[Senate Hearing 115-350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-350
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPORTANT TO FEDERAL
LANDS, RECREATION, WATER, AND RESOURCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2017
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-975 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Colin Hayes, Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
Policy Director
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 1
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Washington..................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Argust, Marcia, Director, Restore America's Parks campaign, The
Pew Charitable Trusts.......................................... 60
Bonar, Bob, President, Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort, and
Chairman, National Ski Areas Association's Public Lands
Committee...................................................... 72
Simmons, Jill, Executive Director, Washington Trails Association. 82
Spears, David B., President, Association of American State
Geologists..................................................... 89
Treese, Chris, Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River Water
Conservation District, and Board Member, National Water
Resources Association.......................................... 93
Worsley, Bradley, President, Novo Power, LLC..................... 106
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
American Rivers, et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 200
Argust, Marcia:
Opening Statement............................................ 60
Written Testimony............................................ 63
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 135
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 203
Bonar, Bob:
Opening Statement............................................ 72
Written Testimony............................................ 75
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 175
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Report dated
November 2016 entitled ``Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends:
Effects on Economic Opportunities''........................ 4
Chart entitled ``2012 Economic contributions of visitor
spending for recreation on federal lands and water (2012
dollars)''................................................. 58
(The) Corps Network:
Letter for the Record........................................ 206
(The) Mountain Pact:
Letter for the Record........................................ 211
Attachments:
Cover Letter to Congressional Leadership (Hon. Mitch
McConnell, Hon. Chuck Schumer, Hon. Paul Ryan, and Hon.
Nancy Pelosi).......................................... 214
Letter to President Donald Trump and Hon. Ryan Zinke..... 215
Opinion dated February 3, 2017, in the Denver Business
Journal entitled ``Outdoor Rec Act gives boost to major
Colorado industry''.................................... 217
Article by Richard Hildner dated February 20, 2017, in
the Missoulian entitled ``Outdoor REC Act a lifeline
for Whitefish''........................................ 219
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency:
Letter to Hon. Mark Amodei........................... 221
Letter to Hon. Dean Heller........................... 222
Letter to Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto................ 223
Letter to Hon. Tom McClintock........................ 224
Letter to Hon. Kamala Harris......................... 225
Letter to Hon. Dianne Feinstein...................... 226
Town of Truckee (California):
Letter to Hon. Kamala Harris......................... 227
Letter to Hon. Tom McClintock........................ 229
Letter to Hon. Dianne Feinstein...................... 230
Town of Mammoth Lakes (California):
Letter to Hon. Paul Cook............................. 231
Letter to Hon. Dianne Feinstein...................... 232
Letter to Hon. Kamala Harris......................... 233
City of Aspen (Colorado):
Letter to Hon. Scott Tipton.......................... 234
Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet........................ 235
Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner.......................... 236
Town of Buena Vista (Colorado):
Letter to Hon. Doug Lamborn.......................... 237
Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet........................ 238
Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner.......................... 239
Town of Estes Park (Colorado):
Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet........................ 240
Letter to Hon. Jared Polis........................... 241
Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner.......................... 242
Town of Ridgway (Colorado):
Letter to Hon. Scott Tipton.......................... 243
Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet........................ 244
Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner.......................... 245
Town of Telluride (Colorado):
Letter to Hon. Scott Tipton.......................... 246
Letter to Hon. Michael Bennet........................ 247
Letter to Hon. Cory Gardner.......................... 248
Village of Taos Ski Valley (New Mexico):
Letter to Hon. Martin Heinrich....................... 249
Letter to Hon. Ben Lujan............................. 250
Letter to Hon. Tom Udall............................. 251
City of Bend (Oregon):
Letter to Hon. Greg Walden........................... 252
Letter to Hon. Jeff Merkley.......................... 253
Letter to Hon. Ron Wyden............................. 254
Town of Alta (Utah):
Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch........................ 255
Letter to Hon. Jason Chaffetz........................ 256
Letter to Hon. Mike Lee.............................. 257
Teton County (Wyoming):
Letter to Hon. John Barrasso......................... 258
Letter to Hon. Michael Enzi.......................... 259
Letter to Hon. Liz Cheney............................ 260
City of Leavenworth (Washington):
Letter to Hon. Patty Murray.......................... 261
Letter to Hon. Maria Cantwell........................ 262
Letter to Hon. Dave Reichert......................... 263
Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust:
Letter for the Record........................................ 264
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
National Ground Water Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 266
National Trust for Historic Preservation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 267
National Wildlife Federation:
Email for the Record......................................... 273
Attachment:
Alabama Wildlife Federation, et al.:
Letter to President Donald Trump..................... 275
Ormat Technologies, Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 278
Outdoor Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 280
Outdoor Industry Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 285
Poseidon Water LLC:
Letter for the Record........................................ 289
Rieman, Jerimiah L.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 293
Simmons, Jill:
Opening Statement............................................ 82
Written Testimony............................................ 84
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 179
Spears, David B.:
Opening Statement............................................ 89
Written Testimony............................................ 91
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 183
Treese, Chris:
Opening Statement............................................ 93
Written Testimony............................................ 95
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 190
Trout Unlimited:
Letter for the Record........................................ 322
Worsley, Bradley:
Opening Statement............................................ 106
Written Testimony............................................ 108
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 196
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPORTANT TO
FEDERAL LANDS, RECREATION, WATER,
AND RESOURCES
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
come to order.
We are here today to continue our discussion about
infrastructure. We had a good hearing last week and, I think,
gained a lot of good insight.
Today's look is a little bit different. We are going to be
focusing on infrastructure that is beneficial to our federal
lands, to our waters and to the people and the communities that
rely on them.
Infrastructure in this context means everything from trails
for hikers and bikers, to sawmills and biomass facilities to
process timber and slash from overgrown, fire-prone, federal
forests. It also means water projects to control floods,
deliver water to communities and store water to protect against
drought, something that, of course, is on all of our minds here
in the midst of Water Week 2017. It also means mineral
development as federal lands can provide everything from the
sand and gravel for roads to the trails as well but to the rare
earths and other metals found in solar panels, electric
vehicles and countless other technologies. It also means the
infrastructure on our federal lands that is critical to the
visitor experience but that our land management agencies have
often failed to maintain according to schedule. The sewer and
water systems, the roads, the buildings, the trails that all
need work and repair. We call it the deferred maintenance
backlog. And it is staggering.
The National Park Service backlog has now grown to nearly
$12 billion, the Forest Service backlog is over $5 billion, and
the Bureau of Reclamation has a backlog of over $3 billion in
maintenance needs. This is significant, and I don't think that
any of us should kid ourselves. The backlog, in order to truly
and meaningfully address it, is going to take real dollars to
resolve. But whether we are talking about aging infrastructure
on federal lands or looking to build something new to respond
to a community need or visitor demand, Congressional
appropriations alone are not going to be enough. So, what else
do we do?
This is the reason we have asked you to join us this
morning. Leveraging private dollars and capacity through
public/private partnerships is absolutely necessary in these
tough budget times. I think it can be a win/win for both the
Federal Government and rural, regional economies.
We should also remember that infrastructure is not just a
matter of dollars. It is also about cutting the regulatory red
tape that often holds projects back and adds to their costs. We
had a great deal of that discussion in last week's hearing,
talking about the uncertainty that with certain focus on
regulation and overlay and overlap, that adds uncertainty to a
process and certainly cost to a process as well.
How we might be able to address that, again, is something
that I would hope to elicit in today's discussion.
When we talk about the regulatory red tape and those things
that do hold projects back and add to the cost, we have seen
the need for this in mining, water projects, community-
supported forest thinning projects, timber sales and new
recreation uses--just about, really, everywhere. Everywhere you
look is an issue that relates to the regulation.
The take away is that navigating the current maze of
congressional statutes, federal regulations, administrative
directions, executive orders, secretarial memos and court
decisions, is a mine field. And it is not necessarily for the
faint at heart. We need to do better.
I think we owe it to our Western and our rural communities
and the people who live near and depend on federal lands for
their livelihoods to do better. We need to do better for the
next generation so they too can experience the world class,
outdoor recreation system that generations before them have
enjoyed.
As I said, last week our Committee began to address the
infrastructure challenges within our jurisdiction through the
bipartisan energy bill that Senator Cantwell and I led on last
year, as well as our wildfire and forest management discussion
draft and other legislation that came from this Committee. Know
that we will work to build on that through our infrastructure
hearings. When Congress is ready to consider an infrastructure
package, our Committee will be ready to make a serious
contribution to it. This is an important subject.
I thank our witnesses for being here to discuss this with
us. I also want to recognize and acknowledge our newest
Committee member, Senator Strange, from the great State of
Louisiana.
Senator Strange. Alabama.
The Chairman. Alabama. You are sitting at the end there.
It's that southern accent.
[Laughter.]
Even though he sits at the end of this broad dais here, he
has much to contribute on these matters that are so important
in the energy sector and for the overall strength of our
nation's economy.
It is good to have you as part of the Committee.
Senator Strange. Thank you, I am honored to serve with you
on the Committee.
The Chairman. Fabulous.
With that, I will turn to Senator Cantwell for your opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am excited about today's hearing and to hear from the
witnesses, because infrastructure to support our recreation
economy is a very important subject.
Before I get started, I wanted to acknowledge the witness,
Jill Simmons. Thank you for coming here to testify and welcome
as the newest Director of the Washington Trails Association.
That is a very important organization in our state, and I thank
you for the amazing work that they do.
When it comes to our recreation economy, a report released
at the end of last year by the Forest Service's Pacific
Northwest Research Station, showed that in one year outdoor
recreationists made more than 938 million visits to federal
lands, spending $51 billion and supporting 880,000 jobs. That
is just the federal land piece of the $646 billion outdoor
recreation economy.
The report goes on to forecast increased participation in
recreation activities on federal lands in the future and
describes how these lands have encouraged businesses to locate
in adjacent communities. Unfortunately, the report also
discusses how the current infrastructure deficit and needs on
federal lands are constraining our recreation use.
Madam Chair, I would like to enter that USDA report into
the record today, if I could, in full.
The Chairman. It will be included.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cantwell. Investing in infrastructure is key for
maintaining and growing our economy, and this is one of the
most basic areas where we can grow jobs. I thought that
President Trump and the Republicans and Democrats in the
Congress can agree on that, that we need a budget proposal that
will help us do that.
Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the
President's proposed budget. Today my colleagues and I are
sending a letter to the President detailing how devastating the
Interior and Forest Service budget would be to infrastructure
and the infrastructure jobs that we need.
It is ironic that we are gathered to discuss investing in
infrastructure at the very time we are seeing a budget that
kind of abandons that concept. The President's budget
shortchanges the National Park Service, slashes the Land and
Water Conservation Fund to its lowest level in 40 years, it
cuts key tribal infrastructure programs, reduces PILT (the
Payments In Lieu of Taxes program), makes no mention of the
Secure Rural Schools program, and contains no plausible fix for
fire borrowing, that my colleague, Senator Murkowski, just
mentioned that we worked so hard on.
