enhancement of public access to
recreational opportunities. All proposed expansion and enhancement of
development projects are done with public input in accordance with the
process outlined in statute, regulation, the agency manual and
handbook. Decisions are reached with full compliance of the National
Environmental Policy Act. This process allows for a thorough analysis
of environmental impacts and consideration of input by those affected
by a project. If S. 607 is enacted, the agency will follow all
applicable rules within it discretion.
Question 5. The mere presence of Snowbowl on the San Francisco
Peaks has been opposed by Tribal traditionalists for many years. In
1979, tribes litigated a Forest Service decision to expand its ski
lodge on similar religious grounds. There, the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the Forest Service.
a. Does the Administration recognize Snowbowl's right to
operate on the San Francisco Peaks?
b. Does the Administration believe that Records of Decision
approving trails, recreational activities, the placement of gas
lines, water lines, or utility corridors on the San Francisco
Peaks can be delayed or revoked at the request of an interested
party or at the discretion of the Deputy Secretary after
they've been upheld by the Supreme Court?
Answer. Currently, the operator of Arizona Snowbowl has a valid
special use permit to operate the facility in accordance with the terms
of the permit and applicable law. The litigation resulted in an en banc
decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that principally found
that the proposed use of reclaimed water for snow making at Arizona
Snowbowl did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition to review that
holding. There has been some mischaracterization that these decisions
mandate the FS to Issue a Notice to Proceed. As noted above, the Deputy
Secretary retains general supervisory responsibilities over subordinate
Department employees.
Question 6. Section 2703.2 ``Denial of Use'' of the Forest Service
Manual provides guidelines for denying a proposed project.
a. Does this Administration believe the 2005 Record of
Decision is inconsistent with Forest land and resource
management plans?
b. Does this Administration believe the 2005 Record of
Decision conflicts with other forest management objectives; or
applicable federal statutes and regulations?
Answer. We do not believe that the 2005 ROD is inconsistent with
the Coconino Forest plan. However, we note that the Coconino Forest
plan was originally signed in 1987. Since that time, FS land management
objectives have changed to reflect a greater degree of consideration of
sacred sites and relations with tribal governments. Therefore, we
believe a closer look at the decision as it relates to sacred sites and
USDA relations with tribal governments was warranted. Moreover, given
the difficult and challenging position that the Forest Service faces in
managing its multiple use mandate, it is not atypical for a Record of
Decision, including the one at issue here, to balance and trade off
some management objectives against others. Thus, we believe that a
closer look at the 2005 ROD was warranted in order to insure that the
decision reflected an appropriate balance of FS management objectives.
Question 7. I, along with my colleagues Senator Jon Kyl and
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, have written Secretary Vilsack to
request a meeting on this matter. What is the status of that request?
Answer. In answer to this request for a meeting, Under Secretary
Jay Jensen, Senior Advisor Doug O'Brien, Acting General Counsel Steve
Silverman and Congressional Relation staffer Tina 6 May met with Nick
Matiella of your staff and Lucy Murfitt of Senator Kyl's staff on
October 26th, 2009. This same group of USDA officials met with
Congresswoman Kirkpatrick and her staff on November 18th, 2009. Deputy
Secretary Merrigan met with you in your office on November 30, 2009.
______
Response of Robert G. Stanton to Questions From Senator Barrasso
s. 1122--good neighbor forestry act
Please provide information on all projects completed under the good
neighbor authority in Utah and Colorado. Please include the location,
purpose of the project, land ownership, time for completion, and
federal investment.
The BLM has one ongoing Good Neighbor Authority project, located in
and adjacent to the Gold Hill subdivision in Boulder County, Colorado.
Its purpose is fuels reduction and mitigation. Land ownership consists
of 122 acres of BLM-managed lands, 27 acres of National Forest System
lands, and 223 acres of private land. Work on the project is
continuing, and completion is expected by the end of Fiscal Year 2010.
Total BLM investment to date is $94,000.
Some are concerned that collaboration through good neighbor
authority could short-circuit federal contract rules or processes.
However, it's my understanding that the good neighbor authority does
not affect the federal agencies' responsibilities to comply with their
own regulations on environmental or labor compliance.
Question 1. ``Isn't it true that in Colorado and Utah, your
agencies have required states to comply with federal regulations when
executing subcontracts?
Answer. Yes, the standards that contractors must meet are set out
in regulations (43 CFR Part 12.94012.948), which require recipients of
Federal contracts to comply with all ``applicable Federal statutes and
executive orders''. The BLM's agreement with the Colorado State Forest
Service (CSFS) for the Gold Hill project cites these Federal
regulations: ``The services to be performed by the CSFS may be
conducted with subcontracts utilizing State of Colorado contract
procedures or the requirements as outlined in 43 CFR Part 12.940-
12.948.'' The Colorado contract procedures align closely with the
Federal requirements with respect to codes of conduct, competition,
procurement procedures, cost and price analysis, procurement records,
contract administration, and contract provisions. The BLM did not
impose additional standards.
Question 2. ``Isn't this part of the Task Order, as explained in
your testimony?''
Answer. The BLM's testimony did not discuss the use of task orders,
since the BLM project was executed under an assistance agreement.
s. 1442--public lands service corps act of 2009
Earlier this year the Serve America Act was amended by Public Law
111-13. It includes extensive authorizations related to national
service including allowing service groups and groups similar to the
Public Land Corps to ``rehabilitate national and state parks and
forests, city parks, county parks and other public lands, and trails
owned or maintained by the Federal Government, or a State, including
forest health restoration measures, carrying out erosion control
measures, fire hazard reduction measures, and rehabilitation of
historic sites and providing trail enhancements, rehabilitation, and
repairs:''
Question 1. Don't you already have the authorization that you need
in Public Law 111-13 to do everything that is authorized in S. 1442?
Answer. The Serve America Act (Public Law 111-13) reauthorized and
expanded programs administered by the Corporation for National and
Community Service. These programs include Senior Corps, Americorps, and
Learn and Serve America. The Corporation provides grants and training
and technical assistance to develop and expand volunteer organizations.
Public Law 111-13 does not provide the Secretary of the Interior with
any direct authorities.
Question 2. If not, please provide the Committee with a specific
list of provisions within S. 1442 that you feel are lacking in P.L.
111-13 which was passed on April 21, 2009.
Answer. S.1442, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009, would
complement the Serve America Act by strengthening and facilitating the
use of the Public Land Corps program. This bill would improve federal
efforts to identify, recruit, hire, and retain, the next generation of
public land managers and promote the value of public service by
providing service-learning opportunities on public lands. While we are
strongly supportive of S. 1442, there are a few areas where we would
like to suggest some changes and those changes are reflected in our
October 29, 2009 testimony. Specifically, S. 1442 would:
--Establish an Indian Youth Corps so Indian Youth can benefit from
Corps programs based on Indian lands by carrying out
projects that their tribes and communities determine to be
priorities;
--Authorize a departmental-level office at the Department of the
Interior to coordinate Corps activities within the three
land management bureaus;
--Require each of the three relevant departments to undertake or
contract for a recruiting program for the Corps;
--Require each of the three relevant departments to establish a
training program for Corps members, and identifying
specific components the training must include;
--Identify more specific types of projects that could be conducted
under this authority;
--Allow participants in other volunteer programs to participate in
PLC projects;
--Allow agencies to make arrangements with other Federal, state, or
local agencies, or private organizations, to provide
temporary housing for Corps members;
--Provide explicit authority for the establishment of residential
conservation centers, and authorize the Secretary to seek
the assistance of the Secretary of Energy in identifying
and using solar and other green building technologies that
may be adapted for these facilities;
--Authorize agencies to recruit experienced volunteers from other
programs to serve as mentors to Corps members;
--Add ``consulting intern'' as a new category of service employment
under the PLC program;
--Allow agencies to apply a cost-of-living differential in the
provision of living allowances and to reimburse travel
expenses;
--Allow agencies to provide job and education counseling,
referrals, and other appropriate services to Corps members
who have completed their service; and oEliminate the $12
million authorization ceiling for the program.
Responses of Robert G. Stanton to Question From Senator Bingaman
s. 1122--good neighbor forestry act
Question 1. How did the Bureau of Land Management delineate
potential liability between the State Forester and the Federal
Government in the master agreements, task orders, and contracts issued
under the pilot Good Neighbor authority? Were contractors required to
meet Federal requirements for bonding and insurance?
Answer. In the Gold Hill assistance agreement, the BLM and the CSFS
agreed to be responsible for their own acts. All liability (except with
respect to claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act) is assumed by
CSFS, per the assistance agreement. The CSFS subcontract includes
requirements for insurance, to include workers' compensation, employer
liability, and general commercial liability insurance, in accordance
with minimum limits set forth in the contract. This neither supplements
nor contradicts any requirements for insurance or bonding set forth in
43 CFR Part 12.940-12.948.
Responses of Robert G. Stanton to Questions From Senator Murkowski
s. 1122--good neighbor forestry act
During the hearing you mentioned the Wyden Authority that allows
the Forest Service and BLM to expend funds on state and private lands
to enhance or restore watersheds. You also suggested that you had some
concerns related to S. 1122 about enforcing the federal government
requirements on liability and employment law and regulations.
Question 1a. Do the agencies have the same concerns about the
implementation of the Wyden Authority as you have with S. 1122? If not,
why not?
Answer. No, the BLM does not have such concerns. However, we
support Good Neighbor Authority, but we believe further study and
analysis are needed to better understand the interplay of state and
federal contracting and labor law and regulation before expansion of
the authority is authorized. The BLM's successful implementation of the
Wyden authority is based on policy and guidance requiring that all
projects completed under this authority comply with all applicable
Federal, state, and local laws and regulations, policies, and permit
requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean
Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The BLM's guidance also provides
for review by the DOI solicitor. In addition, ``hold harmless'' clauses
to mitigate potential liabilities are generally included.
Question 1b. What enforcement monitory do the agencies undertake to
ensure contractors, and sub contractors adhere to federal liability and
labor standards on work accomplished through the Wyden Authority?
Please provide written documentation that shows such monitoring has
occurred on at least ten such contracts per agency?
Answer. Under the Wyden authority, the BLM is using Cooperative
Agreements with entities such as states, counties, other Federal
agencies, and non-governmental organizations, to fund projects
implemented on non-BLM lands. The BLM does not formally document their
compliance with applicable Federal employment laws or regulations other
than specifying in the Cooperative Agreement that the entities must
comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, policies, and permit requirements.
Question 2a. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
determination Act of 2000 as amended in 2008 includes provisions in
Title II that result in funds being utilized to undertake work on
federal lands using outside contractors. Do the agencies have the same
concerns about the implementation of the Title II Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-determination Act as you have with S. 1122?
Answer. No, the BLM does not share these concerns. The BLM uses
both Cooperative Agreements and contracts to implement projects under
Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act. When using Cooperative Agreements, the BLM's policy and guidance
require that all projects done under the Title II authority comply with
all applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
policies, and permit requirements, including the National Environmental
Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The BLM's
guidance also provides for review by the DOI solicitor. In addition,
``hold harmless'' clauses to mitigate potential liabilities are
generally included. When using contracts, the BLM advertises, awards,
implements, and administers the contracts using standard BLM
contracting procedures (43 CFR Part 12.940-12.948).
Please provide written documentation that shows such monitoring and
enforcement that has occurred on at least ten such contracts per
agency?''.Quoting from the previous question, ``monitoring and
enforcing the federal government requirements on liability and
employment law and regulations.)
When the BLM uses Cooperative Agreements for projects done under
the Title II Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act,
the monitoring and enforcement procedures are the same as described in
the answer to question lb.
The BLM's Oregon State Office (ORSO) review of all current/active
Secure Rural Schools contract files identified six construction
projects. Each contract file contains certified payrolls and the
Contracting Officer Representative's (COR's) daily diaries.
Review of the certified payrolls showed that the contractors
provided documentation for every pay period in question, for all
employees working on the six projects. The COR validates names,
addresses, social security numbers, and wage rates for all employees.
Review of the COR's daily diaries, which record contract
compliance, found that none of the daily diaries contain any written
notes that relate to monitoring and enforcing the federal government
requirements on liability and employment law and regulations.
If the COR suspects any questionable or suspicious practices, they
will notify the Contracting Officer who will in turn notify the
appropriate regulatory agency (i.e. OSHA, INS, DOL, etc.). For the six
contract files reviewed, no such concerns were documented.
Question 2b. The GAO report on Good Neighbor found little to
complain about. Do you have examples of projects undertaken by the Good
Neighbor Authority in Colorado that have violated federal labor or
safety laws or any federal labor contracting requirements?
Answer. The BLM is not aware of any such examples.
Question 2c. If you have any project that had these deficiencies
will you describe the steps the Forest Service or BLM undertook to
rectify the deficiencies?
Answer. The BLM is not aware of any such deficiencies in the Gold
Hills project.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
America Outdoors Association,
Knoxville, TN, October 27, 2009.
Geraldine Link,
Director of Public Policy, National Ski Areas Association, Lakewood,
CO.
Dear Geraldine: America Outdoors Association is the national
association of outfitters and guides with members operating in 43
States. We have a number of State organizations among our affiliates
and work closely with the Colorado River Outfitters Association.
You have advised me that an environmental group expected to testify
on S. 607 in the Senate this week has indicated to you that outfitters
are opposed to this bill. I believe any general Statement made by any
such group to suggest that ``outfitters'' are opposed to this bill is
false. S. 607 provides the statutory authority to enable the Forest
Service to permit summer uses at ski areas. We understand that ski
areas have hosted summer activities for decades-some dating back to the
1960s. I have reviewed the bill briefly and did not find any issues
with the bill that should create objections among our outfitter
members. Given the short notice, our executive committee has not had
the opportunity to approve our support for it. However, we support its
intent as described above. I have contacted the largest group of
outfitters in Colorado and I have not heard of any outfitter group of
significance that is opposed to this legislation. When I have had the
opportunity to brief our executive committee, we will consider
providing support for S. 607.
In the meantime, anyone who States that ``outfitters'' are opposed
to this bill is not accurately representing the view point of a
majority of the outfitting industry.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to set the record straight.
Sincerely,
David L. Brown,
Executive Director.
______
Council of Western State Foresters,
Society of American Foresters,
October 27, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Washington DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Rnk. Member, Senate Energy & Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski: The Council of Western
State Foresters (CWSF) and the Society of American Foresters (SAF)
would like to thank you for scheduling a Senate Energy & Natural
Resources hearing on Senate Bill 1122, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act.
The intent of Senate Bill 1122 is to expand the use of the `Good
Neighbor Authority' throughout the western United States. Our
organizations are supportive of the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) and
hope to see its continued and expanded use in the western United
States.
