U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–430 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–518

PROMOTE WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY; WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENTS; GATEWAY

COMMUNITIES AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING; AND LAND EXCHANGES IN THE TAHOE NATIONAL

FOREST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 906 S. 2003

H.R. 585 H.R. 3981

MAY 10, 2006

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

BRUCE M. EVANS, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT MILLER, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho ................................................... 1

Duerr, Steve, Former Executive Director, Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, Jackson, WY ............................................................................................. 24

Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief for National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 6

Kearney, Chris, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and 

Budget, Department of the Interior .................................................................... 12

Radanovich, Hon. George, U.S. Representative From California ........................ 3

Warren, Bob, Chairman, National Alliance of Gateway Communities, Redding, CA ................................................................................................................ 29

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 2

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 41

(1)

PROMOTE WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY; 

WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENTS; GATEWAY COMMUNITIES AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT 

PLANNING; AND LAND EXCHANGES IN THE 

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be convened. 

Let me welcome all of our witnesses from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior and our public witness to H.R. 585, Steve Duerr, executive director of the Jackson 

Hole Chamber of Commerce, along with Bob Warren, chairman of 

the National Alliance of Gateway Communities, from Redding, 

California. And I understand he has a support testifier today, in 

the form of a Congressman. 

George? George Radanovich, welcome to the committee. We appreciate you being with us today. George is here to speak in relation to H.R. 585. That’s the gateway community legislation. Of 

course, let the record show that Congressman Radanovich represents the 19th District of California. 

We will also take testimony on S. 906, Senator Cantwell’s bill to 

promote wildland firefighter safety; along with S. 2003, to make 

permanent the authorization of watershed restoration and enhancement agreements; H.R. 585, to require the Federal land managers to support, communicate, coordinate, and cooperate with designated gateway communities—I’ve already mentioned that one—

along with H.R. 3981, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 

carry out certain land exchanges involving small parcels of National Forest System lands in the Tahoe National Forest in the 

State of California, and for other purposes. 

2

I will reserve my comments on most of these bills, but I would 

like to make this one comment on H.R. 585. I understand that 

some who are opposed to H.R. 585 believe the national parks were 

not set up to provide economic benefits to local communities, nor 

were parks intended to be these communities’ exclusive playgrounds. But this bill is not just about national park gateway communities, it also addresses communities next to our national forests. I hope that we will work through the bill. All will remember 

what President Teddy Roosevelt told the Society of American Foresters, in 1903 at a meeting regarding the effort to form the Forest 

Service—he said, ‘‘And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy, 

for that object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, even though that is good, in itself, nor is it because they are 

refuge for the wild creatures of wilderness, though that, too, is 

good, in itself, but the primary objective of our forest policy, as the 

land policy of the U.S. Government, is the making of prosperous 

homes.’’ That was the driving force behind the President, who created the forest preserves of our country. So, we are extremely 

pleased to have that bill before us. 

I’ve been joined by some of my colleagues. And before I turn to 

Senator Wyden, the ranking member of this committee, to make 

opening comments, along with my colleague from Wyoming, I’d like 

to recognize Senator Wyden’s long-time natural resource counsel, 

Sarah Bittleman, who is leaving that office to begin to work for the 

Governor of the State of Oregon. I have reason to question her sanity. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. Sarah, I know you have worked extremely hard 

for your Senator, and I appreciate the legislative progress that we 

have made together as I’ve worked with Senator Wyden and you 

over these last 8 years. The State of Oregon and Senator Wyden 

have been well represented by you and your work, and I know 

many of the committee join me in wishing you the best of future 

endeavors. Now, Sarah has been with us only 8 years, so she 

doesn’t get a pin or a gold watch, but if Ron will throw a big party 

for her, I’ll be happy to come. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. With that, let me turn to Senator Wyden for any 

opening comments he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, not 

just for your typical courtesies as we move forward with some important bills, but particularly for singling out Sarah Bittleman. 

She has been, in my view, the Bionic Woman. She has managed 

to be just about everywhere on natural resources issues, always 

working in a thoughtful and diplomatic way. And I would also note 

that Callie is here, and I think, between Sarah and Callie, we have 

had an especially professional duo. And it is one—we always say 

we really don’t let anyone leave. Sarah is going to work for the 

Governor, but she is permanently going to have assignments, I 

think, with us, as well, as we consult with her late at night and 

3

try to once again see if we can make magic on issues like county 

payments. 

I think it’s worth noting that between Sarah and Callie and 

Frank, especially, the staff folks that have handled it, we have, on 

Sarah’s watch, been able to pass the only two pieces of major forestry legislation that have cleared the U.S. Senate in 15 years. Our 

good friend Senator Thomas is here. We have all watched, unfortunately, the kind of polarization and problems we’ve seen on natural 

resources, and Sarah, with Callie and Frank, have managed to cut 

through that and see two important pieces of legislation become 

law. 

So, in the special bipartisan salute to Sarah Bittleman that was 

launched by the chairman, I want to offer my resounding thanks, 

as well. There will, in fact, be a Sarah party, and it will not include 

any 4-hour-and-40-minute speeches by me, as I was compelled to 

make on the oil royalty issues. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. I see that has brought great applause from Senator Thomas. But I can’t think of a better way than to honor Sarah 

in a bipartisan way with the group that has worked so closely together over all these years. And I thank you especially for singling 

out Sarah, because when people talk about what’s gone on in the 

last 15 years in natural resources, I think Sarah’s name is going 

to be a key part of that history, and we’re very, very appreciative 

of all of her contributions. Thank you for launching this special 

tribute, Mr. Chairman. 

[Applause.] 

Senator CRAIG. Ron, thank you very much. 

Let me turn to my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, 

for any opening comments he would like to make. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t realize this 

hearing was going to be about Sarah, so I’m not prepared. 

I don’t have any comments, particularly. I did want to welcome 

Steve Duerr, from Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I’m glad he’s here today 

to testify on one of the bills. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you. 

And now, with that, let us turn to Congressman Radanovich in 

relation to the legislation that he has sponsored through the 

House, H.R. 585. 

George, welcome before the committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Senator. It’s a pleasure to be here 

today. 

And, Sarah, may I wish you the best in Oregon, as well. 

I’m going to make sure that my comments go in, too. 

Thanks for the opportunity to come here and talk about the 

Gateway Communities Cooperation Act. It’s H.R. 585. This bill was 

approved by the House on the suspension calendar last December, 

and it was also approved in the House in the 108th Congress. 

If I can go back and describe my situation in my neck of the 

woods in California, I was born and raised in Mariposa, which is 

4

right next to Yosemite National Park. It’s a gateway community. 

And over the years, the county has had a checkered relationship 

with Yosemite. They cooperate, and the county provides very valuable services, like solid waste for the entire part of Yosemite National Park. There also have been times when we’ve had superintendents that, when they got this idea that there were too many 

cars in the park, the gate would shut down in the middle of the 

day and cause all kinds of havoc. And many times we’ve had superintendents—and I think that all of you who adjoin Federal lands, 

either forest lands or parks lands, know this—where they can pretend that the boundaries don’t extend beyond the park, and give 

no consideration to things outside the park. Not only does this not 

benefit what we call the satellite communities, those small communities adjoining the park, but they do themselves, I think, a disservice, because in many—just by the proximity of some of these 

small towns and counties, they provide services to the Park Service 

and can be an asset for the development of the regional plans that 

the parks and Federal lands are required to do—for example, 

transportation, housing, many ways that satellite communities can 

be an asset. 

So, what this legislation does is that it requires Federal agencies, 

when they begin their planning processes, to invite the local authorities, the local counties to participate in that planning process. 

They can choose not to, because it would cost them some money 

and effort, I think, to do that. But they are at least given the choice 

to begin providing information up front when Federal agencies like 

the Forest Service or the Park Service do begin to develop their national plans. 

It’s something that I think makes sense. And I would like to say 

that those people that might object to this, that it’s—not only does 

it—it would help provide, I think, an economic—an ongoing, dependable economic asset to satellite communities, but also realize 

that satellite communities contribute a lot to the success and the 

planning, and can even do more to most of the Federal lands—

BLM, Forest Service, and Park Service lands. 

So, I would deeply appreciate the subcommittee’s consideration of 

this bill. I would like to make myself available to answer any questions that might arise from that. I think we’ve got most of them 

hammered out, at least to be on a suspension on the House side, 

and would enjoy the same type of treatment on the Senate. 

Senator Craig, thank you so much for bringing up this bill and 

allowing me to speak before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

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. 

5

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.

Senator CRAIG. George, thank you very much. I think it’s a 

thoughtful and appropriate piece of legislation. 

Are there any questions of the Congressman? 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Congressman, as well. I think it’s an excellent bill, and particularly for 

those of us in the West who see so often this situation with the 

Federal land managers. So often one hand doesn’t know what the 

other hand is doing, and what you’re talking about strikes me as 

very sensible. I commend you for it, and I’m going to do everything 

I can to help the legislation move. 

Mr. Chairman, because we’ve got an intelligence meeting, I 

think, with your consent, let me also just say a word or two about 

S. 2003. You and I have worked on this for a number of years, 

going back to our days working with Senator Gorton on this, to try 

to promote watershed enhancement. It seems to me we still have 

strong bipartisan support for our efforts. This may be caught up in 

a larger bill that is coming—or is now before the Senate Agriculture Committee, and I think we should do everything we can not 

to see this caught up in a larger bill, and end up held up. And, if 

possible, I’d like us to continue to retain our bipartisan jurisdiction 

on it, and pass S. 2003 as soon as possible. I think we’ll hear from 

the Forest Service about some minor kinds of changes. And if 

Frank and Sarah can finish that today, we’ll get another bill done 

on Sarah’s watch. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Senator Thomas, any questions of the Congressman? 

Senator THOMAS. Well, just in general, I guess, Congressman. I 

understand the importance of gateway communities and, of course, 

we have a number of those. On the other hand, we are supposed 

to have that relationship now, and I’m always concerned that additional laws like this might just cause more delay and more costs 

and so on. Are there additional requirements here? What would 

this require that shouldn’t be happening now? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, nothing more than what should be happening now. I guess in my history of—long history of going through 

a lot of superintendents in Yosemite—and I think this can be demonstrated in any other park—you just don’t know what you’re going 

to get with a superintendent or an administration change. And 

while the relationship, I think, between the county, Mariposa 

County, and the current park superintendent is excellent, it comes 

6

and goes. And what this does is just requires those Federal agencies to invite the local agencies to participate in the planning process from the beginning. They don’t have to if they don’t want to, 

but it requires them to make the ask. That’s simply it. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, I understand. I understand what you’re 

saying. I just am a little concerned that some of the decisions we 

have to make now take a long time, and the more requirements 

that are there, the longer it takes to do these things. And a lot of 

people have involvement in these decisions, not just the gateways. 

So, I just raise the question of whether they’d require any special 

treatment, as opposed to everyone else. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. No. No, actually, no more treatment than anybody else. It’s just that they’re required to make them ask. That’s 

all. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, George, again, thank you very much for 

being with us today. We appreciate your time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great. 

Senator CRAIG. And you can stay for the balance of the testimony, if you wish, by others. I suspect your schedule is as busy as 

ours. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. We’ve got an energy mark-up over in Commerce, so I’m going to head on over there. But, Larry, I appreciate 

the opportunity to come over and testify on this. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, go create some energy. We need it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Take care. 

Senator CRAIG. We’ll invite our first panel forward: Joel Holtrop, 

deputy chief, National Forest Systems, Department of Agriculture; 

and Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, Department of Interior. Joel, we’ll start with 

you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HOLTROP. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide 

the Department’s views on four bills. 

I submit my full testimony for the record and will provide you 

with this brief oral statement. 