Let's just look at PILT and Secure Rural Schools. It
highlights that we need to have progress made on these issues.
We cannot claim to be saving money for an infrastructure
package by taking money away from the infrastructure needs of
states. Whether that's in counties who have to fund their
schools in rural areas or increase access in communities or do
road work, we need to work together to resolve these problems.
The issue is fundamentally about making investments in our
economy, particularly for jobs. We need to be looking at the
sectors that are the biggest contributors to the economy.
Certainly, the biggest contributor or ``bang for the buck'' is
the recreation economy and what we've been able to accomplish.
People spend $646 billion a year in the U.S. outdoor
recreation economy, and it is one of the largest industries in
the country, directly employing six million Americans. In
Washington State, there are 227,000 people directly employed in
the outdoor recreation economy.
Recreation in the parks helps us support 300,000 jobs, and
visitors spent an estimated $16.9 billion in gateway
communities last year. And last year during the Centennial
anniversary of the National Park Service, a record 331 million
people visited our parks, a seven percent increase over the
previous year.
Recreation in our national forests provides 194,000 jobs.
That is about 40 percent of the national forests' contribution
to the GDP, so it's a very important part of our forest system.
I know the Chair and I discussed these issues and would
like to have more influence over many of these issues, as it
relates to the Forest Service.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We have invited the ski industry areas association here
today because I don't know that members of the public
understand how much they also contribute to the economy. Each
year people spend $4 billion recreating at these resorts, and
the primary reason listed for 16 percent of the visits to
national forests last year was skiing and snowboarding.
Washington has amazing ski places. We have ten different ski
areas on our national forests and they generate a lot for our
economy.
We need Congress to significantly increase the investment
in our national parks, our forest lands, and other public
lands. Yet, with the 12 percent budget cut proposed by the
President, the National Park Service and other land management
agencies will likely fall further and further behind in
maintenance.
It is well known that the Park Service total deferred
maintenance backlog is almost $12 billion. This figure reflects
the failure of Congress to keep pace with the infrastructure
needs. It has been estimated the Park Service needs over $800
million each year just to keep the maintenance backlog from
getting any larger, yet the annual appropriations rarely meet
60 percent of that which means the backlog continues to grow.
It is a similar story on our national forests. A GAO report
issued last year detailed the dire condition of the Forest
Service's trails systems. Trails are essential and must
continue to be invested in, but less than 25 percent of the
Forest Service's trails are up to the Agency's standard for
safety and use. Thousands of hours are performed by volunteer
crews, like Jill's, and they more than exceed every federal
dollar going in, with a $1.60 local match. But we, on the
federal side, need to do more.
We need to address, as the Chair mentioned too, rural
communities and headwater issues while making investments for
recreation on public lands. Much of our country's water
infrastructure is aging and in need of repair. My colleague
from Michigan is here and obviously, the failure in Flint,
Michigan, and recent failures at the Oroville Dam in California
have brought national attention to the state of our water
supply system. As this infrastructure is aging and communities
in the agriculture sector face challenges in meeting those
water needs we must invest in ways to improve our business and
our capacity. This means investing in more collaborative
planning like the Yakima Basin and improving water
conservation, recycling, groundwater storage and recovery.
Investing in our water infrastructure and our public lands
is all about jobs. I hope, Madam Chair, if there is any
infrastructure bill that moves this year, that it will include
these issues (our outdoor economy and water) as part of that.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses
today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. I appreciate
your comments and, again, the reminder how much, really, when
you think about the economic impact that we see on our federal
lands, comes from the recreation side. I know that I,
personally, contribute in ways that are helpful.
[Laughter.]
Whether it is trails or being able to ski or just being
outside.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here this
morning. We appreciate the travel that it takes but also your
commitment, not only to being here this morning, but for the
work that you do.
We will have the panel led off by Marcia Argust, who is the
Director for Restore America's Parks campaign. She is with The
Pew Charitable Trusts here in Washington.
She will be followed by Mr. Bob Bonar. Mr. Bonar is the
President of Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort. He is also the
Chairman for the National Ski Areas Association Public Lands
Committee from Snowbird, Utah, a lovely place. We appreciate
you being here.
Ms. Simmons has been introduced a little bit by Senator
Cantwell here as the Executive Director for the Washington
Trails Association. It is nice to have you here, Jill.
David Spears is the President of the Association of
American State Geologists from Virginia. Thank you for joining
us.
Mr. Chris Treese is the External Affairs Manager for the
Colorado River District from Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Welcome to the Committee.
The last member of our panel this morning is Mr. Brad
Worsley, who is the President of Novo Power, from Snowflake,
Arizona. I think we recognize Snowflake from one of our
Committee members. We are pleased to have you here as well.
I would ask that you limit your comments to five minutes.
Your full statements will be included as part of the record,
but that will provide us an opportunity to ask questions at the
conclusion of your remarks.
We will begin with Ms. Argust and just go straight down the
table here.
Welcome and good morning.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA ARGUST, DIRECTOR, RESTORE AMERICA'S PARKS
CAMPAIGN, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS
Ms. Argust. Thanks.
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of
the Committee, thanks for hosting the hearing today and
inviting me. I'd like to submit my full written testimony for
the record.
I'm Marcia Argust with the Restore America's Parks program
at The Pew Charitable Trusts. We're working to implement common
sense solutions to address the deferred maintenance challenge
facing the National Park System. Infrastructure, as mentioned,
is part of that challenge.
The Park Service maintains 10,000 miles of roads, 18,000
miles of trails, more than 24,000 buildings, many of which are
historic, and 2,000 sewage systems, many of them which are in
Yellowstone Park. It cares for waterfronts and marinas, former
military installations, campgrounds and iconic monuments. In
total, the agency is responsible for protecting 75,000 assets,
41,000 of which need infrastructure repairs.
And as we've noted, as you've noted, the assets require
$11.9 billion to fix them. The Park Service is struggling to
keep pace with these repairs for a number of reasons: aging
facilities, unfair transportation cost burdens, pressures due
to increased visitation and decreasing maintenance budgets,
with the exception of the Centennial budget.
Our parks preserve our history and natural resources. They
provide unmatched recreation, and they serve as economic
engines. For all these reasons and more, restoring park
infrastructure is a smart investment and it has potential to
create jobs.
Reduction of the backlog will require multiple approaches.
I'd like to highlight a few ideas here. We absolutely need
reliable, annual appropriations and dedicated funding as well
as adequate staff capacity. A more realistic funding approach
to Park Service transportation costs must also be considered.
Half of the backlog, $6 billion, is due to transportation
needs. Some of the most costly park road projects are parkways
that have become major commuter routes. This is simply
unsustainable.
While Congressional funding is key, we also need to be
encouraging public/private partnerships to address the backlog.
For example, job training can repair infrastructure. The
Concrete Preservation Institute is an example of this. It's a
non-profit organization that's partnering with DoD and the Park
Service to do 12 weeks of construction skills training for
soon-to-be discharged military personnel, and it's having them
work on deferred maintenance projects on historic assets in
parks. Construction firms then hire the alumni when they've
completed their training and their military service. This
program is currently only in two parks, but they'd like to
expand. They simply don't have the capacity. Foundations,
businesses and philanthropists should be lining up to engage in
this program and we should be encouraging that.
Pew also supports opportunities for appropriate corporate
partnerships. In Yellowstone National Park, Toyota Yellowstone
Forever and the National Park Service has partnered to
sustainably power a remote field station by repurposing hybrid
vehicle car batteries and solar panels. Previously the station
relied on polluting diesel and propane generators. This is the
type of innovative corporate collaboration we should be
encouraging to address deferred maintenance.
Another corporate example is that with the Park Service and
Musco Lighting. At Mount Rushmore, Musco Lighting enabled the
park to reduce energy consumption by 90 percent resulting in a
major cost savings for the park.
Volunteerism is another area that should be encouraged and
where modest investment can leverage more coordination and work
orders--work hours devoted toward maintenance projects. The
Park Service had over 330,000 participants contribute over one
million hours of maintenance work last year, and that
translated to a savings of $20 million to the agency.
The Student Conservation Association which uses student
crews on federal lands contributed over one million hours of
service last year. Much of the students' work is on trails in
parks, and trails have over $530 million worth of repairs
needed, as Jill might talk about.
In conclusion, repairing park infrastructure is a wise
investment. Pew urges any infrastructure proposal to
incorporate National Park maintenance provisions. This will
help to ensure visitors and nearby residents safe access to
park resources and recreation. It will also sustain the local
economies that depend on parks and it will create
infrastructure-related jobs.
Thank you, and I'm happy to address any questions later on.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Argust follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Argust.
Mr. Bonar?
STATEMENT OF BOB BONAR, PRESIDENT, SNOWBIRD SKI & SUMMER
RESORT, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION'S PUBLIC
LANDS COMMITTEE
Mr. Bonar. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of Snowbird Resort and the National Ski
Area Association on the important topic of private investment
in infrastructure on public land.
Snowbird was founded in 1971 by the late Dick Bass in
Little Cottonwood Canyon on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
in Utah. We operate on a year-round basis accommodating 480,000
skiers and snowboarder visits per year.
Snowbird has made significant capital investments on the
mountain over the past 46 years totaling $300 million. We have
plans to make significant investments in the future as well,
totaling $55 million. With the help of this Committee and our
partners in recreation, the U.S. Forest Service, we hope to be
able to make those investments and do so in an efficient and
timely manner.
I serve as Chairman of the National Ski Areas Association's
Public Lands Committee, representing the 122 ski resorts that
operate on National Forest System lands in 13 states.
Collectively, we make significant capital investment in
infrastructure, and we need Congress' help to remove
impediments to allow more investment in the future.
Public land resorts work in partnership with the Forest
Service to deliver an outdoor recreation experience unmatched
in the world. Our model public/private partnership greatly
benefits rural economies, improves the health and fitness of
millions of Americans, of all ages, promotes appreciation for
the national environment and delivers a return to the U.S.
Government through fees paid for use of the land.
Ski areas are the economic drivers in many rural
communities in which they operate and are frequently the
largest employers in these communities. Over the past five
years, the U.S. ski industry has averaged 57 million skiers/
snowboarders annually and more than half of those visits occur
on public land. In total, the ski industry, including retail
apparel/equipment, supports $62 billion in tourist-related
revenue, creates 964,000 jobs and $4.6 billion in annual retail
sales.
Ski areas are developed sites that are designated to
accommodate very large numbers of visitors. While ski areas pay
for all capital improvements onsite and the review process as
well, our improvement projects are simply not moving forward as
quickly as they used to.
I will next elaborate on the investments we are poised to
make and why this process is hamstrung and what solutions might
be applied to allow us to invest more and sooner in this much
needed infrastructure.