The GNA allows State forestry agencies to act as an agent for the
federal agencies to complete similar or complementary treatments across
State, federal and private boundaries. This authority was successfully
piloted in Colorado and Utah where this critical authority leverages
limited resources for the betterment of healthy forests. Work done
through this authority has included forest, rangeland and watershed
restoration and protection services activities such as insect
treatment, hazardous fuels activities and watershed restoration
including fish and wildlife habitats. The GNA can also be used to build
upon other cross boundary opportunities where local interest and
support exists.
The GNA is especially important in the western United States due to
the significant amount of public lands and near-by communities that are
dependant on our forested landscapes. Working across boundaries, in an
`all-lands' approach, will become even more important as forestland
becomes more fragmented, land development in the Wildland-Urban
Interface increases and climate change continues to impact our
environment. Collaboration across land ownerships, government agencies
and communities is the key to success on the ground.
The intent of the GNA is to allow for complementary forest
management projects and activities across land ownerships in the West,
not to bypass federal or State requirements currently in place. It is
our understanding that concerns of this nature have arisen with the
current legislative language in S. 1122. Both the SAF and the CWSF
pledge to work with the Bill sponsors and the Senate Energy & Natural
Resources Committee to address any concerns with S. 1122.
Sincerely,
Arthur `Butch' Blazer,
New Mexico State Forester and Chairman, Council of Western State
Foresters.
Michael T. Goergen,
Executive Vice President and CEO, Society of American Foresters.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, March 18, 2009.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Chairman, National Parks subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Ranking Member, National Parks subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: The International Mountain
Bicycling Association (IMBA) supports S. 607, a bill to clarify the
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional
recreational uses of National Forest System (NFS) lands subject to ski
area permits. Ski areas and their diverse trail offerings are
especially important destinations for mountain bicyclists and this bill
would help further opportunities for our quiet, human-powered activity.
IMBA is a non-profit educational association, whose mission is to
create, enhance, and preserve great trail experiences for mountain
bikers worldwide. IMBA's network includes 35,000 individual members,
750 bicycle clubs, 150 corporate partners, and 400 bicycle retailers.
Mountain bikers are passionate about the outdoors. We believe in
managing public lands as a public trust and as priceless national
treasures. We seek both serene backcountry experiences and those at
more developed sites like ski areas. Ski resorts offer a way to
introduce new cyclists to the sport and start to instill a lifelong
appreciation for nature and the outdoors. Ski resorts can act as a
gateway to many other outdoor activities and also offer opportunities
for competition and the extreme side of the sport.
According to the National Ski Areas Association, 162 ski resorts
offer trails open to mountain biking in the summer, including 84 with
gravity fed, lift-operated trail systems. More and more ski resorts are
seeing the power of summer mountain bike tourism and turning to IMBA
and our partner clubs to build and promote trails.
IMBA has partnered with numerous ski areas around the country to
improve natural resource conditions and summer visitor experiences.
IMBA and the USDA Forest Service have had a partnership agreement since
1994. The memorandum of understanding says, ``When operators of ski
areas on NFS lands allow summer mountain bicycling on their trails,
work with those ski areas to implement IMBA's Rules of the Trail,
trailbuilding and signage guidelines, and management principles.''
IMBA has led the charge in retrofitting singletrack to reduce
sedimentation, protect watersheds and vegetation, and encourage
positive user interactions. Our professional expertise has enabled
resorts to construct sustainable, environmentally sound trails and
rehabilitate other routes that are badly eroded. Several ski areas now
exhibit model trail systems, but many resort trails were originally
developed without much thought about proven trailbuilding principles to
protect positive environmental and social qualities.
Mountain biking has flourished at many ski areas. The multitude of
cross-country style trails offered at most resorts provide a
traditional singletrack experience with parking and amenities nearby.
Ski areas' controlled and mitigated settings are also ideal for
freeriding, downhill and other extreme mountain biking niches. Further,
the exercise provided by all forms of mountain biking is especially
valuable given the current national health crisis.
Clarifying the appropriateness of summer trail use at ski areas
will also benefit local economies. Many summer visitors rely on hotels,
sports retailers, restaurants, and gas stations to provide essential
tourism and recreation services. Mountain bikers and other trail users
can help resorts and the local communities sustain a year-round economy
by improving visitation in traditionally slow summer months. Research
supports this assertion. A recent study in British Columbia found the
Whistler Ski Resort Bike Park contributes $18.8 million Canadian
dollars to the local economy (Western Canada Mountain Bike Tourism
Association, 2007) each summer season. Throughout the larger Vancouver
area, the study concludes, ``mountain bike trail systems of the Sea to
Sky region attract significant numbers of visiting riders to the host
communities and cumulatively generate a significant economic impact in
the region.'' The authors believe ``the level of economic impact is
dependant on whether or not trails are authorized and offer some long
term certainty for both public and commercial use.'' Ski areas offer
this sanctioned riding experience that can drive local economies.
Thank you for introducing S. 607 to clarify the important and
beneficial role of summer recreation at ski areas. IMBA hopes the
committee will move the bill and work towards final passage.
Sincerely,
Jenn Dice,
Government Affairs Director.
______
Statement of Craig Obey, Senior Vice President, National Parks
Conservation Association, on S. 1442
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Craig Obey,
senior vice president for Government Affairs of the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA). The nonprofit National Parks
Conservation Association, founded in 1919, serves as the leading
citizen voice of the American people on behalf of our national parks.
It is a privilege to express, on behalf of our 320,000 members, our
strong support for S. 1442, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009.
I want to begin by first thanking Chairman Bingaman for introducing
this important bipartisan legislation. S. 1442 seeks to benefit our
national parks and other public lands by unleashing the spirit and
energy of committed Americans who, working with their government and
non-profit organizations, can help our nation capitalize on the
potential for our national parks to produce significant civic benefits,
stimulate local economies, educate Americans about our shared heritage,
and protect our national treasures for the use and enjoyment of our
children and grandchildren.
The Act builds upon the Public Land Corps Act of 1993 by
facilitating valuable new service-learning opportunities, enhancing
mechanisms to help restore the nation's natural, cultural,
archaeological, recreational, and scenic resources, providing for the
training of a new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts,
and by promoting the value of community and national service. S. 1442
complements the GIVE Act and Serve America Act, passed earlier this
year by Congress and signed into law by President Obama, which includes
a Clean Energy Corps that will work in partnership with the Public
Lands Service Corps.
NPCA has called for the creation of a new National Parks Service
Corps in order to foster additional national and community service in
our national parks and help ready the national parks for another
century of service to our nation and the world. S. 1442 responds to and
expands this vision to include all Interior and National Forest-managed
lands, and areas under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration. The legislation rounds out the expansion of
national and community service under the GIVE and Serve America Acts
with a robust commitment to service that would help the National Park
Service to address the needs of our national treasures and would foster
stronger connections between national parks, visitors, and our national
community.
enhanced service opportunities help address critical economic and
social needs
These are challenging times for our National Park System and our
country. This subcommittee is well aware that an annual operating
shortfall, estimated at nearly $700 million, and a maintenance backlog
of approximately $9 billion, continue to undermine the ability of
national park managers to protect the natural and cultural resources in
their charge. We have begun to make some progress in the last couple
years, but there remains much more to do. Furthermore, as our troubled
economy staggers, unemployment rates are continuing to rise.
In September, nationwide unemployment reached 9.8 percent, with
youth unemployment at 21%. Unemployment rates for African-American
youth hover around 39%, with rates for Hispanic and Latino youth at
about 25%--both up 7 points from February 2008. Unemployment rates for
college graduates are increasing significantly, as they are with
Americans over age 55. National service cannot cure these problems.
However, the tight job market, coupled with the president's call for
people to serve, is already creating tremendous demand for meaningful
service opportunities, and S. 1442 can provide such opportunities in a
manner that helps address continuing, significant needs on our public
lands. Such levels of unemployment remind us of the days of the Great
Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation
Corps to marry two destabilized resources--young men out of work and
school and diminished natural resources on our public lands and in
agriculture.
S. 1442 would also create a grant program to support an Indian
Youth Service Corps that would work on projects deemed to be a priority
by Tribal leaders in majority Indian communities. American Indian youth
have a higher predisposition to drop out of AmeriCorps style programs
thus failing to gain the full training, experiences, and benefits that
graduates receive. An Indian Youth Service Corps would provide American
Indian youth with the same chance to serve, learn, and succeed, but do
so within a more familiar and supportive cultural context.
In tough economic times, our nation has mobilized millions of
people to conserve and protect its most vital resources, producing
lasting benefits for society and providing individuals with
opportunities and new skills. The Public Lands Service Corps can do
this and more, by employing people from the most vulnerable sectors of
our economy in jobs that would enhance their future employability,
invigorating them with an enhanced sense of civic pride, and supporting
President Obama's call for people to serve.
american public supports service in our national parks, public lands
The American people are ready for this kind of commitment.
Americans strongly support our national parks, and want to play an
active role in their protection. In fact, an extensive poll by Peter D.
Hart Research Associates and McLaughlin & Associates, which NPCA
commissioned in 2008 and re-confirmed after the economic downturn,
found that more than four in five voters believe that it is important
for the federal government to protect and support national parks and
national historic places. That poll also found significant concern
about the failure of funding of our national parks to keep up with
what's needed, the shortage of needed staff at parks and historic
sites, and the need to be sure parks could serve school groups.
Finally, it showed that more than 1 out of every 3 Americans are
motivated to roll up their sleeves and get involved-a tremendous
finding for a poll of this type, and one that shows the continuing
affection of our society for our national treasures.
NPCA has called for the addition of at least 10,000 new, full-time
equivalent service positions to be devoted to work in our national
parks within the next few years, through an expansion of the Public
Land Service Corps and through a cooperative agreement between the
Department of the Interior and the Corporation for National and
Community Service. S. 1442 broadens this vision to also include other
public lands, and we support that breadth so as to provide a broader
geographic distribution of service opportunities and to help address
needs and opportunities on all public lands.
service in public lands improves individual lives, communities,
national heritage
NPCA believes that service legislation relating to our national
parks should focus on five basic principles: (1) addressing resource
protection and fiscal needs in the parks; (2) enhancing multi-
generational service opportunities; (3) building strong community
partnerships; (4) developing the next generation of National Park
Service and Federal land management agency leadership; and (5) a strong
emphasis on cultural, historic, and civic impacts. S. 1442 takes
important steps to address each of these priorities, and we have
several modest suggestions to make it even stronger.
With the addition of significantly more service employment
opportunities in national parks, along with supervisory capacity for
the National Park Service, we can make genuine headway on a variety of
maintenance and conservation-related projects. For example, service and
volunteerism are ideally suited to projects designed to eradicate many
invasive species, replant native vegetation, and control erosion. The
human power brought to bear under the Civilian Conservation Corps in
the 1930s, when CCC participants planted over 3 billion trees and built
over 97,000 miles of roads in national parks and on public lands
throughout the nation, provides a compelling example. Service Corps
members can rehabilitate campgrounds and deteriorating structures
throughout the National Park System, renovate and help maintain
historic sites, and help conduct natural and cultural resource
management, science and research projects. In addition, the Act
provides an important focus on marine resources and climate change.
S. 1442 expands the potential duration of service corps
participation to up to two years. By lengthening the term of service
the Public Lands Service Corps maximizes the ability of the National
Park Service, and other Federal land management agencies, to make a
significant investment in training and reap the benefits that come from
fielding a highly motivated, knowledgeable workforce. In addition,
trained service corps participants can help leverage additional
volunteerism by helping Federal land management personnel coordinate
the activities of traditional volunteers. Both the GIVE Act and its
Senate counterpart, the Serve America Act, were designed to foster
long-term, non-episodic service work, and S. 1442 falls squarely in
line with those efforts.
The benefits of extended terms of service will also have a positive
impact on corps members. The longer individuals serve, the more highly
trained they may become. Service corps participants will receive
training, mentoring, and undergo on-the-job experiences that are
generally not afforded to short-term or seasonal volunteers. They will,
as a result, become a more effective and efficient workforce, and gain
valuable knowledge, skills, and abilities that will enhance future
employability.
Most of the service providing organizations, including the Student
Conservation Association (SCA) and the Corps Network, have excellent
track records in recruiting, managing, training, and fielding service
workers for long-term, often residential service details, and they are
familiar with the conservation ethic and management policies and
practices of the Federal land management agencies with whom they
partner. Long experience has taught these organizations the value of
creating sustainable, scalable programs that can be ramped up or pared
down as need be, without generating a costly new layer of bureaucracy.
These organizations are battle-tested and ready to go.
It is hard to overemphasize the effect service can have on the
lives of those who undertake it, not to mention the people and
resources who directly benefit from it. The youth of today are in
danger of becoming the most disconnected generation from nature in our
history as a nation. They are not benefiting from the magic of national
parks and other natural areas that comes from experiencing them first-
hand. There are many reasons for this: over-scheduling of activities,
economics, the decline in the time families have to travel, lack of
outside play, and more. But when young people are given an opportunity
to work in a park, they develop a very deep sense of ownership and
connection to that place, to other national parks, and to the natural
world, as well as experience many other benefits.
Nearly 170,000 people volunteer to work for the Park Service each
year. The hours these individuals give and the contributions they make
are of an invaluable service to our national parks, and yield
tremendous pride and connectedness to our parks and to our country.
Yet, when parks lack sufficient funding, they often find themselves
without the staff to recruit, train, and manage volunteers. Leveraging
additional volunteer support and engagement is exactly the kind of
utility that Public Lands Service Corps members, once trained, could
bring to the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and NOAA.
Nonetheless, capitalizing on such leveraging opportunities will require
that parks and other public lands have funding and support personnel
sufficient to foster and manage additional Corps member engagement.
One way to augment this capacity, and an opportunity for enhancing
S. 1442, relates to so-called ``experienced Americans.'' S. 1442
attempts to get at this through a new mentorship authorization, which
we strongly support. Encouraging older Americans like Volunteers in
Parks, military retirees and veterans to help train service corps
members and lead crews will tap the know-how of many thousands of able
individuals who have much to contribute. However, we believe the
mentorship provision could prove even more valuable if it is slightly
broadened. By further tapping into the knowledge and abilities of older
Americans, S. 1442 can significantly enhance the capacity of national
parks and other public lands to harness the power of service, and the
training younger participants receive. Attached at the end of my
testimony is a suggested amendment that can help achieve this.
AARP recently commissioned a report, entitled More to Give, which
details the tremendous untapped potential of older Americans for
service. An extensive survey of 44-79 year olds, whom the survey dubbed
``experienced Americans'', found that ``55 percent believe they will
leave the world in worse condition than they inherited it, while only
20 percent believe they are leaving the world in better condition.'' It
also found that those most engaged in volunteer work feel more
optimistic about the future. The survey also found that financial
wherewithal can be an important barrier to some older Americans serving
as volunteers.
