Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee Hearing

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony of the following bills: S. 906, to promote wildland firefighter safety; S. 2003, to make permanent the authorization for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements; H.R. 585, to require Federal land managers to support, and to communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with, designated gateway communities, to improve the ability of gateway communities to participate in Federal land management planning conducted by the Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior, and to respond to the impacts of the public use of the Federal lands administered by these agencies, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3981, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out certain land exchanges involving small parcels of National Forest System land in the Tahoe National Forest in the State of California, and for other purposes.

Archived Webcast

If you are having trouble viewing this hearing, please try the following steps:

Clear your browser's cache - Guide to clearing browser cache
Close and re-open your browser
If the above two steps do not help, please try another browser. Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge have the highest level of compatibility with our player.

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable George Radanovich

Member

U.S. House of Representatives

Read statement

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable George Radanovich

Statement
by the
Honorable George Radanovich
before the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
on
May 10, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman—

I greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 585. Your consideration of this measure is important to thousands of people who live in gateway communities throughout our nation.

I like to call H.R. 585 the “good neighbor act,” even though its real name is the “Gateway Communities Cooperation Act.” The purpose of the bill is to make certain that small communities, located just outside of federal properties, have input in the federal planning process.

This measure is critical to many of my constituents and important for numerous small communities throughout the country that are impacted by federal land planning decisions.

As someone who represents several small towns located just outside of Yosemite National Park and near the Stanislaus and Sierra National Forests, I know that--too often--these communities are left out of the federal planning process.

This bill ensures that communities serving as gateways to our nation’s federal lands, including Park Service and Forest Service properties, have a voice in the federal planning process.

Gateway communities can greatly benefit or be severely harmed by the decisions of federal land managers, so it is critical that their views are heard before land managers make final decisions. This is why H.R. 585 encourages a more open discussion between federal agencies and local communities during the federal planning process.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I encourage this Subcommittee to support H.R. 585, and move it favorably through the Committee process.
Mr. Joel Holtrop

Deputy Chief of the National Forest System

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture

Read statement

Witness Panel 1

Mr. Joel Holtrop

STATEMENT OF
JOEL HOLTROP
US FOREST SERVICE
DEPUTY CHIEF FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

May 10, 2006

CONCERNING

S. 906—Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005

S. 2003—Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements Act of 2005

H.R. 585—Gateway Communities Cooperation Act

H.R. 3981—Tahoe National Forest Land Exchanges

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department’s views on S. 906—Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2005, S. 2003—Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements Act of 2005, H.R. 585—Gateway Communities Cooperation Act, and H.R. 3981—involving Tahoe National Forest land exchanges. I am Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, USDA Forest Service.

S. 906 Wildland Firefighter Safety Act

Since the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture work closely together in fire management, the two Departments are providing a joint statement on      S. 906, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act. The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to track funds expended for firefighter safety and training programs and activities and to include a line item for such expenditures in annual budget requests. This bill would also require the Secretaries to jointly submit a report on the implementation and efficacy of wildland firefighter safety and training programs and activities to Congress each year. In addition, the bill would direct the Secretaries to ensure that any Federal contract or agreement with private entities for firefighting services requires the entity to provide firefighting training consistent with qualification standards set by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. The Secretaries would be further directed to develop a program to monitor and enforce compliance with this contracting requirement.

The Departments are concerned that a budget line item may not achieve the desired oversight of safety efforts and would carry unnecessary administrative complexities.   The Departments do not consider training costs an effective means of determining a firefighter’s ability to perform safely.

Furthermore, section 2(a)(1) of bill applies only to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. It’s important to recognize that wildland fire occurs not only on public lands but also on the other Federal lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the various other agency heads.

Required training, recurrent training, required experience, and job performance cross multiple budget activities and are extremely difficult to track at the budget line item level. Federal and state agencies provide funding for national and advanced training academies as well as training at more local levels. Virtually every firefighting training course includes some element of fire safety. For these reasons, the Departments do not support S. 906 in its present form.

Rather than focus upon budget structure, the Departments suggest that an annual report, which would focus on measurable firefighter performance and the efficacy of our safety and training practices and activities, would better assist the Departments’ continual improvement of safety and performance and would provide information to Congress in its oversight capacity. Indeed, actions are already underway to report to Congress. For fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service will report to Congress (as part of the national performance measures) the accident frequency rate for firefighter injuries during the suppression of fires under Forest Service jurisdiction. The Department of the Interior tracks and reports the number of firefighter injuries and the amount of time lost from firefighter injuries as a proportion of all time spent firefighting. This information is reported as part of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks.

We are taking additional action to improve tracking of firefighter safety and training measures.

As this Subcommittee is aware, after the investigations of fatal fires in the last 10 years, we re-examined our safety and training policies, practices, and performance and implemented numerous significant changes.   These changes have been developed in cooperation with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Department of the Interior and other interagency partners through the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. In addition, an audit by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) in 2004 of the Forest Service firefighter safety program and in 2006 of firefighting contract crews provided recommendations that assisted the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior agencies in identifying areas for improvement. We have made significant progress in improving safety, training, certification, accountability, and reporting.

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), made up of representatives from the Forest Service, Department of the Interior agencies, Tribes, and State forestry agencies, establishes minimum requirements for training, experience, physical fitness level, and currency standards for wildland fire positions. All participating agencies must meet these requirements for national mobilization.    All firefighters—federal, tribal, state, local, or contract—carry a position qualifications document (known as a Red Card) that shows the firefighter has met all the training, experience, and physical fitness requirements to perform a specific job under NWCG standards. The Forest Service has augmented these standards to meet specific safety requirements for the Forest Service.

Certification of each firefighter is the responsibility of the employing agency. Firefighters must successfully complete coursework and multiple training assignments before they are certified for positions. Individual firefighters are trained to meet unit, regional and national needs. Performance based qualification standards, training courses, annual training to maintain currency, drills, and demonstrated successful performance prepare firefighters for conditions they may encounter.

I would like to give you an update of items we have improved in safety, training, certification, accountability, and reporting for firefighters and contract firefighting crews.

The Incident Qualifications Certification System (IQCS), now fully operational, responds to the need for accurate tracking of qualifications and centralized records as recommended in the 2004 USDA OIG report on firefighter safety. Training, on-the-job experience, and certification of each firefighter are documented and then added to the IQCS. Every federal firefighter must be qualified and in the system before they can be assigned by fire managers. State, local, and contract firefighters use different tracking systems.

The 2006 OIG review of crew contract firefighting programs reported the need for program oversight and gave several recommendations for improvements. As a result, experience requirements have been included in the 2006 crew contracts and qualification records were reviewed prior to contract awards. The Forest Service is working with the Pacific Northwest Coordinating Group to establish a process to ensure contract associations’ training meet the National Wildfire Coordinating Group standards. Also included in the 2006 crew contracts is a provision for standardized language assessment to ensure that there are no communication barriers that would contribute to unsafe conditions. The Forest Service is coordinating with other Federal agencies to identify counterfeit documents used to obtain employment on contract crews. In addition, temporary workers – that is, workers hired on a short-term basis during an emergency- must also meet agency certification requirements.

The interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program trains firefighters and managers in leadership values through a curriculum of courses designed to span the career of wildland firefighters from entry level through management and leadership levels. Individual firefighters and managers improve their leadership skills through self-directed continuing education efforts using the on-line resource (www.fireleadership.gov) to prepare themselves for the decision-making demands of firefighting.

The Federal Interagency Firefighter Medical Qualifications and Standards program was developed by the Interagency Medical Standards Team under the direction of the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board. This program established medical qualifications, standards, and procedures to ensure that firefighters have an appropriate level of health and not be at unnecessary risk, or put other at risk, in performing arduous firefighter duties. The program is intended to ensure that sufficient information is available to make a medically sound judgment of whether an individual could safely perform the firefighter duties.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we believe that examining firefighter performance and safety as a whole, rather than simply tracking training costs, helps us to better assess overall quality and effectiveness of our programs. We welcome continuing oversight from Congress to help us make further progress in this area, and we believe that providing Congress an annual report on the performance and efficacy of our overall firefighting program would produce the desired outcome.

S. 2003 “Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements Act of 2005”

This bill would amend Section 323 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999 (commonly referred to as the “Wyden amendment”), to permanently authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to use Forest Service appropriations to enter into cooperative watershed restoration and enhancement agreements with governments or private nonprofit entities and landowners to carry out activities on NFS lands or on non-Federal lands within the same watersheds. Agreements are authorized for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and other resources and/or the reduction of risk from natural disaster on public or private land to benefit resources in the watershed. The current authorization includes provisions on terms and conditions regarding technical assistance, sharing of costs, ensuring that expenditures are in the public interest, and that the public investment on non-Federal lands is protected.

The Department supports enactment of S. 2003, and would like to work with the Subcommittee on a short amendment to provide additional authority to more fully implement its provisions.

The Forest Service has successfully used the Wyden amendment since its original enactment and subsequent reauthorizations. Benefits include improved, maintained and protected ecosystem conditions through collaborative administration and implementation of projects as well as increased operational effectiveness and efficiency through coordination of efforts, services, and products to accomplish the highest priority work.

Of the many possible examples, work on the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon illustrates the benefits of working across landscapes using this authority. Since 1998, the forest has implemented 26 projects, leveraging $321,000 in Federal investments with $387,000 in partner contributions to restore floodplains, riparian areas, and estuaries; install in-stream structures; monitor activities; and share information. Strategic use of this tool has brought a tremendous benefit to watersheds affecting National Forest System lands.

Two bills have been introduced in the 109^th Congress that contain similar language to this provision. Last September, the Department testified in strong support of H.R. 3818, which includes authority for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements as part of a comprehensive Forest Service partnership bill. H.R. 3818, entitled the “Forest Service Partnership Enhancement Act”, was based on the Administration’s draft legislation transmitted to Congress under the same title. A similar bill, also with the same title, S. 2676, has recently been introduced by Senators Crapo and Lincoln.

These bills contain authority—not included in S. 2003—that would be important to the Forest Service’s future success to cooperatively carry out watershed restoration and enhancement agreements. That authority clarifies that watershed restoration and enhancement agreements are mutual benefit agreements. While the Department supports enactment of S. 2003, we would like the Subcommittee to consider the benefits of providing express authority for mutual benefit agreements as proposed by the Administration.

H.R. 585—Gateway Communities Cooperation Act

This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to: 1) solicit the involvement of gateway community leaders in the development of land use plans, programs, regulations, or other decisions that are likely to have a significant impact on gateway communities; 2) provide summary materials and, on request, offer training sessions to officials of gateway communities on meaningful participation in development of plans, decisions, and policies; 3) on request, make available personnel to assist gateway communities in development of mutually compatible land use or management plans; 4) enter into cooperative agreements with gateway communities to coordinate the management of land use inventory, planning, and management activities; 5) coordinate plans and activities with other Federal agencies, when practicable; and 6) allow any affected gateway community the opportunity to be recognized as cooperating agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

While the Department agrees with the principles embodied by the legislation--namely increased cooperation and collaboration with local communities in national forest management--we can accomplish these goals under current authorities. In the past several years, we have made substantial progress in our ability to collaborate with communities, and we think that progress should be taken into account as the Subcommittee considers H.R. 585. The Administration could support H.R. 585, but only if amended. We will submit a letter with recommended amendments shortly.

This Administration strongly supports cooperative efforts, as reflected in Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation, which calls for collaborative activity among federal, state, local, and tribal governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions, other nongovernmental entities and individuals. Last summer, the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation convened stakeholders from around the nation and from all walks of life to discuss ways of facilitating collaborative work. At that conference, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns affirmed that, “Conservation today is no longer about conflict. Instead, it's about cooperation, about partnerships, about collaborative solutions from the bottom up.”

The Department is committed to building and maintaining strong, mutually beneficial relationships with communities, including full participation of communities in land management planning decisions. The National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, among other statutes, provide a framework for including communities in agency planning. Resource Advisory Committees (RACs), established under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 have successfully brought together community members to use collaborative approaches to resource management. RACs are also being established to implement provisions of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

In addition, the Forest Service implementation the 2005 Planning Rule is improving the way it conducts land management planning. The 2005 Planning Rule emphasizes public participation and collaboration. In places where the new process is being used, communities have responded enthusiastically by joining collaborative work groups, participating in field trips and engaging at open houses.

For example, the Kootenai National Forest in western Montana and the Idaho Panhandle National Forest in northern Idaho are expected to release their proposed land management plans under the 2005 Planning Rule today. In developing this strategic vision for future land management, they convened over two hundred community-based workgroup meetings and many additional open houses and field trips. Forest Service personnel consulted with state and federal agencies as well as forty-two county commissioners, some of whom participated in the work groups. Throughout the process, government-to-government consultation occurred with seven Indian tribes. There will always be diverse opinions about the future of public lands, but we have already seen the benefits of facilitating interaction of stakeholders at the same table, working through issues together.

We currently have authority to take actions covered by this bill. Section 2(d)(7), for example, would allow any affected gateway community the opportunity to be recognized as a “cooperating agency” under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Departments currently have authority to designate cooperating agencies, under Council on Environmental Quality regulations (at 40 CFR 1501.6). These regulations specify that the cooperating agency must have jurisdiction by law or special expertise. A cooperating agency has specific responsibilities for contributing to the environmental analysis process.

The Department welcomes the opportunity to better coordinate our planning efforts with those of gateway communities. Better coordination would complement the goals of public land management to maintain healthy and sustainable ecosystems for current and future generations. We have made progress in actively pursuing collaboration with all communities of interest and place under our current authorities. Some of the provisions of the bill may have the unintended consequence of diminishing our ability to collaborate with a wide array of stakeholders. For example, providing special status to one community and not another could result in the appearance of differential treatment for affected communities.

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has made it his goal to reduce what he has termed “process predicament”. We are concerned that H.R. 585 could create additional process, and we would like to work with the Subcommittee to avoid this outcome.

The Departments would like to work with the Subcommittee to continue to improve our service to gateway communities and assure that any legislation contributes to that goal.

H.R. 3981 – Land Exchange Tahoe National Forest

The Department is not opposed to H.R. 3981.