Ski areas are, excuse me, poised to invest in
infrastructure on public lands because of the favorable economy
that we have right now, strong skier/snowboarder visits and
great snow this year. Congress opened up authority for year-
round uses at ski areas by enacting the Ski Area Recreational
Opportunity Enhancement Act in 2011 and demand for summer
activities is sharply on the rise.
Here are some examples of typical infrastructure
improvements we're looking at at the ski resorts.
Ski areas constantly invest in lift infrastructure to
improve our guest experience and uphill capacity, more
circulation on the mountain, replacing aging lifts and to serve
new terrain. Snowbird is planning to invest in two new lifts in
the near future in Mary Ellen Gulch which will total $17
million. Like many resorts, we need to and hope to replace
older lifts totaling $12 million. Lift infrastructure
investments are critical, absolutely critical, to the future of
our businesses.
Ski areas also need to upgrade snowmaking systems to be
more consistent and reliable ski conditions, especially early
season in time for the holidays. Water facilities related to
snowmaking are also critical infrastructure. The snow that we
make with this infrastructure benefits the entire community in
winter, not just at the ski area.
Ski areas need to invest in on-mountain facilities for
guest services including rest rooms, rentals, ski schools and
dining. Last season Snowbird opened a 23,000 square foot lodge
on top of our mountain called ``the Summit'' as part of a $35
million capital improvement that took seven years to approve.
Ski areas are investing heavily in summer activities as
well, such as zip lines, rope courses, mountain coasters,
alpine slides, bike parks and other amenities. Snowbird already
has many of these amenities and facilities and is planning to
add two new zip lines soon.
There's a great potential for resorts to expand year-round
activities, but already overwhelmed agency staff now have
summer projects to approve in addition to the winter projects.
When ski areas are ready to build something and capital is
available to fund it, we need the approval process to be
predictable and move forward quickly. Unfortunately, that is
not always the case. In fact, some regions, particularly the
Pacific Northwest, face a situation where no new projects are
being considered by the Forest Service.
Mount Hood Meadows in Oregon, which is highlighted in our
written testimony, recently proposed a new $12 million lodge to
address overcrowding and current retail dining and ski school
facilities, but the application was denied. Similarly,
Timberline Lodge in Oregon proposed a project to replace an
aging lift at the resort but was denied due to lack of staff.
The upshot of having no process or slow process for ski resort
projects is that money that would be invested in infrastructure
remains sitting on the sidelines.
Even when resorts are lucky enough to get their projects
rolling in the review process, there are two major factors that
have bogged down the process. One, understaffing at the Forest
Service, and two, layers of regulation that need to be
streamlined.
The Forest Service recreation program is understaffed and
underfunded due to firefighting costs and the resulting
downsizing of jobs, among special use administrators. It has
become close to impossible to move ski area improvement
projects forward in a timely manner as there is literally no
one at the desk to move them along.
The review process should be streamlined for highly
developed sites, like ski areas, that have likely been reviewed
more than any other acres on the national forest. Replacing an
existing chair lift in the same alignment or replacing a
building in the same footprint should be covered by a categoric
exclusion, not an EIS. Incidental tree removal that occurs at
resorts in conjunction with projects should not be treated as a
full-blown timber sale. Streamlining in these areas would save
millions of dollars and benefit both the agency and the ski
industry.
So I've been saving the best news for last. There are
solutions to reduce the hurdles to private investment in
infrastructure at ski resorts. First, Congress should enact
legislation to locally retain a percentage of ski area permit
fees paid to the Forest Service and support ski area
administration, permit administration and facilitate the
approval of these projects. We want to thank Senator Wyden and
Senator Gardner for their leadership on the ski retention
legislation to date. We're looking forward to working with you
and other committee members on capturing these fees locally to
provide adequate staff and eliminate the backlog of critical
ski area infrastructure projects. Second, a team of winter
sports specialists funded by fee retention could help
streamline and expedite the NEPA review process. More CEs, less
EISs particularly when replacing lifts and buildings and less
timber process. Third, we would dramatically increase the use
of contracting in ski resort NEPA review using private sector
specialists instead of the overwhelmed Forest Service staff.
The Chairman. Mr. Bonar, can I ask you to wrap, please?
Mr. Bonar. Yes, thank you very much.
I'm finished and I thank you for the--allowing me to run
over for a couple minutes and for testimony today. Thank you. I
am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Chairman. We like the fact that we have suggestions at
the end which makes it good.
Mr. Bonar. Okay, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonar follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. It gives us something to feed off with our
questions.
Let's go to Ms. Simmons.
STATEMENT OF JILL SIMMONS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
TRAILS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Simmons. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. My name is Jill
Simmons, and I'm the Executive Director of the Washington
Trails Association, the nation's largest trail maintenance and
hiking advocacy organization.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the importance of
recreation infrastructure on federal lands. I'm here today to
talk about the risks to the economic engine of the outdoor
recreation economy, an economy that in 2013 was estimated to
generate $646 billion in consumer spending, an amount greater
than the 2015 GDP of all but six states.
The recreation economy is at risk because of decades of
chronic underinvestment in infrastructure on public lands which
will be exacerbated by the current Administration's proposed
budget that includes deep cuts to the agencies that are needed
to keep this economic engine humming.
But I'm also here to talk about some good news. There are
hundreds of organizations and thousands of volunteers who are
ready and willing to leverage increased federal investment many
times over with their sweat equity to ensure trails and other
recreation infrastructure remain available for all Americans to
enjoy.
Take my organization, for example. The Washington Trails
Association runs a trail maintenance program where last year
more than 4,700 volunteers donated 150,000 hours of their time
to maintaining trails. More than half of those hours were on
federal land, thanks to strong partnerships with the Forest
Service and the Park Service.
Just two weeks ago, I went out on one of our volunteer work
parties. Twenty volunteers worked all day to build up the tread
and improve the drainage along the trail. As you can imagine
with it being winter in the Northwest, it was wet and muddy
work but it was a lot of fun. But what impressed me the most
was the commitment of these volunteers. The 20 people I worked
with in the mud that day had collectively donated more than
5,000 days to maintaining trails. Yes, that's more than 13-1/2
years.
But volunteers cannot do it alone. Volunteer programs must
work effectively. In order for volunteer programs to work
effectively there must be adequate staffing at land management
agencies and sufficient construction and maintenance budgets.
From expertise on federal regulation to site-specific
knowledge, federal employees and their supporting budgets are
essential to the success of programs like ours.
What's more, we're helping to maintain publicly-owned
infrastructure that is increasingly in demand. Since 1977 the
number of recreation visitor days on National Forest trails has
increased 376 percent. The Forest Service has reported that
recreation is, by far, the single biggest use of the National
Forest System. And in Washington State, 54 percent of residents
report hiking every year, a number that grows to 72 percent if
you include all types of trail users, like hunters and
equestrians.
People head out on the trail for many reasons: exercise,
recreation, peace and quiet, but they all have one thing in
common. On the way to the trail and back again they support the
local, state and national economy. In fact, as I mentioned
earlier, outdoor recreation is an economic driver that should
not be ignored--employing more than six million Americans and
contributing nearly $40 billion in federal taxes and another
$40 billion in state and local taxes.
A recent study in my own home State of Washington showed
that the state's recreation economy generates $21.6 billion in
annual consumer spending and $2 billion in state and local tax
revenue. At a time when visitation to our public lands is at an
all-time high, federal trail maintenance backlogs run in the
hundreds of millions of dollars. A 2013 GAO report found that
the Forest Service has only been able to maintain 25 percent of
its trails to agency standards.
Without trails to draw them in, people won't have a reason
to stop at the local restaurant or the gas stations that are
scattered throughout gateway communities across the United
States. Chronic underinvestment cannot continue if we want to
keep the recreation economy growing.
I believe that enhanced federal funding and creative
partnerships are key to reducing the infrastructure backlog on
federal lands. Washington Trails Association has been working
for nearly 25 years to maintain trails. We stretch tax dollars,
donating more than $3 million in volunteer labor annually.
The American people are demonstrating year over year that
we want to use our lands for hiking and outdoor recreation.
Washington Trails Association and the many partner
organizations we work with stand ready to leverage federal
investment with the hard work of our volunteers. The people who
use and love our nation's trails want to partner with you to
keep our public lands available for everyone to enjoy.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and I
look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simmons follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Simmons.
Mr. Spears, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SPEARS, PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS
Mr. Spears. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
Cantwell and members of the Committee. My name is David Spears,
and I am President of the Association of American State
Geologists. Our members are the chief executives of the state
geological surveys. Every one of your states has a geological
survey, either in an Executive Branch agency or in a state
university.
Like the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), our activities are
focused on geologic and topographic mapping, identification and
assessment of mineral, energy and water resources and the
reduction of risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
volcanoes and landslides. We collaborate closely with the USGS
on these topics, often through cooperative programs such as the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National
Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program. We are
proud of the positive impact our activities have had on our
nation's economic prosperity, national security and
environmental protection.
We're here today to talk about infrastructure, and no input
is more essential to infrastructure than minerals. And I'm
using the term ``minerals'' broadly to include all non-fuel
mineral materials such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, metals
and industrial minerals. These are the raw materials essential
to building almost anything.
Road construction and maintenance require large quantities
of crushed stone for the road base and then either asphalt or
concrete for the road surface. Constructing just one mile of
two-lane highway requires between 20,000 and 40,000 tons of
sand, gravel and crushed stone.
According to the United Nations, ``Sand and gravel
represent the highest volume of raw material used on earth
after water.'' These materials have a relatively low unit
price, but because they are bulky, transporting them is
expensive; therefore, having adequate supplies available
locally is important to the economy of every community.
Constructing bridges, trails, buildings, airports, power
plants and water infrastructure requires limestone and
aggregate for concrete, clay for bricks, copper for wiring and
steel for framing, along with other minerals for paint,
fixtures, pipes and appliances. And with changing technology,
demand for new mineral commodities is growing.
We've all heard about the rare-earth elements which are
essential for cell phones, solar panels, electric vehicles,
wind turbines and military applications. Currently, the U.S. is
100 percent reliant on imports for these rare-earth elements.
According to the USGS, in 2016 there were 20 essential mineral
commodities on which the U.S. was 100 percent import-reliant,
and the largest supplier of minerals imported to the U.S. was
China.
Much of our nation's mineral production comes from federal
lands, especially in the West. Potash for fertilizer is
produced from federal land in Utah. Lithium for batteries is
produced from federal lands in Nevada. Metals such as copper
and gold are mined in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and Montana. And
these are just a few examples of the dozens of mineral
commodities contributed to the U.S. economy by federally-owned
land. According to USGS, the value of non-fuel mineral raw
materials produced in the U.S. in 2016 was nearly $75 billion,
and these raw materials, combined with domestically recycled
materials, were consumed by downstream industries to produce
products worth an estimated $2.78 trillion.