S. 906, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act—since the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture work closely together in fire management, we are providing a joint statement on 

this bill. S. 906 requires the Secretaries to track funds expended 

for firefighter safety and training programs, along with additional 

related provisions. 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. Required training, recurrent training, required experience, and job performance 

cross multiple budget activities and are extremely difficult to track 

7

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 on budget structure, the Departments suggest an annual report, which would focus on measurable 

firefighter performance and efficiency 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. 

We are taking additional action to improve tracking of firefighter 

safety and training measures, including requiring all firefighters to 

meet minimum interagency requirements for training, experience, 

and physical fitness to perform a specific job; implementation of a 

computer system which documents training, on-the-job experience 

and certification for each Federal firefighter; establishing a process 

to ensure that training by firefighting contract associations meet 

Federal standards; implementing new contract provisions for 

standardized language assessment to ensure that there are no communication barriers that would contribute to unsafe conditions; and 

use of the Interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program, which trains firefighters and managers in leadership values 

through courses designed to span careers from entry level through 

management and leadership levels. 

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 effectiveness of our overall firefighting program would produce the desired outcome. 

S. 2003, the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements Act—this bill would permanently authorize the use of watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that the Forest 

Service has successfully used with many partners since its original 

enactment and subsequent reauthorizations. Commonly referred to 

as the Wyden Amendment, this authority has resulted in improved, 

maintained, and protected ecosystem conditions and increased 

operational effectiveness and efficiency for national forests and adjacent lands. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 2003, and would like 

to work with the subcommittee on a short amendment to provide 

express authority for mutual benefit agreements as proposed by the 

administration. 

H.R. 585, the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act—this bill 

has various provisions relating to the way that the Departments of 

the Interior and Agriculture work with communities near the borders of certain agency lands. 

8

The Department agrees with the principles embodied by the legislation—namely, increased cooperation and collaboration with 

local communities in national forest management. 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 this bill. 

The administration could support H.R. 585, but only if amended. 

We will submit a letter with recommended amendments shortly. 

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 in Tahoe National Forest—this bill 

would allow for the exchange of certain National Forest System 

lands in the Tahoe National Forest under the procedures of the 

Small Tracts Act, because its cases would not otherwise fall under 

the requirements of that Act. The Department is not opposed to 

H.R. 3981. 

This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST

SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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 DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
9

partments’ 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, onthe-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. 

10

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 109th 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 parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
11

ticipation 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 fortytwo 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. 

12

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.

Senator CRAIG. Joel, thank you very much. 

We’ve just been joined by our colleague, Maria Cantwell. Would 

you wish to make any opening comment or comments in relation 

to any of the bills, especially S. 906, before we proceed? 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Chairman, I’ll just get right to questions 

whenever appropriate. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much. 

Now we’ll turn to you. Chris, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. KEARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’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 that we’ve described in our testimony. 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 we’d like to work with the subcommittee to ensure that these goals are achievable and accomplished in an effective and efficient manner. We’ll be submitting a 

letter jointly with the Forest Service with those recommendations 

shortly. 

H.R. 585, among other things, would require Federal agencies to 

involve officials from impacted communities early in the development of Federal plans, programs, regulations, and decisions, and 

provide local officials with plain-English summaries of those assumptions, purposes, goals, and objectives of decisions and any anticipated impacts on the communities. It would also further authorize cooperative agreements and require greater coordination among 

13

the agencies in engaging gateway communities in their planning 

process. 

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 land, and 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 land and tribal lands 

that border our parks, our refuges, and other Federal lands, and 

work on—and who also work on those lands or who have access to 

resources on them. 

Mutual benefits flow from cooperating with these communities. 

Gateway communities often take on additional infrastructure and 

environmental duties that come with visitors headed to nearby 

Federal lands. Additionally, some of these communities may also 

incur costs for additional services, such as law enforcement, search 

and rescue, public works. These additional costs, however, may also 

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 those communities in our planning process. 

I’d like to take a moment to share with you the collaborative 

practice of BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Park Service, as well as some—just an example or two of some of the successful projects we’ve undertaken in collaboration with those communities. 

Under current practice, the agencies and the—all the Department Bureaus already invite State, tribal, and local entities, in addition to Federal agencies, to participate as cooperating agencies 

during development of environmental impact statements under 

NEPA. Our departmental guidance 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 assignments. 

The Department incorporates this requirement in guidance for 

application to all Bureaus in June 2005, shortly after BLM became 

the first Federal agency to promulgate land-use planning regs into 

requiring invitations to eligible gateway communities to participate 

as cooperating agencies and for environmental impact statements 

for land-use plans. 

One quick example of a gateway community project that BLM’s 

been involved in is in the gateway community of Sonoita, Arizona. 

Local citizens formed the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership, 

which developed visions, goals, and desired future conditions for 

the areas. BLM then incorporated those objectives as the foundation for the resource management plan, thus providing the community with the means to articulate and achieve its goals through the 

management of the natural conservation area. 

The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service also have examples that are included in my testimony, which I won’t get into, 

which also illustrates some of the success stories we’ve had with cooperating with local communities. 

14

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

And, in the interest of time, as I say, I will not get into them now, 

except to say—I’ll highlight one, for example, where we think the 

definition of ‘‘gateway community’’ could be better defined and 

clarified and strengthened a bit. 

It is also worth noting that there are other areas throughout the 

bill, as it relates to technical assistance and other matters that the 

bill touches on, that we think, in working with the subcommittee, 

we could address those issues and reach a mutual agreed conclusion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time this afternoon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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 wellbeing. 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, 

15

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 

16

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 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 H.R. 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 

17

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. H.R. 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.

Senator CRAIG. Chris, thank you. 

Thank you both for your testimony. Let me begin the questioning. 

Specific to H.R. 585, the gateway communities, I’m going to ask 

this question, or questions, of both of you, to get your reaction. 

Why do you think these communities have pushed for legislation 

to force agencies to establish neighborly relationships with them? 

18

Chris? 

Mr. KEARNEY. I guess I would answer that by saying, well, our 

approach to working with communities has been pretty comprehensive, in terms of gateways and other communities across the country, under the broad-banner approach we have had to cooperative 

conservation, and cooperative conservation efforts, most recently 

noted in the President’s Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation, which was issued in 2004, which was also followed up by a 

very successful White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in which folks from across the country came together and 

shared examples and success stories of work with Federal agencies 

in partnership and collaboration, but which also had challenges remaining, and that would—provided a great platform for it. 

In recent years, in that spirit, we have undertaken a number of 

efforts to ensure that we are working in collaboration and partnership with communities, with States, with tribes, and an array of 

folks that are affected by our work. 

A couple of examples I would highlight for you that folks may not 

be away of is that we offer training programs, particularly the 

BLM, that are provided for Federal managers and for local community representatives on how to do partnering, and how to engage 

in collaboration, and deal in tools associated with negotiating and 

coming to consensus and agreement, that allow them to draw out 

the issues associated with consensus, and how to get to a consensus. This has been met with a great deal of success by the BLM 

communities and others, and that program continues to be expanded. 

A second recent example is something that came out of the White 

House Conference that each of the five agencies that sponsored it 

highlighted, which is essentially seeking to change, fundamentally, 

how we train, reward, and—train, reward, and hire individuals 

with respect to the area of collaboration and cooperation, a forestry 

partnership approach to partnership. For example, we are working 

to add behavioral characteristics of individuals in both—for purposes of promotion and in hiring that take into consideration their 

experience and ability to do—efforts in the area of partnership and 

collaboration that they’ve done, not simply—in addition to education. Typically, what happens is, you look at someone in terms 

of hiring with an eye toward their strict educational background or 

when they’re being promoted, and how many years in that position. 

We’re actively working now, the agencies are, to establish a process 

by which we’ll take into consideration how they actually—what 

kind of activities they’ve engaged in or have the skills set to—in 

the area of collaboration and partnership. 

Another important area of things that we’ve done is we’ve also 

expanded, dramatically, our cooperative conservation-oriented 

grants. There’s been about a 50-percent increase in those grants in 

the past 5 years. Many of those grants, such as the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife and others, focus on partnerships and matching 

dollars and collaboration with local communities and the like in 

carrying out conservation projects. 

Probably one of the—another example that I’d highlight in some 

detail, if given the opportunity, has to do with some of the matters 

related to training. 

19

So, I think those and other activities we engage in have really 

improved and expanded the relationship we have with communities 

and others. We certainly think there always could be more work to 

do. There certainly have been areas and challenges in the past 

where there have been times where the agencies have been somewhat inward-looking. And we realize that there are still challenges, 

but we think we’re moving in the right direction administratively, 

and that this bill, if reflecting the changes we talked about, can be 

another tool in the toolkit, if you will, of advancing our efforts toward cooperative conservation approaches. 

Senator CRAIG. OK. Joel, anything you’d wish to add to that? 

That was a fairly comprehensive answer, at least from the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. HOLTROP. It is. And I’ll just add, briefly, that—maybe just 

a couple of things from the Forest Service’s perspective which add 

to the things that Mr. Kearney has already mentioned. 

One is, we also feel like we have improved our ability to work 

with communities. And it’s something that we have been stressing 

over time. As the Department of the Interior just stated, even as 

we go through the process of selecting who are going to be our district rangers, who are going to be our forest supervisors, one of the 

most important criteria that we use to make those are their abilities and their skills in community relations and their obvious inclination toward working with communities. And we think we’re 

doing better at that. 

We also have a new planning rule that was established in 2005 

which stresses community outreach and community involvement in 

our planning process. And today, as we speak, two forest plans—

one, the Kootenai National Forest in northwest Montana, and the 

other, the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, in northern Idaho—

are both coming out with their proposed plan under the 2005 planning rule. And those plans represent over 200 public community 

workshops and working with community leaders such as county 

commissioners and others. I think those are reflective of the types 

of progress that we’re making, and that type of progress, I think, 

again, should inform our discussions and our thoughts about this 

piece of legislation. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you both. 

Let me turn to my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. 

Craig? 

Senator THOMAS. I guess I just would say, again, as I think I 

said before, I certainly promote and want to work for the coordination, but I don’t want to pass bills that aren’t necessary. Do you 

think we need this bill to finish this job? 

Mr. KEARNEY. I think with the kinds of changes we have talked 

about, clarification of what the definition of a ‘‘gateway community’’ 

is, where an agency and the State would come to an agreement on 

what that is—because there are a lot of issues and factors that go 

into gateway community and what it is, and so forth, that, among 

other things, would add, sort of, to that toolkit, if you will. But I 

think we share, in spades, your view of not—ensuring that we don’t 

pass unnecessary legislation or add processes that we don’t need to. 

We’re looking to streamline and consolidate and make our efforts 

to outreach with communities more effective, not less so. 

20

Mr. HOLTROP. Again, I don’t have much to add to that, other 

than to also acknowledge that the spirit of this legislation is one 

that we certainly agree with. And anytime that there is a tool that 

can be added, that would help us be more responsive to our—in our 

interrelationships with communities, that’s an—it’s an important 

thing for us. We do believe that we have a lot of authorities, a lot 

of tools, and a lot of will to do that. With our given authorities, if 

a piece of legislation would improve our opportunities to do that 

without getting in the way of us being able to——

Senator THOMAS. Well, that’s what we’re asking you. 

Mr. HOLTROP [continuing]. Make the progress we want to make, 

that’s what we want to watch for. 

Senator THOMAS. We’re asking you that. Is that the case? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Again, we are going to be proposing some amendments to this legislation that we think would address the concerns 

that we have. 

Senator THOMAS. OK, thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Senator Cantwell, questions of the panel? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

for scheduling this hearing. 