H.R. 3981 would allow for the exchange of National Forest System lands (NFS) on the Tahoe National Forest with lands of the Christensen and McCreary families. The proposed exchanges are not authorized under the Small Tracts Act because, in one case the family’s tract does not meet the law’s requirements of innocent encroachment and in the other case the family’s tract does not qualify as a mineral survey fraction.

The Christensen exchange would involve seven acres of non-federal lands being exchanged for seven acres of federal lands. Both parcels are located within the North Yuba River Corridor.

The McCreary exchange would involve less than one acre of non-federal land being exchanged for less than one-acre of federal land. Both parcels are located adjacent to the town of Downieville, California. The non-federal parcel would provide valuable public trail access along the North Yuba River, if acquired by the Forest Service.

This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Chris Kearney

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy Management and Budget

Department of the Interior

Read statement

Witness Panel 1

Mr. Chris Kearney

STATEMENT OF

CHRISTOPHER KEARNEY

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BEFORE THE

SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

May 10, 2006

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of Interior’s views on H.R. 585, the "Gateway Communities Cooperation Act."

The Administration could support H.R. 585, but only if amended to address concerns cited below. We strongly support the bill’s goals to promote communication, cooperation, and coordination between federal land management bureaus and the local communities that may be affected by the decisions of those bureaus, but would like to work with the Subcommittee to ensure that these goals are achievable and accomplished in an effective and efficient manner. We will submit a letter with recommended amendments shortly.

H.R. 585 would require federal agencies to involve officials from impacted communities early in the development of federal plans, programs, regulations and decisions and to provide local officials with plain-English summaries of the assumptions, purposes, goals, and objectives of decisions, and any anticipated impacts on the community. H.R. 585 would require the Secretary to provide training sessions on agency planning processes and participation opportunities and to make available federal personnel to assist gateway communities in the development of land use plans. H.R. 585 would further authorize cooperative agreements and require greater coordination among federal agencies in engaging gateway communities in their planning processes.   Finally, H.R. 585 would direct the Secretary to allow gateway communities "the opportunity to be recognized" as cooperating agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Department's bureaus manage more than one out of every five acres of land in the United States, with most of these lands in the West. For example, the Department manages 72 percent of Nevada, almost 50 percent of Utah, and 62 percent of Alaska. Lands under our jurisdiction include vast multiple-use areas, and our bureaus host almost half a billion visitors a year, creating economic engines for communities across the country.

Population growth and economic expansion have increased pressures on our undeveloped land, water resources, and wildlife. While countless species depend on the land to sustain life, families depend on the land for community and economic well-being. We realize that the resource management decisions we make can greatly impact local communities and the people who live in them. Often these impacts are especially felt by "gateway" communities -- including those on Tribal Trust Lands -- that are adjacent to our federal lands. As a result, we realize that we must work in partnership with the people who live on the private and tribal lands that border our National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and other federal lands, and work on those lands or have access to resources on those lands.

Mutual benefits flow from cooperating with these communities. Gateway communities often take on the additional infrastructure and environmental duties that come with visitors headed to nearby federal lands. This has the effect of reducing the pressure on federal resources while stimulating gateway economic growth and creating jobs in those communities. For example, according to a study entitled, Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, nearly 37 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2004, creating almost 24,000 private sector jobs and producing about $454 million in employment income. Recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $151 million in tax revenue at the local, county, state and federal level. Some of these communities experience unusual pressures and problems brought about by their popularity as entry points for visitors onto federal lands. Additionally, some of these communities may also incur costs for additional services such as law enforcement, search and rescue, and public works. These additional costs, however, may be offset by the increased employment income and tax revenue.

Given this close relationship with gateway communities, the Department and the bureaus   have made it a priority to ensure that we are actively working to engage gateway communities in our planning processes. We would like to share with you the collaborative practice of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as well as some specific examples of successful projects undertaken in collaboration with gateway communities.

Under current practice, the BLM, the NPS, and the FWS and all of the Department bureaus already invite state, tribal, and local entities, in addition to federal agencies, to participate as cooperating agencies during development of an environmental impact statement under NEPA. Existing Department-wide guidance at 516 DM 2.5 (Departmental Manual) sets forth the requirement to invite the participation of these entities, along with more specific guidance on the establishment of the relationship, including the development of a memorandum of understanding concerning respective roles, assignment of issues, schedules, and staff commitments.    The Department incorporated this requirement and guidance for application to all bureaus in June 2005, shortly after the BLM became the first federal agency to promulgate land use planning regulations requiring invitations to eligible gateway communities to participate as cooperating agencies on environmental impact statements for land use plans. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and guidance are utilized by all federal agencies to engage the participation by state, tribal, and local entities as cooperating entities during the NEPA process.

Through collaboration and partnerships, the BLM determines how best to manage public lands to meet the needs of both local communities and the Nation as a whole through the planning process. This entails the BLM working with individuals, communities, and governments from the earliest stages and continuing through the land use planning process to address common needs and goals within the planning areas.

Some examples of how the BLM has successfully worked with gateway communities include the following:

·        The Sand Flats Agreement – Under a 1994 agreement among the BLM, Grand County, and the state of Utah concerning a 7,000 acre recreational area outside Moab, Utah, fee collection was turned over to the county, and the receipts were made available to the county for use in managing, providing educational services, and policing the highly popular recreational area. The BLM and its visitors have a signature recreation area, and the county has been able to control tourism in a way compatible with the wishes of its local citizens. The agreement has also resulted in a more vigorous tourist trade to benefit the local economy.

·        Las Cienegas National Conservation Area – In the gateway community of Sonoita, Arizona, local citizens formed the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP), which developed visions, goals and desired future conditions for the area. BLM then incorporated the SVPP objectives as the foundation for the Las Cienegas Resource Management Plan (2003), thus providing the community with the means to articulate and achieve its goals through the NCA's management.

The NPS also emphasizes participation of communities in the wide variety of planning efforts it undertakes. During development and updates of each park unit’s General Management Plan, NPS typically initiates the process by engaging in extensive outreach with affected communities by such means as giving presentations at civic group meetings and holding open houses. The NPS has produced a video that is often used at the meetings to explain the planning process. When NPS undertakes studies that have been authorized by Congress, such as studies of potential new park units, national trails, wild and scenic rivers, and national heritage areas, NPS engages all interested entities, including local communities, in a highly collaborative public process in effort to identify the best alternatives for preserving, managing, and interpreting resources. These efforts are consistent with Director’s Order 75A, Civic Engagement and Public Involvement (strengthened and reissued in 2003), which recognizes the strong interest of gateway communities in NPS actions and articulates our commitment to collaborating with interested parties.

Some examples of how the NPS has successfully worked with gateway communities include the following:

·        Zion National Park - Zion National Park and the gateway community of Springdale, Utah have established a mutually beneficial partnership through the creation of the Zion/Springdale transportation system. The system has enabled the town to draw customers to local businesses by providing parking and shuttle stops outside the park and has provided the park the benefits of decreased traffic congestion and pollution.

·        Grand Teton National Park – Grand Teton National Park and the gateway community of Jackson Hole and Teton County, Wyoming partner for search and rescue, major disaster and fire response. The park also collaborated with the chamber of commerce on a branding and marketing program called “Respecting the Power of Place,” which reinforces a commitment to foster both conservation and commerce in the Jackson Hole area.