The primary source of information about the location and
quantity of mineral materials for infrastructure is geologic
mapping. Geologic maps also help reduce infrastructure costs by
identifying landslides, sinkholes and otherwise unstable ground
which should be avoided early in the planning stages of
construction. State and federal geoscience agencies have
produced geologic maps to cover about half of the U.S. at a
level of detail sufficient for making wise land-use decisions,
but large data gaps remain.
Airborne data-collection technologies such as magnetics,
radiometrics, gravity and LiDAR are helping to expand our
knowledge of the nation's geology and are leveraging investment
in ``boots-on-the-ground'' geologic mapping and physical
sampling. Detailed mapping enables smart decisions on which
lands to protect and which lands to develop.
In summary, expanding and maintaining our nation's
infrastructure will require minerals. Responsibly managing our
mineral resources, reducing reliance on imports and reducing
the risk of natural hazards will require cooperation between
state and federal geological surveys to fill the significant
gaps in our current knowledge. Investment in infrastructure
will require investment in geology.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spears follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Spears.
Mr. Treese?
STATEMENT OF CHRIS TREESE, MANAGER, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, COLORADO
RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL
WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Treese. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cantwell, Senator
Gardner, always a pleasure. Members of the Committee, thank you
for the invitation and the opportunity to visit with you today.
Senator Gardner. Welcome.
Mr. Treese. My name is Chris Treese. I am representing my
employer, the Colorado River Water Conservation District. We're
responsible for the protection and development of the Colorado
River for both Western Colorado and the state. I also have the
distinct honor today of also representing the National Water
Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance. Both
organizations that represent and advocate for reliable water
supplies and wise water use by and for farmers, ranchers,
municipalities and industry throughout the West.
I commend the Committee for your timing of this hearing
coinciding with Water Week 2017 and tomorrow being World Water
Day, both highlighting the universal importance of water.
I want to begin by recognizing Reclamation's historic
investments in water storage and delivery, in fulfillment of
its mission to settle the West and make the deserts blue. Today
it may be tempting to let Reclamation declare victory and tell
them their work here is done; however, Reclamation and all the
federal agencies have been good partners with Western water
providers and must continue in this partnership role, albeit
with a refocused mission.
Western water providers are anxious to pursue new water
supply options. New investment is required in water conveyance,
surface water storage, aquifer storage and recovery, new
wastewater technologies, water reuse, desalination and broad
efficiency and conservation measures.
However, we must concurrently ensure maintenance of our
existing but aging infrastructure. A Family Farm Alliance 2015
study found that irrigated agriculture contributes $172 billion
to total household income annually just in the Western U.S.,
yet this economic force is at risk from an aging
infrastructure. Nearly all of Reclamation's irrigation projects
are more than 50 years old, and many have already celebrated
their centennials.
Our organizations believe federal infrastructure investment
must not be limited to traditional brick and mortar. To
maximize multiple benefits and produce the greatest return on
investment, federal infrastructure investments must include
capital maintenance and rehabilitation for aging
infrastructure, integrated planning, forest management,
watershed protections and system-wide efficiency and
conservation measures.
My written testimony includes additional examples of the
scale and variety of financing of opportunities as well as
innovative financing measures necessary to preserve and advance
Western water infrastructure. I want to stress that the water
community is already partnered with the Federal Government to
realize the shared goals of a stable and sustainable water
supply.
Regarding potential legislation, we encourage Congress to
include water infrastructure in any infrastructure legislation,
to maintain the tax exempt status of municipal bonds, maximize
the use of and fully fund state revolving funds, target funding
increases for Reclamation and the Army Corps for existing
programs assisting water supply development, addressing aging
infrastructure, meeting rural water development needs and
increasing drought resiliency, fully fund the WIFIA and last
year's WIIN Act, expand Reclamation's WaterSMART grant program
and explore simpler processes for transferring title of federal
projects to local agencies that have been repaying and managing
those operations.
And finally, I'd like to echo the Chair and Ranking
Member's recognition of the need for improved forest management
and resolution of so-called fire borrowing. Our national
forests are the primary source of water for the vast majority
of the West. Healthy and resilient forests are required for a
safe and sustainable water supply.
Members, we stand on the shoulders of past generations'
investment in infrastructure. Now it's our responsibility to
invest in the infrastructure for future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I
look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Treese follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Treese. We appreciate your
comments.
Mr. Worsley, welcome.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY WORSLEY, PRESIDENT,
NOVO POWER, LLC
Mr. Worsley. Thank you, Senators. And my name is Brad
Worsley. I'm the President and CEO of Novo Power.
Biomass is very personal to me. In late 2000, my family
completed the construction of a multi-generational home in the
beautiful mountains of Northern Arizona. In 2002, the Rodeo
Chedeski fire ravished over half a million acres of that forest
burning it to the ground, included in which was the acres where
our family home was built.
This disaster, followed by the Wallow fire just eight years
later, highlighted a need for action. So we became educated on
the subject. We procured a census done on the territory of
Arizona in the 1900s, early 1900s, and we found that the
acreage where our home existed traditionally held 5 to 15 trees
per acre. Today, there are as many as 2,000 trees per acre--the
same sunlight, the same water, and the same nutrients. We have
a very unhealthy forest.
We were saddened by the inaction caused by the timber wars
of the '80s and '90s, and we didn't agree with the U.S.
Government's policy on no fire. It was a God-given way to
manage our forests, and for 100 years we have reduced and
limited that power and that cleansing mechanism.
Because nothing was being done, we did something. And in
2008 we completed the construction of a biomass power plant, 28
megawatts in Northern Arizona, Snowflake, Arizona. That
facility today is the keystone of the needed infrastructure for
forest restoration. You've probably mostly have heard of the
4FRI project, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, the
largest CFLR project in the country, that has a standing
requirement of doing, or goal of doing, 50,000 acres of
mechanical thinning annually. Last year, we did 17,000 acres
and it was our best year.
We are woefully behind in our attempts to get that work
done, and the 17,000 acres that were done were because of the
capacity generated by this singular biomass facility. We have
about a third of the needed infrastructure in Arizona to manage
our national forest.
Now I've looked at all types of technologies that can
manage biomass and I'm telling you, as my professional opinion,
that the best way to do it is to touch at the very least amount
of times, cut it, grind it and make power from it.
When we do that, we are significantly reducing the air
quality issues that are generated in these mega fires that are
happening in Arizona and across the Western United States. We
reduced, by almost 98 percent, the particulate matter that goes
into the air while burned because of the systems that we have
at our facility.
We are also a huge resource in Arizona, potentially one of
the only resources in restoring our national forests, and
15,000 acres a year are treated and restored because of our
facility.
Mr. Treese here talked about the water infrastructure. What
happens after forest fires is we silt out our dams and our
reservoirs and we spend decades spending exorbitant amount of
money to treat that water post-fire.
We also have a huge benefit as it relates to the renewable
energy sector. We are a baseload power. That means that we
stabilize the grid. Well, I love solar and I love wind, but we
are baseload and we don't destabilize that grid.
We also have a huge economic impact. In my humble opinion,
it's the most important 28 gigawatts generated in Arizona
because of the forest restoration, because of the watershed
management. A million acres of the four million acres that we
have in Arizona that were established to provide watershed to a
desert have burned to the ground. We cannot afford to lose more
watershed.
These are the types of things that we do. But without your
help, without help building infrastructure, we're never going
to get there. The East side of the State of Arizona runs
without subsidy because we have the needed infrastructure. We
have sawmills, we have pellet mills, we have a biomass facility
and we do it without subsidy. It is not going to happen on the
west side of the state unless there is some form of assistance.
Now what type of assistance am I talking about?
We need to advance the pace and efficiency of U.S. Forest
Service action. In Arizona, we have plenty of NEPA-ready acres,
but we can't allow acre prep to become the new NEPA bottleneck.
We need to ensure that biomass is considered a renewable
power.
We need regulatory certainty in that area. People like to
argue over that. Most certainly as it relates to forest
restoration, it is carbon neutral. But what we're doing is
preserving those things that are carbon receptors.
We want to see fiscal incentives provided for biomass power
to capture the real value it's giving to the state. It does
more per megawatt than any other type of renewable power for
the state of the structure.
We'd like to see something like, 10 percent of fire
spending, firefighting spending in previous years, spent to
prevent fires the next year. Last year we spent almost $1
billion. Well, how about $100 million to preserve our forests
rather than burning them to the ground?
We'd like to maybe see increased weight limits on U.S.
highways, it's 50 percent of the cost of removing that biomass
and a five ton increase, 90,000 pounds, allows for us to haul
that material cheaper. The U.S. Government could buy the power
directly for their military bases.
And then, specifically in Arizona, we'd like to see a new
RFP for 300,000 to 500,000 acres put out on the 4FRI layout and
footprint so that we can invite new investment.
And we can do this. And I'm open to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Worsley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you. Great testimony, and I appreciate
the contributions from all of you here this morning.
You know, it is interesting, when you think about the
enormous potential on our federal lands. We have heard from
many of the specific areas, whether it is your focus on the
biomass and what we can receive or the benefits from our
national forests. Mr. Spears, you talk about the critical
minerals. You talk about the elements, just the sand and the
gravel. When Ms. Simmons wants to build a trail, she needs some
of the stuff that you take from out of the earth there. Of
course, we cannot do any of it unless we have water sources
that are available, that are reliable and that are safe in
many, many different ways. And then, of course, we have the
recreation aspect of all of our federal lands. Again, a clear
reminder of this multiple-use concept that we talk about.
Oftentimes though, there is not a level of equity when you
think about where those dollars go in managing these lands for
multiple use. Several of you have suggested that what we see in
shortcomings, whether it is on trails or whether it is for our
ski resorts or in our water supply, the fact that Forest
Service has been up against, what we call, forest borrowing for
as many years as they have, just basically throwing everything
out of whack and the ability to manage other aspects within
their jurisdiction. It is very frustrating. So I appreciate
what you have all raised.
What I am hearing consistently though, is that what would
be helpful from your perspective is if we can do more here to
reduce some of the uncertainty when it comes to the regulations
that are coming your way, to alleviate some of the delays and
the costs that are associated with that.
I want to ask just a general question here because when we
are talking about multiple-use for some that want to use the
trails or want to go skiing, they do not necessarily want to
see a mining operation where you have gravel extraction or rock
to provide for crushing or they do not want to see the dam
here.
Mr. Spears, you cited the USGS report on the Mineral
Commodity Summaries and a recognition that, from a
vulnerability perspective, we are headed down the road of
greater reliance on others for the stuff that we need, whether
it is the sand and gravel or whether it is the copper that we
need for some of our high-tech initiatives.
Are we all in agreement that regardless of where our
interest is, we still need to provide for greater opportunities
for accessing our minerals throughout the country? Do we agree
that is a sound thing, if done properly?