As is the case with youth, stipends can enable older Americans to
serve. In addition, according to the survey, ``more than half of all
Experienced Americans (51 percent), including 55 percent of Baby
Boomers, said that education awards they can earn and give to a child
in exchange for significant levels of volunteer service would have a
big or moderate impact on their participation in volunteer
activities.'' Such incentives were particularly appealing to Hispanics
and African-Americans.
As a consequence, the GIVE and Serve America Acts authorized a
transferable education award for older Americans who participate in 1-
year ``Encore Fellowships'' to carry out projects in areas of national
need. Fellowships go to individuals 55 and older who engage in full-or
part-time service in the nonprofit sector or government, and are
designed to capitalize on the additional skills set and experience that
participants have to offer. NPCA believes that the Public Lands Service
Corps Act should encourage greater participation among older Americans,
including eligibility for Encore Fellowships or some other means of
making transferable education awards available to them, which they can
use themselves or transfer to a grandchild.
The existing law already provides for AmeriCorps education awards
in approved Public Land Corps positions. The addition of an Encore-like
provision would ensure that the Public Lands Service Corps tracks the
opportunities that are being made available in other national volunteer
programs. Importantly, the More to Give survey showed ``volunteer
senior ranger'' to be among the most popular volunteer activities for
Experienced Americans. When asked what kind of service they would like
to do, millions of Experienced Americans chose serving in our national
parks.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act clearly contemplates valuable
service learning opportunities-an emphasis NPCA strongly supports.
Nonetheless, we would also like to see this role further emphasized.
Providing for greater participation of experienced Americans, together
with the creative deployment of younger participants, creates
additional opportunity to enhance service learning capacity and
opportunities in national parks. For example, the service corps should
be expected to foster the greater use of service-learning projects
linked to classroom learning in history, biology and civics.
While the authorization contemplates a preference for service
learning activities, it should be made clear that such efforts are a
central purpose of the service corps, in addition to its important
resource protection and restoration mandates. In addition, the law can
provide for greater use of service corps participants in serving the
public. While NPCA agrees that individuals without sufficient training
should not be providing interpretation that should be provided by
experts, it is important to provide a reasonable measure of flexibility
in appropriate circumstances.
NPCA also believes that the bill's well-intended restrictions on
how service corps participants can engage in interpretation-related
activities go too far. We agree that interpretive programs should be
conducted by trained professionals, and we support the bill's reference
to properly supervised corps members providing orientation and
information services, and playing other appropriate interpretive roles.
Something that is not apparent from the language of the bill, however,
is the degree to which service corps members would be authorized to
reach out to schools and afterschool and youth-serving community-based
organizations, provided they are properly supervised. Several modest
amendments related to interpretation opportunities are also included at
the end of my testimony.
Clearly, there is no substitute for trained Park Service personnel.
However, the service corps can do more to augment that capacity. Some
older members of the corps may very well have training that could be
capitalized upon, rather than artificially restricted. In addition, by
expanding the breadth of participation for older Americans in this
area, S. 1442 could further enhance capacity and service. In addition,
we suggest that the bill be amended to encourage the use of
appropriately trained service corps members for multilingual services
to visitors and outreach to diverse communities.
Among the most important elements of the Public Lands Service Corps
for the National Park Service is its placement and training provisions.
First, as the organization that worked to initiate business planning
within the national parks in the late 1990s, we are very pleased to see
the consulting intern provision, which placement of graduate students
to continue that program, which is now run through a partnership
between the National Park Service and the Student Conservation
Association. Well-trained consulting interns can provide useful
assistance in areas beyond business planning as well, given the
increasing demand for highly technical work in a variety of fields
within the National Park Service.
Second, the Park Service needs to ensure that retiring personnel
are replaced with individuals from diverse racial and ethnic
backgrounds, in order for the parks to adequately reflect the true face
of America. The Act provides an important means to diversify the ranks
of the National Park Service by recruiting and training individuals
from a variety of backgrounds. The Act requires the National Park
Service and other federal agencies to augment the training corps
participants receive from nonprofit partners with appropriate training
in resource stewardship, health & safety, ethics for public service,
teamwork and leadership, and interpersonal communications. Corps
members would also receive instruction about the agency's core values,
history, and standards for natural and cultural resource preservation.
NPCA wholeheartedly supports these training provisions, as well as
providing noncompetitive hiring status for up to two years after
completion of service for qualified candidates. We do suggest, however,
that the bill be clarified to ensure the contemplated training
requirement, in fact, augments rather than replaces the other high
quality training participants receive.
Finally, we are pleased that S. 1442 increases the prominence of
service work related to historic and cultural resources. NPCA strongly
believes that national service in our national parks should be
sufficiently broad to encompass the tremendous civic, historical, and
scientific resources and learning opportunities that our national parks
have to offer. S. 1442 makes it clear that projects related to history
and culture should have a prominent role in service corps efforts,
including historical and cultural research, museum curatorial work,
oral history projects and other cultural and historic preservation
activities. In light of the significant backlog of archival work in the
National Park System, we also suggest adding ``archival work'' to the
list of referenced activities. In addition, we suggest that the bill be
modified to refer to the ``heritage'' mission of the National Park
Service, in addition to the ``public lands'' mission.
Mr. Chairman, the end of my written testimony includes several
specific recommendations related to the issues I have raised, for the
benefit of the committee. NPCA again wishes to thank you for
introducing this important legislation, and to offer our assistance as
the bill moves through the legislative process. Thank you once again
for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the Public Lands
Service Corps Act of 2009.
specific recommendations
Purpose Section: Section 202(b)--strike ``land management
agencies'' at the end of paragraph (5) and insert ``agencies
responsible for management of the Nation's natural, cultural,
historic, archaeological, recreational, and scenic resources;''
--Rationale: The agencies in question are not mere land management
agencies. Their missions are much broader, and in some
cases are actually marine, not land, in nature. This
language more accurately describes the missions of the
agencies involved.
Purpose Section: Section 202(b): amend the new sixth
sentence to read ``promote public understanding and appreciate
of the individual missions of natural and cultural resources
conservation work of the Federal agencies through training
opportunities, community service and outreach, and other
appropriate means; and''
--Rationale: This language better explains the mechanisms through
which the Act will promote such understanding; public
understanding should reflect the complex missions of many
agencies in question.
Section 204(e)(1)(E): include ``cultural and historic
sites'' rather than only historic sites
Interpretation: Section 204(e)(3)--revise the Interpretation
provision in S. 1442 to read:
--``(3) INTERPRETATION.--The Secretary may assign Corps
participants to provide interpretation or education
services for the public under the appropriate direction and
supervision of agency personnel, including-
``(A) providing orientation and information services to
visitors, including services for non-English speaking visitors
and visitors who use American Sign Language;
``(B) assisting agency personnel in the delivery of
interpretive or educational programs, including outdoor
learning and classroom learning;
``(C) presenting programs on Federal lands or at schools,
after-school programs, and youth-serving community programs
that relate the personal experience of the Corps participant
for the purpose of promoting public awareness of the Corps, its
role in public land management agencies, and its availability
to potential participants; and
``(D) creating nonpersonal interpretive products, such as
Web site content, Junior Ranger program books, printed
handouts, and audiovisual programs.''.
Rationale: The language in S. 1442 is too restrictive to leverage
the full measure of appropriate assistance Corps members
can provide in interpretation, including assistance with
multilingual services, and community outreach. This
amendment continues to ensure appropriate supervision of
Corps members while allowing for more creative engagement
of their talents.
Mentors: Add the following amendments regarding experienced
Americans:
Sec 202(b)--add Purpose--capitalize on the ability of older,
experienced Americans to engage as mentors and otherwise use
their talents to strengthen agency stewardship capacity on
public lands;
Section 204(b)--Separate into two paragraphs. The existing
paragraph (b) ``Participants'' becomes (b)(1).
Add new paragraph (b)2: ``(2) Notwithstanding the age limitations
of (1) above, the Secretary may authorize participation in the corps by
participants in an encore service program under section 101 of Public
Law 111-13 (42 USC 12501, et seq), using such criteria as the Secretary
may develop.
Alternative: simply change the age criteria to read
``16 and above''.
Sec 205(f) Mentors: after ``agency volunteer programs, ``
insert, ``encore service programs,''. Alternative: ``other
appropriate federally funded service or volunteer programs'' In
addition, the list of activities engaged in by mentors should
be expanded to include ``volunteer coordination'' in addition
to training, mentoring, crew-leading services.
Rationale: Together these provision would authorize, but not
require, the use and participation of Encore participants or other
experienced Americans to augment capacity to train, mentor, and
leverage greater assistance by Service Corps participants. This tool
should be at the Secretary's disposal. Serve America included a 10%
set-aside for Encore Service Programs (something we do not propose
here), which are defined as programs carried out by an eligible entity
that: (A) involve a significant number of participants age 55 or older
in the program; and (B) take advantage of the skills and experience
that such participants offer in the design and implementation of the
program. The Encore authorization enacted in Serve America is
specifically designed to provide Americans 55+ with opportunities to
serve in areas of high need in return for a stipend and education
award. Education awards may be transferred to children, grandchildren,
etc, and participants may serve full-or part-time. It also provides for
Encore Fellowships, which place Americans 55+ in one-year management or
leadership positions in nonprofit and government sector areas where
there is ongoing high demand. The fellowships help facilitate mid-
career shifts, and could help NPS and other agencies meet needs for
highly trained individuals in certain areas. One example of an option
for using Encore participants or comparable experienced Americans would
be for parks to tap them as volunteer coordinators in the parks (and
other public lands). That would better enable parks to capitalize on
the provisions in Serve America under the Clean Energy Corps that
authorize activities such as renewing, rehabilitating or otherwise
carrying out projects in national parks. Training would be another area
of potential. But this amendment would leave the decision for how/
whether to use Encore participants completely to the Secretary's
discretion.
______
Statement of Jacqueline Ostfeld, National Youth Representative of the
Sierra Club, on S.1442
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
the benefits afforded both youth and the environment from public
service and outdoor environmental education. My name is Jacqueline
Ostfeld and I am the National Youth Representative for Sierra Club's
Building Bridges to the Outdoors (BBTO) program. BBTO was established
in 2006 to advance opportunities for underserved youth to experience
the great outdoors and give back to their local communities through
environmental service projects. In 2008, BBTO funding directly opened
doors for more than 70,000 youth from low-income and minority
backgrounds across the country to get outside. Thousands of these youth
participated in service learning projects. BBTO's public education and
outreach efforts indirectly create opportunities for more young people
to engage in direct nature experience and to give back to their
communities.
While Sierra Club's BBTO program works with numerous partners
across the country, I would like to give special recognition to the
efforts of the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC) of Taos, New Mexico
and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Chicago for their remarkable service to
youth and the nation's public lands. RMYC ``recognizes and engages the
strengths and potential of youth through team service in the schools,
the communities, and the landscapes of northern New Mexico. RMYC is a
stepping stone to new opportunities.'' The Youth Corps engages and
employs diverse young adults in conservation work, provides educational
opportunities for youth and promotes an ethic of service to communities
and the environment. In the last two years, BBTO funding has expanded
the RMYC to serve over 300 at-risk and low-income youth in northern New
Mexico, training them to build trails on Forest Service land, remove
invasive species on BLM land, manage forest fires and become the next
generation of environmental stewards. The Corps' innovative juvenile
justice program combines service learning and classes to give youth
offenders another chance to prove themselves. These programs give youth
access to work experience that translates into real jobs on our public
lands.
Sierra Club's BBTO program also has been partnering with the Boys &
Girls Clubs of Chicago (BGCC) for over four years. Each year, BBTO
works with the local Sierra Club chapter and our Inner City Outings
program to provide at least 100 BGCC youth with meaningful outdoor
environmental education experiences, including an annual trip to the
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. As the partnership has grown over the
years, youth participants have begun to engage in environmental service
projects in the Forest Preserve District of Cook County in and around
Chicago. In an effort to restore the ecological health of the local
prairie, savanna and woodlands, BGCC youth remove invasive species,
collect and disperse native seeds, pick up trash and maintain trails.
In doing so, they learn about the science of restoration and community
ecology and plant biology. With 68,000 acres, the Forest Preserve
District's mission is to maintain healthy ecosystems for the benefit of
humans and wildlife. Restoring the ecological health of the Preserves
benefits native wildlife, including many threatened and endangered
species, and gives inner-city youth a new sense of purpose.
Testimony of BGCC youth participant, Tatiana Washington
Going on the trip to LaBagh [Forest Preserve] was one the
best experiences that I had nature wise. I learned so much
about little things that we don't really pay that much
attention to in everyday life and those little things are big
matters to plants and animals when they aren't taken care of.
As Keystone members, we are expected to be role models and to
set examples for the younger children, and by taking the time
out to give back to Mother Nature, I think we set the ultimate
example.
Over the years, Sierra Club has worked hard to educate the American
public about the importance of reconnecting children with nature and
developing youth leaders. Studies show that too much screen time may
lead to poor school performance\1\ and increases in aggressive, violent
and high-risk behaviors.\2\ Research has also linked television
exposure to attention deficit disorders\3\ and obesity.\4\ Richard Louv
describes this emerging phenomenon, whereby children today spend less
time outdoors than at any point in human history, in his best-seller
Last Child in the Woods. Louv coined the term ``Nature Deficit
Disorder'' to describe the detrimental effects that too much time
indoors are having on children and adolescents.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sharid, Iman and James D. Sargent. ``Association between
television, movie, and game exposure and school performance.''
Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics. V. 118, n. 4: October 2006.
Pgs. 1061-1070. (Retrieved on June 2, 2008 from http://
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/4/e1061).
\2\ Villani S. ``Impact of Media on Children and Adolescents: a 10-
year Review of the Research.'' Journal of the American Academy of Child
& Adolescent Psychiatry. V. 40, n. 4: April 2001. Pgs. 392-401. (need
to get copy of complete study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
11314564)
\3\ Christakis, Dimitri A. et al. ``Early Television Exposure and
Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children.'' Pediatrics. V. 113, n.
4: April 2004. Pgs. 708-713. (Retrieved June 5, 2008 from http://
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/113/4/708).
\4\ Gortmaker, SL et al. ``Television viewing as a cause of
increasing obesity among children in the United States, 1986-1990.''
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. V. 150, n. 4: April 1996.
Pgs. 356-62. (need to get full study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/8634729)
\5\ Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children
from Nature Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill: 2006.