Through a highly collaborative process, the FWS is currently working to complete Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) for 517 National Wildlife Refuges and 37 Wetland Management Districts by 2012, as mandated under the The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.

A CCP provides a vision for the next 15 years and ensures that each unit is managed to fulfill its individual purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. CCPs examine opportunities for facilitating compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and environmental education. CCPs use sound science to establish achievable goals, objectives, and outcomes. FWS had completed CCPs for 107 of 554 refuge and wetland management units as of September 30, 2005 and expected to complete CCPs for 92 units in FY 2006 and 49 units in FY 2007.

The FWS has integrated community and public participation into the CCP process. Prior to and during preparation of a CCP, FWS seeks and subsequently analyzes comments and concerns from federal, tribal, state, and local governments and private landowners concerning land management issues that may impact or relate to the refuge. A draft CCP is released to the public for comment, with copies provided to the interested entities. The FWS reviews and analyzes the comments, and a final CCP is released to the public. Following the adoption of a final CCP, FWS continues to improve and update the plans through annual reviews.

Some examples of how FWS has successfully worked with gateway communities and some of their over 200 Friends groups include:

·        J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge -- The Refuge, the Ding Darling Wildlife Society (Society), the City of Sanibel, Lee County, and other interested entities work together on a variety of efforts that result in better services for the more than 850,000 visitors to the refuge. Such collaborative efforts range from addressing water quality issues on the island, Ding Darling Days, and developing and constructing the state-of-the-art education center on the refuge.

·        Bosque del Apache Refuge – The Refuge and the Friends of Bosque Del Apache Refuge have worked closely with the City of Socorro, New Mexico for 18 years to produce the highly attended “The Festival of the Cranes.” This refuge based event celebrates the annual return of the sandhill cranes and numerous other species of birds that come to the refuge for the winter.

Through these and many other efforts, the Department is working to ensure that all of its management and policy decisions are made using a collaborative approach.

While the Department believes that HR 585 can positively promote this goal to more effectively communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with gateway communities, we do have a few concerns as well as technical issues with the bill. To address these issues, we plan to work with the U.S. Forest Service on a followup letter to the Subcommittee with specific suggested amendments that we believe will strengthen and clarify the bill. We would like to briefly highlight some of our concerns with H.R. 585.

First, we are concerned about the definition provided for gateway communities in section 2(c)(1) and believe it could be strengthened. As drafted, it is not clear what constitutes a gateway community, and it could vary greatly depending on the state in which the gateway community is located. The head of the tourism office for the state also may not be the appropriate individual to make the determination of whether a community is significantly affected -- particularly if the management decisions involve land uses that do not involve recreation. For these reasons, we strongly recommend an amendment to provide that the Secretary, in consultation with the state, determines whether a local government constitutes a gateway community for the purposes of this bill. The amendment would clarify that the relevant Secretary has the responsibility to ensure that similarly affected communities in different states are provided with similar opportunities. It also would ensure that the bill does not limit consultation to a state tourism office, but allows for consultation with the appropriate state contact, depending on the circumstances.

Second, we recommend revisions to section 2(d)(3), which mandates the Secretary to provide training sessions at the request of the gateway community. We believe it is important to improve communication and provide clear information about agency processes and opportunities to participate in planning. However, this section is too restrictive. We believe that the level of knowledge about an agency’s planning process can vary greatly from community to community. We suggest language that would allow for the flexibility of providing a variety of training materials and tailoring the federal response to the gateway community’s request depending on the level of familiarity particular officials have in federal planning processes. For example, in some situations, an official may prefer to be provided written summaries of the planning process and the opportunities to participate rather than receive formal training sessions.

Third, we are concerned about the provision in section 2(d)(4), which mandates that federal personnel take temporary work details to gateway communities to assist with planning efforts. We would like to work with the Subcommittee to find effective ways to provide assistance. The provision could entail not only federal planning efforts but state and local planning efforts. We believe this provision is not feasible, could result in competition among gateway communities for limited federal personnel, and could result in significant delays of federal projects as federal personnel are diverted from their planning duties. BLM estimates that approximately 4,000 communities are within, abut, or are adjacent to significant BLM-managed areas. The number of gateway communities that would be eligible to make the request for technical assistance is likely to far exceed the number of federal planning experts who would be available in the field offices to provide the assistance. In a time of austere budgets, federal agencies must focus limited resources on effectively managing our current responsibilities.

Fourth, we believe that the process for communicating an interest in participating as a cooperating agency and the guidelines for such participation in section 2(d)(7) is unclear, as drafted. We suggest an amendment that delineates the process by which the Secretary would notify potentially interested communities of a land use planning issue and by which a gateway community would communicate with the Secretary its interest in participating as a cooperating agency. During development of land management plans, Department bureaus already regularly offer affected states, tribes, and localities participation as cooperating agencies, and the CEQ regulations and guidance, the Department Manual and some agency regulations and guidance include procedures for such engagement. Thus, we suggest an amendment to ensure that these same authorities, in addition to NEPA, guide participation by gateway communities. We also would like to further discuss whether this section may be more appropriately incorporated into other sections that more generally address the engagement of gateway communities.

Looking back, one of the ideas behind the National Environmental Policy Act was that informed decision-making would result in the making of better decisions. The Department believes that H.R. 585, if amended as described in this testimony, can promote improved land management decisions accruing to the benefit of private and public lands and the people who live and work on them. Peaceful problem-solving and partnerships are keys to good land management. HR 585 promotes this through better communication, coordination, and cooperation between federal land and gateway communities and their citizens. We appreciate the opportunity to present these suggested amendments and look forward to working with the Subcommittee further on this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Steve Duerr

Former Executive Director

Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Steve Duerr

Testimony of Steve Duerr

Former Executive Director, Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce

May 10, 2006

Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Good afternoon. My name is Steve Duerr, and after 7 years I am the outgoing Executive Director of the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce. I have practiced law in Jackson Hole for about 20 years including about 8 years as General Counsel for the Jackson Hole Ski Corporation. Thank you for inviting me to provide my perspective about H.R. 585, the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act, coming from the southern gateway community to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks.

The livelihoods and prospects for running successful businesses in our community are intertwined with the power of the place in which we live—the southern gateway to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks.

The Jackson Hole Chamber has received much praise for its brand “Respecting the Power of Place” and for the collective promise by the business community to acknowledge a duty of stewardship to preserve this special place on Earth. This spirit of place, the abundant wildlife, clean air and water, and vast public lands, are the foundation of our economy and the essence of our community.

The brand promise was created through a process involving the mindful work of a diverse cross section of our community, including local elected officials, national park, national forest and national refuge managers, conservationists and hard-nosed business owners. We described the functional benefits for our brand promise, to maintain our distinctive market niche, and the emotional benefits, including a sense of stewardship and awe and reverence for the abundance and beauty of the natural resources in Jackson Hole. This close collaboration in the Jackson Hole region among commerce and conservation interests, federal, state and local leaders, has become the norm rather than the exception. While sometimes not in agreement, we are proud of a track record of constructive dialogue and cooperation. The Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center is just one example of collaboration across management jurisdictions and interests groups, which receives national praise and interest as a model for other gateway communities. Other examples are the annual Elk Fest and Boy Scout elk antler sale, Old West Days events, the Miller House interpretative center, Fall Arts Festival featuring the Arts for the Parks top 100 exhibits, and participation and support by community members in the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park Foundations.