You mentioned the mapping, Mr. Spears, and the fact that we
are about 50 percent there. But to better analyze where those
resources are, recognizing that there are some areas where we
are never going to touch that. Mr. Spears is saying yes, but of
course, I expect him to say yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Spears. Well, I would like to address that.
So, yeah, timber is managed by foresters knowing, you know,
how many trees per acre, how many board feet per acre. So it
requires a level of mapping and GIS. Similarly, the mapping--
the management of minerals would require knowing what's down
there, often in the subsurface where you can't see it. So that
requires investment in geophysics and mapping.
But I'm not saying we need to mine the earth. I'm saying
that we need to know what's in what places before we make
decisions about what we're going to do with the surface of that
land.
And I'd just like to say that as geologists we take a
longer-term view of things than some people do. One of my
favorite places to go hiking in Virginia is called the St.
Mary's Wilderness. It's a beautiful hiking trail, but when you
get way back in the wilderness there's a little area called Ore
Bank which was an important source of manganese ore during
World War I. So this was only about 100 years ago there was a
mine in this location. That mine was closed after, in the 1920s
that mine was closed and now it's a beautiful wilderness area
and a very popular hiking destination.
If we look at the temporal progression of land use, it's
not necessary that when an area is mined it's forever
destroyed, that Reclamation is a viable response and a viable
way of recovering land and returning it to other uses.
The Chairman. I am going to turn to my colleague, Senator
Cantwell, and we will have an opportunity for more questions.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to ask, Ms. Simmons and maybe others, Ms. Argust
or others, who might want to comment on the President's budget
that is cutting greater than one half of the land acquisition
funds, as it relates to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF).
How have you seen this program work to help us in
maintaining lands and giving people access, and do you worry
that this would mean reductions in some of those projects that
you are trying to help further investments in?
Ms. Simmons. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
And yes, Washington Trails Association does support the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and has seen it used many
times over as a critical piece of building our trail
infrastructure.
I think one example is the Pacific Crest Trail which is one
of the nation's most iconic trails that runs 2,600 miles
through our nation and through a large part of our state.
There, the trails cross through a lot of private land holdings
and there have often been willing sellers that understand it's
important for the management of a trail like that to
consolidate ownership and be able to build and maintain the
trail collectively.
So in those places the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
been critical. I know of other trails in our state now that
have portions still in private ownership and there are
landowners that would be willing to and understand the benefits
of consolidating.
So we have deep concerns about what's proposed, and we see
a huge opportunity for those types of funding to be used in the
future.
Senator Cantwell. Ms. Argust, did you have any comments on
that?
Ms. Argust. Sure. I don't work specifically on LWCF but I
would say in terms of the parks that LWCF can certainly be a
cost savings, consolidating land parcels and also increasing
management efficiencies for the park, reducing user conflicts,
also increasing public access. I would also say that LWCF does
not increase deferred maintenance. I think that's very
important to note.
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
I remember an instance, I think, in Mount Rainier on the
Carbon River. We needed to improve the trail because it kept
flooding every year. So basically, it saved us dollars by
making improvements and moving the trail to higher ground.
I wanted to ask you, Mr. Worsley, you mentioned these
issues. Obviously, the Chair and I worked very hard on trying
to get our colleagues in the House to agree to something that
would be a better solution.
Do you think we need longer-term contracts? My idea, and I
think there are many people who were interested in supporting
it, on the Pine Pilot was to say that if we did some fuel
reduction and gave mill owners longer-term certainty, like 20-
year contracts, they could plan and hopefully give priority to
things like cross-laminated timber, as a way to actually store
carbon in the new building materials. Do you think we need
longer-term contracts with some of these mills to give them
predictability?
Mr. Worsley. Certainly.
When you look at ways to efficiently process something that
has almost no value, when I talk about this low value/no value
biomass, not the value of why there's always uses for that, it
generally is going to require significant capital investment in
the ballpark of $100, $200, $300 million, in order to get the
kind of scale that will drive costs low enough to make a profit
on this type of material. It is impossible to go get lending on
that kind of capital without certainty of supply, so long-term
contracts certainly help in that area. And if you are trying to
stimulate, like a place in Arizona, where you don't have that
industry, you're going to have to stimulate it through long-
term contracts.
If there's an area where there's active capital markets,
there's no need, let the capital markets work themselves out.
But if you are trying to stimulate an area that's in need, yes,
absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. And do you think that is 20 years? Do you
know a timeframe that you think would be sufficient?
Mr. Worsley. Well, listen, 10 years is very difficult to
write off $300 million, so, you know, 20 years certainly helps.
Senator Cantwell. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Ms. Argust, I am not sure anybody has
spoke to what I am about to ask, but you seem the best and
maybe Ms. Simmons after that.
Clearly, we would like to have more money for maintenance.
Now we can generate more money, appropriate more money, and
also use money more wisely.
It is always my impression that the cost of a repair at a
government facility is 1-1/2 to 3 times that which it would be
in the private sector, for whatever reason. Is that presumption
true for work in the National Park Service? Is it more
expensive to do the same repair through the National Park
Service as if it were a private entity doing it on their own
property?
Ms. Argust. So let me better understand your question. Is
it more expensive for the Park Service to do it themselves or
to contract it? Is that what you're asking?
Senator Cassidy. I guess what I'm asking--let me relate it
this way. In South Louisiana if we build a levy, if the local
municipality or the political subdivision builds a levy, it is
going to cost $1 million. If the Army Corps of Engineers builds
a levy, it will cost $1.2 million to $2 million. So, the Army
Corps' involvement will increase the cost by a multiple,
dependent on whom you speak with.
Is that same phenomena true in the National Park Service?
For example, if a foundation who was able to contract with
whomever they wish without federal procurement guidelines fixes
a road is it less expensive than if the National Park Service
contracts for that road to be fixed?
Ms. Argust. Yeah, to be honest I think you're best to ask a
Park Service official that, but I will say that for major
projects, in most cases, the Park Service does contract that
work out.
Senator Cassidy. Well, they would still be subject to
federal procurement guidelines though, I presume.
Ms. Simmons, you do trails, do you have any thoughts on
that?
Ms. Simmons. Well, I'm not qualified and I don't know
enough to speak about the specifics around the cost of projects
done by private company versus by the public agencies.
I will say that, I think, the Forest Service, the Park
Service and organizations like mine have been working together
to think about creative ways to do more and stretch the dollars
farther. And so the public/private partnerships like the one
that my organization runs is just an example of where, in fact,
we can bring volunteer labor with some base support from the
Federal Government to stretch those dollars further.
So, I don't think the answer is that it needs to be
necessarily privatization. There are other creative models.
And I know----
Senator Cassidy. I have limited time, so let me stop you
there.
Ms. Simmons. Yup.
Senator Cassidy. Although I would, if the staff could, kind
of research that, I think that would be useful for us to know.
Secondly, my brother-in-law has a camp right outside of
Yosemite, so we are fortunate to go there once or twice every
decade. Then I go through other places, and I see the
concessionaires.
Do you have any sense of whether these concessions
contracts are, sometimes those are, kind of, legacy contracts
which, frankly, work to the disadvantage of the federal
taxpayer and sometimes the other federal taxpayer does okay
with this? Do you have any sense of how the concessions
contracts work with the National Park Service? Are they a good
deal or not a good deal or perhaps you do not feel qualified to
answer?
Ms. Argust. Well, I think that there are folks who would
like to reform how concessioner contracts are done and that is
a hot button issue. But I think the Park Service has been
working very hard when they----
Senator Cassidy. Now reform suggests less than optimal and
so knowing not hardly anything.
Ms. Argust. I'm referring to the 1998 Concessions Act.
But I do know that when the Park Service is renegotiating
agreements and taking in bids, they are working very hard to do
a better job, in for instance, making sure that concessioners
wrap in deferred maintenance into those agreements and
contracts. That is not always the case and I'm making this
applicable to deferred maintenance because that's what I know
most about.
But, for instance, in some cases you cannot get a feasible
contract that gets a concessionaire to do all the deferred
maintenance because it would not be economically viable for
them. In the case of Yosemite, Ahwahnee Hotel, which is
currently called something else, the Majestic, I think, that
has $51 million of deferred maintenance and a concessioner
would not take that on. So things like that do need to be taken
into account when the Park Service makes an agreement with
concessioners.
Senator Cassidy. Okay, I am out of time. I yield back.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I want to thank all our witnesses for talking about
potential for outdoor recreation.
I want to begin when I was Chair of this Committee and we
started talking about the potential for recreation. What I was
really stunned by was how the framework of laws governing the
various natural resource agencies just had not kept up with the
times. It was not as if somebody at one of these agencies got
up in the morning and said, I want to spend my day being rotten
to people who are involved in skiing. But the problem was that
the laws were written for a time, really of the last century, I
think that is the most charitable thing you can say.
After listening to folks at home and some of the
organizations you all work with, I have introduced a bill
called Recreation, Not Red Tape. The idea is to modernize the
system so as to get more people outdoors more quickly. Two of
the provisions, I think, relate directly to some of what I've
heard this morning.
The first is we ought to require all agency permits and
passes to be made available online. I have heard stories that
just curdle your blood about how people get up in the middle of
the night to wait in some kind of line and after they are done
with that line, they go on to some other kind of line. So the
availability of online pass sales has been shown to increase
the number of passes that are actually sold. There is a pilot
project going on in our part of the world to test out the
online sales. I think we are going to hear more about that. But
to me, that ought to be non-negotiable. You ought to be able to
get all your passes online.
The second provision that Senator Gardner also has an
interest in, we are going to see if we can script Senator
Daines into this too, is a provision to retain all ski area
permit fees collected by the agencies.
The way it would work is instead of sending the money
raised by ski area permit fees to the Treasury, the money would
stay with the agencies to use for things like maintenance
projects, visitor amenities and processing permits. So the fee
visitors already pay would go back to maintaining the very
mountaintops they were collected on.
The question for you, Mr. Bonar, is how would the ski area
permit fix, the provision that is in the Recreation, Not Red
Tape bill now, how would that help ski areas make the
improvements to ski infrastructure and how would that end up
benefiting the public?
Mr. Bonar. Senator Wyden, thank you for the question.
The Forest Service simply, right now, does not have the
bandwidth or the staff to review ski resort proposals. We need
to be replacing old lifts, old infrastructure. We need to make
other improvements within our ski area permit areas, and the
Forest Service right now, because most of their funding or so
much of their funding is now used for fighting fires, they
simply don't have the staff to do that.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate your making a plug for the
bill. Senator Crapo and I have to stop fire borrowing. Senator
Murkowski and Senator Cantwell and Senator Daines, we are all
involved in the plot on that. But go ahead, I interrupted you.
Mr. Bonar. Oh, that's okay.
So, you know, we see the fee retention as being crucial for
us to be able to invest money and be able to move forward on
these critical needs.