Mr. Holtrop, thank you for being here, and thank you for your 

testimony. I have had a chance to review most of it. I am so sorry 

for getting here late for the oral presentation of that. But in your 

testimony, you say that you’re supportive of reporting requirements 

as it relates to S. 906, and that it’s just a matter of—you might 

have different requirements in reporting provisions. What are you 

thinking about, as far as the reporting requirement? 

Mr. HOLTROP. What we’re proposing is reporting requirements 

that are comprehensive in nature, that talk about, ‘‘What are the 

outcomes?’’ and ‘‘What are the results of the work that we have 

done, in terms of improving our fire safety programs, in terms of 

improving the training related to fire management?’’, and that we 

would report on what progress has been made. For instance, we 

have information now available to us that we did not have in the 

past because of our response to some of the previous Inspector General reports, et cetera, that we have been responding to, that we 

now have the ability to provide information on the number of firefighter injuries that have occurred in a season, or close calls and 

things like that. And we believe that we can report, at the end of 

the season, to this committee, the types of progress that we have 

made, the types of trends that we’re having, that we think would 

be effective in helping us manage our overall safety program in 

fire, and help you do the appropriate oversight. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, outcomes, specifically. Is there anything 

else that you’re——

Mr. HOLTROP. There are—I mean, there’s a lot of detail associated with that, that I think that we could provide. And I think we 

can continue to look for additional things that ought to be provided 

to make sure that the objectives that we share, such as providing 

for a safer fire management program, that we’re meeting that. So, 

I think, again, trends, what has happened, in terms of what has 

happened on the fireline, what has happened in terms of occurrences as the year progresses, that’s the type of thing that we’re 

talking about. 

21

Senator CANTWELL. One of the things that the Inspector General 

report focused on was the wildland firefighters. I think it was 1⁄3

of the contract firefighters, they believe, did not meet the National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group standards. In fact, they found that the 

Forest Service really didn’t have a good procedure to review those 

qualifications and records. Do you see this as a hole in the process? 

And do you think that the Forest Service is putting a plan in place, 

long term, to monitor the contract work and the success of that 

contract work? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I do. In March 2006, the Office of the Inspector 

General completed their review of our crew contract firefighting 

programs, and they had five recommendations for us. And we 

agreed that if we were to respond positively to each of those recommendations, we would be responding, as appropriately, to making sure that our contract crews were meeting the types of safety 

requirements, the same requirements that we require of our hired 

firefighters, that we would be requiring the same things of our 

crews. We believe that we are responding positively to each of 

those recommendations and are confident that that will help us. 

Senator CANTWELL. And this would be something that you would 

also monitor and report on, the efficiencies of those contracts and 

successes and——

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. I’m perplexed over the aspect of this legislation where we would like to track the amount of money that’s actually being spent on training. And the reason that we’re interested 

in this is, we want to make sure that we understand dollars to support the training effort, what we’re spending, that it doesn’t—that 

it’s not a category that gets shortchanged. I think at one point in 

time we even got a number that was something like $29 million 

over the last several years had been spent on this effort. But that’s 

one aspect of the bill you don’t support, and it’s one aspect that I 

think I’ve gone around with Secretary Rey many, many times on, 

trying to get access to that information. And in your testimony, you 

say you don’t consider training costs as an effective means of understanding this issue. 

And so, when I think of the complexity of budgets that we have 

on so many fronts, when I think of the Hanford clean-up or nuclear 

waste, other things that our Energy Committee has to deal with, 

I think those are—that’s complex. What’s so complex about tracking both the contract work and the investment in training dollars 

for the noncontract firefighters? I still don’t understand why this 

is such a hard thing for the agency to just say, ‘‘This is what we’re 

spending on training and education.’’

Mr. HOLTROP. I’ll try to respond to that helpfully. Before I do so, 

I want to express that, as somebody who has been intimately involved in the follow-up to some of these fire fatalities, including 

speaking at the dedication ceremony on the 1-year anniversary of 

the Thirty Mile Fire, and speaking to the families of the victims 

of that——

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you for doing that. We appreciate it. 

Mr. HOLTROP It was an honor to be able to do so, and it was—

and in that event, I felt like I made a commitment to those families 

that we would learn from the experiences that their children and 

22

their siblings and their spouses had experienced, that we would 

learn, and we would never forget the sacrifices that they made. 

And so, I also want to say that I appreciate your persistence in 

this, and your dedication to also finding a way to make sure that 

the outcome of this is something—that we have a safer firefighting 

organization. I’m also a father of a firefighter. My daughter fights 

fires and will be leaving later this month to do the same thing. And 

so, from that perspective, I also appreciate that, and I want you to 

know that I appreciate it a great deal. 

So, I think we have the same objectives in mind, and I think we 

both care about it deeply. I think it’s just a question of what is the 

right means to take, in order to reach the objective that we share. 

I think the concern that we have over the tracking of things such 

as training costs and safety training costs is safety is integral to 

everything that we do in firefighting. Every one of our training programs is replete with safety. There are questions that we would 

ask around—the reason we have a system that provides for—these 

are the requirements we have for what an engine is and what it 

takes—what are your requirements for operating that engine. The 

reason we do that is, there’s safety associated with knowing what 

we get when we order an engine. When we get additional communication equipment, there’s reasons that we get additional communication equipment. Those are safety related. It’s hard for us to 

tease out safety from the overall basic work that we do in fire management. So, that’s one of the concerns that we have. 

There are also—and so, the difficulties there——

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Holtrop, if we modified that word to 

make sure that we’re adequately characterizing what we’re looking 

for—because, yes, there’s, I’m sure, communication and safety that 

goes on every day, but we’re trying to look at the basic programs 

that are structured around getting the young men and women 

ready and prepared to do this task, which is, you know, often a 

very dangerous task. And we appreciate the efforts of people that 

are involved, but we also want them to be well trained and well 

supported. And so, I think what we’re looking for is a ballpark 

number, not every aspect—I don’t know that you’d ever come before this committee, or at least not from this Senator, and hear, 

‘‘Well, wait a minute, you didn’t include, you know, this aspect of 

day-to-day communications.’’ What we’re trying to—I think, because of Storm King, because of Thirty Mile, because of the IG’s 

report, and saying that these are the habitual issues—that you 

might have commands, but are the commands really being followed, and are they really being implemented in a way that we 

have young men and women really being at the level of expertise 

that we need them to be? 

And we’ve heard, again, many examples of the implementation 

and the improvement, but I think what we’re trying to avoid is getting to another situation again where we find out the same aspects 

of those ‘‘watch out’’ rules are being missed or being violated. And 

if we have—and there’s no guarantees in this. I think this committee has a great deal of knowledge and background about how 

challenging this business is, just from the very beginning. But 

what we’re trying to say is, we know that we have—we’re improving on that ‘‘watch out’’ list and exactly the—we have a program 

23

in place for those situations, when extreme situations flare up and 

things go from just a day-to-day situation of fighting fires to a very 

high-level, very complex fire, and catch people who may not be as 

trained and educated on those challenges and those ‘‘watch out’’ 

rules. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. That’s what we’re really trying to do, make 

sure that we’ve got this down, and that we are making that investment. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, I think you have correctly assessed our most 

dangerous situations, those transitional fires, when a fire goes from 

being something that doesn’t appear to be as dangerous to a dangerous situation very quickly. 

Again, I think there are two additional reservations that I feel 

around this issue. One is the amount of time, the administrative 

time it would take to track those additional items around safety 

and training on a case-by-case basis. Our current financial systems—we’re actually geared toward trying to compress the number 

of line items in the—that we’re managing in order to improve our 

financial tracking abilities. This would move in the opposite direction of that. And so, our current financial systems, our recordkeeping systems, are not equipped to deal with it. It’s something 

that we can get to the point of being equipped to deal with it, but 

it would take extensive effort to do so. And, again, the question 

that we have is, are we focusing on the most effective means to assure that we’re accomplishing our shared objective? 

The other concern I would have with a line item is, the way we 

currently accomplish our safety and our fire training is, we’re able 

to do our safety training out of our fire preparedness account or out 

of our fire suppression account, et cetera. If we were to have a separate line item for fire safety and training, I have a fear that it 

might, in fact, become more of a cap on how much we can spend, 

rather than a floor, a base level of what we would spend on it, because, say, at the end of the year, if we had—if 30 million is the 

right number, and, come September, we have a set of fire situations in which we need to bring in military crews or something, 

and we want to do some additional fire training under appropriation integrity rules, we’d have to figure out a way to be able to fund 

the training; whereas, currently, we’d be able to do so from either 

preparedness or suppression. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, Mr. Holtrop, I know my time is up. I’m 

going to take you at your word and work with you to see if we can 

get this language in a way that you will be supportive of, because 

somehow I just think there has to be a way to do this. And I think 

just about every agency in the Government has to outline some of 

these issues. So, let’s work together and try to figure this out. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. And I do hope you would work with the Senator. 

I think all of us are concerned when life is lost. I certainly know 

that the appropriate training, preparedness, alertness, all of those 

things in combination are well understood, because, with the best 

of training under the worst of environments, sometimes it doesn’t 

work the way we would want it to, but the greater chance of lifesaving efforts is at hand, if they’re well trained. 

24

Joel, I have some additional questions as it relates to land exchanges. I’m going to submit those to you for the record and ask 

for some more information. And that is in relation also to the 

Tahoe National Forest Land Exchange. 

We’ve got another panelist who is time-sensitive to a plane, so 

we’re going to ask you to stand down. We thank you both, Joel and 

Chris, for being with us today and we appreciate your testimony. 

Now, let us invite Steve Duerr and Bob Warren to the table. 

Steve, I understand it’s you who are time sensitive to an aircraft. 

Mr. DUERR. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CRAIG. All right. We’re going to start with you, Steve 

Duerr, former executive director, Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, Jackson Hole, Wyoming. 

Mr. DUERR. Thank you, Senator—

Senator CRAIG. But, first, does your Senator wish to make any 

additional comment? 

Senator THOMAS. No, go right ahead. I’ve already recognized him. 

Senator CRAIG. All right. 

Senator THOMAS I’m delighted that he’s here. 

Senator CRAIG. Please proceed, Steve. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE DUERR, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JACKSON HOLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JACKSON, 

WY 

Mr. DUERR. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Senator Thomas. 

I want to make clear up front that, as you corrected for the 

record, I’m the former executive director of the Jackson Hole Ski 

Corporation—or, excuse me, the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, having recently resigned to return to my private law practice. So, I’m here as a citizen lawyer who has worked on these 

issues for probably 20 years. And, by relevant background, let me 

just say that for about 7 years, I was general counsel to the vice 

president at the Jackson Hole Ski Corporation, working on Forest 

Service permit matters and development issues in Jackson Hole. 

For a long time, I was in private practice, working on development 

issues, and I’m presently in my 17th year as general counsel for 

the electric and gas cooperative in the southern Greater Yellowstone—part of Idaho, part of Wyoming—working on national park 

and forests and BLM easements and other land-use matters, and 

that, as I mentioned, for the last 7 years I’ve been the director of 

the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce. 

Teton County, WY, has only 3 percent private land, so you can 

imagine the significance of the National Elk Refuge, the national 

parks, and the national forests to the economy of Teton County. 

Our vision for the Chamber of Commerce is a community that 

works. And, in that context, a community that works is one that 

takes a multiple-use approach to the use of natural resources, and 

every day you go to work trying to strike the right balance between 

commerce and conservation. 

But I’m not here representing any of those entities or clients or 

interests, other than to speak about this bill and my hope for its 

improvement, because it’s so important to gateway communities. 

And I do want to make clear, as I did in my written testimony, 

25

Senator, that the section 2(a) findings, the nine findings, are very 

well-written, they’re succinct, and they provide a balanced perspective on the challenges that gateway communities face. 