In this historic and present context of cooperation and constructive dialogue, I am concerned that H.R. 585, as drafted, is somewhat misnamed. It does not appear to be legislation that focuses on truly enhancing cooperation and partnerships with balanced or practical approaches, but rather a somewhat confusing, one-size-fits-all mandate with an emphasis on compelling specific actions by the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior.I was appointed by the Secretary of Interior to an at Large Seat on the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG). By statute the BLM is required to meet regularly with the 7 stakeholder representatives and to cooperate with PAWG to try to mitigate impacts of the gas development in Sublette County, Wyoming. This is an example where cooperation is mandated by law, and I believe the results of actual cooperation have been very disappointing.

I want to be clear. The goal of cooperation set forth in the bill is a good idea. The question is, if the end result produced by genuine cooperation is good, whether the means to achieve that cooperation are well articulated in the bill. Surely gateway communities have an important role to play, and helpful perspectives to contribute, in the decision-making processes related to federal lands. We must be heard on federal land use decisions, and we would like our voice to carry greater weight on many matters. Clearly, our gateway community reaps the benefits of proximity to two world-class national parks, but we also must deal with the impacts on local infrastructure of millions of visitor and spiraling complex growth affecting the New West.

That said, it is worth noting that different federal lands have different purposes. The purpose of multiple use lands like the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming or the Kaniksu National Forest in Idaho are different from the purpose for which Grand Teton, Fort Laramie, and Yellowstone were designated as national park units. We ought to acknowledge that, while federal land managers should seek out and work with gateway leaders, national parks are not county parks, but must be managed in the broader national interest rather than the local interest. At times the politics are hot and the purported national and claimed local interests lock in a battle over NEPA comments on potential federal action, or in litigation over decisions. The range of emotions, the turf at stake and the wisdom of stakeholders and decision makers vary from issue to issue and from one federal land matter to another. It simply gets complicated very fast.

To sum up, about all you can say for sure is that those of us who work in gateway communities have our job to do, and the National Park Service and other federal land managers have their jobs to do. All of us need to respect each other’s needs and challenges when considering actions that may impact each other. Mutual respect breeds cooperation, but by what means can we help assure a process that lends itself to opportunities for nurturing mutual respect? The end goal of cooperation is good, but by what means shall we achieve that goal?

H.R. 585: I repeat that the purpose of the bill is laudable—improving relationships among federal land managers and gateway communities, enhancing facilities and services in gateway communities to serve visitors, and improving local land use planning and decision making. The problem is that the rest of the bill doesn’t live up to its purpose. My hope is that, with changes, it might provide a means to the laudable end of cooperation.

I want to highlight four basic problems with the bill, which ought to be addressed: (1) imposing requirements across the board without acknowledging the diversity of land management agency missions, including the purpose of individual (especially park) units; (2) the basic idea that one can mandate cooperation; (3) the challenges park personnel face because of insufficient funding, and how that can impact gateway communities; and (4) identifying and funding action toward best practices in collaborative decision making or adaptive management.

One Size Does Not Fit All: First, I note that in H.R. 585, responsibilities on the part of gateway communities are not very well articulated. The findings section of the bill does a reasonably good job of describing the roles of gateway communities, but does a poor job of acknowledging the special roles and responsibilities of entities like the National Park Service.   The bill seems to treat all federal lands, federal management considerations, and gateway community relationships the same, when diversity not sameness appears to be the rule. Federal land managed by the Forest Service, which is managed for multiple use, has different purposes from national park land that has been set aside for future generations and includes different permitted uses in different national parks. The experience with PAWG and the BLM is remarkable in that the politics of gas development may now be the sole “multiple use” for which these federal lands are managed. Yet, neither the findings nor the remainder of the bill seem to acknowledge the important distinctions among federal lands or the practical challenges to cooperation among federal land managers and gateway communities wrought by changing politics .

Mandating Cooperation: Second, it is difficult to see how you can mandate cooperation through federal legislation. The fact is, people from all perspectives on an issue need the ability to engage in respectful dialogues. Otherwise genuine cooperation is unlikely. Certainly, there have been plenty of times when federal land managers, including the National Park Service, have done things local communities didn’t like. I’ve had those experiences like the gas development boom. But there have also been many examples of useful dialogue producing beneficial results, like the examples I provided of how our federal, state, local, commercial and conservation interests often work together.

It is easy to see why many of my colleagues in gateway communities feel frustrated enough with the brush-offs they have received from time to time from various federal officials, and too often too many federal managers consider local governments a nuisance. But, as tempting as it may be to mandate cooperation, this is impractical.

The solution is not a bureaucratic checklist of items that the feds must do. Such a list inevitably will lead to more frustration and could simply lead to litigation, rather than better results that build on the mutual interests of national parks and adjacent communities.

What we need is a mechanism or process that can lead to the sustainable strengthening of relationships and mutual respect at the local level. What we need is a careful articulation of the possible means to “assist” in building cooperation rather than a simple mandate of cooperation. Specific to the language of the bill, consider the ramifications if the word “assist” in inserted for “require” and if the bill then went on to explain the means of that assistance. There will not always be agreement, but there certainly can be much better procedures that provide more opportunities for constructive dialogue and reasoned compromise than often is the case today. The fact is, in the case of the Park Service, there are already plenty of requirements for engaging with local communities.   At times those produce results we in gateway communities like, and at times they don’t. The solution is not more bureaucratic paperwork requirements, but a practical and fair process for engagement that works.

For example, federal managers ought to be better trained earlier in their careers about how to work with local communities. The bill could be amended, or personnel policies changed, to require specific training for early or mid-career BLM, Park Service or Forest Service personnel in how to work with gateway communities. Obviously certain decisions made by a national park or various federal land managers can have profound effects on a community—transportation decisions, reductions in visitor center hours, and others. Federal land managers need to be aware of that fact, and they need to know that it matters. Certainly they have their obligations based on the charge they are given, but they ought to have relevant training so we are reasonably assured they understand the ramifications of various decisions on their neighbors in the local communities— this training could lead to more sustainable and acceptable decision making. Regular, meaningful and mindful communication should be the rule based on training and a federal culture sensitive to the necessity for cooperation.

The same is true for gateway communities. Transportation decisions, zoning determinations and other policies we develop can have enormous impacts on national parks and other public lands. Just like the national parks, our local communities have the right to make their own decisions. But those decisions can be better for all concerned if we work to understand their impacts on federal lands held in public trust, and the potential alternatives that might help us reach the same ends.

The bill requires training sessions for elected officials in gateway communities. The Park Service’s management policies already require in section 2.3.1.6 that park managers “use the public involvement process to share information about legal and policy mandates, the planning process, issues, and proposed management directions; learn about the values placed by other people and groups on the same resources and visitor experiences; and build support for implementing the plan among local interests, visitors, Congress, and others at the regional and national level." It further requires park managers to work with a broad range of the public, including, “existing and potential visitors, park neighbors, people with traditional cultural ties to lands within the park, concessionaires, cooperating associations, other partners, scientists and scholars, and other government agencies.” Who is to receive training, how and when, the purposes for the training and the desired outcomes of training are not well described in the bill.