Right now we have, as I said in my statement, many ski
resorts that need to replace old ski lifts and aging
infrastructure in other ways. It's critical that we are able to
make those improvements for safety reasons and also because
we're seeing increased visitation year-round at all the
resorts. And it's really important that we're able to move
forward on those projects by increasing that funding for the
Forest Service staff.
Senator Wyden. So you would support the provision in the
bill strongly?
Mr. Bonar. Yes, I think all the ski resorts would because
of this backlog of projects.
Senator Wyden. Well, I can just tell you, in the Pacific
Northwest no new projects are being considered by the Forest
Service. We have highlighted the example in Mount Hood, the
meadows, and I know you touched on it as well.
I think the point really is that unless we move to, sort
of, update the recreation policies for the times, I think, we
are going to see more and more of these challenges where there
is gridlock on permits, people cannot get them online. These
are common sense, bipartisan type ideas.
I thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank our witnesses and am
sorry to be in and out this morning. I think what the Chair is
working on is an extremely important area and we appreciate
your input.
Mr. Bonar. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden, I appreciate it.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Senator Wyden, you should join the Skier's
Caucus here, by the way.
[Laughter.]
We would love to have you. The Chair is an excellent skier.
I can testify to that fact.
Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing today.
I serve as this Committee's National Parks Subcommittee
Chair. It is one of my top priorities. Working alongside Chair
Murkowski and my colleagues on this Committee, along with a
fellow Montanan, Secretary of the Interior Zinke, we are going
to be working to reduce the National Park Service maintenance
backlog.
As Congress and the Administration consider ways to
strengthen the nation's infrastructure, I am happy that
National Park Service deferred maintenance is now part of that
conversation. FY'15 numbers estimate it to be $11.9 billion. We
know the number has only increased as that data is over a year
old.
Fifty percent of the deferred maintenance backlog is roads.
There are over 3,400 water systems with deferred maintenance
needs and this backlog has steadily increased over time. I
believe Congress must act.
The Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Zinke, grew up in
the shadows of Glacier National Park. He grew up about 30
minutes away from Glacier National Park. I grew up about 90
minutes away from Yellowstone National Park. So this is a
product of our own experiences, fellow Montanans and how we, as
Americans, love our national parks. I am committed to fighting
for as much appropriation as possible, as a member of the
Interior Subcommittee, alongside Senator Murkowski.
I would also like to explore some creative ways we can
facilitate new investments in our maintenance backlog. We are
going to have to be creative, whether it is more public/private
partnerships or the use of innovation and technology.
In Senator King's home State of Maine, there is a pilot
project at Acadia National Park which began just last year to
collect entrance fees through online passes. Senator Wyden
mentioned this online pass idea. In fact, I worked for 12 years
in the cloud computing business, and I am a firm believer that
we do need to leverage some modern technology to solve some of
our constraints and the problems that we face.
The National Park Service maintenance backlog is no
different. Nowadays everybody wants to share their experience
on Snapchat, on Instagram, on Facebook and that just continues
to build more interest in our parks which is a good thing.
In Montana we saw record visitation rates last summer.
During peak visitation times, to keep traffic moving, sometimes
they would just wave cars through into the park because if you
saw the lines and you have families all excited to come to our
national parks, who wants to wait in a long line of traffic
when you cannot wait to get in to see the wildlife or the
wonders of our national parks? What happens? The parks lose
much needed revenue and this is for good reason. Traffic gets
so bad in summer months it does become a public safety issue,
and it puts a serious strain on our infrastructure.
With that as background, I want to start with Mr. Treese.
In your written testimony, you share multiple cases with
opportunities and studies to expand water infrastructure that
supports western communities. You did not mention any in
Montana, but I have a couple to add. One will be the Dry-
Redwater and the Musselshell-Judith water systems. There are
over 35,000 Montanans and North Dakotans whose current public
water system does not meet safe drinking water standards.
This afternoon I am introducing legislation, the Clean
Water for Rural Communities Act, to authorize Reclamation to
construct both of these projects.
My question is, would you please elaborate on the
importance of clean, reliable water to health and the economic
being of rural America?
Mr. Treese. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that
opportunity.
Yes, rural water. I live in rural Colorado and am familiar
with the projects you talk about. Rural water is critical and
perhaps important in this discussion because rural water may be
one of the areas that doesn't make the headlines that some of
the infrastructure that has been mentioned nationally might
garner or might be broader recognized. But rural water is
critical, critical to the health and welfare of the United
States, as well as our economy.
I appreciate your legislation. I had an opportunity to talk
to staff about your legislation last night. I'm impressed by it
and look forward to supporting it.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Treese.
As I wrap up I am going to ask you a question, Mr. Worsley.
In Montana, we have seen harvest in our national forests
decline by more than 70 percent versus the past generation. The
number of mills in my home state declined; it went from 30 to
eight. When I grew up we had 30, now we have eight. There are
seven million federally-controlled acres in Montana. They are
at high risk of wildfire.
My question. Can you speak to why it is so critical to
retain mills and a wood product workforce in a state like
Montana?
Mr. Worsley. Well, not only is there huge economic benefit,
but we have a natural resource that is going to waste.
There was a question earlier about whether we support
mining for minerals. We sometimes do a horrible job of
utilizing and maximizing the use of our natural resources and
burning to the ground hundreds of millions of acres is align to
that reality. And so, there's a huge economic benefit. There's
a use of natural resources that is critical. And a lot of times
once this stuff goes away, it doesn't come back. And so, once
that infrastructure closes, to get it restarted is just almost
impossible.
Senator Daines. Yes, we have seen that in Colorado.
I am out of time, and I know Montanans are tired of
breathing smoke in the summertime and then the damage
environmentally to our watersheds.
Mr. Worsley. That's right.
Senator Daines. And wildfires as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thanks.
Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for this
hearing.
I feel this morning, after listening to each of our
witnesses, I want to say, Amen, to each of you and also
indicate that it is not only National Water Day, it is National
Ag Day. And we will not have agriculture, we will not have food
unless we have an abundant, clean water supply.
And so, there's a lot in common. As the Ranking Democrat on
the Agriculture Committee, when we look at conservation efforts
on privately-owned land which are managed through the
Agriculture Committee, again, so much in common.
There is no question, I could go right down the line, in
terms of our national forests and what they mean in terms of
jobs and outdoor recreation. I am very concerned about the cuts
in President Trump's budget as it relates to those things.
I invite you all to Sleeping Bear Dunes in Northwest
Michigan, if you have not been there, to see God's country up
north. In fact, anywhere in Michigan is God's country, but we
have absolutely beautiful places.
When we look at infrastructure, yes, it is not only trails,
it is not only all of the things that I support that you have
been talking about, but we have large infrastructure projects
like the Soo Locks where commerce comes through the Great
Lakes. Right now, if the large lock, Poe Lock, shuts down or
has a problem, there is no second lock that will allow the
barges to come through to bring the minerals or to focus on the
other areas. So infrastructure, in many ways, relates to what
we are doing on public lands and private lands and water, and I
do not think we have focused on that enough.
I do want to talk about water, specifically, as you can
imagine being surrounded by water in Michigan.
Mr. Treese, I completely agree with what you said about
water being the lifeblood of our nation. And certainly, in
Michigan, the Great Lakes are part of our DNA and also part of
the backbone of our economy.
I have to say in the President's budget, and this is not
for the hearing today, but the President completely zeros out
the Great Lakes restoration initiative, zeros out monies that
we have been using through legislation developed, on a
bipartisan basis, to protect our waters in our Great Lakes. We
intend to do everything possible to make sure that that
elimination of funding does not happen for a number of reasons.
But along with the zeroing out of the Great Lakes
restoration initiative is a 15 percent cut to the U.S.
Geological Services, which also is critically important to the
Great Lakes as well as everything else that you talked about
Mr. Spears, in terms of access to minerals and so on.
But when we look at the fact that President Trump's cut
would be the lowest funding level for the USGS since Fiscal
Year 2002 and yet, the pressures, the demands, the challenges
on our Great Lakes continue to grow. I am very concerned that
what the U.S. Geological Survey has done to protect the Great
Lakes, developing toxins to kill sea lamprey, for instance,
without harming other fish. Now we have the Asian Carp which is
a huge challenge and threat to us in terms of fish and boating
and quality of life and water.
When we look at researching how to get the Great Lakes fish
populations to thrive and the fact that we have over 75,000
jobs directly related to fishing in Michigan and hundreds of
thousands of jobs indirectly related to fishing, not counting
boating and other activities outdoors or algae blooms that
threaten the drinking water of our 40 million people a day that
get their water from the Great Lakes. Senator Portman and I co-
chair the bipartisan Great Lakes Task Force, and he certainly
can speak to the fact that algae blooms have left 400,000
people in Toledo without drinking water.
So, all of that to say and actually, Mr. Treese, you may
assume I am directing this to you, which I assume you are
concerned about the cuts. But actually, I wanted to ask, Mr.
Treese, just in terms of the importance of federal assistance
and support, as it relates to water projects. Obviously in
Colorado it is not the Great Lakes, but certainly, when we look
at western water managers and the importance of focusing on
interstate waters and so on, I wonder if you might speak from
your state's perspective about why it is important to be able
to invest in protecting our water.
Mr. Treese. Thank you, Senator.
Colorado covets the amount of water you have around the
Great Lakes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stabenow. And you cannot have it.
[Laughter.]
Unless you want to move to Michigan--we would love to have
you move to Michigan.
Mr. Treese. I understand, thank you.
I think the regional initiatives you mentioned, they are
notable for their size, their multi-state, multi-party
involvement, the Chesapeake Bay Initiative in this area.
Senator Stabenow. Right.
Mr. Treese. And the Colorado River efforts, the multi-state
efforts that are involved in the Colorado River, are all
critical. And the Federal Government is an essential partner in
those. The local communities, the states and the Federal
Government must be equal partners in those processes if they
are going to be successful. To have the Federal Government
unilaterally withdraw or significantly decrease their
participation, financial and human resource participation, is
to, frankly, doom those initiatives to failure.
Senator Stabenow. One of the things I wanted to mention as
well on water infrastructure is that, again, with my
agriculture hat on, rural water and sewer projects which are so
critical to my hometown of Claire and to communities across
America, small towns across America, is zeroed out in the
President's budget which is also stunning to me.
I mean there seems to be a wholesale attack, Madam Chair,
on water infrastructure and I know we are going to want to work
in a bipartisan basis to make sure that we have support for
that infrastructure going forward in the budget.
Thank you.
The Chairman. A big part of our consideration.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Treese, I assure you in Arizona we covet the water you
have in California, or Colorado, so--
[Laughter.]
So, anyway, it is all in where you are.
I am sorry for not being here earlier. There was a Gorsuch
hearing going on a few doors away, so that is occupying a lot
of time.
It is nice to have Brad Worsley here. Thank you for making
the trip from Arizona.