With respect to other written comments on the purposes clause, 

the improved communication, coordination, and cooperation—the 

three C’s—it’s like chasing the Holy Grail, but that’s what we’re all 

interested in pursuing in our gateway communities, and that purpose is praiseworthy and it’s correctly stated. To this extent, 

though, I hope there can be amendment. 

Requiring cooperation—as you require cooperation in a Federal 

statute, you create the false expectation that by having required it, 

you’ll get it. That’s my concern. Might it be better to say ‘‘assist 

Federal land managers and local communities, gateway communities, to improve the three C’s,’’ and then by saying ‘‘assist,’’ rather than ‘‘require,’’ have realistic expectations about how to identify 

ways to do that, the means to the end of improved coordination, cooperation, and communication? 

Alternative dispute resolution, adaptive management, best practices, anything that goes in the collaboration toolbox that works—

what out there actually works? 

Because we’re all trying to define the public interest, long term, 

and, in the short term, the impacts on gateway communities can 

be devastating. So, as we get into the planning process early, which 

is a laudable goal, how can we actually identify the means to the 

end and provide assistance that works? And perhaps with money, 

perhaps there’s philanthropic grants or community foundation 

grants or other private money that can be brought to the table to 

add to a Federal grant that will allow us to get into these toolbox 

adaptive management best practices. 

And then, finally, I want to make clear that section 2(d)(7) on cooperative agency status, that’s a very important right for gateway 

communities. It’s articulated well here. I believe it’s provided under 

NEPA. And, again, my frustration with this, and where we might 

need some improvement in the bill, is that, for example, with the 

5- to 10-year debacle—or the ongoing battle over winter use in Yellowstone, communities in transition from one economy to another, 

there is cooperating agency status, but some communities may 

have found it’s a bit like riding the tiger once you get it. And what 

practical things can we do to bring a long-term economy to gateway 

communities in the winter? Because we still don’t have a final winter-use plan, in spite of many good intentions and of almost a decade of work on it. 

So, to sum up, the practical issue of how to get results on the 

ground, identifying models that work in best practices. I can tell 

you about things that don’t work, both an Interior and an Ag example. The Secretary of Interior pointed me to the Pinedale Anticline 

Working Group. The statute requires cooperation of the BLM official with a seven-member committee appointed by the Department 

of the Interior. It’s failed. In fact, five members’ terms have expired, and there is no real way to know when, if ever, five members 

will be replaced on that committee. Arguably, Pinedale and 

Sublette counties are gateways to the high desert—certainly, the 

Wind Rivers—but the impacts aren’t being dealt with. What can we 

do about that, where cooperation is already required? 

26

Another example with the Ag and the Forest Service, in the Wyoming range, many people believe that you’ve got to draw the line 

somewhere with respect to national forest use, and that, in some 

cases, there’s a higher public interest in recreation tourism than 

drilling the heck out of the forest. And the Governor of Wyoming 

and some Federal officials in Wyoming have expressed concerns 

about leasing the Wyoming range, but the Forest Service continues 

to lease the Wyoming range. What can we do about that? What is 

in the public interest, long term? And how do we deal with the 

short-term impacts? 

So, finally, to sum up, I agree with the findings and the purposes 

of the bill. I’m concerned that requiring cooperation creates the expectation that you’ll get cooperation. Better to assist gateway communities and Federal land managers with training and other arrows in the quiver of the toolbox of best practices that can get practical results on the ground. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duerr follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE DUERR, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JACKSON HOLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JACKSON HOLE, WY 

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. 

27

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 governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
28

ments 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 

29

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.

Senator CRAIG. Steve, thank you very much. 

Let’s turn to Bob Warren, chairman, National Alliance of Gateway Communities, Redding, CA. 

Bob, welcome to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF BOB WARREN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

ALLIANCE OF GATEWAY COMMUNITIES, REDDING, CA 

Mr. WARREN. Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

other subcommittee members, for the opportunity to testify today. 

And I certainly appreciate the bipartisan support that Senator 

Wyden was offering, as well as having Congressman George 

Radanovich show up and speak on behalf of the bill. 

30

I’m really here today as the chairman of the National Alliance 

of Gateway Communities, but I also represent the city of Redding, 

CA, which I think is the perfect example of a gateway community. 

Within 10 miles are Forest Service lands, BLM lands, and a national park unit. The NAGC is the only national organization solely 

dedicated to representing the interests of gateway communities. In 

California and the West, many communities are transitioning to 

more diverse economies, as we’ve talked about in the past. We 

know that in the future, visitors to public lands will play an increasingly more important role in the economies of our gateway 

communities. 

Those of us in the West know that public lands are often the 

magnets that really draw people to our communities, and that’s 

both domestic and international visitors. Many of the supervisors 

and superintendents and managers of public lands are keenly 

aware of the importance of working with gateway communities. I 

know that, in my own area, many of them strive to work daily with 

our community leaders. Unfortunately, this is not always the case 

for some gateway communities, and not always the case always, all 

the time. There are too many examples of these relationships 

which are inconsistent and unreliable, and often too dependent on 

personalities. 

While want to—what we want to do with the enacting of this legislation is to take a major step toward—I hate the word ‘‘institutionalize,’’ but kind of institutionalize those relationships, making 

them so that you, as Congress, have put out the word that it’s an 

important factor that you want considered. Many of the management plans for significant public lands units devote hundreds of 

pages to natural resource preservation, while devoting just a paragraph or two to the people who live in the area adjacent to the 

unit. For example, although economic and social impacts are supposed to be considered in national forest management plans, the 

plan for one national forest in Arizona has one paragraph that addresses those issues, with more than 100 pages addressing various 

habitat scenarios. Of course, we don’t object to that sort of overview 

of the environment, but would want more effort made toward communities. 

In the mid-1990’s, 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 for all. 

The superintendent of the park at that time flatly refused to talk 

with the gateways as a group. And I might add that the community 

of Cody and the executive director of the Cody Chamber of Commerce, Gene Bryan, said, ‘‘We believe the gateways bill gives us 

some level of assurance that gateways like Cody will be involved 

in the critical management issues, multiyear plans, plan revisions, 

and specific issues, such as winter use. We don’t expect all our 

wants and desires to be listened to, but we are hoping that this will 

help out.’’

And we’d also like you to understand that the current superintendent for Yellowstone, Suzanne Lewis, is getting—is giving 

great cooperation and dialog to the communities around Yellowstone. And Cody has said that they love her, and love working with 

her. 

31

I’d like to mention, H.R. 585 does not compel any superintendent 

to talk to such coalitions, but it would clearly declare that the intent of Congress is to support much greater cooperation, coordination, and communication. While communities are making significant planning changes, they are required to comply with numerous 

Federal environmental mandates. This makes for a one-way street, 

as the capability of those small rural communities to comment 

meaningfully on the new plans and policies of adjacent Federal 

lands is often limited. All it really does it give H.R. 585—and gives 

the gateway communities a seat at the table. The bill does not give 

a gateway community a veto over agency programs, actions, or policies, nor does it give a gateway preferential treatment. The bill 

would give local public lands managers a greater understanding of 

the needs and prospects of their adjacent communities. 

In closing, I don’t want you to think that we, in gateway communities, are not appreciative of the effort that’s being made to date. 

We just want a legal standing in the Federal decisionmaking process. Often, the Federal lands are the foundation of a community’s 

culture, commerce, and heritage, and the gateway communities are 

essential to providing for local recreational use and visitors to those 

lands. Public-lands policies are too often politicized and charged 

with emotions. The policies and emotions are dramatically played 

out in our communities. The wrenching drama is for naught if our 

communities can’t have a meaningful stake in that process. Often 

this process is affected by the sparse rural population representation in the West, pitted against well-meaning, urban political agendas driven by well-financed and well-staffed special-interest 

groups. This leads to many gateways communities feeling as we are 

being treated like children when we are told to eat our vegetables, 

it’s what’s best for us. 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. This tension is, of course, by choice, as those of 

us who live in gateway communities 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 

in our communities. 

And, finally, I’d like to say that the bill has the support of the 

National Association of County Organizations, NACO; the Travel 

Industry Association of America; the National Tour Association; the 

American Bus Association; and the American Association of RV 

Parks and Campgrounds. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope that you can support this bill for our 

communities. Its enactment will open a new day for gateways. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Warren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB WARREN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF GATEWAY COMMUNITIES, AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, CITY OF REDDING, CA 

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 

32

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 

33

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 

34

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 misimpression 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 

35

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 na- tional, 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; 

36

(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 wellfinanced 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, the passage of this bill, 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.

37

Senator CRAIG. Bob, thank you very much. 

I’m going to turn to my colleague Senator Thomas for any questions you may have of this panel. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess, Mr. Warren, you indicated that there’s no relationship 

now. I’m from Cody, WY. I understand that the relationship is 

there and I don’t quite understand what difference this is going to 

make. 

Mr. WARREN. Well, that’s what I’m saying. Right now, Cody is 

saying that they have a great relationship with Suzanne Lewis, but 

they’re saying that that relationship, 5 years ago, wasn’t quite as 

good. Also, West Yellowstone indicated that, 5 years ago, they had 

some fairly serious issues and now they think those issues are 

being resolved. 

Senator THOMAS. But under NEPA and these things, we already 

have a law that you have to communicate with these communities. 

Mr. WARREN. Well, it’s not just on the NEPA requirements, it’s 

just basic daily communication and working with communities. 

Senator THOMAS. I just am concerned that it’s something that we 

already have, and that we’re just adding more communications to 

it. I understand the purpose. I couldn’t agree with you more. I 

think we already have that, however, and we could do it better, but 

I don’t think, frankly, that this is going to make a great deal of difference. 

What would you do, Mr. Duerr, to change it? 

Mr. DUERR. As I said, Senator, I support the findings——

Senator THOMAS. I’m talking about the bill. 

Mr. DUERR [continuing]. And the purposes. But the means to the 

end of cooperation is elusive, and it has to do with putting some 

money on the table as an incentive to both the gateway communities and the Federal land managers to deal with short-term impacts in the long-term public interests. They vary from Federal 

management district to another community to another, and it’s 

complicated. But money would help. 

Senator THOMAS. Money? Oh, well. 

Mr. WARREN. Senator Thomas, I would like to add that gateway 

communities all over the West and the country support this bill, so 

they obviously feel that there is a need for help in this area. And 

that’s what we’re asking for, is that help. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, why wouldn’t they support it? I mean, it 

sounds great. I’m just asking you for the details of what it does. 

I’m not persuaded that it changes things. 

Senator CRAIG. Bob, I know you’ve listened closely to the testimony of others. Why should we expend the money this bill authorizes to further empower these communities at the cost of reducing 

on-the-ground management of some of our Federal units? We’re 

strapped for dollars now. We’re searching for dollars as it relates 

to on-the-ground activities. This bill—we’ve actually not seen a cost 

factor related to it, because not all of the communities have been 

defined, or at least enumerated as to who would qualify, specifically. I mean, how do we deal with that justification, in your mind? 

Mr. WARREN. Well, as you heard from the several agencies that 

were here today, they had those concerns and, of course, that’s 

something that’s definitely worth talking about, and there may be 

38

some way of compromising and satisfying their needs. There may 

be existing training that’s ongoing right now that gateway communities can be involved in. And so, I think that there is room for 

some adjustment in the Senate version of what this bill would be. 

So, I’m not sure that it absolutely has to be mandated in the way 

it’s written in the House bill, but I think the intent of showing that 

there is a desire to help communities come up to speed on some of 

these issues is what the important issue is here. 

Senator CRAIG. OK. Some believe that H.R. 585 could provide 

gateway communities some special legal status that would allow 

these communities to contest Federal management plans. If we are 

going to give the gateway communities a special status, why 

shouldn’t the Federal land management—or managers get some 

additional input on how local zoning and development decisions are 

made? 