Last spring, Grand Teton National Park invited county and town officials to a briefing on its plans and priorities. The park provided an overview of park issues, and explained some of its current and future plans, including an orientation to the new visitor center site. The more parks and other federal land managers make efforts like this to brief, communicate with, and hear from, local leaders, the better off we’ll be. While there are times when briefings like this one are necessary—and they are always beneficial—regular, frequent communication by both parties ought to be the rule. Training can help accomplish that, but mandating how that training should look in every case is not necessarily the way to go.

In addition, I understand that there are excellent training courses presently available that can be beneficial both to federal officials and gateway community leaders. For example, a course offered through the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Conservation Training Center, entitled “Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities,” is designed to help “prepare public land managers and gateway community leaders to develop and promote their own gateway community initiatives. The course explores significant issues facing gateway communities and adjacent public lands and the tools that can be used to address those issues.” One mechanism for pursuing such an existing training opportunity would be to create a very modest grant program with resources for which gateway communities and federal land managers might jointly apply.

Funding Challenges: This brings me to my third reservation. I am concerned about layering specific requirements onto the responsibilities of all federal land managers, regardless of the degree to which they have the capacity to meet those requirements—particularly the Park Service. This not only stresses already strained budgets, but also may create unrealistic expectations among gateway communities. For example, many national parks do not have on staff the kinds of land use planners the bill requires to provide technical assistance to gateway communities. Again, not all parks are alike, so it makes little sense to treat Grand Teton, Fort Laramie, Gettysburg and Minuteman Missile park units the same.

In addition, the combination of unfunded mandates and fixed costs has forced Grand Teton to cut its interpretive staff by nearly 1/3-from 17 to 12. This has meant a reduction in the number of public education programs and in the hours of operation of the Colter Bay Visitor Center. This kind of reduction in park services is not beneficial to Jackson Hole or to park visitors. It is not fair to blame the park, which is having to make extremely hard choices because of inadequate budgets.

These human resource and financial capacities are relevant considerations in assessing the ability of park managers and gateway communities to cooperate, but the bill does not address such matters. The means by which assistance can be provided toward the end goal of cooperation should be better articulated.

Best Practices: Fourth, the bill as drafted misses an opportunity to identify models that genuinely work. Very modest planning grants of $50,000 to $80,000, with an in-kind match from small gateway communities, could be enormously beneficial in fostering a process where local government, businesses, tribal governments, the Park Service and other key parties to engage in collaborative planning efforts that meet mutual goals and obligations. Something like this could be tried on a pilot basis at various land management units and units of the Park System—national forests, BLM sites, national parks, national battlefields, national historic sites, etc. However, the money should come from a separate source, not from already stretched park budgets. There are few incentives toward working together that work as well as putting money on the table, even a modest amount.

Regarding the BLM statutory PAWG requirement of dialogue and cooperation concerning gas development impacts, the BLM has money for the process and for mitigation. Concerning adaptive management best practices, one might consider why this required cooperation is not working – what assistance could be provided to the BLM and community leaders that builds mutual respect, cooperation and success on the ground? In my opinion, requiring cooperation in this instance is not working.

Conclusion: In summary, I want to leave the subcommittee with the following thoughts:

First, resist the temptation to mandate cooperation. There are examples where such mandates are failing. We ought to learn why and what assistance could be provided to aid cooperation. Consider inserting “assist” for “require” and then defining the means to the end of cooperation, perhaps, defining best practices and providing funding opportunities for their implementation.

Second, respect the differences between the missions of various federal land management agencies, including units within the jurisdiction of those agencies. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with the BLM, national parks and national forests, just as there is no single solution for every gateway community.
Mr. Bob Warren

Chairman

National Alliance of Gateway Communities

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Bob Warren

STATEMENT OF BOB WARREN

CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

TO

THE SUBCOMMITEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES



REGARDING

H.R. 585

THE GATEWAY COMMUNITIES COOPERATION ACT

May 10, 2006

Thank you, Chairman Craig and other subcommittee members, for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 585. I am here as Chairman of the National Alliance of Gateway Communities (NAGC) and I am also representing the City of Redding, California, as the Tourism Development Manager. Redding is the perfect example of a gateway community. Within a ten-mile radius, there are the boundaries of a National Park Service Unit, Bureau of Land Management lands, and a National Forest. The City benefits from this close proximity to Federal lands, attracting significant tourism dollars, and, of course, the lifestyle blessings of actual proximity to beautiful natural attractions. Visitors to our Federal lands benefit also from the first class tourism services available in Redding, which has hundreds of private tourism service businesses. The NAGC represents the interests of those communities that serve as gateways for millions of visitors to our magnificent Federal public. The NAGC was actually formed with the encouragement of the major Federal land management agencies, which felt there was a need for an organization to help small gateway communities become more skilled at interacting with Federal agencies. This organization is the only national organization solely dedicated to representing the interests of gateway communities.

I am pleased to note that the NAGC is joined in its support of H.R. 585 by the National Association of Counties, the National Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds, the National Bus Association, the National Tour Association and the Travel Industry Association of America.

On behalf of the NAGC and gateway communities everywhere, we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering this historic bill in this hearing. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first bill ever to focus exclusively on the needs and concerns of gateway communities.

Gateway communities, by their very nature, are close to public lands. They have a symbiotic relationship that creates an arrangement where the public land units need the communities for their services, while the communities need the public lands as attractions. In California and in the West, and in many other parts of the nation, communities are transitioning to more diversified economies, less based on resource extraction. We know that, in the future, visitors to public lands will play an increasingly more important role in the economies of our gateway communities. In rural California, every $68,000 spent by travelers creates one new job. Also, many of those visiting public lands are international visitors who often make their visit to America a visit to rural America. Germans alone account for hundreds of thousands of visits to public lands in California annually. One national park in Northern California surveyed visitors during a recent one-month period, and eleven percent of all visitors were German. Obviously, the dollars spent by these foreign visitors and others are important to both the economies of gateway communities as well as to the national balance of trade. Those of us in the West also know that public lands will continue to be the “magnets” that draw both domestic visitors and internationals back to our rural communities.

The Need: Why H.R. 585 Is Important

Many of the supervisors, superintendents, and managers of public land management units are keenly aware of the importance of working with their gateway communities. I know in my area, many of them make daily efforts to interact with community leaders. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. There are too many cases where relationships are inconsistent and unreliable and are often too dependent on the personalities involved. What we want to do by enacting this legislation is to take a major step towards institutionalizing those relationships by putting them on a firmer statutory base.

There are also examples of Federal land managers showing little concern for the economics of gateway communities and purposefully attempting to affect development outside their management units. In one instance in the Northwest, a new national park superintendent was interviewed for an article in a major newspaper in which he indicated opposition to a planned destination resort more than 11 miles from the park that he managed. Unfortunately, he had neglected to communicate with the developer who had, for the previous nine years, worked in concert with the park superintendent’s predecessor and staff on the planning of this resort. H.R. 585 would certainly not have affected his ability to speak out on this issue, but he would have at least known that he also would need to develop a relationship with the adjacent communities, so when issues related to important park management decisions came up, the community would be part of his thought process.

Many of the management plans for significant public land devote hundreds of pages to natural resource preservation, while devoting just a paragraph or two to the people who live in or adjacent to that unit. Their frustration is exacerbated when their communities do not have a “seat at the table”.