In Arizona, we have had two once-in-a-lifetime fires in the
last 15 years. And if you are from Northern Arizona, as I am,
you have seen the devastation that has occurred there. It has
been a tough thing to watch.
After the Rodeo Chedeski fire back 15 years ago, we
realized that we needed industry in Northern Arizona in order
to partner with the Federal Government or we simply were not
going to do the amount of forest restoration that we needed.
Fortunately some industry has stepped up to the plate,
including Novo Power and others that Brad is very familiar
with. We have to have industry, private industry, that is
functioning, and the infrastructure that is needed there--the
infrastructure that is needed in terms of roads and what not to
get wood out of the forest is vital here.
I want to thank Brad for serving on my Healthy Forest
Advisory Panel, and I am looking forward to suggestions that
you have. I have read the written testimony, but I was
interested in hearing some about the role of transportation,
the cost, to your industry. You have advocated there is a pilot
project in Arizona to increase weight limits on state roads,
and I wanted to hear from you on how a similar program on
federal highways could help existing industry reach deeper into
the forest to be able to treat those areas that need to be
treated.
Mr. Worsley. You bet.
Let me first, I know it's decorum to praise your local
Senators, but I have to tell you, Senator Flake and Senator
McCain give a disproportionate amount of time. I sat with the
biomass group this morning and they were just so shocked that I
speak with them regularly and their efforts on our behalf. So
we are definitely appreciative of our two sitting Senators.
Over 50 percent of your cost to move biomass is in
transportation. And so, a small addition to what a highway can
handle, go from 80,000 pounds to 90,000 pounds, is a 20 percent
increase in haul capacity. So you're talking a 20 percent
benefit on the largest expense in hauling biomass. The state is
doing it and they've seen it work successfully. It's been a
huge success.
Unfortunately, our trucks can only go some routes. You
know, if we've got a problem on the west side of the state,
we've got to see Interstate I-17 and I-40 and others increase
by 10,000 pounds in order to see that same savings that we're
seeing on the east side of the state.
Senator Flake. It sounds like you are suggesting we could
take advantage of the existing infrastructure of the Forest
Service, if they did a better job, the Forest Service, in
considering the cost of transportation, given the locations of
the mills.
How would you suggest that they better incorporate
transportation costs in their planning?
Mr. Worsley. Yeah, I think you've raised an important
point. This isn't any more dollars. This is--these roads can
handle, they're engineered to handle this kind of weight. And
given its impact to the state, I think it would be a zero-cost
proposition.
But it's also important that the state--that the Federal
Government, the national forest, takes the consideration to
haul distances. So when they're offering products they can't
say, here's everything that's 100 miles from your mill. They
have to take into consideration we can share costs, spread
costs, but we need stuff closer and stuff farther away and
there needs to be that balance in their planning.
Senator Flake. We have had issues in Arizona with the cost
of doing NEPA, doing the prep work there required by NEPA, to
make sure that we have acreage that has passed the
environmental test to be able to access and be treated.
You mentioned in your testimony that we cannot allow prep
to be the new NEPA. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Mr. Worsley. I can.
Most states deal with getting NEPA-ready acres. We have
over 500,000 NEPA-ready acres in Arizona, and by 2019, it will
be darn near a million. Now what we have to do is make those
acres available, and prep is becoming the new NEPA. The Forest
Service is grossly out of date as it relates to technology and
efforts. To go paint every single tree is such a waste of time
and resources. The technology is there, and industry is
pressing. We can, through GPS and tablet technology, tell you
what we cut, how we cut it, when we cut it, where we cut it,
and just provide designation by prescription or by diameter and
let us go to work and save all of that money and make that
acreage available. So absolutely, we cannot let prep become the
old NEPA bottleneck in Arizona.
Senator Flake. Right. Well, thank you.
If I may, in Arizona, we have, with the ponderosa pine
forest, a healthy forest traditionally has about 20 trees per
acre. We have areas with 200 trees per acre.
Can you talk some about the areas that you have been able
to go in, the difference between that acreage in terms of the
fire hazard, fuels reduction you have been able to do, compared
to the old or what we have seen over the past couple of
decades?
Mr. Worsley. You bet, Senator Flake.
I'll increase that statistic. We have 2,000 trees per acre
in some areas, and so we have a situation where we have a gross
overgrown.
Just think about being able to drive a covered wagon
through the forests of Arizona. That's what they came into in
the 1900s. Today you couldn't drive a motorcycle through those
forests, so we are significantly reducing on that.
If you ever walk onto a forest fire, post-burn, what's
left? What's left is the big trees. What burned to the ground
was all of this high hazard fuel, all of this biomass.
So, when you now drive up the rim, which I know you do
often, you can see through that forest again and that's because
of the work we're doing, not in removing big trees, but in
removing trees that are three feet tall and one inch around and
doing that in a high scale and with mechanization in order to
make it cost-effective.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you.
Unless any of you want to answer a question on separation
of powers or the Chevron doctrine, I better get back in to the
other hearing. So thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Flake. We appreciate the work
you are doing over in Judiciary too.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
putting together this esteemed panel of witnesses on such an
important topic.
As you may or may not know, I represent the State of Nevada
which has the largest amount of public lands in our state, in
the country. So the topics that we are discussing today are
very, very important, not only to me, but to many of the
constituents that I represent.
I want to see the outdoor recreation industry expand and
provide folks visiting my state an incredible experience in
exploring the wonderful beauty of Nevada, and I believe we need
to preserve and repair our infrastructure in these natural
areas for future generations.
I also know that Nevada is one of the driest states in the
nation with only 9.63 inches of average annual rainfall, so we
are particularly focused and innovative when it comes to our
water supply and resources, particularly, since we have the
lowest allotment of water along the Colorado, as you well know.
Then we also have, and I am very proud of, our mining
industry in the State of Nevada. I graduated from the
University of Nevada, Reno. At the time, it was the Mackey
School of Mines--one of our departments and colleges there. It
is now the Mackey School of Earth Sciences and Engineering.
I appreciate the comments today and would like to start
with Mr. Spears. You talked a little bit about airborne data
collection technologies. I think, as we talk about updating our
infrastructure, the use of technologies is so important. This
helps us really, kind of, pinpoint areas where we can manage
our natural resources and everything else that we just talked
about and our great opportunity to utilize the outdoors. Can
you talk a little bit more about how you think that airborne
data collection technologies and the use of it will help and
benefit mining operations and the economy in general?
Mr. Spears. Sure, Senator.
Putting people on the ground is very expensive. Putting
planes in the air is also expensive, but you can cover vast
areas at the same cost as putting people on the ground.
There's no substitute for having people on the ground
actually collecting physical samples, but to cover large areas
with a single kind of technology such as LiDAR which gives you
centimeter scale model of the surface of the landscape, there's
really no substitute for that.
But also, less well known technologies like arrow
magnetics, the ground is naturally magnetic. Arrow
radiometrics, the earth naturally glows in certain wavelengths
of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can fly over with passive
techniques just observing the natural background, physical
properties that the earth is already displaying, and tell
something about what's down there.
For example, magnetics will tell you about the presence of
iron, certain iron bearing minerals, like magnetite, that will
show up from the air from a mile up you can tell how much
magnetite is in the ground. And magnetite is often a leader, an
indicator mineral, for other things such as copper or zinc or
lead.
So investment in airborne technologies can be a very
efficient way of giving us a picture of our subsurface
infrastructure, subsurface resources.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Treese, I want to focus a little on the Bureau of
Reclamation. Do you think that the Bureau should integrate its
water supply management project grants into a regional
watershed plan? The reason why I ask that, and a couple of
things I think we do an incredible job, at times, working
together with other states and regionalizing, I think the
states do, in trying to work together to manage, but I am not
sure it is always done at the federal level as well. I would
like your thoughts with respect to the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Treese. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, I absolutely agree. I believe the new Farm bill has a
regional conservation partnership program. My district has
taken advantage of one of those competitive grants.
It is a regional--it has a goal of regional cooperation and
interagency cooperation. We've been successful in seeking and
receiving the cooperation of local districts and the state.
We have been less successful in receiving the cooperation
of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior in realizing the goals of that grant, and I think that
an explicit statement in the funding of some of their programs
and coordination between the departments is imperative for the
success of the federal investment.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
I see my time is up. I appreciate the comments today. Thank
you so much for appearing before the Committee today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you
to all the witnesses for your time and testimony and work
today. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from you about how
we can work together in the future, on water issues,
infrastructure issues and make some great things happen.
Welcome, Mr. Treese, to the Committee. I appreciate your
expertise over the years in working with you on a number of
policies affecting what is the most important river, waterway,
in the Western United States, the Colorado River.
The entire Colorado River Basin feeds an incredible
population, economy, agriculture, resource issues, you name it.
And your working advocacy is truly appreciated. But it also
means that effective water management in the West is more
critical than ever as the growing states of Nevada, Utah and
Colorado continue to rely more and more heavily on 50-year-old,
60-year-old, 70-year-old infrastructure projects.
The Western states are some of the fastest growing in the
nation. California and beyond have been plagued by significant
drought over the years and resource challenges.
Colorado is a unique state when it comes to our water. We
are the only state that does our water law the way we do, or
headwaters, not just the Colorado River, but the Platte, the
Arkansas, the Rio Grande, Republican River basins, one area of
agreement for water managers representing all those river
basins in Colorado is the need to continue our investment in
infrastructure. So we have a couple of challenges facing water
infrastructure in Colorado.
One of them is the permitting process and then aquatic and
nuisance species. The projects in Colorado like the Northern
Integrated Supply Project, Gross Reservoir Expansion, others,
on the Western Slope as well, began their federal permitting
process years ago, and just now, still do not have final
permitting approval, final approval.
So I would ask you two questions. Number one, can you
discuss the impacts of federal permitting process on
infrastructure development with regard to timelines, long-term
planning decisions and economic costs? And number two, the
invasive species issues and the impact they could have on
Colorado's water infrastructure?
Mr. Treese. Thank you, Senator Gardner, thank you for the
kind words.
Yes, first to the permitting issues. The expense of
permitting has multiplied the cost of projects, projects that
were budgeted both in time and dollars have had, have seen,
tremendous delays. They've seen multi-year delays, all
resulting in additional costs and less certainty that the
Chairwoman mentioned, as an important element of any natural
resource project. That, the loss of that certainty and the
expense associated, eventually gets passed on to the consumers,
and that has been an impact throughout the West.
The invasive species, a critical issue. Colorado is one of
the few states, essentially one of a handful of states, along
the spine of the Rockies that is not currently infected by the
Zebra or the Quagga mussels. Nationwide, they have colonized
waterways and clogged infrastructure. There is no simple, cheap
or permanent solution to the remedy once infected.