Mr. WARREN. Well, already the Federal Government has a significant amount of say, because virtually everything that happens 

in communities and counties throughout our country goes through 

some sort of environmental review process. So, that is already occurring. And whether, you know, Congress feels compelled to transfer that down to the local level, that would certainly be up to Congress, but it’s occurring already. 

Senator CRAIG. How would the courts deal with multiple gateway 

communities who disagree on a National Park Service or a Forest 

Service plan? Should the preference go to the largest town? Aren’t 

those the kind of disputes best worked out informally? 

Mr. WARREN. I think that there are things that will always be 

worked out informally. And obviously there is a process; we certainly have our courts to review things like that. But if you look 

at the record of gateway communities suing Federal lands management agencies—and it’s pretty insignificant, it almost never happens—and I can’t see that this would change that in any way, because, obviously, you know, communities are strapped for dollars, 

and they’re not going to be making the effort to be looking for ways 

to sue Federal lands management agencies. 

Senator CRAIG. OK. 

Steve, I tend to agree with you that you can’t legislate good manners or neighborly behavior. You can prescribe it, and would hope 

that it would happen. How do we get our Federal managers to be 

more responsive to communities? You’ve obviously served in that 

capacity as it relates to a major gateway community to a major 

park. 

Mr. DUERR. Well, Senator, I think it takes a long-term commitment by the community and the Federal manager and staff to cooperate and work together, do the little things first and see if we 

can’t get the big things going in the right direction when it gets 

critical to work on those. But the issue of the long-term public interests and the short-term impacts on gateway communities at 

some level, like Yellowstone and snowmobiles, like Pinedale and 

drilling in the desert, I believe requires a commitment of resources, 

of money, to get on the ground with adaptive management strategies or alternative dispute resolution, so that in the short term you 

can actually deal with the impacts before it’s too late. And I supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
39

port this bill. I hope that we can find funding to deal with the 

short-term impacts outside of litigation. 

Mr. WARREN. Senator, I might add that the original House bill actually had $10 million in it for this very purpose. But, as we 

know in the current economy, that’s not likely to happen. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, coming from a large public-lands State that 

is obviously adjacent to—we can’t lay claim, although we try, at 

times, to Yellowstone. We have to leave that to the——

Senator THOMAS. Please don’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. We have to leave that to the Senator 

from Wyoming. We have, by definition, a lot of gateway communities as it relates to large public-land tracts and resources, and 

they go through all kinds of economic ups and downs, depending 

on policy changes of those Federal agencies and, frankly, their attitudes, on occasion. I have obvious sensitivity toward the legislation. 

I’m trying to figure out a way that we get there, and get there in 

a way that causes these better relationships. So, I’m certainly not 

unwilling to force them, if it’s possible. But, at the same time, I’m 

always frustrated by agencies who feel their mandate is supreme 

and overpowering to anything around them. And agency managers 

sometimes find themselves in those situations. And usually that’s 

when Senator Thomas and I do flying tackles in efforts to try to 

change attitudes. 

But, anyway, we thank you, gentlemen, very much for your testimony. We’ll see how things move as it relates to these pieces of legislation, and we’ll be working with you certainly, with the Alliance, 

as it relates to any refinement in this legislation before it moves 

forward. 

Gentlemen, thank you. 

The subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF MIKE JOHANNS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

S. 906—CANTWELL’S FIRE FIGHTERS SAFETY

Question 1. If we passed this bill (S. 906), is it even possible to track the funds 

expended on each individual related to fire training? And so, can you tell me what 

that would cost? 

Answer. If S. 906 were passed as written, it would not be possible with any assurance to tell you the cost of training expended on each individual unless there were 

extensive changes to the current financial system. The Forest Service’s current financial system and database structure are not designed to track this detail of information and to do so would require significant modification. 

A Firefighter Safety Budget Line Item would force the tracking of expenditures 

into the financial system, which would add administrative complexity. Dollars spent 

on an activity should not be considered a primary measure of success or effectiveness; instead oversight should focus on effective policy and integration of safety 

awareness and practices across all firefighter training and activities. 

Question 2. On a percentage basis, how much funding do you believe S. 906 would 

divert from on the ground fire-fighting? 

Answer. It is difficult to estimate the cost of this bill or how much funding would 

divert from on the ground fire-fighting. However, implementation would carry significant costs to adjust the financial system and database as well as to collect data. 

Question 3. How does that amount of funding compare to the national assessments that the Washington ice charges fire preparedness and fire suppressions? 

Answer. Implementing S. 906 as written would drive national assessments of the 

fire accounts higher. While it is difficult to estimate the specific costs associated 

with S. 906, the cost of implementation could add substantially to those assessments 

currently made. 

H.R. 585—GATEWAY’S COMMUNITIES

Question 1. Some believe that H.R. 585 could provide gateway communities some 

special legal status that would allow these communities to contest federal management plans. Mr. Warren’s oral testimony indicated that he didn’t believe that this 

bill gave special legal status to the gateway communities, but then; in his conclusion, he said ‘‘all we are asking for is legal standing. ‘‘

Could you get your Office of General Counsel to provide us an analysis of H.R. 

585 and the cooperating agency rules and policies to help inform us whether or not 

providing such standing to a gateway community will afford these communities special standing in the courts? 

Answer. H.R. 585 would impose a number of—mandatory procedural steps that 

Federal land managers must take specifically with respect to gateway communities, 

and therefore could create several new legal claims that. could be asserted by communities dissatisfied with a management plan or project. Under existing law and 

regulations, gateway communities already have the opportunity to comment as part 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for management plans 

and projects. The CEQ regulations define a cooperating agency to mean ‘‘any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal . . .’’ 40 CFR 

1508.5. ‘‘A State or local agency of similar qualifications... may by agreement 

with the lead agency become a cooperating agency.’’ Id. The CEQ regulations also 

describe the responsibilities of the lead agency and cooperating agencies. 40 CFR 

1501.6. 

42

Section 2(d)(7) would remove the agency’s discretion by requiring a designation 

of any gateway community upon the request of that community. A gateway community that is dissatisfied with a management plan or project for which it has been 

designated as a cooperating agency might be encouraged to challenge the plan or 

project believing that its designation confers the standing necessary to do so. Cooperating agency status does not by itself confer standing to challenge a NEPA document. Similarly, designation as a cooperating agency pursuant section 2(d)(7) of 

the bill would not, by itself, confer standing. 

A State or local entity with standing that is selected as a cooperating agency may 

be able to sue for procedural violations associated with its status as a cooperating 

agency if it is dissatisfied with the process. See, e.g., Int’l Snowmobile Mfrs. Ass’n v. Norton, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1249,1261-62 (D. Wyo. 2004) (finding NPS did not adequately consult with cooperating agency States before changing preferred alternative). Such a challenge could be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) when the agency makes its final decision as a result of that process, and the 

cooperating agency can establish that it is adversely affected by the final agency decision. 

H.R. 585 could greatly increase the number of management actions for which 

gateway communities are designated as cooperating agencies and may also give 

gateway communities that can establish standing another claim to file if they believe they are improperly denied cooperator status. H.R. 585 also includes a number 

of other mandatory duties that could give rise to legal claims if a party is able to 

establish standing. Section 2(d) provides that ‘‘[a]t the earliest possible time, the relevant Secretary shall solicit the involvement of... gateway communities,’’ ‘‘shall

provide . . . at the earliest possible time but not later than the scoping process’’ 

a list of specific types of information, ‘‘shall provide training sessions,’’ ‘‘shall make 

available personnel’’ upon request, and ‘‘shall consolidate and coordinate’’ planning 

processes with those of other Federal agencies in order to make it easier for gateway 

communities to participate. 

Each of these mandatory procedural requirements may provide an opportunity for 

a dissatisfied gateway community (or entity that believes it is a gateway community) to challenge a land management action as ‘‘contrary to law’’ under the MA. 

While the bill may not confer any special ‘‘standing’’ in an Article III sense, it does 

appear to greatly multiply the number of potential legal claims that might be asserted in any APA lawsuit by a dissatisfied gateway community with standing. 

To address this issue, the Administration has proposed an amendment to H.R. 

585 ensure that H.R. 585 does not result in the creation of enforceable claims by 

gateway communities. This amendment is being submitted under separate cover by 

the Department of the Interior. 

Question 2. H.R. 585 currently calls for the Secretaries or a State Director of 

Tourism to designate the Gateway Communities. 

Could you provide a legal analysis that examines the constitutionality of a State 

Direct of Tourism making such a decision for the Department of the Interior? 

Answer. Section 2(c) of H.R. 585 defines ‘‘gateway community’’ to include only 

those that ‘‘the relevant Secretary (or the head of the tourism office for the State)’’ 

determines is significantly affected by decisions at issue. The parenthetical inclusion 

of the head of the State tourism office presents potential Constitutional problems 

under the principles of dual sovereignty, the separation of powers, the Appointments 

Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. 

In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required 

State law enforcement officers to execute its background check requirements. The 

Court relied on two Constitutional principles for this portion of its holding: dual sovereignty and the separation of powers. 

First, the Court discussed the division of power between State and Federal governments, noting that they exercise concurrent authority, ‘‘each protected from incursion by the other.’’ Id. at 920. The Court found that the Brady Act violated this 

principle by ‘‘conscripting state officers’’ into Federal service—effectively a ‘‘Federal 

commandeering of state government[]’’ that violated State sovereignty. Id. at 925. 

Second, the Court also discussed the division of power between the branches of 

the Federal government, and the ‘‘separation and equilibration’’ of their powers. Id.

at 922. The Constitution provides that the President, either himself or through his 

appointees, is the one who ‘‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’’ 

Id., quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. The Court found that the Brady Act violated 

this principle by delegating enforcement responsibility to State law enforcement officers who lacked any ‘‘meaningful Presidential control.’’ Id. The unity of the Executive Branch, and the vigor and accountability that go along with it, ‘would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress 

43

1 As currently drafted, it is not clear what would happen under H.R. 585 if the Secretary and 

the head of the state tourism office disagreed as to whether a community was a ‘‘gateway community.’’ If a community can meet the definition based on the head of the state tourism office’s 

determination even when the Secretary disagrees, then the state official’s implementation of the 

law will essentially override the federal official’s. This may present another Constitutional question under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2, which provides that federal law ‘‘shall 

be the supreme Law of the Land.’’

could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state 

officers to execute its laws.’’ Id. at 922-23. 

The delegation of authority to the head of the State Tourism office in H.R. 585 

appears to give rise to similar questions. Unlike the statute at issue in Printz, H.R. 

585 does not compel the head of the State Tourism office to play any role in the 

designation of gateway communities. The infringement of State sovereignty appears 

less severe for this reason, and inaction by the head of the State Tourism office 

serves only to preserve the status quo. See Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of WI v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 783, 798-99 (W.D. 

Wis. 2003) (holding the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s requirement of gubernatorial concurrence in administrative decisions did not offend dual sovereignty). 

Because the head of the State Tourism office may choose to refuse to exercise his 

or her role under the bill with potentially little impact on its implementation, the 

current wording probably does not implicate dual sovereignty concerns. 

Even so, the bill may implicate some of the governmental accountability concerns 

expressed by the Court in Printz: ‘‘even when the States are not forced to absorb 

the costs of implementing a Federal program, they are still put in the position of 

taking the blame for its burdensomeness and for its defects.’’ Id. at 530. H.R. 585 

could perhaps raise some of the same concerns, because a State officer could face 

blame for improperly implementing the Federal definition of a ‘‘gateway community’’ 

if someone is dissatisfied at his or her designation (or failure to designate) a particular community. 