For example, although economic and social impacts are supposed to be considered in national forest management plans, the plan for the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona has about one paragraph that addresses gateway issues with more than 100 pages addressing various habitat scenarios. Careful consideration is given to the goshawk, but little is given to the gateway communities and the people who live there. Now we want to be clear. We do not object to thorough consideration of environmental and wildlife issues; indeed we strongly support such examination. But surely the interests and concerns of gateways and the families and businesses that make their homes there should also get serious consideration.

In the mid-1990s, the five communities that are gateways to Yellowstone National Park decided to form the Yellowstone Gateway Alliance to speak with one voice on issues of common concern to all of them. The superintendent of the park at that time flatly refused to talk with the gateways as a group, although he was more than willing to meet with other interest group coalitions. Conversely, today the community of Cody, Wyoming, the east entrance to Yellowstone National Park, is enjoying an excellent rapport with the current park superintendent, Suzanne Lewis and her staff. Cody has had input in park road maintenance affecting the east entrance and their tourism economy. Working together they now describe road work as “road improvements” rather than “construction” and refer to “hours of operation” rather than “closures.”

For more than 50 years the small tourism community of Cody has realized the importance of a respectful and working relationship with the Yellowstone National Park administration and community leaders. The Cody National Park Committee meets at least three times a year with Yellowstone officials to make certain communication lines remain open and issues get identified and dealt with before they become problems. Although the community realizes it is extremely fortunate to have exemplary working relationships currently with its Federal partners, it also understands that has not always been the case, and that those relationships can and often do change with new administrations. For this reason, Gene Bryan, executive director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, declares that, “We believe the Gateways bill gives us some level of assurance that gateways like Cody will be involved in critical management issues – multi-year plans, plan revisions, specific issues (winter use, for example). We don’t expect all our ‘wants’ and ‘desires’ to be met, but we do appreciate being listened to.”

Another community adjacent to Yellowstone experienced similar challenges. West Yellowstone, Montana, a small gateway community of about 1100 people literally situated at the west gate of Yellowstone National Park and bounded on all other sides by Forest Services lands, provides lodging and ancillary needs for over 2 million visitors a year, and of course is heavily impacted by decisions made at the Park and with Forest Service managers. West Yellowstone should indeed be a partner with the Park, providing infrastructure and facilities to handle their visitors and contributing significantly to the visitor experience. In the late 1990’s the community attempted to meet the challenge and heavily bonded for municipal services. But, as a result of changes precipitated by the 2000 Winter Use Plan, the total number of winter recreational visitors from the west gate has dropped from 70,371 visitors in 1970-71 to 28,242 in 2005-06. This has been devastating, and has caused 10 local businesses to close in the winter. The gateway communities around Yellowstone National Park count on winter access into Yellowstone as part of their economic viability. The 2000 winter use plan for Yellowstone called for a ban on snowmobile usage in the park. Despite repeated attempts by local gateway towns to obtain cooperating agency status during the development of that winter use plan, they were never given the opportunity to be “at the table” with the neighboring states and adjacent counties during this process.

Another example of “challenging relations” is Yosemite National Park. Attendance at Yosemite National Park was growing quite steadily prior to the flood of 1997. A General Management Plan had been put into place to address the anticipated future of resource protection in light of these trends. Implementation of the 1980 General Management Plan was on hold during the years leading up to 1997 due to lack of enough funds to support both day to day operations and plan implementation. The emergency funds awarded by Congress to Yosemite National Park officials, posed an opportunity too good to pass up. Several implementation plans were “tweaked” and the Yosemite Valley Plan emerged to support the 1980 General Management Plan principles. The foundational intent of the planning process has become well know to most Californians, i.e., to eliminate cars and limit access to bus transportation. This has left a significant portion of the public searching for a more convenient alternative for vacations and getaways. Visitors Bureaus from around Yosemite are questioned at nearly every travel show and conference they attend about the ability to drive into the park. Since 1997, visitation to Yosemite remains relatively flat, compared to the 1997 figures. A variety of park management decisions have lead to the public voting on these decisions by choosing not to visit. The Park management’s concern with stagnant visitation seems to be low on the priority list and may give some hint to the need for better cooperation between Yosemite and the gateway communities. Gateway community leaders around Yosemite often feel the Park’s quarterly "Gateway Partners" meetings are in reality just "show and tell" sessions, with little input being taken from the gateways. Those in the communities who call them such, are characterized as "uncooperative" or "radical gatewayers" who will never be satisfied.

When communities are making significant planning changes, especially involving land use issues, they are required to comply with a host of Federal environmental mandates. Many agencies often comment on their proposed planning efforts. This makes for a one-way street, as the communities have far less opportunity to comment on proposed changes on adjacent Federal lands. Although H.R. 585 does provide gateway communities a “seat at the table,” the bill does not give a gateway community a veto over agency programs, actions, or policies. The bill would promote cooperation and coordination and give local Federal land managers a greater understanding of the needs and perspectives of their adjacent communities. I might add that it will also give local leaders a greater understanding of the needs and perspectives of their local Federal land managers.

Defining Gateways

It is difficult to use specific geographic, demographic, social or economic criteria to define and identify all gateway communities. Previous efforts to define gateways as those communities within so many miles of a particular Federal land site, or with a maximum population base, or as generating so much tax revenue from visitors to the Federal land site inevitably fall short of encompassing the full range of gateways. There are always notable exceptions to any such formula.

For these reasons, we support the approach taken in H.R. 585. After requiring that gateway communities be incorporated or recognized in a “county or regional land use plan or within tribal jurisdictional boundaries.” The decision as to whether a community is a gateway is delegated to “the relevant Secretary (or the head of the tourism office for the State)” who are required to determine whether the community “is significantly affected economically, socially, or environmentally by planning and management decisions regarding Federal lands.”

We believe the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture and the State Tourism Offices are in the best position to determine the degree to which the community is affected by its Federal land neighbor.

What This Bill Will Not Do

Now let me try and clarify some possible misimpressions about this Gateways Bill.

First, we do not believe it is an invitation to “bash the agencies.” Many local Federal land managers understand the importance of good relations with their gateway communities and make proactive attempts to cultivate those good relations. They are to be commended. At the national level, the Federal land agencies recently have increasingly recognized the importance of gateways.

Second, H.R. 585 does not gives gateway communities any type of veto over policies, decisions, programs or activities of any Federal land agency. It does not give any gateways preference or priority over any other stakeholder. That has never been the intent of the bill.

Third, we do not believe that H.R. 585 will encourage litigation by gateways communities over agency plans or decisions. For several reasons, including a lack of financial resources, it is extremely rare for gateway communities to initiate litigation challenging the Federal agencies. To the contrary, we believe that the closer communication and dialogue and better partnerships that will be fostered by H.R. 585 will make future litigation much less likely.

Fourth, we do not think that H.R. 585 is, in any way, contrary to the environmental values and goals of our nation. No one loves the natural beauty and wildlife of our magnificent national parks, forests and other Federal public lands more than those who have chosen to spend their lives in the communities next door to them.

Fifth, we do not believe that H.R. 585 elevates local interests over the national interests. We recognize that we are talking about national parks and national forests, and they must always be responsive first and foremost to national values and priorities. Nothing in this bill would change that.