The efforts to prevent and through, primarily through,
inspection have been successful in Colorado and New Mexico,
Idaho, Wyoming. And I think, again, the federal partnership is
critical. We have enjoyed it in the past. We have lost it in
the recent past. And that partnership with federal involvement
in federal facilities and others, all is connected, as you
described that Colorado is the headwater state. If you infect
the Colorado River, if you infect the Platte, the Arkansas,
downstream states are going to suffer commensurately.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Treese, I think in some of the studies
on infrastructure needs in Colorado that have been performed
over the past several years, one study identified, I think it
was, the state-wide water supply initiative, the second phase
study, identified around $15 billion of water infrastructure
needs just to meet the next two decades of projected municipal,
industrial, agricultural need in Colorado. Is that still a
ballpark figure today?
Mr. Treese. It is.
Senator Gardner. That is $15 billion that we need just in
Colorado alone in water infrastructure. So this is a critical
conversation that we are having to meet the economies',
communities', industries' needs in Colorado and, of course,
even more outside of the state.
Thank you, Mr. Treese, for being here today.
Mr. Bonar, thank you again for talking about much needed
infrastructure issues at our ski resorts and our national
forests.
Colorado, home to the White River National Forest, a number
one, most heavily used forest in the country, home to a number
of great recreation opportunities, both in the summer and the
winter. Of course, with the passage in 2011 of the Ski Area
Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act that you mentioned, it
has opened up even more opportunities for families to enjoy the
great Colorado outdoors.
Vail Resort is planning on investing a total of $80 to $85
million for their summer program alone, but what I am hearing
from some of these other ski resorts in Vail and others in
Colorado is that the Forest Service simply does not have the
ability, because of resource demands on the Forest Service
budget, to meet the requirements that they have, in terms of
permitting and staffing issues that are going to be needed if
they invest $85 million.
What does an approach to ski fee retention mean? What does
it mean to you? You talked about it in your opening statement,
but what does it mean to you and how can Congress help build
the infrastructure necessary for the ski industry while not
simply increasing the number of Forest Service employees?
Mr. Bonar. You know, we would just simply like to see the
fees that all the ski resorts pay, in Snowbird's case it's
about $250,000 a year, for the use of the land. We'd like to
see a portion of that stay with our local forests so that they
can more adequately staff the positions that a lot of those
have been eliminated. We would like to see those staffed up
again so that they can make the adequate analysis that they
need to make on all the backlog projects that we have, whether
they're summer projects or winter projects.
Senator Gardner. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Bonar.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
I want to go back to you, Mr. Spears, for a moment
following on Senator Cortez Masto's questions about mapping.
Again, we are talking about an infrastructure package coming
out of the Congress that could potentially be huge, perhaps as
much as a trillion dollars, I don't know for sure.
[Laughter.]
I do not know whether that is where we are going to end up,
but right now there is a big focus, and rightly so, on aging
infrastructure, inadequate infrastructure, and how we build it
out. Again, knowing where to build it is important, and knowing
that we have those resources that will then be required to
build it are equally important.
It was just a couple of years ago we celebrated with a big
ceremony in a hangar with cakes and balloons the fact that
Alaska was now finally 57 percent mapped. Now I don't know
where you celebrate 57 percent of anything--
[Laughter.]
But we did it in Alaska because it was like oh, we are just
a little more than half way there. But that is just mapping the
terrain, so we have a long ways to go. Understanding and being
able to inventory what it is that we have so that we move
forward smartly with infrastructure is really important.
You have talked a little bit about some of the technologies
that can help us more readily and hopefully less expensively
identify this, but it seems to me that we could be in a
situation where we are in such a hurry to get shovel ready
projects moving that we have not done enough on the front end
in terms of making sure that we have got good inventory
understanding and mapping. Am I alone in my concerns there or
do you think we are doing okay?
Mr. Spears. You're not alone, Madam Chair.
The fact is the U.S. Geological Survey currently invests
about $25 million a year of its roughly $1 billion budget in
geologic mapping, a small fraction of that, about $5 million a
year, goes to the states for cooperative programs and is
matched by the states. It's a relatively small investment in
something that means so much to this country.
With just a modest increase in that program we could
rapidly accelerate the percentage of our country that is
understood geologically in terms of its mineral resources and
natural hazards.
The Chairman. Well that is certainly something that we
would like to continue the work on. It is something we have
been leading on, but I think you are right, we need to be doing
much more in that vein.
Speaking a little bit about public/private partnerships
leveraging dollars, I think we recognize that we are in a
budget environment where it is just tough around here. As we
saw from the skinny budget that was laid down, there is a lot
in it that a lot of us really do not like because it is going
to impact the programs and priorities that, for many of us in
our parts of the country, are very, very key to our economy and
really key to our quality of life.
As we talk about the infrastructure challenges on our parks
and the public lands, we have done some things recently,
specifically as it relates to national parks, with
appropriations last year. We had the Centennial Challenge
account, which received a $5 million increase. ONPS got an
increase of $43 million--this is where we do the repair and
rehab as well as cyclical maintenance, so that was a six
percent increase. The construction account received a $112
million increase, which was an 81 percent increase. But even
so, even with these small and, believe me, when we are talking
about a $12 billion hole, it does not get us there. We
recognize that it is not just through the appropriations
process, but it is how we are leveraging, how we move toward
these public/private partnerships.
Within the Park Service, Ms. Argust, is there more that we
can be doing administratively? I recognize that legislation
around here is usually just a long time in coming. Is there
more that we can be doing administratively to improve the
infrastructure, specifically, within the Park Service and
greater areas where we can tap into this public/private
partnership that perhaps we just have not hit yet?
We have the Centennial Act's Challenge Fund, I think, that
we can look to. I do not know whether that is being accessed to
the degree and to the extent that is most effective, but if you
can comment on that, please?
Ms. Argust. Right.
I think there are some things that can be done, but again,
I will point out that they do need staff, right, to implement
some of these ideas.
Let me just start with, for instance, their volunteer
programs. They could do more with that. If the volunteers are
able to do maintenance programs that are more detailed, if they
had volunteers and volunteer coordinators in each region. Right
now, they have one volunteer manager for the entire Park
Service, who is in the DC office, so it makes it difficult to
leverage and coordinate all those volunteers.
The Chairman. Let me ask about that, and maybe Ms. Simmons,
you might want to jump in here.
Because we had a situation a couple years ago where the
Forest Service budget decreased. They maintain cabins, Forest
Service cabins, that people can visit. The community of
Ketchikan saw that because of the budget cuts that the Forest
Service was proposing, basically, dismantling some of these
Forest Service cabins. The volunteers said, hey, wait a minute,
we can step in here. We can provide for the upkeep, and it
seemed like a perfect fit.
As it turned out, the hoops that a volunteer had to jump
through in order to qualify to be an acceptable volunteer to
maintain these cabins, whether it was being able to demonstrate
that you could safely operate a chain saw, going through a
safety course that most people would say, well, wait a minute,
I am an outdoorsman, I am a woodsman, I don't necessarily carry
my red cross card with me everywhere. It was very frustrating
to the local people because the agency was so concerned about
liability and the volunteers were saying, hey, I just want to
make sure that this cabin is going to be there for us.
Are we making things too complicated for our volunteers? I
appreciate what you are saying about the need to have somebody
that organizes it, absolutely, but is it working like we need
it to?
Ms. Argust. So, instead of in this case, talking about
volunteers, I'll talk about some of the partner groups and
friends groups who do a lot of work and projects for the Park
Service and provide funding.
What we've heard is sometimes the paperwork can be a
burden. They could do more if there wasn't that paperwork. Some
of the friends groups don't have the staff to do that or the
friends groups themselves don't have that capacity so that can
be an issue that we should be thinking about.
I do want to talk about opportunities with public/private
partnerships. I think the Park Service really is trying to use
public/private partnerships and agreements to address the
backlog, but there are obstacles to that. In some cases, you
have parks that have fantastic friends groups that can do a
lot. In other areas, there aren't any friends groups. The
Martin Luther King historic site in Atlanta doesn't have a
friends group or you might have regions where they have friends
groups but they're relatively small and they just can't put up
the matching funds, say for Centennial Challenge projects. So,
those are issues.
And also, to be frank, some friends groups or other
partners groups and philanthropists just don't want to fund,
you know, sewage systems. They don't want to fund roads, and
that's understandable.
I should also point out with corporate partnerships, there
is a public perception problem. People hear parks, they hear
corporate partnerships and there is a concern that that's going
to lead to a banner across Mount Rushmore. That is not the
case.
The National Park Service is working with the National Park
Foundation. They're doing some great work with corporations,
and we should be encouraging that. It is not going to solve all
the repairs needed for infrastructure by any means. We're going
to have to rely on appropriations, but we should be encouraging
more of that type of partnership.
The Chairman. When I think through the Centennial Act, we
do have some opportunities there. But how we help shape and
guide some of that, I think, remains to be seen.
Ms. Simmons, can you comment on what we can be doing to
make sure that volunteers really do feel welcome, whether it is
paperwork or whether it is the agency saying thanks, but no
thanks?
Ms. Simmons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well I want to be clear that we do not work on structures,
our volunteers don't work on structures and so, I can't comment
to the specifics of restoring cabins.
The Chairman. But you build trails, you----
Ms. Simmons. But we do build trails.
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Simmons. And I think we can say quite definitively, we
think there's great power in using volunteers. And we've been
fortunate to have nearly 25 years of a relationship with the
Forest Service and our local forest to work out the kinks and
to establish the relationships and the systems and the trust
that works really well.
I think that a key for us has really been understanding. We
take anyone, regardless of experience, but we have crew leads
and assistant crew leads that have been well trained and know
how to manage volunteers. And so, there's a balance between the
expertise and everyone who comes to build the trails, that can
be developed. And we've been fortunate to work really
cooperatively with the Forest Service to figure out how to make
this happen in Washington State.
The Chairman. Well, that is good. That is a good success
story.
I know people that have been involved with either
establishing trails or maintaining trails over the years going
way back to my parents', grandparents' days in the Tongass, who
still look at that trail and say, I helped make that trail. And
there is a real sense of pride. The family says, yes, that was
my grandpa's trail. That really does allow for great community
buy-in and support for what it is that we are doing.
Senator Cortez Masto, do you have any follow-up questions?
Senator Cortez Masto. No, thank you.
The Chairman. I want to thank each of you for your input
here this morning. I think the hearing today has been very
interesting.
Following on what we heard last Tuesday, I think, as a
Committee, we have got a great deal to work with. When we think
about an infrastructure proposal that can really help this
country, help our economy, but also ensure that whether it is
clean water, whether it is ensuring that our communities are
safe from the threat of wildfire, whether it is how we enjoy
our amazing open spaces, whether they are trails or parks or
skiing, and making sure that these resources that we have on
our land, under our land, are respected, is a great part of
what we do here in this Committee.
Everybody else is talking about infrastructure and what
they can contribute to the package. I think within this
Committee we have the most exciting part of that portfolio, so
I look forward to working with you as we help advance this.
Thank you very much for your time this morning.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]