The bill does appear to present a significant separation of powers problem. Congress appears to be delegating the implementation of its definition of ‘‘gateway community,’’ which is an Executive function, to a State official who is not subject to any 

Presidential control. There would be little problem if the head of the State Tourism 

office presented suggestions and the Secretary had ultimate determination authority. But as currently drafted, the bill appears to delegate unrestricted implementation authority to a State official, which appears to be an improper diminishment of 

the Federal executive power. 

This may present a problem not only under the general Constitutional separation 

of powers framework discussed in Printz, but also under the Appointments Clause, 

which provides that the President shall appoint all ‘‘Officers of the United States.’’ 

U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. Persons not appointed by the President may not exercise executive power that is reserved for officers of the United States. See Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indians v. United States, 110 F.3d 668, 696 (9th Cir. 1997). One 

court has stated that granting such authority to a State officer impermissibly infringes Executive Branch power if the State officer exercises ‘‘significant authority’’ 

under the Act and is granted ‘‘primary responsibility’’ for designation. Id. at 697. 

In that case, the court ultimately found that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s 

provision requiring that the governor of State concur with the Secretary of the Interior’s determination regarding Indian gaming within a State was Constitutionally 

permissible, because the governor had no authority to act on his own, and was 

merely making a determination on behalf of the state’s interest, and not with respect to the Federal interest. Id. at 698. 

H.R. 585 presents a more problematic situation that appears to run afoul of both 

the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches and the 

Appointments Clause. Because the head of the State Tourism office possesses independent authority to act on his or her own, and shares primary and equal responsibility with the Department of the Interior in designating gateway communities, the 

bill appears to improperly grant Executive power to a State officer.1

A framework that permitted the head of the State office of tourism to present suggestions to the Secretary would appear to better withstand separation of powers 

concerns, so long as ultimate decision authority rested in the Secretary, an appointed official. As currently drafted however, the bill appears to delegate unrestricted implementation authority to a State official. 

H.R. 3981—TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST LAND EXCHANGE

Question 1. I want to continue a discussion that we had the last time you testified 

before this committee. At that time, I requested staff gather data on the number 

44

of administrative and legislated exchanges each year since 1995. The data we have 

collected shows that, in 1995 to 1998, the Forest Service completed an average of 

about 100 administrative exchanges each year. The number has since tumbled to 

a low of only 14 administrative exchanges in 2005. I understand from staff that you 

are going to tell me the real number is 35 administrative exchanges in 2005. I don’t 

think the actual number is as important as the trend line. The Land Acquisition 

and Management budget, which covers more than just administrative exchanges, 

has grown from about. $40 million in 1996 to as high as $156 million in 2000 and 

is back to about $63 million in 2005. 

Can you give me one good reason we should expend $63 million in 2005 to accomplish only 35 administrative exchanges? 

Answer. As a point of clarification, The Forest Service Land Acquisition Program 

only provides for the acquisition of lands through the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) program. In FY 2005, the LWCF program was funded at $61 million 

after rescission. 

In FY 2005, the Landownership Management Program was funded at $92.1 million (after rescission) for the following activity areas: Land Exchanges, Title Management, Boundary Management, and Non-Recreation Special Uses. Administrative 

benefits from this program are achieved by minimizing land survey and fire management costs, reducing NFS boundaries, protecting property rights, acquiring 

rights-of-way, authorizing special uses and simplifying road management. Of the $92.1 million appropriated for the Landownership Management Program, we projected that around $18 million (roughly 20%) would be expended to complete 

land exchanges, with a portion covering some land sales expenses as well. This 20%, 

along with cost sharing by non-federal exchange parties allowed for the completion 

of 35 exchanges and over 35,708 acres acquired and 13,579 acres conveyed (plus an 

additional 293 million acres of subsurface mineral rights underlying two Florida 

state forests). This has been the level of funding for NFLM and the land exchange 

component for the last three years ($91.6 FY04 and $92.4 FY03). 

While there have been fewer land exchanges completed in the last five years than 

prior to 2000, there has been an increase in the number of completed land sales, 

including administrative site conveyances, and land purchases over this same time 

frame. The land exchange, sale, and purchase programs all rely on the same realty 

and appraisal staff. In many locations, this same staff is also supporting the special 

uses programs. Resource specialists providing support for NEPA and CERCLA assessments are also responsible for increasing numbers of fuels management and energy related projects. Often, land exchange is not the highest priority work to be 

accomplished, and unless significant costs are borne by the non-federal exchange 

party, exchanges may have to be postponed or foregone entirely. 

The Office of Inspector General and the General Accountability Office audited the 

FS and BLM land exchange programs beginning in 1996. These audits identified numerous deficiencies, and as a result, significant changes were made to the program. 

Improvements include: a more formal assessment of the feasibility of an exchange 

early in the process, oversight by the Washington Office of individual cases over 

$500,000 in value, oversight of all cases by Regional Offices, a reorganization of appraisal staff to ensure independent valuation products, and updating of Forest Service directives. While these and other required controls may have lengthened the 

process, we believe that they ensure financial accountability and protect the public 

interest. 

We have recently eliminated the requirement for Washington Office case oversight, to be replaced by periodic Regional program reviews. This is expected to 

streamline the overall review process while ensuring continued Regional oversight 

and control. 

Question 2. I would like you to have your people provide us with the following 

data: the number of administrative and legislative exchanges; the number of acres 

of each of those types of exchanges; and the time taken for each administrative and 

legislated exchange undertaken between Fiscal Year 1995 through the 2nd quarter 

of Fiscal Year 2006 by forest and year. 

Answer. We have enclosed a table that shows information from ‘‘management attainment reports’’ (MAR) for fiscal years 1992 through 2005 with the following information: number of exchanges, acres and value of federal land conveyed, and acres 

of non-federal land acquired. Included is information from budget justifications for 

planned (estimated) budget for land exchanges within the NFLM line item in the 

three fiscal years for which such estimates have been made. The total NFLM line 

item amount is available only for fiscal years 2000 through 2005. Prior to 2000, this 

line item is not comparable as it contained different work items. 

The Forest Service does not normally collect information on whether exchanges 

are accomplished administratively or legislatively, or on the time required for acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
45

complishing exchanges. However, in response to a special request, information for 

all regions and forests (except for the Southern Region) was compiled for the years 

1995-2004. The data indicates legislated land exchanges occurred in 27 of 468 cases, 

or 5.8% of all exchanges. 

The data also showed that it takes an average of 2.5 years to complete an exchange. This time frame begins with the signing of the Agreement to Initiate (ATI) 

and ends with the final recordation of deeds. Months or even years of discussions 

sometimes lead up to formal initiation. The ATI specifies the sharing of costs, requirements of title, appraisal, survey, and general process, and the estimated schedule for completion of necessary processing steps. Depending on the complexity of the 

exchange, and considering unforeseen circumstances, the time schedule may be 

short or long. The primary drivers in completing a land exchange, large or small, 

are the level of commitment and cooperation exercised by the exchange parties, as 

well as the funding and skills available to complete all tasks. We would like to meet 

with the Subcommittee staff to discuss this information in further detail. 

Question 3. I would also like on a regional basis and for the Washington ice to 

know the number of employees (FTE s) at all levels of the agency that work on land 

exchanges as a principle part of their duties for each year. 

Answer. It is difficult to quantify precisely how many Forest Service FTEs work 

principally on land exchanges each year, for the same reason that it is difficult to 

extract land exchange funding from other activities funded within the Land Management Program area. At the Forest and District levels, employees funded in the 

lands program perform a variety of duties depending upon the Forest’s priorities. 

These duties include land exchanges, land purchases, land sales, title management, 

boundary management, non-recreation special uses, trespass cases, and so forth. At 

Regional Offices (RO), we estimate an average of 1 FTE per region is assigned to 

land exchanges in a given year, depending on priorities. The Washington Office 

(WO) has 1 FTE assigned to land exchanges. 

Question 4. Joel—I have to presume, given the number of years these two exchanges have languished, that the Forest Service either doesn’t want these exchanges, or thinks them unwarranted. I want a straight yes or no answer: Does the 

Forest Service support these exchanges? I will take the answer ‘‘we do not oppose’’ 

as a no. 

Answer. Yes, we are interested in acquiring the non-federal lands proposed in this 

exchange. However, all exchanges are now being processed by the R5 Regional Land 

Adjustment Team and require each exchange proposal to compete with every other 

exchange proposal in California. Exchanges that proceed are those with the greatest 

net public value. Consequently, small exchanges such as these may not be funded 

through the administrative prioritization process, considering their size and resources values.

46

LAND EXCHANGES 

[1992-2005] 

Fiscal Year Number of Land Exchanges Acres of Federal Land Conveyed Value of Federal Land Exchanged Acres of Non-Fed- eral Land Acquired NFLM Planned for Exchange $ in thousands Total NFLM 

2005 35 306,435 $46,683,318 35,7086 $18,060 $92,129

2004 29 8,074 $32,687,554 12,874 $76,799 $91,5502003 26 7,654 $34,425,813 25,981 $18,528 $92,4112002 31 7,514 $14,177,066 10,915 $88,4342001 24 25,340 $41,830,290 35,132 $86,4182000 63 34,522 $94,962,307 79,2955 $82,5651999 833 83,896 $134,647,357 316,0374

1998 86 27,420 $96,843,272 69,9381997 96 133,870 $224,123,000 244,1781996 93 32,691 $99,389,000 65,8481995 116 91,8841 $78,118,675 98,40521994 117 42,000 $46,200,000 75,7571993 113 54,680 $61,000,000 81,9561992 109 38,574 $37,800,000 69,102

1 includes 15,420 acres of subsurface mineral interest, R-102 includes 14,914 acres of subsurface mineral interest, R-103 83 cases is equal to 77 fee cases and 6 mineral cases 4 includes fee and partial acres acquired 5non-federal acres as reported in MARS 6 includes the State of Florida, R-8 exchange of surface and subsurface figures shows for P105 are from digests from the Regions; figures should but may not 

match those reported in MARS 

47

RESPONSES OF LYNN SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

H.R. 585—GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

Question 1. Some believe that H.R. 585 could provide gateway communities some 

special legal status that would allow these communities to contest federal management plans. Mr. Warren’s oral testimony indicated that he didn’t believe that this 

bill gave special legal status to the gateway communities, but then, in his conclusion, he said ‘‘all we are asking for is legal standing.’’

Could you get your solicitor to provide us an analysis of H.R. 585 and the cooperating agency rules and policies to help inform us whether or not providing such 

standing to a gateway community will afford these communities special standing in 

the courts? 

Answer. H.R. 585 would impose a number of mandatory procedural steps that 

Federal land managers must take specifically with respect to gateway communities, 

and therefore could create several new legal claims that could be asserted by communities dissatisfied with a management plan or projects. Under existing law and 

regulations, gateway communities already have the opportunity to comment as part 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for management plans 

and projects. The CEQ regulations define a cooperating agency to mean ‘‘any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal . . .’’ 40 CFR 

1508.5. ‘‘A State or local agency of similar qualifications... may by agreement 

with the lead agency become a cooperating agency.’’ Id. The CEQ regulations also 

describe the responsibilities of the lead agency and cooperating agencies. 40 CFR 

1501.6. 

Section 2(d)(7) would remove the agency’s discretion by requiring a designation 

of any gateway community upon the request of that community. A gateway community that is dissatisfied with a management plan or project for which it has been 

designated as a cooperating agency might be encouraged to challenge the plan or 

project believing that its designation confers the standing necessary to do so. Cooperating agency status does not by itself confer standing to challenge a NEPA document. Similarly, designation as a cooperating agency pursuant section 2(d)(7) of 

the bill would not, by itself, confer standing. 