Emerging studies find that when children and youth spend more time
outdoors, in green spaces, they experience reductions in the symptoms
of attention deficit disorders\6\ and are more physically fit than
their sedentary peers. Since the BBTO program emerged, Sierra Club has
been working tirelessly to address Nature Deficit Disorder by getting
youth outdoors. In 2005, Sierra Club worked with the California
legislature to support research into the impacts of outdoor
environmental programming on at-risk youth. The findings, published in
Effects of Outdoor Education Programs for Children in California by the
American Institutes for Research, showed that children who participated
in residential field experiences improved their motivation to learn,
problem-solving skills, cooperation, science scores and environmental
behaviors.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Kuo, Frances E. and Andrea Faber Taylor. ``A Potential Natural
Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence from a
National Study.'' American Journal of Public Health. V. 94, n. 9:
September 2004. Pgs. 1580-6. (Retrieved June 2, 2008 from http://
www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/94/9/1580.pdf). pg. 1582
\7\ American Institutes for Research. ``Effects of Outdoor
Education Programs for Children in California.'' American Institutes
for Research. January 2005. (Retrieved May 29, 2008 from http://
www.sierraclub.org/youth/california/outdoorschool_finalreport.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009 will expand
opportunities for youth to engage in meaningful conservation projects
and to get outside. It will provide more youth with skills, employment
and leadership experience which will not only help them participate in
the coming green economy, but to succeed in it. Sierra Club appreciates
the opportunity to provide testimony on the benefits of service-
learning and outdoor environmental education for today's underserved
youth. Sierra Club strongly supports this legislation.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club, on S. 1442
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, we
urge you to support the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009, S.
1442. We, the undersigned organizations, represent members of the
education, environmental, service, preservationist, recreation, Indian,
Latino and business communities. The Public Lands Service Corps Act
would help restore our Nation's natural and cultural resources by
increasing service opportunities for youth and young adults on public
lands.
A modernized Public Lands Service Corps would improve opportunities
for youth and young adults, particularly those from underserved
communities, to gain valuable job skills and spend time working
outdoors while providing much-needed services on our Nation's public
lands. The bill would also lay the groundwork for a new and diverse
generation of public land visitors and managers.
S. 1442 would expand opportunities for young people to spend time
outdoors. On average, American teenagers are spending about two and
half hours per day watching television or surfing the internet and only
six minutes each day engaged in outdoor activities. Contact with nature
has been shown to improve academic and behavioral performance. Time
outside has also been found to alleviate symptoms of attention deficit
disorders, decrease stress levels among youth and improve vision. Youth
who get outside and limit their screen time are also more physically
fit than their peers.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act would prepare youth and young
adults for green jobs. As our nation moves towards a green economy,
with more than half of the near future job growth coming from
Environmental-Related Occupations, according to a recent projection by
the White House Council of Economic Advisors, it is critical that we
provide young people with the training they need to fully participate
in the 21st Century workforce. Not only does S. 1442 provide entry-
level employment opportunities and job training for youth and young
adults, service to the Corps will better qualify participants for
future careers in public land management.
S. 1442 would also authorize activities that would improve
infrastructure, restore our public lands, encourage cultural and
historical research, improve the health of coastal, marine and
estuarine ecosystems, address climate change and assist with scientific
data collection. Furthermore, the Public Lands Service Corps Act will
instill in a new generation an appreciation for natural and cultural
resource stewardship and public service.
Sincerely,
National and Regional Organizations
American Camp Association; American Recreation Coalition;
Center for Desert Archaeology; Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees; The Corps Network;
Green For All; Hispanic Federation; Labor Council for Latin
American Advancement, LCLAA; National Education Association;
National Indian Youth Leadership Project; National Marine
Sanctuary Foundation; National Park Hospitality Association;
National Park Trust; National Parks Conservation Association;
National Puerto Rican Coalition; National Trust for Historic
Preservation; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources
Defense Council; NatureBridge; Partnership for the National
Trails System; The Outdoor Foundation; Outdoor Industry
Association; REI; Sierra Club; Southwest Conservation Corps;
Student Conservation Association; The Wilderness Society.
State and Local Organizations
Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program (New Mexico); Boys &
Girls Clubs of Chicago (Illinois); The Coalition for the
Northeast Ecological Corridor (Puerto Rico); Florida Wildlife
Federation (Florida); Fresno Local Conservation Corps
(California); Girl Scouts of Northern California (California);
Hands Across Cultures (New Mexico); Los Angeles Conservation
Corps (California); Muddy Sneakers: The Joy of Learning Outside
(North Carolina); Minnesota Conservation Corps (Minnesota);
North Cascades Institute (Washington); O'Neill Sea Odyssey
(California); River Source (New Mexico); Rocky Mountain Youth
Corps (New Mexico); Southwest Alaska Guidance Association
(Alaska) Southwest Youth Services (New Mexico); Talking Talons
(New Mexico); Vecinos del Rio (New Mexico); Vermont Youth
Conservation Corps (Vermont); Washington State Child Care
Resource & Referral Network (Washington); The Wellness
Coalition Youth Corps (New Mexico); Wilderness Arts and
Literacy Collaborative (California).
______
Statement of Michael Anderson, Senior Resource Analyst, the Wilderness
Society, on S. 1122
summary of legislation
S. 1122, the ``Good Neighbor Forestry Act,'' would allow State
foresters to undertake a variety of forest and rangeland management
activities on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands
in the West through ``Good Neighbor'' contracts and cooperative
agreements. Good Neighbor authority could be used for a variety of
``restoration and protection services'' such as removing insect-
infested trees and reducing hazardous fuels. The bill would permit the
State foresters to subcontract those services to private companies and
would exempt Good Neighbor projects from certain timber sale
contracting requirements of the National Forest Management Act.
Projects implemented by the States through cooperative agreements would
also be exempt from federal contracting laws, including federal wage
and liability requirements. However, the Forest Service and BLM would
still be responsible for making project decisions under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Under S. 1122, the Good Neighbor authority
would apply to National Forest System and BLM lands in all of the
western States and would last for 10 years.
background
Congress first provided Good Neighbor authority to the Forest
Service in Colorado on a four-year trial basis through a legislative
rider to the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Act.\1\ The Colorado bill
was similar to S. 1122, except that it was limited to situations ``when
similar and complementary watershed restoration and protection services
are being performed by the State Forest Service on adjacent State or
private land.''\2\ S. 1122, on the other hand, would allow State
foresters to implement projects on federal lands that are not adjacent
to State or private lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 102-291, Sec. 331
\2\ Id., Sec. 331(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four years later, in the FY 2005 Interior Appropriations Act,
Congress continued the Colorado Good Neighbor authority until the end
of fiscal year 2009 and included both Forest Service and BLM lands in
Colorado within its scope.\3\ In addition, Congress provided similar
Good Neighbor authority to the Forest Service in the State of Utah
until the end of fiscal year 2006.\4\ However, the Utah version--like
S. 1122--did not limit the authority to federal lands that were
adjacent to State or private lands.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ P.L. 108-447, Sec. 336
\4\ Id., Sec. 337
\5\ Id. Sec, 337(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
gao report
In February 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued
a detailed report evaluating the use of the Good Neighbor authority.\6\
The GAO concluded that the authority can help land managers efforts to
improve forest conditions and help prevent severe fires by allowing
federal and State agencies to work more closely together to treat lands
across ownership boundaries. However, the GAO raised concerns about
potential problems with ``timber accountability,'' especially if the
Good Neighbor authority is extended to additional States. The GAO
recommended that the Forest Service and BLM ``first develop written
procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales . to better ensure
accountability for federal timber.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Federal Land Management:
Additional Documentation of Agency Experience with Good Neighbor
Authority Could Enhance Its Future Use. GAO-09-277. Feb. 2009. http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d09277.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
analysis
The timber accountability problem with the Good Neighbor authority
provided by S. 1122 stems largely from the legislative exemption from
important requirements in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
that are aimed at avoiding fraud and conflicts of interest in federal
timber sales. First, the legislation exempts Good Neighbor projects
from Section 14(g) of the NFMA, which requires that Forest Service
employees conduct the designation, marking, and supervision of timber
sales and that those employees ``shall have no personal interest in the
purchase or harvest of such products and shall not be directly or
indirectly in the employment of the [timber sale] purchaser.'' This
exemption is especially problematic because S. 1122 also allows State
foresters to subcontract the timber sale preparation to private
companies. Therefore, unless prohibited by State or local laws, the
legislation could allow subcontracting timber industry employees to
select what trees are cut from federal lands.
Second, the legislation exempts Good Neighbor timber sales from
Section 14(d) of NFMA, which requires the Forest Service to advertise
timber sales before awarding contracts. Thus, a Good Neighbor timber
sale could be awarded at minimum appraised value to the same timber
company that laid out the sale.
A third significant concern with S. 1122 is that it vastly expands
the potential use of Good Neighbor authority. As previously noted, the
original Colorado legislation only allowed Good Neighbor authority to
be used ``when similar and complementary watershed restoration and
protection services are being performed by the State Forest Service on
adjacent State or private land'' (emphasis added). This limitation
makes good sense, since the legislation is intended to benefit the
``neighbors'' that are adjacent to federal lands. In contrast, S. 1122
would allow Good Neighbor authorities to be used anywhere on Forest
Service and BLM lands, irrespective of proximity to non-federal lands.
This vast geographic expansion of the Good Neighbor policy raises
serious questions about the potential for excessive control of federal
land management by State foresters and private industry subcontractors
throughout the West.
While the use of these authorities in Colorado has succeeded in
fostering cross-jurisdictional management actions to reduce fire risk
to communities, Colorado's success may not foretell success in other
States. Differences in the structure, staffing levels, and workload of
other State forestry agencies, and the characteristics of federal
lands, particularly the economic value of timber, would all affect the
authority's chances for success and potential for abuse. For example,
in States where maximizing revenue from State lands is the mandate,
questions can be raised whether State timber sale procedures would be
sufficient to protect public land interests.
In addition to the concerns over environmental impacts of expanding
this authority, some have questioned whether forestry worker rights,
including protective federal wage and overtime standards and
requirements would be undermined by ceding contracting authority to
States. The specter of non-competitive sole-source contracting is seen
as particularly disconcerting.
conclusion
The Good Neighbor authority has helped federal land managers and
State foresters in Colorado and Utah to work together more effectively
in reducing fire risk to adjacent non-federal lands in Colorado and
Utah. However, S. 1122 proposes a vast and unwarranted expansion of the
potential use of that authority beyond its original purpose.
Furthermore, the legislation lacks important safeguard against timber
sale abuse which would become increasingly likely if the Good Neighbor
authority were extended to other States.
______
Statement of John Winchester, Former Chief of the Sugar Loaf Fire
Protection District, on S. 555
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate
Bill S.555. My name is John Winchester and I have been an active fire
fighter in the Sugar Loaf Fire Department for 19 years, and have served
as its chief for four of those years. For the last ten years I have
pursued a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) that is the
subject of this bill. The efforts of Senators Mark Udall and Michael
Bennet that have made this bill possible are greatly appreciated.
background
The Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District (SLFPD) encompasses 15,000
acres of private and public (USFS) land in the foothills of the Rocky
Mountains west of Boulder, Colorado. Elevations range from 6000 to 9000
feet. The fire department began operation in 1967 and is staffed
entirely by volunteers. Currently we have 34 fire fighters and respond
to over 100 calls per year. We have always worked very closely with the
USFS in fire prevention and suppression activities and will continue to
do so.
Our first fire station was established in 1967 in an existing
building on USFS land under a Special Use Permit. The second station
was built in 1970, also on USFS land and under a special use permit.
Both of these stations are in strategic locations, the first near the
center of the district, the second near two housing developments and
with good access to Boulder Canyon Drive (CO 119). Boulder Canyon Drive
is one of the most accident-prone highways in Colorado and we
frequently respond to accidents there.
Our goal with this legislation is to exchange an existing property,
a patented mining claim surrounded by Forest Service land, for the land
under our two stations.
advantages of the land exchange to the sugar loaf fire protection
district
This land exchange will provide us clear title to the land under
our two stations. This is important for three reasons.
First, to improve health and sanitation. State and County
regulations prohibit well and septic systems on public lands for
private use. We operate these stations without water supplies and
without indoor plumbing. Station 2 is an election polling location, and
currently we have to rent a port-a-potty for such public to use. If we
obtain title to the lands, we will be able to install bathrooms and
kitchens, features found in all fire stations today.
Second, to achieve a greater degree of self-determination. At
present, all modifications to the stations and their grounds must be
approved by the USFS. Drawing up and reviewing plans for non-routine
building maintenance, grading and drainage is time-consuming for sboth
us and the the USFS Boulder District office. In addition, the land at
Station 1 includes a flat area we use for fire fighter training. This
is the only flat non-private land available for training within the
district, and currently we rely on the Boulder District's gracious
interpretation of the Special Use Permit to train fire fighters in
vehicle extrication, driver training and hose handling techniques. In
addition, we have used this area as a slash collection point, so
residents wishing to thin around their homes for fire mitigation have a
place to drop off branches so they can be chipped.
Third, to eliminate any uncertainty about the future of these fire
stations. Although extremely unlikely because of our mutual interest in
fire prevention and protection, the USFS has the right to not renew our
Special Use Permit and change the use of these properties to some other
purpose.
advantages of the land exchange to the usfs
Three principal advantages accrue to the USFS:
First, due to the complex pattern of mining claims in the area, the
Boulder Ranger District manages a large number of Special Use Permits.
Because the fire stations are not a temporary use, if the land exchange
does not occur the USFS will be required to inspect the properties and
manage the Special User Permits in perpetuity. This exchange would
eliminate management of two Special Use Permits at the Boulder District
and would reduce, by a small amount, their workload.
Second, it removes one more in-holding in the Boulder Forest
District, and assures that it can never be developed. Blocking
development to this property and properties like it is particularly
important because any development would require construction of a new
access road across USFS land.
Third, it removes liability from the USFS. As the current
landowner, the USFS is ultimately responsible for the Fire Department's
activities on the property, including the stations themselves, our fuel
tanks, and our public activities. Transferring ownership puts the
liability where it belongs, with the Fire District.
the procedural approach to land exchange has been tried
For the past 10 years we have worked very hard to achieve a land
exchange under the Small Tracts Act, filing for ownership in 1997. In
preparation for a formal small tracts exchange, we have:
Paid for land surveys of both stations
Purchased a 5-acre building site (the in-holding in forest
land) to exchange with the USFS
Paid for cultural resource surveys of both stations
Coordinated an historical resources survey with the State of
Colorado
Signed a collection agreement in which the District agreed
to pay for part of the USFS staffing costs
Signed a Potentially Responsible Party Waiver
Arranged for title insurance for the properties
Filled in, at the request of the USFS, a small mine shaft on
the exchange property.