Sixth, H.R. 585 does not place any additional mandates on gateway communities. It will be the voluntary choice of the gateway as to whether it seeks to utilize any of the provisions of the bill.

What This Bill Will Do

H.R. 585 is a balanced, reasonable response to a widespread concern. As we have noted, in many instances, relationships between Federal land agencies and their gateway communities are harmonious and productive. Many Federal land managers and local leaders do indeed “get it” and work harmoniously together.

They understand that the community and the Federal land are inevitably interconnected. They understand that it is not a “zero sum game,” but that the health and vitality of one has a direct impact on the other. They understand the imperative of being “good neighbors” with their gateways. They understand that the Federal lands are poorly served by gateway communities that are weak and resentful,

But this is not always the case. In the last decade, in 1998 and in 2002, there have been two major State-Federal Conferences devoted to gateway communities. At both conferences, two common refrains were that the agencies too often ignored the interests of gateways without reason and that many gateways have insufficient staff and expertise to participate in a truly meaningful way in agency policy-making processes. At present, it is up to each Federal land manager to decide what relationships he or she wants to have with gateway communities. There has never been a statutory declaration that gateway communities are critical to the mission of the agencies and that cooperation and coordination should be fostered.

The first and greatest value of H.R.585, therefore, is to declare as a matter of national policy that Federal land managers are required

to communicate, coordinate and cooperate with gateway communities in order to –

(1)   improve the relationships among Federal land managers, elected officials and residents of gateway communities;

(2)   enhance the facilities and services in gateway communities available to visitors to Federal lands when compatible with the management of these lands, including the availability of historical and cultural resources; and

(3)   result in better local land use planning in gateway communities and decisions by the relevant Secretary.

The bill thus provides historic recognition by Congress that gateway communities are integral to the mission of the public lands, the first points of contact for visitors and the providers of essential services to both visitors and the public lands.

In the closing days of the Clinton Administration, T. Destry Jarvis, then Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, wrote: “ . . . no land-use decision around a national park is exclusively local or national, but always has implications on both. The National Park Service should realize its affirmative responsibility to actively participate in local land-use decisions, and should similarly be aware of the effects of its decisions on its neighbors, allowing them to be involved in the process of arriving at those decisions.” H.R. 585 would be an historic step towards that goal.

Too many times, small gateway communities – towns and counties – are expected to interpret and comment on complex agency draft planning documents without staff and expertise to interpret and evaluate the potential ramifications of those plans for the communities.

In this regard, let me enter in a statement from an NAGC director. This statement is from Karen Alvey, former mayor of Kanab, Utah, who over the years, has tried hard to ensure that the Escalante National Monument is developed in accord with both national and local values and goals.

After much thought, I have decided that the whole process of planning on public lands must be done with the communities at the table, and early on. Most of the public officials have other jobs, cannot afford full time staff to attend and gather information, and lack the knowledge to make good decisions on management issues. If it is mandated to invite the community’s leaders in early so that they can become educated, then better decisions will be made. Currently, planning seems to go on forever, then decisions are made and announced to the communities.

H.R. 4622 would enable gateways to be much more meaningful participants in those agency planning processes by:

(1)   receiving early, non-technical summaries of such plans, their assumptions and objectives and the anticipated impact on gateway communities;

(2)   receiving the earliest practicable public notice of proposed decisions that may have a significant impact on gateway communities;

(3)   receiving training from the agencies about their planning processes and how they can best participate;

(4)   receiving technical assistance from the agency, including detailed agency staff to work with the gateway to understand and respond better to proposed agency plans;

(5)   receiving, on request, a review from the agency of its land use, management or transportation plans likely to affect the community;

(6)   entering into cooperative agreements to coordinate local land use plans with those of the Federal land agency, other Federal agencies, State governments and tribal governments;

What these provisions would do is to institutionalize gateway community involvement with their Federal land neighbors. It would systematize and set parameters on planning processes that have until now been inconsistent and unclear from the perspective of local communities. Plans do matter. The Federal land agencies are guided (and limited) in future years by the assumptions and conclusions of their plans. They will be better plans – more effective and more accepted -- with greater community involvement.

It is also worthy of special note that H.R. 585 will require interagency coordination and consolidation when the plans and planning processes of two or more Federal land agencies are anticipated to have an impact on a gateway community. This will go a long way towards reducing overlap, redundancy and confusion for gateways near multiple Federal lands with multiple plans.

Summary and Conclusion

In closing, I don’t think we can any longer deny our gateway communities legal standing in the Federal decision-making process. Often, Federal lands are the foundation of a community’s culture, commerce, and heritage. Decisions affected those lands are often politicized and charged with emotion, as shown by the proliferation of litigation by outside groups (although typically not by gateways). The politics and emotions are dramatically played out in our communities. This wrenching drama is for naught, if our communities cannot have a meaningful stake in the process.   Often, this process is affected by the sparse rural population political representation in the West, pitted against well meaning, urban political agendas driven by well-financed and staffed special interest groups. This leads to many gateway communities feeling as if they are being treated like children, when told to “eat your vegetables, it’s what’s best for you”. H.R. 585 will modify the process and level the playing field by directly and appropriately including gateway communities.

Leaders in gateway communities are faced with the daily tension of attempting to balance commerce and conservation, of preserving enduring wildness while enhancing economic well-being. Our communities will survive only if we are constantly ensuring that the needs of nature are met while people are allowed to make a living. This tension is of course by choice, as those of us who live in rural, gateway locations most often would choose to be nowhere else. We feel that this important bill will help bridge the gap between today and tomorrow, while striving to preserve all that is natural, as well as maintaining the character of our communities. A consistent Federal process of inclusion of the leaders of gateway communities would improve the process, the politics, and the outcome. All we ask is some say in our future.

If gateway communities are to continue to be healthy partners, it is imperative that there be greater collaboration in the planning process. Local input should be considered, so as not to make oversights in judgments and decisions that could be avoided with true partnership relationships. At times decisions are made by Federal land managers without much consideration of the impact on the communities, the process of fostering healthy relationships or the local economics. The communities are left to pick up the pieces and try and fix what becomes broken in the process.  Such problems could have been averted with collaboration at the appropriate time.

We believe it was never the intent of Congress or the agencies to have the personalities of supervisors, superintendents, or other land managers determine the level of cooperation between gateway communities and the federal lands units. H.R. 585 would not compel any manager to talk to coalitions of gateway communities or dictate the terms of partnerships, but it would clearly declare that the intent of Congress is to support much greater cooperation, coordination and communication between gateway communities and Federal land managers.

H.R. 585 would result in closer, more productive cooperative relationships between gateways and Federal land managers, benefiting both the communities and the federal lands, responding to both national and local values. H.R. 585 would enhance the capability of gateways to participate more effectively and more meaningfully in agency planning processes for the betterment of all. It should become law. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 585, is landmark legislation. Its enactment will open a new day for gateway communities throughout the nation.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working with you to ensure enactment of this vital legislation.

Hearings and Business Meetings

Archived Webcast

Witness Panel 1

The Honorable George Radanovich

Mr. Joel Holtrop

Mr. Chris Kearney

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Steve Duerr

Mr. Bob Warren