A State or local entity with standing that is selected as a cooperating agency may 

be able to sue for procedural violations associated with its status as a cooperating 

agency if it is dissatisfied with the process. See, e.g., Int’l Snowmobile Mfrs. Ass’n

v. Norton, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1249,1261-62 (D. Wyo. 2004)(finding NPS did not adequately consult with cooperating agency States before changing preferred alternative). Such a challenge could be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) when the agency makes its final decision as a result of that process, and the 

cooperating agency can establish that it is adversely affected by the final agency decision. 

H.R. 585 could greatly increase the number of management actions for which 

gateway communities are designated as cooperating agencies and may also give 

gateway communities that can establish standing another claim to file if they believe they are improperly denied cooperator status. H.R. 585 also includes a number 

of other mandatory duties that could give rise to legal claims if a party is able to 

establish standing. Section 2(d) provides that ‘‘[a]t the earliest possible time, the relevant Secretary shall solicit the involvement of... gateway communities,’’ ‘‘shall

provide . . . at the earliest possible time but not later than the scoping process’’ 

a list of specific types of information, ‘‘shall provide training sessions,’’ ‘‘shall make 

available personnel’’ upon request, and ‘‘shall consolidate and coordinate’’ planning 

processes with those of other Federal agencies in order to make it easier for gateway 

communities to participate. 

Each of these mandatory procedural requirements may provide an opportunity for 

a dissatisfied gateway community (or entity that believes it is a gateway community) to challenge a land management action as ‘‘contrary to law’’ under the APA. 

While the bill may not confer any special ‘‘standing’’ in an Article III sense, it does 

appear to greatly multiply the number of potential legal claims that might be asserted in any APA lawsuit by a dissatisfied gateway community with standing. 

To address this issue, the Department has proposed an amendment to H.R. 585, 

provided in a separate letter, to ensure that the bill does not result in the creation 

of enforceable claims by gateway communities. 

Question 2. H.R. 585 currently calls for the Secretaries or a State Director of 

Tourism to designate the Gateway Communities. 

Could you provide a legal analysis that examines the constitutionality of a State 

Direct of Tourism making such a decision for the Department of the Interior? 

48

Answer. Section 2(c) of H.R. 585 defines ‘‘gateway community’’ to include only 

those that ‘‘the relevant Secretary (or the head of the tourism office for the State)’’ 

determines is significantly affected by decisions at issue. The parenthetical inclusion 

of the head of the State tourism office presents potential Constitutional problems 

under the principles of dual sovereignty, the separation of powers, the Appointments 

Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. 

In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required 

State law enforcement officers to execute its background check requirements. The 

Court relied on two Constitutional principles for this portion of its holding: dual sovereignty and the separation of powers. 

First, the Court discussed the division of power between State and Federal governments, noting that they exercise concurrent authority, ‘‘each protected from incursion by the other.’’ Id. at 920. The Court found that the Brady Act violated this 

principle by ‘‘conscripting state officers’’ into Federal service—effectively a ‘‘Federal 

commandeering of state government[]’’ that violated State sovereignty. Id. at 925. 

Second, the Court also discussed the division of power between the branches of 

the Federal government, and the ‘‘separation and equilibration’’ of their powers. Id.

at 922. The Constitution provides that the President, either himself or through his 

appointees, is the one who ‘‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’’ 

Id., quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. The Court found that the Brady Act violated 

this principle by delegating enforcement responsibility to State law enforcement officers who lacked any ‘‘meaningful Presidential control. Id. The unity of the Executive 

Branch, and the vigor and accountability that go along with it, ‘‘would be shattered, 

and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act 

as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers 

to execute its laws.’’ Id. at 922-23. 

The delegation of authority to the head of the State Tourism office in H.R. 585 

appears to give rise to similar questions. Unlike the statute at issue in Printz, H.R. 

585 does not compel the head of the State Tourism office to play any role in the 

designation of gateway communities. The infringement of State sovereignty appears 

less severe for this reason, and inaction by the head of the State Tourism office 

serves only to preserve the status quo. See Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of WI v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 2d 783, 798-99 (W.D. 

Wis. 2003) (holding the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s requirement of gubernatorial concurrence in administrative decisions did not offend dual sovereignty). 

Because the head of the State Tourism office may choose to refuse to exercise his 

or her role under the bill with potentially little impact on its implementation, the 

current wording probably does not implicate dual sovereignty concerns. 

Even so, the bill may implicate some of the governmental accountability concerns 

expressed by the Court in Printz: ‘‘even when the States are not forced to absorb 

the costs of implementing a Federal program, they are still put in the position of 

taking the blame for its burdensomeness and for its defects.’’ Id. at 530. H.R. 585 

could perhaps raise some of the same concerns, because a State officer could face 

blame for improperly implementing the Federal definition of a ‘‘gateway community’’ 

if someone is dissatisfied at his or her designation (or failure to designate) a particular community. 

The bill does appear to present a significant separation of powers problem. Congress appears to be delegating the implementation of its definition of ‘‘gateway community,’’ which is an Executive function, to a State official who is not subject to any 

Presidential control. There would be little problem if the head of the State Tourism 

office presented suggestions and the Secretary had ultimate determination authority. But as currently drafted, the bill appears to delegate unrestricted implementation authority to a State official, which appears to be an improper diminishment of 

the Federal executive power. 

This may present a problem not only under the general Constitutional separation 

of powers framework discussed in Printz, but also under the Appointments Clause, 

which provides that the President shall appoint all ‘‘Officers of the United States.’’ 

U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. Persons not appointed by the President may not exercise executive power that is reserved for officers of the United States. See Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indians v. United States, 11.0 F.3d 668, 696 (9th Cir. 1997). One 

court has stated that granting such authority to a State officer impermissibly infringes Executive Branch power if the State officer exercises ‘‘significant authority’’ 

under the Act and is granted ‘‘primary responsibility’’ for designation. Id. at 697. 

In that case, the court ultimately found that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s 

provision requiring that the governor of State concur with the Secretary of the Interior’s determination regarding Indian gaming within a State was Constitutionally 

permissible, because the governor had no authority to act on his own, and was 

49

1 As currently drafted, it is not clear what would happen under H.R. 585 if the Secretary and 

the head of the state tourism office disagreed as to whether a community was a ‘‘gateway community.’’ If a community can meet the definition based on the head of the state tourism office’s 

determination even when the Secretary disagrees, then the state official’s implementation of the 

law will essentially override the federal official’s. This may present another Constitutional question under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2, which provides that federal law ‘‘shall 

be the supreme Law of the Land.’’

merely making a determination on behalf of the state’s interest, and not with respect to the Federal interest. Id. at 698. 

H.R. 585 presents a more problematic situation that appears to run afoul of both 

the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches and the 

Appointments Clause. Because the head of the State Tourism office possesses independent authority to act on his or her own, and shares primary and equal responsibility with the Department of the Interior in designating gateway communities, the 

bill appears to improperly grant Executive power to a State officer.1

A framework that permitted the head of the State office of tourism to present suggestions to the Secretary would appear to better withstand separation of powers 

concerns, so long as ultimate decision authority rested in the Secretary, an appointed official. As currently drafted however, the bill appears to delegate unrestricted implementation authority to a State official. 

RESPONSES OF LYNN SCARLETT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. The Department’s testimony suggests that the definition of a ‘‘gateway 

community’’ needs further refinement. I would agree, but your testimony doesn’t 

take account of the fact that in my State of Alaska many communities that border 

on public lands are unincorporated, which is to say that these communities are neither cities nor part of one of Alaska’s organized boroughs. It would seem to me that 

the State of Alaska should be permitted to exercises that powers that the gateway 

local governments ordinarily would in this instance. Would you consider recommending this change? 

Answer. The inclusion of the states in the definition of gateway communities 

would be one means of addressing the challenge of a requirement that would include 

unincorporated communities. Mandates to include an unincorporated community are 

problematic and could result in legal challenges because the Federal land management agency would not have an elected or appointed official through which we could 

ensure the representative engagement of the entire community. For this reason, the 

Department has proposed an amendment to limit the definition of a gateway community only to those that are incorporated. Such an amendment would not interfere 

with our goal to engage all interested and affected communities, including those 

that are unincorporated, in our land use planning process. 

With regard to the inclusion of states, as we mentioned in our testimony, existing 

Department-wide guidance at 516 DM 2.5 requires all agencies to invite states to 

participate as cooperating agencies during development of an environmental impact 

statement under National Environmental Policy Act. Through a state’s participation 

as a cooperating agency, a state could certainly work to ensure that unincorporated 

communities are represented through this process. 

Question 2. I’m troubled by the Department’s comment on Section 2(d)(4) which 

would make federal personnel available to gateway communities to help them meaningfully participate in planning efforts. I understand that federal resources are limited, but I would also suggest that meaningfully involving stakeholders in the planning process is or should be a key federal responsibility. If the federal land management agencies are going to undertake planning processes shouldn’t they devote what 

resources are necessary to do it right, with full engagement from the affected communities? 

Answer. We agree that meaningful involvement involving stakeholders in the 

planning process is an important Federal responsibility. We believe that other provisions in the bill and in existing Federal and agency regulations and guidance provide the necessary processes to ensure such engagement. The provision in section 

2(d)(4), however, differs in that it mandates that Federal personnel take temporary 

work details to gateway communities to assist with planning efforts. 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. We believe this provision 

is simply not feasible, could result in competition among gateway communities for 

limited Federal personnel, could adversely affect the ability of Federal agencies to 

work with many gateway and other communities on ongoing, priority planning 

50

projects, and could result in significant delays of Federal projects as Federal personnel are diverted from their planning duties. 

Question 3. I think your testimony notes that 62% of my State of Alaska is owned 

by the federal government. Sometimes that makes Alaskans happy, sometimes not. 

But one thing that deeply concerns many of my constituents is the prospect that 

the federal government will exert or influence the control of land use off of the federal lands. 

Would anything in H.R. 585 give the federal government a lever to control land 

use in the gateway communities? 

Answer. H.R. 585 does not appear to provide the Federal government with the authority to make decisions concerning lands that are under state, tribal, or local jurisdiction or under private ownership. Through provisions that permit greater coordination of land use and allow for technical assistance by Federal personnel, H.R. 

585 could provide for greater Federal participation in State or local land use planning, but this participation would occur at the discretion of the gateway community. 

RESPONSES OF STEVE DUERR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. I am hoping you can help me to develop more empathy for ‘‘national 

interests ‘‘ when the national interest groups gang-up with the agency’s inside-thebeltway policy-makers to make decisions that devastate these small local communities. It seems to me the existing paradigm more than protects the ‘‘national interests ‘‘. So why do the groups representing ‘‘the national interests ‘‘ so fear this legislation? 

Answer. I cannot speak for such groups. I would counsel the subcommittee 

against painting all national organizations with a broad brush. Certainly, there are 

some that have little sensitivity to local issues and needs. Others, however, are very 

cognizant of local issues and work hard to balance those with issues of national importance—particularly those that employ people who are part of our communities 

and have a stake in our economic well-being. For example, the National Parks Conservation Association has worked closely with the local community around Jackson 

to develop a transportation system that works for Grand Teton National Park and 

the surrounding community. My impression is they do not fear legislation if that 

legislation makes sense. What concerns me is the potential for legislation that promises much more than it can possibly deliver, ultimately leading to frustration and 

added tension. In my experience, mandates to cooperate do not produce cooperation, 

nor do checklists that ultimately serve as a ‘‘gotcha’’. They are not what we need 

when it comes to long-term solutions. The fact that an agency checks all the required boxes does not mean communities will be any better off, or that dialogue will 

improve or lead to sustainable results or compromises. What is needed are appropriate early-and mid-career training opportunities for federal managers and for 

gateway community officials on how to work together productively in their roles. 

Separate funding to hire facilitators or mediators would also be useful at times. The 

last thing that anyone who cares about what happens in and around national parks 

and other federal lands needs, whether they come from a national or a local perspective, is a product that produces a false promise of progress. That will only lead to 

frustration. 