In spite of these efforts, no progress has been made on the
procedural land exchange, an admittedly onerous 64-step process for the
USFS.
Contributing factors to this lack of action have been:
Changes in USFS staff at various offices have resulted in
changing interpretations regarding exchange requirements,
making continuity in the process difficult.
Shortage of USFS lands staff, so that small exchanges such
as this have very low priority.
the legislative approach
After 10 years, we now believe that a procedural approach to our
land exchange will never be successful. Therefore we are requesting
this legislative action to make the exchange, which we feel has
benefits to both parties.
In addition to the advantages for both parties cited above, the
legislative approach streamlines the exchange process, a big advantage
for both the District and the USFS. The lengthy 64-step process
required by the Small Tracts Act is not required.
Are U.S. citizens, the owners of forest lands, protected? Yes.
The Fire District will be able to more efficiently provide fire and
emergency medical services to the community. Land use will stay the
same at both of the stations. The mining claim being exchanged will be
protected from development, which will enhance the value of the public
land that surrounds it.
Furthermore, S.555 stipulates that the exchange must be equal in
dollar value for the government. That is, if final land appraisals show
the USFS land is of greater value, the SLFPD must equalize the exchange
either by paying the USFS or reducing the size of one of the station
properties.
summary
I appreciate the opportunity to present our case today and
sincerely hope that the subcommittee will approve S.555. The simple
land transfer requested in S.555 has advantages for both the SLFPD and
the USFS and should proceed.
______
American Rivers,
Washington, DC, November 11, 2009.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 223 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 307 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso: On behalf of
American Rivers' 65,000 members and supporters, thank you for holding a
hearing on October 29, 2009 on S. 721, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act.
American Rivers strongly supports this legislation and we thank Senator
Murray for her leadership in introducing this bill. The inclusion of
the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System will ensure lasting protection for their
outstanding fish wildlife, recreation, ecological and geological
values, as will an expansion of the existing Alpine Lakes Wilderness.
The Pratt River is one of King County's last truly wild rivers,
offering excellent low-elevation old-growth and mature forest habitat
for wildlife, particularly during the winter months. Due to its remote
nature, the valley also provides unparalleled opportunities for people
seeking solitude and inspiration--a rare opportunity in such close
proximity to a major metropolitan center. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie
Valley provides exceptional recreation opportunities for thousands of
people including scenic day hikes, challenging whitewater boating,
fishing, hunting, camping, back-country skiing and much more. The river
and its associated valley is home to a significant resident trout
population as well as a wide variety of wildlife. Many of our members
in Washington State treasure these wild river valleys, and
enthusiastically support their long-term protection through Wild and
Scenic River and Wilderness designation.
Permanent protection of rivers such as the Pratt and Middle Fork
Snoqualmie are important to the long-term health of Puget Sound and
recovery of threatened salmon and other species. These rivers provide
cool. clean water that salmon and other species need to thrive,
particularly in a warming climate. Additionally, they provide important
migration corridors for wildlife.
Wild and Scenic River designation of the Pratt and Middle Fork
Snoqualmie Rivers would be the capstone to decades of work done by
committed local volunteers such as the Middle Fork Outdoor Recreation
Coalition and others to protect the valley and ensure that its
recreation opportunities and important fish and wildlife habitat are
preserved for the future. Inclusion of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie and
Pratt Rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems is a
perfect complement to these efforts and will help to ensure lasting
protection.
While we strongly support this legislation, there are two areas of
logical improvement that we would like to raise for this or future
legislation. The first is extension of the wild and scenic corridor for
the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River an additional 3.6 miles downstream to
the west section line of section 16 (river mile 53.6). We believe this
reach is as worthy of designation as the upper reach: it was found
suitable for wild and scenic designation in 1990 by the Forest Service
because it has the same outstanding fish, wildlife and recreation
values as the reach upstream, and it is the most popular section for
whitewater recreation on the river. Additionally, inclusion of this 3.6
mile reach would extend the Wild and Scenic corridor to the entrance to
the valley corresponding to the boundary of public lands. Over the past
several years, there has been a concerted effort to consolidate public
ownership in the valley along the river; extension of the wild and
scenic corridor through this reach would assist in simplifying
management and protect significant recreation and fish and wildlife
values.
A second suggested modification is the extension of wild
classification downstream from the west section line of section 3 to
the confluence with Dingford Creek, a distance of approximately 8.2
miles. When the original suitability determination was made by the
Forest Service in 1990, Road 56 extended further upstream. In the
August 2003 Record of Decision for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Access
and Travel Management Plan, the Forest Service made the decision to
close Road 56 at Dingford Creek to motorized public recreation access.
As a result of this decision, we believe that this section of river is
worthy of wild classification.
Wild and Scenic designation of the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie
Rivers, along with the Illabot Creek Wild and Scenic River legislation,
reflect a resurgence in interest in Washington State in the use of this
tool to protect the State's most treasured rivers. Currently,
Washington State has only six designated rivers; yet over 100 are
eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation according to federal
agencies. In particular, there are dozens of rivers in the North
Cascades, Southwest Washington's ``Volcano Country'' and the Olympic
Peninsula that have already been recommended to Congress for Wild and
Scenic River designation. We hope to work with your Committee in the
future to grant long-lasting protection to these rivers as well,
through Wild and Scenic River designation.
Thank you again for holding a hearing on S.721. American Rivers
looks forward to working with you and your staff to see this important
legislation enacted into law this Congress, and thereby ensure a wild
legacy for the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie valleys.
Sincerely,
David Moryc,
Senior Director, River Protection.
______
California State Parks,
California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission,
Sacramento, CA, October 27, 2009.
Hon. Diane Feinstein,
Member, U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1328
Dear Senator Feinstein, On behalf of the California State Parks,
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVIR) Commission, I would like
to express our support for S. 1328 to interchange the administrative
jurisdictions of public lands between the United States Forest Service
(USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In particular, the
jurisdictional exchange between these agencies would allow for
consolidation and more efficient operation of federal lands in the
Chappie-Shasta Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area.
The Chappie-Shasta OHV Area is a popular OHV recreation destination
located in Northern California, encompassing approximately 200 miles of
roads and trails within an area of approximately 52,000 acres, The
region consists of a complex pattern of land ownership and a mix of
administrative jurisdictions which has presented several challenges far
the public land managers as well as OHV enthusiasts.
For years, this popular OHV destination has been managed by the
BLM, USFS, and the Bureau of Reclamation, Despite the fact that BLM has
taken the lead in managing the OHV area and special events for both BLM
and USES lands, the issues of mixed ownership, separate management and
differing regulatory requirements between the two agencies has resulted
in inefficient management of these lands.
The BLM and USFS can better serve the public interest through
passage of S. 1328 which proposes to transfer administrative
jurisdiction of 11,760 acres of USFS managed lands located within the
Chappie-Shasta OHV Area to the BLM. Lands under BLM management outside
of the OHV area would be transferred to the USFS. Moreover, S. 1328
will provide significant administrative and programmatic improvements
through streamlined administration and management of these lands,
thereby reducing costs. This legislation is a win-win for both the
federal land managing agencies and the public who use these lands. The
passage of S. 1328 would provide an effective solution to an agreed-
upon management problem.
The OHMVR Commission is pleased to support S. 1328 because it
represents a collaborative logical resolution to a long standing
administrative issue that has been detrimental to cost efficient land
management. We appreciate the dedicated efforts of the OHV community
and U.S. Senator Feinstein to take action and facilitate responsible
management of OHV recreation and public lands in the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest,
Thank you for the opportunity to express our support of S. 1328.
Respectfully,
Gary Willard,
Chair.
______
Statement of Innovations in Civic Participation, on S. 1442
introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on S.
1442: A Bill to Amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1992. Innovations
in Civic Participation, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization
supporting the development of innovative, high quality youth service
and civic engagement policies in the US and abroad, supports S. 1442
but urges you to add service-learning provisions to enhance the PLSC
experience for corps members by giving them the opportunity to learn
from, and reflect on, their service.
While the bill's language references service-learning, the
legislation could be enhanced by a more substantial use of service-
learning. Therefore, ICP asks the Committee to consider the following
language, which is intended to integrate service-learning into PLSC
activities and explicitly not create a classroom-based program that,
however valuable, might inadvertently detract from the primary purposes
of the legislation:
Page 4 [Purpose Section]: Add after line 10
Use service-learning to enhance the work of the
Public Lands Service Corps to benefit communities
adjacent to public lands. Service-learning offers young
people the opportunity to engage directly with the
nation's natural, cultural, historic, archeological,
recreational, and scenic resources and to encourage the
aspirations of a new generation of people seeking
careers in public land management. Service-learning can
improve civic engagement and participation among corps
participants and those they serve, improve student
achievement, graduation rates, and college attendance
rates, while improving and rehabilitating public
assets, including parks, forests, trails, rivers,
estuaries, and coastal and marine areas.
Page 8 [Definition Section] Add after line 11
(15) Service-learning is an innovative teaching
methodology that integrates community service with
learning to develop a sense of civic responsibility and
the skills to be active citizens while engaging in work
that improves communities. Service-learning can be
employed in informal community settings as well as
formal educational institutions like schools and
universities.
Page 11 [Public Lands Service Corps Program] Add after line 4
(2) ensure that all youth enrolled in the Public
Lands Service Corps benefit from a service-learning
program appropriate to the projects that Corps members
are expected to undertake.
Page 11 [Public Lands Service Corps Program] Add on line 19
after the word ``that''
``through service-learning Corps members enrolled to
undertake projects for a specific agency are
appropriately informed about matters specific to that
agency . . . ''
ICP believes that with the addition of this language, the PLSC will
even more effectively connect young people with their natural
environment--instilling in them an appreciation for nature, an
enjoyment of healthy recreation, and creating a new generation of
environmental stewards; and to energize and invigorate education in
science, environment and related fields while reducing the ``nature
deficit disorder.'' By being involved in service-learning activities on
public lands, young people of all ages can also contribute to energy
conservation. These experiences are likely to increase interest in
careers in federal land management agencies, which are in serious need
of new, younger employees.
overview of service-learning and its impact
Service-learning is an innovative teaching methodology that
integrates community service with educational instruction, formal and
non-formal, to enrich learning, teach civic responsibility and
strengthen communities. Service-learning can reverse disengagement,
promote the public purposes of education, build on the willingness of
young people to become involved in service, and contribute to young
people's personal and career development. Service-learning is a
teaching pedagogy that can be broadly applied to a wide range of
subject matters and is successfully used in formal and informal
educational settings as a way to engage young people in experiential
learning with a focus on meeting community needs.
Research has emphasized that young people who participate in
service-learning have greater civic skills, do better in school and
gain valuable life and employment skills.
A study of service-learning programs in Colorado showed a
significant and positive connection between participation in service-
learning and young peoples' connection to their community. Three
separate studies in Philadelphia, Denver and Hawaii found that service-
learning participants developed better problem-solving skills and
understanding of cognitive complexities. According to these studies,
service-learning students were better able to advance realistic
solutions to problems, understand the systemic nature of a community
problem and take steps to address a problem.
A study of urban youth engaged in service-learning activities
demonstrated positive and significant gains in school attendance and
acceptable school behaviors. Young people who participated in high
quality service-learning programs showed an increase in measures of
school engagement and achievement in mathematics than control groups.
Several studies show that youth who engage in service-learning have
higher attendance rates than control group peers.
Several recent studies have consistently shown the value of
service-learning in helping young people explore career options. A 2006
study of a Hawaiian service-learning program, demonstrated that young
people in service-learning relative to nonparticipating young people
had a stronger set of job and career-related skills and aspirations,
including knowledge of how to plan activities, desire to pursue
postsecondary education and job interview skills. Participation in
service-learning is also correlated to the reduction of behaviors that
lead to pregnancy or arrest.
service-learning and the public lands service corps
Using service-learning to teach Corps members should be a key
element of the Public Lands Service Corps. Few subjects lend themselves
so well to service-learning opportunities as do public lands. They
offer a prism through which to see the entire breadth and scope of
American history including a history of the land and its inhabitants
long before there was a United States--geology, geography, cultural
heritage, biology, historic preservation, among many other aspects of
public lands.
Additionally, including service-learning with ``shovel work''
enables an increased use of the Public Lands Service Corps in a variety
of program areas. Service, and service-learning, will help maintain
public lands, reduce the maintenance backlog, and help ensure that our
parks, forests and coastal lands will be available for future
generations.
Service-learning is also a pathway to careers in public lands
management, the green economy, and engaging young people of all ages in
the study of various sciences and the environment. The civic,
historical, and scientific resources and learning opportunities that
public lands offer have the potential to engage young people in a way
that no textbook can.
All young people enrolled in the Public Lands Service Corps should
benefit from a service-learning program appropriate to the projects
that Corps members are expected to undertake.
connecting youth to the outdoors
Research shows that there is a ``nature deficit disorder''
reflecting the fact that children of the digital age have become
increasingly alienated from the natural world, with disastrous
implications for their physical fitness as well as their long-term
mental and spiritual health.
In a typical week, only 6% of children ages 9-13 play outside on
their own. Studies show a dramatic decline in the past decade in such
outdoor activities as swimming and fishing. Even bike riding is down
31% since 1995. In San Diego, according to a survey by the nonprofit
Aquatic Adventures, 90% of inner-city kids do not know how to swim; 34%
have never been to the beach. In suburban Fort Collins, Colorado,
teachers shake their heads in dismay when they describe the many
students who have never been to the mountains visible year-round on the
western horizon.
Studies documenting the increasing indicators of nature deficit
show that providing young people with quality opportunities to directly
experience the natural world can improve their overall readiness to
learn and academic performance, as well as self-esteem, personal
responsibility, community involvement, personal health (including child
obesity issues) and understanding of nature. Hands-on, experience-based
environmental education connects children to the natural world, and
research supports that time spent outdoors lessens the symptoms of
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), reduces stress and
aggression, helps children sleep better and improves physical health.
Service-learning provides critical tools for a 21st century
workforce by providing young people with the skills to understand
complex environmental issues so they may make informed decisions in
their own lives and find solutions for real world challenges. Business
leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate
workforce is critical to their long-term success. Environmental
education helps prepare young people for real world challenges.
At scale, the Public Lands Corps is an effective way to eliminate
the nature deficit disorder, enabling young people to serve on public
lands and increase their understanding of their value to future
generations of Americans.
examples of service-learning projects in the environment
In the United States, young people of many ages are engaged in
service-learning activities connecting formal and informal education
with environmental sustainability efforts.
The Watershed Stewards Project (WSP) of the California Conservation
Corps is a comprehensive, community-based watershed restoration and
education program. Established in 1994, biologists and educators
created WSP to fill critical information gaps in scientific and
education communities. In collaboration with the commercial and sport
fishing industry, timber companies, teachers, nonprofit organizations
and public agencies, WSP members and the WSP partnership work to
revitalize watersheds inhabited by endangered and threatened species
through the use of the WSP ?Real Science? environmental education
curricula and State-of-the-art data collection and watershed
techniques. Under the guidance of resource professionals, in
collaboration with local land owners, public agencies and private
industry, members learn and perform advanced monitoring and analysis
techniques, present the WSP ``Real Science'' curricula to students in
grades K-12, participate in instream and upslope restoration
activities, tutor K-12 students in math and science, perform
environmentally-based public outreach, and conduct environmental
education workshops and symposiums.
The National Youth Leadership Council (NYLC) developed Gulf Coast
WalkAbout as part of its Resources for Recovery initiative. NYLC worked
with colleagues and partners in the area and across the United States
to create a framework to use service-learning as a means to address the
needs in the Gulf Coast. With cooperation from State education agencies
in the Gulf Coast States, NYLC adapted its WalkAbout program model to
make it appropriate for middle school students in the region. Young
people conducted service-learning projects based on their mapping of
their communities in the three focus areas: environmental restoration,
disaster preparedness and oral history projects. Young people at some
sites cleaned up their school grounds. At other sites they planted
gardens or trees, or worked on landscaping their schoolyard. They also
built birdhouses and bus stop benches. One site reported to their city
council on cleanup still needed in their community, while another
worked on a longer-term project involving planning for improvements of
their community's senior center.
Earth Force's Global Rivers Environment Education Network (GREEN)
is focused on providing middle and high school students with
opportunities to acquire essential academic skills including critical
thinking, teamwork, problem solving and decision making, all while
actively engaging in their communities around water quality issues.
GREEN seeks to engage young people as active citizens who improve
conditions in their watersheds now and in the future. GREEN empowers
young people to learn more about the watersheds they live and use their
findings to create lasting solutions to pressing water quality issues.
GREEN also works to connect educators to local partners to assist with
water quality monitoring, classroom support, community connections and
event coordination. These partnerships provide educators with access to
innovative resources such as a network of national and community
support, online resources, technical manuals, activity guides and water
quality monitoring equipment.
In a Massachusetts high school, students and teachers worked
together to develop lessons and resources that used the school's nature
trail, in conjunction with standard curriculum, in order to provide
students with hands-on learning experiences and a better understanding
of the local environment. The program started in the fall with a plant
project familiarizing students with native and alien flora, and helping
them understand local natural history. In the spring, students and
teachers moved outside to study ecological relationships, such as
succession, predator-prey interactions and symbiosis. Students used
their drawing skills to record detailed information about plants,
invertebrates, and other creatures that could easily be studied in the
field and lab. The project expanded when high school students prepared
hands-on demonstrations for younger children and led tours of the
nature trail.
Facing a growing threat of buckthorn--a tall non-native shrub that
spreads aggressively, forcing out local flora, including tree
saplings--Minnesota students undertook an issue analysis, community
education program, and cleanup projects. The students divided
themselves into action groups to research and respond to the problem,
with different groups educating elementary students, conducting public
surveys, contacting media outlets, and designing a brochure for a river
bluff specialist. In the spring, the students helped the county Parks
Department with a buckthorn removal project. To reflect on their work,
students discussed and wrote about issues relating to buckthorn.
conclusion
A modest service-learning component of S. 1442 can enhance the
legislation to expand service-learning opportunities on public lands
connecting more young people with the environment, addressing critical
needs on public lands and creating a new generation on environmental
stewards. Through service-learning on public lands we can enhance
learning in critical subject areas, deepen youth commitment to American
values, and help foster their becoming responsible, participatory
adults. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. ICP looks
forward to working with you to strengthen service-learning on public
lands and to see S. 1442 enacted into law.
______
Statement of Dale Penny, President & CEO, Student Conservation
Association, on S.1442
Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee
on Public Lands and Forests, my name is Dale Penny. I am the President
and CEO of the Student Conservation Association (SCA), the largest
youth conservation nonprofit in the country. I am pleased to have the
opportunity to submit this testimony to the subcommittee to become part
of the written record for the hearing on S. 1442--the Public Lands
Service Corps Act of 2009. With a few suggested changes, SCA strongly
supports this timely and very important piece of legislation.
SCA was founded in 1957 on a simple premise: young people can and
would make a difference in helping protect our national parks if given
the opportunity. Fifty-two years later, SCA has helped engage over
50,000 diverse young people in conservation service on public lands
across the country. S. 1442 is a critical and necessary tool to help
strengthen and expand opportunities for young people to help solve a
host of challenges currently facing our public lands, to put young
people to work in communities across the country, and to create the
pipeline for the next generation of public land managers.
S. 1442 amends the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 (PLC) to expand
service-learning opportunities, increase the authority of public land
agencies to make youth service a priority in helping to restore the
nation's natural, cultural, and historic resources, train a new
generation of public land managers, and promote the value of public
service. The bill also provides for the creation of a grant program to
create an Indian Youth Service Corps for projects on tribal lands, and
expands the definition of ``public lands'' to allow young people to
provide national service on coastal and marine waters through the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As you know, we are in midst of one of the most daunting economic
crises since the Great Depression. The impact on young people is
devastating. In July of this year, the youth unemployment rate for 16
to 24 year olds reached the highest rate on record--18.5 percent--
according to the Department of Labor. Only 46 percent of youth had jobs
in September, the lowest percentage since the government began counting
in 1948. BusinessWeek referred to this group of young people as the
``lost generation,'' suggesting that the damage to their careers and
earning power may be deep and long-lasting.
In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) to help address the massive unemployment of
young people through conservation of America's natural and cultural
resources. The CCC built the infrastructure of national parks, planted
billions of trees, and pioneered new ways to fight forest fires. The
CCC's work restored our public lands, stimulated the economy, and
helped build communities in every State in the country. Over three
million young people served in the CCC.
SCA is modeled after the CCC. Through its innovative, cost-
effective, and proven models, SCA provides young people with hands-on
service opportunities in virtually every conservation and environmental
field imaginable. Our members have restored desert ecosystems, saved
endangered species, repaired and built trails, developed graduate-level
business plans for park units, and surveyed coral reefs and fish
populations, among other things. In addition, our rural and urban
community programs engage diverse high school students who may lack
access to the natural environment and to green job opportunities.
This year, SCA placed over 4,000 high school, college students, and
graduate students on over 500 public land sites across the country.
Given the chance, many more young people would participate in our
programs. On average, we receive four applications for each program
slot we have available. Applications for our programs rose by over 40
percent this year. We anticipate a similar trend in applications for
2010. Under S. 1442, we believe our successful program models can be
replicated and dramatically scaled, mobilizing thousands more young
people who are eager to work and serve each year.
The environmental challenges faced by our public land agencies
today are even greater than those addressed by the CCC. The National
Parks Conservation Association estimates that the National Park Service
alone has a $750 million annual funding shortfall and backlog of
maintenance and restoration projects of approximately $9 billion. S.
1442 would give the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce
the authority to provide additional training and undertake a broader
range of projects, including sophisticated projects like carbon
reduction strategies, climate action planning, sustainability
initiatives, earth observation and monitoring with satellites and in-
water instruments, and weather prediction models.
Given that most of the environmental challenges will be inherited
by young people, we also must find ways to develop a pipeline of
qualified, diverse young people to become our next generation of
conservation leaders. Once we identify them, we need to prepare them
with leadership, knowledge, skills, and experience. Just as important,
expanded conservation opportunities can and should provide them with
the contemporary ``green job'' skills needed for the emerging green
economy in both the private and public sectors.
SCA has had great success creating a ``continuum of service'' to
engage diverse young people from high school to college, and
potentially graduate school. In our community programs, high school
students receive summer jobs, work and life skills, and the opportunity
to continue their green job training on public lands with SCA as they
progress through school in subsequent years. This high-touch approach
helps inspire a lifelong commitment to stewardship, create an ethic of
service, and provide great potential for a career in natural resources.
It is no secret that public land management agencies need to build
and invest in their future workforce. Currently, one-third of the
federal workforce will be eligible for retirement by 2012, up from 20
percent in 2002, according to a 2008 Government Accountability Office
report. Specifically, thirty-eight percent in The Department of the
Interior and 35 percent in the Department of Agriculture will be
eligible for retirement in 2012. In NOAA, the retirement numbers are
even more urgent. Thirty-five percent of its workforce is eligible for
retirement in 2014, but an even larger percentage of NOAA senior
scientists can retire today--31 percent of biologists, 29 percent of
meteorologists, 48 percent of oceanographers, and 56 percent of
geodesists. If unaddressed, this potential brain-drain will create gaps
in leadership, skills, and institutional knowledge.
The innovative program models of conservation corps provide a
unique and direct opportunity for public land management agencies to
build upon existing outreach efforts to create a pipeline of
conservation leaders. In fact, an informal and internal survey of
National Park Service employees a few years ago showed that
approximately 12 percent of its workforce came from SCA. S. 1442
provides more training and career development opportunities for the
federal land agencies. If we do not invest in our workforce pipeline
now, public land management agencies simply will have to pay later with
an unprepared workforce.
SCA strongly supports S. 1442, and believes that its enactment is
critical to helping SCA further its mission. SCA would like to make the
following recommendations:
1. Section 205--Residential Conservation Centers and Program
Support. SCA suggests amending the language to expressly
authorize the operation of residential centers by qualified,
experienced nonprofit organizations. We believe that nonprofits
such as SCA have the experience and qualifications to operate
such centers effectively and efficiently.
2. Section 206(a)(2)--Consulting Interns. SCA strongly
supports the amendment authorizing ``consulting interns,'' and
very much would like this new category and the 10 percent cost-
share requirement (as discussed below) to be retained in the
final law. We also suggest extending the top age-range for
``consulting interns'' to 30 (from 25 as set forth in the
current PLC authority). See below.
--Need for Consulting Interns.--Increasingly, our federal land
management partners need and have requested from SCA
graduate-level interns who can provide management analysis
on a host of issues, including business, scientific, and
environmental issues. For example, SCA has successfully
placed graduate students as business planning interns with
the National Park Service. Therefore, we strongly support
the expansion of PLC to include this new category.
--Consulting Intern Cost-Share.--Graduate-level interns typically
are placed with our partners for longer periods of time
than resource assistants. Many placements currently can
last up to a year. Longer placements mean higher costs.
That is why, as currently drafted, the legislation
distinguishes between the cost-share requirements for
resource assistants (25 percent) and consulting interns (10
percent). Any cost-share for consulting interns that
exceeds 10 percent would be prohibitive, even for larger
conservation organizations such as SCA, particularly in
this tough economy. Therefore, we suggest that cost-share
requirement not be increased beyond 10 percent for
consulting interns. As indicated below, we also suggest
that the Secretary be given authority to lower the cost-
share requirement for all corps categories, given the tough
economic challenges faced by nonprofits.
--Age Range for Consulting Interns.--The profile of college and
graduate students has changed dramatically over the last
decade since the original PLC legislation was enacted. So
have our participants. Currently, the average age of a
graduate student is 33 years old with 20 percent of all
graduate students over the age of 40. We, therefore,
suggest that the top age be raised from 25 to at least 30,
so that our federal land management partners are able to
receive a large, diverse pool of well-qualified, eligible
consulting interns.
3. Section 207--Indian Youth Service Corps. SCA supports the
Indian Youth Service Corps authorization as currently drafted.
We are unclear, however, whether the term ``Indian'' was meant
to include all Native Americans--American Indians, Aleuts,
Eskimos, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. We believe
that it would be beneficial for all Native Americans to be
recognized by the legislation.
4. Section 208 (b)--Preference and Future Employment. SCA
strongly supports this provision, and would like to suggest
that the language is clarified to make sure that the preference
applies to all categories--resource assistants, consulting
interns, and Indian corps participants--under the legislation.
5. Cost Share Issues.--As mentioned above, SCA supports the
10 percent cost-share requirement for consulting interns.
However, given the tough economic challenges faced by
nonprofits, we further suggest that the Secretary have the
discretion to reduce the cost-share requirement for all
categories of participants--resource assistants, consulting
interns, and Indian Youth Service Corps participants, as
follows:
Cost Sharing Requirements--At the Secretary's
discretion, the requirements for cost sharing
applicable to participating nonprofit organizations for
the expenses of resource assistant, consulting intern,
and Indian Youth Service Corps participant may be
reduced.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony for the
hearing.
______
Statement of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, American Rivers,
American Whitewater, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Friends of Wild
Sky, Midforc Coalition, North Cascades Conservation Council, Sierra
Club--Cascade Chapter, The Mountaineers, The Wilderness Society,
Washington Trails Association, Washington Wilderness Coalition
Thank you Chairman Wyden, and Members of the subcommittee for
providing the Alpine Lakes Working Group with the opportunity to submit
this Statement in support of S. 721, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act of
2009\1\. The lands and waters proposed for protection under the current
legislation are critical additions that provide important fish and
wildlife habitat and world-class land and water-based recreation
opportunities within an hour's drive from over a million people in the
Seattle-Bellevue Metropolitan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Alpine Lakes Working Group includes the following
organizations: Alpine Lakes Protection Society, American Rivers,
American Whitewater, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Friends of Wild
Sky, MidFORC Coalition, North Cascades Conservation Council, Sierra
Club--Cascade Chapter, The Mountaineers, The Wilderness Society,
Washington Trails Association, Washington Wilderness Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would also like to sincerely thank Senator Murray and
Representative Reichert for introducing this important legislation and
the other members of the Washington delegation who have cosponsored the
bills: Senator Cantwell and Representatives Baird, Inslee, McDermott,
and Smith. In particular, we applaud Representative Reichert's
initiative to protect wildernessquality lands and the Pratt River in
his district and to Senator Murray for adding protections for portions
of the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River to the overall proposal.
rich conservation history of the alpine lakes region
This bill compliments the rich conservation history in an area very
near and dear to the hearts of Washingtonians--the Alpine Lakes region.
With its wide variety of largely untouched land forms, lakes, and
ecosystems that embodies all the characteristics described in the
Wilderness Act, the Alpine Lakes region has been the focus of
conservation efforts on the part of the United States Congress, the
Forest Service, State and municipal governments and local citizens for
more than 60 years. From early regional administrative protections by
the Forest Service to a 1976 Wilderness designation that utilized
special processes to maximize protections, the area has received
national attention. Over the past 30 years, the Forest Service acquired
much private land in the Alpine Lakes region, particularly in the Pratt
River valley and along the shorelines of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
River.