Question 2. Having read your testimony, I am not sure H.R. 585 is a ‘‘one size 

fits all’’ bill. As I see it, the bill directs the various federal agencies to give gateway 

communities improved access to their respective planning processes, which are all 

governed by NEPA. Each individual agency’s NEPA regulations and policies tell 

anyone that is interested how to comment and communicate with the agency. Nothing in the bill says the National Park Service has to utilize the Forests Service’s 

process or visa versa, so can you help me better understand this concern? 

Answer. The missions of the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service are all different. The lands they 

manage are subject to vastly different uses. Their relationship to each other and the 

issues affecting specific units and gateway communities also differ. The financial 

and staff resources available to each, also vary. For example, as I cited in my written testimony, the bill assumes that the federal land management units concerned 

will be able to provide a land use planner to gateway communities upon request. 

In fact, national parks are so understaffed, that they may not have that kind of person available. Also, the vast majority of national park units are historic in nature. 

Does anyone really think they are likely to employ land use planners? Something 

else that bothers me about this kind of requirement is that it’s not necessary. The 

authority already exists for national parks to provide such assistance where it 

makes sense, and many already do. Finally, I would hate to see federal agencies inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
51

terpret a bill like this as only requiring them to provide certain kinds of assistance, 

like a land use planner. By so narrowly defining what ‘‘cooperation’’ should look like, 

it’s possible the bill would, indeed, produce a very narrow vision of how gateway 

communities and federal land managers should interact. That would be truly unfortunate. 

Question 3. Some believe that H.R. 585 could provide gateway communities some 

special legal status that would allow these communities to contest federal management plans. Mr. Warren’s oral testimony indicated that he didn’t believe that this 

bill gave special legal status to the gateway communities, but then, in his conclusion, he said ‘‘all we are asking for is legal standing. ‘‘

Could you get your legal counsel to provide us with an analysis of H.R. 585 and 

the cooperating agency rules and policies to help inform us whether or not providing 

such standing to a gateway community will afford these communities special standing in the courts? 

Answer. I suggest that the subcommittee ask this question of the Council on Environmental Quality, which is probably in the best position to analyze the standing 

issues you raise. It is my impression, however, that CEQ already requires federal 

agencies to invite local communities to participate as cooperators. While cooperating 

agency status is important, gateway communities must be aware of the work that 

accompanies such status. Once granted, true cooperation is necessary by all participants. 

Question 4. H.R. 585 currently calls for the Secretaries or a State Director of 

Tourism to designate the Gateway Communities. 

Could you provide a legal analysis that examines the constitutionality of a State 

Director of Tourism making such a decision for either the Department of Agriculture 

or the Department of the Interior? 

Answer. I am not in a position to provide the kind of constitutional analysis you 

request, but I’m not certain of the logic behind this provision. 

RESPONSE OF STEVE DUERR TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. I appreciate your comment that ‘‘cooperation cannot be legislated. ‘‘ 

I would like to frame the question another way. In any large organization, whether 

it is General Motors or the Interior Department, managers tend to respond to the 

criteria on which their performance will be evaluated. Wouldn’t you think that federal land managers were given a set of uniform expectations about how to work 

with gateway communities and were measured on achieving those objectives, there 

would be greater coordination and less confrontation on important land use decisions. 

Answer. Your question makes the kind of point I attempted to make in my testimony. I think it is very important that federal managers be evaluated based on how 

well they interact with gateway communities and other stakeholders. They need to 

be provided the skills to engage in such interaction, and they ought to be held accountable for how well they communicate and deal with gateway communities and 

others in performance reviews. Federal land managers need to recognize the very 

real impact that some of their decisions can have on our communities. But as written, H.R. 585 will not accomplish that. 

RESPONSES OF BOB WARREN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. As I understand cooperating agency status, the program requires the 

cooperating agency to invest more than just time into going to meetings. It requires 

they provide the agencies with specific research or community developed alternatives to ongoing planning efforts. I know that Carbon County, Wyoming, which 

has cooperating agency status on the Medicine Bow National Forest planning effort, 

invested at least a hundred thousand dollars to develop an alternative for the forest 

to consider in its planning process. 

I wonder how many gateway communities are willing to make that kind of monetary investments when part of this legislation tells me these communities don’t even 

have the money to spend to understand the various agency processes they need to 

understand to participate as a cooperating agency? 

Answer. We realize that it may strain the budgets of some communities to participate in the NEPA process as cooperating agencies. Some of them may indeed decide 

not to participate as cooperating agencies for financial reasons. 

We do not believe, however, that this is reason not to enact H.R. 585, for the following reasons: First, providing for gateway communities to be treated as cooperating agencies for NEPA purposes is only one part of H.R. 585. Section 2 (d) directs 

the relevant Secretary to solicit the involvement of elected and appointed gateway 

52

officials in the development of a variety of agency plans, programs and regulations 

that do not necessarily involve NEPA. Furthermore, we think the requirements in 

this section for non-technical agency explanations of the purposes and anticipated 

impact of agency plans and policies, for gateway access to agency training programs, 

for technical assistance and for interagency cooperation and coordination will especially benefit gateway communities with limited budgets more than others with 

larger budgets. 

We further believe that the fiscal capacity of gateway communities to participate 

as cooperating agencies should not be prejudged. Even if a gateway community 

budget is limited, it may be possible for that community to receive support from the 

State or from private sources that would enable it to participate as a cooperating 

agency. We would urge Congress not to presume any community’s determination to 

overcome limited fiscal resources when vital questions affecting its future are perceived to be at stake. 

Finally, we would respectfully note that the thrust of Section 2(d)(7) of H.R. 585 

(‘‘Treatment as Cooperating Agencies) is similar to S. 301 in the 107th Congress and 

S. 372 in the 108th Congress, identical bills entitled the ‘‘State and Local Participation Act,’’ which you and Senator Thomas sponsored. That legislation would have 

amended NEPA simply ‘‘to require that Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local governments on environmental impact studies.’’ We would 

be glad to consider substituting language similar to S. 301/372 for the current Section 2(d)(7) if that would clarify doubts or uncertainties concerning this section. 

Question 2. Some believe that H.R. 585 could provide gateway communities some 

special legal status that would allow these communities to contest federal management plans. Your oral testimony indicated that you didn’t believe that this bill gave 

special legal status to the gateway communities, but then, in your conclusion, you 

said ‘‘all we are asking for is legal standing. ‘‘

Could you get your legal counsel to provide us with an analysis of H.R. 585 and 

the cooperating agency rules and policies to assure us that providing such standing 

to a gateway community will not afford these communities special standing in the 

courts? 

Answer. The limited budget of the NAGC precludes us from using legal counsel 

at this time, so we hope the following explanation is sufficiently responsive to this 

question. It is, of course, very difficult to prove a negative, i.e. that H.R. 585 will 

not afford special legal standing to contest Federal management plans. We are not 

aware, however, that cooperating agencies under NEPA at present have any special 

legal standing and would request any information or precedents to the contrary. We 

suggest, in fact, that participation as cooperating agencies would make gateway 

communities less rather than more likely to litigate Federal management plans. 

Such participation will make these communities will make gateways more a meaningful part of the process as more informed participants. We respectfully suggest 

that by bringing gateways into the planning process earlier and giving them a significant opportunity to participate, they will be more understanding of what is being 

done and, therefore, less likely to contest final plans in court. We again refer to S. 

301/372 as cited above and reiterate our willingness to consider substituting similar 

language for the cooperating agency language in H.R. 585 if that would clarify and 

resolve this concern. 

(NOTE: Our request for ‘‘legal standing’’ in our earlier oral testimony was intended only for rhetorical purposes and should not be construed as a request for actual justiciable status. We regret any indication to the contrary.) 

Question 3. H.R. 585 currently calls for the Secretaries or a State Director of 

Tourism to designate the Gateway Communities. 

Could you provide a legal analysis that examines the constitutionality of a State 

Direct of Tourism making such a decision for either the Department of Agriculture 

or the Department of the Interior? 

Answer. Again, we regret not being able to provide a legal analysis and ask your 

indulgence for this non-legal explanation. It appears to us this question has several 

parts. First, is the Director of Tourism the appropriate State official to designate 

a gateway community for purposes of this legislation. While State Tourism Offices 

are well qualified to judge the degree of interdependency between a community dependent on visitors coming for recreation and tourism and the Federal land facility 

that attracts those visitors, we recognize some gateways may be more dependent on 

grazing or mineral extraction from the Federal land facility. It may be more appropriate in those cases for another State agency to designate the community as a gateway. For this reason, we accept that it may be better to give the Governor of a State 

the authority to make that designation and decide which State agencies should be 

used. The next question is, then, whether it is appropriate for any State official to 

have that responsibility. Since this responsibility would not mean any direct superVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Aug 11, 2006 Jkt 109518 PO 29430 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\29430.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
53

vision of Federal employees, any direct control or oversight of Federal programs, or 

any direct expenditure of Federal funds, we do not believe it would pose constitutional problems in our federal system. 

To the extent this does raise constitutional issues, we suggest there are ways to 

mitigate, if not eliminate them. One would be to amend H.R. 585 to require only 

that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture ‘‘receive input’’ 

from the Governor of a State (or their designee) in deciding whether a community 

is a gateway. In that case, we suggest that, when a Secretary determines that a 

community is not a gateway, a written explanation should be provided by the Secretary to the respective Governor and to Congress. There is precedent for reporting 

back to Congress on decisions made by the Secretary’s of the Interior and Agriculture as outlined in the recently passed Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act. Under section 4, (d), paragraph (4), Notice of Rejection. If the Secretary rejects 

the recommendation of a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee, the Secretary 

shall issue a notice that identifies the reasons for rejecting the recommendation to 

the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate not later than 30 days before the Secretary implements a decision pertaining to that recommendation. Similar language 

could read for the Gateway Community Cooperation Act as follows: Notice of Rejection.—If the Secretary rejects the recommendation of the Governor of a State, in the 

designation of a gateway community, the Secretary shall issue a notice that identifies the reasons for rejecting the recommendation to the Committee on Resources 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate not later than 30 days after the rejection. 

Another way to mitigate constitutional problems may be for Congress to reduce 

the discretionary authority of the State official involved by including criteria either 

in the legislative language or in the report language to define more precisely what 

constitutes a gateway community. Agreeing on such criteria would be challenging 

but we would be glad to work with you and the Subcommittee to develop them. 

RESPONSES OF BOB WARREN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Does your organization, the National Association of Gateway Communities include representation from Alaska? Have any of these communities been involved in the development of this legislation? 

Answer. At present, the NAGC does not have any members in Alaska. In late 

July, the president of the NAGC will visit Alaska to meet with gateway communities there and we will be happy to report back to Senator Murkowski and the Subcommittee on the results of that trip as they may pertain to this legislation. 

Question 2. My constituents in Alaska often express concern that federal land 

managers approach local leaders with something of a heavy handed attitude. Do you 

see this situation as having improved and what would this bill do to bring about 

changes in attitude. 

Answer. Although relations between gateway communities and Federal land managers have improved somewhat in Alaska and elsewhere in recent years, those relations continue to vary according to the personalities involved—on the part of both 

the Federal land managers and gateway officials and other local leaders. This bill 

alone will not change attitudes overnight. We understand that you cannot mandate 

cooperation and harmony by statutory decrees. But what can be mandated is that 

both Federal land managers and gateway representatives meet, discuss, share information and concerns and, in that way, by working and consulting together, hopefully, increase mutual understanding of each other’s perspectives, values, goals and 

needs. We believe H.R. 585 is a substantial, historic step towards that outcome and 

we look forward to working with the Subcommittee to enact it into law.

Æ