The Middle Fork Snoqualmie valley region has also received
significant attention from government agencies including the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and King County. The DNR
was a leader in protecting the Middle Fork Snoqualmie area when it
established the Mt. Si Conservation Area in the late 1970's and then
pursued several land exchanges west of the national forest boundary.
This month DNR formally announced plans for a Middle Fork Snoqualmie
Natural Resource Conservation Area (NRCA), which will include those
lands south of the river that are contiguous with this proposed
wilderness creating a large contiguous area of joint agency-protected-
habitat that is unique on the west slope of the Cascades. King County
has also assisted in further conservation work in the area by
purchasing key parcels along the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley bottom
which are managed as the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Natural Area.
This proposal represents a celebration of nearly two decades of
community-driven effort to protect and enhance the ecological and
recreation values of the valley. Once a popular recreation destination,
the Middle Fork Snoqualmie declined in popularity in the 1980's as the
trail system disintegrated and campgrounds washed out and were closed.
The Middle Fork Outdoor Recreation Coalition (MidFORC), supported by
the Mountains to Sound Greenway, has worked for nearly two decades to
improve trails and recreation infrastructure, provide better law
enforcement, and restore damaged habitat in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
valley.
outstanding wilderness and wild and scenic values
Low elevation habitat
The proposed additions in the Pratt, Middle Fork and South Fork
Snoqualmie Valleys provide an opportunity to protect rare low-elevation
old-growth and mature forests--less than 900 feet in elevation at the
mouth of the Pratt Valley. Statewide, of the roughly 2.7 million acres
of designated wilderness on national forest land, just 6 percent
includes low elevation lands (below 3,000 feet). In contrast, low
elevation lands comprise a full 50 percent of this 22,100-acre
proposal. Such biologically-rich lowlands are largely absent from the
current Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Low elevation lands are snow-free for
much of the year and are more biologically productive, supporting many
more species than higher elevation habitats. The lands to be protected
provide critical winter and spring habitat for wildlife when high
country is deep in snow.
Clean Water and Flood Control
The Pratt, Middle Fork and South Fork Snoqualmie watersheds are
sources of clean water, important for downstream fisheries and
commercial and residential water users. Preserving the forests as
wilderness would ensure maintenance of flow during the dry summer
months, and aid in flood control.
The Snoqualmie River basin is subject to flood events on a regular
basis. Many areas are in the `rain on snow' zone which means that rain
falls on snow regularly throughout the winter months. This rainfall
pattern is associated with landslides, downstream flooding, and stream
bank damage. Evidence shows that forested areas are better able to
capture rain that has fallen during the rain on snow events, making
them critical for controlling runoff rates. The proposed additions
would preserve intact forest ecosystems, protecting against increasing
flood severity on downstream infrastructure and residents.
Close to a Large Human Population
The Alpine Lakes Wilderness is one of the most-visited wilderness
areas in the United States. Due to its proximity to the Seattle
metropolitan area, it provides quick access to wilderness experiences
to tens of thousands of people. This opportunity is fundamental to the
quality of life for Washingtonians and the ability to gain inspiration
and renewal from these lands. The proposed additions would increase the
amount of wilderness available for these experiences that are cherished
by so many. Fish and Wildlife These wild mountain valleys boast
abundant native populations of trout, deer, and elk. Cougars, bears and
bobcats are present, and at least one grizzly bear has been sighted in
the Pratt valley. Salmon are not present due to the presence of
Snoqualmie Falls; however, the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie rivers
are home to healthy resident trout populations. Substantial areas of
old growth forest are present in the area, supporting the full
complement of native species. The balance of the forest is 70-80 year
old second growth with many trees that are 3 feet in diameter and 150
feet tall.
Recreation
The Middle Fork and South Fork Snoqualmie valleys are some of the
closest and most accessible mountain valleys to residents of the
greater Seattle-Bellevue Metropolitan area. The proposed additions have
been carefully crafted to preserve existing recreational opportunities
for hiking, camping, rafting, kayaking, horseback riding, mountain
biking and wildlife viewing. It also protects a large area of
accessible lowland forests, preserving hunting and fishing
opportunities in primitive settings.
Wild and Scenic River Values
Few rivers anywhere in the country can match the quality of
recreational, scenic and ecological resources that the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie and its major tributary the Pratt provide. Whether it's a
quiet fishing trip after work, a day out with friends on some of the
most outstanding whitewater the region has to offer, or a weekend with
the family in one of the most scenic river valleys in the country,
these rivers are tremendous resources for our community. They are also
an important source for clean water that sustains the culturally and
biologically significant fishery resources of the Snoqualmie River
system. Protecting the outstanding ecological and recreational value of
these river corridors not only complements the protection of the
amazing wilderness values, but also provides important ecological and
recreational connectivity.
The designation will ensure that 27 miles of the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River and 9.5 miles of the Pratt River are protected for
future generations securing this important habitat, protecting the
quality of the recreational experience, and recognizing the community-
based stewardship efforts that maintain the river corridor as one of
our community's greatest natural assets.
In their testimony on the bill, the Forest Service raised some
minor issues and asked ``to work with the subcommittee to address some
technical aspects of the bill.'' Here we address those concerns.
The Forest Service suggests a modification of the proposed
wilderness boundary to allow for trail reconstruction or relocation of
the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Trail #1003. This trail is popular
amongst mountain bicyclists and the Forest Service is concerned about
allowances for work in response to potential future events such as
flooding or landslides. This issue has already been addressed by
legislation to the satisfaction of our working group and the mountain
bike community, who has endorsed the legislation. In October 2007, an
evaluation of the proposal boundary was made using the latest digital
definition of the trail location based upon recent Forest Service field
work. This definition included not only the actual location of the
trail (as defined by GPS equipment) but the definition was also
adjusted for potential trail relocations so as to account for river
channel movement, landslides, or other events that could require trail
relocation further away from the river. The boundary was then placed on
the opposite side of the trail from the river, using a set back of no
less than 80 vertical feet from the digital trail definition noted
above. This proposal boundary placement ensures that the actual trail
location or its potential relocation will always lie outside of the
proposed wilderness boundary. The proposal boundary was placed to
ensure existing mountain bike usage will not be impacted by this
proposal. The new trail alignment and the noted set backs were provided
to the Forest Service and it is our understanding that they are
incorporated in the Section.2.(a) map accompanying the legislation.
The Forest Service suggests redrawing the wilderness boundary to
exclude approximately three miles of the Pratt River Trail #1035
because the trail is scheduled for major reconstruction beginning this
fiscal year. The Forest Service also claims that the adjustment would
reduce operation and maintenance costs along this segment of the trail,
due to the ability to use motorized equipment for trail maintenance.
While the Pratt River Trail (#1035) referenced in the testimony is a
system trail, the segment referenced has not been maintained by the
Forest Service for many decades. To say that it currently receives high
use is inaccurate and misrepresents the situation on the ground. The
noted segment does receive some use for the first mile or so before the
route becomes so difficult to find that it cannot be followed. However,
the use levels for this segment are well below what most would consider
high use (i.e., Barclay Lake) even with the proximity of the campground
across the river.
Additionally, this trail is not planned for mountain bike use and
therefore this area's designation is fully consistent with a wilderness
designation. The Alpine Lakes Working Group (ALWG) does not support
excluding a trail from wilderness designation because of anticipated
trail construction. Trail use, construction and maintenance are allowed
under the Wilderness Act and such activities are performed on a daily
basis within the National Forest System. There are a number of examples
here within the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest of trail
construction of this scope within designated wilderness:
Kelley Creek Trail Reroute--Skykomish Ranger District, Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie NF (Trail 1076)--The Forest Serviced approved
this project on April 9, 2008 with the recognition that the
Wild Sky Wilderness was likely to become law. A new trail would
be constructed within the wilderness and would connect to an
existing trail. The new trail would begin at the heavily-used
Iron Goat Trailhead, which has parking and amenities similar to
those at the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Trailhead (gateway
bridge). The trail project would include approximately two
miles of new trail in wilderness in an area that has never had
a trail before.. No mechanized or motorized equipment is
proposed or authorized.
Suiattle Creek Trail reroute--Darrington Ranger District,
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF (Trail 2000)--This trail reroute and
reconstruction is proposed to deal with flood damage that
eliminated a major trail bridge across the Suiattle River and
caused other extensive trail damage. To locate a bridge on a
better site less prone to flood damage, the project includes
building a new trail segment. The entire project would occur
within the existing Glacier Peak Wilderness. The trail project
would include 3 miles of new trail open to hikers and
packstock. Certain mechanized or motorized equipment is
proposed to be used.
The Forest Service testimony States that the exclusion of three
miles of the Pratt River Trail (#1035) would not significantly alter
the proposal. The ALWG finds that such exclusion would eliminate low
elevation areas from the proposal that are critical to the integrity of
the lower Pratt River Valley and the proposal.
Finally, the Forest Service recommends adjusting the boundary to
exclude two segments totaling 300 acres of Washington State Department
of Natural Resource (DNR) lands in the northwestern boundary of the
proposal. These two DNR parcels were included within the wilderness
boundary so that if they were to be acquired by the Forest Service
after passage of the legislation they would be added to the wilderness
without requiring an additional act of Congress. Nothing in the bill
obligates or encourages the Forest Service or DNR to pursue an
acquisition or exchange. The parcels were included to establish a
manageable boundary based on ecological or watershed features that can
be located on the ground. Currently, Thompson Lake is literally split
between the two management agencies. The Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest Boundary is located two to three miles west of Thompson Lake and
Russian Butte. Consequently, the Forest Service has acquisition
authority for the DNR parcels included in the proposal. As a result of
the Huckleberry Land Exchange of 1996-2001, the Forest Service actually
acquired a number of isolated parcels that are west of the noted DNR
parcels near Russian Butte and Thompson Lake.
broad-based outreach and support
The legislation under consideration enjoys broad-based community
support, including 104 local elected officials, 69 religious leaders,
15 hunting and angling groups, 14 recreation groups, 24 conservation
groups, and 113 local businesses, including 100 from the the Snoqualmie
Valley--closest to the proposal. Through the outreach efforts led by
Representative Reichert and Senator Murray, several specific concerns
and issues were addressed early on in the process.
Of importance is the work with the local mountain biking group, the
Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, to make sure that the current every-
other-day access to the Middle Fork trail is maintained. The wilderness
boundary, as proposed, is drawn to exclude the trail (since mountain
biking is not allowed in wilderness) and the Wild and Scenic
designation along the same stretch compliments this with protections
for the fish, wildlife, and recreational values that also allow for
continued mountain bike use. As a result of their early involvement,
Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance and the International Mountain Bike
Association (IMBA) are strong supporters of this bill and see it as a
model for protecting the wildlands values of quality mountain bike
areas.
Additionally, outreach was made to State agencies with adjacent
lands and responsibilities. As mentioned previously, the State
Department of Natural Resources owns adjacent lands. The majority of
these lands are managed to protect similar values as wilderness on
federal lands. As such, this legislation complements the work and
investment of that agency. Taken together, the combination of Federal
Wilderness and Washington State DNR Natural Resource Conservation Area
in the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie valleys will create a large
extent of protected lowland acreage unrivalled in the Cascades. The
State Department of Transportation (DOT) has road maintenance
responsibilities on lands to the south of the proposal. The highway
through this area (InterState 90) is a critical shipping and
transportation route and requires snow and avalanche work throughout
the winter to remain open. The DOT was consulted on the proposed
wilderness additions and is comfortable that the boundaries do not
impact their ability to perform this important work.
additional conservation opportunities
We suggest three minor changes that should be made in this or
future legislation. The first is extension of the wild and scenic
corridor an additional 3.6 miles downstream to the west section line of
section 16 (river mile 53.6). This would extend the wild and scenic
corridor to the entrance of the valley corresponding to the edge of
solid public ownership. This section of the river has been found
suitable by the Forest Service for wild and scenic designation, and
includes all the same values as the reach upstream. It is also the most
popular section for whitewater recreation on the river. Over the past
several years, public land managers and non-profits including Cascade
Land Conservancy and Mountains to Sound Greenway have invested
considerable resources into consolidating public ownership along the
river. Public land managers including the Forest Service, King County,
and Washington Department of Natural Resources have worked to
cooperatively manage the corridor in a manner consistent with its high
habitat and recreation values. Extending the wild and scenic corridor
to include these additional 3.6 miles would insure uniform, unbroken
designation, and simplify management for public land managers.
The second suggested change is the extension of the wild
classification downstream from the west section line of section 3 to
the confluence with Dingford Creek, a distance of approximately 8.2
miles. When the original suitability determination was made by the
Forest Service in 1990, Road 56 extended further upstream. In the
August 2003 Record of Decision for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Access
and Travel Management Plan, the Forest Service made the decision to
close Road 56 at Dingford Creek. As a result of this decision, and the
ecological values of the river, we believe that this section of river
should be classified as wild.
The third recommendation is a request to make a minor boundary
adjustment to the wilderness boundary along the western edge of the
proposal in the northeast corner of Section 12, (Township 23N, Range
9E). There is a small (less than a quarter section; ca. 150 acres)
piece of Forest Service land known as ``Russian Butte.'' We have
reexamined this part of the proposal boundary and have determined that
these 160 acres would make a logical and appropriate addition to the
proposal. These lands are located entirely within the Gifford Creek
drainage. The parcel is classified in the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie Land
Management plan as `late successional reserve,' the same as the
adjacent Pratt River drainage. This land is surrounded on 1 side by the
proposed wilderness area and on the remaining three sides by DNR lands.
These DNR lands have a high likelihood of becoming a State Natural
Resource Conservation Area. Failing to add this small quarter section
could result in an isolated patch of national forest surrounded by
lands managed for wilderness values. As such, it is entirely logical to
adjust the proposed wilderness boundary to include this parcel.
In closing, the proposed legislation represents a magnificent
investment in the quality of life of all Washingtonians and Americans
and we are pleased to offer it our very strongest support. We celebrate
in joining the broad-based voices of the conservation, recreation,
business, religious, and list of elected officials that urge passage of
these protections. We hope that the Committee will move favorably and
quickly on this important legislation. Thank you.
______
Statement of Sally Prouty, President and CEO, the Corps Network,
on S. 1442
My name is Sally Pouty and I am the President and CEO of The Corps
Network and I am submitting testimony on behalf the 143 youth service
and conservation corps throughout the nation and the more than 29,000
young people who enroll in Corps each year.
Nationally, 66% of Corpsmember families have incomes under the
Federal poverty level, 72% have no college, and of those, 45% lack a
high school diploma. About 43% are Caucasian, 30% African-American, 17%
Latino, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Since 1985, Corps have enrolled over
600,000 young men and women.
The Corps Network believes that the Public Lands Service Corps has
the potential to be the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of the 21st
Century. As the heirs to that wonderful legacy, we could not be more
grateful for this legislation.
The Corps Network wishes to express its strong support for the
Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009 and to thank Chairman Bingaman,
Senator Udall, Senator Snowe, Senator Sanders, Senator Feinstein, and
Senator Boxer for their leadership on this important issue.
We also appreciate the Administration's support for the Public
Lands Service Corps Act as expressed in Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budet Bob Stanton's remarks before you on
October 29 and its testimony on the House version of the
legislation.The Corps Network enthusiastically supports S. 1442 because
it:
will allow current land management efforts to be greatly
expanded, providing for the completion of many more backlogged
projects and providing meaningful service opportunities to
thousands more young people;
recognizes that service and service-learning are strategies
for getting things done on public lands;
will also introduce more, and more diverse, young people to
America's public lands--instilling in them an appreciation for
nature, an enjoyment of healthy recreation, and a sense of
stewardship for our natural resources and the environment;
sees young people, including those from diverse backgrounds,
as assets to be deployed rather than problems to be addressed;
expands the non-competitive hiring status of Public Lands
Corpsmembers, bringing youth and diversity to the land
management agency workforces and providing additional
opportunities for young people, particularly those from
disadvantaged backgrounds, to pursue good careers in land and
natural resource management as well as in other occupations;
includes lands under the jurisdiction of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and will expand service
on public lands to new areas of the country, such as the
Northeast and Southeast, making it easier to engage young
people from those areas.
raises the profile of the Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)
within each affected agency and establishes the important role
of PLSC coordinator, making it easier for Corps to participate;
and,
will help bring Corps, a proven youth development strategy,
to scale.
We also are particularly pleased that S. 1442 takes an important
first step in creating a grant program for Indian tribes to establish
Indian Youth Corps so that Indian youth can benefit from Corps programs
based on Indian lands, carrying out projects that their tribes and
communities determine to be priorities.
In general, Native American youth face a wide variety of problems,
including high rates of dropping out of school, unemployment, crime,
depression, and alcoholism and drug abuse. To take but a few examples:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs 2005 Indian Labor Force Report
found that 49 percent of the total Indian labor force living
on, or near reservations was unemployed. Tribes with the
highest unemployment rates are located in the Great Plains and
Rocky Mountain regions and have average unemployment rates of
77 percent and 67 percent, respectively.
Many young Native Americans do not finish high school. In
the 2004-2005 school year, the national graduation rate for
Indian high school students was 50.6 percent compared with 77.6
percent for white students.
According to data from 2002, some 90,000 Indian families
were homeless or under-housed. An estimated 200,000 units are
needed immediately to meet current demand. According to the
National American Indian Housing Council, ``a large percentage
of existing homes are in great need of rehabilitation, repair
and weatherization.''
Because Corps use service as a strategy to provide young people
with an educational environment conducive to learning, employment and
training experiences, and a range of supportive services targeted to
such issues as drug and alcohol abuse, wellness training and financial
literacy, we strongly believe that Corps are an appropriate strategy
for dealing with the problems that Indian youth confront. We believe
that the Indian Youth Corps will enable Native American youth to
benefit from this strategy at a far larger scale than ever before.
In our conception of the Indian Youth Corps, tribes and communities
will operate their own Corps, recruit their own youth and young adults,
and determine their own service projects. We look forward to working
with you, and Senator Udall, to ensure that a strong Indian Youth Corps
program is included in the final version Public Lands Service Corps
legislation.
service and conservation corps
History
Service and Conservation Corps are direct descendents of the
Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) that provided work and
vocational training for unemployed single young men by conserving and
developing the country's natural resources. Between 1933 and 1942 when
it was disbanded, the CCC employed almost 3.5 million men who planted
an estimated 2.5 billion trees, protected 40 million acres of farmland
from erosion, drained 248,000 acres of swamp land, replanted almost a
million acres of grazing land, built 125,000 miles of roads, fought
fires, and created 800 State parks and 52,000 acres of campgrounds. But
the biggest legacy of the CCC may have been the hope it provided both
the young men and their families.
Today
Modern Service and Conservation Corps reengage disconnected young
people by providing them with opportunities to continue their
education, obtain life and job skills, gain experience working in
teams, and connect with the workforce. Corps look forward to making the
most of the Public Lands Service Corps to advance the skills and
experience of young people, help them create much-needed improvements
on public lands, conduct conservation initiatives, develop a greater
appreciation for our natural heritage, become effective stewards of our
public lands, and become more civically engaged.
Each year dozens of Corps engage thousands of young people in
service on public lands by working on backlogged projects for federal
land management agencies. Such projects--similar to those worked on by
the original Civilian Conservation Corps--include trail maintenance,
tree planting, invasive species removal, and wildfire mitigation. Many
Corpsmembers choose to pursue careers in land management following
their terms of service. With Public Lands Corps Service Act funding,
Corps can prepare a new, much more diverse generation of federal land
management employees, at a time when a full 38 percent of the
Department of the Interior's workforce is due to retire in 2012.
Today's Corps are a proven strategy for giving young men and women,
many of whom are economically or otherwise disadvantaged and out-of-
work and/or out-of-school, the chance to have a positive impact on
their own lives, their communities, and the environment.
In the Corps model, Corpsmembers are organized into crews of six to
10 people to carry out labor-intensive service projects while being
guided by adult leaders who serve as mentors and role models as well as
technical trainers and supervisors. In return for their efforts to
restore and strengthen their communities, Corpsmembers receive: 1) a
living allowance; 2) classroom training to improve basic competencies
and, if necessary, to secure a GED or high school diploma; 3)
experiential and environmental service-learning based education; 4)
generic and technical skills training; and 5) a wide range of
supportive services. Those Corpsmembers who are co-enrolled in
AmeriCorps are also eligible to receive a Segal Education Award upon
the completion of their service.
Most importantly, these young men and women learn to value their
personal contribution, and the importance of teamwork. They experience
the recognition and pride that comes from making a positive investment
in their community. Like the Depression-era CCC, they leave their Corps
with the tools to achieve a better, more prosperous, and more
productive future.
A Research-Supported Strategy
In February 1997, Abt Associates published a groundbreaking study,
funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service, on the
value of youth Corps. The study, ``Youth Corps: Promising Practices for
Young People and Their Communities'' used rigorous multi-site random
assignment methodology to document key outcomes, including:
Significant employment and earning gains accrued to young
people who join a Corps;
Positive outcomes that are particularly striking for young
African-American men;
A reduction in arrest rates among all Corpsmembers by more
than one-third; and
A reduction in the number of unplanned pregnancies among
female Corpsmembers.
The study concludes that, ``Youth Corps are rare among youth-
serving programs in their ability to demonstrate significant and
positive impacts on participants.''
the need
According to the National Parks Conservation Association, the
National Park System has an annual operating shortfall estimated at
$750 million and a maintenance backlog of approximately $9 billion.
Parks are underfunded and managers are asked to do more with less.
The National Park system would not be the only beneficiary of the
Public Lands Service Corps. The Department of Agriculture's National
Forest System, with lands in 42 States and Puerto Rico, also faces a
backlog estimated at $280 million in deferred trail maintenance work.
In addition, according to the House Appropriations Committee, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has ``an extensive legacy of old
mining, oil, and wildfire rehabilitation needs and deferred maintenance
for offices, work centers, and visitor facilities. Much of this work is
considered `Green Jobs', as it involves habitat restoration, abandoned
mine land repair, native plant restoration, and retrofitting
buildings.'' The estimated backlog of deferred maintenance and
construction needs in the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish
Hatcheries is $3 billion. The backlog includes capital improvements
focusing on safety, energy efficiency, and habitat infrastructure.
A larger Public Lands Service Corps can be widely deployed to help
reduce this backlog. The energy, focus, and commitment that motivated
the original CCC can now be brought to bear on today's problems:
Corpsmembers do fuels reduction, remove invasive species, rehabilitate
campgrounds and deteriorating structures throughout our national parks
and forests, renovate and maintain historic, cultural, and
archeological sites, and help conduct natural and cultural resource
management, science and research projects. Adding thousands of
additional service opportunities on our public lands would have a
significant impact on the maintenance backlog in the Park Service and
the Forest Service, in other agencies, and on other projects.
the public lands corps
Background and Examples
For nearly three decades Service and Conservation Corps have worked
in partnership with land management agencies to accomplish important
work on public lands. Together, they have introduced young people to
the great outdoors and provided them with various education and
economic opportunities.
Presently, The Department of the Interior agencies spend between
$5-6 million on nearly 200 PLC projects with corps annually. This
investment in turn, supports nearly 600 Corpmembers. Because Corps also
recruit and manage unpaid volunteers from the local communities, much
more work is actually being supported.
PLC crews do everything from building trails and wheelchair
accessible facilities to providing visitor services and environmental
education to local school children. In recent years, due to an
intentional focus on wildland fire mitigation, many crews have done a
significant amount of hazardous fuels reduction, invasive species
removal, and habitat restoration. Some specific examples of these
projects include:
The Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC),--which is headquartered in
Taos, NM and enrolls nearly 150 at-risk youth annually, has a long-
standing partnership with Carson National Forest. Through the
Collaborative Forestry Restoration Program (CFRP), a pilot program
designed to involve citizens in the management and care of national
forests, 30 RMYC Corpmembers recently completed a three-year project to
thin 150 acres in Carson Forest to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire, making the area safer for area homes and residents. During
the project, Corpsmembers received many hours of training and received
various certifications, such as chain saw certification. Many of these
young people, who were formerly high school drop outs and headed down
the wrong path, will go on to careers in forestry.
This past summer alone, the Wyoming Conservation Corps, housed
within the School of Environment and Natural Resources at the
University of Wyoming, engaged more than 40 young people to clear Pine
Bark Beetle kill from Medicine Bow National Forest to make trails and
campgrounds safe for visitor use. Following their experience with WCC,
many of these young people expressed an interest in pursuing careers in
land and natural resource management.
In Oregon, the Northwest Youth Corps (NYC) works in Crater Lake
National Park. Over the summer, NYC placed three crews of 11
crewmembers each in Crater Lake National Park for three-week spikes.
During the spikes, Corpsmembers did maintenance on 3.9 miles of trail
and built 40 drainage structures. Overall, in 2008, NYC crews completed
projects for partners including 51 Forest Service Ranger Districts,
five BLM Districts, five National Parks, and two USFWS Refuges.
For over 15 years, the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) has
partnered with Olympic National Park on a variety of fire abatement
activities. Each year, WCC crews remove hundreds of downed old growth
trees in an effort to reduce fire fuels and increase access.
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) has a dedicated 18-person
fire crew that partners with Whiskey Town National Park located outside
of Redding, CA. For eight years, under the guidance and training of the
National Park Service, this crew has performs controlled burns, removed
hazardous fuels and cuts fuel breaks.
The Southwest Conservation Corps (SCC) based in Durango, CO, works
with Mesa Verde National Park on wildfire mitigation. Mesa Verde has a
significant history of wildfire, especially in recent years. When the
Park needed assistance in removing hazardous fuels from key areas in
advance of the Park's 100th anniversary celebration, the entire SCC
crew received 40 hour chainsaw training and certification. Corpsmembers
also received S130/S190 Introduction to Wildland Firefighting at the
conclusion of their four-month term of service to prepare them for
obtaining jobs in the wildland fire management industry.
The Coconino Rural Environment Corps (CREC), based in Flagstaff,
AZ, thins hundreds of acres of federal, State, county, city, and
private lands every year. Much of this wood is then turned over to
local Native American communities for firewood.
The Alaska Service Corps (ASC) was tasked with a weeklong invasive
removal project in one of Alaska's premiere National Parks, Wrangell
St. Elias. The ASC crew help eradicate White Sea Clover & other
invasive plants from key areas near the Slana Visitor Center. The ASC
crews' efforts allow native plants opportunities to reseed and enhance
the experience for residents and tourists.
The Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC), based in Grand
Junction, Colorado, has been actively involved in Tamarisk removal for
several years. The WCCC has partnered with the Colorado State Parks
Department and the State Division of Wildlife, the Audubon Society, and
the Tamarisk Coalition to control acres of Tamarisk and Russian Olive,
Hounds Tongue, Canada Thistle and other species, as well as 15 miles of
Salsafy, Russian Thistle, and Storks Bill.
The Need for Expansion
Estimates of the backlog on public lands now reach up to $8
billion. At the same time, many among the current generation of public
lands agency professionals, from the boomer generation, are nearing
retirement age.
Today's young people don't lack for potential. They want to give
back. The desire to serve, probably also stimulated by a weak economy,
is greater than ever. The Southwest Conservation Corps, which received
20 applications a week in 2008, today is receiving 100 applications a
week. The Coconino Rural Environment Corps is getting three to five
times more applications than it has spaces available. Some of the
interest is the result of high unemployment-but some is the desire to
do work that makes a positive difference for communities and the
environment.
S.1442 recognizes the need to offer opportunities to those young
people, as well as to those who are part of the high school dropout
epidemic. Nearly one-half of minority students and almost one-third of
all public high school students fail to graduate with their class.
Research strongly suggests that public lands opportunities can make a
significant difference for these young people.
A groundbreaking report in 2006, The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives
of High School Dropouts, showed that dropouts wanted ``real world
opportunities'' and a more challenging curriculum to keep them engaged
in school. A follow up study, Engaged for Success, showed that students
believed service learning would keep potential dropouts engaged in
school. Our public lands can provide such experiences for students in
underperforming districts.
Engaging these young people, many of them from minority
communities, can be a way to help to diversify public lands personnel,
to develop the ethic of stewardship among these populations, and to
attract larger numbers of minorities as visitors, enabling them to
embrace their natural patrimony.
conclusion
The Public Land Service Corps Act would enable more youth to serve
and learn on more public lands, reduce the backlog of deferred
maintenance projects, and help prepare our public lands for the 21st
century.
Meanwhile, the Corpsmembers could, in turn, utilize their practical
experience and the expanded non-competitive hiring authority contained
in this bill to pursue careers in land management--thus building and
diversifying the next generation of the resource management workforce.
The Public Lands Service Corps is a win-win-win situation. It is a
win for our public lands, for the youth who will serve on them and love
and protect them, and a win for our nation as it turns new generations
into productive and engaged citizens.
In July, 1940, James J. McEntee, the Director of the Civilian
Conservation Corps summed up its accomplishments by saying, ``Since it
was organized in April, 1933, the Corps has made men out of hundreds of
thousands of undernourished, underdeveloped and inexperienced
youngsters . . . the Corps has toughened them physically, taught them
work skills, improved their morale, and taught them love and respect
for their country and its government.'' We believe that the Public
Lands Service Corps can do the same for future generations of young
people.
The entire Corps Network reiterates its strong support for S. 1442.
We look forward to working with you to see it enacted into law.